The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 in the name of Rebecca Evans, and amendment 5 in the name of Darren Millar. If amendment 4 is agreed, amendment 5 will be deselected.

The next item is the Brexit Party debate on the UK in the EU, and I call on Mark Reckless to move the motion. Mark Reckless.

Motion NDM7141 Caroline Jones

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Supports Wales’s membership of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its indefinite continuance.

2. Notes that Wales, like the United Kingdom as a whole, voted to leave the European Union.

3. Supports further devolution in specific areas which would benefit Wales and where other parts of the United Kingdom benefit from such devolution, such as rail and air passenger duty.

4. Notes the past involvement of the European Union under Articles 154 to 156 of the Treaty of Rome with respect to trans-European networks, including the M4 and A55.

5. Calls on the UK Government to support improvements to the A55 and delivery of the M4 relief road through the UK shared prosperity fund to benefit Wales and the UK a whole.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion in the name of Caroline Jones.

The first bullet point supports Wales's membership of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its indefinite continuance. Now, I would have thought that this wasn't something that needed to be asserted. I know Plaid Cymru take a different view, of course, but I had, before my election to this place, taken at face value the manifestos and policy positions of other parties. I also knew several Members of Parliament from Wales who were in the Labour Party and all, that I was aware of, were staunch unionists. My impression here, though, has been that, within at least the Government, the Labour ranks here, there is a greater range of views about autonomy, if not independence, versus unionism and what the trajectory of devolution should be. I believe that at least some Members on the Government benches sail under the Labour manifesto and the Labour policy positions, but the differences between them and many of the members of Plaid Cymru are less than I would previously have expected. So, we assert that in our motion today.

We also, in our second point, note again—I don't want to labour the EU points in this debate—that Wales, like the United Kingdom as a whole, voted to leave the European Union. It's understandable in a Scottish context, where Scotland voted by a pretty significant margin to remain, and where you have a Scottish National Party Government that supports the independence of Scotland, it's understandable how the two issues become conflated and the SNP Government uses one to seek to move on the other. I've been surprised by the extent to which this has also happened in Wales. I recognise that many Members were shocked, disappointed, upset by the referendum result, but I've been more surprised by the extent to which some Members moved to question Wales's place in the United Kingdom on the basis that their side lost the referendum when Wales voted to leave the European Union. We've seen some polls and we've seen some marches, and often it's Plaid Cymru behind the questions and some of the organisation of those, and there's been quite a lot of media comment around the indy-curious, and there's a suggestion that there's some sort of upsurge in support for independence. I'm sceptical of that, and I wonder whether Members, particularly on the Labour benches, are going too far, at least for their own electoral interests, in the way that they perhaps question our continued membership, or at least the nature of that union and how it should develop because of what happened with the referendum.

I give way.

You've talked about the referendum, the reality of the discussion around independence has become because of the shambles of the UK Government and Westminster Parliament and the way it's behaved since that referendum. So it wasn't a referendum issue; it's actually looking at how Westminster behaves and the failure of Westminster to address the needs of the different nations across the UK that has been leading this agenda.

And to me, the issue is that of the failure of too many remainers, including and particularly perhaps at Westminster, to accept the result of the referendum. They've spent three years plus growing increasingly confident and going further and further against what they said in the past to try and block the result of that referendum, and I think it's that refusal to implement the result and the refusal of a remain-leaning elite, establishment perhaps, to implement the decision of their voters that has led to the difficulties that we now face.

However, I'd like to focus on devolution and the trajectory of it. I had hoped, with what became the 2017 Wales Act, that we would reach a stable settlement. It strikes me that in many countries around the world where there is devolved and in some cases federal government the system is relatively stable. It strikes me that the UK is an exception in there being such constitutional flux that has continued for so long and seems to have no end in sight. I had thought with the reserved-powers models that would work better, and I think some criticism perhaps to the UK Government in terms of a lack of flexibility in engaging with devolved institutions to find a settlement that would perhaps be more stable. And now even I and my party colleagues see areas where it would make sense to have more devolution, and we ourselves question whether that stable system is realistic, given the settlement that we reached in 2017.

