Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Counsel General and Minister for European Transition—the UK internal market Bill—and I call on the Counsel General and Minister for European Transition, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Last Wednesday, the UK Government published its internal market Bill, only eight weeks after a White Paper purportedly consulting on the proposals contained within it saw the light of day. The UK Government is not publishing the responses to the consultation, and its analysis of them is flimsy, to say the least. But we know it's not just the devolved Governments that question the need for the legislation and the assumptions within the White Paper. Organisations such as NFU Cymru and the Education Workforce Council were among those from Wales that responded critically. A Government sure of its footing in respect of such far-reaching and contentious legislation would surely publish the responses that it has received.

There will be an opposition party debate on the internal market Bill tomorrow, so today I will set out the factual basis for our serious concerns. From the outset, I want to make it clear that we have no issue with the objective of ensuring that a UK internal market can work smoothly after the end of EU transition. Indeed, we were among the first to point out the fact that we would need to develop a new form of joint governance after leaving the European Union in order to manage the intersection between devolved competence and the internal market. 

For three years, we have worked tirelessly on common frameworks in all of the areas set out by the UK Government as identified as those that could place unnecessary barriers to the internal market being erected. This work is now coming to its fruition and there have been no examples of irrevocable breakdown or of one Government blocking progress in any of the 28 frameworks that Wales is involved with. Yet the Bill effectively undermines this work by providing the UK Government with a quick way of hollowing out the rights of this Senedd to regulate within those areas of devolved competence as it sees fit. 

Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill would enforce the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination in the case of almost all of the goods and services that originate in, or are legally imported to, any part of the UK, defined in the case of non-discrimination as merely goods that 'pass through'. To give you an example, although we could continue with our intention to ban nine types of single-use plastics in Wales if they were produced or imported into Wales, we could not prevent such products produced or imported into England or Scotland from being sold in Wales if they could be lawfully sold there. It also appears that it would be illegal to insist on them being labelled in a way that highlights their damaging impact on the environment. While this doesn't specifically prevent the Senedd from exercising its powers, it renders them meaningless in the context that the vast majority of goods for sale in Wales come from other parts of the UK or pass through them.

While this part of the Bill supposedly merely replaces the application of the same principles in EU law, the crude proposals in the Bill have none of the protections—of subsidiarity, proportionality and significant public policy exceptions—that apply in the approach it seeks to replicate. Crucially, it doesn't provide a floor of standards, which divergence across the UK during the era of devolution has been built upon. Part 3 seeks to impose the same approach on professional qualifications, though, declaring my interest as a lawyer, I note that the legal profession itself is exempt. But, as a lawyer also, I can also point out that this is a complex piece of drafting that will also bring joy to litigants up and down the land. We are not yet clear whether this would actually make it impossible to prevent teachers from other parts of the UK who lack the qualifications and experience required by our legislation from registering with the Education Workforce Council to teach in Wales, but it could tie that council up in legal knots for years to come.

Part 4 of the Bill gives the Competition and Markets Authority a new role in providing the Office of the Internal Market. The functions proposed for this office are ones that we broadly could endorse, but it is wholly inappropriate that a non-ministerial department of the UK Government, whose main functions relate to matters that are wholly reserved, should be given this role without extensive reform of its governance arrangements.

Part 5 of the Bill relates to the Northern Ireland protocol. It is somewhat odd, probably unprecedented, to find myself on the same side of any debate as Lords Howard and Lamont, but that will tell you how broad is the range of voices that finds this part of the Bill utterly repugnant. Anyone who believes in the importance of the rule of law, and the importance of abiding to legal agreements you have freely entered into, even if for the simple expedient of ensuring that other parties in future will be willing to make agreements with you, will be appalled that a Government could propose ministerial powers that so directly flout both domestic law and international agreements. The provisions in this Part also exacerbate a potential threat to Welsh ports by incentivising freight from the island of Ireland to use ferry routes from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.

Part 6 of the Bill gives UK Ministers, for the first time in the 21 years since devolution, powers to fund activity in policy areas that are devolved to Wales—not just in economic development, but in health, in housing, in educational infrastructure, in sport and in culture. Let us be clear about one thing: a Government in Westminster that seeks both the power to spend in devolved areas and the power to control the funding available is a Government that seeks to neuter devolution. And a Government that has so manifestly failed to invest in Wales in respect of the things that it already has responsibility for—railways, broadband, the tidal lagoon, large-scale energy—plainly intends to fund its own priorities by top-slicing the budget that this Senedd currently controls, leaving us with even less scope and flexibility to meet the needs of the Welsh people we are elected to serve.

