Item 3 on the agenda this afternoon is the legislative consent motion on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, and I call on the First Minister to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Motion NDM7232 Mark Drakeford

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales, in accordance with Standing Order 29.6 agrees that provisions in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill in so far as they fall within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. The motion before the Assembly today is important and historic. We need to consider legislative consent to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill. In discussing this issue today, the Welsh Government will consider the Bill from the perspective of what is best for Wales. Deputy Presiding Officer, Brexit is going to happen. We must now focus on how Brexit happens, and how we can establish a relationship with Europe that safeguards the interests of Wales. That is the starting point in looking at the issue of legislative consent to this crucial Bill.

Dirprwy Lywydd, can I thank you and the Llywydd for the flexibility that you have shown over the debate, the timing of the debate, on the withdrawal agreement Bill, probably the most important piece of Westminster legislation we have had to consider in the 20-year history of this Senedd? Now, let me be clear about what this debate is not about. It is not about blocking Brexit; it is not about frustrating the Bill. It is about the form and not the fact of Brexit. It is about improving and not derailing the Bill. Brexit is going to happen—that is a fact. How Brexit happens, however, is anything but settled.

Will the First Minister give way? Isn't that exactly what you said in 2016 after the referendum? Given your actions for the last three and a half years, why should people believe you now?

Well, I think the Member may have been asleep for the whole month of December when a general election took place, and we have a Government that is clear that we are leaving the European Union. I thought that is something that he said he had campaigned for many years to bring about, and I have just said, as clearly as I can, on the record, that, whatever others of us may have thought, that is now a settled fact. What is not settled, and what is the subject of our consideration this afternoon, is how Brexit should happen, and the form of Brexit has twisted and turned many times already in the hands of successive Conservative Governments. Indeed, the Bill that we are asked to consent to today is not the Bill that the current Prime Minister would have asked us to consent to just at the start of December.

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, the UK Government is pushing this Bill through Parliament at a speed in inverse proportion to its significance. That is both unnecessary and wrong. It is the most important decision taken by Parliament in a generation or more, and the legislation surely deserves the fullest and most thorough scrutiny. The failure to afford Parliament with the opportunity to do that has a direct impact on us here. Normally, we would come to the floor of the Assembly to debate the issue of legislative consent on a Bill knowing the final form that it was to be voted upon in Parliament. We still do not know that this afternoon. The fact that there is to be no gap between Report and Third Reading in the House of Lords means that our ability to put a proper decision in front of this National Assembly is also compromised. 

The Llywydd took the Chair.

The question that is in front of us, though, is this: does this Bill as currently set out meet the interests of Wales? And the answer that this Government suggests to you this afternoon, the clear conclusion that we have come to, is that we cannot ask you to give consent to the Bill, because the interests of Wales are emphatically not met by it. A mandate for Brexit is not a mandate for bad legislation and, as far as Wales is concerned, this legislation remains very bad indeed. It will undermine our economy in damaging ways and, more importantly, Llywydd, ways that could be avoided. 

Let me just set out some of the ways in which this legislation damages essential Welsh interests. First of all, the protection of workers' rights, which was written into the previous proposed legislation, has been abandoned in the Bill that is in front of the House of Commons and House of Lords today. Provisions that were there in previous versions have been taken out of the Bill, and we can't imagine that that is accidental. A Government that was serious about protecting workers' interests would have left those provisions in the Bill, as a previous Conservative Government had been content to do. 

Secondly, Llywydd, the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol creates a whole new set of barriers to trade that simply weren't there under the previous deal. The analysis we published yesterday, carried out by the UK Trade Policy Observatory at the University of Sussex, catalogues the inevitable friction and threat to business at Welsh ports that will arise as a result of the legislation. And it's worth recalling, isn't it, that these dangers were ones that the Prime Minister went all the way to Belfast explicitly to rule out when he promised the unionist community there that he would never agree to a border in the Irish sea. That border in the Irish sea has direct and detrimental impacts upon us here in Wales and we're asked to consent to those detrimental impacts, and this Government says to Members of this Senedd that we should not do so. 

Thirdly, dynamic alignment with those EU rules and regulations that are necessary to avoid new barriers to trade featured in Mrs May's earlier agreement but this too has now been abandoned. Now, instead, the Chancellor of the Exchequer openly boasts about diverging from the European Union as though it were an article of faith. Well, this is an article of faith that can only make life harder for Welsh businesses who trade with Europe and surely we should understand in this Chamber that the Welsh economy is more vulnerable in this sense than the UK as a whole because of our reliance on manufacturing and the rural economy. It is surely for supporters of this legislation to describe how they think that new barriers to trade brought about by deliberately departing from the common standards that allow our farmers—to go back to earlier this afternoon—to export to markets elsewhere in Europe more difficult.

The legislation takes us backwards and not forwards. It's not inevitable; it is the result of political choices by the UK Government and there is better legislation available. That is why we have worked so hard, Llywydd, with colleagues at Westminster over the last recent days to move amendments that would have put right some of the things that this legislation gets so badly wrong.

Can I, while I am on this matter, pay tribute to the enormous efforts that have been made by Welsh peers in the House of Lords? Peers of different parties and cross-bench peers as well, many of them former Members of this Senedd, but others too. It's invidious to mention anybody by name, Llywydd, but I do just want to mention Lord John Morris. The last time I had a conversation with Lord Morris, at the end of last year, he told the story of how, as a young man in his 20s, he was chosen to be the warm-up act introducing the main speaker, Clem Attlee, at the Carmarthen by-election of 1957. Here we are, more than 60 years later. Having served as Secretary of State for Wales under Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, and Attorney-General in Tony Blair's Cabinet, there he was yesterday—90 years old he'll be next year—battling hard to get this Bill amended so that it could defend essential Welsh interests. If Lord John Morris can battle to defend Welsh interests, then surely we here in this Chamber should be able to do the same.

Let me for a moment, Llywydd, also enumerate the specific shortcomings of this Bill from a devolution perspective. First of all, the wholly offensive clause 21, where the UK Government is taking to itself so-called Henry VIII powers to repeal or amend any part of any Act of Parliament, including the Government of Wales Act 2006. There are Members of the Conservative benches here who have very honourably and over many years policed the boundary between powers given to Welsh Ministers and powers that ought to be exercised here on the floor of the Senedd. I haven't always agreed with some of the conclusions that they have drawn, but I have always admired the effort that they have made to keep that relationship honest. Today, they will be voting to support a Bill in which UK Ministers can amend the Government of Wales Act through secondary legislation and with no consent from this Senedd at all. How could we possibly consent to that?

We wish the Northern Ireland protocol every success, but support for devolution and peace in Northern Ireland does not require the unilateral rewriting by UK Ministers of the devolution settlement. That is what Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the former Lord Chief Justice, battled so hard to persuade UK Ministers of on the floor of the House of Lords, but, despite every argument that he deployed, we've had no return on it at all. 

The withdrawal agreement Bill provides no assurance that devolved institutions will be given a meaningful role in future-partnership negotiations, for which it paves the way—negotiations that would have a major impact on matters within devolved competence. We should have a guarantee through the legislation that the voice of this Senedd will be heard in those negotiations, but, despite the amendments that we placed to the Bill, all those attempts were turned down. As the Counsel General has said, it cannot be right to oblige us to comply with international obligations that impact on devolved competence if we have had no part in agreeing to them. 

Finally, and most gratuitously, Llywydd, Government Ministers have so far rejected an attempt to add any recognition of the Sewel convention to a clause that asserts the untrammelled sovereignty of Parliament—a clause that my predecessor has memorably described as either a piece of constitutional graffiti, because it means absolutely nothing, or a clause that has a genuine attempt to trespass into the devolution settlement in a genuinely profound way.

