All 1 Debates between Allan Dorans and Victoria Prentis

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Allan Dorans and Victoria Prentis
Wednesday 7th December 2022

(1 year, 11 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Allan Dorans Portrait Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
- Hansard - -

7. Whether she has made an assessment of the implications for her policies of the findings of the Supreme Court on the reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under paragraph 34 of schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998.

Victoria Prentis Portrait The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Opposition Front Bench and the Chairman of the Justice Committee for their extremely kind comments. I welcome the ruling of the Supreme Court. The Court was very clear—it was a unanimous decision—that a Bill legislating for a referendum on Scottish independence is not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

Victoria Prentis Portrait The Attorney General
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

The UK Supreme Court was very clear that an independence referendum was related to reserved matters, and the Government welcome the Court’s confirmation of this point. What the people of Scotland want is to see the Government working with them to solve the issues that matter to them.

Allan Dorans Portrait Allan Dorans
- View Speech - Hansard - -

Following the recent Supreme Court judgment, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been asked on numerous occasions what is the democratic route available to Scotland to leave the Union. Neither has been able to provide an answer. If the people of England wanted to leave this alleged voluntary Union of equals, what democratic process would be available to them?

Victoria Prentis Portrait The Attorney General
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

I believe that I have answered this question already, and I have heard the Prime Minister answer it several times in the course of Prime Minister’s questions. The Supreme Court rejected the Lord Advocate’s submission that an advisory referendum would have only an indirect and consequential effect on the reserved matter. This matter is reserved.