The next item is the statement by the Minister for Economy on border controls. I call on the Minister, Vaughan Gething. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I am grateful for the opportunity to provide Members with the latest update on the UK Government’s policy on border controls for Great Britain, the implications for Wales and our key objectives as a Government.

The UK Government Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiencies, Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, stated in a written ministerial statement on 28 April this year that the further introduction of border controls would be suspended until the end of 2023. The UK Government is currently in the process of developing a new target operating model for introduction by the end of 2023. I understand that the stated aim of the model is to make importing and exporting easier for businesses whilst maintaining or improving security and biosecurity in the UK. To date, and since my last oral statement, I still have not received sufficient detail or evidence to provide more information or clarity at this stage on the deliverability of the planned new model. I will of course be happy to provide a further update to Members when more detail has been shared with the Welsh Government.

I have been clear that Ministers responsible for biosecurity across all three nations in Great Britain should work together to agree the principles and the details of the future borders regime. This should be informed by joined-up advice from all of our technical experts, such as the chief veterinary officers, together with the agencies charged with protecting our health and delivering the regime on the ground. To achieve this, we need to ensure there is consistent, reliable ministerial engagement in order to shape the strategic priorities and to consider practical issues. Both Wales and Scotland continue to seek a commitment for regular Global Britain (Operations) Cabinet meetings, where decisions on the future GB regime can be taken collectively. I wrote to Mr Rees-Mogg on 13 June recently, to emphasise this, but have not yet had a reply.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the UK Government’s decisions continue to directly affect devolved responsibilities with significant financial consequences. This UK policy has required a great deal of work for us and our partners. To date, we have spent £6 million of public money in order to secure the progress needed against a deeply uncertain backdrop. The UK Government has made a commitment to fund the absolutely necessary costs of building border control posts, and we fully expect this commitment to be honoured.

Members will be aware that we took the initial decision to suspend the work on developing border control posts in Wales in order to take stock following the Minister for Brexit opportunities' announcement in April. I can confirm that the Welsh Government Cabinet has now considered the latest position and has agreed to recommence work on the design stage of the permanent Holyhead border control post facilities. Later this year, we will need to decide whether to proceed to the build stage, which is of course subject to UK Treasury funding. If so, we should have a facility available in Wales by the end of 2023, when UK Government is targeting the introduction of the new regime. If we cannot progress to the build stage, then a permanent border control post at Holyhead is unlikely to be achievable by the end of 2023. There would also be a likely increase in cost.

This clearly demonstrates a real intent by the Welsh Government to make every effort to ensure that this inherited policy is implemented as effectively as possible. We recognise the need to ensure we have the right systems in place for importing goods in a safe, secure and efficient manner. This is necessary to provide much needed clarity for businesses in Wales, and why it is so important that UK Ministers work in genuine partnership with devolved national Government Ministers.

Dirprwy Lywydd, as I set out in my oral statement on 3 May, we need to understand the UK Government’s detailed proposals on how to treat goods from the island of Ireland. Since then, the Foreign Secretary has introduced a Northern Ireland Protocol Bill in the UK Parliament that is intended to breach the obligations that the Prime Minister has signed up to. This has resulted in an inevitable reaction from the EU. Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm sure you will not be surprised by the fact this action was carried out without any engagement with the Welsh Government. The First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister on 17 May, advising that the UK Government should not act unilaterally but should continue the dialogue with the EU and setting out the likely consequences of such action. Dirprwy Lywydd, as you'll know, I wrote to the Llywydd on this matter yesterday and also issued a written statement to Members earlier today.

This action is once again wholly at odds with the ways of working envisaged in the inter-governmental relations review and the common frameworks. It is in the interests of all of us, not simply for biosecurity but for our broader economic prospects, for there to be a significant improvement in the way that Governments within the UK respect and work with each other. I will, of course, continue to keep Members informed on developments.

Can I thank the Minister for not only providing early sight of this statement, but for the regular updates that he and his team have provided to local Members on this matter? I'm sure that today's statement will be welcome clarification following the uncertain situation outlined in your last statement. As you have rightly outlined, the management of this situation is pivotal to its success. If we are to deliver a successful outcome for port locations such as Ynys Môn and Pembrokeshire, then purposeful dialogue with all stakeholders is vital.