Llywydd, I'm not under any illusion that a refusal of legislative consent from this Senedd will stop the Bill from being enacted, but I hope that, even now, the UK Government will pause for reflection about their approach to devolution and consider the damage they risk to the fabric of the United Kingdom. I note the suggestion in the letter from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that the circumstances around this Bill are singular, specific and exceptional. The way for them to demonstrate that they really believe what they say is to follow the advice that we have provided about how Sewel could be codified to make sure that the singularity of this decision is genuinely upheld in the future.

The Bill sets the United Kingdom on a new path, one fraught with dangers, including dangers that are unnecessary and could have been avoided. They have not been avoided in the way that the Bill has progressed through the Houses of Parliament; rather, in this Bill, they have been increased and increased to the detriment of devolution and to the detriment of Wales. Our job is to stand up for our interests, as the Scottish Parliament will stand up for the interests of Scotland, and as I believe the Northern Ireland Assembly will do on behalf of their population too. That's what we have an opportunity to do this afternoon, and that's why I ask this Senedd to vote against the motion and to refuse our consent to this damaging Bill. 

I call on the Chair of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, David Rees. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The publication of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee's report on the EU withdrawal agreement Bill focuses on an analysis of the clauses in the Bill that we consider require the Assembly's consent. In the short time available, we have been unable to consider some of the broader concerns that the Welsh Government has put in its memorandum, particularly as some of these concerns relate to issues that were not included in the Bill on its introduction.

Broadly, many of the concerns we raised regarding the delegation of powers to UK and Welsh Ministers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 remain in relation to this particular Bill. However, in light of practical and political reasons we have decided against restating them in our report. We have instead focused on the provisions that require legislative consent, with a view to ensuring the Assembly's role in the scrutiny of EU law during the implementation period is not diminished, and that's highlighted the point: to ensure the Assembly's role in the scrutiny of EU law. So, it is about this institution that we've focused our report on, to ensure that's not adversely affected.  

We agree with the Welsh Government's assessment of the provisions in the Bill that require legislative consent, with one addition—clause 42—and hope that this report helps inform the Assembly's debate on the legislative consent motion this afternoon.

As a committee, we have been considering the question of the Assembly's role in considering EU legislation during the transition or implementation period, and we've been doing that since 2018. We have written to the UK Government and UK parliamentary colleagues on several occasions since then. We take the view that the Assembly's role in the scrutiny of EU legislation should not be diminished during the implementation period, though we acknowledge that the role might need to adjust to the terms of the withdrawal agreement.

Whilst we welcome the role provided to Westminster committees under clause 29, we believe it needs to be strengthened through the inclusion of a role for the relevant committees of the devolved legislatures when EU legislation is being reviewed, particularly when it relates to devolved areas of competence. On 8 January 2020, we wrote to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make the case for two amendments to clause 29 of the Bill to include a role for those devolved legislatures. We've published this letter as an annex to our report on the legislative consent. 

Llywydd, I'm sure Members will be aware that Joan McAlpine MSP, who is Convener of the Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee in the Scottish Parliament, has also written to the Secretary of State in support of our proposed amendments. The case we made for these amendments is simple. Currently, the Assembly has a role in considering the compliance of draft EU law with the principle of subsidiarity. This stems from article 6 of protocol 2 to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. This provision will no longer apply once the UK leaves the EU next week.

Clause 29 of the Bill provides for a parliamentary mechanism for reviewing EU legislation during the implementation period. In our report, we note that this does not operate on the question of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. Instead, it's based on a question of whether a piece of EU legislation raises a matter of vital national interest to the United Kingdom. The Assembly's experience on reviewing draft EU law in the past has shown that, on occasion, there have been specific issues of interest to Wales that have arisen that were not identified at a specific UK level. For example, the possible impact on Welsh fisheries or a ban on drift-net fishing and changes to organic regulations for Welsh agriculture.

These issues, by extension, can be considered issues of UK national interest. We contended that the Assembly, in conducting a review of EU legislation with a focus on the areas of policy devolved to it, would add value to the overall UK-wide scrutiny process. Therefore, to ensure the Assembly's role in reviewing EU law during transition is not diminished, we wish to see an analogous role for the Assembly to be acknowledged in UK law, just as such a role is currently acknowledged in the legal text of the treaties. So, we are actually seeing a diminution of our role here.

Despite making this case to the Secretary of State, it appears unlikely that any amendment to clause 29 will be made. If clause 29 remains unamended, we will seek to work with committees in both Houses of Parliament to ensure that we can play a role in the consideration of EU legislation during the transition period, despite the absence of recognition for that role in the Bill. 

Llywydd, the committee put this report together with a view on some of the issues, and we did not make any recommendations, because we felt it was important to inform Members of the points that needed to be considered in this debate. As such, I want to perhaps include a personal view rather than a committee view on some of these points.

Llywydd, I do agree with the First Minister, and I think it's important to highlight this, this debate must not—must not—be about whether Brexit occurs or not. That's irrelevant. It is about a Bill that sets a law that sets out how we can undertake our duties in this Chamber and whether that law is good enough.

The Welsh Government has highlighted the weaknesses in this Bill and how it has quite substantially changed since the general election. Our job is to look at the interests of the people who elect us and seek to make decisions and take actions that improve their quality of life. The omissions in this Bill—which could have been included, but because of the choice of the UK Government were not—actually result in reduction of scrutiny of Government actions. It's important, therefore, that we ensure that we get those changes made. If they're not made, then we should not support a Bill that does not help us deliver on our role. A desire to get Brexit done in all haste should not be seen as a reason for us to abdicate our responsibilities and duties here in the Senedd.

I will be voting against this LCM today because I do not believe that this Bill delivers for us to do our job: ensuring that the interests of the people of Wales are met. If the UK Government had actually done something and accepted some of the amendments—. We've seen amendments put forward to the UK Government. We've put some forward to the UK Government. They're ignoring everything. They don't want that. They've scrapped an awful lot of issues they had in place. It is not a Bill that delivers. Therefore, I will oppose that to ensure that we are seen to be standing up for the people who elect us. 

I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw. 

Diolch, Llywydd. We took evidence from the First Minister about the Welsh Government's legislative consent memorandum on the European Union withdrawal agreement Bill at our meeting on 13 January 2020 and we reported last Friday, 17 January. Our report, with the unanimous agreement of the members of the committee, drew five conclusions. The first of these reflected observations we've made on many occasions regarding the fundamental role the Sewel convention plays in the operation of the UK's constitution. We concluded that, if the National Assembly decides not to consent to the Bill on the matters for which consent is required and the UK Parliament nevertheless decides to proceed in the absence of consent, this will have significant adverse constitutional consequences for the future of the Sewel convention and devolution.

Since then, we have seen the letter from UK Government's Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, Stephen Barclay, indicating that, in the absence of consent from this Parliament, the UK Government will nevertheless proceed. This will be the first time that this has happened, and as stated by the Supreme Court in the article 50 Miller judgment, Sewel is a political convention and there are political consequences when conventions are broken. There clearly will be severe and adverse consequences to the already fragile constitutional structure of the UK.

We noted that the First Minister had sought amendments to the Bill in the House of Lords, which were intended to protect the interests of Wales. We concluded that these amendments did not undermine the primary objective of the Bill, which is to leave the European Union on 31 January 2020, but rather, sought to improve parts of the Bill in important areas. Now, as the First Minister has indicated, clause 21 of the Bill would permit the modification of the Government of Wales Act 2006 by UK Government regulations insofar as the UK Government considered such modification appropriate to implement the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland. While such regulations would require approval of both Houses of Parliament, there is no formal role for the National Assembly set out in the Bill, and this is a concern because we do not know the extent to which the 2006 Act might be modified. 

We noted that one of the Welsh Government's amendments sought to address its concern about the breadth of power contained in clause 21. We also drew attention to the concerns of the House of Lords' delegated powers and regulatory reform and constitution committees about the breadth of the powers in clause 21. 

