Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Arkless Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

The other three issues were not determined because they did not need to be, as other aspects of the case were decided as they were. But I am afraid the position is very clear: in relation to the arguments being made, particularly by the devolved Administrations, that there should be the capacity for those Administrations to veto the process of leaving the European Union, the court simply did not agree and rejected those arguments unanimously.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

On the subject of the cost to the public purse, I hope, rather than a rerun of all the arguments, which would be very tedious.

[Richard Arkless]

I think the whole House would like to know that we got value for money in that judgment, and of course there are lots of rights and obligations in many Acts of Parliament and it is the courts’ job to interpret them. Can the Attorney General explain why the Supreme Court held that the Sewel provisions in an Act of Parliament were not a matter for the courts?

[The Attorney General]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will read the judgment carefully: it says that whereas the Sewel convention might be important politically, it is not a matter for the courts to enforce. That was perfectly properly for the Supreme Court to say. What respect the Sewel convention is given in political terms is of course not a matter for the court. The judgment made that clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

1. If he will bring forward a motion to disapply Standing Orders No. 83J to 83X from proceedings on the Government’s planned Great Repeal Bill.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

2. If he will bring forward a motion to disapply Standing Orders No. 83J to 83X from proceedings on the Government’s planned Great Repeal Bill.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

3. If he will bring forward a motion to disapply Standing Orders No. 83J to 83X from proceedings on the Government's planned Great Repeal Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lidington]

Yes, of course. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman himself acknowledges, the so-called EVEL provisions under our Standing Orders do not bar any Member of the House of Commons, from any part of the United Kingdom, from taking part in votes on the different Readings of any Bill and on amendments to any Bill.

[Richard Arkless]

Given that we cannot categorically rule out EVEL and that the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that a legislative consent motion will be required for the great repeal Bill, what exactly is the Government’s position?

[Mr Lidington]

The Standing Orders of the House apply in the usual way. If any Bill, any clause of a Bill or any amendment to a Bill affects only England, but covers matters that, in Scotland, are devolved, it must, in addition to commanding a majority among Members of the House as a whole, command a majority among those Members representing English constituencies.