Well, I thank the Member for highlighting that particular aspect, because the judgment of the Supreme Court expressly refers to the work of the National Assembly in the reasoning that Lady Hale gave in what is an important judgment. It amazes me that some Members in this Chamber still seem to think that intervening in the Supreme Court proceedings was not an appropriate action. The rationale for doing so, I would remind Members, is because we in this Chamber and in committees of this Assembly have spent time passing motions, debating, passing secondary legislation that are predicated on the ability of Parliament to legislate in relation to Brexit, and the Prime Minister's attempt to suspend Parliament had the effect of preventing it from sitting to complete its work. So, we had a very direct interest in the outcome of that judgment, and so I absolutely welcome the clarity of an unanimous 11-justice decision and the beneficial impact that has on our work here in the Assembly. She will know, I know, that the prorogation of Parliament, had it actually taken effect, would have had the effect of causing primary legislation that we required to be passed to protect the interests of Wales to fall. We know now as a consequence of that judgment that not only was the action unlawful but that, in effect, Parliament was never, in fact, prorogued.