Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I do not really feel that there is anything terribly useful I can say at this stage—I have heard all this before. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who speaks for the Opposition, is simply repeating what he has said before. Not only that; it is perfectly apparent that these amendments are just wrecking amendments, and the hon. Gentleman has not even addressed the arguments about international law. He knows perfectly well—because he cannot answer my questions on this issue—that we have a dualist system, and if we decide to legislate in our own Parliament, the courts themselves will implement that legislation.

The real point is this: let us get this Bill done, and let us get the House of Lords to calm down a bit. At the same time, let us wait for what is inevitably going to be another claim and then see the judgment of the Supreme Court on the wording of this Bill, provided that it is clear and unambiguous. That is all I need to say. I may come back again, however, if the Lords insist again on these ridiculous amendments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

Migration and Economic Development Partnership

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

That concludes proceedings on the statement from the Home Secretary. I thank everybody for taking part.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I strongly support what the Home Secretary has been saying, but I am concerned with ensuring that, in the ping-pong that will ensue when the Illegal Migration Bill returns from the House of Lords—that should be quite soon, we hope—we will not in any way be inhibited by the fact that judicial proceedings are taking place. It will be a really quite important debate, and we need to be able to conduct it with as much latitude as possible, so I seek your guidance. Perhaps I could ask you to give that some thought, if I may.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is a point of order, which is a good start—points of order are not usually points of order—and I can assure him that sub judice rules do not apply while legislation is being considered. While the actual process of legislating is under way, sub judice rules do not apply, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry on that ground.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it possible, as I believe it is, for a Bill of the importance of the Relationships and Sex Education (Transparency) Bill to be printed after it has been drafted by the Public Bill Office? That sometimes happens. As it is such an important Bill, I thought I would draw the House’s attention to that fact.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It might come as a surprise to any casual observers of our proceedings that a Bill, when formally presented, as the Bill has just been, might not be printed. There is probably a general assumption that, when a Bill is presented, it will be printed. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that not all Bills that are formally presented are in fact printed, so I say to him that I will look into the matter.

Point of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today’s Order Paper specifically stated that the Committee of Privileges’ report relating to the opinion of Lord Pannick QC in relation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) would be published this morning at 11 am. Mysteriously, that is no longer on the Order Paper. It appears that the report will now not be available until after the House has risen tomorrow. That would mean that there will be no opportunity for Members to raise questions in the House on these serious matters, including the resolution of the House of 19 March 1997, until 11 October.

Given the precedent for Chairs of Select Committees to answer questions on the publication of reports, would it not be in order, and necessary, for the Chair of the Privileges Committee to tell the House what is in the report and that it will be available tomorrow, in good time, before the House rises for the recess?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure the whole House understands his concern and may well share it. As far as the Order Paper is concerned, I am reliably informed that there is in fact an error and that there was not an expectation of the report being published at 11 am today. I am also reliably informed that the report will be published in due course. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has made further points and stated his opinion on the matter, but he will understand that that aspect is not one for the Chair. I am sure that the report will be published in due course.

Bills Presented

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Suella Braverman, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Brandon Lewis, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Mr. Secretary Rees-Mogg, Graham Stuart, the Attorney General, Andrew Griffith and Tom Tugendhat, presented a Bill to make provision about economic crime and corporate transparency; to make further provision about companies, limited partnerships and other kinds of corporate entity; and to make provision about the registration of overseas entities.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 154), with explanatory notes (Bill 154-EN).

Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Chris Philp and Richard Fuller, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the repeal of the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 155), with explanatory notes (Bill 155-EN).

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr. Secretary Rees-Mogg, supported by the Prime Minister, Nadhim Zahawi, Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Robert Buckland and the Attorney General, presented a Bill to revoke certain retained EU law; to make provision relating to the interpretation of retained EU law and to its relationship with other law; to make provision relating to powers to modify retained EU law; to enable the restatement, replacement or updating of certain retained EU law; to enable the updating of restatements and replacement provision; to abolish the business impact target; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 156), with explanatory notes (Bill 156-EN).

Point of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to put on record my congratulations to the Government on bringing in the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which of course was not a point of order for the Chair. I assure him that he will have an opportunity to speak to the issue that he raises when the Bill has its Second Reading in the House.