Our third conclusion, agreed with both House of Lords committees, that if clause 21 and its current format can be justified, the powers within it should be limited. Our fourth conclusion repeated our longstanding view that any modification of Schedule 7A or 7B to the Government of Wales Act, in relation to the legislative competence of the National Assembly, should be achieved via the process set out in section 109 of the Act. 

Our final conclusion expressed concern at the inclusion of clause 38 in the Bill—the parliamentary sovereignty clause. We consider it to be an unnecessary provision in a Bill that is primarily concerned with leaving the EU, rather than the broader constitutional framework of the UK. There are important debates to be had about the nature of sovereignty within the UK, but entrenching this provision in statute, and, in particular, in a Bill that is not concerned with the UK's make-up, or the devolution settlements, could well bring about unintended constitutional consequences. 

Llywydd, in the light of the recent developments in the letter from the UK Government, in my capacity as Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, I'd make these additional comments. The parliamentary process of this Bill is not yet concluded. It is right and proper that the concerns of this Parliament are reflected in this process, and, of course, the Bill has now been amended by the House of Lords, and its final format is not yet determined. The obligation is on the UK Government to seek and to establish consensus. Proceeding without consent would, in my view, spell the end of Sewell. The longer term constitutional consequences of this are not yet certain. I would also wish to make a personal point, and that is this: failure to achieve consensus and overriding Sewell, in the absence of any other constitutional reform, brings the process of disintegration and break-up of the UK one step nearer. 

Will you give way?

Yes I will. 

Of course, the principle of Sewel is based on the fact that consent is not withheld unreasonably, and that's quite a test as well. 

Yes, but the issue in this case is that the primary objective of the Bill is not something that is being objected to; it is the quality and stature and the composition of that Bill that is the issue that is of concern to us. And that is why Sewel is so important, because, by not seeking to achieve consensus, by not acting to obtain that, and to nevertheless override Sewel, is, in fact, a breach of the fundamental principles of the convention. 

So, the UK Government is, in my view, gambling with the future integrity of the UK. The case for a constitutional convention becomes greater day by day with every act of this Government. Diolch, Llywydd. 

Paul Davies. 

Diolch, Llywydd. 

I'm pleased to take part in this important debate and lay out the position of the Welsh Conservatives. Today's legislative consent motion provides this Parliament with a clear opportunity to deliver the result that the people of Wales voted for in the 2016 EU referendum. Nearly four years after that referendum, we, on this side of the Chamber, believe it's time to finally get on with the job of leaving the European Union. It's time to deliver on the clear will of the people of Wales and the UK, and it's time to move our country on and explore ways in which we can ensure Wales's success on the international stage, post Brexit. 

Now, the endless uncertainty that has been caused by some politicians has done nothing to render confidence in our country. And so, following the clear mandate given to the UK Government at the recent general election, it's now time to get on with the job. Finally getting on with the job will end the uncertainty, and help restore confidence to the UK economy.

Members will be aware of the recent comments from Airbus, which reflect a new confidence. This is what the chief executive said recently, and I quote,

'We see great potential to improve and expand our operations in the UK this year.'

And Airbus are absolutely right to say that the Prime Minister's Brexit deal has made things more certain. And so, I hope Members will reflect on those comments, as well as the views of the people and communities that they represent, when they vote later on today.

Now, I know that the First Minister has claimed that leaving the European Union will make devolution across the UK vulnerable, and yet, the UK Government has made it absolutely clear that any decision currently taken by the devolved administrations will remain their responsibility after the UK leaves the EU. Indeed, the UK Government has also proposed that the vast majority of powers that are returned from Brussels should start in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. And I'm pleased to see the UK Government operating from that perspective, and respecting the devolution settlement.

Indeed, I think it would be remiss of us all not to see that this agreement also offers some constitutional opportunities for the whole of the UK. For example, the Bill restores UK sovereignty by making British courts, rather than the European Court of Justice, the highest courts in the land, bringing vitally important judicial rulings closer to our people. However, I accept that our withdrawal from the EU will change the relationship between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. As Britain moves further along this process, the inter-governmental relations between each part of the UK will be profoundly critical in protecting constitution stability to the union. And it's important that Wales plays a full part in that.

Now, I also happen to believe that, post-Brexit, the Welsh Government has an opportunity to set an ambitious agenda for Wales by calling for further devolution of Wales's own natural resources, for example, so that we can harness its power and market it on the global stage. As my colleagues and I see it, far from reneging on environmental commitments, leaving the European Union could enable us to transform our environmental protections, with the introduction of a new Bill to set legally binding targets. There are opportunities.

Now, whether people like it or not, leaving the European Union will free Wales of EU laws, including leaving the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, where we have until now been bound by those EU rules. The Welsh Government will be free to develop sustainable policies to protect the livelihoods of Welsh farmers, and, indeed, Welsh fishermen. I believe now is the time for innovative thinking and ideas to transform those industries here in Wales. We should be much more optimistic, and not adopt the Welsh Government's sometimes dour approach of doom and gloom.

Llywydd, the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union in 2016, and, in last month's general election, they did speak loud and clear once again. The people of Wales voted to leave the European Union, and they want to unlock the opportunities that exist for us outside the European Union. We have clear instructions from the people and communities that we represent, and the overriding message from our country is that it wants to leave the European Union. Today, Llywydd, it's our duty to deliver that, and I urge Members to support this legislative consent motion, and start working together to make Wales a truly competitive global nation.

Sometimes in politics, it benefits us to take a long-lens view of how we ended up where we are. This will be my last contribution in this Chamber as my party's spokesperson on Brexit, as I'm taking on a new role that coincides quite fittingly with our timing of leaving the EU. It has been a curious honour—in equal measures, challenging and frustrating—to speak on this issue for my party during my first year as an elected politician. It is a role that I inherited from Steffan Lewis, who did such significant work, alongside the Welsh Government, in producing 'Securing Wales' Future'. That document set out a clear roadmap for leaving the EU that avoided erecting unnecessary barriers. And I'd like to pay tribute to Steffan once again for all his efforts in this regard. History will look kindly on his principled attempt to broker a compromise deal that reflected the close result of the referendum. But Westminster wasn't interested in compromise. Indeed, that was one of a catalogue of missed chances not taken by successive Westminster Governments to deliver Brexit in a way that worked—all the 'might have beens' that never were.

Since Westminster refused to compromise, Plaid Cymru concluded that we had no choice but to try to persuade the UK Government to gain a mandate for their specific plans, namely a second referendum. We worked with other parties to further the same, but well-laid plans were undermined by the hubris of Labour and the Lib Dems in Westminster, who convinced themselves that the way to beat Boris Johnson was to give him exactly what he wanted—a general election; an election they thought they could win when all the evidence suggested that Corbyn, Swinson and the circumstances gave them no chance. Well, we are where we are. They were proven wrong. Boris Johnson secured the majority he wanted and it is now inevitable that we will leave the EU in 10 days' time, and it will be a Tory hard Brexit that is delivered. So, our job now must be to scrutinise the plans and to defend the interests of the people we represent. 

There are five main reasons why Plaid Cymru has concluded we have no choice but to vote against the LCM today: (1) the Bill allows the UK Government to amend the Government of Wales Act without the consent of this Senedd—that is unacceptable; (2) it provides no role for the Senedd to scrutinise measures like trade that will have a huge impact on the livelihoods of the people of Wales; (3) the lack of economic impact assessments leaves crucial Welsh sectors and ports in the dark and vulnerable; (4) the Bill takes away rights from child refugees, workers and EU citizens and, potentially, the rights of Welsh students to study abroad; (5) the ruling out of an extension to the transition period is irresponsible and makes a bare-bones deal or a 'no deal' the most likely outcome. 

Llywydd, Plaid Cymru accepts that Brexit is happening and we will do everything we can to try to get the best deal possible for Wales. This debate is not about whether Brexit is going to happen—it will—it is rather about what kind of country we will become in the coming years, because this is unchartered territory. There's never before been an example of a nation state seeking trade deals whereby it looks to erect barriers and not take them down. It's a topsy-turvy world.

