I have accepted an emergency question, under Standing Order 12.67. I call on Adam Price to ask the emergency question. 

Will the First Minister make a statement following the Supreme Court judgement that the prorogation of the UK Parliament was unlawful? (EAQ0006)

Llywydd, thank you. The judgment of the Supreme Court was striking. It was totally clear and unanimous. It showed that the Prime Minister had tried to stop the Parliament in Westminster and the democratic House of Commons from holding the Government to account on the most important issue of the age. As a result of the court's decision, Westminster is not prorogued and the Prime Minister will have to report on his unlawful advice. The Welsh Government was totally correct to intervene in this case in order to defend the democratic rights of the people of Wales and the United Kingdom.

First Minister, this judgment by the Supreme Court is a hugely important issue, stating that the UK Government had behaved unlawfully. Lying to the people, lying to Parliament, lying to the Queen is a trinity of grave constitutional crimes. What's totally clear is that the UK Prime Minister had closed the doors of Parliament with the relish of the dictator that he is, and I'm very pleased that my party played a central part in the case that held the Prime Minister to account. Today we saw the true meaning of taking back control. When the voice of our advocates is silenced, we will shout more loudly than ever. When attempts are made to turn the legislature into an impediment, we will turn it into the anchor of our democracy. When a Prime Minister tries to ignore a law that states that we cannot leave the European Union without a deal, there must be implications, whatever Dominic Cummings may have been tweeting over the past few minutes.

A Prime Minister who evades scrutiny, who is blind to the rule of law and does so under the banner of a destructive Brexit is not competent to be in post. In light of Boris Johnson's dirty tricks, do you agree with me that the Prime Minister now needs to resign immediately? I noticed that you didn't respond to the question asked by journalists a minute ago. Will you answer that question now? And for the avoidance of any similar situation arising again, where a Government runs riot over democracy, will you ensure that your party in Westminster supports remaining in the European Union and unconditionally prioritises a people's vote now, before a general election?

May I thank Adam Price for those questions? I have already said, Llywydd, that I cannot see any way in which Boris Johnson can remain in office following the judgment of the court today.

The court found against the Prime Minister unanimously on every single point that Lady Hale said was in front of them. She rehearsed, as those of you have seen her judgment know, four separate questions. Was the Prime Minister's advice to the Queen justiciable? Now, the Government had argued that it wasn't, that there was nothing here for the courts to be interested in. And the court rejected that, saying that the power to prorogue, used as the Prime Minister had used it, was an attack on the foundational principle of our constitution. The court then asked, if that is justiciable, then by what standard is its lawfulness to be judged? And the court said that there were two fundamental principles at stake here—that of parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary accountability, and on both those counts the court found that the Prime Minister's actions could not be supported. If those are the standards, then was the advice that the Prime Minister provided to the court lawful? And this really, I think, goes to the very heart of what the Supreme Court decided today. Lady Hale referred directly, Llywydd, to the position of this National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament—the fact that, as our QC said in evidence to the court, everything we had done here in providing consents to pieces of legislation, which we had a legitimate expectation would then proceed to a conclusion in the House of Commons, all of that had been swept away as a result of the Prime Minister's actions. It is impossible for us to conclude, the Supreme Court said, that there was any reason, let alone a good reason, to prorogue Parliament. It follows that the decision was unlawful. When a Prime Minister is found to have acted unlawfully and undemocratically, I don't see how that person thinks that he can legitimately continue in office.

First Minister, let me reassure you that, within the Conservative Party, we respect the rule of law and the outcome of today's Supreme Court proceedings. But let's look at the root of this particular issue, shall we? This Brexit impasse—[Interruption.]—this Brexit impasse, and the position—

Let the leader of the opposition continue his questioning. [Interruption.] Allow the leader of the opposition to continue his questioning and for it to be heard.

