Thank you for that large number of very complex and very detailed questions. I hope you wrote them all yourself. They do raise a whole series of important points, though.

The first one, with regard to the sovereignty of Parliament—that is exactly what this case is about. The sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law is important not just to the United Kingdom Parliament, but also to the devolved Assemblies. That is why Northern Ireland is actually going to be involved in this case and is why Scotland has announced that they will be intervening in this case, and I’m glad that we’ll have the support of Scotland to the decision that’s already been taken within Wales to intervene in this particular case, because it is fundamental that the devolved Governments do have a voice, a clear voice, within an enormous process that is going to have significant constitutional change.

Let’s deal with the issue of the great repeal Bill to start with. We’ll obviously review that when we actually know what is in the repeal Bill; I have no knowledge whatsoever. But, taking on board the point you made about legislative consent motions, of course, if the great repeal Bill does encroach on areas that relate to the devolved settlement for Wales then, obviously, that will require the assent of the Assembly and, obviously, the lodging of a legislative consent motion.

If it does not encroach on anything that is to do with devolved responsibilities, there may be other constitutional relationships and impacts that are of concern. It is just that it is impossible to say, until I actually know what is in the content of any great repeal Bill, what its structure is, what its objectives are, and what the timescale is. So, it certainly does not invalidate involvement, and, in fact, I think I would be failing in my duty if, as the law officer for Wales, with one of the prime responsibilities for the rule of law—if there was not a clear Welsh voice in the Supreme Court when all these matters of major constitutional importance are considered. And let’s be honest about this—this is probably the most important constitutional case since the trial and execution of Charles I.

With regard to the views of Michael Keating and Professor Scully with regard to the issue of the free movement of people, the issues around the nature of any Brexit or the consequence of triggering article 50 were not a matter before the court, and will not be a matter in the Supreme Court itself. This is solely about the process and who actually has the authority. I would also draw the Member’s attention to the fact that the curtailing of the royal prerogative over the past 300 years has been one of the most important constitutional developments in the development of the United Kingdom’s constitutional position, establishing the sovereignty of Parliament and ensuring that there is an Executive that is accountable to an elected representative Parliament.