I'll just highlight two examples here where I've largely been persuaded by speeches made by Government Ministers and by others in this Chamber that there is a strong case for further devolution. One of those is air passenger duty. I was also impacted, I think, on that by the Welsh Affairs Select Committee report from Westminster and David T.C. Davies's leadership of that, and the unanimous, I think, report that they had that this was something that should be devolved from their oversight to our oversight, and that's something we're happy to support.

Rail is also an area where I've been persuaded of the case for further devolution, partly on account of the Minister, Ken Skates, who I think makes a very, very good case for the need for further investment in Wales. But it's not just a question of money. It's a question of organisation, and frankly I don't feel that the structure of the railways in the United Kingdom has worked especially well. In particular, I'd be critical of Network Rail in terms of its management, its inflexibility, its bureaucracy, its one-size-fits-all model, and most of all its cost. It just seems so incredibly expensive to deliver rail solutions. I was also struck by Transport for London and its relative success in terms of integration, similarly with Mersey Rail, looking at that more recently. It just strikes me that, given what we've seen from Network Rail and how the system's worked, but also, I think, how well the Welsh Government did in terms of negotiating and agreeing that Wales and borders franchise, I think the case has been made for the devolution of rail. I think we have seen problems since Transport for Wales have taken over, and I think they’re running out of time to be blaming them on the previous system and responsibility needs to be taken, but, overall, I think the record is one we would want to support, and we think further devolution in that area would be to the benefit of Wales.

I’ll move now to point 4 of our motion where we note the position of the A55 and, I think more recently, the M4 as trans-European networks under articles 154 to 156 of the Treaty of Rome, and we’ve accepted a measure of European Union oversight over those roads because of the impact they have on Ireland and the extent to which they go beyond the borders of the UK. For the same, and I think stronger, reasons, we would see a case for a measure of UK involvement to the extent that what happens with those routes is very important not just to Wales, but to the wider UK.

He’s not in his seat now, but I was actually quite impressed by a point that Alun Davies made earlier looking at the M4. He looked at the economic case and the costs and benefits, and he made the point about how relatively small the benefits were calculated to be for his constituents in Blaenau Gwent, and he contrasted that with the very significant benefits for people living in Bristol and some places quite significantly beyond that in England. And he went, perhaps fairly, ‘Why should he care about benefits for them? Why should we be spending Welsh taxpayers money on that?’ And since he's now got this role looking at the structures of the UK that Welsh Government have given him in making proposals, I would say, ‘Yes, he is right on that’, but if we have a system where the costs are all taken into account, because we bear all the costs in Wales, but there are really significant benefits to other people, for instance in England, that we don’t take any notice of because they’re not our mandate, doesn’t that suggest that we may underinvest? And if actually there is this big benefit for people over the border into England, isn’t there a role for UK Government to support those roads and potentially to pay for it?

The Counsel General was asked on Sunday night by the chairman of the Welsh select committee that if his good officers and others worked to ensure UK Government came forward and put in the money to pay for this relief road, would he deliver it. I hope he will consider that, because we don’t want to constrict the Welsh economy and cut ourselves off from England, and particularly the more prosperous areas. We need to get that road running, and I do think there’s a proper role also for the UK Government in this as we seek to take a balanced approach to devolution. It's more justified in some areas, but there are areas where we could benefit from UK Government support.

I have selected the five amendments to the motion. If amendment 4 is agreed, amendment 5 will be deselected. I call on the Counsel General and Brexit Minister to formally move amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Amendment 1—Rebecca Evans

Add at the end of point 1 'but believes that radical reform is needed of the way in which inter-governmental relations between the devolved nations and the UK Government are conducted'.

Amendment 2—Rebecca Evans

Add at the end of point 2 'but believes that, given the experience of the last three years, securing a brighter future for Wales depends on the UK remaining in the EU'.

Amendment 3—Rebecca Evans

In point 3, after 'such as', insert 'policing and justice and'.

