Mr Isherwood is right that the JMC did discuss devolved administrations' involvement in phase 2 negotiations. We had discussed exactly this point during our meeting in the middle of December, where UK Ministers agreed that there would be the need for a different level of participation in phase 2 discussions, because direct devolved responsibilities will be at stake in them. It was agreed in mid December that officials would work together rapidly—that was the word used, 'rapidly'—to come up with practical proposals for how that might happen. It was particularly disappointing, therefore, to have no paper at last week's JMC that reflected any of that work. I said in my statement and I'll repeat it: I was nevertheless glad that the chair of the JMC, David Lidington, committed to the production of such a paper for a JMC during March. 

The second point that the Member asked was about the next meeting on the EU withdrawal Bill specifically. What was agreed at last week's meeting was that there will be a regular JMC during March, in which we will discuss the wide range of matters relevant to leaving the European Union that form the agenda of the JMC, but that there would be a separate political discussion focused entirely on the EU withdrawal Bill and an opportunity for us to be able to respond to the paper that the UK Government did table very late in the day, and which we were therefore not able to discuss with the sort of detailed engagement that we would have preferred. 

Is there to be a JMC plenary in March? Well, I hope so. Is it necessary? I certainly think it is. The JMC plenary has now not met since January of 2017, and if this is the mechanism through which the UK is meant to operate together, and the glue that keeps the United Kingdom together, then it really is not satisfactory that the First Ministers and the Prime Minister have not had that opportunity to discuss these matters in that formal setting. There is a date in circulation for such a meeting in the middle of March, but I have seen dates in circulation in January, in February and now in March as well, Llywydd, so I'm afraid we remain in hope rather than complete expectation that it will be delivered. 

Turning to the final set of questions that Mark Isherwood raised, he is right to say that the speech by Mr Lidington yesterday did move a step forward in relation to our clause 11 concerns. The UK Government's proposition now is that all those responsibilities that have been at this National Assembly and exercised through the European Union should remain here after Brexit, other than a small number that would be retained centrally while we continue to negotiate framework arrangements so that the UK internal market can continue to operate effectively. What we now need to do is to have a detailed discussion with the UK Government about some of the practical ways in which that would operate, and the key issue at stake remains that of consent. If there are to be a small number of matters retained centrally, who is to decide what those matters should be? Who is to decide for how long they will be retained centrally? Who will decide who will have access to those powers while they are not in the hands of this National Assembly?

We will go to the next meeting with constructive proposals as to how those questions could be resolved, and if they are resolvable, then Mr Isherwood had the sequence of events entirely correct. Our preferred course of action remains an agreed amendment that all three Governments could see put down at the House of Lords, and a Minister could come here and recommend to this National Assembly that legislative consent to the Bill could be provided. If we can't have an agreed amendment, we will continue to pursue the amendments that, jointly with the Scottish Government, we laid in the House of Commons and will re-lay in the House of Lords, and we will work as hard as we can to get those amendments passed. We have, we know, considerable support right across the House of Lords, including cross-bench peers, for our position. If we do not succeed there, then we have to protect the position against the day when this National Assembly would not be prepared to give its legislative consent to the withdrawal Bill. That's why we have to bring our continuity Bill forward as a fail-safe mechanism. The issue of getting it onto the statute book before the withdrawal Bill receives Royal Assent is indeed driving the timetable for bringing it in front of the National Assembly next week.