Joyce Watson there chastises Nigel Farage for only attending one European Union fisheries committee. He's done something rather more valuable for fishermen by getting us out of the EU and them out of the CFP.

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies and Llyr Gruffydd for their generous comments about our motion. I only express my disappointment they won't be supporting it, in light of them. I think Andrew R.T. was right, perhaps, to draw attention to that 'years of inaction' reference. Perhaps we did have Theresa May in mind while saying it, and he's now reinventing Theresa May's period in charge as one of dynamic action.

I'm more surprised the Welsh Government seems to take exception to this point too, since I thought the years of inaction on Brexit were their policy until their hand was forced by the Lib Dems and the SNP into the election.

More broadly, I'm disappointed again that Welsh Government are taking their 'delete and replace all' approach, but particularly when having deleted all, they then actually put back quite a lot of various people's motion, often in the same words, for lines on end, which I think is taking the Table Office's good officers rather for granted on that front.

However, on the changes they have made, we think their point 1 is just a little churlish. We recognise the 'importance of fisheries to Wales', but they won't have that, and they're only important to these particular parts of Wales.

And then on our final point, I just don't understand why they take exception to it all. We call upon 'the Welsh and UK Governments', and, apparently, we haven't quite got the syntax right or treated Welsh Government with sufficient respect and formality. They say we should instead call upon 'the Welsh Government and UK Government'.

But nonetheless, we will proceed with our motion and thank again Plaid for their amendments, which, as with everything they seem to be saying on Brexit this week, have been very constructive, and I really do commend them on the approach they are taking.

I agree with the first paragraph of their amendment about the importance of the European Union as a destination for fish, and particularly the molluscs and seafood that they talked about this evening, and I think it's a fair point, but I wouldn't over-emphasise it, because the point cuts both ways. The European Union is very dependent on our fish, and were it not for buying the fish from us, it would be an enormous challenge for them, and one I'm sceptical that they would take on, of seeking to buy those same products from elsewhere. And I think, were they to seek to do that, they would pay significantly more with the tariffs in addition, but also I think to get the food as fresh, and the example Llyr gave of molluscs in France and Spain, given where those molluscs come to life and grow, I just don't see where they would, cost-effectively, with that level of freshness, be able to obtain the produce satisfactorily elsewhere.

The Plaid amendment also mentions the Fisheries Bill, which rather than being forthcoming, has now been published. And I apologise to the Chamber, on the account of commitments here and elsewhere, I have not yet been able to read and digest that Bill. But I look forward to doing so, and hope it bears out Plaid's very sensible objectives and hopes for it.

Perhaps the most important amendment I think is point 4 from the Conservatives, and I think this is really important, because under Theresa May I felt, and I think actually many Conservatives also felt, there was a great deal of shilly-shallying on this point that should have been absolutely clear—that when we leave the EU we become an independent coastal state with all that implies. And any suggestion that that would have been traded off in a withdrawal agreement or political declaration, or even now that it might not be the case because of a future trade agreement, is wrong. We will be an independent coastal state—. I give way to Andrew R.T.