Diolch, Lywydd. The Welsh Government has been consistently clear that the LDEU Bill is a fallback option, and our preferred outcome continues to be an agreement on an amended EU withdrawal Bill that provides legal continuity for the UK as a whole but which properly respects our devolution settlement, as everyone in the debate has pointed out. However, the expected timescale for the passage of the EU withdrawal Bill through the UK Parliament means that if we pass the LDEU Bill today we will have done so before the EU withdrawal Bill has completed all of its amending stages. There still remains, therefore, an opportunity for a satisfactory agreement to be reached with the UK Government and for the necessary amendments to be made to the EU withdrawal Bill, and I want to assure Members that we continue to make every effort to achieve this outcome. I'm sure everybody thinks that we are doing that. This would enable us to recommend to the Assembly that it provides legislative consent to the EU withdrawal Bill. If that consent is provided, it would not be necessary to proceed with the implementation of the LDEU Bill. In these circumstances, amendment 4 would provide a pragmatic means of repealing the Bill without the need for further primary legislation. The amendment mirrors a power that has been included in the Scottish Government's continuity Bill, as was pointed out, and provides the flexibility to repeal it in its entirety or in part only. I believe that passing this amendment will be a strong signal to the UK Government, Parliament and stakeholders here in Wales that we continue to prioritise an agreement on the EU withdrawal Bill.

I have to say, David, at this point, that I too will cherish the moment in which you said that you didn't see the need for the enhanced procedure and that that was because the Government hadn't proceeded correctly in the first place. I can't help but feel that we'll be playing that back to you on numerous occasions. I don't accept that the Government hasn't proceeded correctly in the first place, but it's an interesting argument to run.

Anyway, amendments 5, 6 and 8 are consequential to amendment 4 and are collectively designed to ensure that the power to repeal is subject to the full enhanced scrutiny procedure requirements and cannot be made subject to the urgent procedure. I consider it imperative, given that this is a power to repeal primary legislation by regulations, that it is subject to the full rigour of the full enhanced scrutiny procedure. It is for that reason that I would urge Members to reject David Melding's amendments 1 and 2. While these would introduce a power, as he said, of repeal similar to that contained in amendment 4, they would make the use of that power subject to a lower level of scrutiny, which I consider would be inappropriate in this case.