The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1, 4 and 5 in the name of Neil Hamilton, amendment 2 in the name of Rebecca Evans, amendments 3 and 8 in the name of Siân Gwenllian, and amendments 6 and 7 in the name of Gareth Bennett. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected.

That brings us to item 10, the Brexit Party debate on the UK Internal Market Bill, and I call on Mark Reckless to move the motion—Mark Reckless.

Motion NDM7372 Mark Reckless

To propose that the Senedd:

Welcomes the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the Brexit Party group's motion to welcome the UK Internal Market Bill, the second reading of which passed the House of Commons on Monday night with a majority of 77. I congratulate Members on the Conservative benches for their Government bringing this Bill forward and belatedly addressing some of the shortcomings in the withdrawal agreement of which my party has complained. I identify two broad impacts of the Bill, to which I will address my remarks in turn: first, what it does as regards the European Union, and second, what it does as regards devolution.

I am delighted that we are no longer a member of the European Union, a development for which I have campaigned all my adult life. I prefer being outwith this withdrawal agreement to not being out at all. However, there are aspects of that agreement that are deeply unsatisfactory. We are encouraged, if surprised, that by seeking to legislate in the manner of this Bill, the Prime Minister seeks to address this, at least to some extent.

The reason that the withdrawal agreement is so unsatisfactory for the UK yet so satisfactory for the European Union is the sequencing of negotiations—that is, the willingness of the UK Government to agree to give the EU what it wanted in the withdrawal agreement before the EU agreed to give us what we want in a trade agreement. The reason why the UK Government agreed to that is because it did not have a majority. The Conservatives have Theresa May to thank for that, but Labour played its part too by pledging in 2017 to respect the result of the EU referendum but then doing the reverse. It voted down a withdrawal agreement that would have kept the whole UK closely tied to the EU, including within its customs union, and later legislated to prevent 'no deal' so as to try to force the UK to stay in the EU in complete contravention of the referendum result.

So, Nigel Farage founded the Brexit Party, won the European election and drove Theresa May from office. To break the parliamentary impasse, the new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, agreed the current withdrawal agreement. To argue that withdrawal agreement is sacrosanct, as opponents of this Bill do, facilitates the interests of the EU and the sequencing it sought to impose to promote its interests at the expense of ours. It suited the EU to try to lock down a so-called divorce payment and its preferred model for Northern Ireland first. It did not suit the UK.

By mid 2017, UK and Irish tax and customs authorities had largely worked out how to avoid any border infrastructure or material hardening of the Northern Ireland border. Those discussions were broken off by the EU following the June 2017 election, which empowered its allies in the Labour Party to work with it, in effect against their own country's negotiators.

Oh, come off it, that's ridiculous. That's a ridiculous allegation.

I look forward to hearing the contribution from the ex-First Minister later. Is he allowed to intervene, Llywydd, or is that not parliamentary at the moment? Okay. 

Why should we split—[Interruption.] Wait till you hear this one. Why should we split the UK single market and customs union along the Irish sea when a Northern Ireland border could instead be avoided by the EU making checks across the Celtic sea between Ireland and the rest of the EU? Of course, in such a scenario, the EU and Ireland would quickly come to see merit in the many sensible alternative arrangements we have put forward to avoid any visible border. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill gives us the opportunity to reopen these issues and ensure that any settlement is equitable and in the interests of the UK as well as the EU.

There has been a lot of sound and fury in recent days. Many have leapt to the conclusion that 'no deal' is now much more likely, supposedly because of a breakdown of trust. The reality, I suspect, is that a deal has become significantly more likely. That is because the cost to the EU of not doing a deal has just gone up. If they refuse to grant us—[Interruption.] I suggest the ex-First Minister watches what they do rather than listens to what they say at this particular juncture. If they refuse to grant us satisfactory terms on the trade deal, which we want, then we will now take away what they wanted, and wrongly thought they already had, on the Northern Ireland protocol. 

Critics are right when they observe there is no provision in international law for a state unilaterally to alter just one part of a treaty it has agreed, although there are of course provisions for states to repudiate a withdrawal from whole treaties. I hope therefore that, absent to satisfactory agreement with the EU, the UK will withdraw from the whole treaty, including its financial arrangements and those trade matters that were wrongly predetermined to favour the EU, for example on geographical indicators. It is, however, I think, now more likely than before that a trade agreement will be reached with the EU and on terms more favourable to the UK than would have been attainable without the Prime Minister having strengthened his negotiating hand through this Bill. If so, we will judge its merits later in the year. 

I turn now to the impact on devolution. Old hands tell me that I need to understand that devolution is a process, not an event, but that is precisely the problem. A process that only ever leads in one direction risks Wales sleepwalking towards independence. Westminster's new attitude to the Sewel convention is a useful corrective to this. It was, I think, just three years ago that the Counsel General justified intervening before the Supreme Court because he hoped it might be persuaded to give the Sewel convention the force of law. It did not, and Westminster legislated for the withdrawal agreement notwithstanding a lack of agreed legislative consent motions. Perhaps it was just testing the machinery, because once again, while the majority in this Chamber and elsewhere will presumably withhold consent on this Bill, the Westminster Parliament is sovereign and can proceed regardless. 

A sure-fire way to break up the UK. 

We shall see. I look forward to listening to Members from across the Chamber and beyond debate the merits or otherwise of the devolution consequences of this Bill, and I hope to respond to them in appropriate detail when concluding the debate. However, I would not be surprised if I hear some Members contend that this Bill represents a power grab against devolution while others maintain it is a power surge for devolution. The truth is, I think, less extreme.