When he was giving evidence to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee a few weeks ago, the First Minister quoted a commentator who'd said that a Pandora's box was being opened by Brexit. Llywydd, Pandora's box is usually shorthand for wreaking untold chaos; it is the 'There be monsters' at the map's edge or, as David Cameron conceded, the 2016 referendum was likely to unleash demons, the likes of which we knew not.

But, it would also do us well to remember that after everything had come out of Pandora's box, one thing remained—hope. Hope can take many forms. It could be hope for trade deals; hope for security; hope for a better withdrawal agreement Bill that actually takes the views of this Senedd into account; hope for future years that again takes many forms. For those of us on these benches, that hope ultimately catapults us towards a Wales that looks to work internationally, that's outward-looking, that's a proud independent nation on the world stage. So, let's not only focus on the 'might have beens'; let's focus on the 'yet to comes' and underlying all of these things that greatest of catapults—hope. 

I thank the First Minister for his motion proposing that we give consent to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, as we should, following the decision of the people of Wales in a referendum. It's astonishing that the First Minister is voting against his own motion, in effect maintaining Welsh Government's opposition to Brexit. That argument should be over; it should've been over on 24 June 2016. The First Minister's predecessor told us then that it was over; that you respected the referendum; that Brexit was going ahead and it was a question of 'how', not 'if'. So, when you say the same today, as you said then, why should we believe you? No matter how many times the Welsh people tell you they want Brexit, you don't want to hear it: 'We know better. You got it wrong, so we've made you vote three times, but we're still going to vote against this today.'

You say that this Bill, that Brexit, how we leave, hasn't be subjected to sufficient scrutiny. The failure to attend Parliament, the opportunity to give appropriate scrutiny. What on earth do you think has been happening for the past three and a half years?

After the referendum, you chose to team up with Plaid Cymru to develop a document, 'Securing Wales' Future', effectively a Brexit in name only. Yet when Theresa May offered you such a remainer's Brexit, with a customs union, with dynamic alignment, you voted against it. Again and again, you teamed up with Plaid Cymru, in other circumstances with the SNP, to try and block Brexit happening. Scotland voted to leave, the SNP want to break up the United Kingdom, as do Plaid Cymru. You, as a Labour Party, as a Welsh Labour Government, are meant to respect the people you claim to represent, the people of Wales who voted to leave in a referendum and who want to stay within a United Kingdom.

So, First Minister, I thanked you and Labour and the Welsh Government last week for what you had done to inadvertently bring about Brexit, yet this week you refuse to recognise that there are consequences to the gamble that you took. First, you decided to turn down Theresa May's deal, despite it being pretty much what you had in your own 'Securing Wales' Future', despite the Counsel General saying he was quite happy with the withdrawal agreement, he'd just like, possibly, some changes to the non-binding political declaration. So, having done that, you now complain that bits of the withdrawal agreement that May was going to have are no longer there. Well, of course they're not. You gambled. We dethroned Theresa May in the European election. She tried to do that. She is no longer Prime Minister because of that. [Interruption.] I'd be delighted to take your intervention.

So, why do you say—? Thank you for taking the intervention. When you say those items with regard to employment protection are not there any longer, 'of course they're not', why do you say, 'of course they're not'? Why should they be taken out? What is the justification for taking them out when they were perfectly acceptable before? This isn't a game of poker; this is a game of good legislation. So, why do you say it was proper to take out the employment rights protection?

Well, because we had these laws before we joined the European Union and the European Union was there. We had far greater protections for workers' rights in this country than most of those European countries had, which had been gained, largely, by the trade unions. Yet you now ignore that and make out that it's somehow a gift from the European Union rather than from the unions that created your own party. [Interruption.] What happened? You had a balance in Parliament. Theresa May lost the majority. She teamed up with the DUP. You had that situation, you sought to exploit it. But, ultimately, on two occasions, you gambled and you lost. Firstly, you would not agree Theresa May's Brexit in name only, despite it being what you'd argued for when you said you respected the result of the referendum, and then, under Boris Johnson, you voted against the programme motion. There was a majority, just, at Second Reading, but you then decided to vote against that programme motion for a Bill that included many of the things you say you want—notwithstanding we had them before we joined the EU, and we'll have them afterwards, because Boris Johnson and the Conservatives have won an election. They have got a majority of 80. You voted to have that election, the Liberal Democrats voted to have that election, the SNP were arguing to have that election before abstaining, and this is the consequence of that. And you say you don't want to block Brexit, but you've said that before. Why should we believe it now?

And what you do with this tantrum that Welsh Government throws yet again is that you are putting the Sewel convention at risk. You are forcing the UK Government into breaching that convention, notwithstanding that the people of Wales voted for Brexit in a referendum, but you don't like it. We are getting Brexit, it's going to happen, it's going to happen on the terms set by the Conservative Government in Westminster with a majority 80 because of the choices you made. We will leave at the end of this month, and I welcome this morning's letter to my colleague Mandy Jones confirming the flags outside this place will be coming down.

All of them? Every one of them?

Just the EU.

It's a crashing irony, Presiding Officer, to be lectured on democracy by Mark Reckless, but let me say this: the Conservative argument that has been given to them by their bosses in London is that we have no right to oppose this Bill, that we have to accept whatever Bill is written in Downing Street and driven through the House of Commons, that this Parliament has no right to a view, that this Parliament has no right to express its opinion on whatever clauses are drafted by Boris Johnson, that we have no rights—[Interruption.]—that we have no rights. So much for taking back control. We no longer have these rights.

We were told that we had no right, of course, to oppose the previous Bills. This is the third iteration of this particular Bill, and we were told, clearly by the same people, that we had no right to oppose or comment upon either the first or the second iteration of this legislation. We were told the same thing. In this new British democracy, we do not have a right to oppose what the Executive demand of us, we have only the right to agree. That's not much of a democracy, is it?

We were told that this would enhance the role of the British Parliament and of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and the Northern Irish Assembly. And then we are told that the clauses that submit the Executive to the control of Parliament are to be deleted from this Bill. So, there won't be any examination of a negotiating mandate, there won't be any reporting either to this Parliament or to the UK Parliament, there won't be any democratic scrutiny and there won't be any democratic accountability. And then we're told that we've just got to vote for it—that we've just got to vote for it—that whatever else is taken and removed from this Bill, we've got to sit there and take our medicine. That doesn't sound like democracy to me.

And then we're told that because Bill Cash has had this fantasy of parliamentary sovereignty we have to accept another clause imposing the sovereignty of the British Parliament upon the interests of the people of Wales, the people, Mark, who elected us—elected us. I'll show you a dictionary. The people to whom we will be accountable next year. When I face the electorate in Blaenau Gwent, let me tell you this: I will not be running—[Interruption.] You don't know the people of Blaenau Gwent; they don't know you either. They will not be asking me what didn't I do; they'll be asking me what did I do. What did I do to defend our democracy? The First Minister will remember the rally for the national health service in Tredegar last summer where we spoke up for Welsh democracy, and we will not acquiesce today in the hollowing out of that democracy.

So, this Parliament will stand for scrutiny. We will stand up for accountability and we will stand up for our rights. We will stand up for our democratically given right to disagree, to oppose and to stand up for that which we were elected to do.

Let me say this: I listened to Conservative colleagues telling us that we cannot oppose. They've done nothing but oppose for 20 years, and they'll be opposing later this afternoon, and I support them in their right to oppose the legislation of this Government. It is right and proper that the Conservatives be given the opportunity to oppose, and to articulate and to argue their case. It is also right and proper that this place be given the same opportunity.

