Thank you very much for that politically motivated question. What I can say to the Member is this: I think she may have a misunderstanding of what has happened with the process. It's because we initially started a judicial review process, and the judicial review went to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal basically said that it wouldn't consider it unless there was a particular Bill in front of it, et cetera. We then sought to appeal to the Supreme Court on those issues, but also, it was necessary to have a Bill in preparation, to have a Bill that would be there.

The Bill has two motivations in terms of expedition. One is the one that was put forward by the Minister for Climate Change, and that is they need to get this Bill up and running as quickly as possible, that it was essential that it be in place. For my consideration, really, as the law officer, is the extent to which that Bill would be relevant, to get to be there in time, and be appropriate with regard to any particular reference to court. What changed since then, of course, is that the Supreme Court declined permission to appeal to it. So, the legislation has gone through and, of course, what kicks in then is the constitutional issue of a referral on competence to the Supreme Court. That is a power that lies with me, and it's also a power that lies specifically with the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has chosen not to refer it. I regard that as a victory. I regard that a victory in the Attorney-General accepting our arguments in terms of our constitutional interpretation of the legal position. I'm prepared to support the Attorney-General in that particular position, and that is why I've chosen myself not to refer this to the Supreme Court. So, we can accept that the position now is the UK Government accepts the Welsh Government's legal analysis in respect of that particular piece of legislation. If the issue is to arise again, it could arise in other circumstances, but I felt it was appropriate that, when the UK Government's Attorney-General basically declined to refer it to the Supreme Court, I could rely on that as setting a precedent in terms of our interpretation of our constitutional position.