This Brexit impasse, and the position we now find ourselves in, has been created as a result of your Labour MPs having frustrated—[Interruption.]—yes, having frustrated the Brexit process, against the will of the Welsh and British people. [Interruption.]

You may disagree with what the leader of the opposition is saying, but he does deserve to be heard. I want to hear him.

Diolch, Llywydd. You know full well, First Minister, that if your colleagues had voted for the previous UK Government's withdrawal Bill, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. We would have left the European Union by now in an orderly fashion. But we can now see that, given your own Government's position, you don't respect the result of the referendum, because you've now made it clear that you want to stay in the European Union, full stop. Clearly, First Minister, the only way—the only way—we're going to get out of this situation now is to have a general election as soon as possible. And, as you know, the Prime Minister sought a general election just a few weeks ago, and your party, despite having called for one months and, indeed, years, had the audacity to vote it down. Come on, First Minister, what are you afraid of? So, will your Government therefore now support a general election as soon as possible, because this is the only way we can actually resolve this situation?

Llywydd, the leader of the opposition begins by saying that his party respects the rule of law. The last thing I heard before I came to the floor of the Assembly this afternoon was the Prime Minister attacking the decision of the Supreme Court, which I thought was disgraceful. [Interruption.] I heard him myself—he attacked the decision of the Supreme Court. He said he didn't agree with the Supreme Court, that he couldn't see how they had come to their conclusion. I don't think that sounds much to me like respecting the rule of law. Then he said that he was determined that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union by 31 October, despite the fact that there is a law passed in the House of Commons preventing him from doing that. Where is the respect for the rule of law there? It has always seemed to me, Llywydd—[Interruption.]—it's always seemed to me, Llywydd, that people who decide to be law makers give up the right to be law breakers. There are other people who take other contributions to debate, and they have other choices to make. But if you are elected to a legislature, where we make the law, as the law is made in the House of Commons, then you cannot at the same time claim the right to break the law that you have a hand in making. And that seems to me to be the position that this Prime Minister has been prepared to take time after time. That's the substance of what's at issue today.

It would have been—[Interruption.] I think it would have served this institution and people in Wales a bit better if the leader of the opposition had got up to explain to us how his party is now going to explain to them how they put us all in this position. How, as a result of his party's actions, Parliament has been prevented from scrutinising the actions of his Government, something that the Supreme Court today has found to be unlawful. And wasn't it interesting? Did you not think it was interesting that the president of the Supreme Court had to go out of her way to make it clear that everything we have been hearing from members of his party about how the Prime Minister could simply prorogue all over again, that he could get round anything the Supreme Court said—. She had to go out of her way to make it clear that Parliament has never been prorogued and that that avenue to frustrating democratic accountability in this country has been blocked off to him by the actions of the Supreme Court today. Those were the things the party opposite ought to have been dealing with this afternoon, rather than trying to divert attention in the way that he did. The nonsense of suggesting that—a deal that his party would not support.

Where was his Jacob Rees-Mogg, the man sent to Balmoral, as the Scottish Supreme Court said, to tell an untruth to the Queen? Where was he when Mrs May's deal was being voted on? Yes, I think it's time that—[Interruption.] I think it's time the opposition leader in this party looked to his own party and offered some explanation of its actions. That would have been what he should have been doing here this afternoon. 

The First Minister admonishes the leader of the opposition about respect for the rule of law, but I do recall, last week, what he and his Counsel General said about the then binding judgment of the High Court in our jurisdiction, and they decided they would prefer to take the ruling of the court from another jurisdiction. 

What I would ask Members to think about—[Interruption.]—if I may continue—in responding to this judgment today, I think all of us would see it as being far stronger and greater in scope than had been anticipated prior to the judgment. The corollary of that is that the Supreme Court has gone further than what we expected in light of the prior constitutional norms. And I just think, in terms of considering how exorbitant the judgment is, we should focus a bit on paragraphs 49 and 50 of the judgment, which does most of the heavy lifting, where the court says,

'a prerogative power is only effective to the extent that it is recognised by the common law: as was said in the Case of Proclamations, “the King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him”. A prerogative power is therefore limited by statute and the common law'. 