Part 7 of the Bill explicitly changes the devolution settlement by adding state aid to the list of reserved matters. Dirprwy Lywydd, the preoccupation with state aid by this Conservative Government leads it to risk sacrificing a free trade agreement with the EU and peace in Northern Ireland. But, plainly, the intention here is to shut us out from co-creation of a robust state aid regime for the whole of the UK, and it's a significant threat to Welsh businesses. 

Finally, Part 8 of the Bill contains the proposal to make the whole of the Bill a protected enactment, not capable of amendment by this Senedd even when it impacts, as this surely does, on devolved matters—a power that should surely be used sparingly but that has been applied more times in the last three years than in the 18 previous ones.

The Welsh Government believes that this is a badly thought through and highly damaging piece of legislation. We will work with politicians of all parties and none in Parliament to ensure that, unless overhauled through amendment, this Bill does not get on the statute book. We have proposed constructive alternative proposals. A wise Government in Westminster would look at them anew.

I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement, although it was just as bad hearing it from his lips as it was when it crossed my desk earlier on today. It should come as no surprise to Members of this Welsh Parliament or the people of Wales that the Welsh Government is seeking to undermine the UK Government's efforts to deliver on its promise to the people of the United Kingdom that it would maintain and strengthen the integrity and the smooth operation of the UK internal market.

As you know, Minister, this Bill provides a framework for the orderly transfer of European Union powers back from Brussels to the United Kingdom. That is something that I welcome and the majority of people in Wales welcome. You have branded this Bill on numerous occasions as a power grab, and a number of other people have tried to present this as a power grab. Perhaps you can be specific, Minister, today, and tell me which powers this Bill will transfer from the Welsh Parliament, because the reality is there aren't any being transferred away from this Welsh Parliament. The reality is far from the case. Isn't it that, far from being a power grab, this Bill actually provides for the orderly transition of those powers from the EU to the United Kingdom? And, in fact, there are scores of new powers that are actually going to be endowed upon this Senedd, directly transferred from Brussels to the Welsh Parliament and, indeed, other devolved legislatures. And the powers that aren't being transferred to this place will be transferred, quite rightly, to the UK Government and the UK Parliament in accordance with the wishes of the British people and the people of Wales in the Brexit referendum. Now, can you tell the people of Wales why you object to the UK Government and UK Parliament holding these powers when you didn't object to the European Parliament and the European Union and the people in Brussels having hold of these powers? Why is it that the Welsh Government is so uptight about the UK Government and Parliament setting rules on state aid, but you didn't seem to have any problem in those rules being set in Brussels?

Similarly, why does the Welsh Government have a problem with Part 6 of the Bill? You have suggested that this paves the way for some sort of top-slicing of the Welsh block grant in order to support UK Government spending priorities, but of course you know that this is absolute nonsense. There's no evidence to support your claim. The UK Government has been absolutely clear that any spending will be in addition to and not coming from the Barnett consequentials that we receive here in Wales—in addition to. Now, I don't know about you but I would welcome anything over and above Barnett, and I think that you should be welcoming it too. I can't believe that you are rejecting a proposal that could bring significant additional resources into Wales as a result of this piece of legislation.

And, of course, the Bill does not actually break international or domestic law. It actually provides a safety net—a safety net—which the UK can fall back on in the event that the EU continues to attempt to divide the United Kingdom by the creation of a tariff border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, something that of course is completely and utterly unacceptable and goes against the commitment that the EU have already given in article 4 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which says, and I quote,

'Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom.'

Do you accept that that is what article 4 of the Northern Ireland protocol actually says? And if you do, do you not recognise that this Bill is designed to ensure that that continues to be the case beyond the end of the transition period?

Well, that was quite an extraordinary speech, Dirprwy Lywydd. I've heard a string of fiction sown together by complete political opportunism. I'm with David Melding on this—the party that the Conservatives claim to be, which believe in the union, wouldn't even begin to table legislation like this in Parliament—and I admire him for the stand of principle that he's taken in this place in response to this appalling set of proposals.

The first fiction is that we have new powers in the Senedd as a result of this Bill. I've asked Members to point me in the direction of the part of the Bill that gives those powers to us. It doesn't exist. We know, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the devolution settlement, the devolution legislation, is what enhances this Senedd's powers as a consequence of leaving the European Union; it is not this Bill. 

