Counsel General, you’ve outlined in your statement what the court case is about and clearly an independent judiciary is vital to our constitution and to our freedoms. However, the UK Government does also have a right to disagree with the court’s decision and that is why they’re appealing the High Court’s ruling where the process of law must be followed. As they state, the UK

‘voted to leave the European Union in a referendum approved by Act of Parliament. And the government is determined to respect the result of the referendum.’

Clearly, it will now be for the Supreme Court to determine which of the two arguments it considers should take primacy. It’s not for me now to suggest otherwise. But I hope you’ll agree that constitutionally it has always been the first duty of a Prime Minister of a Government to safeguard the sovereignty and integrity of the UK where the people entrust sovereignty—being the authority of the state to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies—to a Prime Minister and Government and expect them to hand it on intact to their successors unless the people consent otherwise. Given that and given, as we heard in the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee from witnesses yesterday, that technically parliamentary sovereignty hasn’t applied since the European Communities Act in 1972 and can only be restored by withdrawal from the European Union, is the UK Government not correct to state it is its duty not to question or quibble or backslide on what they’ve been instructed to do, but they have to get on with the job of leaving the EU? As they say, they want to give UK companies the maximum freedom to trade and operate in the single market and let European businesses do the same here, but they’re not leaving the European Union only to give up control of borders or return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

The great repeal Bill, which I think is at the essence of the actions you now propose, seeks to end the European Union’s legal supremacy in the UK by converting all EU requirements to British law as soon as Britain, or, should I say, the UK, exits the block. It will pass through Parliament at the same time as negotiations with Brussels and will activate the end of the authority of the European Communities Act 1972 in the UK on day one of EU exit. Critically, the process will be separate from article 50 negotiations, which will activate the formal mechanism to leave the EU.

Given that your written statement to Members last Friday, when you first announced your intention to make an application to be granted permission to intervene in the proposed appeal before the Supreme Court, listed the reasons you gave for that, based on the judgments by the High Court and the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, and that the matters you raise will be subject to bilateral or quadrilateral negotiation between the Welsh and UK Government or the four UK home nations, and not article 50 negotiations, does that not invalidate your involvement in a legal case that applies to whether or not the UK Government can invoke article 50 negotiations, a separate matter, without having parliamentary approval?

The existing convention between the Welsh and UK Government is detailed in ‘Devolution Guidance Note 9: Parliamentary and Assembly Primary Legislation Affecting Wales’. It says:

‘The UK Government would not normally bring forward or support proposals to legislate in relation to Wales on subjects in which the Assembly has legislative competence without the Assembly’s consent. If the UK Government agrees to include provisions which are within the Assembly’s legislative competence in a parliamentary Bill, Welsh Ministers will need to gain the consent of the Assembly via a Legislative Consent Motion.’

How, therefore, do you respond to the statement to the external affairs committee yesterday by Professor Michael Keating that, in evidence to a committee in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland said the great repeal Bill would not be an opportunity to roll back on devolved powers? Professor Keating expressed his view that the UK Government were very unlikely to do this.

Yesterday, in the same committee, the First Minister expressed his view that the free movement of people, having to make financial contributions to the EU, and being subject to judgments of the European Court of Justice, were secondary to full and unfettered access to the single market.

How, therefore, do you respond to the evidence given yesterday by Professor Roger Scully to committee that, for many people who voted ‘leave’ in Wales, their priority is to prevent free movement of people or to control EU migration, and, he added, something politicians must be aware of?

Finally, in respect of the First Minister’s evidence to committee yesterday, he stated that, if the great repeal Bill encroaches on devolved Assembly powers, there would need to be a legislative consent motion. Would you agree that that means that, if the great repeal Bill does not encroach on devolved Assembly powers, there would not need to be a legislative consent motion and that, therefore, might question the justification for your intervention on this matter?