We must be prepared for the acceleration of the UK Government's digitisation programme, which, in turn, can ensure a smooth transition out of the current climate and into one that incorporates the prospect of frictionless trade fit for the twenty-first century. Indeed, several months ago, the UK Government Minister for Brexit opportunities set out his reasoning for reducing the prominence of the United Kingdom's border controls on EU goods, and he was correct to do so. With the rising cost of living, paired with increased energy prices, trade needs to be encouraged, benefiting both businesses and consumers alike.

In situations such as the one you described, Minister, it is clear that your Government must continue to pursue its current course of action. And, given that £6 million of public money has already been invested in the site, as you mentioned in your statement, it would be detrimental to halt this progress, jeopardising the UK Government's commitment to fund the cost of building border control posts. But, should further investment in the Ynys Môn site occur, then co-operation is key. Seeing that the UK Government are reviewing their procedures and are set to publish a target operating model later this year, I would be interested to know how the Welsh Government envisages the model progressing. But, central to this transition to a new frictionless regime is the prospect of a digitised system, one that centralises all information through a single trade window. 

The UK Government has stated that it is their intention for this to be in operation by 2024. In your last statement on this matter, you stated that little conversation had occurred about what this technology is or, indeed, what it will look like. Now, given that you have confirmed your intention to heavily invest in the Ynys Môn site and continue developing the BCP, I'm sure you will agree with me that this site should be futureproofed to ensure it is compatible with the introduction of said technology. Therefore, Minister, how are you going to ensure that the development of BCPs in Ynys Môn is futureproofed against potential changes in technological requirements?

And lastly, Dirprwy Lywydd, it would be remiss of me not to touch on the changes in west Wales, particularly those that impact on the ports of Pembroke Dock and Fishguard. As per your last written statement on this matter, you confirmed that Johnston had since been, in your words, terminated as a potential BCP location. In the same written statement, you stated that the consolidation of border control facilities onto one plot is no longer a pre-requisite. You've stated in this afternoon's statement that we must have the right systems in place for importing goods in a safe, secure and efficient manner. Therefore, I'd be interested to know what, if any, conversations you have had about the potential of developing facilities at the ports themselves in west Wales.

And in closing, Dirprwy Lywydd, it is clear to me that, for this to be a success, then co-operation and communication ought to become a necessary characteristic of the relationship between both the UK Government and Welsh Government, and I hope and urge both Governments on either ends of the M4 to recognise this value. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you for the questions and the comments, and in particular the broadly constructive nature of both the comments and the questions. If I deal with the points around Pembrokeshire first, and then I'll come to Ynys Môn and the port at Holyhead, and the broader questions that were asked. 

So, in respect of Holyhead, my officials continue to work with the county council and the port to ensure that trade continues to flow. But, to achieve this, we do need to have as early sight as possible of the UK Government's new arrangements that they plan to have in place by the end of 2023, and that matters then for your question around what will new border control posts look like for the west Wales-facing ports. The challenge with that is that, in south-west Wales, we do need to understand whether the reduction in trade that has occurred is permanent, because that then changes the requirement to have the facilities. And as you'll know, livestock actually comes through a south-west Wales port, and not through Holyhead. So, actually, we really do need to understand what the technology answers are going to be, and how much physical checking there will need to be.

It's very difficult at the moment to envisage how a technology solution will avoid the need to have physical checks for livestock. And so, that's part of what we'll need to plan in. It's also possible—possible, but not certain—that we'll be able to have checks much nearer to the ports, if not within the curtilage, the boundary of the ports. That's why we need to be engaged directly as early as possible on what the new operating model is going to be. It's why we need to share the indications about trade data. It's why the regularisation and the certainty in trade with the island of Ireland is so important for us, because it will affect the choices that we have to make and the use of public money, including the use of civil servants' time on this issue. 

