Can I, first of all, welcome your statement and the detail with which you've answered the various points that have been raised? It is right, as you will expect, that we adopt a cautious approach until we actually know the full details, until we've actually seen the amendments themselves and where they actually fit within the legislation. That is our role as a legislature: to scrutinise that, to also look at the interaction of all those sections. And, I have to say, having read through the papers on a number of occasions, the interrelationship between them is extremely complex; it's almost going back to the resurrection of dialectical material as I'm trying to work out precisely what the arrangements are. But I do recognise also, as you've said, that there will be a full debate and decision in this Chamber, in the sense that there will be a legislative consent motion. Can I also recognise that, in many ways, it has been a testimony to your input and the Welsh Government's input that, at times, the statesmanship from Wales has almost been the only part that has actually created a certain degree of sanity and kept these negotiations and discussions in movement? I think it's very, very important that that is recognised.

There are a number of questions I want to ask, but I will make one comment on the point that you made about the section about consent not being unreasonably withheld. It seems to me that that's a bit of a tautology in the sense that any decision that might be taken in this place to not give consent could in no way ever be unreasonable, because, as a Parliament, we take decisions on behalf of the people and as such those decisions clearly cannot be unreasonable in the constitutional sense. So, I'm not quite sure what that phrase means, and I would like you to comment a little bit, in due course, on whether you think this would eventually lead now to a proper consideration of the inter-parliamentary arrangements and the actual JMC structure, because much of what you've mentioned about the framework arrangements and discussions continuing are absolutely dependent on that procedure actually being reformed, and the make-or-break, in some ways, of that actually working is going to be dependent on those changes taking place.

It's clear that the issue of consent is not in the strict sense a red line, and one of the areas that I will want to explore and consider very carefully is the way in which consent or agreement is achieved, but also the particular implications this agreement will have, for example, for the Trade Bill, because the trades agreements that could be achieved—you'll be aware of the concerns that have previously been expressed—could undermine frameworks. They could have a significant impact on frameworks, potentially overriding frameworks, and it is absolutely fundamental that the legislation that is pursuant to the withdrawal Bill also reflects the principles of agreement—if they are approved and if an LCM is eventually granted to those—or the whole arrangement, the whole agreement, could actually fall apart or be overridden. 

I'd just like a view on the reference in the memorandum—clause 11 regulations—because there is in there, of course, the 40-day arrangement, whereby action won't be taken for a 40-day period. But, of course, we have a slightly different constitutional arrangement to Scotland because, in terms of secondary legislation here, there is a requirement for legislative consent that doesn't exist within Scotland. I wonder if you could clarify how that might actually operate, because my reading of it seemed to imply that, after the 40-day period, the UK Government could proceed, and that would seem to be a lesser position than we have at the moment in terms of legislative consent. Now, I may be misinterpreting that, but I'd be grateful for some clarification on that.

The only final thing is, in respect of the ongoing discussions that are taking place, particularly with regard to Scotland, I welcome what you say in terms of the ongoing nature of this agreement being available and so on, but were there to be an agreement with Scotland that offered a position that actually was what we could see as better than what we have at the moment, is it the case that there'll be no question of anything other that arose that we thought was preferential that we would not be able to take advantage of as well?

Other than that, what I'll say is that I do look forward to your attending the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, because the scrutiny side of this is really the key, and that's why I think it is so absolutely important that we don't come to premature judgments of what has been agreed and what its full implications are.