Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I voted for the Bill on Second Reading because it was most emphatically going in the right direction, but I emphasised that we wanted to be sure that it would actually work in the national interest by preventing illegal immigration. The Bill is getting better with the amendments proposed by the Government today, for which all credit to the Home Secretary, the Immigration Minister and the Prime Minister. The number of Back Benchers who are supporting our constructive amendments, including mine, is growing.

This Bill to stop the boats is both legally and politically necessary, because illegal migration is out of control, partly because of a failure to distinguish between genuine refugees and others who are illegal and economic migrants. This is not only a real problem in the UK; increasingly, it is a real global and European problem as well, as can be seen from the dreadful tragedies in the Mediterranean in the last few weeks and months.

This legislation sets out a fair regime for dealing with people who have arrived here illegally. It gives them a reasonable but limited ability to raise any exceptional reasons as to why it is unsafe for them to be sent to Rwanda or another safe country. These are known as suspensive claims, and they are clearly defined in clause 37. Those claims ensure that we are compliant with our international obligations and that we would not send somebody overseas if they were not medically fit to fly or if they would face persecution in the destination country.

The success of this scheme depends on it working predictably and quickly. Those who come over on small boats need to know that they will not be able to stay here and that the vast majority of them will be removed to Rwanda or elsewhere. If courts intervene in unexpected ways, it removes the deterrence and the whole scheme breaks down, along with our ability to control our own borders.

However, this is also a procedural, legal and judicial issue, because under the Human Rights Act 1998, the UK courts have not been given suitable guidance by Parliament via statute to draw the appropriate boundaries that are needed in the national interest. As I pointed out on Second Reading, for example, the international refugee convention does not apply between the UK and France, because France is not a country where asylum seekers fear persecution, yet the European Commission is by all accounts refusing to make legal changes to EU law to allow returns of illegal asylum seekers from the UK to France. There are also provisions setting out other named safe countries. I ought to remind House what happened when the Dublin regulation was torn up by Angela Merkel and 600,000 or so refugees were allowed to pour into Europe.

When the Human Rights Act was passed in 1998, I was in the House of Commons. Human rights lawyers and activists claimed that the Act was a “constitutional Rubicon” enabling the courts to override parliamentary sovereignty. This was a massively overstated and exaggerated claim that is refuted by clear statements, which I hope those on the Labour Front Bench will take on board, made by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in the House of Lords on its Second Reading on 3 November 1997. He said of the legislation:

“It maximises the protection of human rights without trespassing on parliamentary sovereignty.”

He also stated that

“the remedial action will not retrospectively make unlawful an act which was a lawful act—lawful since sanctioned by statute.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1229.]

But the question remained: what does statute provide?

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, that was demonstrated when we had the case of prisoner votes and Jack Straw, who took through the Human Rights Act, supported my motion to give instruction to the Government to get by exactly that issue.

[Sir William Cash]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. In that context, “takes into account” is what the courts have to do with respect to the convention, but not necessarily to obey the Court. That is precisely what happened there.

In the House of Commons during the passage of the Human Rights Act, the Home Secretary Jack Straw made similar observations. The Government rejected giving the courts the power to set aside an Act of Parliament, which was being considered. This was a Labour Government rejecting giving the courts the power to set aside an Act of Parliament. He stated that this was because of

“the importance which the Government attaches to Parliamentary sovereignty”.

The White Paper at the time made that abundantly clear, even in respect of declarations of incompatibility by the courts, and furthermore made it clear that declarations of incompatibility would not necessarily lead to legislation.

I was glad to note, in principle, clause 1(5) regarding the application of section 3 of the Human Rights Act. In the context of parliamentary sovereignty, it is clear from the pre-eminent authorities that, in respect of section 3 of the Human Rights Act, any suggestion of a limitation of Parliament’s sovereign will would be permissible only to the extent that in doing so the courts give effect to the intention

“reasonably to be attributed to Parliament”

in enacting section 3. It must surely be clear to all of us, in the case of illegal immigration, that Parliament would never intend to condone illegality or criminality.

