We reconvene with item 4 on our agenda, which is a statement by the Counsel General and Minister for European Transition. I call on the Counsel General to make the statement—Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. On Sunday, yet another milestone in the negotiations on the UK’s future relationship with the EU passed, again without a breakthrough. I was expecting to be able to update you today on the precise nature of our future relationship with the EU. I had hoped to mention the key actions that businesses, citizens and public services would now need to take to prepare for the changes that we will face in just 16 days’ time. Clearly, I'm not in a position to do that, which is completely unacceptable. How can businesses prepare effectively when they don't know what they are preparing for, and without knowing whether tariffs and additional bureaucracy will be in place? How can police and security services protect us next month if they don't know whether they will have access to crucial systems and data? How can anyone who needs to travel plan when they don't know which air services will be operating?

We were told at the start of the negotiations that the Prime Minister had an oven-ready deal. Well, where is it? And we were told by the UK Government that by insisting, in the face of all logic, to push ahead with the 31 December deadline for the end of transition, despite the COVID pandemic, they would bring an end to the uncertainty that has dogged the UK for the last four years. Well, the reality is very different. We are 16 days from leaving the transition period, and we are no clearer in knowing whether we will be leaving with a deal or not.

Dirprwy Lywydd, it's clearly important that the UK Government and the European Commission have agreed to continue to talk. The absolute priority must be to avoid the outcome where we leave the transition period without an agreement. If that happens, we will see short-term chaos and long-term damage: disruption at our borders, posing risks to the supply of critical goods; higher costs of food and other basics; lower exports and more red tape for businesses, leading to less investment and ultimately to lost jobs and lower wages. That is not to mention the increased risks to the safety for our citizens, which is supposedly the first duty of a Government, from terrorists and organised crime.

Our position has been clear ever since the referendum. At every stage of negotiations, however far from our preferred outcome the UK Government has taken us, we have argued for maintaining the closest possible relationship with the European Union. Of the alternatives that we all face today, a deal, however thin, is the best way to achieve that. So, today I call again on the UK Government and on the EU to show the flexibility and the compromise that are needed to find an agreement. We live in a world of interdependence, not independence. The UK Government has to accept the fact that entering any trade deal necessarily limits sovereignty. This is the reality for ensuing the fullest access to markets for domestic goods and for services, and for avoiding higher prices for our consumers. And the European Union is by far our largest market.

The issues that remain unresolved are important, but they are not more important than the millions of jobs across the United Kingdom that rely on trade with the European Union, and they are not more important than the safety and security of our citizens. Although recent developments give some grounds for hope, as a responsible Government, we've been planning for the worst-case scenario of a 'no deal', and we will continue to do that. Over the coming weeks, our priorities are, as we set out in our end of transition plan published over a month ago: mitigating the disruption in the supply of critical goods; encouraging and supporting businesses to make the necessary preparations for the upheaval of leaving the single market and the customs union; and doing whatever we can to bolster the resilience of our citizens and public services.

We cannot wait for the clarity that we need. That is why we are already utilising our existing warehouse capacity to stockpile medical devices and consumables. We have contracted international trade advisers to support businesses to prepare for the changes in trading arrangements. And we are redeploying resources to stand up our civil contingencies response. There is no escaping the enormous challenges that lie ahead, and the fact that there is precious little time in which to prepare. But, we are working hard with our partners and our message is clear: we are here to support you. In the crucial final stages of the negotiations, we will continue to press the UK Government to set the dogma of sovereignty aside for the good of our jobs and livelihoods in Wales.

At this stage, with only 16 days to go, a deal—even as thin as this one would be—is better than no deal. The deal on the table should not be seen as a success. It lacks ambition and is far from the deal we would have wanted. However, it would avoid some of the worst effects of a disorderly 'no deal' end of transition and would give us something to build upon in the future. It will keep our relationship with the European Union from entirely breaking down and keeps open the prospect of building a set or arrangements in the future that can protect jobs, the economy and ensure the safety and well-being of our citizens.

Leaving the transition period without a deal would be a historic failure by the United Kingdom Government—failure that would be a product of poor negotiating tactics and of elevating political symbolism above the jobs of people. There are stark choices that lie ahead for the UK Government: prioritise the red lines and the soundbites or prioritise the jobs that give the citizens of the UK the livelihoods that they depend upon. 

