There wasn't unanimous support. There was a take-note motion that we did not want to divide the Assembly on because, in the tactics of this, we have been keen that the Welsh Government's attempts to negotiate effective frameworks and effective framework governance get the maximum support from the Assembly. So, we took a very pragmatic decision, but that was not a decision to approve a continuity Bill, and we now have a continuity Bill before us. And I will make some remarks of where I do think it's important we speak with one voice here.

Therefore, I have to conclude that the Welsh Government's decision to introduce this Bill can only add very considerably to legal uncertainty, and that is not going to be in the best interests of the people of Wales, organisations and businesses in Wales. As I said, the appropriate lever—and it is a huge one—is the LCM process.

Can I just make some practical observations, Presiding Officer, about scrutiny? As you have said, these are not straightforward matters, which is another way of saying they would need extensive scrutiny to ensure that we are acting in an appropriate way and are legislating rigorously. Arguments exist on both sides. The situation in Scotland is that they've taken a different approach, and this could well result in a referral to the Supreme Court, and that itself will add to any level of uncertainty we may face.

So, I have to say that, for these reasons, we urge caution, given the ambivalence that currently exists over this whole matter. But the biggest objection has to come back to how we would scrutinise an emergency Bill on such a major constitutional matter. Just reflecting on the timetable, it would be so lightning fast that scrutiny would only be cursory, where it was possible at all, over a certain number of limited areas. Next Tuesday we would have Stage 1, the Tuesday following, 20 March, Stage 2, and the day after that, 21 March, Stages 3 and 4.

We have to make a decision today on whether to invoke an emergency procedure without an explanatory memorandum. The Minister is right: we have had the Bill in draft, but, you know, there is an explanatory memorandum, and it's been withheld. I do not think that adds very much to these proceedings, and, Presiding Officer, it may be something we want to look at in terms of Standing Order reform, that, in the exceptional circumstance of an emergency procedure, the explanatory memorandum has to be laid then. I know at the moment it's difficult and it's done on introduction, but this has not been a process where we've had maximum opportunity, at this stage at least, to make a sound judgment.

Can I just conclude—