For many years, and increasingly, power in Wales has been exercised by the European Union. Wales and the UK as a whole voted to end that. As a consequence, power will flow from the European Union both to Westminster and the devolved institutions. The UK Internal Market Bill influences this to a degree, constrains us here in the exercise of some powers, but affirms and facilities our use of new powers in others. I strongly support the principle of mutual recognition and non-discrimination and, broadly, the way in which the Bill develops these. The Minister argued yesterday that they will constrain his Government and this Parliament. I agree. I welcome it. He fears a race to the bottom in regulatory standards. I look forward to greater competition—consumers empowered to decide for themselves rather than do as we tell them. To do that, they need to know what they're buying. On this issue, the Minister makes some compelling points. I would encourage the Conservatives to engage constructively with the Welsh Government on how best to ensure appropriate regulation of labelling to empower consumers.

This Chamber and the Commons become more powerful because we are leaving the European Union, so do both the Welsh Government and the United Kingdom Government. We believe that that is to be welcomed. For decades, the traditional model of parliamentary sovereignty at Westminster has been under threat from the European Union, which only ever aggregates more powers, and from the devolution process that only ever moves one way—towards independence. The Westminster Parliament is fighting back. We should welcome it.

I have selected the eight amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendments 1, 4 and 5 tabled in his name—Neil Hamilton.

Amendment 1—Neil Hamilton

Delete all and replace with:

Welcomes some parts of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill which rightly repatriate important powers from the EU to the UK.

Amendment 4—Neil Hamilton

Add as new point to the end of the motion:

Regrets those parts of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill which propose further devolution of powers to the Senedd and Welsh Government as, on the evidence of the last 20 years, the Welsh Government is likely to use them to increase regulation, restrict freedoms and undermine the competitiveness of the Welsh economy.

Amendment 5—Neil Hamilton

Add as new point at the end of the motion:

Believes that, as part of a wider plan to remedy the unsatisfactory results of devolution by, in particular, democratising the NHS and creating more local autonomy in education, and while retaining the elements of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill which assist in rightly repatriating powers from the EU to the UK, the Senedd should be scrapped.

Amendments 1, 4 and 5 moved.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Like Mark Reckless, I welcome those parts of the internal market Bill that repatriate powers from the EU to Westminster and to the devolved Parliaments. Like him, I've been fighting all my political life to see this objective achieved, ever since I first became a parliamentary candidate back in 1973. But I do oppose those parts of the Bill that grant further powers to this institution and to the other devolved institutions in the United Kingdom. As Darren Millar said in his speech yesterday, this Bill grants scores of new powers to the Senedd, to the Scottish Parliament and to Northern Ireland as well. And, as Mark Reckless said, devolution is described as a process, not an event, and I see, therefore, the Conservative Government as being complicit in that process, which, as Mark Reckless said, threatens to break up, ultimately, the United Kingdom. Because there can be little doubt, certainly as far as Scotland is concerned, that the devolution process has done nothing to assuage the desire for independence—actually, it's fed the beast. And it may well be that, in due course, Scotland detaches itself from the rest of the United Kingdom, which I think would be a shame. Welsh nationalists have not been anything like as successful as the Scottish nationalists, but nevertheless, the same prospect would threaten Wales very much indeed.

I believe that Wales does very badly out of devolution and that's why I've modified my view of the value of this place in the four and a half years that I've been here. In the 20 years of devolution, Wales has gone backwards relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. The average income in Wales, as we know, is only 75 per cent of the UK average. So, whatever hopes people had at the time that the devolution settlement was agreed, they've certainly not been fulfilled.

I find it remarkable that the Welsh Government is so opposed to the devolution of powers from Brussels to Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. They seem now to be terribly exercised by the prospect of the United Kingdom exercising powers in relation to the matters that are going to be repatriated, whereas they weren't bothered at all about those powers being exercised by people who we can hardly name, let alone control, in Brussels. After all, under qualified majority voting, the UK only has 8 per cent of the votes in the Council of Ministers, one commissioner out of 27 and 10 per cent of the votes in the European Parliament. Whatever view you take of that arithmetic, it's bound to lead to a massive increase in democracy and accountability in relation to a substantial area of laws that are made by which we are all governed.

But, of course, the United Kingdom single market is vastly more important to Wales than the EU single market ever was. After all, 60 per cent of Welsh exports go to England and England constitutes 84 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom. If there were any prospect of Balkanisation of the United Kingdom market, the big loser out of this would be Wales and certainly not England. That's why it's so important that the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination, which this Bill contains, should pass, because they actually guarantee the access of Wales to the United Kingdom market, which, if it were denied, would be an absolute disaster for the Welsh economy.

Now, Jeremy Miles took a rather jaundiced view of this and has described it as the starting gun for a race to the bottom, undermining high standards that we currently enjoy in terms of food standards, animal welfare and environment. But, like Mark Reckless, I don't see why the Government should deprive consumers of the right to choose. Let them decide what standards they want to observe. After all, there are a lot of people who think that organic food is best for us, and they're entitled to their opinion, but there shouldn't be a governmental decision as to whether that should be imposed upon everybody else. And so, therefore, I think it's up to us as individuals to decide for ourselves what we think is best and not have the Government do it for us. But, of course, the first instinct of the Welsh Government is to regulate, restrict and to nanny.

The state aid provisions have also been controversial in this Bill, but, of course, England subsidises Wales to a massive extent. In fact, it's the three regions of London, the south-east and eastern England that subsidise every other region and nation in the United Kingdom. The Welsh Government spends £18 billion a year, £14.7 billion of that comes from Westminster, or Whitehall, because we raise only just over £2 billion a year in income tax revenue in Wales and just over £1 billion on the other devolved taxes. That amounts to £4,500 per head of population in Wales. It's not surprising, therefore, that the UK Government has come to the conclusion that he who pays the piper should call the tune. And it would be, I think, very, very damaging to the future of the union if there were any other system than that which is proposed as a result of this Bill. It's just inconceivable that when so much English taxpayer subsidy flows to Wales, the English taxpayer would be prepared to put up with a system whereby their money could be used by the Welsh Government to undercut English companies and operate on what might be described as unfair competition. I remember when this happened in 2014—

You're now out of time, Neil Hamilton. Bring your contribution to a close.