Sir Richard Shepherd

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

No one has yet mentioned Richard Shepherd’s passionate defence of the rights of this place and the Members of this place. I well remember, before the days when we had automatic timetable motions—new Members will not be able to imagine that there could have been such days, when we did not have timetable motions and the Government had to introduce a so-called guillotine motion if they wanted to curtail the debate on any Bill or, indeed, any matter—that Richard Shepherd used to sit there, on the second Bench below the Gangway, and oppose and speak against and vote against and force a vote upon every single guillotine motion that the Government brought in. That had quite an effect. It was hard to believe then that he was in fact such a charming, passionate gentleman.

[Sir William Cash]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. He also sought to be Speaker, and he received 136 votes in that contest. Heaven alone knows what would have happened if he had managed to win it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that the answer to that point of order is that we would have been sitting all night, every night.

Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash]

I have nothing further to say, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Once again, I will repeat from the Chair what Mr Speaker has said on many occasions: it is indeed the duty of every Minister to respond to letters and questions from Members of this House. I know that, as constituency MPs, we are all finding it very difficult to get responses to our inquiries on behalf of our constituents within a reasonable time. It is noted that the Home Office is possibly not giving the Home Secretary and her Ministers the support that they need at a time such as this to answer our inquiries on time. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this point of order and I merely repeat what Mr Speaker has said many times, but I do hope that not only Ministers but those who are employed and trusted to support Ministers would please pay attention to this situation.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like some guidance on the question of the content of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which we are about to discuss, relating to the question of taxation and, on the basis of a statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the removal of the clauses—the “notwithstanding” clauses—that would otherwise have appeared. They remain part of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, from which they have not been removed. I am putting down amendments to reinsert the “notwithstanding” clauses on Report, and I would be grateful if, first, you could note that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, secondly, you could provide some guidance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Is it about the timing by which he can submit amendments for Report? Obviously, the amendments for the Committee stage are already submitted and we will very soon be debating them. We will come to Report tomorrow. Is he asking me by what time he can submit amendments for tomorrow?

[Sir William Cash]

I am most grateful to you for the way you put that, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I want to be clear that I am going to do it, and, secondly, I would like to know by what time I need to put my amendments down. With all this virtual stuff, it is quite difficult to know.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is indeed difficult to know. I decided yesterday to have the deadline today at 12 o’clock. I am not quite certain exactly at this moment what the deadline will be for tomorrow, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am asking the Clerk to note and to pass on to the appropriate offices that he wishes to submit amendments. Thank you.

There was to be another point of order, but the hon. Gentleman concerned has left the Chamber.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will now have a time limit of five minutes.

[Sir William Cash]

When I read the account of proceedings in the House of Lords, I found that the Lords were very strong on assertion, but empty when it came to the question of argument. I found that rather disturbing, because, after all, they have potential power under the Parliament Acts. I also appreciate that, towards the end of the proceedings, in reference to the powers in part 5 of the Bill, and the clauses under discussion regarding “notwithstanding”, Lord Judge said:

“‘We may need these powers at some stage’. Maybe we will; I hope not.”

He then said that it would be

“open to the Government to come back to us, to Parliament, to put before us emergency legislation.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1431.]

The circumstances that we face could not be more important and relevant, and my view is that what he said effectively conceded the principle.

EU-UK Partnership: EU’s Mandate

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

To answer the second point first, I am, of course, very conscious of what is going on in the negotiations. I hear what has been said repeatedly by the Government with respect to maintaining and protecting our vital national interests, and I believe that that will be the outcome—namely, we will ensure that we are not made subject to EU state aid in the way in which we have experienced it in the past. I have made the case. I can say more about it, but I do not need to for the moment.

With respect to the question of arbitration, it refers back in a funny way to my reference to John Bright, who was one of the initiators of the notion of international arbitration in the Alabama case. I will simply say this. I believe that the European Court’s jurisdiction cannot be allowed, but I go further: I think that some form of arbitration may be necessary, but not, under any circumstances, including our being subjugated to the rules and jurisdiction of the European Court.

I will now move on. For our report, my Committee consulted with 24 Select Committees, and we are immensely grateful to all of them for their contributions. The Prime Minister, in a written statement, followed by a Command Paper in February, made it clear—in line with Acts of Parliament that had already been passed, not to mention the outcome of the general election—that there would be no rule for the European Court of Justice, nor any alignment of our laws with the EU, and nor would any of the European institutions, including the Court, have any jurisdiction in the UK. Those statements and policies are entirely consistent with the democratic will of the British people. We asked the Government to publish their draft legal text, and I am glad to say that that has been done.