Let me close by saying this: this is a very, very serious piece of legislation, not simply because of what it does in terms of Brexit, but what it does in terms of our own constitution. This is the dismantling of the Sewel convention. The points made by the Member for Pontypridd were absolutely clear. The UK Government has got this wrong. This is not an opportunity to legislate without the consent of this place, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Northern Irish Assembly, because it is extraordinary. It is because these are extraordinary times that that consent must be demanded and the not giving of that consent must be recognised. I cannot think of a time when the UK Parliament can have simply been so careless with the powers of the Parliaments of the United Kingdom, and then tell us that we have no choice but to acquiesce. This is a Bill that will not simply deliver Brexit, but could start to deliver the dismantling and the unraveling of the United Kingdom.

Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd.

Who's that?

Who are you, by the way, sir? [Interruption.] Well, yes, professor—

Allow the Member to start his speech, please.

Such a well-earned professorship.

Thank you again, Llywydd. Well, it's been an interesting debate today, but I really do think that the First Minister, in opposing this LCM, must be a sucker for punishment. Since seeing his side lose the Brexit debate in 2016, when they lost the referendum not only in the UK but also here in Wales, he has been at the heart of trying to stop Brexit from happening for the past three and a half years. The result of that was that Labour just got hammered at the general election. Perhaps there is something that the First Minister and his Welsh Labour Party need to realise: the longer and louder they continue to oppose Brexit, the more they will suffer at the polls. Don't think that the 2019 general election is the low point. It may not be. There may yet be worse to come for them. Just a thought—and a good job one of your friends is buggering off to Aberystwyth to miss it.

I see that the First Minister is today following the example of the Scottish Parliament. Alas for the First Minister, at least Miss Sturgeon can claim that her region of the UK voted to remain. The First Minister can't even claim that, because Wales, of course, voted to leave. In any event, the devolved bodies of the UK were not set up for this kind of purpose. They were set up to allow for scrutiny in certain devolved policy areas such as health, housing and education. They were not supposed to interfere with the workings of the UK Government as regards clearly non-devolved areas such as foreign policy and international trade deals. The First Minister and his colleagues, like Mick Antoniw and Alun Davies, keep pushing the envelope on this, but they should be aware that, outside the Cardiff Bay bubble, most ordinary people in Wales will not be impressed by any of their words. Many people may come to the logical conclusion that, if the First Minister and the Assembly wilfully obstruct the wishes of the people of Wales for this long and this loud, then the First Minister must himself be abolished and the Assembly must also be abolished. Those, of course, are conclusions that I myself reached some time ago. Diolch yn fawr. [Interruption.]

What happened there? [Laughter.] Oh, that was the end. Okay, fine. David Melding.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. We heard the First Minister graciously concede that Brexit is going to happen, and this at least is an advance, because I'm not quite sure about last year, when you did reject Mrs May's deal despite my passionate appeals that that was as positive a Brexit as we were likely to get. Of course, I was a keen remainer and I'm not happy that we're in this situation, but we are, as the result of a massive democratic vote that I think, by any interpretation, was further strengthened in the general election. I think that's the only reasonable explanation to make of recent political developments.

However, the First Minister then insisted that the only way he would support any future relationship with the EU was that if that met the interests of Wales as he sees them. There then followed in the bulk of his speech—he spent two thirds of his time on this—a long list of reasons why Brexit is bad and ought to make us just implement it in as insipid a way as possible, so in effect you remain in the political and economic orbit of the EU. And that's just not reality. It's something I accepted immediately after the referendum. Of course, I was hoping we would remain fully in the economic and political orbit with all the rights of a member, but there are consequences if we move out, and they are that we will be pursuing in some areas quite distinctively different paths, and to try and defang Brexit of all meaning I think is a highly questionable process on democratic grounds. But at least, in his approach, we know that his real objection is political and not much to do with constitutional propriety. What he is aiming to do this afternoon is not dishonourable at all. He wants to make Brexit a matter that is purely owned by the Conservative Party, and this is part of that great play he's making to the public—'Nothing to do with us. We never supported it or facilitated it in any way.' And, on rational grounds, I do see there's a certain logic if you believe there's a path back for Labour on these sorts of grounds, especially in some of their former heartland areas. I'll leave it to you to determine your tactics on these matters.

But what we've not had is an explanation on the grounds of high constitutional principle why this LCM should be rejected. And let's remember, it's about enacting, taking forward, a referendum decision on a major constitutional matter. These are not trivial—I do agree with some of the Labour Members that have spoken on that score—but they are indeed very, very solemn moments.

The First Minister did spend some time as an afterthought—. I'll give way.

Thank you. I am very grateful to the Member for allowing me to intervene. What advice would he give to those of us who are exceptionally concerned about clause 38(1), and particularly the effect that that will have if that were to become law?

I will give him full and considered advice on that part when I've read it and I will write to him. Now, that's the sort of answer that I used to get from him very frequently, so I hope he will be satisfied. [Laughter.]

The First Minister then went on, as something of an afterthought, in my view, to the constitutional grounds, some of which do require a response—it's not an unreasonable probe on these—that Sewel is not embedded; that UK Ministers under this Bill have a power to align Assembly law to reflect the eventual agreement; matters relating to the Northern Ireland border as it affects Ireland and, in effect, the British border—of course, that implementing the preference the EU had from the very beginning after the Brexit vote—and then parliamentary sovereignty. Now, some people may think it jejune to repeat the fact that Parliament in Westminster is ultimately sovereign, but it is, and I do remind Labour Members that it is embedded in your devolution Acts of 1997 or 1998. So, these things are there. And if these are not abnormal circumstances in which it is permissible, constitutionally, for a UK Government to override decisions here and be accountable for that, then I don't know what are. So, I do not accept, in any way, that we are not respecting rights. We're exercising our rights, and, should we not agree the LCM, we will have had the right to do that. What we don't have the right to do is to—I'm afraid I did see Jenny first—blow up the tracks of Brexit and stop it happening. The UK Parliament has a duty to ensure that does not occur. I will give way, if I have your indulgence.

David Melding, thank you for giving way, and I just wondered if you, like me, like many of us, deplore the removal of the Dubs amendment, giving child refugees the right to be reunited with their families.

There are lots of things that I would have much preferred in Mrs May's approach. Everybody knows in this Chamber how pro-Europe I am, and I am very discomforted. I think the long-term constitutional challenges we face to keep the union together are much tougher than they would have been had we remained in the union, and, having been a former deputy director of the Welsh Centre for International Affairs and the Unicef officer in Wales, these are matters that do disturb me. However, I think it would be much better if the Welsh Government had accepted this LCM and supported it, and then said to the UK Government, as it did last year, when it repealed the continuity Bill or the Act—well, it may have become an Act, but, anyway, it in the end repealed it—and used its leverage to achieve long-term objectives that would strengthen the British union post Brexit. Because you do have leverage compared to the Scottish Government, which obviously is on a very different course, with an ultimate objective to secede from the United Kingdom. And, on that score, you'd get a lot of support, as you have had, from these benches on such matters as stronger inter-governmental relations, much more formalised, on your rights on future trade agreements—it's not in this withdrawal agreement we should be looking for that, but in future it is a really important issue—and over common frameworks and their governance. That's where you should have been going. That's where you should have been using your political leverage. Instead, you are playing to what you see is the remain gallery that still is out there, and I think that that's a misjudgment.

I do thank you, Presiding Officer, for your indulgence. 

There can be no better backdrop to our debate today and the headlong rush to exit the EU at the end of the month than the ludicrous pantomime surrounding the ringing of Big Ben on 31 January. Firstly, it is a complete waste of time and energy, secondly, the Prime Minister, egged on by his Eurosceptic right-wingers, now seems to think it is a good idea, and, thirdly, he wants the public to pay for it. It couldn't symbolise Brexit any more closely than if the whole thing was scripted by Quentin Tarantino. At least, though, Tarantino would give us a decent soundtrack for the carnage that is to follow, rather than the hollow ring of a single bell. 