Then that certainly would imperil the union. For 27 years, I've campaigned, UKIP has campaigned, for the repatriation of powers from the EU to the UK, so we welcome that part of the Bill, but the lasting threat to the unity and integrity of the UK is devolution itself. The Welsh Government and Senedd have paraded their contempt for the Welsh people—

I've given you 30 extra seconds there. I'll have to move on now. Thank you. 

The Counsel General and Minister for European Transition to move the amendment in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Amendment 2—Rebecca Evans

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the Senedd:

Believes that the UK Government’s Internal Market Bill represents a comprehensive assault on the devolution settlement which, if enacted, would severely undermine the powers of the Senedd to protect and promote the interests of the people of Wales.

Amendment 2 moved.

Formally.

I call on Dai Lloyd to move amendments 3 and 8, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Dai Lloyd.

Amendment 3—Siân Gwenllian

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the Senedd agrees that the UK Government’s Internal Market Bill is a direct assault on Welsh nationhood and democracy.

Amendment 8—Siân Gwenllian

Add as new point at end of motion: 

Calls on the Welsh Government to explore independence in order to protect Welsh democracy in light of the UK Government’s Internal Market Bill.

Amendments 3 and 8 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the Plaid amendments. Plaid Cymru cannot welcome the UK Internal Market Bill. Indeed, we see it as a direct assault on Welsh nationhood and democracy. This Bill is the single biggest assault on devolution since its creation. The internal market Bill is not simply a power grab but the destruction of two decades of devolution. Two referendums will be ignored and the will of the Welsh people overturned if this law is passed. This is why we are calling on the Welsh Government to explore independence in order to protect Welsh democracy in light of this Bill being proposed at Westminster.

Now, this is a matter of trust, Llywydd. The White Paper for this Bill, released earlier this summer, outlined two design rules to support these overarching objectives. Those were: (1) foster collaboration and dialogue, and (2) build trust and ensure openness. On both these issues, the Bill breaks its own rules. For collaboration and dialogue, in front of the Commons select committee on the future relationship to the EU, Jeremy Miles said the UK Government had not engaged a lot with the Welsh Government on this since the start of the year, and he didn't know what the Bill would include in detail either. This, clearly, is not a sign of constructive collaboration and dialogue. And as regards openness, the UK Government opened a consultation on the White Paper, but despite this, at no point since the closing of the consultation and publication of the Bill have the UK Government released even a summary of the said consultation. What other reason is there that would explain this other than the vast majority of respondents to the consultation expressing negative views?

How can we trust Westminster to look out for Wales's interests when it's clear from this Bill, and their actions, that they are intent on wrecking two decades of established devolution across the nations of the United Kingdom? Westminster's reckless handling of the pandemic has already shown how, in Wales, we can do better for ourselves. We need to strengthen, not weaken our own powers. The question that has to be asked and answered by Members today and people across Wales is this: who do you trust more, Wales or Westminster?

As regards mutual recognition, the scope of mutual recognition is far-reaching, limiting the ability of the Welsh Government to effectively legislate, and also confers on the UK Government powers to change the rules unilaterally. This means that it'll be very difficult for the devolved Governments to deviate from English standards, and it will be unable to enforce those standards against imports from England. For the past 20 years, we have had the flexibility to introduce different rules and regulations that we believe would protect and benefit the citizens of Wales. Wales will now be powerless to stop low-quality produce like chlorinated chicken from flooding our supermarkets, undercutting Welsh farmers. It could force Wales to turn a blind eye to animal cruelty and could lead to the return of battery eggs and other food produced with different practices.

There is no trust or respect, and far from taking back control, this Bill would put us in a far worse place than where we are as members of the EU. We are losing control—we are losing the limited control we have now.

The international repercussions of this Bill are also clear to see. In no circumstances should we welcome a Bill that, by the Government's own admission, breaks international law.

Monitoring of the internal market Bill is also important. There are serious problems with the proposed regulatory provision of the Competition and Markets Authority that oversees this UK internal market. An unelected body set up by Westminster cannot be trusted to be impartial, opening the door for huge corporations to challenge Welsh laws in court, trampling on our democracy in the process. Llywydd, it's very much like a Wales versus England match, where England are allowed to not only pick the referee, but then decide which rules the referee should follow and what the penalties should be.

The way forward, as I wrap up—I can see the time—the Westminster Government have been targeting Welsh powers since Brexit, emboldened by the Brexit vote, in fact. Independence is the only sustainable solution to blocking Westminster's attacks on Welsh nationhood and institutions. The Welsh Government must by now, at least, explore independence in order to protect our democracy. We need more than words. We need a pro-independence Government in Wales that will empower us to resist Westminster's attacks on our democracy.

Dai Lloyd has a mysterious influence on the clock, obviously. [Laughter.]

I call on Gareth Bennett to move amendments 6 and 7, tabled in his name. Gareth Bennett.

Amendment 6—Gareth Bennett

Add as new point at end of motion:

Believes that the powers repatriated by the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill should not be devolved to Wales given the failure that the Welsh Government and Senedd have shown with the current devolved powers that they have.

Amendment 7—Gareth Bennett

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls for a binding referendum on whether to keep or abolish the devolved government and parliament of Wales, in light of the proposed aims of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.

Amendments 6 and 7 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I am moving my amendments today for the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party. These are amendments 6 and 7, just to clarify for the benefit of the, doubtless, many Members who may want to vote for them at the end of this debate.