This analysis that I have put forward as to the interpretation of the Human Rights Act clearly requires further discussion with the Government. Furthermore, the pre-eminent authority also states that

“the Courts are thus not empowered to construe legislation compatibly with the convention at all costs”

and must not cross the constitutional boundaries, which would include not endorsing illegality.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I am grateful for that intervention, because nothing could have been more obvious than the fact that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and indeed many Opposition Members, simply do not have a clue about how the operations of the European Union function. I will deal with them in a minute, as the hon. Gentleman will find out—I would be interested if he would like to intervene and repudiate what I am about to say.

The Lords themselves—unelected, of course—are subject to the Parliament Acts, which may well prove necessary in relation to this Bill. This is therefore an issue of democracy.

I have watched and participated in the evolution of change in relation to European matters both in this House and outside, in referendum campaigns and the like, for the best part of 38 years. It is essential for those who are not so well acquainted with the manner in which EU law is made, which became more objectionable as the competencies in each of the treaties expanded, to appreciate just how undemocratic and unaccountable the EU system unequivocally is. I have to say that my own party is responsible for many of the problems that were created, but I am delighted to say that the democratic decisions of the British people have now demonstrated the need for this Bill, along with the fact that we have left the European Union.

The democratic deficit is one of the most important reasons—if not the most important reason—why we had to leave and why the Northern Ireland protocol arrangements and the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill are in need of immediate resolution. That Bill, which has passed all its stages in this House, is now becalmed like the Mary Celeste in the House of Lords, with nobody on board, pending agreement from the European Union to change its mandate and resolve this outrageous democratic deficit immediately.

As Con O’Neill, who negotiated our entry into the European Union, admitted in his 1983 report to Lord Hume—by then, far too late—the Government simply did not understand the undemocratic system that was and remains employed by the European Union. Many people, as is quite obvious from what we have heard in the past 40 minutes, do not have the foggiest idea what that means in practice and the way in which the European Union actually functions.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir William Cash]

No. In a nutshell, every single law that goes to the Council of Ministers, which is the ultimate law-making body, does so by a majority vote of the 27 member stated behind closed doors, without even so much as a transcript and in total secrecy. Indeed, I had an exchange with the noble Lord Clarke of Nottingham on this matter when he was still in this House in 2017. He made it abundantly clear in his response to an intervention that the real legislative power of the Council of Ministers was exercised in private, going on to say,

“I used to find that the best business at the European Council was usually done over lunch”,—[Official Report, 14 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 215.]

which is fundamentally different from the way in which we have legislated since we left the EU and in this actual debate today. By contrast, we are conducting business today, and taking democratic decisions, by a majority of this House, which is proof in itself that it works.

In practice, in the context of the sunset arrangements in this Bill, clauses 12 to 16 provide delegated powers to restate, revoke and/or replace and update certain retained EU laws, which are secondary retained EU law and a new category of “secondary assimilated law”. Many of these powers are subject to the negative procedure, but the affirmative procedure is required where primary legislation is being amended or substantive policy change implemented. Some primary legislation is in the Bill. Where the negative procedure applies, the scrutiny system is similar to the work done by the European Statutory Instruments Committee, and it will be for the House to decide how that evolves in line with the democratic decision taken by this House today.

When the original proposals for the first withdrawal agreement Act were brought into effect, at my suggestion—I introduced a Bill on the subject—all EU law was then deemed to be UK law. But then remainers got to work and came up with the concept of retained EU law, which asserted the supremacy of the principles of EU law and decisions by the European Court. We may have left the EU, but a massive ball and chain was embedded in that Act preventing us from making our own sovereign laws on our own terms. I add, by way of parenthesis, that the Prime Minister responsible for that Act resigned—thanks to the Spartans.

Those laws had been made under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. It is certainly true to say that since that date, not one single European law was ever repudiated by this House, because the provisions of that 1972 Act prevented it. We were therefore subjugated to the European Union and decisions of the European Court of Justice by our own irresponsible, voluntary abdication of the inherent and democratic procedures that evolved in this House over the best part of 400 years.

