Let me turn to the two Plaid Cymru contributions this afternoon. There is no doubting at all the integrity and the sincerity with which Steffan Lewis has played his part in the whole history of the continuity Bill and in the remarks that he has made this afternoon. And I share some of the things that he said, certainly the tribute he made to those who have crafted the continuity Bill; it was a very skilful and successful piece of legislation. And I agree with him, too, that too often the current United Kingdom Government is careless about the future of the United Kingdom, and it's been a constant part of what Wales has contributed to the JMC and other discussions—that we continuously put forward the need for time to be found before we leave the European Union for thought to be given to the way that the United Kingdom will operate when the rulebook that we share between us, through our membership of the European Union, is no longer there. One of the reasons why it is right to emphasise the inter-governmental agreement, however, is because it breaks new ground in that way. It moves us forward into territory where greater shared government in the future beyond the European Union is more likely, not less likely.

Steffan set out four reasons why he opposed the repeal of the continuity Bill. He said that the IGA fails to safeguard Welsh powers against unilateral action by the UK Government. But it does defend Wales against that. There are no unilateral powers that can be used without our agreement, and not with the agreement of the Government, but with the agreement of this legislature, because any move to freeze powers would have to be agreed by us and put to the floor of the Assembly here. He said that it didn't help us to withstand the withdrawal agreement, but the LDEU Bill is no shield against the withdrawal agreement. It simply doesn't operate in that area.  

He pointed to Sewel, and I have worked closely with the Scottish Minister at the JMC to try to get the UK Government to revisit Sewel and to find a more satisfactory way of entrenching the defences that it provides. But, as Mick Antoniw said, as far as the IGA is concerned, it extends Sewel. It requires a separate vote in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and not only a separate vote in both Houses, but those legislatures making that decision will, for the very first time, have an independent account provided by the Welsh Government of our perspective on the issue that they are resolving.

And as to the Supreme Court, I agree with what the First Minister says here on this issue—that the risk of the Supreme Court for Scotland is that it is left without an Act and without an inter-governmental agreement, whereas we have succeeded in an IGA that is not dependent upon Supreme Court action at all. That's why we come back in front of the Assembly this afternoon.

I'm going to say once again—I say it every time—. Dai Lloyd began by saying that the inter-governmental agreement allowed for powers in 26 areas to be frozen, and that they'd already gone. Now, not a single part of that is accurate. Not a single power has left this Assembly. Every single power on that list of 26 is still here. Not one of those areas has been frozen, not one of those areas has left the jurisdiction of this National Assembly, and the risk of that happening—[Interruption.] Of course.