Oral Answers to Questions

Geoffrey Cox Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

1. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the implementation of the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019.

[The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)]

I cannot, as the hon. Lady will know, comment on the content of Cabinet discussions, but she will understand that I regularly meet ministerial colleagues to discuss important issues of common interest. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the detail of those discussions, and I am bound by the convention that neither the fact nor content of Law Officers’ advice is disclosed outside of the Government. I make it clear to the hon. Lady that the Government will obey the law, the Prime Minister is subject to the law, and this Government will comply with it.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Notwithstanding all that, I am going to ask the Attorney General a nice yes-no question. The Act requires the Prime Minister to ask for an extension unless Parliament has agreed a withdrawal agreement or agreed to leave without one, so will the Attorney General confirm that, if Parliament has not done either of those things, the Prime Minister would be acting unlawfully if he nevertheless took us out of the EU on 31 October? Yes or no?

[The Attorney General]

What I can confirm to the hon. Lady is that the Government will obey the law.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

If Parliament agrees a deal, does that satisfy what is known as the Benn amendment?

[Mr Bone]

Sorry—the Benn Act.

[The Attorney General]

If Parliament agrees a deal, having had one brought before this House, that fulfils one of the conditions that means that no extension has to be sought.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Hypothetically speaking, if the Government were seen to be breaking the law, who would arrest the Prime Minister? Would it be the Met?

[The Attorney General]

I do not think it is for me to comment on ridiculous speculations and hypotheticals of that kind, but it is good to see the hon. Gentleman looking calmer this morning.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will the Attorney General confirm that the Government can both comply with the law and leave the EU without a deal on 31 October?

[The Attorney General]

Yes.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

When asked, the Attorney General said that his Government would be adhering to the Benn Act. A day later, when asked by me and others the Prime Minister prevaricated until the end. But when he was asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) whether he would comply with the law, the Prime Minister’s answer was a simple and quite astonishing no. Given the Attorney General’s previous answers this morning, will he confirm whether the Prime Minister was wrong?

[The Attorney General]

I have not seen the response to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I can certainly confirm that the Government will comply with the law. I am not convinced that the Prime Minister said anything contrary to that; I would have to look at Hansard.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I have the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 in front of me, so perhaps the Attorney General can confirm his interpretation of it. The Act is clear that, if this House has not approved a deal or if it has not approved leaving with no deal, the Prime Minister

“must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension”

in the terms set out in the Act. Will the Attorney General confirm that that is what this Act of Parliament requires?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman has read it out, and he does not need any confirmation from me. He is a superbly competent lawyer—[Interruption.] So I am told by others on his side of the House. The reality is that the Government will comply with the law.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am afraid that confirmation is required from the Attorney General. Let me explain why. We keep being told that the Government will comply with the law, yet the Prime Minister goes around saying that he would rather be dead in a ditch than apply for the extension that he is required to seek under the Act. Does the Attorney General not realise that the Government’s ambiguous position towards the rule of law is damaging our justice system, our society and our international standing? Why does the Attorney General just stand by and let that happen?

[The Attorney General]

Because I am quite convinced and completely satisfied that this Government will obey the law.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the implications for Government policy of the Supreme Court judgment of 24 September 2019 on the Prorogation of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the implications for Government policy of the Supreme Court judgment of 24 September 2019 on the Prorogation of Parliament.

[The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)]

I cannot comment on the content of Cabinet discussions but, as I told the House last week, the judgment sets out the definitive and final legal position on the advice given to Her Majesty on the Prorogation of Parliament. We are carefully and deliberatively considering the implications of that judgment. We need some time to do it, but a Queen’s Speech is necessary to bring forward a fresh legislative programme, and a short Prorogation, as announced yesterday, is necessary—we are advised to this effect by the parliamentary authorities—for the Queen’s Speech.

[Rachael Maskell]

In the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment and the vital role it identified for this House of scrutinising the Executive, what discussions is the Attorney General having with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that we have sufficient time to discuss the proposals the Prime Minister is due to bring forward? How much time will we actually have to debate them?

[The Attorney General]

I know that those matters are being actively considered. I am sure they will be considered in consultation and through the usual channels. As much time as conceivably can be made available will be made available to debate those very important matters. The Prime Minister is making a statement later this morning, and the Government are more than conscious—acutely conscious—of the need for all Members of this House to scrutinise any deal that may be agreed.

[Jo Stevens]

Eight days ago, the Attorney General told the House, in response to a question from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), that he would consider disclosure of his legal advice on the unlawful Prorogation of Parliament. Can he now confirm that he will do the right thing and release his advice before Parliament is prorogued next week?

[The Attorney General]

I have been considering that question. I am still considering it. I have not reached a conclusion. When I have, I will make sure the hon. Lady is informed.

[Ian C. Lucas]

If the Attorney General believes in the law, can he confirm that he has discussed with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the electoral offences committed by Vote Leave?

[The Attorney General]

May I tell the hon. Gentleman that I do believe in the law and I have spent 37 years of my life adhering to those professional values? As for the advice I may or may not have given to any member of the Government, he will know I am bound by the convention. I cannot tell him whether I have. I understand the purport of his question, and I do not criticise him for it in the least, but I regret that I cannot help him as to the content of any advice I have given.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I urge the Attorney General to reflect that departing from the norm that Law Officers’ advice is not disclosed should be undertaken only with great care, because of the implications for all future Law Officers and all future advice to Government. Is not the rub of this issue simply this: that, as the President of the Supreme Court said, the circumstances that gave rise to the judgment were a “one off”; the Court was asked to rule on a novel point on which, up until then, legal opinion had varied; it has made a ruling; and the Government accept and will abide by the ruling, as they should with any ruling of our independent courts?