Amendment 4—Rebecca Evans

Delete point 5 and replace with:

Calls on the UK Government to:

a) step up its commitment to investing in infrastructure in Wales such as the electrification of the rail mainlines in south and north Wales and investment in tidal power in Wales, which is its responsibility;

b) provide full replacement funding, free of UK Government interference in how it should be best used, for the European funding Wales will lose if the UK leaves the EU.

Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 moved.

Formally.

Formally. I call on Darren Millar to move amendment 5 tabled in his name. Darren Millar.

Amendment 5—Darren Millar

In point 5, after 'improvements to' insert 'infrastructure in Wales, including'.

Amendment 5 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the amendment, which has been tabled in my name.

I was expecting this to be more of a ding-dong debate, to be honest, as we are usually accustomed to on a Wednesday afternoon when the Brexit Party tables opposition debates. But, actually, I’ve been quite impressed by the thoughtful contributions that have been made by the leader of the Brexit Party in respect of the future of the United Kingdom and the devolution settlement, because I think there is a need for us as a Senedd to discuss the future of devolution in this country, and I for one certainly agree with you that we need a more settled and stable settlement. At the moment we don’t have that, and we have an imbalance within the United Kingdom in terms of the devolution settlement in Wales compared to Scotland, and in Scotland compared to London, and of course the mayoralties, and then Northern Ireland. So, we’ve got a peculiar arrangement that has, it seems to me, developed without proper consideration of what might be appropriate levels of responsibility for each of the nations. And I certainly, for one, think that that needs to be more carefully considered in the future in order that we can arrive at something more sensible for the long term that keeps the United Kingdom together rather than divides us.

I make no apologies for being a passionate unionist—I think Wales is far better off being part of the United Kingdom than being outside of the United Kingdom, and that’s why it’s pretty extraordinary that we have a nationalist party that criticises the fact the UK Government is determined to try to fulfil the will of the people in taking us out of the EU because it claims there are significant economic benefits that Wales derives from that, and yet seeks to divide us through independence from the rest of the United Kingdom, which, of course, is even more strategically important to Wales in terms of our economy. I'll happily take the intervention.

Thank you for taking the intervention. There's a very straightforward difference in the two scenarios: Wales is not an independent country within Britain; Britain is an independent country within Europe, by any measure.

Yes, I understand that, but I don't think you responded to the assertion that I made to you that it seems very extraordinary to many people that you make an economic argument to stay in the EU, whilst not making the same economic argument more powerfully because of the importance of our economic links across the UK.

Now, in terms of the Welsh Conservatives' position, we've already put on record that we support the devolution of rail and more responsibility for the rail system here in Wales, and I would concur very much with some of the comments that you made particularly about the lack of responsiveness of Network Rail to want to make sure that there's sufficient investment and maintenance here of our railways across the country. I've found them very difficult to deal with at a constituency level, and I've no doubt that that is a view that is shared in common across this Chamber. We also, of course, support—in a different way and take a different position than our party in terms of the UK position—air passenger duty being devolved to Wales, because we think that there are economic opportunities that we can wrest from the devolution of air passenger duty. I think there's also potentially a case to devolve some telecoms matters to Wales, for example, as well. We know that the Welsh Government has been responsible for the roll-out of the superfast broadband scheme, and that has been relatively successful in many ways, whilst still having some shortcomings in rural parts of my own constituency. But, again, I think there's a good case to be made that more responsibilities could come to Wales in respect of telecoms. We already have planning responsibilities for things like the height of masts et cetera, for mobile telephony, and it makes absolute sense to me to make sure that those things are put together in some sort of way, I think, in terms of the situation going forward.

We also recognise the strategic importance of the M4 and the A55 and other roads in Wales to the UK network, and I think you can make arguments both ways in terms of who might be responsible for those, but we certainly want to see more investment in our roads, because improved transport connections do help to drive prosperity. We can't ignore the fact that when you're better connected with areas that are prosperous, you tend to do better economically yourself. There's very strong evidence that that is the case, and that's why we believe that roads like the A55, the A40, the M4 and those strategic north-south routes in Wales are incredibly important in terms of the need to get that better connectivity across the country.

So, we're happy to acknowledge those things in this debate, and I do think that if we can have a good-natured debate, then there may be some consensus to be able to take some of these things forward in the future.

