Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, the Member answered his own question, didn't he? Because, as he pointed out in his closing remarks, the inter-governmental agreement is not engaged in relation to the shared prosperity fund. The inter-governmental agreement covers those items set out in the withdrawal Bill that potentially, and in the future—because, remember, not a single power has left Wales as a result of the agreement—. There was a list of powers that were engaged by it that did not include, as the Member himself said, this area. So, he's brought two things together that do not have, in my mind, the connection he seeks to draw between them.

The asymmetrical nature of protective shields has already been introduced by the Scottish Government's decision not to be a party to the inter-governmental agreement. Our view was that it provided, in relation to those matters covered by it, sufficient protections for us to be able to proceed in the way that we did. The Scottish Government took a different view. Consistent with the inter-governmental agreement, we are looking for an opportunity to bring forward a vote to the floor of the Assembly in the way that I described in answer to an earlier question.