5. Will the Counsel General make a statement on his contribution to the article 50 appeal case brought before the Supreme Court? OAQ(5)0014(CG)[W]

I refer the Member to the written statement published last Friday, attaching my written submissions to the court. As I’ve previously said, this case raises profound issues about the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements, and the legal framework for devolution. It’s right that Wales should be heard on those issues, and we will be putting our case at next week’s hearing.

Thank you for that response, and I agree with the decision to become part of this case by the Welsh Government. If I have read the submission to the Supreme Court correctly, the Welsh Government is of the view that article 50 should be triggered through a Bill before the House of Commons—not a motion or simply a vote in the Commons, but a Bill. If that is the case, have you considered the kind of Bill that would be an appropriate vehicle for that process? Would it, for example, include a specific section related to Wales and European legislation currently implemented in Wales, and the continuation of that legislation? And have you discussed at all with other law officers how such a Bill could allocate time to respect the decision of the people of the UK as a whole and the referendum whilst also respecting the place of this Assembly in the democratic process?

The Member raises a very, very important point in that we do actually also have to think beyond the ultimate judgment. If the judgment is upheld, and it is necessary for Parliament to legislate, then further issues arise: firstly, in respect of the Sewel convention, in that the Bill will inevitably impact on the devolution settlement and we would have a voice at that stage. What I would hope—and, again, I think it’s the same comments that have been made by the First Minister from time to time—is that, at that stage, the UK Government will work to seek consensus from all the devolved Governments of the United Kingdom to work collectively for a common objective, ensuring that the voices of all parts of the United Kingdom are heard.

I welcome the robust stance of the Counsel General in making sure that the voice of Wales is heard at the Supreme Court. That’s right and proper, I feel strongly. Would he recognise that, in those areas of competences that he’s referred to, of course, is the very prominent area of competence in Wales of agriculture and rural development? Whilst it’s right that whatever comes out of the appeal hearing and the subsequent repeal Act should recognise where the competences lie, they should also recognise where the funding paths lie. Any suggestion that competences could remain here, but funding—or under some framework, these competences of funding—disappears up to the end of the M4, is frankly misguided and very dangerous for Wales.

I would certainly agree with what the Member says. Any suggestion that, on the one hand, a competency is laid with the Assembly within our devolved area but that the funding is then removed to another body, whether it would be to Westminster or wherever, raises very serious issues in respect of the rolling back of devolution, and a significant change in direction of the devolution settlement, and certainly, the undermining of the referendum that took place within Wales and the parliamentary process in respect of the Government of Wales Act, and also in respect of the current discussions and legislation going through Parliament in respect of the Wales Bill. So, I would totally reject that approach, and I would affirm that, with the responsibilities that come to Wales within the devolved framework, they should also bring the capacity to being able to carry out those responsibilities, which means the funding for those areas.