I want to concentrate on particular benefits that come from our union with England and the two other nations that make up the United Kingdom, and therefore I'll give you an example of how we can benefit from that union.

The trans-European network, TEN, was created with the stated goals of the creation of an international market and the reinforcement of economic and social cohesion. It made little sense to talk of a big EU market, with freedom of movement within it for goods and services unless the various regions and national networks making up that market were properly linked by a modern and efficient infrastructure. The construction of a trans-European network was also seen as an important element for economic growth and the creation of employment. The treaty establishing the European community first provided a legal basis for the TENs under the terms, which was mentioned by Mark Reckless earlier, contained in the treaty, and articles 156. The European Union must aim to promote the development of trans-European networks as a key element for the creation of the internal market and the reinforcement of economic and social cohesion. This development includes the interconnection and the interoperability of national networks as well as access to such networks.

The economy in north Wales has suffered a lot in recent years, and one of the reasons for this is the ability of the A55 trunk road to handle the high volumes of traffic that pass along it, particularly in peak holiday periods. The A55 is part of the trans-European route, linking the port of Holyhead to Europe, and yet the European Union has not put sufficient funds into the development of that route, and it's been virtually left to the Wales Government and the UK Government to make sure that that is suitable for purpose. And this road has a major impact on the economic viability of the north Wales region, both with regard to business and tourism—

Will you take an intervention, David?

Yes.

Thank you for taking the intervention. I'm sure you're aware that the European Union was more than happy for Welsh routes, both road and rail, to be given core status within the TEN-T networks. It was UK Government that didn't put those routes forward to be connected within TEN-T. Brussels was perfectly happy.

Well, you can argue that, but, of course, the funds were not available. That's what I'm saying, and coming from the European Union, they weren't available. And I'm just going to point out how they can be available within the United Kingdom scenario.

The M4 in south Wales has the same effect on business and leisure as the A55, and when announcing the decision to scrap the improvement scheme at the Brynglas tunnels, the reason given by the First Minister was, first, its escalating cost, and, secondly, environmental concerns. In order to alleviate the first of these obstacles, cost, we believe the Welsh Government should put forward a strong case for the UK Government to use the shared prosperity fund to subsidise Welsh Government funds, both in north and south Wales. Given that it is generally acknowledged that improvements to the Welsh part of the M4 will also have beneficial effects on the economy of the Bristol region and the trans-European nature of the A55, we in Brexit believe a case for the extra funds could be robustly made.

It is the Government's responsibility to put in place infrastructure to maximise the economic prospects of a region. To expedite this, we urge the Welsh Labour Government to deliver the modernisation of the A55 and resurrect the M4 relief road by seeking the financial support from the UK Government in the manner outlined above. This would not be available if we stay within the European Union. Thank you.

This motion expresses support for

'Wales’s membership of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and its indefinite continuance.'

I'm afraid that we on these Plaid Cymru benches can't sign up to that. Why? Firstly, I think we're more than likely discussing a hypothetical. It would be foolish in the extreme, I believe, to fully commit ourselves in perpetuity to a state that is perhaps unlikely to exist in its current form for very long. Scottish independence seems to me to be pretty inevitable in the coming years, and the rapidly moving picture regarding Irish unity is one that is likely, I think, to do nothing other than gather pace in coming months and years. So, not only are we talking about a hypothetical, we're also being asked to vote on something that could well be beyond our control. We could, of course, choose to commit ourselves to being a servile annex to England in a post-Scottish independence, post-Irish unity world, but the recent upsurge in interest in the independence question here in Wales suggests that's becoming a less and less attractive proposition to an awakening Welsh public.

So, by all means, let's—[Interruption.] Of course.

I find it very difficult to understand why Plaid Cymru would prefer to be a region in a huge conglomeration of regions that stretches from the Baltic to the Aegean, rather than be a nation in a unity of nations we call the United Kingdom. You have been told quite categorically that you will not be recognised as a nation in Europe.

As an independent nation we would certainly be recognised as a nation throughout the whole world. My wish is for that Welsh nation to develop those international networks that your party seems determined to break—building walls rather than building bridges.