On the broader point and the points around Holyhead in particular, I can't tell you how the new operating model will work because we still need to have that engagement. It must make sense for all the three nations in Great Britain to utilise the same model, rather than having entirely different models, because otherwise if one is seen as being weaker or having fewer requirements, then you'll divert trade somewhere else and you potentially risk security and biosecurity as well. We also need to be able to share information. Now, that must surely mean that we should be involved in the design stage, as well as commissioning whatever technology solution is going to go around that, whether it does as much as some parts of the UK would want it to do. But, to practically come to whatever that answer is, we should be involved in the design stage, and not simply be given a system that we are then told to use, or even told to use and then asked to pay for a chunk of it as well. So, I'd much rather have those practical and purposive conversations, because I'm interested in getting this right.

When it comes to the futureproofing of border control posts, we're just facing this undeniable reality that if we don't move ahead with the design stage in Holyhead, we won't be ready, we won't be able to trade then, and actually there's a much bigger pressure in Holyhead because of the volumes of trade that come through there. So, we're going to have to do that or we risk not being able to import successfully through Holyhead, which is the second-busiest roll-on, roll-off port in the UK. So, it's important that we do that.

In dealing with the design, we're going to need to have some flexibility in it, because we're still not certain when the operating model is coming in. We don't need to make choices about the build stage of that until the autumn, and we should have more detail on the operating model by then. That's the expectation we're working to, but, again, that requires proper engagement between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, both at official and ministerial level. 

I think your point around co-operation and communication, I completely agree with that. It's part of my very real frustration about why we are here again today, and where I'd like us to be to give certainty to businesses, and local Members of more than one political party in the Chamber will want to know what the future is for the ports and the communities and businesses they represent. And I recognise the Member takes that broad view as well. 

The risk isn't the jeopardy that we'll go ahead and do something that cuts across where the UK Government want to be; the risk is we have yet another change at short notice and a lack of engagement that means we have to re-pivot our plans to where they won't meet the needs of certainty that all businesses and jobs that rely on that trade would want. And actually, if we are going to get frictionless trade, there need to be choices made on what that means. Having chosen to leave the European Union, frictionless trade is very difficult to achieve, given the choices that have been made to date around the customs union and the single market. So, there will need to be an element of checking for us to be able to trade with other parts of Europe, and, in particular, the island of Ireland.

So, I don't think that entirely frictionless trade is achievable, given the choices that have been made about the post-Brexit reality. But, if we can reduce the friction to make trade easier, I would be interested in doing that in a way that, as I say, meets the tests of biosecurity, security and efficiency. That will continue to be the way that the Welsh Government approaches this work, and I hope that that will be reciprocated in relationships with the UK Government. 

Thank you to the Minister for the statement.

Co-operation is key on the matter of trade, and it’s welcome to hear Sam Kurtz’s view on this. We are both on the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, and the evidence, in my view at least, has been clear that, throughout the post-Brexit process, the UK Government has failed to consult and engage with the Welsh Government consistently and meaningfully on issues of trade. We have to be fully informed and involved with the UK Government regarding future trade deals and policy impacting trade in order to secure the best outcome for Wales.

The short notice of the meeting that the Minister attended with the UK Government on border controls and the lack of communication and engagement regarding the delays are symptoms of an ongoing issue. Would the Minister agree with these comments? Is the Minister convinced that Wales’s voice is being heard during these processes, and what more can we do to ensure that trade and border policies consider the needs of Wales?

As the UK sources new post-Brexit free trade agreements, I do have concerns that this may allow foreign direct investment and multinational companies to negatively impact Welsh SMEs and local businesses. Combined with the uncertainty of the process generally and the questions that are now raised for exporters following this most recent announcement by the UK Government, I worry that the current impact on Welsh SMEs and local businesses may be quite severe. To that end, what conversations has the Minister had with the other UK Governments about ensuring that small Welsh businesses do not lose out from new trade agreements? And what advice would the Minister give to small Welsh exporting businesses, following this most recent update from Westminster?

On maintaining standards, when there are differences in standards between the UK and a country that we are making a new free trade agreement with, or trading with, trade deals may increase competition for domestic manufacturers, and if standards are dropped at the border, it may place domestic producers at a disadvantage. It’s helpful to have assurance that there will be an appropriate level playing field that also protects high standards. We should also try to ensure that new free trade agreements are working towards net zero and other sustainable economic practices. What conversations has the Minister had regarding these issues? Does the Minister know whether the UK Government shares these concerns and is planning to maintain high standards and an equal playing field via border controls?