Now, I broadly support the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in that it does represent another step towards carrying out what the Welsh people actually voted for in 2016, which was for the UK to leave the European Union. We've had a lot of debates, of course, about Brexit over the past four years. This debate we are having today, though, touches on other important matters, such as what kind of UK emerges after Brexit. If I can presume to summarise the arguments of the main parties as I see them, Labour and Plaid Cymru seem fixated on the constitutional powers of the Welsh Government and this Parliament. They appear to be obsessed with any perceived attempt by the UK Government to undermine the devolution settlement—obsessed, I would say, almost to the point of paranoia—while the Conservatives appear to be more interested in ensuring smooth, unhindered trade for Welsh businesses across the UK after Brexit.

Now, I wonder which of those positions would the majority of ordinary people in Wales be more likely to sympathise with. We have heard some anguished speeches about this Bill from the left, and, of course, they are entitled to their opinions. But can we have an injection of reality here? The vast majority of people in Wales are not interested in the constitutional niceties of the devolution settlement, they just want a better quality of life. They don't care if disputes are settled by an office of the internal market or some other body. They don't care if clause 46 of some agreement or other is in danger of being breached, because, to be honest, they don't even know what clause 46 is. Apart from David Melding, who does? But people in Wales will care if Welsh jobs are lost because trade is disrupted because, for instance, the Welsh Government wants to veto an international trade treaty that the UK Prime Minister wants to sign.

People in Wales will care if business is lost by Welsh companies because they can't trade unhindered across the border with English companies. Can I point out, backing that point that was just made by Neil Hamilton—[Inaudible.]. This is the economic reality? If Jenny Rathbone, as we heard yesterday, wants to have tougher regulations in Wales on plastics than they have in England, then that is up to her, but is she willing to sacrifice Welsh business and Welsh jobs and the quality of life of people in Wales for that principle? Obviously, plastic is a problem, but it's not just a problem in Wales, is it? How different does she think regulations are going to be in England in any case? Most sensible people who do not have a constitutional fetish about these things would probably agree that the most sensible way forward after Brexit would be one common set of regulations throughout the UK, not four different ones. So, a message to Welsh Labour: stop being a bunch of political anoraks and wake up to the reality of what will affect normal people.

Welsh Labour and Plaid are also incensed that the UK Government may interfere in areas like health and education. This is rather laughable, since we have a health service that is shot to pieces and an education system that is plummeting downwards through the world rankings. This is hardly a sound basis for clamouring for more powers to come to this place. The reality is that more and more people see that devolution is failing Wales. More and more want an end to the real constitutional catastrophe, which is devolution itself. More and more people are expressing their desire to abolish the Welsh Parliament. My party wants to do that, too, although of course we want the democratic consent of the people of Wales in order to do so. In short, we want a referendum on whether or not devolution is still wanted by the people of Wales in a post-Brexit world, which is why I'm moving today's amendments. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I applaud the Brexit Party for bringing forward this important debate today in the face of continued denial that we are leaving the beloved EU that people on the Government benches and in Plaid Cymru feel so passionately about? Labour, Plaid Cymru and others in this country have done everything they can to prevent us from delivering on the democratic mandate of the people of Wales. Firstly, they tried to stop us leaving the European Union. Then they tried to delay us leaving the European Union by extending the transition period, and now you're trying to scupper plans that will ensure that Welsh businesses have unfettered access to our biggest market—the rest of the United Kingdom. Seventy-five per cent of Welsh trade is with the rest of the UK. The UK Internal Market Bill will ensure that, when the transition period ends, on 31 December 2020, businesses in Wales will continue to be able to benefit from seamless trade with other parts of the UK. And as we begin the slow economic recovery from the coronavirus, protecting jobs and avoiding additional cost on businesses or consumers are vitally important, and that's why we support this Bill.

The Bill reaffirms that the United Kingdom is made up of four partners, and under these plans, companies will have equal opportunity to trade, regardless of where in the United Kingdom they are based. The Bill also, of course, maintains the high standards that we enjoy right across the UK in areas such as food hygiene, animal welfare standards and other regulations, ensuring co-operation with devolved Governments. And I'm pleased that yesterday the Counsel General and Minister for the Brexit transition acknowledged that there's been some good work on a cross-UK basis on common frameworks.

The Bill also, of course, delivers on Boris Johnson's pledge to the people of Northern Ireland that we will leave the EU as one United Kingdom and that there will be no customs border in the Irish sea, something that the European Union subscribed to in article 4 of the Northern Ireland protocol. The Bill also guarantees the devolution of further powers to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland once the transition period ends later in the year. At least 65 new policy powers that previously resided at an EU level will be passed directly to this Welsh Parliament. And crucially, none of this Welsh Parliament's current powers will be removed—not one of them. It makes last week's rhetoric from the Labour Party and from Plaid Cymru all the more extraordinary, with all of this talk of an assault on devolution and stealing powers and a power grab, because it's crystal clear: not one single power of this Senedd will be taken away as a result of this Bill.

The Counsel General has said that the Bill is not necessary, and we accept on these benches that it's something of a backstop, but it gives business in Wales what they need above all else, and that is certainty—certainty that will enable them to continue to trade in the future and keep those jobs in the economy that we need them to protect, particularly at this difficult time. And it guarantees access to that entire UK market, avoiding the risk that politicians could fail to secure the framework agreements and with an increasingly agitated separatist Government in Scotland, and I think it's just too great a risk for Welsh jobs. Currently, many UK investment decisions are taken by unelected EU bodies and, quite rightly, this Bill will end that when we leave the transition period. It will then be, of course, for politicians elected in the UK by the people of the UK to use spending powers to support our communities and businesses, including any direct replacements for EU schemes, including exchange opportunities. 

