I thank the Member for the supplementary question, and when he reads my speech he will see rather detailed views of my own thinking on the issue of legal jurisdiction and, of course, the transitional compromise that I think was put forward, which was, at this time, a distinct jurisdiction would make very much sense and do a lot to resolve the contradictions that exist. I think the Member will have heard me say previously my concerns about this sort of mythology that’s developed around the concept of jurisdiction, as though it’s anything other than an administration. In the past, when there was only one legislature within England and Wales, it made sense to have a single jurisdiction. We now have two legislatures. I think I will give you advance notice of my speech, for when you take the opportunity to read it—I think it is an inevitability that we will move towards a distinct jurisdiction and, eventually, a separate jurisdiction.

The Member will also, I’m sure, have read with interest the comments that have been made in the House of Lords’s recent report on the Wales Bill and the comments that are made there, which I think are very important, because not only do they make a number of comments about the list of reservations being so extensive and the legal test that governs the Assembly’s powers being so complex and vague that they’d be a recipe for confusion and legal uncertainty, but the key point they really make, and that jumped out at me, was when they say that the committee notes there is

‘no evidence of a clear rationale’.

I think that is the fundamental problem. That permeates through the Wales Bill, not only in terms of the list of reservations, which is 35 pages, 195 items, but also in the thinking around the concept of how you administer an area where you have two legislatures and how you ensure that that is efficient and complementary to not only the Welsh legislature, but also the English legislature.