Finally, concerns about ensuring a level playing field for Welsh agricultural producers when the UK Government is negotiating new free trade agreements must not lead to gains for other parts of the UK at the expense of losses for Wales. There are particular concerns about losses in the meat industry, for example, from the New Zealand and Australia trade deals. The Scottish Association of Meat Wholesalers has noted that continuous delays to the implementation of post-Brexit animal and plant health border checks could have devastating consequences for the farming and meat industry.

Unchecked imports risk infections and disease being introduced into the UK animal stock, as well as travellers bringing contaminated products into the country. The UK Government is demonstrating an incompetence and failure to support Welsh agricultural producers. Checks are crucial to our biosecurity, animal health and food safety. So, to that end, how does the Minister intend to support the agriculture industry in Wales during this period of disadvantage and uncertainty, and why is the UK Government continuing to delay these vital checks?

Thank you for the series of questions. I'll start with your point about Wales's voice in shaping the new UK border controls. I think that I have been pretty clear in my engagement, both at committee and in the Chamber, and I have been open with Members around the Chamber in all parties about the very real sense of frustration about the lack of early engagement. To be fair, Welsh Conservative spokespeople have recognised that there should be earlier engagement, not just today, but previously as well, so I don't want to try to say that the Welsh Conservatives in this place are now saying that it's ideal to have short-notice changes taking place.

I think part of the problem is the UK Government itself needing to have a consistent approach on this issue that would facilitate constructive early engagement, or at least engaging in having some trust with the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government that, actually, we want to see effective trading arrangements, in a whole range of sectors. You mentioned manufacturing; that's important for us, for all those businesses who are going to engage in the new rules around rules of origin and how they're able to trade successfully with different parts of the world, as well as our farming, food and drink industry, which has been successful in growing and expanding. Recent good news figures published this week show that there's a real market for high-quality Welsh produce in food and drink, but actually that's why we want to be engaged, because it's in our interests and the interests of Welsh jobs and businesses to have that constructive early engagement, with a consistent and rational approach to borders and to trade. And that goes into our broader approach, not just on this issue but on trade more generally, which the Member referenced.

We are keen to make sure that when it comes to Welsh interests in negotiating future free trade deals, we do highlight where there are devolved interests, but equally when reserved matters have a direct impact on devolved interests. We've been very, very upfront on what we think the risks are in the Australia and New Zealand trade deals to Welsh agriculture. They may not be immediate, but we think it's not very difficult to see the level of risk that it presents to the future of our agricultural sector. There are other opportunities in other sectors in some of the free trade deals that are done, but we regularly point to the disadvantages and the risks as well as the potential opportunities. We're committed to, as I have done already, publishing an analysis of our view on those trade deals, and we will continue to share those openly with Members through writing and reporting to the relevant committee and in written statements as well.

Part of my concern for SMEs more generally is to make sure they continue to export, that we help them through what is a very different process to what it would have been just a few years ago, so people don't opt out of being exporting businesses, because that cuts off other routes for their products, but that we help them through the obviously more difficult route for export, where the non-tariff barriers, as well as the potential for tariffs, are a real challenge for some. That's why I made the comments I did to Sam Kurtz earlier about frictionless trade. We've opted in, across the UK, because of the choices the UK Government has made, to friction in our trade. It's about how to manage that as best as we can, and the challenges that we're talking about today around border control are a symptom of the inability to have a consistent approach to that.

I'll deal briefly and directly with your point on trade. We do have an inter-ministerial forum on trade. There is regular ministerial correspondence and engagement. Penny Mordaunt, for example, engages regularly with devolved Ministers on changes and challenges around that. So, there is ministerial engagement there. We think that the same sort of engagement should take place on the points around border control.