The Case of Proclamations was about the Crown unmaking a law that had been passed by Parliament, and what the common law found then was that the executive could not act against the law or unmake laws where the legislature had restricted the prerogative through passing a law. That is not the case here. Parliament has had over 400 years since then to restrict the prerogative and control how it could be used. It has chosen not to, yet the Supreme Court has done so itself through the principles that it has discerned today.

Similarly, in the previous Miller judgment, on the treaty on the functioning of the European Union we saw that Parliament had restricted the use of article 49—the passerelle clause—but did not restrict the use of article 50. Yet, the court departed from previous principles of statutory interpretation to impose its own restrictions on article 50. One area—[Interruption.]. I'm describing how its judgment is exorbitant. Exorbitant is not the same as wrong. I am a lawyer and I would be cautious before going in the direction that the Member heckles to the effect of.  

In paragraph 60 of the judgment, quite rightly, the court doesn't stray into the areas of parliamentary procedure, but it does presume that Parliament controls its own timetable. Yet, it doesn't. It doesn't have a business of the house committee. The Government allocates days to the opposition or to a backbench business committee, but the Government controls the agenda. Standing Orders say it does. Standing Orders say votes must be forthwith, and there is a mechanism for Parliament—the House of Commons—to revise that on a motion from the Procedure Committee, but the Speaker didn't do that, because the Procedure Committee has a majority that backed Brexit. It's elected by the House. So, instead the Speaker ignored Standing Orders, read something into them that was not there and did things that way, contrary to the rules of the Commons in order to drive forward the law.

We have a very important judgment today. I just about managed to read it since it came out, but I think we should all take further time to reflect, and I would encourage people to approach this very calmly, because, while I respect the rule of law, and I’d be cautious about criticising judges, I fear that many, many people out there see this through the prism of 'leave' and 'remain'.

Llywydd, I’m afraid I’m left a bit confused by the Member’s contribution. He describes the Supreme Court as exorbitant and then urges us all to respect the rule of law. Last week, he was busy trying to dismiss the views of the most senior court in Scotland as though they counted for absolutely nothing. I’m not certain today whether he hasn’t applied the same approach to the Supreme Court as well. I too have the judgment here. I agree with Mark Reckless that Members would want to read it. It is an exceptionally clearly argued judgment. The Member says that the court has departed from existing norms. It was asked to adjudicate in a situation where, as the judgment makes clear, the Prime Minister had departed from existing norms entirely, and to the detriment of the rule of law and to our democracy. That’s the conclusion that I think anybody who cares to study this judgment will come to, and that’s why it has the seriousness and weight that we ought to attach to it.

We face this afternoon the deepest political crisis that I have seen in my 20 years of politics. I have to say that I have seen at least one Conservative MP attack the Supreme Court—David Davies. He said they were part of a pro-EU establishment. We all, First Minister, are the subject of court judgments sometimes that we don’t like, but we have courts for a reason—they’re there to take decisions. I listened carefully to what the leader of the opposition had to say, and I regret that what is a question of democracy, a question of the constitution, a question of the supremacy of Parliament elected by the people in 2017, a year after the referendum—a year after the referendum—was reduced by him to party political point scoring. He is better than that. He is better than that; he’s somebody who I have respect for, but, really, this is not about party politics.

First Minister, it is an occupational hazard for Ministers to find, when they take a decision in good faith, that the court then says the decision is unlawful. That is not unusual. What is unusual in this case is the Court of Session in Edinburgh said that Parliament had been prorogued for an improper purpose. 'Improper' is a stinging rebuke. The use of the word ’improper’ is a stinging rebuke to the Prime Minister. It implies dishonesty, and it implies that the Prime Minister gave the Queen misleading and illegal advice. That is a step that no Prime Minister has taken before.

