If I may say so, I have sympathy with the point that is being put across—that the way in which the Bill is drafted seems to be excessively stark and to fail to take account of the sensitivities of the devolution settlements. However, I am afraid I cannot join the right hon. Gentleman on the rhetoric, because, ultimately, as a United Kingdom, which is what we are, there has to be flexibility in reaching a sensible way forward in the light of a change in circumstance. If I may gently say so to him, because I participated actively in the debates on the devolution legislation of 1997, it was always acknowledged then that devolution was not just a one-way street; for it to work, we required that flexibility of dialogue between Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast and London to reach solutions and not just to get anchored on principles. While I am respectful of the point he is trying to make, I suggest to him that that might be a sensible way forward.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 4 December 2017.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
632 c724 Session
2017-19Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2020-04-14 14:12:05 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-12-04/17120416000050
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-12-04/17120416000050
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2017-12-04/17120416000050