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.