Our entry into the EU in 1972 was therefore a blind step into the void of an undemocratic and unaccountable system of government. These thousands of laws lack inherent democratic legitimacy, and must therefore be removed from and/or replaced on our statute book. The Bill also allows us to move back to the certainty implicit in the UK common-law way of doing things, as compared with the purposive interpretation of law by our judges, as laid down by the principles of EU law. Nobody can dispute that.

Online Safety Bill

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Report stage
Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Many years ago, in the 1970s, I was much involved in the Protection of Children Bill, which was one of the first steps in condemning and making illegal explicit imagery of children and their involvement in the making of such films. We then had the broadcasting Acts and the video Acts, and I was very much involved at that time in saying that we ought to prohibit such things in videos and so on. I got an enormous amount of flack for that. We have now moved right the way forward and it is tremendous to see not only the Government but the Opposition co-operating together on this theme. I very much sympathise with not only what my right hon. Friend has just said—I am very inclined to support his new clause for that reason— but with what the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) said. I was deeply impressed by the way in which she presented the argument about the personal liability of directors. We cannot distinguish between a company and the people who run it, and I am interested to hear what the Government have to say in reply to that.

[Mr Davis]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend on that. He and I have been allies in the past—and sometimes opponents—and he has often been far ahead of other people. I am afraid that I do not remember the example from the 1970s, as that was before even my time here, but I remember the intervention he made in the 1990s and the fuss it caused. From that point of view, I absolutely agree with him. My new clause is clearly worded and I hope the House will give it proper consideration. It is important that we put something in the Bill on this issue, even if the Government, quite properly, amend it later.

I wish to raise one last point, which has come up as we have talked through these issues. I refer to the question of individual responsibility. One or two hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches have cited algorithmic outcomes. As I said to the right hon. Member for Barking, I am worried about how we place the responsibility, and how it would lead the courts to behave, and so on. We will debate that in the next few days and when the Bill comes back again.

There is one other issue that nothing in this Bill covers, and I am not entirely sure why. Much of the behaviour pattern is algorithmic and it is algorithmic with an explicit design. As a number of people have said, it is designed as clickbait; it is designed to bring people back. We may get to a point, particularly if we come back to this year after year, of saying, “There are going to be rules about your algorithms, so you have to write it into the algorithm. You will not use certain sorts of content, pornographic content and so on, as clickbait.” We need to think about that in a sophisticated and subtle way. I am looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), the ex-Chairman of the Select Committee, on this issue. If we are going to be the innovators—and we are the digital world innovators— we have to get this right.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, whether it is in relation to regulatory alignment in Northern Ireland, or in relation to citizens’ rights in respect of these negotiations, there is a serious danger that the European Court of Justice will get itself into every nook and cranny? There is no way in which it can be contained under article 344 of the treaty or, for that matter, in relation to the interpretation of all the matters I have just referred to.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend, who has a long history of wisdom in this subject—[Interruption.] Wisdom—he saw it before most Opposition Members did. He has a long history with this subject, and he explains better than I could why we said that no divergence is a bad option.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that any such withdrawal Bill will take place after the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has been enacted—in other words after 29 March 2019?

[Mr Davis]

No, I cannot quite confirm that. It will depend on when the withdrawal treaty is negotiated. It is the intention of the Union to try to negotiate that by October next year. Ideally, it will be before the conclusion.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has said that in the discussions we have also explored ways in which we can fully implement the withdrawal treaty in UK law. Does that suggest he has in mind legislative enactment of the withdrawal treaty? When he talks about the role of the UK courts, does he mean that the enactment will be overseen by our courts, and not by the European Court of Justice?

[Mr Davis]

A range of models are available for how we bring the withdrawal treaty into British law—British law, not European law—and the key criterion I am applying is that it gives certainty to those EU27 citizens who are here now that their rights will be preserved. It will, of course, be adjudicated by British courts.

