Debate continued from 8 December.

The following motion was moved on 8 December:

Motion NDM7497 Jeremy Miles

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 29.6, agrees that provisions in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, in so far as they fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, should be considered by the UK Parliament.

 So, we will resume with yesterday's item 7, which is the legislative consent motion on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The first contributor to the debate today will be the Chair of the Finance Committee, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you, Llywydd. I am pleased to speak in this debate today on behalf of the committee, and given the significance of this legislation, we explored, as a committee, the financial considerations associated with the Bill with the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, and the committee reached a majority conclusion that the constitutional and financial implications stemming from the passing of the internal market Bill, in its original form, would undermine the devolution settlement, leading to the possibility of a reduction in the funding available through the Welsh block grant .

While we welcomed the Welsh Government’s approach of seeking support through the House of Lords for its model amendments to the Bill, we highlighted our concern that changes pursued through the Lords could be reinstated once the Bill returned to the House of Commons, and that was the case when some of the financial aspects of the Bill that had been changed were reinstated by the Commons.

We have a number of concerns regarding the Bill, and I will list some of them now in my contribution this afternoon. First of all, there is the possibility that the UK Government will spend in devolved areas and in a way that is not compatible with the strategic intentions of the Welsh Government. The Minister told us that it would be possible to use the financial assistance powers within the Bill for a very broad set of purposes, including within devolved areas. The Lords removed this clause, but, of course, it was reinstated by the Commons. We don't believe that these powers are necessary and we believe that they will serve to undermine spending decisions made in Wales.

Part 6 of the Bill gave power to the UK Government Ministers to directly fund any person on a wide range of matters that are within devolved competence at this time. The committee was concerned about the implications of expenditure by UK Government in devolved areas for the Welsh block grant, with the worrying possibility that this spending will be funded by top-slicing the block grant. While an amendment was agreed in the House of Lords to remove clause 42 from the Bill, concerns remain over the UK Government’s intentions in the devolved nations.

The Finance Committee has concerns around the reservation of state aid and subsidy control without the agreement of devolved nations. The Lords, again, removed the clause that reserves state aid, but it was subsequently reinstated by the Commons. The UK Government said the clause is needed because it's necessary to reserve to the UK Parliament the right to legislate for a system to regulate the provision by public bodies of subsidies that are or may be distortive or harmful and to avoid the risk of inconsistent regulation of such subsidies in the different parts of the UK. We heard that the Welsh Government has always argued that state aid is not reserved under the Government of Wales Act 2006, and we believe there must be discussions with devolved nations on these issues.

There's a lack of clarity on the impact of the Bill in terms of subsidy control on tax devolution and the possibility that certain tax policies in Wales may be limited or open to challenge. We believe the lack of clarity on the impact of this Bill on tax devolution should be addressed to ensure there are no unintended consequences when different approaches to tax are taken in different parts of the UK.

Finally, Llywydd, it's disappointing that this close to the end of the EU transition period there still remains no clarity on the shape or form of the UK shared prosperity fund, three years after it was announced. We reported as a committee back in 2018 on replacing EU funding for Wales, at which time there were concerns about the lack of engagement from the UK Government with the Welsh Government, and, of course, we heard that this situation is still 'exceptionally poor'. There was little information on the fund in the Chancellor’s spending review announced on 25 November, which said further details would be set out in a UK-wide investment framework published in spring of next year. The UK Government has an important role to ensure that the Welsh Government and stakeholders in Wales have sufficient resource through the fund, and the UK Government must engage with the Welsh Government and other devolved Governments on this issue as a matter of urgency. With those comments, I look forward to hearing the contributions of others in this debate. Diolch.

It will come as no surprise to everybody in this Chamber that I rise to speak in support of the legislative consent motion. Labour, Plaid Cymru and others in this Chamber have done everything that they can to try to prevent the UK from delivering on the democratic mandate of the people of Wales. First, they tried to stop us from leaving the EU, then they tried to extend the transition period, and today they are trying to scupper the UK internal market Bill.

Other speakers in this debate so far, both yesterday and just now, have warned that this legislation is a snatch-and-grab at devolved powers and an attempt to centralise decision making in London. But, of course, that is not the case. It's a piece of legislation that has two principal aims: firstly, to provide an orderly transfer of powers from Brussels to the UK as the result of our departure from the EU; and secondly to protect the integrity of the UK's own internal market. The measures it contains will ensure that, when the transition period ends, businesses across Wales will continue to be able to benefit from the seamless trade that they already currently enjoy with the rest of the UK. Ensuring the continuity of this trade and the businesses and jobs that that trade protects is all the more important given the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the Welsh economy.