The reason this Bill exists, as I think we understand from the speech that Alun Cairns gave in Parliament last night, is that, effectively, he said, the Conservatives don't like the Government the people of Wales have voted for. That is what is at the heart of this legislation. They just don't like how things are done in Wales. So, any fiction that this is a democratic exercise I think is blown out of the water by that remark.

And I think this notion that these are powers that were previously exercised by bureaucrats in Brussels—. I understand that that's a convenient line for a Brexiteer, but, actually, section 46 legislates to take powers that already exist. These powers to spend in Wales already exist; they're powers of the Welsh Government, and the reason they're being put into that Bill is to enable the UK Government to take control of the budget, of expenditure and infrastructure in Wales. And the notion that we should take this Government at its word in relation to future budgets, when it is legislating to break an international agreement, I think is utterly risible.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I start by also thanking the Counsel General for his statement? Now, of course, the issue of the internal market Bill is very complex and, indeed, risks the whole existence of Wales. It’s a huge disappointment that such a Bill should see the light of day. The big picture, of course, is that it’s very irresponsible indeed for any Government to drive forward the Brexit agenda while the COVID pandemic is such a threat to our country and our people, but that’s another debate, I suppose, and may I now look in detail at this Bill?

In terms of joint understanding, would the Counsel General agree that there is a risk that our powers to legislate here in the Senedd will be restricted unless the UK Government agrees with our intention? You described this as ‘far reaching’. I’m old enough to remember the arguments around the legislation to ban smoking here in Wales, starting in the Assembly, as it was, in the year 2000, in the face of clear opposition from the UK Government at that time. Without devolution, one could argue that the ban on smoking would never have happened. Also, issues such as free prescriptions and the change to the organ donation system meant changing the law here in Wales in the face of fulsome opposition from the perspective of the UK Government. So, may I ask what hope for Wales to legislate anew for Wales in the future unless Westminster agrees? And will we have to accept lower standards for our foodstuffs? Chlorinated chicken, anyone? Is there a defence against the privatisation of our national health service? That’s what we’re debating here. It’s not a dry constitutional issue and an issue about powers; it affects the lives of people on a daily basis.

In terms of Part 6 of the Bill, on the financial assistance powers, I heard what you had to say and I also listened—I had to listen—to the words of Darren Millar. In terms of Part 6, it appears that the UK Government is given a free hand to spend on projects in devolved areas, as you have said, and bearing in mind that water infrastructure is included in this Part, then that increases the power of Westminster and reduces the power of this Senedd, and makes a very real possibility of a second Tryweryn—the drowning of another valley against the wishes of the people of Wales. Cofiwch Dryweryn, indeed. May I ask the Counsel General: would you agree that powers should not be lost from this place without the consent of this Senedd?

To conclude—I do note the time, Deputy Presiding Officer—do you agree, Counsel General, that independence for Wales is the only means now of safeguarding Wales as a political entity, or will you write another letter of complaint and continue to suffer being stamped down on as a nation?

Thank you very much to Dai Lloyd for those questions. The powers that we currently hold, as a result of the changes proposed by this Bill, aren't powers that we will be able to enforce in the future, and as Dai Lloyd himself said, it's not simply a constitutional question; it impacts on the daily lives of the people of Wales. So, plastics, building standards, the minimum alcohol price, hormone-injected beef, all sorts of things that will have an impact on people's daily lives, be they goods and foodstuffs, then there is a risk for all of those in different ways.

There is a reference in the Bill, in one of the parts of the Bill, that the health service is not within its scope, but that could be changed by a Minister in Westminster without any consent from this Senedd. So, there is a risk there, too, in terms of our health services and other public services. There are powers that we can continue to use but can't enforce, and there are powers that we can continue to use but the UK Government can circumvent those. There are examples of all of those things in the Bill, and that is why we are opposing it so strongly.

I disagree with the end point that Dai Lloyd described at the end of his speech, but it's clear that we need fundamental reform of the relationship between the Welsh Government and the UK Government, and the constitutional settlement more generally, in order to ensure that we maintain the standards the people of Wales have expected and enjoyed over the past two decades.

