2. To what extent was the Welsh Government consulted over the content of the UK’s mandate for the negotiations with the EU? 402

Over the last three and a half years, the Welsh Government has taken every opportunity to set out Welsh priorities for the UK's future relationship with the EU to the UK Government. We had sight of a draft text a few days before publication, and took part in a telephone conference a few hours before the UK Cabinet was expected to discuss it. The final text did not reflect any of the substantive points we made. This was despite the terms of reference of the Joint Ministerial Committee (European Negotiations), which commits the UK Government to seek to agree negotiating positions with the devolved Governments. The approach that the mandate sets out is one that puts the ideological pursuit of an absolute sovereignty—surely a fantasy in the world of today—above people's jobs and livelihoods. We've been clear that we cannot support such an approach, and that the UK Government has passed up an opportunity to speak on behalf of all the four Governments of the UK in the negotiations, which have started this week.

Minister, as we leave the European Union, the constructive engagement of the UK Government with the devolved Governments becomes even more critical. It is incumbent upon the UK Government to demonstrate at every opportunity that there is real depth and substance behind the rhetoric about respect for the devolved Governments. Equally, it is incumbent upon devolved Governments to demonstrate that they are willing to engage seriously and constructively with the UK Government. So, Minister, at the end of January, the First Minister said, after a meeting of the devolved Governments with UK Minister Michael Gove, that there had been recognition shown that crafting a future relationship with the EU 'needs to be done by agreement across the governments of the UK as opposed to them going solo'.

Now, that sounded like a serious and constructive engagement by the Welsh Government in response to encouraging words in a meeting with the UK Government. Yet, only a month later, the First Minister publicly warned, after publication of the UK-EU negotiation mandate, that Wales's economy and jobs would be damaged by a 'basic, bare bones relationship' with the EU that 'lacks ambition and lets down Wales', that the 'UK's trade stance will cost Welsh jobs', and that if the negotiations fail we also risk facing tariffs that would be 'crippling for our farmers and food sector'. He further warned that the UK Government's political ambition to get any deal done, or none at all, is 'clearly more important to them than getting a deal that is in the interests of all the nations of the UK.'

Minister, Michael Gove last week told the House of Commons that the devolved Governments helped shape the UK Government's approach to the UK mandate. Minister, was Michael Gove telling the unvarnished simple truth to the UK Parliament, or did he misspeak?

I thank the Member for that further supplementary. To claim that the voice of the devolved Governments has had a substantive impact in shaping the negotiating mandate is, frankly, a ludicrous claim. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, we have taken every opportunity to make the case on behalf of Wales. In addition to the negotiating priorities, which we published in January, based on the political declaration following the announcement of the negotiating objectives, the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister outlining in more detail some of our priorities.

Following receipt of the draft mandate, I wrote to the UK Government setting out a number of detailed points that needed to be addressed. For example, in the context of the section dealing with technical barriers to trade, I pressed for recognition specifically of the needs of the aerospace sector. In the section dealing with sanitary and phytosanitary measures, I asked for specific priority to be given to sectors in Wales impacted by those measures, including shellfish, beef, lamb, and the dairy sector. He will not find those references that I pressed for in the final mandate.

On the morning that the UK Cabinet was meeting to discuss and finalise the mandate, I had a telephone call with Michael Gove where I discussed the concerns that I had raised in my letter, and in that call I received no assurances that the UK Government was willing to change their negotiating approach in response to comments from any of the devolved Governments, and they failed to point to any changes in the mandate that reflected things that we had pressed for. So, it's clear in that final text that the UK Government has chosen not to take account of the legitimate interests of this Senedd and the Welsh Government's case.

Following on very much in the same vein, can I say, some of us in this Chamber are not unionists? That might come as a surprise to some. Sometimes, you have to question the value of being a unionist in this situation, because in your statement last week about Brexit-related legislation, you'll recall quite an expansive, philosophical exposition of the Sewel convention that you purported to put out, and we were very much in agreement of your analysis; the fact that, basically, when it came to the LCMs about the withdrawal Act, there were three refusals in the devolved Parliaments—not just here, but Scotland and Northern Ireland—but Westminster over-ruled those three LCM refusals, citing that the whole Brexit thing was 'not normal', unique. Westminster ploughed on regardless of our viewpoints here.