Now, there is plenty to say about my own party's failure in the remain campaign of 2016 and the subsequent loss of the Brexit general election of 2019. Having a seven out of 10 approach in the former makes it very doubtful I'd give our UK party leader anything approaching 10 out of 10 for the latter. And so those of us in this Chamber who are proudly European need to ask ourselves a number of questions about how we got to this point, but that is not a matter for today. Whilst I accept, with the heaviest of hearts, that the general election result in December means that our exit from the EU is now assured, that is not the same as signing up to this ludicrous idea that we can now just get Brexit done. 

There can be no free pass for the Prime Minister as he rushes the country towards the exit door, and we have an important role in this place to make sure that he does not weaken the fabric of our economy or of our society. And the justification for our renewed vigilance could not be clearer when we look at what we are being asked to agree to today: a rollback of commitments in relation to Wales's voice even from the substandard legislation proposed in October. As the memorandum from the Welsh Government and accompanying committee reports make clear, the Bill as drafted asserts Westminster authority in a way that has never happened before and runs counter to all the dialogue that has taken place between the Governments over the last few years. But then that shouldn't surprise us at all. 

The Conservative Party has clearly decided that what they say in public simply does not matter any more. When they were courting the support of businesses in the referendum and during the Brexit negotiations, they said they would take seriously the calls for regulatory alignment, but years of warm words and assurances were washed away in a single interview by the Chancellor this weekend. The man who, a month before the referendum, described the single market as a great invention now dismissed business concerns saying, 'We're talking about companies that have known since 2016 that we are leaving the EU.' He might as well have said, 'Well, of course we weren't telling the truth. What did they expect?'

Perhaps he was rattled by the new analysis that shows that the cost of Brexit has already been predicted to hit £200 billion this year, totalling more than the UK has paid into the EU over 47 years. Whatever the reason for the Chancellor's alarming u-turn, it is following a familiar party pattern. In Parliament last week, Conservative MPs also voted down amendments that in no way impacted on the decision to leave the EU. Indeed, they would have simply honoured a number of commitments they had previously made to this country—on EU citizens' rights, on workers' rights, child refugees, ministerial powers, Northern Ireland, the single market and a say for Parliament and the devolved administrations on the future relationship with the EU. Even on the Erasmus programme, the Government refused to offer that incredible opportunity to future generations. I know first-hand what that kind of opportunity can mean to young people who can't afford family holidays abroad and expensive school trips. It is beyond any sort of defence to limit the horizons of young people in this country.

This is the Government that wants us in this Assembly to rely on their goodwill and honourable intentions about the devolved institutions' role in future law making. I don't think so. This is the Government that wants us to hand over the responsibility for regional funding policy to the Wales Office and Whitehall. I don't think so. 

They may have won the 2016 referendum, they may have won the 2019 general election, but that doesn't mean that they get to undo decades of convention, law and agreement. It is tantamount to Wales demanding to play all this year's six nations fixtures at home as the reigning champions. That may seem very attractive to the victor, but in reality it is absurd and unfair. The UK Government has won a legitimate right to take Brexit forward, but not in this slapdash way. The country deserves better than an Eton-mess Brexit. So, I will add my voice to that of the Welsh Government and other Members here today by saying 'no'.

The UK Government has not won the right to ride roughshod over our economy, our democracy or our society. To take this country forward together, the UK Government must mend its ways, mend some fences and amend this legislation.

Ten days and seven hours to go until next Friday. Yes.

Right. There's no dressing up the fact that Labour got a drubbing in the general election and Plaid Cymru once again stood still. I did think that some sort of lesson may have been learned from these results, but clearly not. I watched with some surprise when the newly elected Welsh Labour and Plaid MPs started as they totally meant to go on in the new Parliament, flogging the now-dead horse of blocking Brexit, when the reality is they are now irrelevant, due to the thumping majority of a Conservative Government. Thank the Lord for that. 

While they continue to navel gaze, they don't seem to have got the memo that we are leaving. The message from the electorate in December was very clear: it was, 'Get Brexit done.' As usual—. What will Labour and Plaid do here? As usual, they will use their combined numbers to vote down this LCM. You still are not listening to your people in Wales. [Interruption.] I don't have to listen to you lot; you're opposition.

The country voted yet again for Brexit in December, having done so in May 2019, May 2017 and June 2016. Enough now. Admit it: your Government is still peddling project fear and that was roundly rejected again in December just gone. It will be no surprise that it's my view that the Assembly should give its consent today and allow this country to finally move forward into our future. Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru really need to stop holding Wales back, because that is what you are doing and you will no doubt continue to do so.

I've seen Stephen Barclay's letter, dated yesterday, and we all know that whatever happens the withdrawal Bill will go through and we will leave the EU next Friday, on the twenty first. So, what this Assembly decides today is purely academic. Finally, I'd remind every single one of you in this Chamber that the withdrawal agreement that is the subject of this LCM today has been agreed also by the EU negotiating team. So, the EU is also on board. So, can we all now please get behind the UK Government in the spirit of forging the new relationship with our European friends? That has to be in everybody's interests. Thank you.

Michelle Brown. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.]

They're excited to hear you, Michelle.

Oh, I know. It's touching isn't it, Presiding Officer? Yes.

You know, the awkward thing about Labour and Plaid's refusal to support this LCM is that I'm not sure if I'm surprised or not. It's as if the recent general election didn't happen. Everyone was aware that the election was primarily about Brexit and the public reasserted its voice. Fed up that their opinions were being ignored, people supported Boris Johnson's position that, even without a deal, the UK should leave the EU at the end of this month.

Such is the desire in Wales to leave the EU that the Tories nearly doubled their number of seats here, even winning Wrexham, which has been Labour since 1930, and Labour now clings on to the Alyn and Deeside Westminster seat by the tip of their fingers. The First Minister was campaigning for a second referendum and, as it turned out, that's exactly how the people treated the general election. So, Labour effectively had their second referendum and lost massively.

And you can't say that parties supporting remain won the day because, although the First Minister was advocating a second referendum and a campaign to stay, the potential Labour Prime Minister had such a confused message no-one knew what Labour stood for. For a second time, the public saw through the scaremongering. Having become angry at the way the Welsh Government has tried to weasel its way out of delivering the referendum result, the public has even more loudly told politicians that we must leave the EU with or without a deal. 

Even Plaid's best friend Nicola Sturgeon has said that she believes that, apart from Scotland, which actually voted to remain in 2016, Boris Johnson has a mandate to leave the EU. Yet, most parties in this place are seeking to remain in the EU or to leave in name only. Let's be accurate about this, Labour and Plaid's joint plan for Brexit amounts, to all intents and purposes, to remaining in the EU. And as well, we have to face another thing, nothing short of proper membership will be good enough for Plaid or Welsh Labour in this place.

So, on the one hand I'm surprised that Labour and Plaid are still trying to disrupt the Brexit process, but on the other I'm not at all—[Interruption.] No. I'm not at all surprised, because they have been ignoring the views—[Interruption.] You've all had your opportunity to give your two penn'orth. You've had plenty of opportunity to say your piece—plenty of opportunity to say your piece. Let me say mine. I'm not at all surprised, because they've all been ignoring the views of the voters for a few years now, even in the face of electoral decline or stagnation. 

Unlike Labour, Boris Johnson made his position crystal clear, and the general election unambiguously showed us that we should leave the EU with or without a deal. At least, that's what it shows those of us who don't think the electorate are stupid. So, why are the Welsh Government and many AMs still trying to thwart Brexit? Protest all you like, people out there know what this Welsh Government's agenda is in opposing this LCM. How many times do the people have to tell you what to do before you'll listen to them? How many seats do you have to lose before you'll listen to the democratic voice of the people? We hear some moaning that the withdrawal agreement Bill is undemocratic because it doesn't allow much input from the Welsh Government, yet this Welsh Government thinks nothing of trying to ignore the democratic will of the Welsh electorate.  