The timing of this debate is crucial because the Prime Minister will engage in a high-level meeting towards the end of this month. I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the exact date when that will take place, the agenda that will be before the meeting and who will attend on behalf of the EU and the EU27. This, in turn, is crucial, because Germany takes over the presidency on 1 July and there is all the sensitive history associated with Germany’s engagement with the EU, which I have debated and written about since April 1990, and have discussed face-to-face with many of its leading politicians, including Helmut Schmidt and others. My approach has been demonstrably justified by events. For example, the coronavirus package would move the EU towards greater EU fiscal and political integration, which the Germans would influence much more heavily than even they do today. Their slogan for the presidency is:

“Together. Making Europe Strong Again”

I simply add that we were not a minute too soon in leaving the EU.

The Government, in their Command Paper, say that by the end of June there is the opportunity for the

“outline of an agreement…capable of being rapidly finalised by September. If that does not seem to be the case...the Government will need to decide whether the UK’s attention should move away from negotiations and focus solely on…preparations to exit the transition period in an orderly fashion.”

Recent correspondence between our chief negotiator, David Frost, and Michel Barnier indicates that there is no real progress in the negotiations, because the EU is invariably asking for the impossible and, as correctly indicated by David Frost, the EU is not offering a “fair free-trade relationship” but a

“low-quality trade agreement…with unprecedented…oversight of our laws and institutions..”

Our vital national interests, which derive from our democracy and self-government, which is what this debate is about, are paramount.

I was extremely glad to hear what the Leader of the House said at today’s business questions on the issue of the extension of the transitional period, because he used the hallowed words of the late Margaret Thatcher, “No, no, no.” I am delighted to hear similar sentiments expressed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this afternoon. Any extension of the transition period, through which Mr Michel Barnier is outrageously trying to seduce remainers, would simply prolong negotiations; as David Frost stated, it would create more uncertainty, leaving us paying far more to the EU and binding us to EU laws, when we have democratically and lawfully decided to leave the EU by our own sovereign decision and our own sovereign legislation.

As for the Labour amendment to this motion, it completely turns the purpose of the “good faith” and “best endeavours” in article 184 of the withdrawal agreement, which places an obligation on the EU to enshrine European sovereignty, on its head. The amendment would betray that and with it the democratic will of the British electorate. In conclusion, I urge the Government to review the Northern Ireland protocol, which raises concerns about EU law and European Court jurisdiction, and the status of Northern Ireland. I look to the Government to ensure that the whole UK leaves on our own terms, because our sovereignty and self-government is an absolute bulwark of our freedom and our democracy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I should warn the House that after the speech by the Scottish National party spokesperson there will be a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of four minutes; of course, that does not apply to Joanna Cherry.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 8, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Amendment 4, in page 1, line 12, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 34, leave out “two-thirds” and insert “nine-tenths”.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 37, leave out “two-thirds” and insert “nine-tenths”.

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 2, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Amendment 6, page 4, line 6, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Clause 3 and 4 to 10 stand part.

That schedules 1 and 2 be the First and Second schedules to the Bill.

New clause 1—Review of prison deradicalisation programme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme.

(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) may enter any prison premises in order to scrutinise the operation of the prison deradicalisation programme.

(3) The person appointed under subsection (1) must make a report to the Secretary of State on the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme before the end of the period of 6 months after the date on which this Act is passed.

(4) The person appointed must make further reports at intervals of not more than three months to the Secretary of State on the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme.

(5) The person appointed under subsection (1) may include in any review or report under this section consideration of the adequacy of resources made available to the prison deradicalisation programme, including resources made available for the supervision of probation and rehabilitation work.

(6) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must make arrangements to lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament as soon as the Secretary of State is satisfied that doing so will not prejudice any criminal proceedings.

(7) The Secretary of State may, out of money provided by Parliament, pay a person appointed under subsection (1), such expenses and allowances as the Secretary of State determines.”

This new clause would require the appointment of an independent reviewer of the prison deradicalisation programme.

New clause 3—Review—

(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for an independent review of the impact of sections 1 to 9 to be carried out in relation to the initial one-year period.

