I thank Dai Lloyd for that further question. He and I, of course, differ about the value of the union and the benefits to Wales of being part of a union, which, frankly, should function better than the United Kingdom does function. But nevertheless, we have a difference of opinion on that.

He refers to the debate in relation to the Sewel convention, and he will recall, I think, in doing so, that I was making the case for reform of the Sewel convention, not one that claimed that the current set of arrangements were adequate. So, in seeking reform, in that broad sense, he and I share that principle. But it's also important to note that there have been examples, which is why this is so immensely frustrating—whether it be in relation to the preparation of legislation or the inter-governmental agreement; or in working together for planning towards a 'no deal' exit from the European Union; or indeed in relation to the substantial body of secondary legislation that was passed in order to facilitate departure; and indeed in relation some of the work that my ministerial colleague the Minister for international relations is doing with the Department for International Trade around rest-of-the-world trade negotiations—there are examples where engagement has secured advantage and given Wales the appropriate voice in those considerations.

So, it's actually with great sadness that I come to the Chamber and say what I have said in response to the question from Huw Irranca-Davies. This is not a situation where the Welsh Government is closing the door. If the UK Government were to open the door in the weeks and months ahead, and give a substantive opportunity for the Welsh Government and other devolved Governments to have an appropriate involvement in those negotiations, we would be, as we always have been, ready to play a constructive role in that. But that responsibility now lies at the door of the UK Government, which has singularly failed to reflect the voice of the devolved Governments in this negotiating mandate.