The next item is a statement by the First Minister: reforming our union. I call on the First Minister, Mark Drakeford.

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I am grateful for the opportunity to make this statement today, as we publish an updated version of 'Reforming our Union', our practical proposals for shared governance in the United Kingdom, which we first issued in 2019.

As I have said repeatedly, before, during, and after last month's election, this Welsh Government believes in a strong and durable union. A voluntary association of nations working together in partnership is good for Wales. At the same time, the United Kingdom is better for having Wales as one of the partners within it. Our citizens derive tangible benefits from that partnership. We benefit from the pooling of resources and from our common history of social progress. The United Kingdom has been a powerful engine of the redistribution of resources, and it can be again.

Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, when the union acts in that way—creating the NHS, implementing the minimum wage, passing the equal marriage Act—it strengthens the bonds that bind us together. Sadly, the present UK Government fails every day to help make the case for a union of solidarity between the peoples of this multinational state and the benefits it can all bring to us. The result, as Sir David Lidington, former deputy Prime Minister only two years ago, said in a lecture last month, is that the union, he said,

'is in greater peril than at any moment in my lifetime.'

Now, Llywydd, that position makes the case for the re-publication of 'Reforming our Union' even more significant.

During this Senedd term, Members here will have to grapple with a series of constitutional questions, from the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol, to the declared intention of the Scottish Government to hold another referendum on Scottish independence. Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, I have been told forever that nobody ever raises these issues on the doorstep, and that is true in terms of pure constitutional theory, but as a matter of practical consequence, it certainly does matter and it makes a difference every day to each of our fellow citizens, whether that is Welsh food producers trying to export to Northern Ireland or families seeking justice in a court system that the former Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas concluded was letting them down. And that means that there is a leadership challenge for every party and every single Member of this Senedd to grapple seriously with these complex and challenging issues.

Simplistic assertions that independence offers a magic solution by which all problems will be resolved just don't meet that challenge. But those who have nothing more to offer beyond flag-waving renditions of the British song are even more culpable. The United Kingdom will not be saved by that sort of vacuous symbolism. Still less can it be secured by the deliberate provocations of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, the removal of powers and funds, the repeated overriding of the Sewel convention, the whole destructive repertoire of the aggressive unilateralism that is too often the hallmark of the present UK Government.

But, Dirprwy Lywydd, it does not have to be like this, as 'Reforming our Union' demonstrates. It revisits and restates our propositions for a successful, strong and durable United Kingdom. It casts these arguments in the new context created by events since its original publication in October 2019: the leaving of the European Union, a general election, the experience of navigating a global pandemic, the work of the radical federalism group, the establishment of a constitutional convention to be led by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and our own Welsh election in May of this year. And despite the complex and contested arena into which it is launched, at heart, 'Reforming our Union' sets out a formula for a union that can thrive and prosper, not in spite of devolution, but because of devolution.

It proceeds from the radical but simple proposition that, nearly 25 years into the devolution project, sovereignty is now dispersed amongst the four elected legislatures of the United Kingdom. That the United Kingdom can go on existing, not because there is a single sovereign body at Westminster, capable of overturning anything and everything that peoples in the four nations have decided for themselves, but because, as that highly distinguished constitutional reform group suggests, the peoples of the United Kingdom have chosen to continue to pool their sovereignty and to protect the social and economic rights that citizens in all parts of the United Kingdom have won—and hard won—for themselves.

Now, once this central proposition is grasped much flows from it: the permanency of devolution, other than by the decision, in our case, of the Welsh people; the redrawing of the reserved, devolved border; the codification and reduction in the scope of the Sewell convention; the reform and entrenchment of new machinery of government to bring the four nations together for common purposes; and a replacement of the Barnett formula with new arrangements, based on need and stripped of the arbitrary power of the Treasury that continues to mar the current settlement.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to say again today, as I did in 2019, that the 20 proposals set out in our document are not put forward on the basis that they contain all the answers. Publication is our contribution to a debate, a debate that is unavoidable and urgently needed. Here, the Welsh Government will set out before the summer recess how we will go about engaging directly with civil society and Welsh citizens on these matters, and 'Reforming our Union' will now be available in its updated form to inform that debate.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to end on an optimistic note. I am convinced that it is possible to renew and revitalise our union in ways that will allow it to thrive and prosper for the longer term. Doing so requires careful thought, the use of our imagination and co-operation. We have to work together in partnership, and we have to treat each other with mutual respect.

