The next item on the agenda is a statement by the Counsel General on the Supreme Court ruling on article 50. And I call on the Counsel General, Mick Antoniw.

As Members will be aware, the Supreme Court has now handed down judgment in this case. As I made clear to the Assembly when announcing my decision to intervene, I consider that these proceedings raised issues of profound importance, not only in relation to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, but also in relation to the wider constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom and the legal framework for devolution.

Giving notification under article 50 will result in the modification of the competence of the Assembly and the functions of the Welsh Government, as set out under the Government of Wales Act 2006. We said in our submissions to the court that the prerogative cannot be used to dispense with provisions of a constitutional statute in this way. And, as we also argued before the court, there can similarly be no prerogative power to short-circuit the Sewel convention. This would deprive Parliament of the opportunity to enter into dialogue with the devolved legislatures about changes to the devolution frameworks.

I am naturally, therefore, delighted with the outcome of the judgment, both with the ultimate outcome and with the court’s recognition that the Sewel convention plays an important constitutional role in facilitating harmonious relationships between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. For those who are not aware of the outcome of the case, the Supreme Court found against the UK Government by a majority of eight to three. So, the court has been very clear in ruling that fundamental constitutional changes can only be made by the UK Parliament, and not by Government Ministers. The UK Government has said that it will respect the ruling, and that it will, in the next few days, introduce a Bill that will recognise the sovereignty of Parliament and place the responsibility for the ultimate decisions on the terms of exit where it properly lies.

So, we welcome the prospect of a full and frank debate in Parliament about this most significant of moments in our constitutional history. Notions of locking the Bill down and making it unamendable must give way now to a more commonsense approach and respect for the people. Members of Parliament have already voted to support the triggering of article 50 by the end of March, so there is no excuse for attempting to artificially constrain debate on these fundamentally important issues.

As the article 50 Bill proceeds through Parliament, we would expect the UK Government to respect the Sewel convention, so that Parliament has the opportunity to listen to the Assembly, and to the other devolved legislatures. We also expect the UK Government to honour the commitment given by the Prime Minister to work with the devolved administrations to get to a position that all four nations in the UK can unite behind.

As we determine our future relationship with the EU, the UK Government must engage with us in good faith, and in the spirit of sincere co-operation. It is politically and morally bound to ensure that it understands the concerns of all nations and regions in the UK, and those are all carefully considered. Appropriate respect must be shown to the views of the devolved legislatures. The Prime Minister has said that this country is facing a negotiation of tremendous importance, and that it is imperative that the devolved administrations play their part in making it work. The Welsh Government stands ready to do so. We will continue to do all that we can to protect Welsh jobs, and investment in Wales, and we will make sure that Welsh interests are taken into account, in accordance with the correct constitutional process, which the Supreme Court has now confirmed.

Although the people entrust sovereignty, being the authority of the state to govern itself without interference from outside sources or bodies, to a Prime Minister and Government, and although the Prime Minister confirmed last week that the UK Government will put the final deal agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force, we respect the Supreme Court’s decision that an Act of Parliament is required before article 50 is triggered, and we note that the UK Government has said it will set out its next steps to the UK Parliament shortly.

But, of course, we also note the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court that the UK Government is not legally compelled to consult the Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly or Scottish Parliament before triggering article 50. But, of course, the British people, including the Welsh people, voted to leave the EU, and the UK Government will deliver on that, triggering article 50, as planned, by the end of March. And today’s ruling does nothing to change that—the indications from the UK Parliament are that Parliament will pass this.

It’s important to remember that Parliament, the UK Parliament, backed the referendum by a margin of six to one, and has already indicated its support for getting on with the process of exit, to the timetable set out by the UK Government. And I welcome the fact that the UK Government is championing now a confident, outward-looking, inclusive and global-trading UK, but the Prime Minister has been very careful to make sure that reference to the involvement of the devolved Governments and Parliaments is included in that process.

