1. Will the Counsel General make a statement on the Welsh Government’s recent application to the High Court to intervene in legal action with regard to prorogation? OAQ54312

3. Will the Counsel General provide an update on the Welsh Government's intervention in the High Court prorogation case, ahead of the Supreme Court appeal? OAQ54308

Presiding Officer, I understand that you've given permission for questions 1 and 3 to be grouped. I refer the Members to the written statements that I published yesterday and on 2 September. I intervened in the case because it is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to do so in order to safeguard the interests of Wales and this Assembly.

Twice your Welsh Government has teamed up with an individual—Gina Miller—to challenge the actions of our UK Government. Most recently, you have intervened in legal proceedings in the High Court, supporting the legal case against the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament. You claimed that you did not make the intervention lightly and stated:

'As the law officer, I have a duty to uphold the rule of law and the constitution'.

Now, whilst I appreciate that the matter is before the Supreme Court now, the High Court concluded that the decision of the Prime Minister was not capable of challenge. Will you therefore disclose to this Chamber how much of our taxpayers' money has been spent by the Welsh Government in your attempts to subvert the very source of our democratic sovereignty?

Well, I think the Member fundamentally misunderstands the situation. The Welsh Government hasn't teamed up with anyone. As law officer, I have intervened in these proceedings, and I have had permission to do so by—

How much has that cost?

—the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Member may remember that the last time the Welsh Government intervened in a Miller case the Supreme Court found in favour of Miller, because the Supreme Court understood that the actions of the UK Government were designed to sideline Parliament. Those circumstances are the circumstances we face today, with a new Prime Minister seeking to sideline Parliament at exactly the time when Parliament should be sitting to scrutinise his actions and the Government's actions, and also to pass legislation to prevent the catastrophe of a 'no deal' Brexit. So, I make no apology for intervening on behalf of this Assembly. And Members here have sat and debated and considered legislation and asked Parliament to legislate on our behalf in order to ensure as smooth as possible a legislative statue book after Brexit.

How much?

And that opportunity has been denied Parliament to sit and consider that legislation by the prorogation. So, I make no apology at all for standing up for the rights of this Assembly.

She shouts at me from a sedentary position the question of costs. The costs of intervening in the High Court stage were £8,937.91 plus VAT—with apologies to Mark Reckless for the question he'll be asking me later.

The Scottish Court of Session found that Boris Johnson misled the Queen about his reasons for wanting to prorogue Parliament. The Prime Minister had said that it was so that a Queen's Speech could be introduced, but the judgment made it clear that there was documented evidence that the true reason was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. The English High Court did not contradict this, so there is no debate about whether Boris Johnson lied to the Queen and everybody else about the true nature of his reasons for proroguing Parliament—he did. The point at which the judgment of the High Court differed to the Court of Session was about whether lying about the reasons for prorogation is justiciable or not—that is, whether it's a legal or a political matter. Is the Counsel General in a position to explain his legal basis for believing that this is a justiciable matter and whether, if the Supreme Court finds in his favour, a judgment that prorogation is unlawful in this instance will be enforceable? I ask because of the briefings from No. 10 that they may seek to prorogue Parliament for a second time, regardless.

I thank the Member for that supplementary question. She is right, of course, to point out that the Court of Session in Scotland concluded that, whatever the reasons the Prime Minister gave publicly for seeking the prorogation, the actual reason was to stymie, as they put it, Parliament's consideration, which they concluded to be constitutionally unacceptable and unlawful. She is right to say that, for both the High Court and the Court of Session in Scotland, the question of justiciability was at the heart of their considerations. The submissions made on my behalf in the Supreme Court will say that the divisional court—the High Court—was incorrect in its conclusion, and that the Court of Session was correct, in the way that both courts approach the question of justiciability, i.e. that Executive action shouldn't be undertaken other than in accordance with public law standards, and, where political subject matter is a basis for judicial restraint, it isn't a basis for Executive immunity, and those are some of the submissions that will be made on my behalf in the Supreme Court later this week.

On the question of the conclusions of the Supreme Court, I will say clearly now that this Government will abide by whatever the Supreme Court concludes, as would any Government worthy of that name, and I hope that the evasion that the Prime Minister has shown on that question, on reflection, he will realise is inappropriate, and that he will act in accordance with the outcome of the Supreme Court's judgment, as soon as it's given.