The Bill reaffirms that the UK is made up of four nations and that no matter in which nation a business is based it will have an equal opportunity to sell its goods and services anywhere in the United Kingdom. The legislation also maintains current high standards across the UK on a range of subjects, including food hygiene, animal welfare and other matters. It will not diminish any of those standards, including on employment, at all. It will benefit, of course, Welsh farmers as well, actually, as we seize the opportunities presented by leaving the common agricultural policy, enabling us to create a new system that puts the interests of our farmers here in Wales first. 

Contrary to what some in the Welsh Parliament would have you believe, the Bill actually respects and strengthens the devolution settlement. As a result of this legislation, scores of powers will be transferred to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on 1 January, and not a single power will be taken away. Powers in scores of new policy areas that previously resided in Brussels will be passed directly to the Welsh Government. Not one power will be taken away. And I refer to your comments on state aid yesterday, Minister. The reality is, of course, that state aid is fettered here in Wales as a result of the EU at present. So, transferring those responsibilities to the UK Government seems to me to be perfectly sensible. 

Llywydd, the Bill amounts to a fulfilment of Boris Johnson's pledges to get Brexit done and to devolve new powers to the Senedd as a result of the departure of the UK from the European Union. And the need to improve this legislation is more important now than ever. Wales sells more to the rest of the UK than the rest of the world put together, so it's vital that we do all that we can to protect this economic co-operation and partnership between the four nations, because only that will help us bounce back from COVID-19. 

The Bill will also help the economic recovery by paving the way for the UK Government to invest in communities across the United Kingdom, including here in Wales, through new spending powers. Currently, many UK investment decisions are taken by unelected European bureaucrats, but as a result of this Bill, the UK Government will take on those spending powers that are currently exercised by the EU. That will enable the UK Government to spend the money of UK taxpayers and invest it in communities and businesses across the whole of the UK. Isn't that a surprise? That spending would secure extra funding for Wales over and above that available to the Welsh Government via the Welsh block grant. All of us in this Chamber should be welcoming such significant potential investment to Wales, and yet bizarrely Labour Ministers are objecting. They object to the UK Government taking on such powers, yet they were more than happy for those powers to be exercised by those faceless unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. You couldn't make it up. Why on earth would anyone in this Chamber object to greater investment in economic development, greater investment in infrastructure across this country? Crucially, the UK Government has been crystal clear that the level of funding that Wales will receive following the end of the transition period will be equal to or greater than the funding that we currently receive from EU schemes.

So, let me remind Labour Ministers and Members of the Senedd today of a very inconvenient truth that they try to forget: the people of Wales voted clearly in 2016 for Brexit, especially in your heartlands and your constituency. They want to see a Welsh Government that supports the delivery of Brexit. They want a UK Parliament and a Senedd that makes decisions on laws and spending that were previously made in Brussels, and they want the Welsh economy to bounce back quickly from the pandemic that we're currently in the midst of. This Bill delivers on those priorities, so let's back it, let's get Brexit done, and let's embrace the opportunities that it presents.

Plaid Cymru will vote against giving legislative consent for the internal market Bill today. This Bill essentially takes a sledgehammer to Welsh democracy, totally undermining the devolution settlement by taking back powers in devolved areas and seriously limiting the ability of this Senedd to create any novel legislation in future that does not accord with Westminster's plans. Emboldened by the Brexit referendum vote and the vociferous and divisive campaigning that it engendered, and the constant entreaties to respect the result of that referendum and the fact that Wales voted 'leave', we have seen the drip-drip rollback of powers since 2016. No thought of respecting the results of the referendums of 1997 and 2011, when the people of Wales voted for powers here in Wales in the first place and resoundingly for more powers in 2011.

But we expect no different from the Conservatives. We started losing powers under the Wales Act 2017. Plaid argued strongly and were mocked by Labour and the Conservatives then. With EU withdrawal, Labour opposed Plaid and the late Steffan Lewis's plan for a continuity Bill to protect the Senedd's legislative competence during EU withdrawal, and relied on inter-governmental agreements with the Conservative UK Government instead. Well, that's turned out well: now we have three Senedd committees concluding that the internal market Bill drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. So much for the protection of inter-governmental agreements, so much for common frameworks based on shared governance instead of the continuity Bill. The internal market Bill is not merely economic, it is disastrously constitutional. There has been no issue with trading between Wales and England these last 20 years.