Counsel General, once again you seem to want to frustrate Brexit. Your party voted against every withdrawal agreement, while legislating to prevent our leaving the EU without an agreement, to try to remain in the EU even though Wales and the UK had voted to leave. As Darren Millar said in his excellent contribution, while you didn't object to the EU exercising powers, you won't extend that same courtesy to the UK Government. Indeed, in your response to the internal market White Paper, you seem to question the very legitimacy of the UK Government exercising a power across the UK. I quote what you said:

'the context of the UK is key. By legislating in this way, the UK Government would be imposing a model of mutual recognition and non-discrimination on the three other nations of the UK'.

But the UK Government is not imposing anything on other nations, since it represents all four nations of the United Kingdom. It answers to a Parliament in which the people of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all represented, yet you allege that UK Ministers will flout domestic law, despite the Westminster Parliament legislating to legalise what they do.

Minister, isn't the reason you disagree with that Parliament's internal market Bill because you don't agree with its goal of keeping our union together, mutual recognition and non-discrimination between four nations, and preventing barriers between our nations, including those the EU would put down the Irish sea to divide Wales from Northern Ireland? Minister, you want us to stay tied to the EU and you want devolution to differentiate and divide our United Kingdom. But the people of the United Kingdom do not. Isn't it right that the Westminster Parliament represents them with this Bill?

Dirprwy Lywydd, the reason I have challenged this Bill is not at all for the reason that the Member gives; it's precisely because I understand that if the UK Government proceeds in this way, it poses a threat to the union, actually, and I don't want to see that happen. And I know that devolution and high standards are nowhere near the top of the list of the Member's priorities, but they are in this place, and I stand by the remarks that I made in that letter.

I think it's absolutely fundamental to any understanding of devolution that the UK Government ought to operate on an agreed basis with other Governments in the UK in relation to devolved matters. And we have put forward, as a Government, an alternative mechanism for achieving that, which is constructive, is capable of working, and incidentally it's one the UK Government have themselves been participating in. So, we're not opposed to the idea of an internal market. We have also said, incidentally, that we are not opposed to elements of legislation to support the common frameworks, but there is a much better way forward than the way this Bill represents. It's to continue the work of common frameworks and achieve this set of outcomes on an agreed basis across the UK, not an imposed basis, which is what this Bill represents.

Mick Antoniw as Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee has not yet had the opportunity for a detailed examination of this Bill. It was produced very late in the day, with very little advance notice, and we look forward to your giving evidence on Monday to the committee, where we will explore all these particular issues.

But the committee has a particular responsibility in respect of the constitution of this place, and I would say in respect of issues relating to the ethics of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. One of the founding principles of the United Nations is precisely on the rule of law, and I focus very much on this because you've related to many of the consequences of this legislation, but I think it is important that we do not lose sight of some of the fundamental democratic principles on which we operate. This is the UN principles of governance:

'The rule of law is fundamental to international peace and security and political stability; to achieve economic and social progress and development; and to protect people’s rights and fundamental freedoms. It is foundational to people's access to public services, curbing corruption, restraining the abuse of power, and to establishing the social contract between people and the state.'

This legislation, as it is drafted, drives a coach and horses through the rule of law. I am just going to refer to four aspects. One, the illegality, which is already conceded. I do not believe it is in any way acceptable for a Government to legislate for illegality and to argue that the illegality is okay because it might only be specific and limited. That is unacceptable in any modern democracy. If I were to mug you outside this Chamber, Counsel General, which I never, never would, it was hardly become me in court to say, 'Well, my lud, yes, but it was only a very specific and limited mugging, wasn't it?' It is absolutely ludicrous.

We also have to consider the implication when legislative consent comes to this Chamber of the ethics of consenting to legislation that ethically drives a coach and horses through the rule of law and sustains illegality, and I think that's an area that perhaps you might want to explore. It also gags the courts and judges from defending the rule of law.

And, fourthly, it gives unfettered power to the hands of Government Ministers who will not be accountable to either Parliament, or Westminster, or Wales in the exercise of those powers. Now, in normal parlance, if we were looking at Russia or Belarus or some of those countries, we would say what it amounts to is elected dictatorship. It was Roosevelt, I think—I hope I get it right—who actually said that the best way of explaining the rule of law is to look at the countries that don't have the rule of law.

As part of this exercise, I did a bit of legal research, and I was trying to find an example where a democratic European country has ever attempted to actually impose this form of illegality, and I did find one. I found a European state that had been a pinnacle of the rule of law, a mother of Parliaments, with a constitution that was respected throughout the world, where legislation was introduced to remove the autonomy from devolved states, to empower the Government to enact laws to violate the constitution and to disempower the judiciary. That was the 1933 enabling Act of the Weimar republic that brought Hitler to power.