But, by all means, let's talk about our transport infrastructure, as I'm always eager to, on how to improve connectivity to strengthen our economy, but let's do it in the spirit of real ambition for our country as an equal partner alongside England, Scotland, our friends across the Irish sea and indeed our friends across the English channel. Just a reminder of the legacy of transport within a United Kingdom context: it's taken till now to have a single mile of electrified railway here in Wales, and even then, when it gets switched on it will only be as far as Cardiff because the UK Government decided that's how far it should go. All our multilane highways run east-west; those routes are very, very important, of course, but where are the north-south routes that could, in the same way, have helped create an integrated Welsh economy? There's no rail connection down the west coast of Wales at all. I reckon I could cycle quicker from Blaenau Ffestiniog to Carmarthen than to go on the train, taking about eight hours. On rail spending, we get 1 per cent of the money that's available to improve and expand rail networks, when we have 11 per cent of the rail network. HS2—I'm sure you all know that, as HS2 spending goes up, rail spending in Wales goes down because it's considered to be a Wales-and-England project, even though every study shows that the Welsh economy will be harmed by HS2. That's the legacy of the UK, and it's the UK Government, as I pointed out earlier, that decided that Wales did not deserve to have a single mile of core status rail or road within the TEN-T networks. Take turns—Mark Isherwood first.

As a Member representing a north Wales constituency, will you acknowledge those same studies said that north Wales would benefit?

Only if they get some decisions on Crewe, correct, is there a chance that parts of north Wales in the north-east may not be harmed, but the Welsh economy as a whole, on which we will be basing our tax base in years to come, will be harmed. Every study shows that. Mark Reckless.

I agree with what the Member says, and it's one reason why we're keen to cancel HS2, but it's also, as David T.C. Davies, the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee said on Sunday night to the Brexit Minister, because of HS2, because of that unfairness, he was wanting to push to get UK Government to pay for the M4 relief road.

It's very interesting—consensus can build between politicians here in Wales and politicians in Westminster. It's happened over air passenger duty, for example. But still, because the cards are held by UK Government, it is up to them, not us as a nation what we get to decide on the future of our transport network. So, there's a catalogue of examples that I could give of why the UK is not a positive legacy for Wales when you look at transport. If you want to make the case for the UK, I'd suggest transport was a pretty poor choice of topic, and in fact I think it's getting more and more difficult for you to choose a topic that says that the UK is our best bet.

It was believed that the British empire would never see the sun set on it—that the empire was set for, and I quote the Brexit Party, 'indefinite continuance'. But the sun did set on it. Now we look to a new dawn, so rub your eyes and join us on the journey.

When I was first elected to this place, I was actually quite devo-friendly. I saw opportunities for Wales in devolution if we used the powers the Assembly had to liberalise the economy and be a more attractive location for investment, and so on and so forth. But I'm afraid to say that three years' experience here has turned me to the other direction. I've seen how the one-party state works. When we started out, of course, we prevented, in coalition with Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives, the Welsh Government being re-appointed, and that would have been a seismic shock to the system if we could have continued that. But there was of course—[Interruption.] Let me finish my sentence first. Sadly, Plaid Cymru always prop up a Labour Government, and that means that we can never see anything other than a left-wing government as things are at the moment. So, I can't see any reason why anybody who is even moderately right-of-centre could think that devolution could be a success.

Unless I'm much mistaken, I recall the Member speaking in July about a desire for more devolution, and I don't think he'd been back to this place before I heard reports of him speaking in Newport saying that he now wanted to abolish the Assembly. Why the change over the summer recess? 

I don't know what the former member of UKIP and the former member of the Conservative group, and much else besides, has been doing over the summer, but I've been doing a bit of thinking. I now realise that devolution by any measure has been a failure, and that is something with which a very large proportion of people in Wales agree with. There was an S4C poll that was done earlier this year, and people were asked whether they thought that the Assembly had changed how Wales is governed for the better, and only 34 per cent answered that question in the affirmative. When they were asked whether they thought it had been better for the health service, only 23 per cent said 'yes'. So, it certainly hasn't been the case that the Welsh people have been convinced that the efforts of this place and the Welsh Government have benefited them.

