I agree with my hon. Friend. Let me turn to the amendments from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who again raised the important debate between “necessaryâ€ and “appropriateâ€ provisions made under the Bill. Members will not be surprised to know that “necessaryâ€ is a very strict legal test. It could be interpreted by a court as “logically essentialâ€, and where two or more choices of law to correct EU law are available to Ministers, arguably neither one is strictly necessary because there is an alternative. So Ministers need to be able to exercise discretion to choose the most appropriate course. For example, if two agencies could arguably carry out a particular function, the UK Government-or in this case the devolved Administration-must propose that which would be the most appropriate choice. That is why we have chosen the word “appropriateâ€ and would wish to stick to that. The Government remain of the view that the power in clause 7(1) is crucial. We do not take delegated powers lightly, and we want them to be tailored as tightly to their purpose as possible. We have therefore listened to hon. Members' concerns about the scope of the power in clause 7(1), and in bringing forward Government amendments 14 and 15, we have built on the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose). We must ensure that we can correct all deficiencies that may arise from our withdrawal, but our amendments put it beyond doubt that some of the wilder speculation on how powers in the Bill would be used will not be possible, by providing an exhaustive list of the types of deficiency and taking up the constructive suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). That is the act of a responsible Government responding to the debate we have listened to in the House. I hope that-