First of all, can I thank the leader of the house for accommodating the no named debate tomorrow? I think it's very important that the Assembly has an opportunity to debate not only that we have a statement on the tidal lagoon today, but actually to debate the political circumstances that led to this decision. Obviously, Plaid Cymru feels, in our motion, that we no longer have confidence in the Secretary of State for Wales or, indeed, in the post, really, and the way that post is being used, rather than as a bridge between here and Westminster to achieve Welsh ambitions, as an obstacle and a gate between our ambitions and Westminster's. So, I think the vote tomorrow will be very important. I understand it's open to amendment today. I'm sure the Government won't agree with every approach that we've taken in this, but I hope very much you won't defang the motion tomorrow and that we do send a very strong message to the Secretary of State about his relationship to this place as a Parliament, but also the way he acts on our behalf in London. I think it's our duty to send that message following the events that we'll discuss more this afternoon. Thank you again for tabling a statement on the tidal lagoon so we can have a future debate.

Can I ask just a couple of specific things about how the Government might address business over the next few weeks? First of all, I understand the EU withdrawal Bill has become an Act today, and John Bercow, as the Speaker of the House of Commons, has noted the Queen's assent to the Bill. So, now that we have an EU withdrawal Act, and I take it, unless you will tell me differently, that the inter-governmental agreement that you have agreed with the Westminster Government will come into operation, you will therefore be seeking to repeal the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Act 2018, which is also an Act, of course. So, we have two Acts now that are not necessarily compatible with each other, or, at least, they're not compatible with the inter-governmental agreement.

Can you set out for us what the process is by which this will happen? How will a Bill be withdrawn? We haven't done this before. So, how do we withdraw a Bill that has become an Act, actually? What consultation will there be? How will that happen? What will the debates—? What do you foresee, as the leader of the house, will be the role that this Parliament will play in that? How will we ensure the widest possible discussion around that? Clearly, you've made that commitment as an inter-governmental agreement, but some of us will have different views on that, and we'll be keen that the proper processes are followed and we have our say on it. So, I'd very much appreciate if you set out how you intend to ensure that, in your view, that Act now is withdrawn.

The second thing that I'd like to briefly raise with you—which has already been discussed but this specific aspect has not—is the gambling issue. We have, and many of us welcomed, the £2 limit on the fixed-odds terminals. We were very disappointed to understand that that was now going to be extended to at least 2020. So, the Westminster Government are doing nothing for at least two years on this. We have very strong recommendations from our chief medical officer. We have a pledge signed by Members of all parties, a cross-party pledge on a cross-party group here to take action on this. It would be interesting to know whether the Government does have any legislative intention—or regulatory intention—to use the limited but still important powers you do now have to deal with the plague of fixed-term terminals. By delaying for just two years, it's estimated the betting shops will rake in £4 billion. That's the size of this business now, and the untold misery of those who get addicted to such heavy gambling is plain to see and has been demonstrated last week in the conference at the Pierhead. So, what is the Government likely to do, and what action are we likely to see on gambling?