Now, given that the Supreme Court said that relations with the EU and other foreign affairs matters are reserved to UK Government and Parliament, not the devolved institutions, and that the Sewel convention scope and operation is not within the operational remits of the courts, and that the devolved legislatures therefore do not have a veto on the UK decision to withdraw from the EU, how do you respond to their statement that withdrawal from the EU will alter the competence of the devolved institutions, and remove the responsibilities to comply with EU law, again in that context? Do you therefore, in that context, agree now that, when I said to you in November—after you announced your plans to seek representation at the appeal into the High Court decision that Parliament must vote on the process taking the UK out of the European Union—that the matters you raised were outside article 50 negotiations with the EU on EU withdrawal, and are instead matters for negotiation with the UK Government and the other home nations on a bilateral and quadrilateral basis? At that point, what is your view on how the Sewel convention might apply, or is it your legal opinion—or the legal opinion of those advising you—that these matters, once coming out of Brussels back to UK, will come straight to the UK Government, where they cover devolved matters? And if so, how do you propose, bilaterally or quadrilaterally, to move forward on framework arrangements that might address that across all four UK Governments and Parliaments?

And my final question relates to cost. The outcome seems to validate the concerns that were raised here in November, following your written statement, and then your oral statement, to the Assembly. The court seems to have upheld those concerns raised. We know that the public cost has been announced at something around £85,000, but we understand that there have been a number of visits to London, and, obviously, not only involving yourself and Welsh Government officials, but external legal advisers. So, could you provide the Assembly with a figure for the total cost of this failure to secure Supreme Court endorsement for your view that this Assembly should have a veto?

I thank the Member for the questions. Can I first start by actually saying what were the two key points that were the subject of our detailed submission to the Supreme Court? Why did we actually intervene? One was the fundamental importance of this major constitutional change taking place in Parliament, guaranteeing parliamentary sovereignty not being taken by use of a royal prerogative. We need to understand what that royal prerogative is. The royal prerogative is those powers that kings and queens used to have to basically do whatever they wanted, until, effectively, Parliament and development of parliamentary democracy put constraints on it and we started to develop our democratic system. So, it was fundamental that any change that took place to the legislative status, the devolved status, of Wales and the other devolved administrations had to be within the auspices of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. That's why it was fundamental that that issue was before the court.

And the Supreme Court regarded this as fundamentally important as well. This is the most important constitutional decision for over 300 years. That is why every single lord justice was actually present, and the actual outcome, the 8:3, is an endorsement of the strength of that argument. Had any football team won 8-3, I think we would say that is a magnanimous victory, and I think this was a magnanimous victory—a victory for democracy and parliamentary sovereignty.

Where does Sewel come in? Our argument on Sewel is that we have never argued for a veto. It was never part of our case, and I’ve said that in this Chamber on a number of occasions. The importance of Sewel is that Sewel is a parliamentary process, and Sewel could not kick in, could not become effective, unless these key decisions were being taken under the auspices of Parliament and parliamentary sovereignty. So, it was the matter of our fundamental democracy that if we were to have a voice in these fundamental issues, we had to succeed with this decision, and I'm delighted that we have succeeded.

On the issue of what happens to those powers that are in Brussels at the moment, well, it is very clear to me that that will become the subject of a further piece of legislation in due course, which will also require the engagement of Sewel, which will almost certainly require the engagement of this Assembly and a vote in this Assembly, and, as has been said on numerous occasions, those areas that come within the devolved areas of responsibility clearly should come to this Assembly—to the Welsh Government and to the Welsh Assembly.

With regard to the cost, could I say I have every sympathy with what the Member says about cost? I didn't want to be in the Supreme Court. I don't think many of us wanted to be there, with all the costs that were incurred, but I have to say that reason we were there—

Counsel General, you're not in court at this point; you do need to stay within reasonable distance of your microphone. [Laughter.]

I do apologise.

The reason we were in the Supreme Court was that the UK Government decided to appeal a very credible decision by the High Court. That is why we were there, and this Assembly and the Welsh Government have been totally open and honest about the cost. We've answered numerous freedom of information requests, setting out the £80,000 to £85,000 that our intervention has cost. And, as I said this morning, what price democracy? Democracy is priceless. But I would say to the Member: it would be of great assistance now if the UK Government would actually answer those same freedom of information requests and tell us how much they've incurred, because I suspect that what they have incurred is massively above anything that we have spent, and, also, it is their action that has incurred all the other costs of the devolved administrations.

