I thank the Member for those remarks. I think that the very point of devolution is that different parts of the UK can reach different outcomes and different conclusions about how to approach this sort of question, and that is what happened, ultimately, in this case. The Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, took a different view ultimately than we did here in Wales, and that is inherent in the nature of devolution and, in fact, if you're a devolutionist, it's a thing to be celebrated. Different considerations apply, but the Welsh Government was clear from the start that our main objective was to secure appropriate amendments to the EU withdrawal Act, as it is now, and that the continuity Bill was a means of achieving progress in relation to that.

I would also say that we have benefited throughout by working very closely with the Scottish Government in relation to the development of the inter-governmental agreement, and subsequently, as well. I think this is the start of a longer process as all parts of the UK withdraw from the European Union; that kind of collaboration and co-operation will, I think, stand us in good stead as we go forward over the coming months, and no doubt, years.

Just on the point that he makes, really, which echoes the point in the Supreme Court case of Miller, i.e. that without a legislative intervention, the withdrawal from the European Union extends the competence in those devolved areas rather than limits it. The argument that an Act of Parliament is needed before a devolved legislature can act in area where EU law is withdrawn is obviously fundamentally at odds with that observation. But I would also point at the inter-governmental agreement—as it was originally conceived, which had the much broader attack, actually, on the devolution settlement—was accepted by the UK Government as requiring, under the Sewel convention, a legislative consent motion, which suggests an acknowledgement on their part that there's a baseline level of competence, even in relation to matters relating to the withdrawal from the European Union. So, I think that is at odds with how the Attorney General's put his case here, and I hope that we will prevail in relation to that when our arguments are made before the Supreme Court.