Those who believe in the benefits of the union cannot take it for granted. A positive case for the United Kingdom has to be made, and remade time after time. That case should be based on a capacity for reform and we must look to the future. We must not retreat into the past or the manifestly misguided belief that the existing system works well. That positive case is set out in this document that we have published today, and I very much hope that Members will respond to the document in that same spirit. Thank you very much.

Leader of the Conservatives.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First Minister, thank you for your statement this afternoon. I do find it slightly ironic that, when I woke up this morning and looked at the headlines on WalesOnline and the BBC website, the Welsh Government were accusing the UK Government of aggressively ignoring the Welsh Parliament, when today I look at the order paper and there's no education statement here, despite, obviously, the press conference that was held yesterday by the education Minister, and there has been no statement from the health Minister about tackling waiting times, which are the big issues that people want to talk to me about, as a Member of this Senedd. I think that those are the issues that we should be focused on, rather than a constitutional debate and discussion only six weeks after the election—or seven weeks after the election.

But, you are the Government, and it is your right to table the business of the day, and we discuss and debate the business of the day. It is a fact that, time and time again, the Welsh Labour Government talk about powers that have been stolen. I would be grateful to understand what powers you think have been stolen from this institution since the Brexit referendum and debate. I, for one, haven't heard a Minister come forward and say what's been stolen.

I'd also be grateful to understand why, in your written statement, you talk about tea towel-waving Tories of the 2021 intake. Is that really helping the debate? I find common ground with you on the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, and inter-governmental relations, but I don't find common ground when insults like that are thrown around.

The argument for the union constantly has to be made and debated and discussed. The vaccination programme, the investment of £8.2 billion, two Government of Wales Acts that have come forward: all of these are positive developments in the constitutional debate. But, we don't accept that there is a need for criminal justice and policing to be devolved. Indeed, when the Silk commission looked at this, they said that it would come in with a £100 million price tag. Can you update us on what the price tag would be if these powers were devolved to the Welsh Government, because that figure is nearly 10 years old now?

I want to have a constructive debate with the Welsh Government when it comes to constitutional change and development. But, as I said in my opening remarks, I do think that it is important that we focus on the day-to-day issues of the health service, the education and the economy of our great country. I passionately believe that the union is better by having a strong Wales within that union, and I do believe that, as I said, there is a debate around the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, and inter-governmental relations. But, this Government here in Cardiff Bay will not achieve success when it talks about towel-waving Union Jack—or tea towel-waving Tories—which I notice the First Minister didn't use in his address to the Parliament today, but it is in his written statement. So, I'd be grateful for answers on those questions that I have put to him.

But, I can confirm, from these benches, that we are proud of, and passionate about, our great nation of Wales within the United Kingdom and we will argue constantly for its place within the United Kingdom, in a strong union of nations, equal and respected. We do not believe that the argument that the Welsh Government is prosecuting when it comes to criminal justice is one that is current and is one that the people of Wales want to see happen, but we do believe that there can be progress in other areas.

I thank the leader of the opposition for his contribution. He starts by saying that the people of Wales would rather us be talking about education and the health service, and yet, I notice that when he had the opportunity to ask me questions, he chose not to deal with either of those matters. Indeed, I cannot help but notice that in the weeks that have now gone by since the election, he's not chosen once to ask me a question about the global pandemic in which Wales is still gripped. So, we all make choices, and the leader of the opposition makes his. 

I don't agree with him in his general suggestion that we shouldn't be focused on constitutional matters. We have no choice but to be focused on them. We're dealing with them every day. When I meet, as I do every week, with Michael Gove and the leaders of the other Parliaments in the UK, I see absolutely close up the stresses and strains that there are in Northern Ireland, and the impact that the Northern Ireland protocol is having on relations between the Government there and the Government in the United Kingdom.

The Scottish Government was elected on a platform of another referendum on Scottish independence. If that happens, it will happen during this Senedd term. How can we not grapple with those issues here if we are not serious about them? I'm sure the leader of the opposition is serious about his commitment to the continuation of the United Kingdom. The point I'm trying to make this afternoon is that we won't be able to make that case if we don't spend some time now thinking about what that case should be. We have to persuade people in every part of the United Kingdom that it is in their best interests to remain part of the United Kingdom. We won't do that without having the arguments that convince them of that, and that's what our document is designed to do. It's designed to show that there is a different way of organising the United Kingdom, which I think would add up to a compelling case for its continuation. You don't make that case by taking decisions away from the Senedd that was elected to make them.

