I welcome this statement by the Counsel General, and also his stated intention to intervene at the Supreme Court. But, before I turn to some matters of detail, it’s been an interesting week, and there have been undoubtedly some attempts to cast aspersions on the integrity of this High Court decision and on the independence of the judiciary. I’m a fan of social media, and I don’t think anybody could have summed it up better for me than a former captain of the 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, who served in Afghanistan and who also happens to be a serving Conservative Member of Parliament, who tweeted:

‘I spent half my life in countries where the judiciary do what politicians tell them to. You wouldn't want to live there. Grow up.’

But if I could turn to the issues of substance here, it is very welcome, on the timeliness and clarity of the statement, to see his explanation that the use of the prerogative in the Counsel General’s view is strictly limited in terms of what it can effect on changes to the competence of this Assembly, and also about changes to the powers of Welsh Ministers. That clarification is very good to see. One area that I would appreciate some further clarification on is both the process and the means by which the assent of this Assembly is sought. The Counsel General has been quite clear that it should be for Parliament, and not the Executive, to oversee any changes, and to do so with the assent of this elected Assembly. Can he, at this stage—appreciating that we have to wait for the decision of the Supreme Court—cast any further light on that process of gaining assent, and the means by which we in this Assembly would give that assent as well?