Can I welcome the Counsel General’s statement and also commend his hard work hitherto, obviously, in matters pertaining to the Supreme Court? I'm reassured by the Llywydd that we’re not at present in a court, so that provides us with a positive way forward, but I do welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling that the UK Parliament should play its full role and have a vote on triggering article 50. Much has changed, obviously, in governance terms in these islands since 1973, since the UK entered the European Union. As the Counsel General outlined, much has changed in succeeding centuries as regards the royal prerogative. So, we’re building on all that. However, legally, the Supreme Court’s ruling does not require the consent of devolved administrations.

I’m taken with your comments on the court’s recognition that the Sewel convention plays an important constitutional role—yes, and that is as far as it goes. It’s a political convention, not a legal requirement. Having said that, though, I hope that the UK Government listens to that political convention, because the Supreme Court was not giving the UK Government licence to ignore the Sewel convention. However, it is saying that the courts cannot decide disputes; the matter is political rather than legal. I’m just putting that out there so that nobody runs away with the idea that the Sewel convention is not important at all.

However, I would temper your natural delight in that paragraph with a bit of realism as regards ‘it’s not a legal requirement’. Further, just to develop the argument, obviously, we’re all aware that Wales is an exporting nation with a substantial trade surplus with the EU—200,000 jobs are tied into the single market, and the customs union and all the rest of it. That’s why it’s important that Wales has its say here. Yes, we voted Brexit, but we didn’t vote to lose 200,000 jobs.

Obviously, the Plaid MPs at the Westminster end of the M4 will be submitting amendments in due course as the article 50 legislation proceeds through the Houses. But I’ve got to say, here in Wales, if Assembly Members are given no opportunity to have a say on triggering article 50—as I said, legally, we cannot, I know, and I hear what you say about the moral point emanating from the UK Government to understand our concerns and hopefully to involve us—but, if it seems as though there’s no opportunity for Assembly Members here to have a say, in view of the importance of this article 50 triggering and the whole EU debate to Wales, as I’ve outlined, Plaid Cymru will seek to table a legislative consent motion in the National Assembly to give us a voice.

It’s a simple matter of democracy from our point of view that devolved legislatures should have a role in commencing the process of leaving the EU. As I said, governance arrangements have changed in these islands over the last 40 years and there needs to be a recognition of that. In the absence, therefore—not to labour the point, but we will move that legislative consent motion if things are not happening—of a formal legal requirement for the UK Government to consult with devolved nations, what confidence does the Counsel General have that that Wales voice can be heard, given there’s no legal reason for the UK Government to listen to us at all? Diolch yn fawr.

The Member raises very important points and they’re points that have been considered and have been raised in discussions on these issues over the past month or two. I’d say there is every likelihood of a vote because a trigger Bill will impact on Welsh legislation. It is within the Standing Orders of this Assembly for a legislative consent motion. On the issue of a veto, I’ve already clarified the position on that, and, of course, it would’ve been rather contradictory to be arguing for the sovereignty of Parliament and a veto as well—that is not the nature of the constitutional arrangement we had. Of course, the same would apply in respect of the subsequent legislation, which, as we look at it, grows more and more complex by the day.

We also need to think very carefully about the fact that the content of such a trigger Bill—. I think it would be premature to say too much about that, because until it is laid, we don’t know precisely what we’re dealing with and what sort of outcome we would actually like, although I think that a lot of the matters and views have already been expressed over the last couple of months in this Chamber.

It is worth also emphasising some of the finer points of the judgment. Of course, we’re still going through this rather lengthy judgment, but I think there was a lot of important commentary on Sewel within the judgment and within the summary that was given by Lord Neuberger this morning. For example, Lord Neuberger said this morning:

‘As to the application of the Sewel Convention to the decision to withdraw from the EU given the effect on the devolved competences, the Convention operates as a political constraint on the activity of the UK Parliament. It therefore plays an important role in the operation of the UK constitution.’

He went further in the actual judgment itself, to say that:

‘In reaching this conclusion we do not underestimate the importance of constitutional conventions, some of which play a fundamental role in the operation of our constitution. The Sewel Convention has an important role in facilitating harmonious relationships between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures.’

