Is the Cabinet Secretary, therefore, saying that even if the courts find in favour of the Scottish Government, it would be acceptable for one devolved administration to have a legal protective shield and that, somehow, the inter-governmental agreement between his Government and the UK Government renders the need for a continuity Act here needless? Because, surely, recent developments around the shared prosperity fund have demonstrated that the inter-governmental agreement has been breached. The Cabinet Secretary himself has said that,

'The UK Government’s “Shared Prosperity Fund” approach, if applied on a UK basis and directed from London, would be an attack on devolution'.

And the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has said,

'I fully recognise the role that the Welsh Government has played and the role that the Welsh Government has played in decisions for Wales. But obviously as we look at the shared prosperity fund across the whole of the UK we want to ensure that we get the right structure and the right processes involved in that so that the money that is being spent is being spent as effectively as possible because it's about delivering for people on the ground'—

i.e. it will all be run and controlled from Westminster. And I notice with interest that in the inter-governmental agreement, there is no reference to regional policy, and economic development is not listed as one of the 24 items either. So, is the Cabinet Secretary confident that the inter-governmental agreement is better than having continuity legislation, even though the inter-governmental agreement appears to be breaking at the seams already?