Boris Johnson is right to deny the Welsh Labour Government any substantial involvement in the Brexit process, because they will do everything possible to make it fail. The Welsh electorate knew that Labour should be kept away from the Brexit negotiations, because they would end up ceding too much control to Brussels and keep us heavily aligned to the EU. The Welsh electorate knew that Labour being anywhere near the Brexit process would mean, at most, we would leave in name only, and they clearly don't want that. So, I'm sure that Boris Johnson will be ignoring any rejection of this LCM by this Assembly, and so he should. He doesn't need a mandate from the Welsh Assembly. He has a mandate from the British people. He seems prepared to respect the will of Welsh voters, even if Labour, Plaid and Lib Dems aren't. Thank you.   

I don't intend to spend much time talking about the issues that other Members have talked about; I've waxed lyrical or gratingly on them, according to your point of view, over the past year and a half. But two points I did want to make, and that is that the people of Wales did not vote for the Conservatives and they did not vote for a Conservative Government. Let's be clear about that. I grant the Conservatives the fact that it was a very good result historically from their perspective, but let's not pretend that the Conservatives represent Wales.

Secondly, it's been suggested by my colleague Alun Davies that there are some in this Chamber—[Interruption.] Well, the mathematics are all for there to see. There are some in this Chamber who take the view that we have no right to express a view on this LCM. Indeed, the Member opposite, whose name I forget, said that in fact not only did we not have a right to oppose this LCM but that we should be abolished for opposing this LCM. Well, this is my country, this is my Parliament, I see my Government in front of me, and I want my country to continue to exist, thanks very much. 

I'm going to focus purely on clause 38. I was surprised that David Melding couldn't deal with it and, by his standards, I'm sure he will respond in due course. But it simply says this, clause 38(1): 

'It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign.'

Some might say, 'What's the problem with that?' Well, what's the point of it? What's the point of something that—if the Parliament of the UK is already sovereign, why put it in law? Because it's not in law anywhere else. It's just graffiti. Or is it the case that the UK Government have realised that the Parliament of the UK is not in fact sovereign? There is nothing in law that says the Parliament of the UK is sovereign at all. Nothing. It's a convention. And the courts have respected that convention. But the courts have said in opinions that where, in the future, they felt that an Act of Parliament was oppressive, where it was Draconian, where it was clearly ridiculous, then they would reserve the right to themselves to intervene if they saw fit, but they saw that only in extremis. What this clause does is remove the right of the courts to look at any primary legislation drafted by the UK Government. That is a dangerous course of action.

It was Lord Hailsham, a Conservative peer, who said in the late 1970s that the British constitution was effectively an elective dictatorship, and so it is. And by including this clause, it makes it even worse. It says, 'The UK Parliament can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, with no interference at all during its time in office.' That cannot be democratic and it cannot be right as far as the constitution is concerned.

And there is nothing in law that says the UK Parliament is sovereign. Nothing. So, this is why I suspect this has appeared, to make up for the fact that a convention, whilst it's been respected over the years, is not actually law. But when you make it law, you make it far more difficult, for example, for the courts to take a view on laws. 

Would you give way?

Of course I will.

I'm grateful to the First Minister emeritus. We're in a common law system. It was in the 1690s that parliamentary sovereignty was first expressed by the courts, and the reason it can't be encoded is Parliament itself is the extreme and ultimate expression of the law. That's the system we have, unless we move to a different system.

What David Melding refers to is correct: in 1689, the Earl of Shaftesbury said that the English Parliament was sovereign; but the English Parliament doesn't exist anymore. The English Parliament disappeared in 1707, as did the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament of the United Kingdom: there is no law at all that says that that is sovereign. The reason why that's important is because in Scotland there's no concept at all of parliamentary sovereignty. The declaration of Arbroath in 1380, which we'll all be familiar with, of course, says that sovereignty in Scotland rests with the people. That's still the case today in Scots constitutional law; it's still the case, and the Scottish courts have expressed an opinion in that regard, particularly in cases in the 1950s to the 1970s.

What does that mean in practice? It means that, if this clause becomes law, Scotland will have imposed on it a form of sovereignty that, firstly, doesn't exist in Scotland and, secondly, cuts across the Treaty of Union in 1707. The Scottish courts have said that is something that they're willing to look at in terms of its justiciability.

It doesn't affect us in Wales, I grant you, because our courts system was abolished gradually between 1536 and 1830, but this actually is a fundamental attack on the 1707 Treaty of Union in Scotland. I'll leave it to the Scots to fight their own battle, but it's something that just hasn't been noticed. Parliamentary sovereignty has never been part of the law of the United Kingdom with regard to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, apart from now. And I've already explained the consequences of that.

Finally, the other point I want to make is this: I could not support this LCM—there are many other reasons that other Members have mentioned, and it's nothing to do with Brexit—because I do not support the idea of parliamentary sovereignty. It's an outdated concept and it's about time the UK had a more modern constitution. We can look at shared sovereignty. Why entrench a system that is ragged and is not fit for the purpose? That is a typical Westminster-bubble amendment that's been put into this legislation, ignoring the reality of the existence of other Parliaments within the UK. Sovereignty rests with the people of Wales. They expressed that sovereignty through a referendum in 1997 and in 2011, and they expressed that view in 2016 when they said, 'We want to leave the EU.' I don't dispute that. But that sovereignty rests with the people of Wales as expressed through those referendums.

And what will we have if this clause passes? A system with no checks and balances. Five years where a Government can do absolutely anything it wants without any kind of restriction. This is a fundamental change to the way the UK has been governed. It's undemocratic. It's not in any party's manifesto. It takes us backwards. It entrenches in law something that's never been there before. It is a fundamental misunderstanding and possibly an attack on the nature of devolution within the UK. And for that reason, along with many others, I could not support this LCM.

In her impassioned speech earlier on, Lynne Neagle talked about this Bill riding roughshod over democracy. But of course, it's not riding roughshod over democracy, it's a fulfilment of democracy. In the course of the professorial disquisition to which we've just listened, Carwyn Jones referred to the declaration of Arbroath as saying in Scottish law that sovereignty lies in the hands of the people. Well, the people decided in June 2016—17.4 million, the largest democratic vote in the whole of British history—to leave the EU. For the last three and a half years, the Labour Party, Plaid Cymru and the SNP have been trying every possible stratagem to avoid the consequences of that vote. I give way.

You can't have popular sovereignty and parliamentary sovereignty. You're now arguing that parliamentary sovereignty doesn't actually exist.

No. I don't think I'm going to spend much time arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. These kinds of academic pursuits lie ahead for the Member for Bridgend; a seat that was lost, of course, in the Westminster election just a few weeks ago. These facts don't seem to have impinged upon the consciousness of Labour Members, and possibly Plaid Cymru Members, at all.

There was, I think, quite a palpable mood in the country to get on with the job of delivering on Brexit. That wasn't the only reason why Labour lost so many seats in that election, but it was undoubtedly a very significant part of it. The problem has been, for this institution, overwhelmingly populated by those who supported the 'remain' cause in the referendum, you have never been reconciled to the result of the referendum itself. And you've done everything you possibly can to throw spanners in the works and to try to delay, and possibly frustrate, and, through a campaign for a so-called people's vote, to reverse the result of the referendum in June 2016. Well, you've lost, and now it's time for you to recognise that you've lost. And if there are any constitutional outrages included in this Bill, the reason that that has come about is because of your intransigent opposition to what the people voted for three and a half years ago.

I don't have those worries that have been expressed by other Members in this debate, but I do think this is a highly exceptional case, as David Melding explained in the course of his speech. We're not going to have referenda of this constitutional import very often, if indeed ever again in this country. And as a result of the delays that have occurred in fulfilling that referendum result, there is now a pressing and overriding desire that we should deliver on what the people voted for.