Therefore, we think that, after 20 years, it's right that the people should be asked again to give their opinion on whether they want to continue this experiment or not. I know that the Labour Party now is very keen, in Wales at any rate, to have another referendum, to have a people's vote, and Plaid Cymru, of course, have always been keen to have a people's vote on independence, and so we could combine the two with a series of questions. I think the Welsh people should be able to decide whether this devolution experiment has been a success or not, and whether there isn't another way forward that would be better, and perhaps go on beyond devolution and devolve powers further.

Why don't we democratise the health service in Wales, for example, considering that the health service has been so disastrously mismanaged from Cardiff, and continues to be disastrously mismanaged from Cardiff? We could take devolution even further down to the people than here in Cardiff. We could have further devolution in the education system as well, and put the education Minister out of a job. We could give more powers to local authority to take an independent view of the way they want to manage their own schools within their own areas. I think that could be very healthy for democracy as well. So, that could be another way of re-engaging with the people who actually still, to a very large extent, have no idea what are the powers of this place. It's still the case that a very large proportion of the Welsh people don't know that the health service has been devolved. Surely, that is a failure if ever there was one, considering that it takes half of the Welsh Government's budget.

Now, when devolution was first mooted, a case was made for it on the basis that it would help to keep the union together—the union of the United Kingdom, that is. And now we see that the United Kingdom is being rent apart, actually, despite devolution, most particularly, obviously, in Scotland. Certainly, the existence of the Scottish Parliament has done nothing to assuage the demand for political independence in Scotland, something which Plaid Cymru would be very much in favour of, but I as a unionist, of course, am very alarmed by that. And the existence of the Scottish Government has made it more likely that we will see the United Kingdom break up, rather than less. There are other reasons for that, of course, not least, as was pointed out earlier on, the confusion that's been created by the way that Westminster has mismanaged Brexit, where we have a 'remain' Parliament and a 'leave' people, and the confusion that that has caused has enabled Scotland, of course, to make it more difficult for us to deliver on the referendum result.

And we also see in the Labour Party that some of its members have been flirting with a move towards further independence as well, and the First Minister said in July that Wales's support for the union in the United Kingdom is not unconditional. So, I say that what we need after 20 years of experience of devolution is to put the case to the people yet again. Therefore, we need to go beyond devolution and we need to reconnect with the people of Wales, and get a better deal after 20 years of total failure.           

The Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles. 

Thank you, Llywydd. The motion tabled by the Brexit Party is slightly strange. The Welsh Government can agree with some of it, but disagrees with much else. Let me start with the issues I can agree on, before highlighting the deficiencies of the motion. It supports Wales's membership of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. It calls for further devolution, which is a  development to be welcomed given the iffy history of Brexit Party and former UKIP politicians and their attitude towards devolution. The Welsh Government has called on a number of occasions for APD to be devolved to Wales, as has happened in Northern Ireland and in Scotland, and this motion supports that demand. The Tory Government, of course, has put a veto on this time and time again, despite the unanimous recommendation made by the Welsh Affairs Committee in the House of Commons.

Most strange, the motion recognises the significant investment in our infrastructure through the European Union over the past 20 years. Yet, the 'leave' side in the 2016 referendum was very unwilling to discuss the fact that Wales benefited from European funding, not only in terms of infrastructure but also skills programmes such as apprenticeships and workforce development within businesses, for business finance through the Welsh development bank—which was a huge success—and in terms of innovation, research and development.

Finally, it calls on the UK Government to increase its investment in infrastructure. This is certainly something that we have called for ourselves. Time and again, Conservative Governments over the past decade have disappointed Wales within those policy areas they have responsibility for. The electrification of the rail line to Swansea was cancelled.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, indeed.

He says that our motion refers to funding from the European Union. It doesn't; it refers to the powers the European Union took over the trans-European network, and isn't the issue. In some of those, they regulate them and they require certain standards, and then require, in this case, Wales to pay for them.

