We'll now turn to spokespeople's questions, and the party spokesperson this afternoon for Plaid Cymru, Delyth Jewell. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The Tory mantra for this election is 'Get Brexit done'. We know that's a lie, and what's more, it's now clear that the threat of 'no deal' at the end of 2020 is even greater. Minister, did Boris Johnson or Michael Gove consult with the Welsh Government before telling the press that they have no intention of extending the transition period?

I'm not conscious that that happened and I think she will know that one of our strong concerns about the terms of the deal that the Prime Minister put to Parliament—which I know that she shares—is the fact that there is, as she says in her question, absolutely no prospect in reality of arrangements being put in place by the end of the transition period that we would regard as even remotely acceptable in the context of leaving the European Union. 

Yes, a very dismaying situation indeed. Minister, you'll know that this afternoon, our Senedd will debate a Plaid Cymru motion on NHS privatisation. In your Government amendments to the motion, you have not deleted clauses that point out that a future post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and the US could well be a disaster for the Welsh NHS. So, I take it that the Government agrees on that point, but it doesn't look like you'll be supporting our solution, which will be, in part, to repeal section 82 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Now, that section allows the UK Government to essentially ignore devolution when it comes to trade deals. I realise that trade isn't in your portfolio, but you have spoken, in the past, about how section 82 needs to be looked at again, as it was drafted before Brexit. Why wouldn't you support repealing it?

I know that the Member will be familiar with the work of the Institute for Government and its thorough review of the arrangements made by a number of constitutions, a number of states, even those with federal written constitutions, into how they deal with questions of the impact of international agreements on what we would describe here as devolved competence. I will be absolutely clear that she's right to say that I have significant concerns in relation to what we know has emerged from the dossier that has been put into the public domain recently and the mandate that the US Government published in relation to its aspirations from a trade agreement with the UK. It is absolutely clear from that that the UK Government's intention is to seek access to the NHS, and to commercialise it, marketise it and use it to drive up the costs of medicines for the benefit of its own pharmaceutical companies. So, I absolutely share with her the strong anxiety and concern about what appears to be under contemplation.

But, the sort of arrangement that she and the Plaid Cymru motion advocate is, essentially, a veto on international agreements, and our view—and it's articulated, I think, comprehensively, most recently in the document that the First Minister published about the reform of the constitution at large—is that, in common with, I think, all other federal constitutions, not that I claim that ours is federal, apart from the constitution of Belgium, the appropriate mechanism for dealing with that is to provide an embedded mechanism for states that are not the equivalent of the federal state in those constitutions to genuinely influence the mandate and the negotiation of those agreements. And I think that is the better way for us to proceed in relation to this question. 

Thank you for that explanation, Minister. I'm not surprised that you share our concern about the situation, and I would urge you, please, to reconsider supporting our solution as well to this in the debate this afternoon. But, you've mentioned already that another part of the proposals that we put forward in our motion relates to us having a veto on trade deals, and you've also referred to the fact that there is a precedent for this in Wallonia in Belgium. That is a region of Belgium. Minister, if I could put it to you: if the region of Wallonia in Belgium has a right to protect its citizens by having a veto on trade deals, and they've only used it once; it's not some kind of glib measure that they use all the time, but if the region of Belgium has that right, why, Minister, do you not think that the nation of Wales should have the same?

Because I don't regard the constitutional arrangements of Belgium has remotely comparable to the constitution of the United Kingdom. And the position that she's advocating is consistent with the question of independence, and that's where the question starts and ends, and she knows that these benches to not support that constitutional objective.

I will just point out to her that the example that is most often held up as an exemplar of the involvement of, as they are often described, sub-state Governments in the negotiation of arrangements with the European Union, is the Canadian example, where some of the provinces of Canada were effectively directly involved in those negotiations. Canada's constitution, as I understand it, does not reflect the principles that she is advocating, and Plaid Cymru are advocating in their motion today, and yet, the provinces in that example were involved in those discussions. And those are the sorts of arrangements that we think are substantively effective, and that is what we should focus on. We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to put in place a pragmatic and sensible set of arrangements that would allow us significant involvement in agreeing the mandate. 

And I will also say that, from the point of view of our European Union partners, they recognise very well that there are implications as to how the contents of relationships in the future are implemented and given reality within the devolved constitution of the United Kingdom. So, our argument is, it's in the interest of the UK Government, and its credibility in those discussions, for our Government to have a voice in settling those mandates and negotiations.

The Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Minister might recall, I think correctly, that both he and I actually discussed that last matter with the Flemish Government in Brussels.

A week ahead of the UK general election, it's understandable that you would refer disparagingly, as you did a few moments ago, to the UK Conservative manifesto. But nonetheless, will you at least cautiously welcome the statement within it, that the UK shared prosperity fund will be used to bind together the whole of the United Kingdom, and that, in Wales, there will be no loss of equivalent funding?

The UK Government has been long on statements and short on action. And we have been repeatedly clear that what we want is not broad blandishments, but delivery. And the UK Government operates under the misapprehension, in relation to the shared prosperity fund, that what it has been doing to date (a) properly engages the Welsh Government and Welsh interests in the design of that, and (b) is remotely respecting the devolution settlement. So, whilst I read the line in the manifesto, I gave it no more credibility than the numerous other occasions on which it's been used, with no consequence.

Well, I'll tell you what the Conservative Party has given details on: we will guarantee that Wales does not miss out on a penny of funding; we will match funding for agriculture throughout the next UK Parliament; and most importantly, we will actually deliver on the Brexit that the people of Wales voted for and continue to support.

Your UK manifesto tells us how you don't want funding to be allocated, but doesn't give us any idea on how you would allocate funding—Labour muddying the waters in the hope that the people of Wales don't notice that you're betraying Brexit because you don't want to deliver it. So, if you wouldn't mind providing detail, from your perspective, what proposals do you and your party have to replace the way that funding is allocated after the UK leaves the EU?

Well, I'll refer him to the contents of the document we published at the end of 2017, which describes our vision for the future of regional funding in Wales and the work of the steering group that Huw Irranca-Davies chairs, which was the subject of our previous exchange and which has led to very interesting, I think, interim proposals. We've been really clear about what the priorities are that we wish to see, as a Government, out of future regional investment in Wales—it's to support sustainable communities, productive businesses, a zero-carbon economy, and to promote equalities throughout Wales, and to do that on a basis where the national, the regional, and the local work together to deliver this most effectively on the ground.

I will say, I hear repeatedly examples from the UK Government of how regional policy has worked effectively in England. I fear if that is the model that the UK Government has in mind across the UK, because it has repeatedly been found—not least by the Public Accounts Committee in Parliament—that the way the local enterprise companies, for example, across England have approached the question of regional investment has been woefully inadequate. And I fear that is what the Conservatives have in mind for Wales.

Well, I was referring to your UK party manifesto, which does not give any idea on how they would allocate the funding. So, it would appear that they either haven't read your document or don't agree with it.

But you stated, quite rightly, that Wales must not lose any equivalent funding as a result of leaving the EU and that all decisions regarding this funding must continue to be taken in Wales, as at present. However, at present, it's a requirement of all European funding awards that projects are able to provide full evidence to support all of their expenditure and project activity. Therefore, the Welsh European Funding Office needs to collate and analyse the information and statistics gathered from individual projects, because that European funding is public money, and all projects are subject to a level of audit and verification to ensure both eligibility of expenditure and activities, with checks against programme guidance and individual grant and contract awards, and even the possibility that money could be reclaimed.

So, when we leave the EU, what proposals do you have in place, to ensure that a replacement system is ready to go, with a Welsh UK funding office able to provide full evidence to support all of this expenditure and project activity in accordance with UK single market rules that, by then, hopefully, the four Governments will have agreed to?

Well, I commend the Member for engaging with the detail of this in a way in which his parliamentary colleagues in Westminster have seemed to refuse to do with the Welsh Government. 

I will just point him to the two strands of work that we've discussed in this Chamber on a number of occasions. One is the work, again, which is the work of the steering group that Huw Irranca-Davies is chairing, which has representations from across all sectors in Wales. And the second piece of work that is germane to this is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's review that the First Minister commissioned when he was Finance Minister, which is intended to inform, using best practice from other parts of the world, how we develop and deploy regional funds into the future.

We are absolutely committed to, as his question challenges us, deliver a system that is responsive, flexible, integrateable and also attaches the right weight to the question of audit and transparency, which his question identifies. And we hope that that work will lead us to be able to consult in the new year in greater detail in relation to those. But there is a very, very advanced set of work streams, dealing with exactly the sort of questions that he is raising in his own question, and all I would say is I would repeat the request that I've made to the UK Government to engage with us on this. We are really very advanced in our considerations here and we wish that they would engage with us properly on this question rather than continue to give us the promises that they have failed to deliver on so far.