COMMONS Speaker JOHN Bercow is to consider contempt of Parliament accusations against the UK Government if it does not release dozens of papers soon outlining the economic impact of Brexit.

SNP Commons leader Pete Wishart confirmed he has written to the Speaker to formally make an allegation of contempt for “refusing to fully comply with a binding vote” of the House.

Bercow said he has yet to read the letter, adding he will study it “most carefully”.

MPs last week approved a parliamentary motion which pushed the Government to release its analysis on 58 sectors of the economy to the Exiting the EU Select Committee.

Brexit minister Steve Baker earlier said the Government expected to publish analysis of the economic impact of Brexit within three weeks. But Conservative MP Anna Soubry said the information should be released “properly and quickly” and described the response a “gross contempt” of Parliament.

Raising a point of order, Wishart told the Speaker: “The Government has been mandated on a binding vote of this House to deliver analysis papers to the Brexit select committee as directed in the motion.

“They have to, as the motion clearly intends, do so without qualification, redaction or equivocation.

“There’s also an expectation the Government complies with the will of the House as a matter of urgency.”

Wishart criticised Baker’s response to the urgent question, adding of the three-week timescale: “Speaker, you have said a failure to comply fully would mean the Government could be in contempt of this House.

“I have now written to you regarding a privilege complaint that this Government has held this House in contempt for refusing to fully comply with a binding vote of this House.”

Bercow, in reply, said: “I will consider his letter carefully and when I have formed a view about it and any allegation it contains I will revert in all probability not only to (Wishart) but, as necessary, to the House.”

Contempt of privilege is a term used to describe any act, or failure to act, that may prevent or hinder the work of either House of Parliament. Examples of contempt include giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee, threatening an MP, forging documents or attempting to bribe members.

The parliamentary rulebook, known as Erskine May after its 19th-century author, says actions that obstruct or impede the Commons “in the performance of its functions, or are offences against its authority or dignity, such as disobedience to its legitimate commands” be can viewed as contempt.

MPs held in contempt can be asked to apologise, suspended or even expelled by their fellows. Offenders can also theoretically be confined to a room in the Big Ben clock tower, although this power has not been used since 1880.

Meanwhile, at Holyrood yesterday David Mundell said civil servants are examining the need for common UK-wide frameworks for devolved powers returning from the EU in justice, agriculture and public health.

The Scottish Secretary said officials are looking at these areas regarding dealing with powers returning from Brussels as he was warned the failure to change aspects of the Brexit repeal bill on moving devolved powers from the EU to Westminster risks sparking a “constitutional crisis” in Scotland.

The Scottish and Welsh governments have said they will not recommend giving consent to the legislation in its current form as clause 11 of the proposed law would result in EU responsibilities in devolved areas initially being transferred to Westminster, and have described it a “power grab”.

The UK Government claims the repeal bill, which will transpose EU law into British law, will give more powers to the devolved administrations but common frameworks will be needed in some areas. Mundell told Holyrood’s Finance and Constitution Committee he believes there is a “way through” the stalemate.

Committee convener Bruce Crawford said: “The ball is patently in the court of the UK Government and has been for some time to lay out what it sees as an acceptable way forward.” He added: “Do you recognise that if clause 11 remains as it is currently drafted you are potentially creating a constitutional crisis if we cannot get this resolved?” Questioned if this would happen before the end of the year when the committee is due to submit a recommendation on a legislative consent motion to the Scottish Parliament, Mundell said he “couldn’t give that undertaking” but was hopeful of “significant progress”.