Actually, the TEN-T road routes in Wales have benefited enormously from European funding through ERDF, and, for the road network, we are confident we'll meet the TEN-T standards. But worryingly, if we leave the European Union, the loss of TEN-T would result, we fear, in a substantial decommitment to electrifying the Welsh rail network in the north to Holyhead and in the south to Milford Haven. That's, of course, investment we expect the UK Government to honour.

But I was listing the number of ways in which the UK Government has failed to meet its obligations to us in Wales: the failure of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, failure to support the steel industry. And the Member, in his speech, mentioned the M4 and his apparent support now for the black route, though he campaigned on, and I believe wrote the manifesto in 2016 that said the M4 black route was too expensive and would blow, as he put it, the majority of the Welsh capital budget, and criticised in particular the adverse environmental impact of it, which were exactly the reasons the First Minister gave in not proceeding with it. So, I think it is well to have some degree of consistency in relation to that. [Interruption.] Yes.

We think it should be built. We campaigned for an M4 relief road. The colour of it or the exact route is a subsidiary issue to Wales needing it to be built.

Well, the record will show that you just asked for the black route to be built. So, we can perhaps check the record after this debate. 

Now to the elements of the motion that we can't accept. Firstly, it is inconsistent about devolution. I fail to see how it's possible to call for further devolution and yet support the UK Government's hollow concept of the shared prosperity fund as a way of replacing funds that Wales has been managing for decades to invest in matters within our devolved competence. It's hollow because, for more than two years, they have failed to spell out any concrete ideas about how it would work or what it would do. What is clear, however, is that it would mean the UK Government hijacking the funding that formerly came unmediated to Wales from the European Union and hobbling this National Assembly and Welsh Government from using it to realise a coherent development strategy. It's clearly an attack on the powers of the Assembly, and I think a party committed genuinely to devolution couldn't support that proposition. We've been clear that if and when the UK transitions out of the EU structural funds, not a penny should be lost and not a power stolen. 

Next, the union. As a Government, we want the union to flourish. But, unlike the motion, we recognise that that can only happen if there is radical reform of the constitution, including inter-governmental relations—reform that the current Government is, at best, neglectful of and, at worst, uninterested in. Llywydd, at no time has the union been under greater strain. Devolution is or should be an embedded element of our constitution, not something which is seen as a gift from Westminster and Whitehall, and the debate about devolution is not just about the separate relations between the UK and each of the devolved nations—it needs to address how the UK as a whole should be governed. And we need to recognise that power ultimately flows bottom up, not, as the outdated doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the royal prerogative, top down, and that the future of the union relies on the consent of the peoples and electorates of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.

A key principle for the devolution of powers, used by independent bodies that have recommended the devolution of air passenger duty, rail infrastructure, policing and justice to Wales, is subsidiarity. We support strongly the devolution of further powers in those areas, and for the powers of the devolved institutions to be founded on a coherent set of responsibilities allocated in accordance with the subsidiarity principle. What the First Minister has called the 'grace and favour' model of devolution has most dramatically failed in the case of Brexit, where the UK Government has repeatedly failed to live up to its commitments to work with the devolved Governments and institutions to agree an approach to the negotiations, and the fact that the current Government sees no reason—as a Minister told the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee on Monday—to share papers shared with the EU negotiators not merely in advance, but at all, with us is both telling and very disturbing. And it’s Brexit that, of course, most obviously threatens the future of the union, with a ‘no deal’ Brexit recklessly taking a wrecking ball to the UK constitution, making it likely that Scotland will vote when it’s allowed to for independence, and also boosting the case for what would almost certainly be a divisive border poll in Ireland.

So, in ending, let me turn to Brexit. We do indeed note that Wales, like the UK as a whole, voted to leave in 2016, and, as we have made clear here many times, as a Welsh Government, we tried to honour that result. But it’s about time that those who campaigned to leave started to honour the promises they made. [Interruption.] Many of the claims made by the leave campaign have been left in tatters, which is why the Member barracks me a sedentary position. 'The easiest free-trade agreement in history', it was said. The German car manufacturers begging the EU to sacrifice their political values, having our cake and eating it, more money for the NHS, an abrupt end to immigration—where are those claims now as we face the potential of a 'no deal' Brexit that threatens deep and lasting damage to our country and our people? Tomorrow we will publish a full, evidence-based case for our decision to call, after three years, three wasted years, of mismanaged, disastrous negotiations and with jobs and investment leaching from our economy, for a second referendum and to pledge to campaign to remain in the EU. The objective case is unanswerable, and our amendments, unlike the original motion, emphasise reform, democracy and the well-being of the people of Wales, and I urge Members to support those principles in amending the motion.

