I'm not seeking to say it's not part of the constitutional arrangement. The very point I make is that the threat of using those powers has, to date, been theoretical, but the future relationship negotiations and the free trade negotiations with third countries are going to raise a huge number of issues that impact directly and vitally on devolved competences. These are choices that will affect the lives of people in Wales. What qualifications do we recognise or not recognise for our teachers and health workers? What limits are there to the financial support that we can give, including through the Development Bank of Wales? Can we continue to refuse to allow hormone-treated beef onto the market? As Lynne Neagle said in her contribution, can our young people continue to participate in Erasmus, which has played such a huge role in opening up Wales to the world and the world to Wales?

We've been clear with the UK Government that they have a choice. They can try to, wherever possible, agree with ourselves and the other devolved administrations' negotiating positions on these and many other issues that impact on our competences, in which case, we will support the agreed position and implement those agreements. I hope that in calling on Wales to play its full part in the stage ahead, Paul Davies will persuade his colleagues in Parliament to enable that to happen. He has failed to do that so far.

Alternatively, the UK could ignore our views, negotiate alone and then face a constitutional battle to compel us to implement an outcome that we may oppose and will have played no part in reaching. Unfortunately, despite the discussion about leverage in this debate, the Government has thus far given us no such assurance, despite, if I may say—and I echo the First Minister's words here—the admirable work from the House of Lords to encourage them to do that. Moreover, they've refused to rule out acting unilaterally to amend the Government of Wales Act, if that's necessary for them to deliver their assurances to Northern Ireland. Llywydd, if ever there was a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul in devolution terms, that is surely it.

So, our advice to the Senedd to vote against the motion is based squarely on defending devolution. Can I acknowledge Delyth Jewell's support for that proposition in her contribution and thank her for her scrutiny and challenge in her role as Brexit spokesman for Plaid? I note that unfortunately she failed to resist the opportunity to have a slightly partisan dig there, but I do thank her for the opportunities to work together on one or two of the issues that have arisen in the context of Brexit.

It's not a coincidence, Llywydd, that the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly have come to the same view, and so the UK Government faces an unprecedented situation where it will potentially plough on with the Bill despite having failed to gain legislative consent from all three devolved legislatures. Faced by that situation, I would appeal to the UK Government to do two things: firstly, to make clear that they are not jettisoning the Sewel convention. I take some comfort from the Secretary of State's letter of yesterday that the First Minister quoted, and I hope now that those assurances will be repeated in Parliament. And secondly, to seriously consider its response to our legitimate demands for a role in the future negotiations. They have promised us an answer at the next JMC(EN), due very shortly, in Cardiff—let's see what that answer is.