Now, in economic development and infrastructure, this Bill will enable greater partnership working between the UK and Welsh Governments, because the powers that the UK Government will inherit from the EU will be shared with the Welsh Government. Many countries with devolved governments have shared powers, including in Germany and in the United States, and this, of course, is a double opportunity to get much more investment into Wales, and both Governments, of course, have a responsibility to act to secure economic growth, especially at such a volatile time. That's why I find it absolutely astonishing, frankly, that we have a Welsh Government that's complaining that the UK Government wants powers to be able to invest in Wales. Why on earth would you complain about that? You've had assurances that these additional investments will be in excess of the Barnett block grant that we receive at the moment, so I've no idea why you would want to object to investment in our infrastructure in this country.

The UK Government has been absolutely clear that the level of funding for Wales, as a result of the EU schemes that will end, will be matched and replicated and that Wales will not lose a single penny. And that's what the people of Wales voted for. That's why your party lost so many seats in those elections last year, including here in Wales. So, for a strong internal market and to protect the interests of businesses the length and breadth of this country and the length and breadth of Wales, I urge people to support the motion.  

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for his greeting there, welcoming me up to speak. Well, we heard from Neil Hamilton we should respect our financial masters, we heard from Gareth Bennett 'for Wales, see England', but I'd like to take Members back to 1998, when the Good Friday agreement was drawn up and signed. That was done as a result of a huge amount of work by John Major, a Conservative Prime Minister, Tony Blair, a Labour Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern in Ireland—many, many politicians who brought to an end a conflict that had bedeviled Northern Ireland since 1969 and had its roots back to 1689 and beyond. The conflict that many people thought could not be resolved because of the lack of a common identity that still exists in Northern Ireland, and yet, cross party, we saw politicians come together and negotiate in a mature way an end to a conflict. And look at us now. Look at us now—a laughing stock. A country that not just is proud of breaking international law, but admits it. States have broken international law for years—the US did it, the Soviet Union did it in the cold war, states still do it now, but I don't think anyone actually was dull enough to actually admit it. 

And here we have ourselves as a country. For years, we have said to others, 'Look at us, we're a beacon of freedom, of democracy, of liberty, because we are a rules-based country, we respect international rules', and here we are, a lawbreaker. How can we possibly preach to others in the future if we are self-confessed lawbreakers ourselves? That is something that has come not just in Parliament from Brandon Lewis as a Minister, but something he has reiterated and has today caused the resignation of Lord Keen, the Advocate General in Scotland, because he respects his professional reputation. That is how bad a situation we are in. 

Let's just remind ourselves: the Prime Minister agreed this withdrawal agreement, Parliament approved it on 23 January 2020—Boris Johnson was the Prime Minister. He said it was an oven-ready deal, an oven-ready deal. Well, the baked Alaska's an Eton mess now, isn't it, because now there is no deal. He has gone back on a deal he himself agreed with, and do you know why? He didn't read it. He didn't read it. I said at the time that this would put a border down the middle of the Irish Sea. The Democratic Unionist Party said it at the time—not my bedfellows, I have to say. The Prime Minister disagreed. And now, nine months later, oh dear, the chickens are coming home to roost. He didn't read the thing at the time, and here is the situation that we find ourselves in. 

He trumpeted it. He advocated it. He supported it. He said this was a deal that would be the withdrawal agreement that would get the UK out of the EU, and now he's going back on it. How stupid does that make us look as a country, and how does that reflect on the Prime Minister? Why would any country trust the UK in a trade negotiation? Why? Because here we have the UK agreeing something then un-agreeing it. Why on earth would anyone trust us? That's the problem. No country with that kind of reputation—. And we see, of course, that Dominic Raab has scuttled off to America, because he can see the effect this is having on American politics and what that will mean for a UK-US trade deal, and here we have a Foreign Secretary who's in that position. 

And let me be quite clear: I agree there have to be rules within the UK single market. I absolutely agree. We cannot have a scenario where Welsh goods cannot go into England—clearly not, and for reasons well made by Darren Millar and others. We clearly cannot have a situation where it is more difficult to invest in one part of the UK because of barriers. We can't have a situation where there are no rules at all—advocated, actually, by the DUP—because in a no-rules internal market the biggest wins, and the biggest is England. We can't win that battle, and we should welcome a rules-based internal market. I welcome that; I think that's absolutely right. My difficulty is this: the UK Government has a direct conflict of interest—it's also the Government of England. It isn't in a situation where it is an overarching federal Government that only represents the entire country—it's also the Government of England. How can we be confident that a UK Government that is the Government of England as well as the Government of the UK will be fair to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? That's the problem I have. It's the equivalent of the German Government dictating to the rest of the EU exactly what the terms of trade within the EU should be. 

It would have been far better if this could have been agreed, and I think it could have been agreed—it could have been agreed. We could have had the four Governments of the UK agreeing on a common set of rules. It's in everybody's interest, even the Scottish National Party, for that to happen, because it's not in the SNP's interest for Scotland to lose access to the UK's internal single market. How much better it would have been if this had been done on the basis of agreement, of consensus, rather than imposition. And I say to the Conservatives opposite: I understand their passion for the union. I understand their need to defend what their Government is doing. I understand that. But surely you can see that by appearing to impose on Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland for that matter, that weakens the union. It doesn't strengthen the union—it weakens it.

The days of the nineteenth century and parliamentary sovereignty to my mind are gone. We need a better constitution, a better UK, and, in that way, we can prosper. I don't buy that independence is the only answer, but I believe this is an equal partnership of nations; Darren Millar is right about that. Let's make it so, let's have a constitution fit for the twenty-first century, and let's move away from this situation where it's simply a matter of Westminster imposes and the rest of us have to accept. 

Well, déjà vu, here we are again. It feels like 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019—hysteria, portents of doom and hyperbole. I've read through some of the comments that hit the headlines in the last few weeks. Jeremy Miles:

'This Bill is an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales'.