A coach and horses has been driven through the constitution; it is no longer fit for purpose. A written constitution depends on people being reasonable and conventions being respected. They have not been. They have not been over the course of the past year, and it puts the Queen in an invidious position. If the Prime Minister comes back to the Queen and asks to prorogue Parliament once again, how can the Queen be sure that the advice she is being given by the Prime Minister is not unlawful? And yet she has no discretion as to what to do. She can be misled by illegal advice from a Prime Minister once again and can’t do anything. That is an invidious position for the Queen to be in. First Minister, given the crisis that we have, is it not time for sense? Is it not time for compromise? Is it not time for reconciliation? And is it not time to have a new Prime Minister?

Well, Llywydd, I listened very carefully to what the former First Minister has said, as I think other Members in this Assembly should do, because of his role as a Privy Counsellor, because of the fact that he has actually attended those forums that have been at the heart of the issues that the Supreme Court has had to deal with, and, as he said, the Scottish court found that the advice given in the Privy Council was not advice based on good faith. Now, of course, what Carwyn Jones has said is right, we all of us, I'm sure, make decisions in good faith that then turn out not to be as soundly based as we had thought. The issue here is one of good faith—the fact that the Prime Minister, when providing his advice, said that he wanted to prorogue Parliament for one reason, whereas in fact it was clear from decisions that he had made that that was not the case. And that really does go to the heart of the way that our constitution operates. It goes to the heart, Llywydd, I would say, of arguments that people on different sides of this Chamber have made about the need for a constitutional convention and for a written constitution, which would avoid some of the risks that we have seen the current Prime Minister able to take and thought that he would get away with, and today he's been found out. But it should never have got to that stage and a different constitutional settlement would prevent that from happening. I agree with his final point; I have thought, ever since I heard the judgment and heard the way that the president of the Supreme Court was so unambiguous in her finding, the Prime Minister has been found to have acted unlawfully and in a way deliberately designed to subvert our democracy. How does anybody in that position think that they can carry on?

We're clearly at a watershed moment and we have an 11-0 judgment—perhaps 'exorbitant' is a fair way of describing that. But, clearly, what has happened is that prerogative powers are not now considered to be beyond the rule of law and they are subject to judicial review. Given that prerogative powers are so vast, potentially, and are not amenable, or at least previously, to any other review, and we've clearly seen that in the way the Crown was involved—now, it is the case that in previous centuries the Crown could deny the exercise of the prerogative by the Prime Minister, but, clearly, in our democratic age we've gone a long way beyond that. Therefore, given all those grey areas in how far prerogative powers can be extended, we absolutely need the principle of judicial review, and I warmly welcome this morning's judgment. It really does establish beyond any question our democracy and the proper rule of law.

Prorogation clearly needs a clearer set of rules, based on all-party agreement. It is about when Parliament can sit, and it's much more than a suspension, because, for that time, it wipes out all parliamentary activity. It seems to me that all this talk comes down to this: should Parliament sit during a national crisis? And are we seriously going to say that it should not? I know many people may not agree with what Parliament does with that time, but it seems to me extraordinary that we would think it fit that Parliament would not sit at that time of importance.

If you accepted that, the most extreme would be that, in May 1940, Neville Chamberlain should have prorogued Parliament so the Government could concentrate fully on the external and vicious threat Britain was under. Clearly, that would have been wrong. You need the institution of Parliament and Crown, i.e. Government and Parliament, acting together. The independence of the judiciary is at the heart of the rule of law, and that means you've absolutely got to accept what the judgment is, especially when it is so emphatic. In private, you may not agree with it fully, but to come out then and question a judgment, however you do it, and there are elaborate ways of saying you disagree, is not at all helpful.

I would however say this, given the tenor of some of the exchanges, in their proceedings the judges were very keen to divide this case away from the issue of Brexit, and I think we should do the same. It does come at this important time of the question of Brexit, but this is about much more than Brexit, it's about the viability of the British constitution.