Those were exactly the points that we were making in the submissions on behalf of the Welsh Government to the Supreme Court. I think they are very important statements of intent, and ones that we would hope and expect that the UK Government will implement, not just in terms of the wording but in terms of the spirit, because it is the harmonious constitutional integrity of the UK that is at stake and dependent on that.

I welcome the Counsel General’s statement, in particular the paragraph where he talks about respecting the people in this context and a ‘full and frank debate’ taking place in Parliament on the issues, as if we haven’t already debated all of these issues to death. Nevertheless, will he confirm, therefore, that respect for the people in this context means that we should respect the result of the referendum, which was to leave the European Union? In which case, because article 50 is merely the trigger for achieving the outcome that the people have said that they want, we should do all in our power to facilitate the decision that the people have made. In which case, I struggle to see what the point was of this titanic legal struggle in the first place.

The length of the dramatis personae of distinguished lawyers at the beginning of the judgment shows that virtually half the bar has been involved in this case, one way or another. What was the point of all this if the decision to leave the European Union triggered by article 50 has already been made and a debate in Parliament is merely a rubber stamp for that? When he replied to Mark Isherwood a moment ago, he seemed to be characterising the exercise of the royal prerogative as an act of tyranny, as though Charles I were still on the throne. Does he not accept that there is a qualitative difference between the attempts of the King in the seventeenth century to impose taxes on the people without parliamentary consent—that it is qualitatively quite different from a decision following a referendum of the British people, which the Government of the day is seeking to facilitate? The use of the prerogative in this case is not to frustrate democracy but actually to enhance it—to bring it into effect.

I also think that the statement that the Counsel General has made on the effect of this judgment perhaps is a little liberal, because if you read the judgment—we’ve all had a very short time in which to do so—in paragraph 86, Lord Neuberger says that:

‘the Royal prerogative to make and unmake treaties, which operates wholly on the international plane, cannot be exercised in relation to the EU Treaties, at least in the absence of domestic sanction in appropriate statutory form.’

So, this judgment applies to the EU treaties. It doesn’t necessarily apply to any other treaties or any other act of the prerogative affecting our relations with other countries in the world. It’s because the EU legal system is unique, in the sense that it creates legislation that is directly applicable to this country and to each individual, and gives rights to people beyond the parliamentary context that the judges in this case have come to the decision that they have. And it may not, therefore, be as the Counsel General says, that the prerogative power in constitutional cases is constrained as a result of this decision.

As regards the particular decision in this case, will he also accept that leaving the European Union, as the judges said in paragraph 130, could actually enhance the powers of this Assembly? So, far from actually being a threat to the powers of this Assembly and the Welsh Government, it’s actually an opportunity that we should grasp with open arms. Lord Neuberger says,

‘The removal of the EU constraints on withdrawal from the EU Treaties will alter the competence of the devolved institutions unless new legislative constraints are introduced. In the absence of such new restraints, withdrawal from the EU will enhance the devolved competence.’

Should we not all welcome that with open arms? And I fully accept what the Counsel General said about the Westminster Government not grabbing powers from this Assembly, and in that respect he will, I think, have the unanimous support of all the Members of this Assembly. It certainly cannot be the case that, as a result of devolving powers from Brussels to the United Kingdom, we should actually find that the devolution of powers from Westminster to Cardiff should be diminished. Therefore, he will have the full support of my party—his Government will have the full support of my party—in anything that needs to be done in order to make that absolutely clear.

I thank the Member for those questions and the points that he raises, which are very similar to the points he’s raised consistently over the past couple of months. Let me say, first of all, it has been very clear in everything I’ve said, and what the First Minister has said, that we respect the outcome of the referendum; the question is how Brexit takes place—that it takes place within the proper constitutional and lawful environment. That is what the case has actually been all about. Just to refer to the point with regard to EU treaties only, that is not correct. The fundamental point was that the prerogative, or a prerogative, cannot be used to change laws passed by Parliament or to take away rights from individual citizens. And that would apply in other circumstances as well.

