Diolch yn fawr. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss what is actually quite a complex Bill. It's quite difficult, I think—you're absolutely right—for the general public to be able to access this kind of debate. But you're absolutely right: these are important debates, and it is important that we get this right, because there are potential implications for us in the future.

I think, really, what we need to remember is that what we're talking about in this LCM is the trade continuity Bill. What we're talking about are agreements that have been made between the EU and other nations around the world. We want some of those to continue, and, if that's the case, what we need are technical changes. We need the UK Government to be able to transfer those over. They have promised us that they're not going to make any changes; it'll just be technical in nature. That's what we're asking, this is not about future trade agreements, and we've made it absolutely clear that that is a different conversation, that we are having that conversation—it's actually quite constructive, and they are agreeing to some very profound changes in terms of the way that we interact with them in future. So, I think we mustn't get the LCM mixed up with future trade agreements.

It's not perfect, because, actually, the constitution of the UK is not perfect. So, obviously, in particular at this time, we've got to be practical, I think, and understanding of the way things need to change. Of course I understand that the Assembly would want a role in scrutinising, and I think it's important that we look at ensuring that there's as much transparency as possible so that the Assembly can scrutinise what comes from the UK Government. The trade remedies authority is actually nothing to do with this LCM, but what's happened is that they've gone much, much further than they needed to. They've actually really interacted with us in an area that is not a devolved area of responsibility. But I would be more than happy to provide a written statement on where we've got on that.

On the sunset clause that was referred to, there's been an agreement—and, yes, it was a despatch box agreement, but I think we've got to understand that there is a precedent for despatch box agreements being things that you should be able to count on, and that was given in terms of any extension to the sunset period being extended. Now, if this doesn't pass, despite the fact that, actually, the UK Government has done everything that we ask them to, I think we have to think about what the consequences of that would be. We are less likely to be able to influence in future. And what we're talking about at the moment, when we are in this constitutional flux as a result of coming out of the European Union, is that, actually, we need to build some trust up between all the different parts of the United Kingdom. And we are starting to prepare for a post-Brexit world, and if we were to reject this, their having made all those concessions, I think it would potentially diminish our opportunity to influence on important matters like trade deals for the future.

The Sewel convention—we have to understand that, yes, of course, it is about 'not normally' legislating, but if this is going to work, and we understand the nature of the constitutional agreement on Sewel, then it's got to be one that is done on mutual respect, and it's got to be—an attempt for us to go against something where they've done everything we've asked them to do—. If we are to reject an LCM after they've done everything, then you've got to ask what does that relationship look like in future.

I don't think we need everything on the face of the Bill. I think it's absolutely right that what we've got to here is a compromise where the UK Government has gone a very, very long way in our direction, and I do hope that this Assembly will be accepting the LCM later today.