Now, I don't want to be melodramatic about this, but democracy is fragile, the rule of law is fragile, and this legislation is, as you've described so rightly, absolutely repugnant, and I would just ask one question to you: do you agree with me that our democracy is too important to be undermined by this type of legislation?

I thank Mick Antoniw for those remarks, and they carry particular weight given his role as a former Counsel General as well. But I will just say this point: he is right to say that there are parts of this Bill that legislate to effectively put ministerial action above the law. There are express provisions that state that regulations can be made regardless of whether they comply with domestic law or international agreements. Now, that is corrosive, in my opinion, of the British Government's reputation. Successive British Governments have described themselves as having a commitment to the rule of law and that being fundamental to Britain's sense of itself in the world, and I think provisions like that in legislation are corrosive of that reputation. They're corrosive of that reputation internationally, but also they put in place additional barriers within the UK to relationships between the Governments, which are dependent almost entirely on commitments made between one Government and another, and I think, at this particular time, the UK Government ought not to be looking for reasons for that to be the case. I think there are a range of views in this Chamber about this Bill, there are certainly a range of views in this Chamber about the backdrop that EU exit provides to it, but I would hope that we could achieve a much broader coalition of support in this Chamber on the question of rule of law and the risk that this Bill runs to the rule of law.

Counsel General, the behaviour of some Conservative MPs in last night's internal market Bill debate was deplorable. They continually misrepresented the facts through cynical contradiction, claiming the Bill conferred new devolved powers while gloating over the fact that it takes them away. It was particularly galling, and I'm sure that you'll agree with me, to hear the former Secretary of State, Alun Cairns, welcoming clause 46, which transfers wide spending powers from Wales to Westminster, when he told the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee in November 2017,

'there is no agenda in terms of withdrawing powers or rolling back powers from the Welsh Government.'

There was an agenda, and he supported it. The Tories have misled us every step of the way and have dishonoured themselves with their appalling conduct. So, Counsel General, can you tell me what the current status is of the inter-governmental agreement now that the Tories have broken every key clause, including clause 6, which states

'The UK Government commits to make regulations through a collaborative process and in accordance with this agreement'?

And can you assure me that you will do whatever it takes to protect the powers of our Senedd, including considering bringing a case to the Supreme Court, perhaps in conjunction with the Scottish Government?

Dirprwy Lywydd, I thank Delyth Jewell for that set of questions. I think the point about the speech that the former Secretary of State gave last night in Parliament drives home to me the fact that the objection is really about what we do with our powers here, not the fact of the powers themselves. So it's an objection to the kind of approach that successive Welsh Governments have taken to investment, to standards and so on—it's the things that affect people's daily lives in Wales. I can assure her that we will do everything we can as a Government to protect the rights of this place. There are a number of discussions going on internally about the scope of our capacity to act. Certainly, as you've heard me say already, we'll want to work with parties in Parliament to amend this legislation, but we'll be looking at it from a legal perspective as well.

In relation to the inter-governmental agreement, I will just say, in light of the speculation in the press, which I found very unhelpful, actually, in the last few days in relation to the repeal of the continuity Act and the inter-governmental agreement, I stand by the actions of this Government in seeking to reach that agreement with the UK Government. It has actually, broadly speaking, been complied with, and it has actually been the foundation of the common frameworks programme, which in our view is the right way to take forward resolving these questions. I would urge the UK Government to look again at the capacity of the common frameworks programme to replace what they've provided for in this Bill. I think that's a much more constructive, collaborative way forward. 

This Bill takes us back at least 100 years to when the Encyclopaedia Britannica said, 'For Wales, see England'. Instead of being leaders on environmental protections, we're going to be laggards, dependent on the UK Government's enthusiasm, or not, for protecting our seas from plastic pollution. You've already told us that our attempt to ban all single-use plastics in this country would be completely undermined by forcing us to take single-use plastics that were produced in other parts of the UK, which would make it null and void, frankly. 

You talked about common frameworks. We're all in favour of common frameworks, but the word 'common' is the key, isn't it? Not imposed frameworks, common frameworks that have been agreed between the four different parties. So, this seems to me a very sad day that would hasten the break-up of the United Kingdom, because it's certain that Northern Ireland would choose to trade with its nearest neighbour in order to prevent a tearing up of the Good Friday agreement. Why wouldn't you? This would be absolutely deplorable. 