I’ll try and deal with the point the Member makes about what was the point of all of this. It was a fundamentally important point. I am very disappointed that he has still not grasped it. The point is the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. That is the point. Because there are two streams of legal approach: one is that we operate by the rule of law. That is, a law that is based on fundamental principles and rights. The other is an approach to law where the sole purpose of law is to implement popular demand by Government, irrespective of the rule of law, principles and rights. And we see how those two have developed in history. Every dictatorship that has taken place has sought to undermine the rule of law. The approach he adopts is the approach that was adopted by Germany in overthrowing the rule of law in Germany, in Chile, and in Stalin’s Russia, and that is why the rule of law is so fundamentally important: laws based on principles. The approach he adopts is the approach that’s adopted by dictators, those who want to bypass fundamental rights, and that is not an approach I would ever advocate that we adopt within this Assembly or within the UK. That is why those rights are so important, and that is why the decision today in the Supreme Court was fundamental, because it was establishing very, very clearly the rights of the people of this country. It was underlining our parliamentary democracy and our system of fundamental rights, and that is something to be defended.

The UK Government, of course, were within their legal rights to lodge this appeal to the Supreme Court, but I do think it reflects very poorly on them that they wanted to take every step available to them to put this decision outside the consideration of a directly elected Parliament. I’m grateful for the statement that the Counsel General has made, and I’m pleased that he intervened in the proceedings. I think that the outcome has reflected well on that decision. Would he agree with me that nothing that the court has said about the Sewel convention is, in a sense, out of the ordinary? In fact, it’s helpful to have the highest court in the land underline the political significance of this convention. A few Members have quoted Lord Neuberger’s speech when he says:

‘The removal of the EU constraints on withdrawal from the EU Treaties will alter the competence of the devolved institutions unless new legislative constraints are introduced.’

Does he agree with me that the implication of that is that the UK Government would need to take positive legislative steps, not only if it wished to limit the powers of the Welsh Assembly on Brexit, but also if it wanted to prevent the automatic extension of those powers as a consequence of coming out of the EU? And also, despite the comments on the Sewel convention, this Chamber will not have an opportunity to vote on the article 50 decision. It’s the Welsh Government’s position that any deal in due course comes to this Chamber for consideration and approval at that point. What steps will be open to the Counsel General if, at that point, the UK Government, in defiance of that convention, chooses not to seek the consent of the Assembly?

It seems to me that the important point is that this is a major step forward. It opens the door clearly and constitutionally in a way that we have always argued for the interests of Wales within the Brexit negotiations, within the treaties in which we, like other devolved administrations, have specific interests in terms of jobs and in terms of investments to ensure that the sort of negotiations, the sort of treaty, is one that actually protects the interests of the people of Wales. We will be following this with a debate where we will go into that in some quite considerable detail.

I think this judgment is very timely, because what it does is say that, one, Parliament must now engage and assume that responsibility but, secondly, that automatically means that Sewel is given the status that we’ve always argued it should have and, in fact, it will have. So, it gives us that voice in the process, and that is absolutely fundamental if we are to fulfil our role, which is defending the interests of the people of Wales, and no doubt Scotland and Northern Ireland will do the same, and no doubt the regions of England will also do the same. What format that will take—what format the trigger Bill will take—remains to be seen, and I’d be cautious about waiting to see what it is before we start thinking about the process itself, because I think we’re on a long constitutional road, not just in terms of the trigger Bill, but also the negotiations, the engagement and the institutions that are set up. One would hope that the ultimate objective of the UK Government is to seek an endorsement and the consent of all the devolved institutions, because our ultimate interest has got to be a cohesive United Kingdom with a common purpose. And that is why our unwritten constitution is not only important, but also why this decision within that process was so important.

I have to say, Counsel General, that I’m not surprised by either of these judgments. I was expecting the judgment laid down by the High Court and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and the most senior Welsh member of the judiciary. That judgment has been upheld, and the various arguments that we might have—or the Scots might have, anyway—had a veto, always seemed to me to misunderstand the nature of an emerging federal system where, inevitably, the treaty-making power does lie at the centre or the state Parliament.

I think we should reflect on the fact that we don’t have a Welsh representative on the Supreme Court. I think that will continue to be problematic if we are having to resolve various constitutional issues. I know we still live in this slightly paradoxical situation of having Welsh law that extends to England and Wales but it is only applied in Wales, and that means we don’t have our own jurisdiction. But I do think that when you consider the matter today, it does make this a real practical point and not something that’s abstract.