Even the House of Lords have been unstinting in their condemnation of the internal market Bill. Welsh Government was sidelined and ignored repeatedly during EU withdrawal negotiations over the last four years. Legislative consent was denied for the EU withdrawal Bill by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the Tories carried on regardless. Now in the midst of the COVID pandemic, with Brexit negotiations oven ready, as the easiest deal in the world—that's going well—if all that was not enough, we have an internal market Bill imposed upon us. A Bill breaking international law, leading to fury in Ireland and elsewhere. Our European funding, the shared prosperity fund—so-called—hollowed out, not a penny less, not a power lost; not going well, is it? The internal market Bill means losing powers, losing funding, losing control over funding, and paralysing the Senedd's future ability to make divergent laws for Wales. The internal market Bill just draws us into England, Sewel convention gone, inter-governmental agreements a joke—it's imposed upon us.

With a fisheries Bill and a trade Bill and agriculture Bill going through at present, Welsh Government is still depending on inter-governmental agreements and despatch-box promises—as empty as they are meaningless. Still, Labour remains wedded to this union of an increasingly disunited kingdom to the detriment of Wales, bleating at the injustices but complicit. Over eight centuries, English kings and the Westminster elite have either oppressed or neglected the people of Wales, or both. People often mock when I go on about Welsh history, but we don't need to recall Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf, the treachery of the blue books, drowning Tryweryn, or any other historical betrayal, because the modern-day examples keep on flooding in, where the UK Government gazumps Welsh Government on testing kits, or directs PPE to England not Wales, or the crippling underfunding of rail infrastructure in Wales, or UK Government wrecking shared prosperity, decimating farming incomes, and dismantling Wales politically with the internal market Bill. Betrayal is heaped upon betrayal, and still Labour is proud to be unionist. UK Tories are laughing at Welsh Government and laughing at Wales because we can always be brought to heel. Soon, Scotland will be free of this charade; it's only Wales and England left. No UK, then. We glimpse a dystopian future beloved of that malevolent, misinformed minority that wants to ditch the Senedd and ditch Wales. Labour needs to be on the right side of history moving forward, not side with forces laughing at Wales. Give legislative consent to dismantling my nation? Llywydd, in ending, you know and people know me as a detached, considered and dispassionate analyser of constitutional affairs, and even I say vote against legislative consent. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Llywydd. My group will be supporting this LCM today, and we disagree with the conclusions drawn by many that the internal market Bill fundamentally undermines devolution. I would argue the opposite—without a sensible approach to the trade of goods and services between the home nations we could see a breakdown in the free movement of goods, which could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

Many of the people crying foul were quite content to accept the EU internal market, so why should a UK one be any different? It's not as if we don't have any say in making the rules. After all, doesn't Wales have 40 MPs to represent our nation in the UK Parliament? What we can't have is a free-for-all whereby nation competes against nation, and in that trade war all will lose. That would be particularly true in our case. How could our small nation of 3 million people possibly hope to compete with a nation of 56 million people? And to complicate things, we rely on the goodwill and taxes of those 56 million people to fund our health service and schools. If not for them, then our taxes would be so much higher and our nation so much poorer. We have to adopt a sensible, four-nation approach to ensuring our goods and services are of the highest quality, safety and efficacy, produced under the highest labour and welfare standards. This is the only way to maintain the free flow of goods and services across an essentially borderless United Kingdom.

So, at this moment in time, Wales needs interdependence. However, should there be a public appetite in the future in Wales for independence, it would not be possible financially for many years, due to Wales's poor infrastructure, which requires heavy investment, and I'm sorry to say that, whichever Government has been in power in Westminster, Wales has always been underfunded and treated as the poor relation—not one party any better than the other—and Wales has been left behind. For these reasons, we will support the LCM today, because now, post Brexit, is the time for change and for Wales to prosper, and investment in our economy is extremely important.

So, both Governments must start working together for the benefit of the people of Wales, instead of fighting against each other. Don't forget, around 85 per cent of people in the Senedd tried to scupper the Brexit referendum result, and this is not on. We need democracy, as opposed to dictatorship. The people of Wales decide what is best for them, and I rest my case. Thank you.

And the people of Wales, of course, have decided what is best for them, and they've elected this Parliament.

This Bill, which I hope—[Interruption.]—which I hope the Parliament will refuse legislative consent for, is one of the most dishonest and destructive pieces of legislation that I've had the misfortune to read in my time in politics. They set two clear objectives for this legislation: maintaining the single market, and enabling businesses to operate across the United Kingdom. Then they say that we need this Bill to invest in Wales and Scotland. Now, those objectives aren't objectives that anyone here, on any side of this Chamber, would oppose or object to. We want to see business occurring across the Wales border. We want to see investment from the United Kingdom Government in Wales, and you don't need this Bill to achieve any of those objectives. It isn't about those objectives, it isn't about the single market, and it isn't about investment. And I'll say to Darren Millar, who did his best, through gritted teeth, I think, earlier, to justify this nonsense—it is possible for the UK Government to invest in Wales today. You take rail funding, for example. They could invest in rail funding today, but they don't, and not only do they not invest in the rail network in Wales, they change the formula to mean that they'll invest less in the future. So, if they wanted to invest in our—[Interruption.] It's a fact. If they wanted to invest in our infrastructure, they could do it today, they could do it tomorrow, they could have done it yesterday. They chose to do none of those things. And the spending review that was announced a few weeks ago follows years of such underfunding. 