I call on Caroline Jones to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Before I come on to individual contributions, I’d just like to put the view forward that the union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is one of the greatest and long-lasting unions in history, and for well over 300 years this union has endured. And, despite calls for independence— and initially, when devolution when devolution was given to Wales, the Blair Government handled the devolution settlement not very well, which took over a decade to sort out, but, still, the union endures. And, just over five years ago, Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain a part of the union, and the latest polls show that the vast majority of Scottish voters wish to remain part of the UK. Wales also remains opposed to leaving the United Kingdom. And the motion before you today underlines the principle that we are stronger together, and that each part of the union is important as a whole. The investment in Wales benefits the entirety of the UK, so we cannot therefore exclude involvement, can we, from the UK Government? And devolution isn’t a once done and then forgotten event. So, we have to ensure any settlement as well, post Brexit, is fair and benefits all parts of the UK. But, obviously, I'm concerned about Wales; I'm part of the Welsh Parliament and I want to represent the people of Wales as fully as I can. [Interruption.] We will—. Oh, here he goes again about an election. Do you want to—? I'll tell you what, you and I have a discussion outside, all right, if you don't mind. 

No, no; discussions are held in here on the record. Carry on, Caroline Jones. 

Would he like to stand up for an intervention, Llywydd, please?

I don't think he is. Carry on. 

Okay. We will—[Interruption.] We will therefore be voting against all of the Welsh Government's amendments. We believe, as do the majority of the Welsh public, that we are better off outside of the EU and we firmly believe that, by Welsh Government seeking to ignore the results of the 2016 referendum, they are abandoning democracy. We will be supporting the Welsh Conservatives' amendment.

But, as I said, I would like to thank everyone who took part in the debate, and Mark has spoken strongly to be in—[Interruption.] Yes, certainly, David.

I thank the Member for taking the intervention. You've just said you'll be supporting the Welsh Conservatives' amendment, which is an amendment to point 5, which talks about the shared prosperity fund and how you intend to use that to fund infrastructure projects. Do you actually understand what makes that the shared prosperity fund and why it's there? It's the European Social Fund, the European Regional Development Fund—it's that money that we're entitled to for other projects. It's not about the infrastructures you want to cover; it's about the projects and social needs of our communities. 

It hasn't been decided upon yet, David. 

You don't even know what it means.

Of course I do. It hasn't been decided yet. So—

Oh, so you're not going to have that money come to us.

So, we had Mark—. The first contribution was obviously from Mark Reckless, who highlighted that we would like for rail to be devolved to Wales. We want more devolution. And he spoke of the importance of infrastructure and highlighted the importance of connectivity, as did David Rowlands. 

I am interested in Rhun's contribution, because he has stated about infrastructure as well and how it must be improved. He highlighted the electrification issue, which we all know is very important to various parts of Wales. He also said, on the west coast, there was no rail connection. 

Darren also highlighted that he was in favour of devolution and of working all together—all parties, cross-party groups working together to make devolution work.

Because—. Neil Hamilton's contribution obviously came as a surprise because I thought, when you worked initially, that you were in favour of devolution, so it has come as a bit of a surprise that you've now decided that you want a referendum on the Assembly. Obviously, I don't share your views. 

You did when you were in our party. 

No, I never did. I always—. No, no, no. I always wanted devolution, and I was always in favour—. I was always in favour of it. So, there we are. So, he—[Interruption.] So, he's got it wrong there, but he never really did know the people that he was supposed to be leading anyway. So, we'll leave that—[Interruption.] So, we'll leave that there.

So, I would just like to—[Interruption.] So, I would just like to say thank you, everyone, for your contributions. I think it's been a good debate. Thank you so much. 

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.