Can I say, I think the focus from the start for the Welsh Government should’ve been exclusively on the inter-governmental approach? In fairness to the Welsh Government, it has always had this on the agenda, but I think rather than the more legalistic parliamentary route, it was likely to be better to talk up the Joint Ministerial Committee, which I’m pleased to see is done in the White Paper that will be discussed next. The old JMC Europe had an excellent record on getting a common position between the Governments of the UK when arguing things like the common agricultural policy and environmental issues, when they came before the European Council of Ministers.

That, it seems to me, now needs to be the common approach because when historians write the history of this whole process and certainly what’s happened in the seven months or so since the actual referendum, the most significant thing will be that the arguments presented to the people of Britain then were predicated on the world becoming more and more open to global free trade. What has happened since is that the principal protector of global free trade has dramatically changed its policy and is now pursuing what many call a more protectionist approach, which is even going to amount to—we hear, anyway, from certain sources—a renegotiation of the World Trade Organization. This will require the most deft negotiation of future trade deals by the British Government, in which we will have a very direct interest, because what’s good, for instance, for livestock farming may not be what is in the best interests of cereal farmers in England.

These are going to be really, really tough issues, especially if farming is a much more dominant part of our industrial make-up than it is in England. So, I think the inter-governmental structures are absolutely what we focus on, and it’s also what is going to be focused on, surely, if we’re going to keep the Scots confident that a British approach to these questions is the best way forward—because the narrow point on the Parliamentary right or the right of the Scottish Parliament has now been dealt with—but we surely need a common approach where there’s the maximum level of agreement between the various Governments in the UK. If we don’t get that, then the union of the United Kingdom will be further damaged, as it was, I’m afraid, by the fact that the Scots voted by a nearly two-thirds majority against the way the rest of the UK voted.

I think many of these issues will now be tested in the great reform Bill. I notice that UKIP are urging a maximum position from the Welsh Government in arguing that all powers should be repatriated to Cardiff and Edinburgh. It’s probably the best way to start, although I think some UK frameworks are probably going to be needed and, again, I thought the White Paper was quite skilful in this respect.

So, Sewel, I think, will have to operate very effectively in the political context and I do hope there will be goodwill and good judgment on both sides—both the UK Government and the Welsh Government and the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments.

Well, I think, as ever, the Member raises very, very important points. He’s clearly given these matters a lot of thought and I think the comments that he makes are incredibly valuable and ones that I think there is a lot of agreement with because the whole point about Sewel is all very well getting to this stage, but it has to then be implemented practically, not just in terms of legislation but, as he says, in terms of the actual Joint Ministerial Committee and whatever other structural processes there are in terms of ensuring that there is genuine engagement. That is why I think the comments by the Supreme Court about the importance of Sewel and its role within our constitutional structure are so important and why it is so important, therefore, that the issue of an objective of achieving consensus and agreement between the devolved administrations and with the UK Government is such a fundamental part of that and what it requires, as it does within an environment where we do not have a written constitution as such, is a lot of goodwill, a lot of trust and a lot of common political objectives. That is obviously what we must seek to achieve and I’m sure that is exactly—well, I know that that is exactly—what Welsh Government’s position is and it is seeking to achieve.

I welcome the Supreme Court judgment insofar as it goes. As somebody who has served in both Parliaments, I think it was the correct decision. A parliamentary Act took us into the European Union—the European Community—confirmed by a referendum. The reverse process is now under way; we’ve had a referendum advising Parliament what to do and Parliament now must pass an Act in order to take us out of the European Union. That’s the best way and most constitutional way forward.

But there is a constitutional elephant in the room, which I think we should mention, which is the ridiculous and absurd idea, in the twenty-first century, that we’re reliant on challenging a royal prerogative, that we’re part of a royalty, that we’re part of somebody not elected, but inheriting powers—exercised by a Government, it has to be said, but, nevertheless, in theory, inheriting those powers to exercise them over us. That is a constitutional iniquity that must be swept aside sooner or later. And, since Charles I has been mentioned, let’s remember what Oliver Cromwell did: the first thing he did was march into Parliament, take away the mace—the fool’s bauble as he called it—and there was no royal prerogative after that mace had gone, I can tell you. So, let’s at least acknowledge that we’ve moved a little way onwards since then, but not an awful lot, not an awful lot. If we’re challenging at the Supreme Court our royal prerogative, we haven’t come very far in 400 years, have we?