Can I thank the Counsel General and Brexit Minister for a copy of his statement, which was circulated in advance? Although I have to say, it does remain apparent that the Welsh Government still has not come to terms with the referendum result in June 2016. It seems very clear to me that, as we near the end of this transition period, the UK Government has been working extremely hard to secure the best possible deal for the whole of the United Kingdom, and, of course, that includes all parts of the UK, including here in Wales. And the reality is that you will never get a good deal unless you're prepared to walk away without one. I don't want to see the UK, and Wales as a constituent part of the UK, tied into a deal in perpetuity that is a bad deal for Wales.

It's very disappointing, Minister, to hear the Welsh Government's position, articulated yet again, that they're prepared to accept any deal at all that might be on the table, even if that's a horrific deal that is bad for businesses in Wales and bad for the people in Wales. I happen to believe, and so do all Welsh Conservatives, that Wales will prosper outside of the EU, even if we don't have a deal. It would be far better, of course, to leave with a deal, and that is what I very much hope will be negotiated in the coming days. But if we don't, then so be it.

You made reference, in your statement, to an oven-ready deal: 'Where is it?', you cry. Well, of course, you know as well as I do that the oven-ready deal that the Prime Minister referred to in the general election period in 2019 was the withdrawal agreement deal, which was oven ready and ready to go, and was, in fact, delivered. That withdrawal deal is the deal that was done, that was on the table, and that people had the opportunity to express support for, or not, in the general election. And, of course, they expressed their support in very significant numbers. Can I ask you: do you accept that a bad deal is better than no deal at all? Because I think it would be good to get some clarity on that from the Welsh Government. If you think that getting a bad deal is the right thing to do—at any cost, we need a deal—then it would be good to have a very clear expression of that.

You make reference to the fact that the UK Government should have to set aside its ideological underpinning and attachment to sovereignty. Why should it? Why should it set aside its attachment to sovereignty? Canada didn't set aside its sovereignty in order to enter an EU trade agreement. Japan hasn't set aside its sovereignty in order to enter a trade agreement with the EU. And, in fact, the deals that we have signed now, which are ready to go from 1 January, with Canada, with Japan and with a whole host of other countries, have not set aside any of our sovereignty in order to be achieved. So, why should the UK Government cede some sovereignty to the EU in order to get a deal? Perhaps you can explain to me why that should be the case.

You seem to suggest, also, that you've got some insight into what the deal might look like. You actually said, I think, 'At this stage, with only 16 days to go, a deal—even a deal as thin as this one—would be better than no deal.' Well, how do you know? You haven't seen the deal. You haven't seen the deal that's being negotiated. You said the deal on the table should not be seen as a success. You haven't seen the deal on the table, because there isn't one yet that has been published. Now, either you're some sort of clairvoyant or you're just using rhetoric here because you're disappointed that some progress is being made.

I've been very pleased to hear the media reports over the past 24 hours that do seem to suggest that there's some movement on both sides. I accept that there's going to need to be some compromise from both the UK Government on behalf of the people of Wales and the rest of the UK, and on the side of the EU. I want to see a deal, but I don't think that any of us in this Senedd should dare to cross the wishes, and dare to try to frustrate the wishes of the people of Wales in leaving the EU, to take control of our own waters, our borders, our laws and our money, and that is the situation that we are in. 

Now, you made reference to some of the preparations that you as a Welsh Government have been undertaking. I think it's wise to prepare for all eventualities; I've said that in this Chamber in the past, and I reiterate that again today. I think it's right that you're preparing for a 'no deal' scenario, just in case that's the way things end up. Can you tell us what sort of investment you have had to make as a Welsh Government for the preparations that you have made to date? Obviously, we've had plenty of time to make those preparations; are there any that you are concerned about in terms of where things might end up? Can you tell us, also, what opportunities you foresee as a Welsh Government in terms of trade opportunities from the trade deals, which are set up and ready to go from 1 January? And how do you envisage people can plug in to the opportunities that that represents, particularly people in the business community and those exporters that might be able to take advantage? And do you also accept—

Can you wind up, please?