(2) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, appoint a person with professional experience relating to the imprisonment for offences of terrorism to conduct the review.

(3) The review must be completed as soon as practicable after the end of the initial one-year period.

(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review in relation to a particular period, the person must—

(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and

(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report sent under subsection (4)(b) within one month of receiving the report.

(6) The Secretary of State may—

(a) make such payments as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of the review, and

(b) make such other arrangements as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of the review (including arrangements for the provision of staff, other resources and facilities).

(7) In this section, “initial one-year period” means the period of one year beginning with the day when this Act comes into force.”

[Sir William Cash]

I have already canvassed some parts of what I am about to say, but there is more to say, for a very sound reason. Parliament is full of opinions and Ministers are full of opinions. Two Ministers are sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, no doubt debating the issue before the Committee, but their opinions are not the law, and nor are those of leading counsel, whether senior Treasury counsel or those involved in academic discussion. I say that really seriously. I have been practising the law since 1967 and I know a little about how the law is interpreted. We saw the Gina Miller case the other day. How many times were we told that there was absolutely no question but that the Government were right in their interpretation? I served as the shadow Attorney General and saw the whole of the Iraq and Peter Goldsmith exercise. We were told over and over again in the House this, that and the other about interpretation—“This is what will happen. This is the way it will go.” That is no way to make decisions on matters of this kind of critical importance.

There are occasions on which the question of interpretation may merely be about a modification of policy; this is actually about saving human life. I repeat that: saving human life. Where it is possible for the House to ensure that human life cannot be unreasonably and wilfully disposed of by people who are intent on murdering for no reason at all, we need to take seriously the question of whether or not we can exclude the courts —because this is Parliament, not the judiciary—from making wrong decisions when matters come before them.

I heard with interest the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and the various cases he mentioned, and I have just heard the Minister refer to the Uttley case. There is also the Hogben case, which was of course in 1985, before the Human Rights Act 1998. Reference was also made to the del Río Prada case. As a matter of fact, the legislation does not depend on an interpretation of those individual cases by way of precedent, and that is not what we should be worried about; we should be thinking about the purpose and scope of the Bill and its objective, which is to do everything that we can to ensure that human life and public safety come first. I do not want this to become an argument about the interpretation of law, which is why I tabled amendment 3 to clause 1.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong: House of Commons & Ping Pong
Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Very short contributions are required, as there are only 20 minutes left. For two minutes, Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I simply want to say that I concur entirely with what the Secretary of State has said, and to refer very briefly to Lords amendments 2, 3 and 5.

Let me say first that the Government’s arguments about the question of the lower courts in relation to the Supreme Court are completely valid. I think that an enormous number of complicated problems will emerge from Lord Mackay’s amendment. The use of expressions such as “is of the opinion” and

“set out the reasons for that opinion”

will create a quagmire of interpretation.

As for Lords amendment 5, when I had the pleasure of advising on the Canadian constitution back in about 1982, I engaged in extensive discussions with Mr Geoffrey Marshall of The Queen’s College, Oxford, who is the greatest authority on the question of conventions. I entirely agree with the Government’s position on that, in the light of my own experience of what conventions actually mean, and I have to say that I have heard a lot of hogwash this afternoon in support of the alternative view.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Christine Jardine.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I noticed the laughter from the Scots Nats at what my right hon. Friend said. In view of the very good sense that he was speaking, I invite the House to consider this. Is it not the case that under the withdrawal agreement, during the transition period, decisions will be taken by the Council of Ministers to impose obligations and laws on the United Kingdom without our even being there, without any transcript, without any Hansard and almost invariably by consensus? Is not the whole thing a massive racket, the object of which is to put us in a state of subjugation—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Sir William, thank you, but we are running out of time.