But it does leave us with some real questions. It leaves us with some real questions around the Sewel convention. The Supreme Court has confirmed that this is a political convention, not a constitutional arrangement. Now, that is very dangerous for the future, I think, of Welsh democracy. How does the Counsel General see us being able to take this forward when we thought that by embedding the Sewel convention in the Wales Bill, already in the Scotland Act, this does make it part of the UK constitution? The Supreme Court doesn’t agree; it’s a political arrangement. And the Supreme Court calls or prays in aid, as part of its argument for this, a case from the 1960s, Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke, a case from southern Rhodesia. Well, that’s putting us in our place. It’s colonial rule that tells us the Sewel convention allows the powers to rest in Westminster to tell this Parliament what we decide for the people of Wales. Again, until we can ensure that the Sewel convention becomes a proper constitutional relationship between the four Parliaments in these islands then we will not have a settled constitution and we will be continually arguing these points.

I regret that the Supreme Court couldn’t make that decision for itself today, but I think that’s one of the key things that the Welsh Government now has to take forward in the terms and context of the constitutional arrangements—which the First Minister has consistently talked about, to be fair to him, but that now needs to be embedded and taken forward, perhaps, in the joint ministerial committee, as a way forward.

‘Convention’ itself is a dangerous and slippery term. It’s only very recently that we’ve had a convention that we have a vote in Parliament before war, one which Robin Cook sacrificed his political life over. Before then, the royal prerogative could be exercised to go to war. That’s a convention. We need to get away from conventions and into the proper constitutional relationship between all Parliaments on these islands. Until we do that, we will, in fact, be exercising colonial powers. Now, I’m not suggesting we declare a unilateral declaration of independence, but I do think that we need to move further forward on these relationships.

The second point that I’d—. Well, I’d like him to answer something about the Sewel convention and how we can embed that. The second point I’d like him to answer is a confirmation from the Welsh Government that it will bring forward an LCM. It’s almost inevitable that the Act that Westminster will be debating will impinge on our powers, so let’s just have the confirmation today that an LCM is appropriate, so that we can know that we’re going to debate and decide on that.

The third and final point is one that we’ve raised several times before, which is around the idea and the principle that there should be some form of continuity Bill debated here in the Welsh Parliament around the powers retained following the decision to leave the European Union. Several Members have noted that the position is there that, as powers are returned from the European Union, we may get more powers—that’s true. But if they just stop in Westminster, then we won’t be getting those, and we’ve seen already talk by many people, including in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as regards agriculture policy and as regards environmental policy, of keeping the powers in London and not, in fact, allowing them to flow here to Cardiff bay. So, wouldn’t it be a positive response to the great reform Bill that’s being produced that we have a continuity Bill here in the Assembly, so that we can debate and ensure that the powers are retained?

Thank you for those comments, and I’ll try and deal with them as best I can. With regard to the last point, the issue of the continuity Bill and so on, we now have the judgment. We have to analyse that judgment very carefully. We will have to analyse very carefully what happens in respect of the trigger Bill, what processes are then set in place, what happens then with regard to potentially a great repeal Bill, and he’s certainly correct that we are on a constitutional rollercoaster in some ways. The calls by this Assembly for a constitutional convention have never been more important. There are all sorts of erratic issues and dysfunctional issues with regard to the constitutional structure of the UK as a whole, so those do have to be dealt with, and I’m sure many of them will be emerging over the course of the coming months.

In respect of the issue of a legislative consent motion, I will leave that to the First Minister to respond to in due course. But, in terms of the points that you raise with regard to prerogatives and Sewel and so on, perhaps the best way to summarise it is that I think we share a lot of common views in terms of the importance of this particular decision. Perhaps, taking his earlier analogy, I suppose what I would say is: roundheads 8, cavaliers 3. [Laughter.]

I’d like to congratulate the Counsel General on his great efforts on behalf of us and on behalf of Wales in the Supreme Court. I think his presence was absolutely justified and was very significant in reaching the decision that was made. I welcome his statement. I think it’s absolutely, vitally important that such a momentous decision is decided on in Parliament. He said in his statement that we now must go forward and have full, open debate, and there must be no talk about unamendable motions. I’m sure he would agree that it is so important that the motion can be amended, because that can enable full debate. Is he confident now that we are moving forward to a full, open debate?