I will. And do you also accept that there are a whole host of powers? You asked me for a copy of the list of powers last week. I've got a copy of them in my hand, which I'll be happy to present to you outside of the Chamber. But there are scores of new powers—a big transfer of powers—coming to Wales as a result of our departure from the EU, and I would very much hope that you would welcome them. And just in case you—. This is the one thing that you don't seem to appear to have any knowledge of, but I've got a copy of them here. I'd be happy to relay that to you outside the Chamber later on. Thank you.

We'll just clarify a couple of things for the record, shall we? The oven-ready deal is absolutely not as the Member describes it, and I'm sure that the Prime Minister will be extremely grateful to him for reading out so faithfully the salvaged lines, which, clearly, have been circulated in Westminster to try and change the perceptions around that. And on the list of powers that he's brandishing in his hand, there's never been any dispute that powers returned to this place is a consequence of leaving the European Union. He knows full well that the point he was making in the debate when we last faced each other across the Chamber was around the internal market Bill, and I asked him to point me to the section in that Bill that provided any new powers to Wales, and I note from his last contribution that he didn't take the opportunity to do that.

He asked me whether I preferred the deal, which is apparently being negotiated, or no-deal; I think the entirety of my statement gives him the answer to that question. He is right to say that we don't have visibility of the deal on the table; I'm sure he would agree with me that we should, as a Government that will be significantly impacted, on behalf of the people of Wales. But he's right to say that we don't have the detail. We've been very clear: these have been the UK Government's negotiations, and the devolved Governments have not had the role in those that I'm sure Members of this Senedd, generally, would feel was appropriate. My description of it as a thin deal is based on the maximum ambition that the UK Government has for the relationship. Even if that was delivered in its entirety at this stage, it would be a thin deal. So, we can take that, I think, for read. 

He explores, in his question, the question of sovereignty. It's an important question, but it's essentially illusory in the context of international trade negotiations, because in order to gain advantage, you have to concede in order to secure any sort of agreement—it's in the nature of a negotiation. So, describing this as a battle between sovereignty is entirely missing the point. He speaks about Canada, he speaks about a range of other countries; if he would like us to have the level of trade with the EU that those countries have, that would be a significant diminution in our trading capability with the European Union—a significant diminution.

He asked me for opportunities, and yet he asked me to follow the principles that Canada and other countries have followed. Those two points are fundamentally at odds with each other, and I think the Member must be aware of that. In terms of opportunities from other deals, there are opportunities, we are pursuing them, but even at their most ambitious, they are a fraction of the impact on our GDP of a good trading relationship with the European Union, which is why we've put that at the top of our list of priorities. 

Finally, he says, 'Will we prosper outside the European Union?' This Government will want Wales to prosper in whatever relationship we have with any part of the world, but we have to look at the evidence and not defy the reality of our current arrangements, and how we can build upon those, not undermine them. That is what we seek to do as a Government here, and that is what we want the UK Government to do on our behalf.

Thank you to the Counsel General for the statement. As we know, with just days to go, the negotiations between the UK and the European Union continue. If a deal is put before Parliament in Westminster, Plaid Cymru will consider the pledges made in 2016 and 2019. Boris Johnson pledged that Wales would not receive a penny less, that we would receive the same benefits, and that our farmers could sell into the European market as they have done in the past. We will need to see the detail of the deal, but Plaid Cymru is clear that we couldn't support a deal that would be damaging to the people and businesses of Wales. 'Oven-ready' and 'the easiest deal in the world'—that's what was pledged, but that is not what has happened. A deal or 'no deal', there's not enough time to enable Welsh businesses, or even the Welsh Government, to prepare fully for whatever circumstances we find ourselves in on 1 January. The UK Government's red lines since 2017, leaving the single market and the customs union, do mean that some disruption is inevitable, whatever happens with the deal.

So, can I ask: what's the role of the Welsh Government been in all of this, or have you as a Government been ignored once again by the UK Government? Can you confirm what the latest situation is with the storage of drugs as a result of COVID and Brexit? And do you as Government expect delays in the delivery of medicines in our ports, which need to come in on a just-in-time basis? I hear what you say about stockpiling, but it's not possible to stockpile some medicines, because they will only last a few hours. So, are you concerned about the delays and disruption to some crucial medicines, such as radioisotopes? Further, Minister, are you concerned that, even if there is a deal, there will be a period of time where, to all intents and purposes, we will be in a 'no deal' scenario because of the nature of the discussions taking place late in the day? And to conclude, I recognise that people are working around the clock on possible arrangements, and all this in the midst of a deadly pandemic—the situation is extremely challenging. Thank you very much.