EU Exit Negotiations

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Let us start with the right hon. Gentleman’s original presumption that we cannot achieve a negotiated deal in the period. As he should know, given his role as past and current Chairman of the Brexit Committee, the previous Trade Commissioner, Karel De Gucht, who is no friend of Brexit and does not approve of what we are doing, has said in terms that it is not technically difficult to achieve a trade outcome—all it requires is political will. What it requires is the political will on the European side to do it. What will give that political will is the fact that it sells roughly €300 billion of product to us every year and will want to continue doing so.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend accept that not only have the official Opposition been totally contradictory on the single market, customs union and the European Court, but they are now even defying their own manifesto and their vote on the article 50 Act, let alone the democratic outcome of the referendum itself? In other words, they have now moved from being remainers to reversers.

[Mr Davis]

On the day the shadow Brexit Secretary was on “The Andrew Marr Show” saying, if I remember his words correctly, that he was glad to have a unified party behind his current policy—policy No. 10, by the way—on that very same programme the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) was saying exactly that: that the right hon. Gentleman was betraying Labour’s own voters. That is what the Labour party has to come to terms with. Its voters, more than anybody else, want us to leave. They voted for it and they want us to leave, and Labour had better deliver on it.

Brexit and Foreign Affairs

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Monday 26th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

You know, I was right not to give way to the hon. Gentleman in the first place. He has got it wrong; it is not an ID card. We are talking about documentation to prove that people have the right to a job and the right to residence, but they will not have to carry that around all the time. It is not an ID card; it is rather like your birth certificate. It’s not an ID card! Good heavens!

I shall turn now to the legislative agenda—

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to give way, just before he does so?

[Mr Davis]

This is going to be the last one, but yes, okay.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my right hon. Friend not think that those, such as the Liberal Democrats and others, who want to remain in the European Union should ask their constituents whether they really want the United Kingdom indefinitely to remain part of an undemocratic system that is governed by majority voting that takes place behind closed doors and that is moving towards integration with a common defence policy, a common Finance Ministry and further moves towards a political union in which we would be in the second tier of a two-tier Europe dominated largely by one country?

[Mr Davis]

rose—

Legislating for UK Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for the clarity and thoughtful analysis that lie behind the White Paper. With the great repeal Bill, we will be returning sovereignty to this House so that decisions about our lawmaking are taken in this House by the representatives of the British people, in line with their wishes at general elections. That it is not—I advise the Opposition to bear this in mind—the situation at present. So often, as we find in the European Scrutiny Committee, such decisions are taken behind closed doors.

[Mr Davis]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments and for his work in this area over the years. Some of the ideas in this policy area have come from his past writings, so he is right. I make the point that although people complain about secondary legislation, nearly 8,000 statutory instruments were used to implement European law under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, so that attack is a little hypocritical. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and commend him for his work in the past.

Exiting the EU: New Partnership

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Thursday 2nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

Let me start with the purpose of the White Paper: to inform all the debates—not just today’s—in the coming two years. The shadow Brexit spokesman is exactly right: what matters above all else is not the amour propre of the Labour party or whatever, but the terms that we get for this negotiation. That is about the future of Britain, and it is what this House should care about first and foremost.

The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about a meaningful vote, but I have not yet quite understood what he means by that. I have been here long enough to have voted thousands of times in this House and I have never yet voted on something that I considered not meaningful. Every vote in this House is meaningful.

There will be a meaningful vote at the end. The hon. and learned Gentleman makes much of the time that this has taken, but I have been saying for a long time to the Select Committee—its Chairman is not here—that it was inconceivable that we would not have a meaningful vote at the end of this process.

The hon. and learned Gentleman’s last point was on EU nationals. I have a track record of defending the interests of people who are under pressure. Indeed, the last thing—pretty much—the leader of his party did was to go with me to Washington to get the last Brit out of Guantanamo Bay. I am not going to be throwing people out of Britain, and for the hon. and learned Gentleman even to suggest that is outrageous. Let me say this to him: I want the European Union nationals here to have all the rights they currently have, but I also want British citizens in Europe to have their rights. We owe a moral debt to EU nationals here, but we owe a moral and legal debt to the citizens of Britain abroad. We will protect both.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I deeply welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the White Paper, which is most emphatically in our national interest. Tomorrow, the Heads of Government of the 27 other member states will convene in Malta, where they propose to make a declaration about their vision for the future of Europe. President Tusk’s letter of 31 January does not bode well. Will my right hon. Friend encourage the 27 to recognise that by promoting ever closer, more centralised and unreformed political union, they are creating the very circumstances that they claim to want to avoid and depriving themselves of the trust of the citizens they claim to represent? They are effectively going in the wrong direction.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend has led on this issue for about 30 years and has always had an honourable, straightforward and insightful view of the European Union. We have said that we are going to be a full member until the moment we leave, and that means being a responsible member. We will exercise our influence over what we think is the best interest of the European Union until the moment we leave, because we want the European Union to be strong, stable and effective. In these times of difficult international relations, we need the EU as an anchor, and that is the policy that we will pursue.

