1. Will the Counsel General make a statement on the Welsh Government’s leave to intervene in the Supreme Court case relating to Article 50? OAQ(5)0011(CG)

Thank you for the question. I’d refer the Member to the written statement published last Friday. This case raises profound issues about the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements and the framework for devolution, and it’s right that Wales should be heard on those issues, and we will be putting our case at next week’s hearing. Because this is a matter of considerable public interest and importance, I have been as open as possible in the statements that I’ve issued and the answers I have given in the various sessions, as well as choosing to publish in full, online, the full text of our written submission to the Supreme Court.

Thank you. Given that the case to exit the EU was based, in part, on the importance of returning powers to Parliament, is the Counsel General as perplexed as I am that the UK Government is challenging the view of the court that Parliament should have a role in triggering this? Would he agree that this is a matter for all the Parliaments of the UK, not just the Westminster Parliament? And has he been in contact with other law officers to make sure that our interests are safeguarded?

Well, I can’t say that I’m perplexed. The UK Government has obviously decided on its own course of action, which is to lodge an appeal against the decision of the High Court. The submission that I filed on behalf of the Welsh Government, as Counsel General, sets out very clearly the view that we have, which actually supports that decision that the prerogative is not the appropriate mechanism for making significant constitutional change, or, in fact, for overturning the legislation of the United Kingdom Government, and also in respect of the constitutional arrangements that exist.

I’d refer the Member, in fact, to one of the points that we make in the submission to the Supreme Court that if the UK Government’s position was, in fact, correct, if the logic employed in the UK Government’s case is correct, then, in actual fact, the Prime Minister could have revoked article 50 at any time, even without any authorisation in the form of a referendum. So, we say that that clearly would be a perverse analysis and is plainly wrong.

We don’t think it pays sufficient respect to the democratically elected institutions of Parliament, this place and the other devolved legislatures. So, we think that giving notification under article 50 will modify the competence of the Assembly and the functions of the Welsh Government, as set out under the Government of Wales Act 2006. We say that the prerogative cannot be used to dispense with the constitutional statute. We also say that any modification to the legislative competence of the Assembly, or indeed any modification of executive functions within devolved competence, will engage the Sewel convention and that this is a key constitutional practice that is vital to the proper functioning of the United Kingdom. It provides for a dialogue between democratically elected legislatures about changes to the devolution settlement. We say that the UK Government does not have the power to short-circuit it through the use of the prerogative, so we will therefore be arguing for the High Court’s clear decision in Miller to be upheld and for the UK Government’s appeal to be rejected.

Since yesterday, I’ve had the advantage of reading the Government’s printed case, which will be presented to the Supreme Court next week. Rather bizarrely, it seems to ignore the one crucial and fundamental point in this whole saga, which is that the Government seeks to trigger article 50 consequent upon a decision of the whole British people in a referendum. In all the long history of legal disputes with the King in the seventeenth century, culminating in article 1 of the Bill of Rights, and following legal cases that establish the limited power of the Crown in relation to the prerogative, Parliament was acting as a proxy for the people and to control the autocratic use of the prerogative by the King. This is completely different. The people themselves, all the people of the United Kingdom, have been asked for their view on whether we should stay in or leave the EU. They voted to leave. The mechanism for doing that is to trigger article 50. Parliament has no role to play in that in any further respect. The people have spoken. There will, of course, be plenty of opportunity to consider in Parliament all the consequential effects of triggering article 50 through the need to revise all the legislation that has been passed in relation to the European Union since 1973. So, far from ignoring Parliament, this is to give Parliament the opportunity to fulfil the wishes of the British people, as stated in a referendum where they said, without any condition or qualification, that we should leave the EU.

The Member seems to be saying different things. On the one hand, he says there’s been a referendum, and that authorises the Prime Minister to proceed and totally to bypass Parliament, and then, on the other one, he says it is about empowering Parliament. But the position is very clear: we have a constitution, we have arrangements between the devolved Governments that are set, and encompassing all of that, we have the question of the rule of law. What the Member is very clearly saying is that we should disregard the constitutional settlement. He is saying we should disregard the constitutional settlement, and he is also saying that the rule of law does not apply. I made the point very clearly yesterday that the reason we put this submission in was for two things. It is nothing to do with the issue of the merits or demerits of the referendum itself. It is about standing up for democracy, the constitution and the rule of law. It quite worries me that the Member consistently appears to want to bypass the rule of law. That road leads only in one direction.