May I agree with that final point, and endorse Dai Lloyd's comments on the work that is being done across Wales to prepare for this, with the Welsh Government, but also with our partners and the various sectors, in preparation for the end of the transition period, which is just 16 days away? So, Dai Lloyd is right to say that some disruption is inevitable in both scenarios facing us, because of the uncertainties and the new red tape that the Westminster Government has imposed on businesses and exports here in Wales.

The Member asked three questions. First of all, what has the role of the Welsh Government been in negotiations? Well, our role has been in common frameworks and in preparing legislation, and preparing for what the outcome will be. But as he knows from discussions we've had in the past, the roles of the devolved Governments haven't been what they should have been in the negotiation process. So, these are the UK Government's negotiations—for better or for worse. The priorities of the people of Wales, expressed through the Welsh Government, haven't been given a proper place in the process of agreeing a position across the Governments of the UK and then having an influence on the negotiations through doing so. There have been elements of influence, but there hasn't been the structure that this Senedd would have expected on behalf of the people of Wales.

In terms of the second question, on medicines, arrangements are in place across the UK. It's the role of the UK Government to import medicines from abroad into the UK, but arrangements are in place, in order to ensure that that can happen in the context that he describes, that is to say when medicines can't be stored and they have to be transported urgently. If there was any disruption in ports, then there are systems in place to bring them in by air freight to ensure that they arrive in good time. And arrangements have been agreed with the four Governments, so that there is equal sharing of those across the four nations, with the clinical influence of the chief medical officers being very important in that in ensuring that that distribution happens on an equal basis. 

And in terms of the final question on a deal, well, I agree with what Dai Lloyd has said that this deal doesn't reflect what we would want to see on behalf of the people of Wales. It doesn't provide sufficient assurances for our economy, our employers and our exporters. But a deal of this kind would be better than no deal. And we do have a possible scenario in the new year, as Dai Lloyd has recognised, that a deal may have been reached but that it hadn't been ratified, or that it's still being negotiated, or it has been negotiated but hasn't been signed off. So, all of those scenarios are possible, and, of course, we are looking at what could happen in those scenarios. As he will know, the arrangements that we have put in place, to date, are on the basis of exiting with no deal. So, we have that worst-case scenario as part of our planning, too. 

Thank you for the statement, Counsel General. A hearing of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee earlier this month was told that 61 per cent of exports from Wales go to the EU, compared with 43 per cent of all UK exports. Wales also has a high proportion of industries that are expected to face high tariffs if no deal is reached, and to name a few: automotive, dairy, meat and aerospace. The apparent oven-ready deal and easy agreements were fictitious, as we now all know. About as oven-ready as a deeply frozen Christmas turkey. So, safety and security is also a key area to resolve, and, so, I very much welcome the preparedness of the Welsh civil contingency planning preparations and our medicines availability. This is not about illusionary sovereignty.

So, Counsel General, the Confederation of British Industry Wales has clearly stated that a Brexit deal between the UK and the EU is essential. The CBI are clear, as is this Government, that no one has voted for lesser security, or 'no deal' devastation of our trade and economy, or higher food prices, or scarcer medicine availability, or UK border ports congestion and what that would mean. Counsel General, then, what are the consequences of any 'no deal' on the Welsh economy and the relationship between Wales and Europe in 2021? And, critically, what would this mean for the people of Wales, whether you are a leaver or a remainer?  

I thank Rhianon Passmore for that question. She is right to say that Wales has a larger percentage of our exports to the European Union than any other part of the United Kingdom. In order to support our exporters in the months that lie ahead, the Welsh Government has contracted the services of a cohort of international trade advisers, who will be available to support exporters to navigate the new red tape, which the United Kingdom's negotiating position will effectively be introducing on our businesses. 