Article 50

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I do not often disagree with myself, but let me say this to the right hon. Gentleman: the speech given last week by the Prime Minister was the clearest exposition of a negotiating strategy that I have heard in modern times. It laid out clearly what we judge the national interest to be and how we intend to protect it, what we want to do, and what we hope does not happen and how we will avoid that. I do not see that this Government have avoided answering any question, whether from his Committee or from Opposition Front Benchers. The only questions that we have been unable to answer are those that it would be to the disadvantage of the country to answer, because that would undermine our negotiating strategy.

Let me give the right hon. Gentleman one example. A couple of weeks ago, my opponent, as it were, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), said on Channel 4, “What we want to know is whether the Government will pay for access to the single market and how much they’ll pay.” If anything would undermine the negotiating position, that would. It is precisely that sort of thing that we are going to avoid. We will continue to give information to the House. I gave the Brexit Committee an undertaking that we will give at least as much information as will go to the European Parliament—indeed more, I think. We will continue to keep the House informed throughout the entire process, which is not going to be over in a few weeks—it will last two years—and the House will be as well informed as it has been on any matter of such importance.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Supreme Court this morning ruled that the form of the Bill is

“entirely a matter for Parliament.”

The judgment also indicated that the issues before the Supreme Court have nothing to do with the

“political…merits of the decision to withdraw, the timetable and terms of so doing, or…any future relationship between the UK and the EU.”

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in relation to any potential amendments, the Bill itself will be short and tightly drawn to give effect exclusively to the Supreme Court decision?

[Mr Davis]

The short answer is yes. My hon. Friend cites paragraph 122 of the decision and the Court’s commentary. The purpose of the Bill is to meet the requirements of the Supreme Court to deliver the instruction from the nation at large and to do so in the national interest. That entails a straightforward, easily comprehensible Bill so that the country at large can see what Parliament is doing and what decision it is visiting on the Government.

New Partnership with the EU

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

When we started down this route, I said to the House that the Government had been given a national instruction that we would attempt to interpret in the national interest. That seemed to me to be the right approach. Rather than a 52/48 approach, it is an approach that encompasses everybody’s interests. I hope that we have done that today.

The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is a very talented man, and his questions were as forensic as we would expect. He asked about membership of the single market, so we answered that. We laid out the claims on the customs union, which was another of his questions. He asked for detail to scrutinise the plan to see where we are going. Within the context of not undermining our negotiation, that is entirely what we have tried to do. I had hoped to see some Opposition Members support what we think is a responsible, thoughtful but realistic plan that takes on board the instruction that we have been given by the British people to take us out of the European Union, but in a way that preserves our interests as best we can, whether security interests, economic interests or whatever.

Let me deal with some of the specific points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will put aside my disappointment at the tone. He says that a free trade agreement will need to have a disputes resolution procedure. So it will; they nearly all do. It does not have to be the European Court of Justice, though. We can agree that he has just got the thrust of it wrong. As for the other things: tariff-free, I agree; impediment-free, I agree. Alignment of regulation? That may well be necessary in some aspects, but we will see as the negotiation develops. On goods and services, I agree. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not putting up any hurdle that, frankly, we do not intend to cross ourselves.

Now, on this question of threats, this was not a threat. It was the Chancellor saying in an interview, “Well, if you go down the route of a punitive approach, this is the consequence and this is what will happen.” Nations defend themselves. Nobody says it is what we want to do. It is specifically not what we want to do. We want the freest, most friendly possible relationship we can get, and that is what we will set out to do.