Well, I'm sorry, Jeremy, but the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union and possibly shouted the loudest last December when the so-called red wall was breached spectacularly, even in Wales, on the promise of getting Brexit done.

We've also got Plaid Cymru: it's the

'destruction of two decades of devolution.'

And the next one is:

'Two referendums will be ignored and the will of the Welsh people overturned if this law is passed.'

That one is my particular favourite, and I beg to differ. If anything will destroy devolution, it's the call from Plaid and Labour for more of it when, in my view, it's been a spectacular missed opportunity on many, many levels. And you mention referenda, which is so deliciously rich. When democracy gives you the right result, it's okay, but, when it doesn't, you'll kick and scream all the way to the general election in 2019, and still you will ignore the clear message you have been given by the electorate. The confected political outrage is predictable, and I've been very, very disappointed not to see the words 'cliff edge' or 'hammer blow' in the mix as well. But now this. You are really shouting, as usual, inside your own echo chamber. Households in Wales are not discussing this—they are struggling to make ends meet, they're trying to get GP appointments, and they're washing their hands. Yes, I've had a couple of e-mails about it, but it's clear that north Wales constituents are more troubled by the persecution of hen harriers than what's in this Bill. 

I do accept that the timing of the Bill has not been great with regard to the consultation periods. However, we are in unprecedented times on more than one level. And we all know how the process works, because it's our process too: sensible amendments may be made, and are in the gift of the Government if they have the majority. Here, the Welsh Government uses its slim majority to pass any law it wants, whether or not it appeared in a manifesto. And, as we all know, primary legislation is given its detail with supplementary regulations. The Conservative UK Government was gifted its majority party, I would say, as a direct result of much of the shenanigans here in this Chamber. I'm not going to repeat here the arguments, well worn, about Brexit, standards, sovereignty, but I do find phrases such as 'power grab' and 'race to the bottom' very unnecessary and very childish. The Prime Minister's European chief Brexit negotiator, David Frost, gave good reason for this Bill in a detailed thread on Twitter a few days ago. It appears that the EU is putting food supplies to Northern Ireland at risk. I'm sure that reason alone would be enough to convince any unionist who believes in the integrity of the union to support this motion today. 

The Brexit Party was very vocal last year on how bad the withdrawal agreement was. No-one wanted to know about it then, and, if the lack of good faith of the EU means we have to walk away in the clear interests of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, I'm very comfortable with that. This Bill is another step on our journey—our long and arduous journey—to national sovereignty, and, for that reason, I wish to put on record that I will be supporting this motion unamended today. Thank you very much. 

Yesterday, Darren Millar asked why we put up with the European Parliament holding so much power over our destiny, yet we are objecting to the UK Government capturing those policy responsibilities and powers to exercise on our behalf. The reason we are doing that is that the powers held by the European Parliament, and, in turn, by the European Commission, were negotiated and agreed. Patently, that is not the case with the internal market Bill, which is a land grab by the English Parliament, and it's really distressing that they have completely forgotten the whole concept of subsidiarity, which was a core principle of the European Union. We have left now, we absolutely accept that, but we have to understand that this Bill is, quite simply, going to prevent us doing our duty to protect and enhance the lives of Welsh citizens, who have consented to us doing so on their behalf in both a referendum and subsequent parliamentary elections. And if they don't like what we're doing, they can vote for the fringe parties like UKIP, who want to turn back the tide of history and hand the keys of responsibility for the destiny of Wales back to the UK Parliament. 

So, I am concerned that the areas where we would be prevented from acting in the interests of our people, our land and our environment, include our inability to ban adulterated food, whether its genetically modified, it's grown with hormone-fed beef, chlorinated chicken, or it's been reared off the back of the tearing down of the Amazon, which is required in order to feed them with constant supplies of soya, instead of the way in which we produce our meat, which is grass-fed. So, if we have no trade deal with the European Union, we will be operating under WTO rules, and that means we will be absolutely unable to stop the tide of these sorts of poor environmental standards of agriculture, poor animal welfare standards, which are just designed to maximise profits. It's not only David Attenborough who is pointing out that this spells environmental, climate and species disaster. There are many, many people saying that this is absolutely no way to continue to abuse the resources of this planet.

So, we would presumably, for example, be prevented from strengthening Part L of our housing regulations so that, in future, only decent, quality homes to zero-carbon standards could be built, and that we could prevent anything else being built. And, finally, it would force our Welsh water companies to adhere to the much lower environmental and economic standards of the English water companies, who last year polluted, discharged raw sewage into, English rivers 200,000 times because of poor regulation by the Environment Agency.

We do not need a race to the bottom. This is not about making businesses impossible to operate. We need to ensure that, collectively, we are able to put forward constant improvements to tackle the pollution of our rivers and seas. And we should be able to encourage other Governments of the United Kingdom to follow our lead, as they have done on things like plastic bags. People didn't vote for having their children swimming in sewage, and they do not want to be eating fish polluted with plastic. I agree with Darren Millar that most of Welsh trade is with the rest of the UK. But that's lucky, because it does look increasingly likely that there will be no deal with the European Union, and therefore we will have to fall back on our own resources within the United Kingdom to maintain the living standards and the well-being of our society.

Frankly, I don't believe that Boris Johnson didn't read what he was signing. Or, if he did, he just assumed that this so-called oven-ready deal he was promising everybody—that he'd be able to wriggle out of it afterwards and he'd come up with some other solution along the way, and somebody said, 'Don't worry, just sign it, sort it out.' That is no way to deal with—for getting people to trust you. And I don't trust him with managing the shared prosperity fund for Wales, and I'm not bought off by the crumbs on table that Darren Millar says they're offering.

Llywydd, when I listen to the movers of the main motion, I actually do wonder how many of them have actually read the Bill and the supporting documentation. I've gone through it, and these are my views as to what are the key points, the key things that are wrong.

