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.