Although the people entrust sovereignty, being the authority of the state to govern itself without interference from outside sources or bodies, to a Prime Minister and Government, and although the Prime Minister confirmed last week that the UK Government will put the final deal agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force, we respect the Supreme Court’s decision that an Act of Parliament is required before article 50 is triggered, and we note that the UK Government has said it will set out its next steps to the UK Parliament shortly.

But, of course, we also note the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court that the UK Government is not legally compelled to consult the Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly or Scottish Parliament before triggering article 50. But, of course, the British people, including the Welsh people, voted to leave the EU, and the UK Government will deliver on that, triggering article 50, as planned, by the end of March. And today’s ruling does nothing to change that—the indications from the UK Parliament are that Parliament will pass this.

It’s important to remember that Parliament, the UK Parliament, backed the referendum by a margin of six to one, and has already indicated its support for getting on with the process of exit, to the timetable set out by the UK Government. And I welcome the fact that the UK Government is championing now a confident, outward-looking, inclusive and global-trading UK, but the Prime Minister has been very careful to make sure that reference to the involvement of the devolved Governments and Parliaments is included in that process.

Now, given that the Supreme Court said that relations with the EU and other foreign affairs matters are reserved to UK Government and Parliament, not the devolved institutions, and that the Sewel convention scope and operation is not within the operational remits of the courts, and that the devolved legislatures therefore do not have a veto on the UK decision to withdraw from the EU, how do you respond to their statement that withdrawal from the EU will alter the competence of the devolved institutions, and remove the responsibilities to comply with EU law, again in that context? Do you therefore, in that context, agree now that, when I said to you in November—after you announced your plans to seek representation at the appeal into the High Court decision that Parliament must vote on the process taking the UK out of the European Union—that the matters you raised were outside article 50 negotiations with the EU on EU withdrawal, and are instead matters for negotiation with the UK Government and the other home nations on a bilateral and quadrilateral basis? At that point, what is your view on how the Sewel convention might apply, or is it your legal opinion—or the legal opinion of those advising you—that these matters, once coming out of Brussels back to UK, will come straight to the UK Government, where they cover devolved matters? And if so, how do you propose, bilaterally or quadrilaterally, to move forward on framework arrangements that might address that across all four UK Governments and Parliaments?

And my final question relates to cost. The outcome seems to validate the concerns that were raised here in November, following your written statement, and then your oral statement, to the Assembly. The court seems to have upheld those concerns raised. We know that the public cost has been announced at something around £85,000, but we understand that there have been a number of visits to London, and, obviously, not only involving yourself and Welsh Government officials, but external legal advisers. So, could you provide the Assembly with a figure for the total cost of this failure to secure Supreme Court endorsement for your view that this Assembly should have a veto?