I firstly welcome the report and also the really important contribution that the committee has made to our understanding of the challenges that we're going to face as we approach Brexit. There are two areas that I particularly want to refer to.

One is that the Chair of the committee, Dai Rees, and myself attended in Edinburgh the interparliamentary forum, a body of nearly all the parliamentary constitutional committees across the House of Lords, Westminster, Scotland and Wales. And one of the key areas of concern there, on a number of these issues, is what happens, post Brexit, in terms of the constitutional structure we've got and in terms of the need for agreements in respect of issues such as state aid, agriculture and so on. And it was very, very rare that across party, across all these committees, with the plethora of research and evidence and reports that have been produced, they unanimously agreed that the Joint Ministerial Committee, in its current form, is not fit for purpose. 'Not fit for pupose'—a devastating comment and one that the UK Government seems not to have addressed, but I know that the Welsh Government is one that has continually raised it. It is a vital area that needs resolution.

The other one, of course—and Leanne Wood referred to the issue of funding and lost funding—is comments that have been made recently by the Secretary of State for Wales in evidence with regard to the shared prosperity fund. It appears serious consideration is being given that this will be a Westminster-controlled fund. What is the point of us winning the continuity legislation argument, winning the clause 11 argument, if the UK Government takes control of those funds and is able to turn round to us and say, 'You can have all the powers you want, but you can only have the money that goes with them if you do things the way we say'? That is a coach and horses through devolution. That is undermining fundamental devolution principles, and is something that we seriously do have to address.