Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement, and can I put on record my recognition of the commitment he, personally, has given to this work? He has undoubtedly been leading from the front. Also, I thank Mike Russell, the Scottish Minister who's been involved, and, if I have to, David Lidington as well—also, the officials of the Welsh Government, who have, behind the scenes, on a far more frequent basis, been involved in these discussions. We have come a long way from where we were in the original European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I think the word 'maturity' has been mentioned, and it is important to recognise that if we wish to be considered as being in a mature relationship with the UK Government, there are things sometimes we have to expect and agree on. Perhaps my concern is that history has shown that it isn't always reciprocated, and we have some concerns in relation to other sides being able to also show maturity.

The agreement, Cabinet Secretary—obviously, we haven't seen the amendments, and we look forward to that. The committee will look forward to seeing those amendments, and the particular legal implications of those amendments, in the coming weeks, before we debate the LCM, which you have indicated that you will be laying at some point in May. But on the agreement, and the memorandum, there are a couple of concerns that I have on that. The word 'normally' is often used, as has frequently been commented on. I think we do need to have an understanding of what 'normally' means, because the law courts often talk about what is normal and what is unreasonable, and there's clarification there, because there's a question that we shouldn't withhold things when it's unreasonable to do so, but perhaps the UK Government could also move faster on what is reasonable force upon them to ensure that they deliver. This agreement says, 'Nothing can go on in England whilst that's in the freezer', but what happens if it suits us to actually get it out of the freezer but not England, and therefore they're being unreasonable? How do we take that measurement forward, to push the agenda, so that we get a solution that suits everybody, if that agreement comes? I think that's important, because it could otherwise perhaps be used to block progress within the devolved nations. 

The mention in paragraph 7 about the time span and the temporary five-year period on it—the sunset clause; I couldn't remember the word. That's seven years in total, actually, it could be: two years to the time at which that expires, and from that point another five years. That actually takes us halfway through, if not all the way through, the next Assembly. So, it actually does restrict us as an Assembly to make policy decisions, and even for those policy decisions to be put to the people for decision during elections. So, it is a long time span, and I think we need to look at what circumstances will actually be five years, and which ones we can get done quicker that, because there's a blanket five years at this point in time, and it is a long period to restrict us on making some decisions that would be of benefit to Wales, and would be of benefit to the policies of Wales. I think that's a very important issue there. 

The progress report in paragraph 9 of the inter-government agreement indicates that UK Government Ministers will formally send reports to the Ministers, and the Ministers will obviously share these reports with their own legislatures as part of the reporting arrangements. But how can we feed back on that report as a legislature? Where is our input into the debates on that report, and the progress on that? That's not quite clear. 

In the memorandum that also accompanies it, it says that UK Ministers may make recommendations where they are approved by the UK Parliament, but will they ever be presented to us? It's approval by the UK Parliament, but it doesn't say that we'll actually have any consideration, in circumstances where there is perhaps a clause 11 regulation being made. It says that if the consent of the legislature has not been provided, they can take action with a written statement setting out why they've done that. You consider the written statement, but where's our input into that? Where do we get that information? Where is the report to us as to why they've made that decision, and how can we respond to that report? I think it's important that we also address that. 

And finally in point 9 of the memorandum, the final sentence says: 

'which cannot be amended by the devolved administrations because clause 11 regulations have been made, the UK Government commits that it will first consult the relevant devolved administration(s)'— the word 'consult' is there again, and not 'seek consent', either of Ministers or the devolved administrations. So, again, we have a situation where only consultation takes place and no consent is sought, or agreement is reached.

So, I still have some deep concerns over the issues that there are still areas where we will not have an opportunity to have an input into that process as a legislature, never mind as Ministers, and I would hope that you will perhaps reflect upon those, because the 24 areas identified are actually quite huge—agriculture, organic farming, animal welfare, environmental quality, food labelling, fisheries management and support, hazardous substances—and I assume that includes hazardous waste—public procurement, nutritional health claims. There's a lot in there that those 24 areas cover. A lot of areas could be frozen for the next seven years.