I thank David Melding for that. It was good to hear those points being made from the Conservative benches here this afternoon. David Melding is right, the checks and balances in our constitution worked, but they worked at the final hurdle. It had to go all the way to the Supreme Court before the checks and balances operated in the way that they should do, and that's why some of us here believe that that is an overly risky way to run our constitution and that we should build new defences into it so that a Prime Minister would never be tempted to do what Boris Johnson did.

I heard the Prime Minister disagree with the Supreme Court, and I didn't think he did it particularly elaborately. He simply took the line that these 11 people had got it all wrong and, yes, he'd abide by what they said, but he was quite sure that he'd been right and they weren't. I really think that is so much the wrong way for a Prime Minister to have reacted in the position that he found himself, if you believe in the rule of law, because I don't think that helps to support it at all. And, of course, David Melding is right, the judgment takes place in the context of Brexit, but it is not about Brexit. It is about the way in which powers are used in our constitution, whether they are used lawfully and whether they are used in a way that stands up to scrutiny. And on all of those points, the Supreme Court unanimously, the 12 Supreme Court justices sitting together—the 11 Supreme Court justices sitting together—found against the Prime Minister.

Like others, although this takes place within the context that we're living through at the moment, I believe that this is about power and this is about the British constitution. I don't believe that this is about Brexit, as much as many people would prefer that.

I agree with what many people here have said: this is both about the powers available to a Prime Minister, but it is also about the behaviour of the Prime Minister as well. I'm tempted to think that it takes an Old Etonian to tell a lie to Her Majesty the Queen; certainly we were taught better in Tredegar Comprehensive School and we wouldn't have thought of behaving in such a way. And it reflects poorly on the opposition here, on the Conservative Party in this country, that they're not prepared to stand with the constitution and the law of this country but to defend a rotten Prime Minister. That speaks volumes.

But we need to do more than simply condemn the poor behaviour of the current Prime Minister. He has attempted to subvert our constitution and he has attempted to subvert our democratic institutions. David Melding is absolutely right, prerogative powers must be subject to judicial review, but prerogative powers also have to be subject to democratic accountability and not simply judicial accountability.

First Minister, do you agree with me that, not only must the British Prime Minister resign when he returns to the United Kingdom overnight and before he faces the UK Parliament, but we need a constitution now that reflects the sovereignty of the Parliaments of these islands? The Parliaments of these islands. And what that means is not simply a constitutional convention, but an agreement with the United Kingdom Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and this Parliament of our right to sit unfettered by the Executive, to hold the Executive to account and to ensure that, as Parliaments, we're able to represent the people without fear and favour and that we cannot be bullied by a Prime Minister who believes he is above the law.

Well, Llywydd, I agree completely with what Alun Davies has said, that the case is about power and about constraints on that power and about the way that power is exercised. And of course he is right to say that those powers, in this case, were exercised by an individual, and there is an individual and his actions at the centre of this case. It's about that person's actions, it's about the unelected people he gathered around him in order to bolster him in the course of action that he thought he could get away with. And the way to defend us in future against that is through constitutional reform and, of course, Alun Davies makes that fundamentally important point that, in a devolved United Kingdom, this is about Parliaments, plural, not simply Parliament in Westminster. And I want to see that constitutional convention entrench devolution by recognising that, 20 years into devolution, sovereignty is a dispersed concept. It is not held at Westminster and handed out to others to be taken back whenever they don't like what we do with it. Sovereignty is entrenched here for the things that we have responsibility for, and it is entrenched in other places too, and then shared back together again for common purposes when we decide that that is the way to create solidarity between people across the United Kingdom.

So, the respect for Parliaments, not simply Parliament, should be at the heart of that new sense of how our constitution needs to operate, and then there will be other checks and other balances built into it that would have prevented us from being in the position we have found ourselves in today.

That concludes the emergency question.