We were promised the shared prosperity fund. We still haven't seen that. We still haven't seen a penny of those pounds that were promised to Wales. The basis upon which that was created is still not clear to any of us, and I'll say to Darren Millar that I was one of the Ministers who negotiated European funding in Brussels, and that process was far more transparent, far more open, far more democratic than what we have today, when we've essentially got the UK Parliament enforcing its will on this Parliament. If anyone here believes that the cuts in agricultural payments that we saw last week are anything except an absolute destruction of the industry, then they need to listen to what the NFU and the FUW are saying. 

Let me say this on the single market: this is a solution in search of a problem. There is no issue with businesses doing cross-border trade—none at all. The single market can easily be managed by four Governments working together within the common frameworks under the supervision of four legislatures. That is happening at the moment, it could happen in the future, but what wouldn't happen under that system, of course, is that the Tories wouldn't get what they want. They wouldn't get their own way, because in a democracy they need to win elections, and in Wales they've been notably lacking in some success in that over recent years. Whenever the people of Wales have an opportunity to vote, they do not elect a Conservative Government, and I don't believe they ever will. 

I listened to Laura Anne Jones. She stood in Blaenau Gwent a year ago and managed to get 18 per cent of the vote. If she wishes to stand in Blaenau Gwent in May, I'm very, very happy to show her round the constituency, but I can tell you now that the people of Blaenau Gwent will not be electing a Tory in May or at any other time. 

And finally, let me say this—[Interruption.] And finally, let me say this: this isn't about the single market, it isn't about business, it isn't about Brexit, it isn't about UK investment; it is about one thing and one thing alone—it is about the imposition of political power to undermine Welsh democracy. That is what this Bill is about, and that is what this Bill seeks to achieve. And this is fundamental to us. I say this to you, Presiding Officer: it is important for all of us, wherever we sit in this Chamber, to uphold the rights and privileges of this Parliament, and to uphold the interests of what the people of Wales have voted for. The people of Wales have voted for this Parliament to hold these powers. These powers are being taken away from this Parliament without reference to this Parliament, and I say this to my own front bench: devolution is dead if this reaches the statute book, because devolution was predicated on a UK Parliament recognising and respecting the mandates of Parliaments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If the powers are taken away from us without our consent, and if this Bill and its provisions are imposed on the people of Wales without their consent, then it is clear to me that the democratic structures of the United Kingdom, the devolved democratic structures that we've enjoyed for the last 20 years, are no longer sustainable, and the United Kingdom's democracy is no longer sustainable. And I believe that this Bill should be withdrawn, we should not provide our consent for that, and, if the Tories do go ahead in undermining our democracy, then we need to find a constitutional settlement for the future that protects the rights not only of this Parliament, but of the people who elected it. 

I am a member of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and the reason I speak is because I want to commend the committee's report. I do want to emphasise that I'm not against the principle of the internal market Bill, but I have to say I find that the one before us has been rushed and badly thought through, typically in regard to its constitutional implications. Unlike the previous speaker and some others that have spoken, I think this is rushed and clumsy, rather than a malign attempt to undermine the principles of devolution, but, even if those principles are undermined inadvertently, it still creates a very serious constitutional peril, and this is something I would hope my own party would reflect upon.

Regarding its impact on devolved administrations, I think it's important to note here that the Bill risks making the exercise of devolved powers much more difficult, and it's in their exercise that powers are significant. They can exist notionally, and many people have referred to the supposedly 70 more powers that come to us as a result of them being moved from Brussels, but if these things cannot be exercised just because of the general framework of a particular policy area, or existing policies are more difficult to exercise—for instance, how we regulate the housing market and the provision of services by landlords, for instance, or agents of landlords—that really brings home how it can have an impact in domestic policy making.

I do believe the UK Government would have been better advised to have treated this Bill as the first of a number of constitutional Bills that may be necessary to strengthen the integrity of the UK. I do regret that this has not been its focus. Of course, to be successful, a constitutional Bill needs to be the product of joint working in its drafting between the devolved administrations, or at least giving them every opportunity to join in that effort. Now, I'm not so naive as to suppose that support from the Scottish Government was ever likely to be forthcoming, and there are well understood reasons for that, but they still may have contributed to a process they didn't entirely agree with or in the end would be happy to support. But opposition from a unionist Labour Welsh Government should not be dismissed lightly. It sends an alarming signal.

