Well, listen, I have said many times, and you've heard me say it as well, about the importance of scrutiny, the importance of the role of your committee, which I think does an incredibly important job in terms of the scrutiny of legislation. You heard me also comment on the constitutional anomalies and dysfunctions that exist in our constitutional relationship with the UK Government, in terms of their legislative programme and the impact that has, and the way in which legislation through the legislative consent process can often bypass, and does in fact bypass, what would be proper scrutiny of legislation. So, we're aware of those particular dysfunctions that exist.

Can I just say, if I firstly just go back to the single-use plastics Bill, that I read the transcript of the evidence given? I don't disagree with anything that is set there. I think the difficulty others have, of course, is that, ultimately, the decision on whether to refer the tactical and strategic issues that are around that, of course, will be within my domain, but don't really materialise in full until I've seen the final version of the Bill, and also until it has come to me for that consideration with regard to whether I exercise, or not, my powers to actually refer it.

And of course, irrespective of all of that at the moment, our position remains completely clear that we do not believe the internal market Act overrides our own devolved powers and responsibilities. We had hoped much, much earlier that that would have been clarified and that the Supreme Court would have taken the option, or the opportunity, to clarify that. It hasn't rejected our arguments; it just basically has said that it needs to consider them when it has a practical example for them. When that practical example comes, we need to be ready to actually do that and to deliver that. But that will be a consideration I'll make in due course, once the legislation has been passed. And I will, of course, make sure that there is a proper statement and debate in this Chamber.