Loan Charge

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have in my hand the statutory instrument containing the regulations regarding the outcome of what I term the abject surrender that took place last night in Brussels. It was made at 3.15 pm today, and it was laid before Parliament at 4.15 pm—just three quarters of an hour ago. I raised some points earlier with the Speaker himself, which are on the record, and I just want to add to that by referring to the fact that we have a two-page explanatory memorandum for what is only about a six-line statutory instrument—for very good reason—and it includes, for example, reference to the commencement of section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I just draw that to the attention of the House, because it is really important. It is essential that the public should know that this has been done. There are serious question marks over the legality of this, and there is likely to be a challenge in the courts, leading to the Supreme Court, on this issue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The House knows how assiduous he has been in recent weeks—well, in recent decades—in making sure that the legality, the constitutional position, the propriety, the timing and so on of any matters that pass through this House are properly dealt with. I appreciate the points that he is making in relation to this statutory instrument, which has been laid this afternoon, but he knows, as the House knows, that it is not a matter on which I can give him an answer from the Chair. However, he has, in his usual eloquent way, drawn the matter to the attention of the House, of the Government and of the world in general. I thank him.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

My right hon. Friend says that I have made one serious point, but he is in serious trouble. Every time he gets up and starts interpreting his Bill, that is likely to be taken into account if there is any judicial review of any of the provisions, as enacted. As all Ministers ought to know—he is the Minister in charge of this day and the various other things that he seemed to have assumed—every time he opines on the question of interpretation, the interpretations that he is making in in a rather fulsome manner could be used as a means of interpreting what is meant by the Bill. He ought to be a little more cautious, but I have waited until this point to say so, because he has said quite enough to put himself in serious difficulty on that account.

Having said that, with regard to new clause 4, any motion brought forward under clause 1(1) in the form set out in clause 1(2) may be amended in line with clause 1(3) only to include a date. In a nutshell, new clause 4 would prevent further amendments to Standing Orders and so on.

Moving on to new clause 5, because I want to get my points on the record—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Just before the hon. Gentleman moves on to new clause 5, I know that he has a lot to say about the amendments and new clauses, which the House must hear, but I hope that he may do so in an expedited fashion. We do not have a lot of time left, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to hear what the Minister and others have to say.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

No. When Third Reading is likely to occur is not up to the Chair, but to the House. Based on how things are going at present, my estimate is that a Third Reading debate will not occur, because the Committee stage is likely to take up all the available time. However, that is entirely up to the House. If the people who still wish to speak do so for a short time, we will have a Third Reading debate. If they speak for a long time, we will not.

[Sir William Cash]

With respect to you, Dame Eleanor, the Bill’s stages have been truncated. You know what I am talking about. It has been rushed through. Not only is the Bill an abomination in its own right, but it is gravely unconstitutional and offends Standing Order No. 14 and so many other conventions, so I am not going to fail make the points that need to be made. I am so sorry, but I these points must be made. It is only 9.8 pm and we have until 10 o’clock, so although I have great respect for you, Dame Eleanor, I am going to make my points. Furthermore, they are matters that are germane to trying to sort out the rubbish that this Bill is generating for the British public. That is my point.

New clause 5 relates to the amendability of motions. Any motion brought forward under clause 1(1) in the form set out in clause 1(2) may be amended in line with clause 1(3) only to include a date no later than 22 May 2019. The new clause would prevent further amendments to the Standing Orders or to the business of the House of Commons and would impose a maximum duration on the extension period. Given what I said earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth about how this Bill would otherwise cost £90 billion, I think we would be doing a great service not just to the House, which is pretty chaotic these days, but to the taxpayer and our constituents by restricting the length of the extension period. If the extension went to five years, according to the potentiality of this Bill, it would cost £90 billion—that is just a statement of fact—which is a very good reason for voting against the Bill.

New clause 5 would place a maximum duration on the extension period, which would be an enormous step in the right direction. In fact, it would be a fundamentally vital provision in the context of this Bill.

New clause 7 deals with the question of European elections, another hot potato:

“No extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union may be agreed by the Prime Minister if as a result the United Kingdom would be required to prepare for or to hold elections to the European Parliament.”

I would have thought that many Members would be delighted to support this new clause. I am doing the Government’s job for them by seeking to impose a restriction. I see the Minister slightly nodding his head, which I think means he might quite like this amendment. The bottom line is that, yesterday, I heard the Prime Minister say that we would not want to have European elections.

European Affairs

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Thursday 15th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I think the Opposition spokesman is still dealing with the previous intervention, and he may in due course come to another intervention.

Points of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 13th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, immediately after the presentation of the Bill and its First Reading, the Second Reading will deal with the principle of the Bill, according to “Erskine May” and all the rules of the House? Will you also confirm, with respect to this particular Bill, that although some do not seem to have seen it yet, it is about leaving the European Union and repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and that anyone who votes against its Second Reading will be in breach of that principle?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, the Bill in question is about to be presented. When the Minister presents the Bill, it will then be there for all to see. Each Member can make their own consideration of what the Bill is about and how they would like to interpret it. If they wish to try to amend it, that is what Parliament is for. I am quite sure that we will have plenty of discussion about that in the forthcoming weeks and months.