If the Member can't think of any, let me just give him these three. The UK Government decided to take away from us the powers that we have to design a compensation scheme for fishers here in Wales. That's been devolved to us since the very beginning of devolution, and yet, in the post-Brexit era, instead of us being able to design a system that would fit Wales, and then using the funding to implement that scheme, the UK Government decided that it will make the scheme for Wales, and it avoided any scrutiny here in the Senedd by doing so. The UK Government regularly threatens—the Secretary of State was at it again only last week—to impose a free port on Wales without the agreement of the Welsh Government. And just to be clear, the Welsh Government has always said we will be prepared to agree a free port on the terms that we set out in our letter of February of last year, a letter to which we have never received a reply. 

And here's a third example for him: the overriding of the expressed view of this Senedd when it comes to the Sewel convention—not just now in relation to major matters of state. While I don't agree with the UK Government's use of the Sewel convention, I could at least understand why it felt it needed to do that in those circumstances. But during our election, we had an example where a most routine matter, where this Senedd ought to have been able to be asked for its consent—because it was convenient to a UK Government, they just went ahead and did it anyway without that ever coming to Members here as the constitutional settlement required. That is a casual level of disrespect for the devolution settlement, which has got into the way of thinking of the current UK Government. It's bad for devolution, it's bad for the United Kingdom.

There is a better way. It's set out in our document, not because we have all the answers, but because we believe in a serious debate. I was heartened by some of the things that the leader of the opposition said about his commitment to that serious debate. I didn't make the remarks that he repeated several times in his questions, because every statement a Government Minister makes says 'check against delivery' at the end of it. The Member was checking, and yet he didn't think that he would follow what I had said rather than a document that I didn't follow. I didn't do it for some of the reasons that he himself outlined.

Let's hope that, across the Chamber, we are able to go on having these absolutely necessary discussions—those of us who believe that there is a case for the United Kingdom that's there to be made but can only be made on the basis of a different sort of future, a future that regards our collective interests as a voluntary association—I'm quoting Mrs May, his previous Conservative Prime Minister—of nations, where we stay together because we know that the case for doing so is compelling.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. First Minister, thank you for your statement, but let me tell you where I think this plan of yours starts to unravel. To me, it's in the very first sentence of the foreword. The question you ask in that first sentence is this: how can our union be made strong and durable? Surely, the key question a First Minister of Wales should be asking is how can the interests of Wales and the interests of the people of Wales be best served in future, how can we build a nation that can best fulfil the aspirations of the people of Wales, that can plan for a fairer, more just, more open, more prosperous future. To insist, whatever the arguments you put forward around the edges, that our future must be best served as part of this United Kingdom, come what may—this UK of entrenched inequalities, of COVID corruption, of Eton elitism—and that preservation of this UK has to be at the heart of all constitutional solutions, quite apart from failing to grasp the current state of the debate on Wales's future, ignores the ample evidence that UK Governments, of whatever colour, will never put Wales's interests first, or indeed will barely take them into account when making some key decisions.

You describe your rejection of what you call this UK Government's aggressive unilateralism. But whilst this particular UK Government, yes, may well be more explicitly jingoistic, more eager than many Governments before to herald some sort of rebirth of empire, the truth is that even as devolution, the process itself, blossomed, UK Government always had that ultimate power to take back unilateral control. We've seen that now in the way this Conservative Government at Westminster is systematically trying to undermine Wales's national Parliament and Government. And to the Conservatives here, saying they'd rather be talking about health and education than focusing on constitutional affairs, apart from reminding you that you chose to spend an hour last week talking about a Brexit referendum of five years ago, I'll remind you that it's because we want to be able to take better decisions on health and education and jobs that we need to be having the best platforms on which we build this new nation.

First Minister, your report gives us the context—your guiding principles, if you like. You say that you've always believed in solidarity between the people of the constituent nations of the UK. I also believe in the power of that solidarity, in many, many ways. But that solidarity can come in many forms. An independent Wales could also—and I dare say would want to, I'm sure—be part of a wider association of countries within these islands, and beyond for that matter, choosing to co-operate and support each other, in a host of voluntary ways. People like me are often called separatists, but I'm not driven by wanting to separate anything, I'm not driven by wanting to break things up, I'm interested in wanting to build things: to build a new Wales and, in so doing, to build new relationships between the countries of these islands and beyond. 