So, if this Bill becomes law, we presumably could not prevent adulterated food coming from a bad deal with the United States from being imposed on our citizens, and people wouldn't know whether they were eating genetically modified food or not, because it simply wouldn't need to be labelled as such. Nor would we be able to protect our citizens from the substandard building programme—

Can you wind up, please?

—that the UK Government seems to have in mind, to abolish all planning laws and allow developers to build whatever instant slums they have in mind, rather than the quality-for-life housing that we would like to produce. Presumably, we would be prevented from amending our Part L regulations so that they were fit for purpose with our climate emergency obligations. 

Jenny Rathbone is right to point to the innovations that we've achieved in this Senedd in many of the examples that she gave. We are proud of those standards here in Wales, and people in Wales are proud of being able to rely on them. Whether it's minimum alcohol pricing or hormone beef and labelling for that, whether it's single-use plastics, housing standards, the regulation of landlords, all of these policy areas where we are ambitious in our reach as a Senedd are in question as a consequence of aspects of this Bill. And we are working through each clause of the Bill to ascertain exactly the level of challenge that some of its provisions make to our ambitions.

I just want to say this one thing: we have managed very successfully to be able to diverge in different parts of the UK in areas where we wish to do so to reflect the priorities of our different countries. We have done that very successfully in a way that gives people pride in those standards in different parts of the UK, and also enables the business community, producers and manufacturers to understand the floor of standards on which these things are built. The proposals that we have put forward as an alternative to this Bill build on that history of 20 years of divergence and certainty, and it is not too late for the UK Government to look again at that set of proposals and to overhaul this Bill, effectively, to put those agreed mechanisms, that process of agreement, at the heart of the internal market. 

Neil Hamilton. No, we can't hear you, Mr Hamilton. You need to unmute, or somebody needs to unmute you. There you go. 

Apologies, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you for calling me. 

I'm not surprised by the Counsel General's statement, because he's determined to die in the last ditch of remainer resistance to implementing the will of the people, and the people of Wales at that, in the Brexit referendum four years ago. But he boldly asserts his statement that the powers in this Bill directly flout both domestic law and international agreements, but the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, section 38, provides that the UK Parliament shall be sovereign and, to quote,

'nothing in this Act derogates from the sovereignty of...Parliament'.

So whatever is proposed in this Bill, if voted through both Houses of Parliament, is going to be the law of the land and can't be criticised as being in breach of UK law, because it will be the law.

Secondly, on the question of international agreements, it's a core principle of the Good Friday agreement that Northern Ireland's constitutional status can't be changed without the consent of the Northern Ireland people. The Act of Union 1801, which establishes that constitutional status, says that the citizens of the UK are all on the same footing in respect of trade and navigation and in all treaties with foreign powers. Of course, the imposition of a tariff barrier in the Irish sea, which is what the EU has forced the Conservative Government foolishly to accept in the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, is a clear breach of the Good Friday agreement in itself. Now, the Irish Government and the UK Government have both said that they will not impose checkpoints on the border. It's only the EU that has left open the possibility that this might happen in order to protect the sacred single market of the EU.

The EU has been, in the course of four years or two years or whatever it is of negotiations, negotiating in bad faith in my view, because they've always had the ultimate objective of wanting to maintain the extra territorial reach of the EU internal market laws, not just now but also in the future. What they want us to do is to accept even changes in regulations that they will be voting on, in which we will have no say and will have no vote. No self-respecting sovereign state would ever accept such a humiliation. And secondly, they want to maintain the extra territorial reach of the European Court of Justice as the interpreter of the law. Again, no self-respecting sovereign state could possibly accept that. So, if the EU has not been negotiating in good faith under the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, then the UK Government would be perfectly justified in passing this Bill through Parliament. 

