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.