We need to have a proper blinkers-off debate. It's true on both sides of the independent discussion. No-one should pretend that taking ultimate control of our own destiny will be a walk in the park from day one. Most serious changes come with serious challenges. But if you, as First Minister, are serious about strengthening Wales's hand, you have to embrace all options too—blinkers off—even if, as we know, your instinct is to try to preserve the union. 

What we have in this report is a rewriting of previous Labour proposals, and you have every right to do that. There are elements of what you propose that we in Plaid Cymru have been encouraging for many years as a means to strengthen devolution in the short term. But surely, at this point in our national journey, and with such a real and present threat from this UK Government to the integrity of our nation's democracy, we can't let this be a substitute for the kind of debates that I know we, as a nation, are mature enough to have. So, let's not tinker, and as we collectively offer to contribute towards redesigning what we now know as the UK, in all our interests, let me ask you this: why not place a discussion on the potential of an independent, agile, fair, aspirational Wales as a priority, not merely settle for the preservation of the UK come what may? 

I thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for that. I am not going to criticise the Member for making the case of his party. He has made it eloquently this afternoon, and he's got every possible right to do that. But what I have to say to him is this: he asked me why not find this moment as the moment to place in discussion the prospect that he set out. I just have to say to him that we had that moment; we had that moment only a short number of weeks ago. In studio after studio I stood alongside his party leader while he placed the prospect that he has just outlined in front of the Welsh people. Time after time, at the very centre of that party's campaign was the prospect and the prospectus we have just heard. That was the point at which it was discussed, and we saw the verdict of Welsh people.

That is why I think this is not the moment to go on thinking that we should spend the next five years talking about a proposition that won't be in front of the Welsh people. What we should be talking about is how we make the best of the arrangements we have, and that's what the document aims to do. It is a fundamentally different prospectus to the one that Rhun ap Iorwerth set out. He talks about the power of solidarity, but I suppose I have never myself believed that the way to demonstrate the power of solidarity is by leaving something. I think you demonstrate the power of solidarity by staying and by crafting a future in which we can go on demonstrating the things that unite us, rather than the things that can divide us one from another. That is more difficult and it is more urgent, because of the Government that we have.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson said that UK Governments had always had the ability to take back to themselves decisions that had been devolved to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and he will see in our proposition that we say that that should not be the case, that that right should now be given up. But until this Government, all previous Governments had acted with a self-denying ordinance as far as that was concerned. Every Labour Government in the first decade of devolution provided more powers, more responsibilities for the Senedd, and never took a single power away and never once acted against a motion passed by this Senedd under the Sewel convention. Even when Mrs May was Prime Minister, we were able to come to an agreement with the UK Government in negotiations led by David Lidington, in fact, in a way that avoided some of the dangers that we could both see there if the UK Government used the powers that it had. It is only since December 2019 that we have seen a Government intent on using those powers, and that’s why publishing our document becomes so important, because it does offer us a different prospect to the one that the Member set out, and which, as I say, was very directly rehearsed in front of Welsh people only weeks ago and very directly rejected by them.

I think there are different conversations to be had. I know there will be Members of his party who will be willing to have them. Not because it gets them to where they would like to be, but because they recognise that there is still ground to be gained in the interim. For them, that will be an interim position; for others it will be something more permanent. But I still think that a conversation is one to which anybody in this Senedd who has a serious interest in the future of the Senedd, its place in the United Kingdom—anybody with a serious interest would want to commit themselves to having that conversation.  

I would like to be able to ensure that everyone who's put their name down is able to speak, so can I remind you all you have one minute? And in that minute ask your questions, don't go beyond the minute, please. Mike Hedges.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the statement. I have three comments and two questions. A union of four parts cannot work with England being between five and six times larger than the other three combined. Devolution has to be the same for every devolved nation and region, as it is with American states and German Länder, but devolution must not stop at Cardiff.

The only people up to now with consistent policies are Plaid Cymru with independence and Abolish with ending the Senedd, and both want that to be the only choice. I have long been a supporter of devo-max, and I know what I mean by that, but I am sure others have different definitions, but I think it’s something we need to start discussing.

The two questions are: firstly, what powers need to be reserved to Westminster? And can a full list and an end point to devolution be produced for discussion? As Northern Ireland has shown, different powers can be devolved at different times.

