Dirprwy Lywydd, the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee has not yet had the opportunity for a detailed examination of this Bill. It was produced very late in the day, with very little advance notice, and we look forward to your giving evidence on Monday to the committee, where we will explore all these particular issues.

But the committee has a particular responsibility in respect of the constitution of this place, and I would say in respect of issues relating to the ethics of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. One of the founding principles of the United Nations is precisely on the rule of law, and I focus very much on this because you've related to many of the consequences of this legislation, but I think it is important that we do not lose sight of some of the fundamental democratic principles on which we operate. This is the UN principles of governance:

'The rule of law is fundamental to international peace and security and political stability; to achieve economic and social progress and development; and to protect people’s rights and fundamental freedoms. It is foundational to people's access to public services, curbing corruption, restraining the abuse of power, and to establishing the social contract between people and the state.'

This legislation, as it is drafted, drives a coach and horses through the rule of law. I am just going to refer to four aspects. One, the illegality, which is already conceded. I do not believe it is in any way acceptable for a Government to legislate for illegality and to argue that the illegality is okay because it might only be specific and limited. That is unacceptable in any modern democracy. If I were to mug you outside this Chamber, Counsel General, which I never, never would, it was hardly become me in court to say, 'Well, my lud, yes, but it was only a very specific and limited mugging, wasn't it?' It is absolutely ludicrous.

We also have to consider the implication when legislative consent comes to this Chamber of the ethics of consenting to legislation that ethically drives a coach and horses through the rule of law and sustains illegality, and I think that's an area that perhaps you might want to explore. It also gags the courts and judges from defending the rule of law.

And, fourthly, it gives unfettered power to the hands of Government Ministers who will not be accountable to either Parliament, or Westminster, or Wales in the exercise of those powers. Now, in normal parlance, if we were looking at Russia or Belarus or some of those countries, we would say what it amounts to is elected dictatorship. It was Roosevelt, I think—I hope I get it right—who actually said that the best way of explaining the rule of law is to look at the countries that don't have the rule of law.

As part of this exercise, I did a bit of legal research, and I was trying to find an example where a democratic European country has ever attempted to actually impose this form of illegality, and I did find one. I found a European state that had been a pinnacle of the rule of law, a mother of Parliaments, with a constitution that was respected throughout the world, where legislation was introduced to remove the autonomy from devolved states, to empower the Government to enact laws to violate the constitution and to disempower the judiciary. That was the 1933 enabling Act of the Weimar republic that brought Hitler to power.

Now, I don't want to be melodramatic about this, but democracy is fragile, the rule of law is fragile, and this legislation is, as you've described so rightly, absolutely repugnant, and I would just ask one question to you: do you agree with me that our democracy is too important to be undermined by this type of legislation?