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?