6. What assessment has the Counsel General made of the potential for legal recourse under the Sewel Convention? OAQ52095

And I would appreciate an answer that doesn't tell me that I don't understand the issue, please. 

While the Supreme Court has said that the Sewel convention is not legally binding, it has also emphasised that the convention plays a fundamental role in the UK’s constitution. We expect Parliament to respect the will of the Assembly, and not to proceed with legislation that alters the Assembly’s competence, or affects devolved matters, without the Assembly’s consent.

The Miller versus the Crown case confirmed that the Sewel convention isn't worth the paper that it's written on. In fact, on at least seven occasions, Westminster has forced legislation on Wales without its consent. Under the Labour-Tory agreement on the withdrawal Bill, there is a new definition of 'consent'. Semantic arguments are being used by Ministers to argue that this revision to the Bill equates to a requirement of consent for Westminster to legislate in devolved areas. In fact, the amendment explicitly says if a motion refusing consent is passed in this Assembly, Parliament may continue to impose its legislation. Can the Counsel General give me another example in legislation where 'no' means 'yes'?

The Miller judgment was very clear that the Sewel convention was not be justiciable, could not be the basis of the claim in court. But it was also very clear that it had the strongest possible political weight, apart from being available as a basis of a claim. And as I mentioned in my answer to a previous question, the Supreme Court regarded that as a permanent feature of the devolution settlement. Before the Sewel convention was enshrined in statute, it had been used about 100 times, I think—the requests that had been made to this Chamber—and they had not been disregarded by the UK Parliament when the Government in the UK accepted that consent was required. So, the strength of the Sewel convention is well established. 

The point she makes in relation to the consent decision—the language in the amendment refers to a consent decision, i.e. the point at which this Assembly or the Scottish Parliament makes a decision whether to consent or not to consent. That is about the timetabling of how the Ministers in Westminster can submit regulations there. It is absolutely clear in the inter-governmental agreement that regulations will be subject to the Sewel convention, i.e. that the UK Parliament will not normally seek to legislate other than with the consent of this place.