We've heard speeches going over, once again, all the arguments that we've done to death in the course of the referendum campaign and over the last three and a half years. The argument about whether it's a good thing to leave the EU or not is over. The people have decided. But the policy of the Welsh Government is that we have Brexit in name only; they want to stay in the customs union, they want to stay in the single market. Well, by no stretch of the imagination could that be described as Brexit. The whole point of this, to go back to the former First Minister's point about parliamentary sovereignty, is to restore legislative power to the legislators, not just in Westminster, but, so long as the devolution settlement subsists, to legislators here in this place. I give way again, yes.

I do thank the Member for taking a second intervention. I accept his point about accepting the result of the referendum in 2016. Will he then accept the result of the referendums in 1997 and 2011?

Well, we delivered on the results of the referenda in 1997 and 2011. And I'm perfectly happy to see the Labour Party commit itself to going back into the EU once we've left; what it did not have the moral right to do was to attempt to frustrate the result of the referendum before it had actually been delivered. It's a perfectly honourable role for other parties to say, 'We are better off inside the EU', and to campaign. I think it would be a brave step for them to take, and I hope, indeed, that they take it up, because that will, I think, help to consign them to the irrelevance which they have arrived at for the foreseeable future.

But this debate is not about workers' rights or any of the other ingredients of the referendum campaign. I don't want to see any rolling back on the rights of workers any more than any other Member does in this house. This is all about legislative competence. This is what democracy is all about. Nations, for good or ill, take decisions. Through elections, they elect Governments to introduce laws and to change laws. And if we're not going to have a sovereign Parliament in that respect, then, effectively, we haven't left the EU at all in those particulars.

So this, ultimately, is all about what kind of a country are we and what kind of a nation are we. What kind of electoral system to deliver on the democratic will of the people have we got? It's amazing that we have a nationalist party, so-called, in this place that doesn't actually believe in national independence as expressed through representative institutions; they'd much rather be governed from a technocratic elite that we don't elect and can't even name in most cases, based in Brussels.

This was a vote by the British people and the Welsh people for independence and the supremacy of their parliamentary institutions, including this one here in Cardiff. The fulfilment of what the people voted for three and a half years ago is an historic moment for this country, and I'm afraid the Labour Party, and Plaid Cymru in particular, have failed the people who have elected them.

I call on the Counsel General to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. May I thank all Members who have participated in this debate? I'd also like to thank the committees chaired by David Rees and Mick Antoniw for their assessments of the Bill.

At the start of this debate, the First Minister said we would undoubtedly hear our opponents claim that the decision to recommend voting down the legislative consent motion was rooted in our objections to the withdrawal deal itself, and I'm glad that Mark Reckless and Neil Hamilton didn't disappoint in that regard in what must be an ongoing and, I think, increasingly desperate search for relevance that Mandy Jones, in giving us a countdown to Brexit, reminded us is thankfully now limited. But let me say quite honestly that these decisions are always important decisions for a Government that wants to see a more effective union.

For 20 years, we and successive UK Governments, actually, have tried hard to avoid a situation where the Sewel convention is breached, because though the Supreme Court has ruled it is not justiciable, it is, as Mick Antoniw in his contribution outlined, of huge significance. Conventions in an unwritten constitution should matter. It is convention that the sovereign does not refuse to sign Acts of Parliament duly passed by both Houses; no statute or court can't force her to do that. It's convention that the House of Lords does not seek to block legislation that has featured in a winning party's election manifesto.

So, we have obviously then thought long and hard before advising the Senedd to deny consent. Contrary to the argument of the leader of the opposition, this is not about blocking Brexit or sulking, because the general election has undoubtedly given the UK Government a mandate to negotiate a relationship with the EU based on the free trade agreement they've outlined. As our document on future negotiations and priorities for Wales sets out, though we don't think that is in the best interests of Wales, we accept that that is the starting point for the discussions, and we set out the direction that we feel they need to take.

Our objections to the Bill are based on what it threatens to do to the devolution settlement, and it is right for us to stand up for that settlement. As Alun Davies said in his contribution, 'The alternative doesn't sound like democracy to me', and I think he's right in that. I refute David Melding's argument that the reasons given are not matters of constitutional principle, and I would attach less weight perhaps than I would normally to his important contributions in this sort of debate, because I think he did fail to grapple with the point that Carwyn Jones made so eloquently about the emblematic impact of clause 38, which asserts a form of parliamentary sovereignty that we in this place should not be quick to support, because it fundamentally misunderstands the changed constitution of Wales and of the United Kingdom in a way that I hope Members in this Chamber would recognise.

At the centre of our argument is the fact that, under the Government of Wales Act, the UK Government can ultimately seek to compel this Senedd to put in place measures to implement international obligations that, effectively, we don't agree with and it can block the Senedd from legislating in a way that it believes right and which is otherwise within—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

On this point that the UK state and the UK Government will take the role to enforce certain legal changes, of course, that replicates exactly the situation at the moment—that the EU has the right to direct our law in certain respects and we do accept that that's part of the constitutional arrangement.

I'm not seeking to say it's not part of the constitutional arrangement. The very point I make is that the threat of using those powers has, to date, been theoretical, but the future relationship negotiations and the free trade negotiations with third countries are going to raise a huge number of issues that impact directly and vitally on devolved competences. These are choices that will affect the lives of people in Wales. What qualifications do we recognise or not recognise for our teachers and health workers? What limits are there to the financial support that we can give, including through the Development Bank of Wales? Can we continue to refuse to allow hormone-treated beef onto the market? As Lynne Neagle said in her contribution, can our young people continue to participate in Erasmus, which has played such a huge role in opening up Wales to the world and the world to Wales?

We've been clear with the UK Government that they have a choice. They can try to, wherever possible, agree with ourselves and the other devolved administrations' negotiating positions on these and many other issues that impact on our competences, in which case, we will support the agreed position and implement those agreements. I hope that in calling on Wales to play its full part in the stage ahead, Paul Davies will persuade his colleagues in Parliament to enable that to happen. He has failed to do that so far.

Alternatively, the UK could ignore our views, negotiate alone and then face a constitutional battle to compel us to implement an outcome that we may oppose and will have played no part in reaching. Unfortunately, despite the discussion about leverage in this debate, the Government has thus far given us no such assurance, despite, if I may say—and I echo the First Minister's words here—the admirable work from the House of Lords to encourage them to do that. Moreover, they've refused to rule out acting unilaterally to amend the Government of Wales Act, if that's necessary for them to deliver their assurances to Northern Ireland. Llywydd, if ever there was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul in devolution terms, that is surely it.

So, our advice to the Senedd to vote against the motion is based squarely on defending devolution. Can I acknowledge Delyth Jewell's support for that proposition in her contribution and thank her for her scrutiny and challenge in her role as Brexit spokesman for Plaid? I note that unfortunately she failed to resist the opportunity to have a slightly partisan dig there, but I do thank her for the opportunities to work together on one or two of the issues that have arisen in the context of Brexit.

It's not a coincidence, Llywydd, that the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have come to the same view, and so the UK Government faces an unprecedented situation where it will potentially plough on with the Bill despite having failed to gain legislative consent from all three devolved legislatures. Faced by that situation, I would appeal to the UK Government to do two things: firstly, to make clear that they are not jettisoning the Sewel convention. I take some comfort from the Secretary of State's letter of yesterday that the First Minister quoted, and I hope now that those assurances will be repeated in Parliament. And secondly, to seriously consider its response to our legitimate demands for a role in the future negotiations. They have promised us an answer at the next JMC(EN), due very shortly, in Cardiff—let's see what that answer is.

The vote on this motion will be taken now, in accordance with Standing Order 11.15(i). Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to the vote on this motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 35 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

NDM7232 - LCM on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill: For: 15, Against: 35, Abstain: 0

Motion has been rejected

The Senedd has agreed not to give its consent to the UK Government's withdrawal agreement Bill. This decision will be communicated urgently to both Houses of Parliament so that they can take it into account as part of their deliberations.