Well, I just think I would simply say that, in relation to the Member's view about the legality of some of the provisions here, I think the overwhelming weight of legal opinion is against his view. But I was struggling to hear a question that I was being invited to answer, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

Minister, this Bill is an affront to our democracy. The UK Government concluded a treaty with the European Union. They then sought a mandate from the people for that treaty. They enshrined that treaty in legislation, and less than a year later they're repudiating that mandate, that commitment and that legislation. And we are being told here that we have no opportunity, no opportunity at all to pass comment even or to be consulted on the restriction of powers of this Parliament, where the UK structures of governance—the UK Parliament and the UK Government together—can simply roll over this Parliament, can stop us exercising the powers that the people have elected us to do so. Two referenda have provided us with powers in this place, and the UK Government can simply put that to one side without even consulting this Parliament and its Members and its Government. That is unacceptable. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to us how this Bill will impact some of the services that are delivered by this Government, how we are able to respond to the demands that the people who have sent us here have on us, and how we can then create a structure within the United Kingdom where the UK Parliament and the UK Government are unable to deprive this place of powers that have been provided by the people. For me, Deputy Presiding Officer, we have to go back. The Member for Cardiff Central spoke about the actions of a century ago; perhaps it's time now that we remembered what Keir Hardie was first elected in Merthyr Tydfil to deliver—home rule, a federal United Kingdom, where powers that lie in this place are protected in this place and cannot be removed from this place without the people having their say. 

I thank the Member for that set of questions. On the first question he asked about what this does in terms of the impact on our powers here in the Senedd, there are a number of provisions in the Bill that either limit those powers, whether it's in food regulation or environmental regulation. It means that powers can be exercised but, effectively, not enforced, or it means that powers can be, effectively, circumvented. So, there's a range of ways in which this Bill attacks the competence of this Senedd and Welsh Ministers. There are provisions in the Bill that enable direct funding of aspects of housing, or in health infrastructure. There is already a settlement that provides that those powers are exercised by this Senedd and Welsh Ministers on behalf of the people of Wales, and if there is further investment to be made available to support infrastructure in Wales, we are very happy with that, but there's a Government that already has the powers to do that, and it's this Government. 

I think the last point that he makes is very important. It seems to me that, in approaching legislation of this sort, which plainly, in one clause, explicitly adds to the number of reservations in the Government of Wales Act 2006, to embark upon that kind of legislation without seeking to do that in as collaborative a way, and as open a way with devolved Government as is possible—I think it shows the limit of the constitutional arrangements that we currently have. And I think we're in a territory where we need to look at the fundamental reform of some of those arrangements. And the way that he was talking about Keir Hardie and the home rule campaign, one where the Governments of the UK operate as four Governments, a four-nation approach—we've been talking about that, haven't we, in the last few months—one that really significantly entrenches the powers of different Governments across the UK. And not for constitutional reasons alone, but because of the way in which they affect the daily lives of people in Wales, and our accountability as a Government to those people for the choices that we make, which must be at the absolute heart of our response to this. 

Rhianon Passmore. Rhianon Passmore. Can somebody switch on Rhianon's mike for us please? There we go. 

I keep losing my screen. Sorry, Deputy Llywydd. Can you come back to me?

Right. Okay. David Rees. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I think we've explored very much with colleagues the situation that, constitutionally, this Bill provides us, and I won't explore that much further. But I do think we need—. We've heard the rhetoric very much from the Brexiteers for the last few years that we will have powers through the EU giving them back to us. Is it not true that this Bill actually undermines our ability to actually deliver any decisions based upon those powers? Because it gives UK Ministers the right to make decisions that undermine our decisions. And therefore, when people in my constituency expect us to deliver certain conditions or policies, we can do that here, but UK Government Ministers could actually deliver something different as a consequence of that. That's what people want to know. They want to understand what this means to them. And what it really means to them is we can make a decision, but UK Ministers can change that without even consulting us or the people. That's correct. 

Do you also agree with me perhaps that this is actually an end to common frameworks? Because the common frameworks were something we agreed, something we put forward as a possible way of working together to come to these positions. But this is a situation where that seems to have been thrown out of the window, where the UK Government is going to impose decisions. Therefore, is it the end of the common frameworks?

And, finally, the shared prosperity fund. We've been asking questions for years on the shared prosperity fund, and it seems to be now that, in fact, when we were promised by Brexiteers that Wales would not lose a penny that we would have had from Europe—it now seems that we are not going to get anything. Where we could make a decision, as we could before, it's going to be decided upon in London, and therefore the shared prosperity fund, as far as I'm concerned, is dead and done. 

I thank David Rees for those questions. On the first point, he is right to say, as Jenny Rathbone was saying in her question earlier, that we set food standards, of which we're proud here in Wales, but if another part of the UK chooses to adopt lower standards on a particular basis, we would not be able to prevent those goods and foods being sold in supermarkets and shops in Wales. So, that would be a direct example for you of the kind of way in which the standards we would set and legislate here in Senedd couldn't be enforceable, in effect. 

