1. In light of the House of Commons last night approving a Brexit deal for the first time since the referendum in the form of the Prime Minister's Withdrawal Agreement Bill, will the Counsel General make a statement to the Assembly? 356

Parliament did not approve the damaging Brexit deal. It merely voted in favour of the legislation to progress to the next phase, where I fully expect significant amendments to be made. I'm pleased that Parliament has agreed with this National Assembly that we reject the attempt to bounce this legislation through just to satisfy an artificial deadline set by the Prime Minister.

What was pleasing last night was the Prime Minister recognising, in his closing remarks, that, for the first time since the referendum, Parliament had actually agreed something in wanting the withdrawal agreement to go forward to further stages. What is not entirely clear is exactly why the First Minister here is so hell bent on blocking any progress on this particular issue. Today, for example, he has stood shoulder to shoulder with Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland, and called the withdrawal agreement either 'in purgatory', but it is 'not yet dead'—those are his words that he used at the press conference. Do you not think a more appropriate description of the Bill is that:

'One way or another we will leave the EU with this deal to which this House has just given its assent', which is what the Prime Minister has said? And, instead of blocking the will of the Welsh people, which was shown in the referendum of 2016, the First Minister should be putting his shoulder to the wheel and working with the Prime Minister to deliver on that referendum result and to deliver on this withdrawal agreement that is agreed with the European Union and is endorsed by the Republic of Ireland as well?

Can I just first gently welcome the fact that the Member is choosing to bring a matter related to Brexit to the Chamber? He has spent the last few weeks decrying the fact that the Welsh Government has sought opportunities to discuss Brexit here, so I welcome his conversion to the cause of scrutiny and transparency in the context of Brexit, and maybe he could seek—[Interruption.]—maybe he could seek to persuade his colleagues in Parliament of the virtues of scrutiny and transparency in the same way.

I don't know what it is about this deal that the Member thinks is remotely in the interests of Wales. We would like to be able to debate this on the basis of economic evidence, but, of course, the UK Government hasn't provided that. But what we do know is that the deal does not contain any meaningful guarantee of alignment with the kind of rights that people in Wales are entitled to expect. It contains a 'no deal' trapdoor at the end of 2020 and a deferred 'no deal' prospect. And it fails to provide for the kind of final say on this deal, which, if the Prime Minister had any confidence in the strength of his deal, he'd have no hesitation in putting to the people.

Minister, I don't know whether you had a chance to watch Prime Minister's Questions before today's Plenary session. If you did, you will have seen the SNP Westminster leader ask the Prime Minister whether he conceded that the consent of the devolved Parliaments would be necessary for the withdrawal agreement Bill to proceed. Now, we in this Chamber would normally take that for granted, since they've actually contacted us asking for our explicit consent for the withdrawal agreement Bill to go on, which is what we would expect under the Sewel convention. But Boris Johnson told the House of Commons that the Scottish Parliament, and by extension the Senedd, have no role in approving the deal.

Now, let's be clear what this entails. He's asked this place to give its explicit consent, but he's already now said that he will take no heed of what we say before we've even voted on the LCM, which has only just been published. So, that's really a serious breach of the Sewel convention. Actually, I'd go so far as to say it's constitutional vandalism by a Prime Minister willing to destroy the principles of devolution just to get what he wants—this billionaire's Brexit. So, I'd ask you, Minister—you recently published a set of minimum reforms that should be put in place to save the union. These included putting Sewel on a statutory, even codified, footing, so that Westminster could not legislate in devolved areas without our permission. Do you agree with me that Boris Johnson's trashing of Sewel today means that your proposals, however well meaning, have not only been ignored, but maliciously undermined?

Now, Plaid Cymru's solution to this is clear: we want an independence referendum so all decisions affecting Wales can be made in Wales, guaranteeing that no Westminster Government can damage our country ever again. I know you don't agree with independence, Minister, but could you tell me how you will react to this blatant attack on the Senedd's powers? I'm not talking of words, I'm talking of actions: what will you do to protect our institutional integrity in the face of these continual assaults on devolution by Boris Johnson's morally bankrupt Government?

Well, the UK Government has, of course, written to the Welsh Government seeking the consent of the National Assembly in relation to the withdrawal agreement Bill, and, as she will know from the legislative consent memorandum that the Government has laid, the Government's view is that there are a range of other consents beyond those that the UK Government has sought from the Assembly that we are entitled to expect to be considered. I just don't know, quite candidly, what grasp the Prime Minister has of any of this. It seems to me that he has scant regard for any of the things that we would have regarded as constitutionally uncontroversial at any point in the last century. His attempt to exclude Parliament from consideration of these matters was itself extraordinary, and it comes as no surprise to me that he fails to understand the actions taken by other parts of his Government to seek the consent of this Assembly.

She is right to say that the Welsh Government's position is that Sewel needs reform, and I appreciate her reference to the First Minister's paper published two weeks ago. I think the case made in that document is strengthened by the remarks that she has just reported to this Assembly.

Whilst I share the Welsh Government's reservations about having a line drawn in the middle of the Irish sea, and therefore making Northern Ireland effectively part of the EU, rather than the UK, for trade purposes, isn't the real problem here that the Labour Party, and indeed all of the remainer-supporting parties in the House of Commons, fundamentally will do everything they possibly can—they will use every excuse, however tawdry, threadbare or moth-eaten—to try to prevent Brexit actually being delivered? The people of this country, as he knows, voted in 2016— 17.5 million of them—in the largest democratic vote ever in Britain, to leave the EU. We have remainer Parliaments at Westminster, in Edinburgh and here in Wales, and they are the ones who are putting a spanner in the works. So, all the excuses that he gives for opposing this agreement must be seen in the light of that. Whatever the Government presents, they will be against it, because they want Britain to remain in the EU, unlike the people of this country, who voted to leave.

I think there's something quite remarkable about elected representatives and parliamentarians who are prepared to connive and attempt to deny elected representatives the opportunity to scrutinise important legislation. I just think that fails to meet up to the standards the public expect of us. I'll remind the Member, if he needs reminding, that not a single member of the public have been asked to vote on the deal that he has agreed with the European Union—not a single member of the public had that deal in front of them when they cast their vote in 2016, and, if the Prime Minister is as confident as he claims to be about the virtues and value of that deal to the UK, it's about time he put it to the public.

Thank you to the Brexit Minister.

The next question is to be asked of the Minister for Economy and Transport, and the question is to be asked by Rhun ap Iorwerth.