Presiding Officer, in many ways, Brexit was about the reaction to the single market and its regulation, and the accusation that those regulations often hampered the exercise of domestic sovereignty. Yet what we have proposed today is an internal market that is much more centralised than the European single market and without those principles of subsidiarity and proportionality that do give genuine local decision making full scope within a single market—or as full a scope as is possible. We are not going to have that, and I think it's ironic that senior members of my party that pursued Brexit with such verve and success are now applying and multiplying the principles they so condemned in terms of the European single market.

Can I just finish by saying that in preparing the ground to break international law, this Bill is clearly repugnant? Now, I do understand that despite the decision of the Commons to reinsert the clauses that allow for the breaking of international law—the Commons say that they had to be reinstated after the Lords withdrew them—I understand now that the Government has indicated that it will not object to the Lords removing those same clauses again, and therefore at least that stain in this Bill will then be expunged. But the fact that that threat was ever made I think must cause great unease to the devolved administrations, and the ability of a British Government to negotiate in a way that is trusting and full and not capable of these underlying menaces. I think, in this regard alone, this Bill stood remarkably outside the traditions of the Conservative Party, when you look at Churchill and Maxwell Fyfe, who did so much to establish the norms of international law after the second world war. It's with great reluctance, Presiding Officer, that I must tell the Chamber and my own party that I will be voting against giving this Bill our legislative consent.

I'm afraid I have to fundamentally disagree with my friend David Melding, particularly in relation to the points that he's just made on international law, which I'll come to later in my speech.

The opponents of this legislative consent motion seem to me to ignore the fundamental reality of why we're debating this today—that the people of the United Kingdom and the people of Wales, four and a half years ago, voted to leave the European Union, and we had a general election last December in which the Conservative Party stood on the slogan of getting Brexit done and the Prime Minister was elected, or his party was elected, with a majority of 80 in the House of Commons. Both in the red wall in northern England and in Wales, Labour citadels that had returned Labour Members for decades fell to the Tories—five Conservative seats were lost in Wales.

The withdrawal agreement does not deliver Brexit. That was a product of a rather painful period for the Conservative Party under the short-lived leadership of Theresa May. It constitutes a supine surrender to the negotiator for the EU, Monsieur Barnier, by the worst Prime Minister that this country has seen since, at least, Ramsay MacDonald. But of course, Theresa May had no majority in the House of Commons. Now, we have a Government that has a large majority in the House of Commons, and so it is able to deliver the sort of Brexit that the people voted for four and a half years ago. Boris Johnson wants to get Brexit done and this Bill is an essential ingredient in achieving that. So, everything has changed.

But, of course, nothing has changed for the Labour Party; they are the latter-day Bourbons of modern Britain, because they've learned nothing and have forgotten nothing. As Darren Millar pointed out, not only did they oppose Brexit—fair enough; of course they're entitled to do that—but they also legislated to stop the United Kingdom leaving the EU without a withdrawal agreement, and then voted against the withdrawal agreement itself. They wanted a second referendum to reverse the first referendum before the first referendum result was delivered. They've done everything they possibly can in the last four years to undermine the British negotiating position. And the Counsel General, I'm afraid, is still at it. He's been Monsieur Barnier's enthusiastic little helper during the whole of this period—the faithful servant of the Brussels technocrats whose aim is to make Britain suffer for the impertinence of demanding the restoration of its national sovereignty. And of course, the other unstated objective is to keep all the others in the EU still in line in case they be tempted to follow the route that Britain has freely chosen to take. 

The withdrawal agreement is, I believe, wholly contrary to the Good Friday agreement itself, and therefore there's an entire justification for retaining the clause that David Melding just informed us the Government is now happy perhaps to see taken out. Because under the withdrawal agreement, it said that Northern Ireland's status should change only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland—under the Good Friday agreement, rather, the status of Northern Ireland can be changed only with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. The Act of Union 1801, which united us into the United Kingdom, in article 6, says that

'in all treaties...with any foreign power, his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall...be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain.'

And of course, the withdrawal agreement drives a coach and horses through that, because it creates a border right down the middle of the Irish sea and requires people in England and in Wales exporting to Northern Ireland to fill out export documentation, and vice versa from Northern Ireland in the other direction. Now, the Northern Ireland protocol in article 4 of the withdrawal agreement says that, 

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

All that the internal market Bill does is to ensure that this will continue after our transition out of the European Union. Now, the European Union wants to protect its single market, of course, but then, so do we in the United Kingdom. And protecting the single market of the United Kingdom is vastly more important to the people of Wales than the single market of the European Union ever was, or, indeed, could be.