[The Attorney General]

I completely agree with both parts of my hon. Friend’s question. Plainly, the Law Officers’ convention is not a question of personal ownership by any particular Attorney General. It is a long-standing convention that protects all Governments on often extremely sensitive, complex and difficult subjects, sometimes affecting the most important interests of this country. Of course I agree that the Supreme Court’s judgment must be respected. It is final and binding as a matter of law, but it is peculiar to its circumstances.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Our courts are scrupulously impartial and independent. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court judgment, some unwise voices have suggested that we ought to move to some sort of US-style process of appointment. Does the Attorney General agree that that would be extremely unwise, and will he confirm that there is no prospect of Her Majesty’s Government proceeding down that route?

[The Attorney General]

My hon. Friend, as ever, from a background of practice in the law, feels, as I do, that those kinds of hearings—certainly US-style hearings—would be a regrettable step for us in our constitutional arrangements. The Government have no current plans to do so, but it is fair to say that the implications of the judgment and the continuing development of our constitutional arrangements will no doubt receive, properly, the intense scrutiny of this House.

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

4. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on the judicial appointments process.

[The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)]

The priorities of my office are set out in the published business plan for this year, but on the UK’s withdrawal—I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, I am answering the wrong question. I also beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon—[Interruption.] Nobody noticed probably, the answers being the same. I can only plead that I am getting your cold, Mr Speaker, and was up far too late this morning.

Again, I am not going to comment in detail on the content of Cabinet discussions, but the Supreme Court judgment undoubtedly represents a significant development in our constitutional arrangements. As I said the other day, it is important to take stock of the implications of that judgment not in the immediate aftermath of a ruling, but deliberately, carefully and thoughtfully. We should not jump to hasty conclusions. The UK’s exit from the EU will have profound ramifications for our constitutional arrangements. As I have said many times, I think that requires a coherent, careful examination, possibly through some formal channel, of the means by which we are to be governed after we leave the European Union. I am not enthusiastic about the prospect of parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments and, as I said in answer to an earlier question, the Government have no current plans to introduce such an appointment system.

[Mr Speaker]

I am glad that the Attorney General eventually reached the matter of judicial appointments. That was very reassuring, not least for the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day).

[Martyn Day]

I am grateful for the Attorney General’s answer, and I heard his response to the previous question, but can he categorically rule out any changes that could result in a political appointment system, as I think that is an important point?

[The Attorney General]

The Government have no plans to introduce any such appointment system. The only thing I would say is that this House must have the right to determine the constitutional arrangements of this country, and of course parts of that will have to reflect on the role of the Supreme Court and its constitutional functions. But I agree with him that a US-style appointment system would be a wholly retrograde step.

[Sir David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Con)]

Having had responsibility for a time for judicial appointments, including approving those of the current Lord Chief Justice and the current President of the Supreme Court, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to endorse the fact that the track record of the Judicial Appointments Commission shows that it makes its recommendations, having looked at the available candidates, with the utmost thoroughness, scruple and genuine independence? We as a House and a country would cast aside that independence, and instead make the appointment of judges the plaything of a temporary party majority in this House, at our peril.

[The Attorney General]

I could not have put it better than that. I agree with every word that my right hon. Friend said. As I have had cause to say in the House only recently, we have one of the finest judiciaries in the world. Throughout the world, they are beacons of impartiality and independence, and the House should do all it can to promote, protect, and preserve those values. I agree that a US-style process of appointment would not be in the interests of this country and I do not think I can improve on the way he put it.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal on the priorities for his office.

[The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)]

The priorities of my office are set out in the published business plan for this year. The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union exercises the interest of my office in supporting the successful delivery of the Government’s objectives. We give legal and constitutional advice within the Government and throughout the Departments. Of course I am engaged in supporting preparations for future international co-operation between Law Officers’ departments and prosecution and other criminal justice organisations.

[Hannah Bardell]

It would be good to hear the Attorney General recognise the damage that a no-deal Brexit would create and the severe disruption that we know it would create across all Departments, instead of the language that we heard from him last week in the Chamber, when he said that this was “a dead Parliament” and that MPs had “no moral right” to be here. Will he apologise for those comments?

[The Attorney General]

Certainly not. I stand by every one of them. When this Parliament assumes its responsibilities to pass a withdrawal agreement, then I might reconsider them, but certainly not at the moment. We may soon have a chance to assume those responsibilities if we can get a deal from the European Union. I hope then to see the hon. Lady vote for it.

[Mr Speaker]

Some of us, however, will stand up for Parliament at all times. I completely respect the right of the Attorney General to his view. This Parliament is entirely legitimate. It is doing its work, it should be expected to do so and no amount of cheap abuse, calumny and vituperation directed at this Parliament will stop it doing its job. That is the way it is, that is the way it will continue to be, that is the way it has to be.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May I ask about extradition? Obviously we in this country rely on being able to extradite people from other countries in Europe to face justice in this country. We have relied on the European arrest warrant but, as I understand it, four or five countries in the European Union have now stated categorically that, if there is no deal, they will not extradite to the UK. How will we make sure that we get people to face justice in this country?

[The Attorney General]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right; there are some countries that will not extradite their own citizens. In those cases it is a case of bilateral discussion with them. There is the existing Extradition Act 2003, but if they will not extradite citizens, there is of course the option of trying them in that country. That is generally the option that those countries offer in connection with their own citizens.

[Chris Bryant]

Russia.

[The Attorney General]

Exactly, and that presents considerable difficulty, as the hon. Gentleman points out. However, we will be having bilateral discussions with those countries to seek to agree specific arrangements with them.