Health and Social Care (Safety and Quality) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Friday 9th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

New clause 3—Care and Quality Commission annual State of Care Report—

‘(1) Section 83 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (health and adult social services: reports for each financial year etc.) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) insert—

“(2AA) The reports under subsection 1(b), (c), and (d) must, in particular, cover the safety of health and adult social care services in England.”’

[Sir William Cash]

Before I make my remarks on the proposals, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), my neighbour, with whom I have worked for the past five years with great enthusiasm, because he has dedicated himself to all matters in his constituency, but specifically to dealing with the problems that came out of the Mid Staffordshire public inquiry—I campaigned vigorously to get that public inquiry. I also pay tribute to Ken Lownds, whom I regard as a hero of that inquiry in many respects. I pay tribute to his work on zero harm and the Bill. I do not in any way want to leave the Minister out of the tributes because he has done a great job, as has the Secretary of State for Health. I wanted to put that on the record. We are reaching the climax of the Bill and this is the moment to pay tribute to those who so richly deserve it.

The object of new clause 2 is to amend section 46 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. The section deals with health and adult social care services reviews and performance assessments. It comes under the rubric of reviews and investigations under chapter 3 of the Act on health care standards.

Section 46, “Periodic reviews”, provides that:

“In respect of each Primary Care Trust the Commission”—

the Care Quality Commission—

“must…conduct reviews of the provision of health care provided or commissioned by the Trust…assess the Trust’s performance following each such review, and…publish a report of its assessment.”

It also makes special provision with respect to each English national health service provider. Subsection (3) states:

“In respect of each English local authority the Commission must…conduct reviews of the provision of adult social services provided or commissioned by the authority…assess the authority’s performance following each such review, and…publish a report of its assessment.”

In the light of experience, and to improve the 2008 Act, particularly section 46, the new clause would substitute for subsection (3) the following:

“The assessment of the performance of a registered service provider is to be by reference to whatever indicators of quality the Commission devises, but must include indicators of the safety of health and social care services.”

The purpose of that is to require the CQC to ensure that the indicators used to assess ratings cover the safety of care, which goes back to the question of harm-free provision. Basically, the argument goes like this: the object is to stress that the CQC can be an effective regulator only if it is free of undue influence from Ministers. The measure is a good indicator of whether the Government are prepared to say that they want the CQC to be able to exert influence and carry out its functions irrespective of undue influence from Ministers. In other words, are they prepared to step back and allow the CQC to do its job properly?

The CQC has decided to make safety one of the key indicators for the assessment of provider ratings. As a result, safety is a critical component of the CQC’s new inspection regime. On many occasions, I have discussed with Ken Lownds over dinner and otherwise the origins of much of his thinking on the subject, some of which I had difficulty understanding—apparently some of it comes from aviation safety, but I will leave that to the experts.

Under the leadership of the three chief inspectors, the CQC has put in place specialist inspection teams able to scrutinise the quality and safety of care more rigorously. Inspections no longer simply consider whether providers are meeting the registration requirements, but provide a judgment about the quality of care on a scale running from outstanding to inadequate, offering providers, commissioners and local people fuller information about the quality of care.

The CQC’s tougher, people-centred, expert-led and more rigorous inspections are seeing some outstanding care, and the CQC has already rated many good services. That new approach has also exposed poor care and variations in care, making the level of quality transparent in a way it has never been before.

I have to say that my experience of what happened after Mid Staffordshire—this was before my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford came into the House, and I pay tribute to what he has done to help me since—was itself a matter of the gravest concern. Having witnessed what went on there, I then had to engage in a campaign, and I tried, unsuccessfully, to push the Government of the time into having a public inquiry, but Ministers, including two Secretaries of State, refused point-blank to hold one.

Furthermore, I had to nudge—if I can use that word—those on my own party’s Front Bench quite vigorously. I think that would be the appropriate description. That included our then shadow Secretary of State and the now Prime Minister, who responded magnificently, making an inquiry a manifesto commitment. One of the very first things the Government did when they came into power under the present Prime Minister was to say, “We will have this Mid Staffordshire public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.” As a result of that and of the work of Ken Lownds, my hon. Friend and others of us who have been involved in this issue, including the sponsors of the Bill—I should also refer to them—we now have this new Bill in my hon. Friend’s name, which will make quality transparent in a way it never has been.

