Well, the 2005 Act that established the Supreme Court sets out very clearly the basis on which Supreme Court justices are appointed. That was revisited by the Conservative Government in 2013, and they wisely chose not to pursue the course of action that those like Michael Howard has been advocating in the press. I was struck by his remark that he said the law should be made by elected, accountable politicians, forgetting the fact, of course, that he sits in the House of Lords and is unelected. Also forgetting that, having made the law, it's incumbent on politicians, perhaps particularly, to obey the law, which is exactly the situation that the Supreme Court's intervention—to which she refers in her question—was intended to address. The whole point of the intervention of the Supreme Court was to enable Parliament to sit until properly prorogued, giving elected, accountable Members, in the language of Michael Howard, the continuing entitlement to make law and hold the Government accountable.

I want to be very clear that we are committed as a Government here in Wales to the absolute independence of the Supreme Court, and do not regard the sorts of proposals that Michael Howard was flagging as anything other than a very, very retrograde step. That isn't, by the way, to say that there are no reforms of the Supreme Court that we would support. Again, I've referred on a number of occasions to the document 'Reforming Our Union'. That sets out changes we think would be helpful to see in the Supreme Court to ensure that Welsh law interests are reflected on the court, and I'm pleased to say that the Commission on Justice in Wales reaches a similar conclusion in its set of recommendations.