I thank the Member for that range of questions. I'll deal with them as succinctly as I can. In relation to the question of common frameworks, work continues in relation to those. He will know from exchanges in committee that we've had in the past that we would like there to be faster progress in relation to that, but I think the distraction that we will have faced in planning for 'no deal' has had an impact, unfortunately, on the time frames. He will also know that those are intended to support policy development over the longer term, and what is obvious is that there may be a need to make policy adjustments in the interim period before a particular common framework has been agreed and been scrutinised and had stakeholder input and so on. So, we are currently looking at what we need to do in order to accommodate that need.

In relation to the impact of the new Government on that work, I think that work has been under way at an official level and I think that work is progressing in relation to those. There have been, I think, two or three that have been with stakeholders for input. We're very conscious of the fact—I think all Governments are conscious of the fact that we need to make sure that there's time for legislatures and stakeholders to scrutinise those frameworks as they become more mature and before they are agreed.

He talked about legislation and the legislative impact of prorogation. There are five Bills that have fallen as a consequence of prorogation. One at least was one that we'd provided formal consent for here, for that Bill; one would have extended our competence here in the Assembly; and one provided for important powers to enable payments to farmers and so on. So these are not small pieces of legislation of no relevance; they are important Bills that the Assembly here was expecting Parliament would have an opportunity to pass. We are looking at the moment at what that means in terms of possible additional legislation here. Certainly with regard to statutory instruments, there will be a need for further SIs to be brought forward, either because of things that we've learnt in the interim period or changes that have happened in European Union law in the interim period. So, those will be brought forward in due course.

In relation to the economic impact, we know of course, as he outlined in his question, how significant the adverse economic impact of a 'no deal' or hard Brexit would be, and we also know that no form of Brexit will be as beneficial to the Welsh economy as membership of the European Union. The Government will be releasing an update on the economic impact of Brexit shortly. That will be available for Members to see.

He talked about the shared prosperity fund. I'm afraid I'm not in a position to give him any update in relation to that. We simply do not know what the current plans are in Westminster in relation to that. The Minister for finance indicated earlier, I think, that she had begun to lose confidence that there even was a plan in the UK Government, and it's hard to resist that conclusion sometimes.

With regard to the Prime Minister in Luxembourg, I think at the end of the day it's important to be available for scrutiny, isn't it? I think that just demonstrates a pattern of behaviour in not making oneself available for questioning and so on. But the broader point there: I was at the JMC(EN) last Thursday and asked for an update on the negotiations that the UK Government says it's undertaking, and I'm afraid I left with no confidence at all that we were looking at a negotiation as we would understand it—a substantive, advanced process of bargaining and exchange. So I'm not at all confident that I can give him any reassurance that there's a negotiation in the way that we would understand it, meaningfully, under way.