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.