I thank the Counsel General for his statement, which, if I may say, is a very welcome statement of fact and good judgment in the debate, over the last few days, outside this Chamber, that has, too often, lacked very much of either. Today of all days, you might recall that the second President of the United States, John Adams, described Great Britain as a nation of laws to which the Crown is subject. In any other circumstances, the notion that rights conferred by Parliament could disappear at the stroke of the Prime Minister’s pen would, rightly, be an outrage, and this is no different.

I’ve understood his comments today, in the statement and on responses, to suggest that there are circumstances, in his view, where the parliamentary trigger of article 50 could lead to a legislative consent motion in this Assembly. I wonder if he could confirm that. Secondly, will he tell us whether, in his judgment, the Lord Chancellor has complied with her statutory obligations, which he’s read out in the Chamber, which are so fundamental to the proper administration of justice—to defend the independence of the judiciary? Because, in my opinion, she’s shamefully failed to do that.