The other areas, including questions on matters such as criminal justice, home affairs issues and so on, will develop as we go through the negotiation. The Prime Minister is a very distinguished ex-Home Secretary—the longest-lasting Home Secretary in modern times—and she has as good a grip of our home affairs needs as the ex-Director of Public Prosecutions has. He can take it as read that we will, over time in this House and, most particularly, in the negotiating chamber with the Europeans, address all the issues he raised. I happen to think that they will have as much interest in resolving those issues as we do. The negotiation is predicated on us doing what is in the interests of everybody: ourselves, the Europeans and all our neighbours in our part of the globe. That is what we intend to do and what we intend to deliver on.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will acknowledge that the Prime Minister’s speech is principled, reasonable and statesmanlike. The 27 member states’ Heads of Government said only a few weeks ago at the last Council summit that there would be no access to the single market unless we accepted all the four freedoms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that presents a difficulty? Will he accept, therefore, that it is essential that we clear that with the other member states on the basis of principle, reasonableness and statesmanship?

[Mr Davis]

I have tried throughout the past six months not to respond to the sometimes emotional comments from various people around the continent. I am slightly surprised in my hon. Friend, however, because he of all people would pull me up if I confused access to the single market with membership of the single market. Pretty much every country in the world that is not subject to sanctions has access to the single market. We will have access to the single market. The question is about the terms. My job and the job, frankly, of everybody, including the Opposition, is to persuade our opposite numbers in Europe that it is also in their interests that we all have equal access to each other’s markets, and that is what I intend to do.

Article 50

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Monday 7th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I have to say that I am a little surprised at his comments on the devolved Administrations and their involvement, as the very first thing the new Prime Minister did was visit the First Minister of Scotland to discuss exactly the issue we are talking about today. This week, we are having the second Joint Ministerial Committee meeting, at which Scotland’s Government will be represented.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 and the Lisbon treaty Act of 2008 are both constitutional Acts—sovereign Acts—of the first order? Does he also agree that not only did the 2015 Act expressly and clearly give the voters the absolute right to leave the EU, but the 2008 Act also clearly intended that the Government would give notice to leave under article 50, and that the Government stated that both before and after the referendum?

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and that was the subject of our case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Thursday 20th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

That is exactly right: it is what the Prime Minister said and it is what we intend—and I have to say that I doubt it is what the Opposition intend.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last 24 hours the House of Lords has reported that there should be a vote in this House

“to debate and approve the negotiating guidelines, at least in outline”?

Does he accept that Parliament as a whole, including the House of Lords, has to not only respect, but also accept, the verdict of the British people and furthermore that it is for this elected House to determine its own procedures, standing orders and votes?

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is right: we should respect the will of the British people. I have not had a chance to look at the Lords report yet, but I will comment on it when I do.

Next Steps in Leaving the European Union

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend observed that some seem to have forgotten that the European Union Referendum Act 2015 gave the right to make the decision? Furthermore, the sovereignty of the people was given the opportunity to make that decision on the occasion of the referendum itself. As regards the repeal Bill, the sovereignty of Parliament will be maintained, because it will be decided in this House. All the procedures relating to article 50 are Government prerogative and not subject to the decision of Parliament itself at this stage.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. He will remember that the Referendum Bill was carried in this House by a 6:1 majority, which included the vast majority of those on the Opposition Benches. He will also, because he is a constitutional lawyer, understand better than anyone else that Crown prerogative rests on the will of the people—that is the theoretical underpinning of it. There is no exercise of Crown prerogative in history that is better underpinned by the will of the people than this particular exercise.

Exiting the European Union

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Lady is right, and of course access to the single market is not really up for grabs; it is there for everybody and, frankly, there are many countries outside the EU that do a better job of exporting to the single market than we do, even without a trade arrangement. So of course we want to have access to the single market and we do not need to be a member of it to do that. Indeed being a member of it is what has caused some of the problems of sovereignty that drove this referendum.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his appointment. Will he confirm that the vote to leave requires the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and will the Government bring in a Bill to achieve that as soon as is reasonably possible?

