Can I thank all Members who contributed to what I thought was an excellent debate? If I had a penny for every time I heard somebody say that we shouldn't be a penny worse off, then I could probably bankroll some of this myself. But, it does underline the fact that this is probably one of the central aspects: that we would like to see the Brexit dividend that was promised to us. Although the likelihood of that is quite remote, certainly in the short to medium term, the reality is that we, at the very least, expect to hold on to what we have previously received.

The other key feature coming through, of course, was the lack of detail coming from the UK Government. I wasn't a member of the Finance Committee when the Secretary of State was initially invited to come and give evidence, but you might want to consider whether the Secretary of State politely declined because he didn't really know himself what the proposals were going to be. Indeed, we look forward, if there is to be a consultation, as expected, or some sort of information dissemination before Christmas, to be made aware of that at the very least.

Of course, it raises again the point made by Mick Antoniw about the lack of engagement, and Jane Hutt and others mentioned the lack of engagement that's such a concerning feature of all facets of Brexit between the UK Government and the Welsh Government. Only this morning, members of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee were scrutinising the UK Agriculture Bill and concerns were expressed there around how the UK Government seem to be sucking some powers back to the centre in relation to funding as well, and setting upper limits, et cetera. 

We saw—I see the Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs in her seat there—in the independent review that's now been started, looking at the way that farm funding is being allocated across the UK, how the Welsh Government didn't have that proactive role in looking at developing terms of reference for that particular piece of work. So, it is concerning, I think, that we're potentially seeing once again on an issue as important as successor funding programmes, we're possibly seeing the same tendency here. 

Of course, David Rees and John Griffiths and others have referred to this risk of a funding black hole that we might see where important programmes, schemes and projects will be adversely impacted, affecting communities, businesses, industry, academia, et cetera, who are very much dependent on a lot of this money for much of their work. 

The Cabinet Secretary reminded us that he's still no clearer as to the UK Government's intention beyond 2021. Well, what he can be sure of is our committee's support for the two key things that he mentioned, in that he demands of the UK Government a confirmation of replacement funding in the first place, but also that we here in Wales retain the responsibility to decide how that funding is deployed. And really, in that respect, I think this is very much a litmus test on whether devolution actually does what it says on the tin, because if that isn't delivered then clearly there will be fundamental questions to be asked. 

Can I, in conclusion, also thank the clerk and the team at the Commission for the excellent support that the committee has received along the way of carrying out this work, and thank Assembly Members who are members of the committee as well for their deliberations? Hopefully this is an important contribution to what is a key discussion and a key factor for the future of this National Assembly, not only in our relationship with the UK Government, but certainly in terms of our ability to deliver the benefits that historically we've been able to deliver through European funding, and let's hope that, if there is a successor scheme that comes, then those schemes, whatever they look like, respect the principles outlined in our report and allow us to continue with much of that work. Diolch yn fawr.