The first thing is it legislates to legalise illegality. That's unacceptable. It specifically restricts and undermines the judiciary. That is unacceptable. It gives powers to Ministers with no proper scrutiny, either for Parliament or the Welsh Government. That is unacceptable. It undermines devolution. It doesn't take away specific powers, but what it does do is give Government Ministers, without any significant scrutiny, the powers to take over devolved functions. In my view, that undermines devolution. It opens the door for lower food standards—chlorinated chicken has been mentioned, but there are many, many other examples that there could be. It opens the door to reduced environmental standards. The Tories have opposed non-regression of clauses. It restricts the ability of the Senedd to legislate in devolved areas in accordance with election manifesto commitments in respect of devolved powers. It clearly undermines democracy; it undermines the outcome of two referenda. It opens the door to the privatisation of the NHS—that is indisputable. And more than anything, this Bill is completely unnecessary, because it was always agreed and intended that there would be common frameworks and that there would be a common framework for the internal market and state aid. The Government has chosen unilaterally to breach that understanding and to impose unilateral legislation to override all those agreements and understandings. This Bill, not only is it unnecessary, it is, as was described yesterday in the Senedd discussion, repugnant, and that is why we on the Labour side are opposed to it.

The Minister to contribute to the debate, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. As I explained yesterday in my statement on the Bill, there are a number of fundamental reasons for objecting to the Bill and for voting against this motion today. May I just highlight four of those main reasons? First of all—although, unlike much of the Bill, it is not a direct assault on devolution—the invitation to the UK Parliament to break international law. Now, that would be enough in and of itself to refuse legislative consent when the time comes. This Senedd cannot break international law and that is a strong argument for not working with the UK Government in doing so.

Secondly, Part 6 of the Bill, for the first time since devolution, would provide very broad-ranging powers to UK Government Ministers to use taxpayers' money to invest in Wales in devolved areas. Specifically, UK Ministers are talking about making decisions that are claimed to have been taken by bureaucrats in Brussels in the past, but that simply isn't the case. The powers proposed would allow them to fund hospitals and housing developments directly, although housing and health are excluded from European funding generally speaking. I've heard some say, including today, in a manner that is quite unbelievable, that any investment by the UK Government is in addition to the funding that would otherwise be within the Welsh budget. I assume, therefore, that the leader of the opposition and the Conservatives in the Senedd will commit to opposing these new powers unless the UK Government gives a guarantee that any proposed expenditure will be additional to what is owed to Wales under the Barnett formula or the guarantee made by the 'leave' campaigners that we would not receive a penny less than had we remained in the European Union.

Thirdly, turning to the proposed reason for the Bill: the aspiration, it is said, to safeguard the internal market. As I explained yesterday and today, and I echo Carwyn Jones's comments here, we support the objective of an internal market for the UK, but the efforts to jointly develop a series of general frameworks, which is the best way of securing that, are not strengthened but rather are undermined by the imposition of reciprocal recognition requirements without differentiation across all parts of the economy, without any of the safeguards that such principles depend on in order to function in a way that is acceptable.

A process that is built on collaboration and co-ordination between Governments must be at the heart of any internal market. Let me just give one example, leaving aside the question of imports from the United States for a moment. Let's assume that Ministers in the UK decide that the only way to enable the beef sector in England to remain competitive on an international stage is to allow farmers to use hormones and antibiotics in beef cattle. This Parliament could refuse to give the same freedom to Welsh farmers, but, Llywydd, it could not prevent that hormone-injected beef from England from being sold on supermarket shelves in Neath or in Aberystwyth. And it couldn't even insist that there would be labelling to inform Welsh consumers that that beef had been treated in that way.

So, far from safeguarding the internal market, the Bill is a firing pistol for the race to the bottom— and I defend the use of that phrase—with the least regulated part of the UK triumphant and making the rest of the UK subject to those lowest standards. And if UK Government Ministers want us to believe that they are serious in their protestations that they would maintain, or even improve, standards in terms of food safety or environmental safeguards, let them put that assurance on the face of the Bill.

And, finally, Llywydd, may I draw Members' attention to a part of the Bill where the UK Government admits that it is trying to undo devolution, namely the efforts to add state aid to the list of reserved matters in the Government of Wales Act 2006? Our legal advice has been clear from the outset: this is not a reserved matter. And it appears now that lawyers within the UK Government also agree on that and that is why the UK Government wishes to add it, so that they can have their own way and draw up the rules or the lack of rules, perhaps, that would apply after the last day of December of this year.

Once again, let me be clear. We are in favour of a clear and robust state-aid regime that all parts of the UK are signed up to and agreed and is subject to enforcement by a truly independent regulator. But we are not willing to agree that the UK Government, which has a duty to safeguard the interests of England in devolved areas, such as economic development and on, should plan and oversee a system that could be used to favour businesses in England over those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

There are just four of the numerous reasons for opposing the internal market Bill and I would encourage every Member here to support the Government amendment to the motion today. 

Mark Reckless to reply to the debate. Mark Reckless. 

Diolch, Llywydd. And may I thank everyone very much indeed for their contributions, which I thought were largely temperate in tone? I think the debate, both here and in Westminster, is perhaps better today than it was a few days ago.

Neil Hamilton opened the debate, not to universal acclaim, I have to say, in the Chamber, but thank you, Neil. You referred to your campaigning also all your adult life against the European Union, and certainly your early membership of the Anti-Common Market League, and I think a very recent final ascension to lead UKIP may be in those categories, but I do also recall your vote on the paving motion in support of Maastricht, which I did feel was regrettable. 

Dai Lloyd spoke next, and he gave no welcome to this motion or the internal market Bill, which I don't think was a surprise to anyone. He spoke very strongly I felt. He said it would destroy two decades of devolution; it would trample on democracy. And he then said, 'Should people trust Wales or Westminster?' in an effort to 'other' Westminster as if there weren't Welsh MPs at Westminster. He then referred to it being unfair to England to pick the referee despite it being the UK Government, and then he himself managed to reset the clock. 