On your points around biosecurity, it is one of our really significant concerns and one of the concerns of our chief vet; that's why I've mentioned it. In conversation with James Cleverly, previously in his role as Minister for Europe, one of the points that I made to him in correspondence—it's a direct point that we've said consistently in public as well—is that just because we're not farming in a radically different way to when we were in the European Union, that doesn't mean to say that the biosecurity risks haven't changed, because they're dynamic. We know that there are risks of diseases coming into the UK as well as going outside and through GB. When we were in the EU, we were already able to apply higher levels of assurance on imports, where permitted. We also know that we're no longer part of the early warning system within Europe, so we have less notice of what's taking place. That's why Lesley Griffiths continues to engage with George Eustice and DEFRA Ministers on this, and it's also why we're looking to carry on doing work with DEFRA on looking at a changed approach to see if some of the current checks that take place at point of destination could take place nearer to ports of entry. If that's going to happen, again, a more consistent approach between England, Wales and Scotland would be preferable for all of us to properly manage those biosecurity risks that affect each and every one of us.

Minister, I start from the premise that I want inter-ministerial and inter-governmental working to be effective and efficient. It's in all our interests. But if there were ever a concerted and deliberate attempt to undermine the newly installed machinery of government, it would include lack of communication, lack of timely sharing of information and timely engagement with devolved Governments in a spirit of co-operation and transparency, lack of commitment to regular meetings and meaningful agenda setting for those meetings, and thereby the lack of the opportunity for open and frank discussion at those meetings.

Minister, from the statement today, this has characterised the approach by the UK Government to border controls, and, indeed, the unilateral decision by the Foreign Secretary to introduce to the UK Parliament a Northern Ireland Protocol Bill that explicitly seeks to breach the obligations that the Prime Minister has himself signed up to. As you set out in your statement today, Minister, this action is once again wholly at odds with the ways of working envisaged in the inter-governmental relations review and the common frameworks. It's in the interests of as all, not simply for biosecurity, but for broader economic prospects, for there to be a significant improvement in the way that Governments within the UK respect and work with each other. So, Minister, what hopes do you have, based on this, which falls today in the shadow of the additional announcement yesterday of the proposal by the UK Government to override legislation passed here in this Senedd, of the inter-ministerial machinery now working?

The inter-ministerial machinery we've agreed is what should take place, and it's consistently not taking place on significant issues. We have the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill introduced without there being any engagement with us. We should have early engagement  on Bills that affect devolved competence; it simply isn't happening. The most egregious breach is the one announcing in the explanatory memorandum the intention to repeal Welsh legislation that has gone through this Parliament through all forms of scrutiny, through all of the stages of scrutiny and not being challenged in the Supreme Court. My concern is that we will end up having institutional conflict rather than looking to what we want to do, which is to find a way forward to make sure there's certainty for the jobs and businesses that rely on predictable trading arrangements, as opposed to a constant attempt to rejig headlines to avoid those much larger questions. It's about the inability of the Government to function at a UK level that leads us to where we are today, and having yet another statement about border controls, because I gave a commitment to update.

We're having to give up some risk to implement measures to make sure Holyhead can trade in the future with permanent arrangements to avoid there being extra cost to the public purse, but we're still not getting ministerial engagement about relatively straightforward points where it's in our interest to be constructive and engaged. It's so much better to have a plan, even if you disagree with it, than no plan at all. It's so much better to have engagement at an early level to resolve issues, even if you disagree with the approach that is being taken. The issue we have is a lack of competence and consistency and an inability to have a plan at all from the current Government in the United Kingdom level. I'd much rather be more constructive, in the tone that was struck with Sam Kurtz in his opening, but that approach simply isn't available to us with this current iteration of the UK Government.

I thank the Minister for the statement. I know he shares my frustration about the way this has been handled, the seeming indecision of UK Government about these elements of border control and the implications of that, of course, for Welsh Government, for local government and also for the community of Holyhead. It's with regret again that we hear of what appears to be more lack of fundamental respect when it comes to responding in a timely manner to requests for meetings that are so crucial in order to promote the kind of co-operation that is vital at difficult times like this.

Just two short questions, one on the question of cost; I think it's important to keep a public tally of costs. What additional resource will need to be put into pressing ahead with the design stage of the Holyhead facility, and could the Minister confirm if that's in addition to the £6 million that has already been earmarked or spent? Of course, that's money that we need to see being reimbursed by the UK Government.

