Llywydd, I welcome the last point made by the leader of the Brexit Party in the Assembly, because it is important that people understand that, hopefully—everyone—and that when they use language in debates, they continue to use that same language that people are welcome, that they're not foreigners, that they are individuals who are here and who are here to help and work with us. So, I welcome those views made by the Member. 

I am disappointed that he used the issue of our forward work programme, in which we highlighted the concept of a referendum, but because we don't know what's coming, and we wanted to make sure that this was available in our forward work programme as a possibility. And it was therefore important that we didn't leave it out, so that we were in a position, as a committee of this Assembly, to be ready to address issues if and when they arise. It was clear that this was still a possibility, because we do not know what could happen in the future, whether it's proroguing Parliament, and what would be the consequences of that? It could be a general election, as a consequence of that—who knows what happens then, otherwise than that. We don't know whether a general election will be called before that situation, in which a party may win and which actually puts forward another referendum. We just don't know, and we needed to put in position, in our work programme, the possibility that we may need to address this if it came along. And that's why it's there, not because the committee or members of the committee thought that this was a great idea. This is a committee being responsible in the way it takes things forward, and that's important. It's disappointing the Member tried to belittle that responsibility. [Interruption.]

On the exchange rate—well, it was interesting to hear that he believes low exchange rates are good, because clearly that puts our exports at a disadvantage, but there we go. And he challenged proroguing as acceptable because it happens elsewhere. To me, personally, and I think to this institution, if someone tried to tell us, 'I'm sorry, I'm going to stop you sitting for the next two or three months', so that they could get a piece of legislation through, we would not be happy. We would think that that was a failure of democracy and, therefore, just because it's being used elsewhere doesn't mean it's acceptable or should be used by the UK Government. And anyone who thinks that way—and I have heard, and it's only a rumour, I accept that, but I have heard the rumours that those supporting Boris Johnson are keen to see the proroguing of Parliament, and I think that that would be a huge mistake for the new, incoming Prime Minister, if he becomes that, but let's wait and see, and let's hope he comes to some sense in that position. 

Other than that—oh, the market lamb. I want to highlight one thing: we often talk about our markets and our exports, and our lamb does go abroad, large proportions go abroad, but we all accept that, actually, one of the biggest markets is next door to us, it's England. We understand that, but we also understand that we have to get into that market and be competitive as well. And if you are going to a 'no deal' scenario and, whatever happens, if you go to WTO rules and you decide to go for getting rid of tariffs, you open up the markets for exports from other countries across the world, which would then also be challenging the lamb we put in as well. So, you've got to look very carefully at what those markets will be acceptable for and how you can get into those markets as well, and the decisions of the UK Government to allow that to happen. So, I think it's going to be more challenging than simply to say, 'Let's go to England to sell our lamb.' It's a bit more complex than that.