DAVID Davis is expected to publish the UK Government’s Article 50 Bill tomorrow, just 48 hours after the landmark ruling by the UK Supreme Court.

The Brexit Secretary told the Commons that he would introduce the "most straightforward Bill" to give effect to the "decision of the people" and respect the court's judgement. The first debate, the bill’s second reading, could take place next week as the Government seeks to speed the legislation through Westminster to ensure it can trigger Article 50 by the end of March.

With Theresa May sitting beside him, Mr Davis told MPs: "The purpose of this Bill is simply to give the Government the power to invoke Article 50 and begin the process of leaving the European Union. That's what the British people voted for and it's what they would expect. Parliament will rightly scrutinise and debate this legislation."

Read more: Battle lines drawn over Brexit as Nicola Sturgeon says Scotland ignored

But he then warned: "I trust no-one will seek to make it a vehicle for attempts to thwart the will of the people or frustrate or delay the process of exiting the European Union."

In response, Sir Keir Starmer, the Shadow Brexit Secretary, slammed the UK Government's court appeal as a "waste of time and money" as he also accused Theresa May of trying to "sideline" the UK Parliament in the run-up to the UK's divorce with Brussels.

He accused the Prime Minister of pursuing a “high risk” strategy, saying there were “big gaps, inconsistencies and unanswered questions” in her approach.

"If the Prime Minister fails in her endeavour the cost will be borne by families, working people and communities throughout the UK. The stakes are high and the role of this House in holding the Prime Minister and the Government to account throughout the process is crucial," declared Sir Keir.

Read more: Battle lines drawn over Brexit as Nicola Sturgeon says Scotland ignored

Stephen Gethins for the SNP questioned why the Government feared scrutiny. “Is it because we will find out that the emperor in these circumstances has no clothes?” he asked.

The Fife MP, noting how the judges’ ruling suggested the Brexit process should enhance devolution, asked: “If that is the case, will the Secretary of State tell us today that no powers will be returned from the Scottish Parliament to Westminster during the course of this process and will he seek consent from the Scottish Parliament before legislating in areas over which it has responsibility?”

Describing himself as a “devolutionist,” Mr Davis made clear no powers already devolved would be returned to Westminster.

“But there will be powers coming from the European Union and we will have to decide where they most properly land; whether that is Westminster, Holyrood or wherever. The real issue there is the practical interests of all the nations of the United Kingdom; for example, preserving the single market of the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom’s ability to do international deals.

“There is a series of matters that are just as important to the ordinary Scot as they are to the ordinary English, Welsh or Northern Irish citizen, and that is what we will protect,” he declared.

Read more: Battle lines drawn over Brexit as Nicola Sturgeon says Scotland ignored

Sylvia Hermon, the Independent MP for North Down, pointing out how the court had ruled the devolved legislatures did not have legislative competence in relation to Brexit, argued it followed that the controversial English Votes for English Laws[Evel] should not apply to the repeal bill.

“Evel as a procedure is deeply divisive in this House and it is demeaning to Members who represent Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Given that the Secretary of State has said, and I believe him, that every effort will be made by this Government to hold together the United Kingdom, it would be helpful if the Brexit Secretary clearly ruled out the use of Evel on the Great Repeal Bill.”

Mr Davis said he could not off the top of his head think of a circumstance in which Evel would apply but accepted it might do so. But he pointed out that the application of Evel rested not on a decision by him but on a ruling by the Commons Speaker.