Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martyn Day and Geoffrey Cox

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Martyn Day and Geoffrey Cox

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

It would be unwise for me to think that any Act of Parliament could not benefit from review and subsequent improvement as time goes on, but I can assure the hon. Lady that this Government—and, I am sure, successive Governments—will be wedded to both the rule of law and human rights in this country.

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

4. What implications the decision by the European Court of Justice on the revocability of article 50 has for his legal advice to the Government.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

9. What implications the decision by the European Court of Justice on the revocability of article 50 has for his legal advice to the Government.

[The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)]

The decision of the European Court of Justice clarifies a question of EU law, and it does not in any way change the Government’s policy. The Government’s firm and long-standing policy is that we will not revoke the article 50 notice. The position has not changed and, as is well known, the case will now revert to the Scottish courts for the final decision.

[Martyn Day]

Will the Attorney General take this opportunity to confirm that he advised the Prime Minister that the ECJ’s ruling means that voting against her deal does not automatically mean a no-deal Brexit, and that revoking the article 50 notice and remaining in the EU under current terms and conditions is a third option?

[The Attorney General]

The Government’s policy is that we do not intend to revoke article 50. We intend to leave the European Union on 29 March, and the fact or otherwise of the irrevocability of article 50 is wholly irrelevant to that question. The truth, however, is that the giving of notice under article 50 would not just be an easy matter of pressing a button and the revocation taking effect.