And secondly, a local issue about port infrastructure. Of course, the development of the UK Government element of the border control post took away the HGV park. The delay in pressing ahead with the Welsh Government border control post means that site is being used as a temporary lorry park. There are implications now that you are looking to press ahead with that. Is there going to be an acceleration of plans to look for alternative long-term HGV parking facilities, given that this plot 9 is back in play, as it were, as a border control post?

So, on your second point first, yes, we are engaging on how to look at a longer term arrangement for HGV facilities, and that is not as straightforward as I would wish it to be, but I'll happily keep the Member updated on the progress we're making and on the cost. The design cost will be not quite £1 million—that's my expectation. It's around about that figure, and that will be in addition to the £6 million of money already spent.

Could you ask that contractors in Holyhead engage with local partners to maximise opportunities for local workers, and also with the supply chains? And also, if you do have conversations with UK Government and HMRC, could you say that there is an existing Welsh Government-owned European-funded high-fibre network connection that could be utilised now by any telecoms carrier or internet service provider on a wholesale basis to provide high bandwidth and dark fibre capacity to the site? It's available immediately, so avoiding expensive insulation costs and allowing immediate access to any data, mobile and telecom requirements. I know FibreSpeed have been trying to make this point to HMRC, and they've just been saying that they need to get on the supplier provider list for procurement. That's not what they're asking. They actually just want to inform people that this is already in place, and nobody seems to be acknowledging it. So, could you take that forward, please?

On that second point, I know the Member has corresponded with the Deputy Minister for Climate Change, with his responsibilities, but I'll make sure the point is made when it comes to the implementation of permanent facilities that are going to be required, and the Member has, to be fair, been entirely consistent in her interest on this point. I'll also make sure there's a joined-up conversation with the Deputy Minister for Climate Change on the issue as well.

On the point about jobs, if we're going to proceed to the Bill stage for border control posts, whether in north Wales or, indeed, in west Wales, then we will procure those in a way that you would expect the Welsh Government to do so, with expectations on contractors that they will positively look to the local supply chain, and what that means in terms of local labour. So, yes, we have already had engagement with Kier, who are the preferred contractors, who are going to be doing the design work, and they're looking to make sure they do engage with the local supply chain, and there will be minimum expectations about their engagement with the local supply chain and how they subcontract their work. So, yes, our approach on procurement—and I note the Minister with lead responsibility across the Government for procurement is in the Chamber—would be undertaken if we do move to the Bill stage. So, yes, I'm happy to give the Member that confirmation of the continued approach of this Welsh Government.

And finally, Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to you, Minister, for your statement this afternoon, although I have to say I do fear that it's a Titanic waste of your and our time. You've talked about the checks that had been delayed in April, well, of course, those same checks were also delayed in June 2020, March 2021 and again in September 2021. The ludicrously titled Minister for Brexit Opportunities described introducing such checks as an act of self-harm. Now, he's second only to the so-called Lord Frost in this cast of comic characters who are responsible for the impact on trade and human contact through Brexit and through border controls. My question to you, Minister, is this: would your time, our resources and our money better be used campaigning for and arguing for membership of the single market and customs union, which will restore all the difficulties that are being created by, or most of the difficulties created by Brexit, and particularly the Brexit that has been conjured up by this UK Government, rather than building control posts and border posts that we hope will never be used?

Well, you'll recall, as I do, that the Welsh Government had a jointly authored White Paper with Plaid Cymru on what a least harmful Brexit could look like in economic terms. And we also had our position on wanting to make sure that there was an engagement with and membership of the customs union and the single market, and it would undoubtedly have avoided all the challenges that we are talking about today, the way we're spending public money and the need to have border control posts. But that was a deliberate choice by the current UK Government to have a form of Brexit that meant that all of those difficulties have been created, and now there is an attempt to act as if there is no need to confront the realities of trade with the island of Ireland or indeed trade with any other part of the European Union. So, yes, it's an undeniable fact that if we had customs union and single market membership, this statement would not be necessary, because we would have other arrangements in place. And that would be economically more beneficial for all of the constituents that you, I and every other Member in this place represent. But that has not been the choice of the UK Government; it's why I have the happy task of continuing to undertake these responsibilities on behalf of the Welsh Government, knowing all the time that I believe that our time could be better spent on the use of public money to support our economic prospects.

I thank the Minister.