I continue to regret some of the language that has been used by the leader of Plaid Cymru. The progress that she describes as capitulation and as a stitch-up was described by the First Minister of Scotland, in her letter to the Prime Minister today, as 'substantial progress having been made'. That is what Michael Russell said to the Scottish Parliament yesterday, when he described the many—the many—advances that have been made as a result of the negotiations. Considering the many steps that we have gained through collaboration with our Scottish colleagues, to call what we have achieved a capitulation and a stitch-up is so far removed from the facts that the Member is a victim of her own hyperbole. I'm afraid, really, it bears no relation to what is in front of this National Assembly.

When clause 11 was inverted in the amendments put forward in the House of Lords earlier in proceedings, we said, Llywydd, that there were four unanswered questions. All of those questions are answered by this agreement. We said, 'How are powers to be placed in the freezer?' to use Mark Isherwood's analogy. Well, now we know that they will be placed in the freezer with the agreement of this National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We said, 'What use can be made of the powers while they are there? Because we are prevented from using those powers by legislation.' Now, English Ministers are prevented from using those powers as well. Then we said, 'How will those powers be taken out of the freezer?' And now we know that we have a process for agreeing the frameworks that moves us into an entirely new constitutional space, and I think represents a major step forward in achieving the sort of arrangements that we want to see for the future of the United Kingdom.

Now, of course it is true that this party is a devolutionist party. We therefore recognise that in the constitutional arrangements we currently have, if agreement cannot be secured, there is a need for a backstop arrangement to ensure that arrangements can go forward, and as things stand, that lies with the UK Parliament. We have put forward proposals that would amend that and place all of that on a far more equal footing, but that's because we believe that Wales's future is best secured in the United Kingdom—in a United Kingdom that operates effectively, that operates on the basis of parity, that operates on the basis of equal esteem. If you are a nationalist party, then it is absolutely proper that you are clear with people that you do not share that belief. You are not a devolutionist, you are a separatist. You simply believe that Wales should be entirely responsible for everything that goes on. It's a perfectly respectable position to take, but I think people are entitled not simply to have it respectably, but also to have it openly and in a way that is clear about what people believe. That's why, when the Member asks what powers are being retained at Westminster, I point her to the list agreed with the Scottish Government—the list that is appended to the inter-governmental agreement. It's there for everybody to see.

'What happens if agreement is not reached?' the Member asked. I believe that this agreement puts us clearly in a space where we are dedicated to achieving agreement. If you can't, somebody has to be able to take action to resolve matters that cannot be operated otherwise. Our proposals, and this agreement, take a step on that journey that would make that position resolved by all four component parts of the United Kingdom, coming together for that purpose.