I thank the Member for the questions. Can I first start by actually saying what were the two key points that were the subject of our detailed submission to the Supreme Court? Why did we actually intervene? One was the fundamental importance of this major constitutional change taking place in Parliament, guaranteeing parliamentary sovereignty not being taken by use of a royal prerogative. We need to understand what that royal prerogative is. The royal prerogative is those powers that kings and queens used to have to basically do whatever they wanted, until, effectively, Parliament and development of parliamentary democracy put constraints on it and we started to develop our democratic system. So, it was fundamental that any change that took place to the legislative status, the devolved status, of Wales and the other devolved administrations had to be within the auspices of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. That's why it was fundamental that that issue was before the court.

And the Supreme Court regarded this as fundamentally important as well. This is the most important constitutional decision for over 300 years. That is why every single lord justice was actually present, and the actual outcome, the 8:3, is an endorsement of the strength of that argument. Had any football team won 8-3, I think we would say that is a magnanimous victory, and I think this was a magnanimous victory—a victory for democracy and parliamentary sovereignty.

Where does Sewel come in? Our argument on Sewel is that we have never argued for a veto. It was never part of our case, and I’ve said that in this Chamber on a number of occasions. The importance of Sewel is that Sewel is a parliamentary process, and Sewel could not kick in, could not become effective, unless these key decisions were being taken under the auspices of Parliament and parliamentary sovereignty. So, it was the matter of our fundamental democracy that if we were to have a voice in these fundamental issues, we had to succeed with this decision, and I'm delighted that we have succeeded.

On the issue of what happens to those powers that are in Brussels at the moment, well, it is very clear to me that that will become the subject of a further piece of legislation in due course, which will also require the engagement of Sewel, which will almost certainly require the engagement of this Assembly and a vote in this Assembly, and, as has been said on numerous occasions, those areas that come within the devolved areas of responsibility clearly should come to this Assembly—to the Welsh Government and to the Welsh Assembly.

With regard to the cost, could I say I have every sympathy with what the Member says about cost? I didn't want to be in the Supreme Court. I don't think many of us wanted to be there, with all the costs that were incurred, but I have to say that reason we were there—