Generate an appropriate title for the given text. The generated title must be short and include the main topic of the text. The preferred titles are under fifteen words.
One example is below.
Q: But Eluned Morgan conceded that it would be "difficult for us to stop" from a legal point of view. Her comments were criticised by a Labour AM. Alun Davies said threatening legal action "sounds like the last breath before you're thrown out of the pub". Mr Davies said he was not convinced the Welsh Government would "have a leg to stand on" in trying to shape international trade deals after Brexit. Following Donald Trump's comments during last week's trade visit that the NHS would be "on the table" in any future trade talks between the UK and the USA, Eluned Morgan said there was "absolutely no prospect whatsoever of us allowing the Welsh NHS to be part of any negotiation." The US President then rowed back on his initial comments following criticism from a number of MPs. Asked about her response to President Trump's remarks as she gave evidence to the Assembly's Brexit committee on Monday, Ms Morgan said "legally, it would be difficult for us to stop because we don't have a veto over trade". "Politically, I think it's extremely unlikely to happen," the international relations and the Welsh language minister said. "They [the UK Government] should not be concluding any trade agreements without consulting us where we have the power." Ms Morgan explained that UK and Welsh government officials are working on an agreement or 'concordat' for how future trade deals are negotiated. During a robust exchange, the Labour AM Alun Davies said: "I want something which is in law to which I can hold you to account and which colleagues in Westminster can hold the UK Government to account. "The argument we'll make life difficult for them, it sounds alright on the street, but it's not the reality of intergovernmental relations." "The United Kingdom has to find a way of functioning. "At the moment, your answers aren't giving me any confidence that there is that structure in place because, if the Welsh Government's argument is, 'we'll see you in court', it's not a very impressive argument either for the continuation of the structure of United Kingdom as a state or the commitment of the government within the United Kingdom to actually work together," he added. Responding to the criticism, Ms Morgan said: "Is the current intergovernmental structure adequate? "Absolutely not... and it's not just in relation to trade, it's in relation to almost every aspect of government policy. So, that infrastructure needs to be built."
A: NHS Wales: Court action if trade deals affect service?
Rationale: The output phrase is the appropriate title for the given text and it highlights the essence of the passage.
Q: Val McDermid is one of more than 20 writers, artists and comedians who have signed an open letter expressing their concern about the Hate Crime Bill. They warn the "well meaning" proposals could have "unintended consequences" for artistic expression. The government says the bill will offer greater protection to victims of hate. And Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf insists that the government has been "absolutely explicit" that freedom of expression is not under attack. But the open letter says the legislation could see people being prosecuted for "stirring up" hatred - even if they did not intend to do so. It adds: "This offence could even be applied to being in possession of materials produced by someone else, where sharing the material could stir up hatred. "The unintended consequences of this well meaning bill risk stifling freedom of expression, and the ability to articulate or criticise religious and other beliefs." It has been signed by more than 20 individuals and organisations from the world of arts, journalism, literature, comedy, politics and human rights advocacy. They include novelist Chris Brookmyre, actor Elaine C Smith, playwright Alan Bissett and comedian Rowan Atkinson. The letter goes on to claim that the bill could "frustrate rational debate and discussion" in society, including in the arts. It says: "The right to critique ideas, philosophical, religious and other must be protected to allow an artistic and democratic society to flourish." The letter was organised by the Humanist Society Scotland, which has called on the bill to be amended to strike a "sensible balance" between protecting victims and safeguarding freedom of expression. Its chief executive, Fraser Sutherland, said: "The failure of the bill to require intent to be proven in court on some offences risks a significant chilling effect on free expression." Many opponents of the bill have drawn parallels with the highly-controversial Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, which was eventually repealed by the Scottish Parliament. Libraries and bookshops There have been suggestions, for example, that it could lead to author JK Rowling facing a seven-year prison sentence for expressing her concerns about the impact of trans rights on women. There have also been concerns that the laws on possessing "inflammatory material" could even lead to libraries and bookshops being prosecuted for stocking books that are deemed to be offensive. And the Scottish Police Federation has warned that the legislation would force officers to "police what people think or feel" which it says would "devastate the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the public". What does the Scottish government want to do? Scotland already has various laws in place that offer additional protection to people from crimes based on their disability, race, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. It means that crimes can be treated more seriously by the courts if the offender has shown "malice and ill-will" towards the victim based on their membership - or association with - one of the protected groups. The Hate Crime and Public Order bill was introduced by the government in response to recommendations made by senior judge Lord Bracadale, who had been asked to examine the existing hate crime laws to make sure they were fit for purpose in the 21st Century. The bill aims to simplify and clarify the law by bringing together the various existing hate crime laws into a single piece of legislation, and adds hate crime based on a person's age to the list of protected groups. It also creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" against the protected groups - which is defined as "behaving in a threatening or abusive manner, or communicating threatening or abusive material to another person". This can either be "with the intention" of stirring up hatred against someone from a protected group, or "where it is a likely consequence that hatred will be stirred up against such a group". New offences of "possessing inflammatory material" are also created which covers people who "have in their possession threatening, abusive or insulting material with a view to communicating the material to another person." Finally, the bill formally abolishes the offence of blasphemy - which has not been prosecuted in Scotland for more than 175 years. The government says the bill "makes it clear to victims, perpetrators, and communities and to wider society that offences motivated by prejudice will be treated more seriously and will not be tolerated by society." It has also said it will consider making changes to the bill before it is finally passed by parliament. Mr Yousaf, the justice secretary, has insisted that the bill "will not prevent you expressing controversial or offensive views. Just don't do it in a threatening or abusive way that is likely or intended to stir up hatred." In a series of tweets, Mr Yousaf said it was not the case that someone could be prosecuted purely because someone else took offence at what they said. And he said it would be for the courts to decide whether behaviour was threatening or abusive, and was likely or intended to stir up hatred. Figures released in June showed that the number of people charged with hate crimes in Scotland has increased over the past year. Racial offences remain the most commonly reported hate crime, with a total of 3,038 charges last year - an increase of 4% on the previous year, but still the second lowest since comparable records began in 2003/04 and 33% lower than the peak recorded in 2011/12.
A:
Author Val McDermid says hate crime bill threatens free speech