Secondly, what discussion have you had with regional mayors in England? Should we also involve the leaders of large English counties so that we can have a coherent devolution discussion, so that devolution is not just about a very large England and three other very small places?

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I offer my view on the first of Mike Hedges’s questions, but it’s my view, and others will have others. I think that the conduct of foreign affairs is best done by member states, as it would have been in the European Union. I think defence and the maintenance of armed forces is best done on a pan-UK basis. And as I set out in an earlier answer this afternoon, I think that a social security system that moves money and resources around the United Kingdom to where need is greatest is also something that’s best discharged in that way. So, there are three examples, and others may have others or more.

As far as regional mayors in England are concerned, I have had a recent meeting with by far the majority of regional mayors. I think Mike Hedges makes an important point: devolution is not about Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. It is about England as well. To grapple with the English question and how people in England see themselves within this union is a necessary and very important part of that conversation.

Another week passes, our economy is under pressure, NHS waiting lists are under pressure, our education sector is under pressure, and still the Welsh Government want to waste crucial time to talk about further reform to the union. I am sorry, but my constituents, this Senedd and the Welsh Government have got far more pressing issues to deal with. Over the years, more and more powers have been devolved to this place, in an effort to improve the lives of the people of Wales and make decision making closer to home. Demanding more powers and reform to the union, in my opinion, is a grave mistake.

The Government need to address the issues I highlighted earlier, because that's what the people want us to get on with doing. The people of Wales are becoming sick and tired of all these constitutional games, and bringing forward debates like this, and statements, are a smokescreen for your Government's failings. So, First Minister, will you and your Government now commit to taking this utopian pipe dream off the table?

The answer is 'no', Dirprwy Lywydd.

I welcome this paper—thank you very much, First Minister. I welcome this paper because it is about business, it is about trade deals that are made without our input that affect our farmers and our businesses. It is about health and how we work together in order to ensure that this pandemic is brought under control. It is about Wales and it is about the future of Wales, and that's why it's important.

What I would just ask, First Minister, is that you look at a programme of engagement with the people of Wales. I agree with you, in the last Senedd elections, the majority of people voted against independence, but many did not, particularly young people. We had huge numbers of people, through Yes Cymru, who wanted to look at independence, who are indy-curious, and so I would welcome the opportunity to engage with a wide range of people in order to ensure that we have a strong, healthy Wales that is within the UK. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I thank Jane Dodds.

It was a pleasure to hear a serious contribution to this debate. And my colleague Mick Antoniw will come forward with further proposals as to how we are to take forward our commitment to a Wales constitutional conversation. Because I completely agree with what Jane Dodds said, that this conversation must go beyond political parties, it must go beyond those people who are already part of the conversation, and it must reach out into the wider Welsh society where I think people are interested in these things. I think it is desperately dismissive, as the previous questioner did, to dismiss people in Wales as though they were not capable of taking an interest in their own constitutional future. People in many, many walks of life, in many organisations and, as Jane Dodds said, particularly our young people, understand the significance of what is at stake here, and I look forward very much to a conversation that involves them in a powerful way in helping us to think about these very important issues and what it means for their futures as well as ours.

Thank you, First Minister, for setting out your plan.

I don't doubt at all your sincerity, and the Counsel General's sincerity, yet your pleas for home rule will be rejected by the Westminster Government, a Government obsessed by centralising powers. Throughout the centuries and throughout the continent, Westminster has ignored the cries of home rule until it's too late and the inevitable happens—independence—the de facto position of nations in the world now independent. And I echo the words of my colleague Jane Dodds that independence was not rejected on the ballot paper. First Minister, you'll be aware of candidates within your own party who are in favour of independence. The First Minister will be aware, walking around Cardiff West, of houses with a Yes Cymru poster and a Labour poster up on their window, and Jane Dodds's comment about a lot of young people being interested. This plan doesn't go far enough, First Minister. It should consider welfare and it should also consider what happens when the inevitable happens and the Conservative Government refuses your plan. Could you please consider that? Diolch yn fawr.

Well, I thank Rhys ab Owen too.