Now, you can't repudiate part of a treaty in international law, but of course, you can repudiate, in certain circumstances, a treaty in its entirety. And if there's no deal, I hope that the United Kingdom Government will repudiate the withdrawal agreement in its entirety, including the financial arrangements that the withdrawal agreement contains, and the trade matters wrongly conceded to the European Union in the negotiations. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, if there's a fundamental change in circumstances compared with the time when the treaty was negotiated, then it is lawful for a state to repudiate its terms and—

You need to bring your comments to a close now, Neil Hamilton. You're out of time.

I'll do that, Llywydd. The withdrawal agreement was never meant to be permanent; it was meant to be transitional. If we do not pass this Bill today, then what we will do is effectively maintain the border down the middle of the Irish sea, fragment the United Kingdom, and that's the greatest danger of all.

The internal market Bill does one thing, and one thing only—it seeks to overturn the result of the referendum and ignore the will of the people. In 2011—and a few have alluded to it today—Welsh citizens were asked a direct question, and it was,

'Do you want the Assembly'— as it was then—

'now to be able to make laws on all matters in the 20 subject areas it has powers for?'

Nearly two thirds of the respondents said 'yes'. The result meant that this Assembly could make laws on all matters in those subject areas without needing the UK Parliament's agreement. The internal market Bill would reverse that decision and undermine the Welsh Government's and this Chamber's ability to make laws.

The news out of No. 10 yesterday suggests the Westminster Government could drop those clauses of the Bill that breach international law if a deal with the EU can be agreed. But as it stands, the internal market Bill makes a 'no deal' Brexit more likely. In Pembrokeshire, we've already been dealt a Brexit blow. The Danish shipping company DFDS has announced a new direct ferry from Ireland to France, bypassing our ports. That's a huge blow for the local economy and it's a worrying sign of where we are heading.

A 'no deal' Brexit would be a catastrophe and yet another broken Tory promise. There never was an oven-ready deal; it was simply a half-baked notion, just like the Conservative manifesto commitment to Welsh farmers that promised to, and I quote, 

'Guarantee the current annual Common Agricultural Policy budget to farmers in every year of the next Parliament'.

Instead, they've robbed Welsh farmers of £95 million. Conservative Members tried to spin the fact and they tried to pull the wool over their constituents eyes, but the bottom line—and the Farmers Union of Wales's number crunching proves it—is that it's—[Interruption.] 

Hold on, Joyce. I'm sorry to cut across you. Darren Millar, you don't have to comment on every single thing that everybody says in this debate. You've had your chance to speak. Please allow other people to contribute now. Joyce Watson. 

Thank you, Llywydd. The bottom line—and the Farmers Union of Wales's number crunching proves it—is that it's a hatchet job on the rural economy, and that's a sign of what's to come.

The Finance Committee report warns that the internal market Bill opens the door to the UK Government reducing funding to Wales via the block grant. It gives powers to Westminster to decide what is best for Wales, and they don't have any mandate to do that—that mandate rests here. For three years, the UK Government has failed to publish its plans for replacing the EU structural investment funding with a UK shared prosperity fund. I'm beginning to think it's a ghost fund. I'm beginning to think it doesn't exist. Either they haven't done those sums, or they don't want to share those with the devolved administrations.

The internal market Bill is a direct risk to devolution, as many commentators have said today, and, therefore, the stability of the UK. It's against the settled will of the people of Wales. It's nothing short of a smash and grab, and at the same time, it's outside international law insofar as it currently stands.

I thank Joyce Watson for her speech; it referred back to the 2011 referendum and making laws in these 20 areas. Of course, that was subject to the overriding law of the European Union—she didn't object to that, but she objects to more limited constraints at a UK level. She also didn't remind us that on the ballot paper in that referendum it said, 'This Assembly cannot make laws on tax, irrespective of the result of this vote'. May I thank the Minister and the three Chairs of committees—and perhaps also if I can single out Dai Lloyd—for their speeches, which have reminded me and emphasised what a good Bill this is? How pleased I am to support it today. There are, I think, three core areas; the Minister mentioned five, but I'll limit myself to three.

Firstly, the UK Government is going to expressly be allowed to spend money in more areas in Wales; surely that is a good thing. Others object because it might limit, apparently, their policy control. The UK Government might perhaps fund free schools or academies and allow parents and their children more choice of education in Wales. Some Members refer to respecting manifesto commitments, but, of course, the UK Government's spending in respect of the M4 relief road could only actually deliver on a commitment that the Welsh Government made, but then broke. I think we should welcome the prospect of more spending from the UK Government, including from the shared prosperity fund.

