Well, of course, I don't see them as being a contradiction or a conflict in that sense, because each particular Bill has to be assessed in terms of the particular circumstances that are applicable to that. And, of course, LCMs are a constitutional requirement that we have to deal with as a result of UK Government legislation, where it changes or impacts in respect of devolution. You are certainly right in respect of the fact that it is not an appropriate vehicle in terms of ensuring that legislation has perhaps the degrees of scrutiny that you should have. And, of course, that particularly is exacerbated when UK Bills are produced late, have substantial amendments that are made to them very late in the day, with limited opportunity then for proper scrutiny. I think those are things that need to be considered constitutionally, and I'm hopeful that the inter-governmental review will provide a mechanism for at least reviewing how that actually operates.

Some of the points you raise go back to Sewel itself. You mentioned the Professional Qualifications Bill and the position there that has been taken, which is not to give consent. The point you raised with the health Minister, I think is of a different nature because it is about consequential amendments. And, of course, we could adopt the position where we would say, 'No, these minor consequential amendments that you have the power to make we would oppose', but if that's the case then you have to remember that, of course, we also make consequential amendments to UK Government legislation. So, were we to adopt that position, it would then impact on the way we conduct our own legislation where we need to make consequential amendments there as well.