We would have a more ambitious approach to the control of single-use plastics, I guess, than the UK Government on behalf of England, but we would have a challenge in enforcing that if the rules were lower in England, and would enable plastics to be on the Welsh market in a way we could not effectively enforce. So, there are a number of very practical examples about the practical limitations that we would face in implementing our priorities as a Government on behalf of the people of Wales. So, it isn't simply a constitutional argument; this is about the practical aspects of people's weekly shop, effectively. 

On the common frameworks, I'm asking the UK Government to redouble its commitment to the common frameworks, because I think that it's in the common frameworks that lies the way of regulating these sets of questions. So, we've been able to diverge for 20 years between the four Governments in the UK in terms of some of these issues, and we want to be able to continue to do that. And the way to do that is to do it on an agreed basis and managed. We won't always be able to reach agreement, obviously, but there'll be a process by which that can be resolved in a way that respects the fact that power is devolved in the UK in a way that this Bill does not do.

And finally, to your point on the shared prosperity fund. Effectively, the spending powers in the Bill, which the UK Government is taking to itself from devolved areas, will enable them, effectively, to run some aspects of the shared prosperity fund directly in Wales. We have always known, haven't we, that those powers have been devolved to the Welsh Government, and there have, in fact, been commitments, although never manifested, by the UK Government that those powers wouldn't be taken away? Well, there are powers in this Bill that would enable that promise to be broken.

Thank you. We'll try Rhianon Passmore again. Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you. Can you hear me, Deputy Llywydd?

Yes, that's fine.

Thank you very much. Thank you for re-calling me. Let's be frank—the UK Tory Government's internal market Bill is the latest in a long line of totally incomprehensible actions by Boris Johnson and his Government. And I very much welcome today's statement by the Welsh Counsel General and Minister for European Transition. The people of Wales now, more than ever, will need the full functional responsibility and representation of the Welsh Labour Government to argue for our future in the face of continued UK Tory negligence and incompetence. Will the Counsel General reaffirm to my constituents in Islwyn that the Welsh Labour Government will always defend one of the most important principles of international law, and protect the rights of the people of Wales, under hard-won devolution, to continue setting our priorities, undiluted by Westminster? Without respect for the rule of international law, the position and influence of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be greatly reduced in the eyes of the world.

Last night, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill passed to the next stage. Yet, perversely, the UK Internal Market Bill would stop the EU from so-called blockading food. The Conservative chairman of the Justice Select Committee, Sir Bob Neill, stated strongly that the Bill contains an egregious, needless and potentially damaging clause, which would bring the UK into breach of its international obligations. And for Darren Millar, that is the Conservative chairperson who's put forward that amendment. He proposes removing the clause that would break international law. But outside of this, there remain serious, fundamental flaws to this Bill of democratic, economic and societal harm to Wales. This, Deputy Llywydd, is a bad Bill, and a bad Bill for Wales. The loss of functionality in the Bill is stark. The loss of our current ability to lead the way banning certain plastics and the UK new authority proposed to diminish Welsh, for example, high food-quality standards via a UK priority setting is ever-present in this Bill. But to top it all—

Can you wind up, please?

The bonus of the UK Government being able to top-slice our income in Wales is not on. Counsel General, what representations and actions can the Welsh Government take, working with colleagues in Westminster, to combat this serious attack on Wales and Britain's good name? And what priority is being given to the proposed erosion of Welsh powers contained within this Bill?

I thank Rhianon Passmore for those questions. I can give her categorical assurance that this Government will stand up for the interests of people in Wales in relation to this Bill. And we will work with anybody who shares those opinions and shares those priorities. I'd like to pay tribute to parliamentary colleagues in my party, and in other parties in this Chamber, who stood up to those principles yesterday in Parliament in the way that she describes. But I'm not naive enough to think that the Prime Minister is likely to find the word of the Welsh Labour Government at its most persuasive. But I would urge him to listen to the words of three former Conservative Prime Ministers, as well as a range of former law officers and Lord Chancellors in previous Conservative Governments. This is a broad coalition of concern. It is not an exclusively party-political matter. There are ranges across the political spectrum who, for various reasons, are very, very troubled with this Bill. And I would say to him, it's not too late to heed those words and to reverse his position on this Bill.

Thank you very much. And that brings us to the end of the speakers for that item. Therefore, there is no further business, so that brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you very much.

The meeting ended at 18:50.