Secondly, the area of market access and mutual recognition—excellent principles. I disagree with David Melding and his references to Tory objections to the EU single market and replicating them through this legislation. The reverse is the case. What we saw in the European Union was single market legislation that led to top-down harmonisation of rules across all 27 countries saying you can only sell something if it abides by a single central regulation. What the internal market Bill does is go back to a much better approach that the European Union had itself flown from the 1979 European Court of Justice judgment in Cassis de Dijon, basically that if something meets the regulations of the state in which it's made, then it can be sold in all member states—market access and that principle of mutual recognition. I think that's very welcome, and if it results in our being unable to legislate to ban people in Wales from buying things that people in England can buy, then that is something I would also welcome.

The third area of state aid and a measure of control over state aid by the UK Government, again, is something I welcome. We've generally had less state aid in the UK than is usual across the European Union. I'm not sure why it's a such a block for the European Union in these talks. I hear many people in this Chamber, particularly the Labour and Plaid speakers, complain of any UK oversight over what Welsh Government may do in terms of state aid, just as Joyce Watson did about legislation in those 20 areas, but they never objected to it when it came from the EU. To me, that just shows that many who come from those political traditions are, frankly, as anti-UK as they are pro-EU, and I think that was exemplified yesterday by the disgraceful comments from a Government Minister attacking the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Actually, it is this Welsh Government and the actions of this Senedd that threaten the United Kingdom, not this internal market Bill, and if, to a limited extent, it, for the first time, pushes some powers back to a UK level that might otherwise be devolved, that is something I welcome and I think the people of Wales will welcome. 

I'll be voting for this LCM today. In some ways, though, if I lose that vote, then that in itself will be good, because we will then see the UK Government impose this Bill and we will, hopefully, be able to put the Sewel convention to bed.

Today, this Senedd will reject legislative consent for the internal market Bill, knowing in advance that the UK Government will not honour the Sewel convention. I understand the UK Government has made a last-minute offer to consult the devolved administrations before using delegated powers. They must think we're fools if we'll believe that one, as they've already made clear they'll ignore the withholding of consent on the very Bill they're now saying they'll adapt. The lack of respect the UK Government has towards this Senedd, and its pigheaded approach to democracy—that it only counts if they agree—has laid bare the reality of the union.

I'd like to thank the Minister for his strong statement and also for his work as Brexit Minister these past few years. His strategy to try to protect this Senedd through collaboration ultimately failed, but this was not because of a lack of his efforts. He tried his best out of a genuine desire to do what he believed was best for Wales, but was let down by a Westminster Government that had no interest in co-operation, one that was determined to dismantle devolution.

Three separate Senedd committees have recommended rejecting legislative consent. Concerns include the conflict of interest inherent in the UK Government setting UK subsidy rules when it's only responsible for English economic policy, and that the Bill would have a profound effect on the devolution settlement. The message is clear: the UK Government has responsibilities towards its four constituent nations, but its policy now is to advance English interests at the expense of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

In terms of what the Bill strives to achieve, some of the most damaging powers include the mutual recognition and non-discrimination clauses that are designed to weaken the Senedd's power to legislate. Clause 46 will empower the Westminster Government to spend directly in Wales without the consent of this place, and it's clear that the reason for this measure is that they just don't like the way that the Welsh Government uses its powers. The democratic mandate for these powers lying with Wales is unanswerable. Welsh citizens have endorsed devolution 14 times in two referendums and through delivering pro-devolution majorities in 12 elections. No anti-devolution mandate exists. It's clear that when Boris Johnson says he is enacting the will of the people, he isn't talking about the will of the people of Wales.

I would like to take this opportunity to place my thanks on record as well to Dafydd Wigley for working cross party in the Lords to try to overturn the most damaging aspects of this Bill. One successful amendment he supported, in the name of Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, sought to remove the provisions enabling the UK Government to spend in devolved areas. Now, this was supported by Labour in the Lords, but I was shocked that Labour abstained on this amendment in the Commons on Monday. I'm sure the Minister will place on record his condemnation of his Labour colleagues in Westminster for undermining his stance and failing to support an amendment that reflects his Government's policy.

We've now had 10 years of Tory UK Governments that have consistently attacked the welfare of Welsh citizens, 10 years of destructive austerity, four years of constitutional chaos and a lifetime of broken promises. Alun Cairns told a Senedd committee that there was no agenda in terms of withdrawing powers or rolling back powers from the Welsh Government. Now, rules surrounding the use of parliamentary language prevent me from using the obvious term to describe this, but we all recognise what a clear disparity between promise and action entails. And I haven't even mentioned the broken promises surrounding the shared prosperity fund.