Many exporters, of course, will have already taken into account the fact they face a whole slew of new customs-related export documentation requirements, which obviously will load significant additional costs on to their businesses. But they won't yet have been able to quantify the question of tariffs or how the products that they export are taken into account, how components in those products are treated, how standards are recognised mutually across the Channel. So, all of those are very significant questions in the minds of many business that export, at this point in time, and, I just repeat, that we have 16 days to to before the end of the transition period. So, that's why it's so important to give, even at this late hour, the clarity that businesses need in Wales to support their prosperity and support the livelihoods that depend on them. 

I do think it's right to say the CBI and other business organisations are clear that a deal is in the best interests of the UK economy and the Welsh economy. Our most recent academic analyses of the long-term impact of a 'no deal' scenario on the Welsh and the UK-wide economy is of an economy that is about 8 per cent less than it would have been over a 10-year period. Now, that's at the same time that businesses are suffering the impacts of COVID and plainly will take a significant period of time to recover from that. We think it's unconscionable to add to the involuntary damage of COVID the voluntary damage of leaving the transition period without a deal.

Can I thank the Counsel General for his statement? I applaud the Welsh Government's preparation for a number of Brexit scenarios. It is both prudent and sensible. But, Counsel General, you continue to bemoan the fact that, after four years, you have come down to the last few days, but how much is that down to the stance of the remainers, including you and the Welsh Government, by your continually trying to undermine the people's democratic decision in June 2016? This stance has undeniably undermined the efforts of the UK negotiators in getting the EU to accept a reasonable and acceptable Brexit deal.

There are three crucial areas said to be the main stumbling blocks to a deal. So, earlier today, I called for a Welsh Government statement of what concessions it would make in order to avoid a 'no deal' scenario with the European Union. Given that I had no real answer to my questions, I make no apology for repeating those questions now: what concessions would the Welsh Government be willing to make in order to avoid a 'no deal' scenario? Would it be to concede on our fishing grounds—which, incidentally, are at this moment being plundered by giant French, Dutch and Spanish trawlers, dredging up to 250 tonnes of fish a day, with disastrous environmental consequences—or would it be to give way on the so-called level playing field, meaning, of course, that the UK Government would, amongst other crucial economic interventions, remain very restricted by state-aid rules, disallowing us from helping our steel industries in the way we would want, or would it be to give the European Court of Justice supremacy over UK law, something that the people who voted for Brexit were implacably against? Please, Counsel General, no obfuscations, just a straight answer to the questions.

[Inaudible.]—three letters on fisheries, level playing field and governance, which I sent to Michael Gove a number of weeks ago, that set out our preferred position in relation to each of those outstanding areas. I've asked for the opportunity, in more than one Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations), to be party to the strategic trade-offs that the UK Government is considering in these closing weeks, and we've been denied the opportunity of participating in that. So, in the absence of that—. And I refer him to the letters, which I'm sure he would have read, that set out very faithfully the Welsh Government's position in relation to how this should be negotiated. These are the UK Government's negotiations, they're not the Welsh Government's negotiations, and the reason we are 16 days away from the end of transition without an agreement is not the responsibility of the Welsh Government; it is the responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom.

The Counsel General is so transparent. He never wanted Brexit, he's done everything he possibly could in the last four and a half years to sabotage it, he just failed to give David Rowlands an answer to his question. It's perfectly clear from his statement that his idea of a negotiation is for us simply to accept meekly whatever demands, however absurd or unreasonable, Monsieur Barnier makes—the kind of negotiation that Marshal Pétain conducted with Hitler in 1940.

In his statement, he said this, that the UK Government and the EU should

'show the flexibility and the compromise that are needed to find an agreement.'

Could he just tell me now what is the compromise that the EU should be making in order to reach an agreement with the UK Government? Is it a compromise on their demand that they should continue to legislate for us, even though we no longer have a voice or a vote in the councils of the EU? Is it that we should continue to allow European countries to have unfettered access to British waters so that they can hoover up as many fish as possible? Exactly what are the compromises that he thinks that the EU should be making at this time in order to get a deal?

Well, I think the answer to Neil Hamilton's question is the same answer that I gave to David Rowlands's question.

Thank you very much, Counsel General.

We now move on. In accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the three motions under items 5, 6 and 7 on our agenda, the health protection (coronavirus restrictions) regulations 2020, will be grouped for debate, but with a separate vote. I see no objections to that proposal.