Could I just say to the Minister that the concerns that he's outlined today in this welcome update and statement are echoed by many of those feelings that he will have heard from the European advisory group, those stakeholders that represent industry, that represent the third sector, that represent a wide cross-section of Welsh society and act as an expert sounding board for Welsh Government? So, this is not coming out of the blue, neither was it coming out of the blue when the round-table was convened about two months ago, I think it was, in Cathays Park, when the UK Government sent their advisers to come and listen to Welsh concerns, and we expressed those Welsh concerns, as was stated here, around the £30,000 arbitrary figure, around the issue of what was termed—that horrible phrase—'low-skilled work' and the impact that that would have on things such as the social care sector, where we had many—the Welsh Government's own analysis that was undertaken over the winter and the spring actually showed the extent of exposure of the care sector in Wales, both domiciliary and residential care, to these very proposals.

But also, what does concern me in the statement today is what seems to be something of a tin ear from the UK Government. We see very clearly that Welsh Government has put forward some very constructive, tangible, meaningful suggestions of how Welsh needs, in terms of immigration—not departing a million miles from what the UK Government is trying to do, not destroying their proposals, but actually looking for some flexibility that would reflect, in the national scheme, the Welsh needs. But there's been a tin ear to it, nothing has been taken on, and that is very disappointing, I have to say. It does not bode well for discussions around the shared prosperity fund, which we're all waiting to hear outcomes on as well.

So, a couple of questions, Minister. One is: could I urge him not to give up the argument, the discussion with UK Ministers? Because on some of these areas that are not bolted down, such as the £30,000 limit, if we keep on pushing, perhaps that tin ear will crumble and we will have some leeway on that. Because we do need a UK national scheme, not a scheme for here, a scheme for there, a scheme for everywhere else; we need a UK national scheme that can reflect what the devolved Governments are asking for.

Could I also ask what does this mean, going forward, in terms of the discussions around reforms of UK inter-ministerial, inter-governmental arrangements? Because this tin ear approach from the UK Government surely, again, doesn't bode well, not simply in terms of the shared prosperity fund, but general aspects to do with future trade discussions on a wide range of things. Surely, they actually have to listen to what Scotland and Northern Ireland and what Wales are saying. We have vested interests. There are some, I appreciate, who will say this is the equivalent, in a sense, of what I've heard some ardent Brexiteers argue about the Welsh lamb sector, which is, 'There's no answer to it. If we go into a 'no deal' situation, Welsh lamb will be trashed, quite simply. But, hey, you know, it's a price worth paying.' We seem to be in a similar situation here, with the UK Government saying, 'Well, we understand your concerns, but we're not going to listen to you.' So, we need to get beyond that. What does this mean for those inter-governmental relations?

So, those two questions: will you continue to actually push the arguments on this and, secondly, what's the read-through of this for future inter-governmental relations?