A number of issues there. Can I thank the Member for putting forward a view that is different to the view that we’ve heard from his party in Westminster? The Scottish Conservatives said the same thing, actually, in their debate, and I think that is an important development in terms of the way this is seen in this Chamber. The key principle here is that we believe that the way forward is through agreement not by imposition. That’s it; that’s the fundamental principle. The destination may well be the same, but there’s a fundamental disagreement here as to how that should be arrived at.

It is true to say that it has been said that the powers that will not come here and be taken to Whitehall will only rest there temporarily, but there is no sunset clause, as he said. I have no faith that those powers won’t rest there permanently. For me, at this moment in time, to introduce an LCM to this Chamber and ask this Chamber to support it would mean that I would have to stand up and ask Members to support a motion that would prevent powers coming here from Brussels that would automatically come to rest here, and accept that, instead, we should allow those powers to go to Whitehall and stay there indefinitely. No First Minister, surely, could possibly accept a situation like that. The UK Government would never accept that themselves, so why on earth would they expect that of us?

He talks about the need for common frameworks; we are agreed on that. We’re also agreed on the need for nothing to change until common frameworks are agreed. I’m with him on that, but the way it’s being done is that basically the UK Government dictates when it thinks a common framework should be produced and what it should look like. That’s the problem. If there are going to be restrictions, let there be restrictions on UK Ministers as well—not just on devolved Ministers. It surely must be one rule for everybody or no rules, and in that sense there would need to be an agreement for nothing to change until there was an agreement for a common framework on, let’s say, agriculture or fisheries in the future. That is the problem here. The Bill, as it’s drafted, intercepts powers on their way to Wales and drags them off to Whitehall for an unlimited period of time. That’s the problem on the face of the Bill, and that’s why the Bill needs to change in order to provide the kind of comfort that we need and the people of Wales need.

Why is that important? Because the UK Government has a conflict of interest in so many areas. If we take agriculture and fisheries, the UK Government has for many years been, in effect, the English Government, if I can put it that way. It’s been in charge of English agriculture, English fisheries. How does it resolve that conflict of interest? For years, we have had a dispute over quota when it comes to a certain section of our fisheries, where it is argued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that they should have a larger slice of the quota and that we should give them part of that slice. Who resolves that now? They do, in their own favour. How on earth do you resolve that conflict? We have to have a way of being sure that we will not see a situation where—I put it bluntly, but it’s the only way I can express it—England can do what it wants and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland can’t. That’s the problem that we face here, that conflict of interest.

Yes, officials have engaged with the Wales Office. And there’s no problem, no reason why we shouldn’t engage with them, but what influence does the Wales Office have, I have to say. We need to be talking to the Prime Minister on this. This is a serious issue that goes to the very heart of the UK and its future that is resolvable, and resolvable, to my mind, fairly easily. But is the Wales Office a lobbying organisation or is it able to take decisions itself? I suspect it’s not the latter, unfortunately.