[Mr Davis]

The aspects of the European Communities Act 1972 that are required to be repealed and the aspects of the acquis communautaire that need to be carried into British law are an important joint set of issues that have to be decided. Once we have got to the point of deciding what we need to do in that regard, we will come back to the House at the first possible opportunity.

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

It is wrong, for the reasons I described. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I take the view that Governments should be subject to the law of the land and subject to courts. I am less happy with the idea that the courts could rewrite our constitution in a way that we do not see fit.

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Davis]

No. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am going to try to make some progress.

[Sir William Cash]

On this point?

[Mr Davis]

I give way. [Interruption.] I am easily bullied, yes.

[Sir William Cash]

The Scotland Act 1998 already has provision for judicial review in questions relating to ultra vires—where whether a function is devolved is in dispute—so the courts are already involved.

[Mr Davis]

I rest my case. Let me make some progress.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. Two things arise from that point of order. First, it is normally the convention in this House that the vote follows the voice, so if the Government adopt amendment 3, does that mean that they will support it? Secondly, I hope that what is proposed is not a mechanism to meet the letter but not the spirit of the Government’s undertaking that all important elements of the Bill will be debated seriously. The threshold for the referendum to be carried is the most important component of the Bill, so we need to know from the Government whether they intend to provide us with time to debate it properly at a later stage.

[Mr Cash]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. I completely endorse what my right hon. Friend has just said, because I, too, have an amendment down in my name and that of several other hon. Members—amendment 45—but we have had no opportunity to discuss it. In the light of the proposal for the Government to adopt amendment 3, merely for the sake of a vote, but without discussion, I would strongly presume—indeed, hope—that there would be an opportunity to debate the matter properly on Report. There are other amendments affected, such as amendments 45 and 64, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), so what is proposed would be completely inappropriate, in light of the fact that, for example, the threshold for the Scottish devolution arrangements in 1979 led to a substantial constitutional crisis. I would therefore simply ask you, Mr Evans, to ensure that the Government are made well aware of our wish to have a proper debate on the matter on Report.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Debate between David Davis and William Cash

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the recent statements by the Lord Chief Justice on such matters? He has been very clear about the need to protect the common law, so the whole issue of habeas corpus, which is an integral part of this, needs to be reinforced. What we need is fair trials, due process and habeas corpus, irrespective of the Human Rights Act 1998.

[Mr Davis]

My hon. Friend goes, as usual, right to the core of the issue. This is about habeas corpus; it is about the most fundamental British freedom there is.

When we have got through all the things I have mentioned, we come to what happens on day 28. I want to be helpful to the police. They might say, “I have somebody in my control who I am sure is a terrorist. I know that from everything I know. I can’t quite prove it, but I think I will get the evidence if I have got him for another few days.” What do we do then? We actually have something that we do then—it is called the threshold test. The test for charging somebody is allowable—we are allowed to charge them if we are convinced that they are guilty and that we will find the information shortly.

I am not going to name the individual, but at one point in this process I asked to see the head of counter-terrorism and I talked to him about that. What shocked me was that he did not even understand the threshold test. Again, I cite my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton as a witness, because he was at that same meeting. It is terrifying that our own forces did not know the weapons that they had at their command.

Right across the board, every piece of evidence to support the case for the provision falls down. The most fundamental one, which has been mentioned, although it was rather mocked by the shadow Home Secretary, is the approach of other countries. None of the problems that I have described as the case in support of 28 days is faced by us alone; every other common law authority has the same problems. Yet America charges in two days and indicts in 10, Canada does that in one day, New Zealand does it in two days and South Africa does it in two days. The nearest arrangement to ours is indicative, because it is Australia, which does it in 12 days. Its 12-day provision was a mistake, but 12 days is what it was. However, as we stand here, its Senate is taking through a law to reduce that to eight days, and the only controversy in Australia is about whether it should be lower, not about whether it should be higher.

The simple fact is that our policy is built on political machismo, not on effectiveness. What we have to do is recognise what all the other civilised countries in the world are doing and go in the right direction, which is to cut 28 days.