Diolch, Llywydd. I'm very grateful to all Members for their contributions in the debate today. I always look to find consensus where I can find it, and I do think that there was some of that demonstrated in the debate that we've had this afternoon. One of the themes, I think, that came through really strongly was just simply the scarcity of information that we do have about the UK shared prosperity fund. It featured in the Conservative manifesto, back in the first half of 2017, but since then we have had no real tangible information. Despite repeated questions to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and also, of course, to the Secretary of State for Wales, we still have no further detail. Whilst the oft-repeated promises to respect devolution settlements and engage with the devolved administrations on the development of a shared prosperity fund were very welcome, they haven't been followed up by any meaningful action. We are aware that there's a draft consultation document in existence, but we are being refused sight of it, or refused any input into it. And I think, unless that document is explicitly limited to England, then this process certainly doesn't respect devolution, because we are a Parliament, and we are a Government, and we are not consultees in any consultation that the UK Government might bring forward in due course.

We're speaking to colleagues at both ministerial and official level about the shared prosperity fund, but those conversations, again, are very much one way. We're very clear about what we want, but the UK Government is being deliberately vague, I think, in terms of what their plans are. Much of what we think that we know about the shared prosperity fund is therefore conjecture and rumour, but some of the fears that the UK Government is seeking a new role in steering funding appear to be confirmed in some of the recent statements by UK Government Ministers. For example, Michael Gove recently expressed frustration at the Scottish Conservative conference when he said that the UK Government cannot direct some funding in devolved nations where it involves areas of devolved policy. Well, of course they can't—that's the devolved nations' administrations' job. But he was frustrated by that. And, of course, we know the Secretary of State for Wales is desperately trying to find a role for himself, and he is eyeing up the shared prosperity fund in that regard.

There are some inherent contradictions in terms of the UK Government's position on the shared prosperity fund. It can't be respecting devolution if the UK Government intends to dictate the terms of funding, have a key role in the Welsh economic policy and seek to bypass the Welsh Government. The city deals, for example, have been mooted as one example of the way in which the shared prosperity fund could work. Well, of course the city deals have provided some welcome additional investment in Wales, but they're certainly not a model for the replacement of EU funds and not for supporting the regional economic development policy that we describe through our economic action plan. So, a really simple confirmation that the Welsh Government will retain autonomy over where and how to spend future regional funding is required, together with the opening of detailed discussions on the funding settlement for each nation of the UK and an opportunity to discuss the areas in which Wales may want to co-ordinate or collaborate.

Because, turning to inter-governmental relations, the fact that longstanding—