We are already confident of the great strides the CQC is making to be an effective regulator of health and social care providers. I hope that the Minister will accept that new clause 2 is exploratory, but I tabled it in the fervent belief that he will respond satisfactorily to my request, because this is a matter of grave concern.

If it is convenient, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will move on to the next new clause, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford would like to respond to my points now. Would that be appropriate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

At this point, we are considering new clause 2 and new clause 3, so it would be appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to address new clause 3, if he so wishes.

[Sir William Cash]

That is very good. I just wondered whether my hon. Friend wanted to respond on new clause 2 before I move on to new clause 3.

New clause 3 proposes to amend section 83 of the 2008 Act, which deals with health and adult social services and with reports for each financial year. The new clause would insert proposed new subsection (2AA), which says:

“The reports under subsection 1(b), (c), and (d) must, in particular, cover the safety of health and adult social care services in England.”

To put that into ordinary language, the purpose is to require the Care Quality Commission to cover safety of care in the annual state of care report. That is hugely important, because it is the narrative to which people will be able to refer in identifying progress on these incredibly important provisions.

Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Friday 24th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to be called to the House to explain the circumstances in which, as I understand it from the House of Lords, the European Union (Referendum) Bill is now, in effect, a dead parrot?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring this news to the House and is using the mechanism of a point of order so to do, but this House has not, as yet, been informed of anything that has happened in the other place this morning. I am sure that the House will be informed in due course in the proper manner, and that when the news from the other end of the Palace reaches this end of the Palace, the necessary steps will be taken by the Ministers responsible.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I am extremely interested in that because I recall that a serious dispute arose only a few days ago, when the distinguished Secretary of State for Education made remarks regarding the manner in which world war one was being addressed. The debate ultimately turned on the question of whether or not it was Germany that started the first world war, and I have no doubt at all, and nor did A. J. P. Taylor.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman rightly said earlier that the Chair would be keeping a watchful eye to ensure that this debate sticks to the purpose of discussing this very short Bill. At the moment the hon. Gentleman is just within the bounds of discussing Europe for citizens. He may be straying somewhat, however, and I am sure he will bring his remarks back to the subject under discussion.

[Mr Cash]

I certainly will, and precisely because of that reference to world war one. I took part in the debate on the Floor of the House about the idea of our helping to commemorate world war one, and I believe we can do it, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said, on our terms without European money. It is about remembrance, and that is most emphatically in this Bill, as I am sure all Members of this House will recognise, so when I referred to the question of world war one, I was referring to the remembrance aspect of this strand of the programme. I would like to make it clear that I am very much in favour of that and in no way would want to prevent substantial remembrance events from taking place. Indeed, I shall be going to Normandy next year, where my father was killed in the second world war, and won the military cross, at Maltot near Caen. I shall be going there to commemorate all the brave men and women who died in the second world war and also to pay tribute to those who took part in the first world war. I am not against the principle of this, therefore, and I am very much in favour of moneys being provided for it, although I think we can do it on our own terms and we do not need this Bill to do it.

There is one final point I wish to make. I think the entire debate that we have had in the last few days about whether or not there should be vetoes and whether or not there should be disapplication of legislation is very important. For the reasons I have given, and because of the way in which the money, which is our money, is being spent by the European Union on projects that are not consistent with the voters’ wishes in general, this is not the kind of thing I would want to support. Furthermore, that is why I shall be voting against this Bill. I am also extremely surprised because I do not think the Minister is in any way disagreeing with my general proposition that, for the reasons set out clearly in the programme itself, this money is going to be made available to those who promote the political objectives of the European Union and the citizenship that goes with it and will provide substantial grants for that purpose.

All of these points are reasons why we should exercise a veto. Indeed, this proposal would provide a perfect example under my parliamentary sovereignty Bill, which I introduced a few months ago. If 100 Members were to decide they did not want something like this, I hope that would lead to its being vetoed.

