Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate, especially that majority of speakers whose grasp of the decision we were asked to make bore a strong relationship to the realities at stake?

Can I begin by responding to Simon Thomas in the serious way that he made his points? It was good to hear a serious contribution from Plaid Cymru this afternoon. And I'll answer three or four of the points that he made, and I'll explain why I take a different view to him. I take a different view to him on the business of touching faith. This agreement is not based on trust, it is based on the negotiated outcome of weeks and months of Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, reaching an agreement with the UK Government that is set out for all to see. Now, he says, 'It's an inter-governmental agreement', as though it was written on the back of an envelope. It has exactly the same status as the fiscal framework—that's an inter-governmental agreement. And think how carefully—[Interruption.]. Yes, and your party supported it. You did. I don't remember you saying then, 'It isn't worth the paper it's written on; it's only an inter-governmental agreement.' And inter-governmental agreements are serious things and when Governments put their name to them, it's not trust in the Government that you're putting, you're putting trust in the institutional ways in which serious Governments have to react and negotiate with one another.

The Member talked about the doctrine of time—that we should have waited longer. Well, the Scottish Government has waited longer. Where is the better agreement that they have got as a result? And the heart of the difficulty in Simon's argument is this: he wants to suggest to you that there was a choice between what we have agreed and some mythical nirvana that would be even better. But that nirvana doesn't exist. The real choice was between what we have negotiated and a reversion to the far less satisfactory amendment that the UK Government first put down. Of course we should be ambitious for even more ground to be gained, and we are too. And I said in my opening remarks: there is more that we want to achieve. We have ambitions beyond the agreement. But the agreement is a serious step in the direction that we want to go in.

Llywydd, there are only three positions, really, at play in the debate this afternoon. The first: the UK Government began with an ultra-centralising set of proposals, which in a 'care less' way rode roughshod over devolution. In the second position, there are those—and we've heard them today—whose political ambition is to leave the United Kingdom. It's a perfectly respectable political ambition—I'm puzzled as to why those who hold it aren't willing to speak up for it a bit more directly. But the fact that they wish to leave the United Kingdom means that they have no long-term interest in creating a successful future for it. And then there is the third position, which I believe is preferred by the majority in this Chamber and, quite certainly, the wider population here in Wales, that both devolution and the UK matter. And that's what this agreement and the amendment to the Bill deliver. I set out earlier this afternoon how the amended Bill breaks new ground in cementing the defences that devolution provides. And I set out the way in which it is reforming—[Interruption.]