Now, you said in your statement last week that you were subsequently reassured—not just Westminster ploughing on despite three devolved Parliaments disagreeing with them and ploughing on—you had moved on and had received reassurance and a definition of what 'not normal' constituted, in that it was unique, if not highly unique, unusual. So, you appeared to be reassured then that this sort of situation wouldn't keep on happening, despite the fact that we did ask what safeguards are there in place so that this situation wouldn't keep on happening.

So, it seems here, now, that as regards this UK mandate Welsh Government's being ignored or sidelined, its voice is not heard. Are we to take it that this is another situation where this is just another unique set of situations? Is this again just 'not normal', and are we expected just to accept that and move on regardless and just again say, 'Actually, this was not normal. This is unique. It's difficult times. We just have to accept this sort of stuff as the place that this Senedd occupies in the Westminster mindset'? Or do we actually stand up and say, 'Actually, this cannot continue. There are four Parliaments to be involved here. Let's do something about it.'

I thank Dai Lloyd for that further question. He and I, of course, differ about the value of the union and the benefits to Wales of being part of a union, which, frankly, should function better than the United Kingdom does function. But nevertheless, we have a difference of opinion on that.

He refers to the debate in relation to the Sewel convention, and he will recall, I think, in doing so, that I was making the case for reform of the Sewel convention, not one that claimed that the current set of arrangements were adequate. So, in seeking reform, in that broad sense, he and I share that principle. But it's also important to note that there have been examples, which is why this is so immensely frustrating—whether it be in relation to the preparation of legislation or the inter-governmental agreement; or in working together for planning towards a 'no deal' exit from the European Union; or indeed in relation to the substantial body of secondary legislation that was passed in order to facilitate departure; and indeed in relation some of the work that my ministerial colleague the Minister for international relations is doing with the Department for International Trade around rest-of-the-world trade negotiations—there are examples where engagement has secured advantage and given Wales the appropriate voice in those considerations.

So, it's actually with great sadness that I come to the Chamber and say what I have said in response to the question from Huw Irranca-Davies. This is not a situation where the Welsh Government is closing the door. If the UK Government were to open the door in the weeks and months ahead, and give a substantive opportunity for the Welsh Government and other devolved Governments to have an appropriate involvement in those negotiations, we would be, as we always have been, ready to play a constructive role in that. But that responsibility now lies at the door of the UK Government, which has singularly failed to reflect the voice of the devolved Governments in this negotiating mandate.

Can the Counsel General really be surprised that the UK Government hasn't taken him seriously in asking for a role in this negotiating mandate? He mentions constructive engagement, and he doesn't want that at all; he wants destructive engagement. He has remained consistently and belligerently hostile to all the negotiating aims of the UK Government. The people of Wales voted by a majority to leave the EU, and in the last four years, the Counsel General and the Welsh Government have done everything they possibly can to frustrate the outcome of that referendum. We have now left the EU. There are opportunities as well as challenges ahead, but the Counsel General never sees opportunities; he only sees difficulties. The UK Government will plough ahead and deliver on the result of the referendum in 2016, to which the Welsh Government remains as hostile today as it has been in the whole time that I've been in this Assembly. 

At a micro level, I think the Welsh Government could have played an important part in developing this negotiating mandate, but because of the public belligerence against the entire project of the UK Government, he will never be taken seriously. He is not so much wanting to play a part in the negotiations of the UK, but wanting to play a part in the negotiations of the EU; he is a Trojan horse for Monsieur Barnier. 

Well, I regret to say that I think that contribution failed to live up to the level of discussion, and, sadly, doesn't vaguely reflect the reality of the situation. The Welsh Government clearly would have preferred a different outcome to the referendum; that is a matter of extremely well established record, but what we have done, at each turn, is to recognise new realities and seek to influence within that framework. So, when it became apparent that the Prime Minister had a mandate to leave the European Union on the basis of a political declaration, we engaged with that political declaration, recognising that it wouldn't have been the starting point we would have set for ourselves, and described, in some detail, which has not been refuted, the best version of that arrangement for Wales's future, consistent with that mandate. 

We have taken every opportunity of seeking to influence the debate in a constructive way. As I say—[Interruption.]

Can you let the Minister answer the question without any sedentary comments? Thank you. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We have sought to influence the discussion in a very constructive way, despite, as I say, the fact that we wouldn't have wished to start from this position. We have sought to take advantage of the opportunities, as the Member describes them, whether it's in relation to regional investment, or to agricultural support, or to a change in constitution. Each of these areas are ones that offer opportunity to do things differently in the future, and that is the tone with which we have engaged with the UK Government in relation to this mandate, and would wish to continue doing that if the opportunity were to become available.