Most of the questions I had about the Sewel convention have already been asked and answered, but I agree very strongly about the importance of the negotiation between the four countries, and how important that is and how crucial it is that we do reach a consensus. But would the Counsel General agree that there must be at least a possibility that a consensus may not be reached with all four of the nations, and what does he think would be the result of that situation?

Can I just say that the judgment, obviously, sets the foundations that enable us to move forward? As I’ve said, it now opens the door and establishes a clear framework, and hopefully there will be consensus and agreement in respect of all the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom, and achieving consensus and endorsement should be a fundamental part of that. In terms of the implications as to a lack of consensus, well, I’m a real optimist, because I think most people—and across parties—do want to see us get through this, and to succeed in respect of common interests. It is the responsibility of everyone to play their part within that, so I think that is achievable. But what I think has been important about our role to date is that we had a very specific Welsh voice in these processes. Without that, without this Assembly, without a Welsh Government, we would not have had that voice. We would not have been able to make those representations, and we would not be able to stand up in the way we are doing. That doesn’t mean that things ahead are easy, that there aren’t going to be considerable difficulties, that we don’t have to be alert, because, as I’ve said, we’re on a constitutional helter-skelter, we are in a process that is changing, and there are going to be challenges we have to face up to. But I’m going to be an optimist on this, because I think that is our role and I think it is our role to achieve the best we can for the Welsh people. I think the White Paper that is going to be discussed shortly is going to be a major contribution to that debate and to that process.

Thank you, Llywydd. May I also thank the Counsel General for his statement this afternoon, which has more than explained to us the constitutional and political importance of all that he has been able to achieve? I would briefly refer to three elements: first of all, that the devolved nations and the devolved Governments have spoken with three voices but almost singing from the same hymn sheet, namely, that the arguments put forward were arguments that clearly demonstrated the nature of the UK constitution. That has been a key contribution.

I also think that the door that’s been very clearly opened in this judgment by the Supreme Court as to what will happen when we exit the European Union and how competencies in the devolved institutions may be changed—that that window is clearly now open to us. In this context, if I could assist Simon Thomas in his understanding of these issues, in that situation, that is where the Sewel convention is so crucial, because, as we discuss these issues, the Sewel convention is now in the Scotland Act and will be in the Wales Act. The process on those two Bills is completed, which means that the constitutional practice of not legislating in a contrary way in Westminster or in Wales in relation to each other is now enshrined in legislation. What is important, I would suggest, Counsel General, is that that principle should extend to European legislation as it is disapplied in its impact on the UK, and that the appropriate competencies should come to this place.

Therefore, I think your analysis of where we stand justifies the work undertaken by the Welsh Government, and all power to you in the future.

Thank you for those comments. Perhaps if I just deal with the point that the Member made about the Sewel convention being incorporated into the Wales Bill—what will become, hopefully, the Wales Act—that issue was addressed, albeit in respect of Scotland, but this is what the Supreme Court said:

‘it is recognising the convention for what it is, namely a political convention, and is effectively declaring that it is a permanent feature of the relevant devolution settlement. That follows from the nature of the content, and is acknowledged by the words (“it is recognised” and “will not normally”)’.

So, it becomes a permanent feature. It is a feature that cannot disappear or be undermined. It becomes a fundamental part of our constitutional arrangements. With an, effectively, unwritten constitution, what may start off as a political convention can become, over a period of time, a fundamental part of the operating constitution. That is the nature of unwritten constitutions.

He’s right that the door is open. He is right, also, that there are issues in respect of the return of powers that should be within the devolved areas. Those are issues that the First Minister has commented on, that others have commented on from time to time, and that we are very alert to. The fundamental point that he also makes, of course, is this: we have actually seen a hegemony amongst the devolved administrations that I don’t think existed. That doesn’t mean we don’t have disagreements, or have disagreements in terms of perhaps what the longer term agenda may be, but, in terms of the fundamental principles of the rule of law, there was absolute harmony on those particular points, and that is very, very encouraging.

I thank the Counsel General.