Look, he makes an important point about how this plan can be further developed, what more could be added to it, and I look forward to hearing from him further on those things. I don't think he will further his own cause, however, if he's not prepared to face up to the very direct choice that was put to the people of Wales back in May, and in my view, it was the most clearly-put choice in the whole history of devolution. As I said, I stood in tv studios, and on one side of me was a man who wanted to argue for the abolition of devolution altogether, to abolish the whole Assembly, and he made his case to Welsh people. On the other side of me was somebody who wanted to persuade people that Wales should be taken out of the United Kingdom altogether, and he put that case front and centre in his campaign. And Plaid Cymru lost ground—it didn't gain ground, it lost ground in this election, and I don't think I could have been clearer, time after time after time, in broadcasts, in leaflets, in every chance I had, to say that the Labour Party stood for powerful devolution in a successful United Kingdom. And in the end, that is where people in Wales made their choice, and I think people in Plaid Cymru too need to be willing to—. 'Blinkers off', said Rhun ap Iorwerth.  Well, in a blinkers-off world, then I think some thought has to be given to that as well.

Whatever our individual views in this Chamber, whether it's status quo, independence, devo-max, radical reform of the union, you cannot doubt that this is a major intervention by an elected Government in the debate around constitutional reform here in Wales, but also how it impacts on the wider UK. And there are some radical proposals within this. Even though it doesn't go as far as some and it goes further than others would want to go, these are serious proposals that I don't have time to list in full, but a new independent oversight body for funding; devolution becoming a permanent feature that cannot be undone without the will of the people of Wales or Scotland or Northern Ireland; House of Lords as a senate, reflecting the geographic parts of the UK, and Welsh Ministers having a say in international relations and trade. But let me simply ask, in my one question: we look forward to details of the civil society engagement in Wales, but what about the engagement with the House of Lords as it currently is, and their constitutional-interested parties up there? Because whilst the UK Government might not currently wish to listen, Deputy Presiding Officer, they might well want to listen and to help shape the future of the UK, as well as Wales, on a reform agenda.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for what he said about the seriousness of the document. I referred in my statement to the constitutional reform group. That is largely populated by Members of the House of Lords, and I must say, some very, very serious work is being done by select committees in the House of Commons, as well as in the House of Lords. The Government may not yet be listening, but this Government will itself have to face the realities of what it has done in terms of Northern Ireland, of where the Scottish Government will wish to take its mandate in relation to a referendum. And when it has to face those realities, at least it will find that there is a reservoir of work, including the work done here in Wales, but also the work that's being done in the House of Lords, and, as I say, outside Government in the House of Commons, and I agree very much with what Huw Irranca-Davies said about us being prepared to engage in those conversations as well, and publication of the document is part of that. That's why we've done it: so that there is something there that is updated and represents the current state of thinking of the Welsh Government; that those other parts of our constitutional machinery who are prepared to take a serious interest in all of that can at least know what we are thinking, and make that part of their considerations as they come to contribute to the pool of ideas that we so badly need.

First Minister, in your written edition of your oral statement today, you referred to the flying of the union flag by some of my colleagues in this Senedd as 'vacuous symbolism'. The direct quote was: 

'The United Kingdom will not be saved by the sort of vacuous symbolism which has, sadly, been evident even in our own proceedings—the tea towel Tories of 2021'— you said. First Minister, people, right across Wales, fly the union flag because of what it symbolises: a pride in the country that we live in, and that's no different to my colleagues in the Senedd to do that same. I know, in your answer to Andrew R.T. Davies, you tried to distance yourself from the written edition of your oral statement, but that was a document sent out in your name by your Government, and so you're responsible for its contents. So, therefore, can I ask you, First Minister, whether you've reflected on these comments and whether you think that those ordinary people in communities across Wales who also feel pride in the union flag are also engaging in vacuous symbolism?

Well, Llywydd, I don't want to spend my afternoon having to give elementary lessons to new members of the opposition about the way in which the Senedd works. I am responsible for what I say and what lies on the Record of the Senedd. If you want to know what I say, that's where you must go. Members have the privilege of having advance copies of what I might say, and it says at the bottom that you should check that against what I actually say. Now, I think—. I hope I don't need to repeat that again, because it's a very elementary lesson in the way that this place operates.

I'll repeat what I actually said: that this is a Government that seems devoted to the emptiness of symbols, that believes that by flying flags and persuading people that choruses of the British song will somehow cement the union—. Well, I think it did succeed at least in uniting people in a sense of derision for that idea that this is the level of seriousness that they've been able to summon up as a Government charged with those responsibilities.

Thank you, First Minister.