I thank the Member for that supplementary question. She is right, of course, to point out that the Court of Session in Scotland concluded that, whatever the reasons the Prime Minister gave publicly for seeking the prorogation, the actual reason was to stymie, as they put it, Parliament's consideration, which they concluded to be constitutionally unacceptable and unlawful. She is right to say that, for both the High Court and the Court of Session in Scotland, the question of justiciability was at the heart of their considerations. The submissions made on my behalf in the Supreme Court will say that the divisional court—the High Court—was incorrect in its conclusion, and that the Court of Session was correct, in the way that both courts approach the question of justiciability, i.e. that Executive action shouldn't be undertaken other than in accordance with public law standards, and, where political subject matter is a basis for judicial restraint, it isn't a basis for Executive immunity, and those are some of the submissions that will be made on my behalf in the Supreme Court later this week.

On the question of the conclusions of the Supreme Court, I will say clearly now that this Government will abide by whatever the Supreme Court concludes, as would any Government worthy of that name, and I hope that the evasion that the Prime Minister has shown on that question, on reflection, he will realise is inappropriate, and that he will act in accordance with the outcome of the Supreme Court's judgment, as soon as it's given.