Llywydd, Welsh democracy is being unravelled. The Welsh Government strategy was to try to protect Welsh interests by working with the UK Government. That strategy failed, not because of a lack of effort, but because their unwilling partner has been a rogue Government that has a nihilistic desire for destruction.

Today, Llywydd, is a historic day, and not for the reasons it should be. Today should be the day that we stop the internal market Bill in its tracks through rejecting our consent. Instead, it will be the day that Westminster reasserts its dominance over Wales through force. The old ways have failed us. The only option left to protect our democracy and the interests of Welsh people is independence. 

I call on the Counsel General to reply to the debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I just say, firstly, I'm glad that Delyth Jewell reminded us of the cross-party effort, both in Parliament but also in this Chamber, to support the position that I articulated at the beginning of this debate—whether it's on the Government benches, Plaid Cymru benches and, in a speech, if I might say, of great sagacity by David Melding, it was good to hear a Conservative voice standing up for the principles of democracy in Wales. 

Can I start by associating myself with the comments of Alun Davies and Mick Antoniw? We support the principle of an internal market on these benches; we think it is important for the efficient and effective functioning of the economy in the UK. But this Bill is not only unnecessary as a means of achieving that, it is positively damaging to the devolution settlement in Wales. 

I want to reflect on David Rees's point, where he reminded us of the disparity between the nations that this Bill entrenches. Yes, economic disparity, and Llyr Gruffydd also mentioned this as well, but that, in a sense, is a fact of economic life. What this Bill creates is constitutional disparity. It prevents this Senedd from being able to touch this legislation in the future, even when it deals with devolved matters. Parliament isn't constrained in the same way in acting on behalf of England. Now, I know on the benches opposite that they are no fans of the level playing field between the UK and the European Union, but I would in all sincerity have hoped that they could at least support the principle that the playing field should not be levelled against their own nation, and they failed to do that in this debate today.

Mick Antoniw reminded us, Dai Lloyd and David Melding as well, that this Bill is being imposed. It is not legislation that has been co-developed with the devolved Governments.

I listened to Darren Millar's speech. It is some time since I heard a speech of such cynicism in this place. Almost everything that he said, every sentence, I felt the opposite was the reality. It was a speech for another debate. This debate is not about Brexit, it's about the future constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. Darren Millar spoke about the democratic mandate. The democratic mandate that we should be upholding is that which the Welsh nation has expressed in two referenda to establish this Senedd and to expand its powers, as Joyce Watson and Dai Lloyd reminded us. Darren Millar perpetuated the myth that this Bill extends the powers of the Senedd. I have asked Government Ministers in Westminster to point me to the clause that does that, and I'm happy to yield the floor now if he can do that today. 

No, there is no yielding of the floor in the current circumstances, sorry. 

Well, I note that he failed to point me, in his speech, to that clause, Llywydd. 

Dai Lloyd's contribution—I agree with his rejection of the Bill. I don't agree with his characterisation of the work of the Labour Party, but I do agree with his rejection of the Bill. This is a time for cross-party alliances. We have managed to work together with the SNP Government in Scotland, despite having very different constitutional preferences. We're in different places on the spectrum of reform, but let us today, at least, speak with one voice from this Chamber.

Dai gave us a reminder of the history, which we should all bear in mind. Caroline Jones and Neil Hamilton's speeches both reminded me that history is not the only thing that is destined to repeat itself, and they both shared with Darren Millar a fondness for the mythology that we've heard too often in this place. 

I heard Mark Reckless in his contribution. Now, for those who want to abolish the Senedd, this Bill is constitutional catnip. The truth of it is that the principles behind this Bill strengthen the arm of people like Mark Reckless, and that's not about abolishing the Senedd; in his case, it's about abolishing Wales. 

I'll end, if I may, with Alun Davies's comments, where I started. The charade that this Bill provides further capacity for the UK Government to fund in Wales is one of the most extraordinary things. The thing that prevents the UK Government from funding more infrastructure in Wales is not that they don't have the power to do it, they don't have the inclination to do it. I was reminded of Paul Davies's promise to the Welsh people, that a Conservative Government in Wales would defund what is not devolved. I had no difficulty in believing that. They've spent the last 10 years defunding what hasn't been devolved, whether it's rail, or energy, or digital, those have all been defunded and that's been a Conservative choice. So, let's not have financial assistance powers in the Bill; let's just have more financial assistance.

This Bill, Llywydd, is an outrageous assault on this national Parliament and the Welsh Government, and I ask Members to defend this Senedd's rights and democratic powers to reject the motion and to deny it consent.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections, and I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.