Gareth Bennett spoke next. He told us that he was representing the Abolish the Assembly Party. I think he then said he would vote for all his amendments. I didn't quite hear because of the ex-First Minister in his new role heckling from the backbench, along with the heckler in chief from across the aisle, so I didn't catch everything that Gareth said, but I thank him for his contribution. 

Darren Millar I certainly did hear, and he started his speech in very good manner, I thought, by applauding the Brexit Party. And, indeed, I see David Melding has recently joined, but we did have three out of three leavers on the Conservative benches in our physical session also to welcome the debate, which I appreciate. He reminded us that Boris Johnson said that Northern Ireland would leave the European Union with the UK as a whole. There would be no border along the Irish sea. There definitely wouldn't be any export declarations from Northern Ireland to Britain. And, I'm afraid, sir, I didn't believe him, because I consulted the withdrawal agreement and it appeared, to me, to provide for all those things. I underestimated his ability and willingness to rip it up after winning this great majority at the election. I, for my part, applaud what he is doing. I didn't think it was going to happen, but he's doing it, and I think it will greatly strengthen his negotiating position by increasing the cost to the EU of not doing a free-trade deal, because they will lose the Northern Ireland protocol.

I think that he said that there was going to be a lot more spending from the UK Government in Wales, which, of course, I would welcome. They seem to be printing an awful lot of money—hopefully they can use it to get on with building the M4 relief road, amongst other things.

We then had Carwyn Jones, the ex-First Minister, reminding us again of the 1988 Good Friday Agreement, which he's spoken of, I recall, a number of times in this Chamber. I was a little surprised by his comments immediately after that, because he explained that it was widespread practice of states to break international law, but what he objected to was the honesty of Brandon Lewis in admitting to it, which his students will be interested to engage with in future at Aberystwyth I'm sure.

He also mentioned Dominic Raab and his role now in the US explaining the situation and how actually it will support peace in Northern Ireland. And I recall working with Dominic Raab on a key matter that's now come to the fore. I was quite surprised in 2012 when the Abu Qatada extradition—. Theresa May was trying in various ways and she was insisting on applying a European Court of Human Rights judgment rather than our own Supreme Court judgment, in a way that was making it harder her to deport Qatada, at least on her initial way of trying to do it. And in the end, she told myself and Dominic Raab that she was doing this because of the ministerial code. I looked at this and it referred to the over-arching duty on Ministers to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations, which struck me as an extraordinary fetter on the sovereignty of Parliament and what I had thought was the duty of Ministers to act according to the law as determined by Parliament. And it was with Dominic Raab that I saw David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and actually made the case on this, and I believe persuaded, or at least he came back to us and said that he did think the ministerial code needed to be revised. Ultimately, Nick Clegg stopped him doing so at that point, but he said that if he ever got a majority, he would change it and take those six words out. And in 2015 he was as good as his word. And it is because of that that Brandon Lewis could say what he said in the Commons and remain as a Minister.

We then had Mandy Jones remind us that Wales voted to leave the European Union, indeed in 2016—quite a long time ago now. Rather more recently, she reminded us about developments in the red wall in north Wales. She struck the Bill as part of the normal legislative process that some things are left to Ministers by regulation. She chided some Ministers here about their language and then she reminded us all—I think, very importantly—that the Brexit Party was saying last year what Boris is saying now, and we therefore welcome that.

Jenny Rathbone referred to children swimming in sewage and some other developments that might be very bad that she said would come from this Bill. She said it was increasingly likely to lead to 'no deal'. Again, I strongly disagree with this, because it increases the cost to the EU of not doing a deal.

We then had Mick Antoniw who gave a short contribution. He asked the main movers of the motion—which I assume he means me—have I read the Bill, to which the answer is 'yes'. I've also found this 'United Kingdom Internal Market Bill 2019-21' document from the House of Commons Library quite useful. I understand that our Library hasn't quite had time to do one for what is, after all, a Westminster document. But I look forward to his committee—reading what they have to say upon the matter. He talked about legislating to legalise illegality, but, of course, the legislation does that. I'm not sure if he's aware of the developments with Bob Neill and Damian Green and what's now being announced. I would welcome the changes in the Bill that are proposed. I think if it's Parliament that is saying it's going to do this rather than just Ministers, then it will be all the stronger. I've no doubt that Ministers will get a majority in Parliament if they need to. It's less likely judges will interfere with what the Bill says if it's Parliament rather than Ministers, and I think it will help persuade the European Union to change its position and to give us a better deal than we would otherwise get.

We finally had the Minister who had four broad arguments against the Bill. Firstly about breaking international law. I think I've already referenced that. He was also, I think, very against the UK Government spending money in Wales, particularly in the areas of hospitals and housing, because the EU haven't spent money in those areas. I don't really understand that objection. I'd also just alert him to the fact that at least the House of Commons Library takes the position that,

'The Bill (clauses 46-47) includes a power "to provide financial assistance" but this does not appear to alter the devolution settlements. The UK Government can already spend in devolved areas.'

It's something I welcome. I hope there's going to be more of it—the M4 relief road would be a good start. But there should be more co-operation with Welsh Government and there should be common frameworks in appropriate areas, but I support having the mutual recognition, having this non-discrimination, having an internal market that works for the whole UK and having a position that allows us to get a better deal with the European Union than might otherwise be possible. I commend our motion to colleagues. Thank you.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

That brings us to voting time, but in accordance with Standing Order 34.14D, there will be a break of five minutes before voting takes place. So, a break of five minutes.

Plenary was suspended at 19:16.

The Senedd reconvened at 19:26, with the Llywydd in the Chair.