In summary, I do not approve of this approvals Bill. This is all about democratic decision making. Let us bear in mind that the draft regulation is indeed a regulation, which is of a higher order even than a directive. We have to comply with every aspect of a regulation. I have great affection for the Minister, and I have heard what he has said. I greatly approve of almost everything he does, but not this measure. This should be a European Union disapprovals Bill.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This afternoon in the High Court, there has been a ruling that the charter of fundamental rights is part of domestic law, irrespective of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 and despite what was said at the time. What can be done to stop this coach and horses going through Acts of Parliament, invading our supremacy, and what can you and Mr Speaker do to defend this Parliament?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well, as ever. However, as he knows, that is not a matter for the Chair.

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

We will hear the point of order after 4 o’clock.

[Lilian Greenwood]

The Government’s hopelessly ambitious timetable to pass the hybrid Bill for phase 1 by the middle of 2015 makes it even more important that we introduce stringent reporting standards. Even Ministers acknowledge that that plan is challenging, and that is putting it mildly. It appears to be certain that spending will continue under the authority of the preparation Bill beyond the general election. If it does, there must be proper reporting requirements in place. In fact, we submitted a similar amendment in Committee, and I am sorry it was deemed unnecessary at the time. I am glad the Government have been persuaded to think again and have accepted our amendment. It will make for a tougher Bill that makes Ministers accountable for bearing down on costs, and it will deliver better value for public investment.

[Mr Cash]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have not reached the last group of amendments, which are vital to all the people in my constituency and throughout the country who are affected by the Bill. This point of order is about the travesty of proceedings in relation to the programme motion and all that goes with it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, makes his point, but as he and the House know, that is not a point of order. The timetabling of discussions on this Bill is a matter for the House.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and William Cash

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

We last debated this matter in the House on 16 May 2008. Contrary to what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said earlier this evening, on that occasion the Conservative Opposition did not oppose the Bill. I know that because I was speaking for the Opposition on that day. We said the matter was worthy of exploration and discussion and that we did not oppose the principle of fixed-term Parliaments.

I am sorry to have to quote myself, but I have checked exactly what I said:

“A cross-party organisation called Fixed Term was set up in October 2007…and has published the results of a poll conducted in October 2007. It found that 25 per cent. of Conservative MPs, 41 per cent. of Labour MPs and 88 per cent. of Liberal Democrat MPs support fixed-term Parliaments. If anything was to convince me to be against any Bill it would be the fact that 88 per cent. of Liberal Democrats…are in favour of it.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1714.]

Well, times change—[Interruption.] Don’t they just. I do not know what the percentages are today, but there are good reasons for the Bill and I am happy to support it. However, that does not mean I shall not criticise it.

When the Deputy Prime Minister introduced the proposals some months ago, he said that the Bill was intended to strengthen the power of the House. I do not believe that it does so. At the moment, the House can bring about Dissolution by a simple majority, but the Bill will require in most cases a two-thirds majority. I do not believe that the Bill takes power away from the Executive and gives it to the House. That does not mean the Bill is fatally flawed; it just means that we ought to look at what it really does and not pretend that it gives more power to Parliament.

I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), to the concern we debated earlier and which was raised by the Clerk of the House before the Select Committee. I am honoured to be a member of the Committee and I endorse what its Chairman said earlier in the debate. Despite what the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier, it is possible that the Bill could bring about judicial review of events that occur and decisions that are taken in the House. I do not want to see that happen, not just as a matter of principle but because it disturbs the stability of the constitution and of the House. I sincerely hope that the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend have taken into consideration the concerns expressed by the House today and by the Select Committee and that we will return to these matters in Committee.

The evidence put before the House today is not conclusive. It is one legal opinion against another legal opinion, and the integrity of the House and what happens here should not be left in the balance between one legal opinion and another. I sincerely hope that the Minister will consider that point in Committee.

[Mr Cash]

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is possible that the very fact that the Clerk of the House of Commons has taken one view and that other lawyers have taken another view—albeit in a strange sequence—could be a reason why a court would be more than concerned to issue a judgment in its jurisdiction?

[Mrs Laing]

Yes. As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important legal point and we must not lose sight of it. We must remember that at one level we can have party political banter and House of Commons arguments, but at another level we must respect the stability of our constitution. It is not just a matter of legal opinion but of consulting the law properly. I am sure that what my hon. Friend has just said will be taken into consideration by Ministers.

We have to put the Bill in its true context. It is rare for me to find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell).