Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Joanna Cherry and William Cash

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

Without prejudice to the content of what the hon. and learned Lady is saying otherwise, may I simply say in relation to her notwithstanding clause that I am extremely glad that the Scottish eagle has landed?

[Joanna Cherry]

I certainly will not be supporting the other notwithstanding clauses in the Bill, but I felt that it was perhaps time that we had one that benefited Scotland for a change.

My amendments are designed to protect Scotland’s courts and constitutional tradition. They are there to ensure that asylum seekers in Scotland might still enjoy the protection of the courts from the infringement of their fundamental rights. That is what people in Scotland want, and it has been expressed repeatedly through the Scottish Parliament. I am, of course, a Scottish MP and a member of the Scottish Bar, and I am here to do what I can to protect Scotland and its legal system from the extraordinary attack on human rights and the rule of law that this Bill constitutes.

However, I am not a Scottish exceptionalist. I recognise that—as reflected in the House of Commons Library’s excellent legal briefing on the Bill, and indeed in the speech that preceded mine, by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam—concerns about the impact of the Bill on the rule of law and the constitution are shared by many in England, including many lawyers. For every lawyer cited by Conservative Members in favour of the Bill and the draconian amendments to it, they will find two lawyers who disagree.

The Library briefing, which is an excellent summary of the different legal views on the Bill, concludes:

“Tension between the sovereignty of Parliament to legislate, and the role of the courts in enforcing the rule of law principle that executive bodies must exercise their powers within their statutory limits, may be tempered by restraint on both sides. If either the courts or Parliament ceased to exercise such restraint, significant constitutional uncertainty could result.”

I believe that if we pass the Bill, this Parliament will have ceased to exercise the restraint referred to there—it would be a major departure from such restraint. I predict that, if the Bill passes, we will see what might be an unprecedented constitutional challenge to an Act of the British Parliament.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Joanna Cherry and William Cash

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The recent Rwanda case is the most recent case on matters relating to parliamentary intentions, the supremacy of law and the rule of law, and the proper application of the rule of law. One claimant—and it requires only one claimant—had his claim dismissed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that parliamentary sovereignty had already undermined his case. The case was about retained EU law, but it actually undermined the case of that claimant. That was a clear indication that the Court was going to take the sovereignty of Parliament first, and that is the key issue in this debate.

It has been said by the courts that sovereignty trumps international law. It is absolutely clear that that is the case. Only this year, the House of Lords Constitution Committee, in paragraph 58 of its report on the rule of law, stated:

“Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can legislate contrary to the UK’s obligations under international law.”

That was a reinforcement of the judgments I mentioned in an intervention, including those of Lord Hoffmann, Lord Bingham and Lord Denning. Our greatest jurists have all come to exactly the same conclusion. The President of the current Supreme Court, which dealt with the Rwanda case, said the same thing in paragraph 144 of its judgment in that case:

“the principle of legality does not permit a court to disregard an unambiguous expression of Parliament’s intention such as that with which we are concerned”.

So, the position is completely clear and those cases—

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Sir William Cash]

Before the hon. and learned Lady seeks to intervene, I want to get this quite clear. The Miller case was on a different set of circumstances. Not only that, but it has been overtaken by subsequent constitutional judgments by the Supreme Court itself. I want to quote now from Lord—

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

I will give way. The hon. and learned Lady can say what she likes.

[Joanna Cherry]

It is refreshing to know that my article 10 rights have not been withdrawn yet. The point is this. The hon. Gentleman may be right, as a matter of domestic law of England that the sovereignty of the English Parliament allows England to change its domestic law internally. [Interruption.] He may be right; it is in dispute as we know. What he is definitely not right about is that this Parliament cannot domestically legislate to take us out of our international legal obligations without doing so clearly. The Supreme Court has been crystal clear about that. There are two separate matters here: domestic law and international law. If the Government want to breach their international legal obligations, am I not right, based on Supreme Court authority, that they will actually have to withdraw from the treaties to which they are committed?

[Sir William Cash]

Absolutely. I am glad that the hon. and learned Lady mentioned the fact that an unambiguous statement—an explicit statement, as Lord Sumption puts it—on the position in interpreting the intentions of Parliament carries enormous weight and, in fact, overrides international law obligations.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

No. I am going to read out—

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

No, I will not give way.

I am going to quote directly from Lord Hoffman himself in relation to an ECHR case. [Interruption.] This is the case of R. v. Lyons 2003. He states:

“the Convention is an international treaty and the ECtHR is an international court with jurisdiction under international law to interpret and apply it. But the question…is a matter of English law. And it is firmly established that international treaties do not form part of English law and that English courts have no jurisdiction to interpret or apply them…Parliament may pass a law which mirrors the terms of the treaty and in that sense incorporates the treaty into English law. But even then the metaphor of incorporation may be misleading. It is not the treaty but the statute which forms part of English law. And English courts will not (unless the statute expressly so provides) be bound to give effect to interpretations of the treaty by an international court, even though the United Kingdom is bound by international law to do so. Of course there is a strong presumption in favour of interpreting English law…in a way which does not place the United Kingdom in breach of an international obligation”—

but, and this is absolutely crucial—

“The sovereign legislator in the United Kingdom is Parliament. If Parliament has plainly laid down the law, it is the duty of the courts to apply it, whether that would involve the Crown in breach of an international treaty or not.”

That is what the law is. That is a straightforward interpretation and statement.

There is an issue that I want to come to. I praise my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for his courage and for a brilliant speech, and endorse every word he said, but I would also like to say this: we want the Government to succeed in their legislation, but it has to be legislation that works. As I have explained, in relation to the Supreme Court, the whole question turns on the intention of Parliament and the sovereignty of Parliament. It is a question of justiciability as well. I put to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Illegal Migration that, when it comes to it, we can make changes to the Bill. It is possible to extend the scope of the Bill, and I hope he will have discussions with the Clerk of Public Bills, with whom I have had discussions already.

It is absolutely clear that the scope of the Bill will determine the amendments, whether from the Government or Back Benchers. It matters that we are entitled to have a proper debate on this fundamental question about international law and its relationship to sovereignty. The Bill, if enacted after Royal Assent, could be scuppered by one claimant and by the courts if the words of the Act are not clearly expressed and explicit in ruling out any such claim, for example under clause 4 or any other heading, such as rule 39 and all the other things we will no doubt trot out in Committee if we get there. We therefore have to address the question of the scope of the Bill, because that is the way that Parliament functions. That is the way Mr Speaker must decide on the selection of amendments, so it is crucial.

There is much more that I could say, but I let me end by drawing attention to the global issue. The fact is that throughout the European Union there is a real problem. They are tearing their hair out, because on the one hand they have the charter of fundamental rights, and on the other they are bound by qualified majority voting to comply with the situation, which is actually not the same for us. We have a unique opportunity, in our parliamentary system and with the sovereignty of Parliament, to be able to make amendments and provide domestic law that will satisfy the voters of this country.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Joanna Cherry and William Cash

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is, of course, expounding a very Anglocentric view of sovereignty, but I will leave that to one side for the moment.

Is it not a legal flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument that at least some of the people who come to this country in small boats come not as immigrants but to seek asylum? The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says this Bill

“would amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how…compelling their claim may be”.

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that?

[Sir William Cash]

As I just said, I believe it is very important properly to protect genuine refugees. The problem we have been presented with over the last couple of years or so is that it is blatantly obvious that quite a significant number—I cannot put a precise figure on it, but it is very substantial and runs into the tens of thousands—have a serious case to answer in respect of their status.

[Joanna Cherry]

Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, the facts simply do not support what he is saying, because the majority of people arriving in small boats who have had their asylum claim resolved have had their claim granted. That is the evidence.

[Sir William Cash]

That is certainly the case, but it is equally the case that we have 160,000 unresolved asylum cases. It is also true that there is no persecution in France on this account.

As the Government have rightly said, the Labour party voted against the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, wants to scrap the Rwanda deal and opposes the Government’s Bill to detain and remove people swiftly from the UK. This amounts to demonstrating that the Labour party is in favour of open borders and is not on the side of the British people, who want us to deal with this problem.

The current Leader of the Opposition, in an article in Counsel on 9 January 2015, wrote, contrary to what the former Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary said, that the sovereignty of Parliament has nothing at all to do with the Human Rights Act. He clearly does not understand what the sovereignty of Parliament is, or the enactments and case law involved. Quite clearly, the statute itself was not intended to lead to circumstances in which illegal migration is not prevented but almost encouraged, to the profound detriment of practical control over our borders.

I tabled an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Bill in December 2021 that had a clearly expressed “notwithstanding” formula. The amendment was strongly supported by Conservative Back Benchers and would have greatly helped to ensure the flights to Rwanda. With this new Bill, we have a further opportunity to tackle the problem of illegal migration. This Bill is necessary because of the smuggling and criminality of the unscrupulous gangs that exploit migrants and cause death.

In addition, because of the consequences of the failure to control illegal migration, we have endured monumental expenditure of up to £6 million a day, disruption to local services, hotels, health services and social housing, and instances of criminality. It does no good to perpetuate a situation with such adverse consequences for our constituents and our voters, and the Government understand that.

Indeed, I am confident that, when the Bill is enacted, the courts will apply it and court procedures will be adapted accordingly, provided the intention of the words used in the Bill, as enacted, are clear, express and unambiguous, as I propose. It is not appropriate for the current situation to continue to the point where, as I have indicated in the past, the number of illegal migrants is growing exponentially.

My amendments, and further discussion with the Government, are conducive to resolving the issues properly, fairly and reasonably—with an appeal system and other measures, as I shall mention in a moment, and in line with domestic and international law—and to removing the unintended and unexpected legal consequences of the Human Rights Act and the courts’ rules in respect of illegal migration in small boats, which together have led to the breaching of our borders on an unprecedented scale. That is emphatically not in our national interest, and it was not anticipated when the Human Rights Act was originally passed. My amendment would ensure that what Parliament intends actually happens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

I will give way in a moment. I just want to develop my point and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that we have been arguing about this for years. This is an important point to make.

It is sometimes assumed that this Parliament just took on the character of the English constitution when it unified with the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps it is worth considering that there are other notions of sovereignty. In my country, the people are sovereign, not the Parliament, and they can choose to share their sovereignty with, for example, the Edinburgh Parliament, this Parliament and other international institutions. The endless obsessing about the sovereignty of Parliament is not particularly helpful. Where I really disagree with the hon. Gentleman is in this: I think that the Human Rights Act was an elegant solution to fulfilling our rights under the convention, while also respecting the sovereignty of this Parliament.

[Sir William Cash]

I wish to reply to the hon. and learned Lady by saying that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament rests with the United Kingdom Parliament. I know that she would quite like to leave it, but, on the other hand, she is bound by it, and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 specifies quite clearly that the sovereignty is guaranteed.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Union between Scotland and England was freely entered into. I know that some people are under the misapprehension that now it is some sort of “Hotel California” situation, where we can check out but cannot leave, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Union. The views that I am expounding about sovereignty are not just my eccentric views, but the views that have been expounded by many well-respected Scottish jurists, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is worthwhile sometimes to take a step back. With all due respect to some of my English friends, they get a bit hysterical about parliamentary sovereignty. Sovereignty can be shared and, ultimately, I believe that sovereignty lies with the people. I will just leave it at that.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Joanna Cherry and William Cash

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I do not have time, I am afraid.

At the same time, there have been a number of UK precedents, which I have explained already. I do not have the time to go into them; I will attempt, as other Members will have to, not to go into huge detail, but I will give a few examples. In 1945, a Finance Act passed by the Labour party overrode international law. The same applied to the Indian Independence Act 1947 and the Burma Independence Act 1947. In fact, in the case of India, more than 400 treaties were broken.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

I assure the hon. and learned Lady that I am not giving way. I am very happy to do so normally, but not today.

Furthermore, a Conservative Government, in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, provided clauses that were notwithstanding anything contrary to the arrangements of the Act. It goes on. It is a substantial list.

I will go further. Those who are interested can look at my previous contributions to other debates, where I extensively describe the myriad occasions when the EU itself has broken international law and, furthermore, when EU member states have egregiously broken international law and admitted it in their own Parliaments. For example, Helmut Schmidt, in the Bundestag, could not have been clearer, going through every single treaty that Germany deliberately broke in defence of its own vital national interest, because that is itself a reason why national law can have a degree of predominance over international law.

National and constitutional law, in certain circumstances —where it affects sovereignty, as in this case in the United Kingdom—can prevail against international law. I am extremely grateful to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who I know recognises this. It has taken a bit of time for us all to come to terms with that, because it is a bit complex, but the reality is that it is well established in international law itself. The German federal court confirmed this as recently as 2015. I quoted the court in a previous debate, so it is already on the record that it is well within the framework of international law for a country—a democratic country, I hasten to add—to actually override international law in its own vital national interest, and most specifically, as in this case, on questions of sovereignty.

I will therefore just touch on my exchange with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). With regard to Miller 1, the Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that, under the dualist approach, treaty obligations only become binding in the UK system to the extent that they are carried out in domestic legislation, and that whether to enact or repeal legislation, and the content of that legislation, is for Parliament alone.

This principle was approved unanimously by the Supreme Court in Miller 1.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Joanna Cherry and William Cash

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

I rise to speak in favour of amendments 43 and 44, in my name, and to support the amendments tabled by the Scottish National party, our friends from the SDLP and our friend from the Alliance party.

I will focus my comments on my amendments, which I tabled to work out just how far this Government are prepared to go in ousting the jurisdiction of the domestic courts in relation to judicial review and review under the Human Rights Act in clause 45, as it appears on the face of the Bill. I also wish to highlight, as I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister, that, in so far as clause 45 seeks to restrict judicial review in Scotland by circumscribing the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, this not only trespasses into devolved territory but may well breach another treaty: the treaty of Union between Scotland and England, article 19 of which preserves the independence of the Scottish legal system.

Before I address my amendments in detail, for the avoidance of doubt, my primary position—and I find myself curiously on the same ground as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—is that clauses 41 to 45 should not stand part of the Bill. Everything we heard from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was designed to hide from us the fact that we are talking about a bilateral treaty that was entered into by the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom less than a year ago, to deal with a specific situation that arose between the United Kingdom and the European Union; and the most controversial part of that treaty—the one dealing with Northern Ireland and the north of Ireland—is the one that this Government are seeking to drive a coach and horses through. That is what we are talking about, and that is what is so wrong.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I will make some progress.

Such excuses as those that the Government’s Law Officers who remain in post have sought to make for this do not stand up. I am very proud, as a member of the Scottish Bar, that Lord Keen of Elie resigned last week, and I am proud of the reasons he gave for his resignation. The only thing I would say to him is, “What took you so long, Richard?”, but apart from that I am very proud. I think it will be very difficult for the British Government to find anybody of suitable seniority from the Scottish Bar to step into his shoes, but I am waiting with some amusement to see who they might find.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

No, I am going to make some progress.

It is what we would call at the Scottish Bar a load of old mince. That is not just my view; as I said in an intervention, it is the view of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, which said in the first Miller case, at paragraph 55, that

“treaties between sovereign states have effect in international law and are not governed by the domestic law of any state.”

I am terribly sorry to disappoint Conservative Members, but no matter how much they love their doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty—no matter how much it means to them—it cannot trump the obligations freely entered into by their Government under international law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

No, I am not going to give way.

It simply does not work that way: Britannia does not rule the waves any longer and has not done so for some time.

I regret to say that while I have the greatest respect and the highest regard for the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Government amendment that his efforts have secured is wholly inadequate to meet both domestic and international concerns about this Bill. I cannot do much better than repeat what the Irish Foreign Minister said this afternoon: a Government with an 80-seat majority having a parliamentary lock is not much of a reassurance to any of us. I really do not think I need to say any more than that. Once more, we have a ruse to solve the problems of the Conservative party rather than a ruse to address our international legal obligations.

My amendments 43 and 44, as I said, seek to deal with clause 45. The English Bar Council and the Law Society of England and Wales have said of clause 45 that it

“would exclude judicial review of any regulations made under clauses 42 and 43 on grounds of incompatibility with domestic law…as well as international law.”

That exclusion of judicial review would also mean excluding any human rights review under the Human Rights Act or, indeed, the Equality Act 2010. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) said in her very eloquent speech, human rights are of course integral to the Good Friday agreement. It is a travesty that regulations made under clauses 42 and 43 should not be subject to judicial review or to human rights review across Great Britain, but a particular travesty in Northern Ireland. It undermines not just the principle of the rule of law but the principle of access to justice. It also contravenes article 4 of the withdrawal agreement, which the British Government freely signed up to, in which they undertook to ensure a right for individuals to rely directly on withdrawal agreement provisions.

It is difficult to be certain how the courts would interpret an ouster clause such as clause 45, but precedent suggests that it would be quite hard for them to uphold it unless it is expressed in unequivocal terms. My amendments seek to clear this up. Amendment 43 would exclude the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights from the definition of domestic and international law, and amendment 44 would ensure that

“nothing in Clause 45 ousts the jurisdiction of domestic courts in respect of judicial review of regulations made under Clauses 42 and 43.”

Subsequent to my tabling those amendments, the Government tabled amendments 64 and 65, which appear to acknowledge that judicial review claims could still be brought in certain limited circumstances. I am interested to hear from the Minister what those circumstances would be. Do they include the normal judicial review grounds of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety, or will they also include review on the grounds of human rights? I look forward to hearing from him on that.

My final point is the most important point from a Scottish point of view. In so far as clause 45 seeks to interfere with judicial review in Scotland, it is interfering with a rather different beast from judicial review in England: the inherent supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session in Edinburgh. In doing that, it strays into devolved territory and would therefore require a legislative consent motion, which I very much doubt would be forthcoming. Put simply, the Scottish Parliament is not in the business of ousting the court’s jurisdiction on judicial review or human rights grounds—nor should it be and neither should this Parliament.

Most importantly from a Scottish point of view, the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session is an inherent jurisdiction, which is not conferred on it by legislation but has been there since its inception in 1532. It therefore predates the treaty of Union between Scotland and England in 1707. Legislation seeking to narrow the scope of that inherent jurisdiction risks falling foul of article 19 of the treaty of Union, which preserves the independence of Scotland’s legal system.

In Scotland, rather to our surprise, we learned from the UK Supreme Court that putting the Sewel convention on a legal footing did not protect us from the Government driving a coach and horses through it. As the legal position stands in the United Kingdom, it seems that the Government can get away with passing primary legislation that interferes in devolved matters without a legislative consent motion. A breach of article 19 of the treaty of Union might be a different matter, however, because the question of whether parts of the treaty are so fundamental that they cannot be overridden by an Act of this Parliament has been considered by courts north and south of the border, but never entirely resolved.

I simply remind Members that the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament is an English doctrine. Even Dicey, the great high priest of parliamentary sovereignty, was prepared to recognise that those who framed the treaty of Union between Scotland and England believed in the possibility of creating an absolute sovereign legislature that was still bound by certain unalterable laws. Many of us in Scotland believe that one of the unalterable laws of the treaty of Union is that this Parliament cannot interfere with the inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Session.

Both those problems—the in-roads into the devolved competence and the undermining of article 19 of the treaty of Union—will continue, notwithstanding Government amendments 64 and 65. I suspect that the Government have not really thought about that because, let us be honest, they do not often think about the impact on Scotland of what they want to do. Many people in Scotland, including my fellow members of the legal profession, will see that as another example of the Government’s total disregard for devolution and for Scotland’s separate and distinct institutions.

That is yet another reason why for Scotland the only way out of the mess that the Conservative and Unionist party has created over Europe is independence. I am glad that so many more people in Scotland are realising that daily. [Interruption.] It is a terrible dreadful bore for Conservative Members, but I remind them that we spend an awful lot of time listening to them bang on about the European Union and how it prevents them from having their way. Well, the Scots are pretty sick of this Parliament preventing Scotland from having its way.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Joanna Cherry and William Cash

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

If Euro-integrationism were to get in the way, that would be a problem, but on the question of whether the UK Government are engaged in some kind of power grab while depriving the devolved Administrations of a say, the answer to that is no, too.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

Wait just a minute. The Office for the Internal Market’s provisions will be available to all four Administrations and legislatures on an equal and purely advisory basis. It will provide information to support separate political or legal processes, to resolve any disagreements and to enable intergovernmental engagement. Subject only to my overriding concern that in no shape or form should we end up having a continuation of European Commission decision making, authorisation processes and the rest, which have severely inhibited our capacity to compete effectively throughout the world—and for that matter within the United Kingdom as a whole—I believe that the arrangements here will respect the devolved Administrations on the basis that I describe.

[Joanna Cherry]

To take the hon. Gentleman back to his comments a moment ago, when he lectured myself and my colleagues on the importance of being part of the same political union in order to trade freely and competitively, if that applies to Scotland in relation to the United Kingdom, why does it not apply to the United Kingdom in relation to the European Union? Can he explain that?

[Sir William Cash]

It is a good question. In fact, I will answer it the other way: why on earth would the people of Scotland—

[Joanna Cherry]

No, answer my question.

[Sir William Cash]

No, I am going to put it the other way around and do it my own way. Why on earth would the Scottish people, in their desire to obtain independence from the United Kingdom, actually want to surrender to the European Union, which discriminates against us day in, day out?

[Joanna Cherry]

I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Scottish National party wants Scotland to remain part of the European Union—a single market of more than 500 million consumers. The SNP does not wish to put up trade barriers with England. It is his party that wishes to enforce upon us trade barriers if we dare to exercise our democratic right of self-determination, which he has spent the last 40 years banging on about in this House for England.

[Sir William Cash]

If I may say so, not unsuccessfully.

[Joanna Cherry]

That remains to be seen.

[Sir William Cash]

I am very happy to remain to be seen and to be heard. I will give an example of a company in my constituency that, because of certain economic problems, found that it needed help and wanted some state aid and grants and things of that kind. It so happened that the company owned another company that happened to be in Ireland, and strangely enough, when it came to it and applications were made—I do not know all the details, but this is the general thrust of it—the company in the United Kingdom that needed the benefit of state aid and subsidy unfortunately did not get it, but the company in Ireland did.

The point I make is simply that it seems most peculiar to me that a system that is completely fair should have what I regards as such wanton discrimination in favour of one part of the European Union as compared to another.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

Just a minute. I think the hon. and learned Lady is probably exhausting herself by her interventions. I gave the House but one example yesterday, on the issue of Lufthansa. There is a body of opinion and evidence demonstrating the serious discrimination that goes on, although I make the point that European Court of Justice cases on this have gone both ways. However, I think it is very important that we are absolutely clear and certain—because it affects jobs, businesses and people who work for the companies concerned—that the national interests of the United Kingdom, in our mutual interests, are reflected in the decisions taken by whatever the competition authority may be. I know that the previous Administration had in mind the idea of providing for some special reserved powers, which this Government have now decided should be displaced to ensure that we have a proper system—with proper external and internal advice that will be provided by the new Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority—in order to guarantee that we can be world-beating competitors. We have to be able to trade across the world as we have done.

If I may say this to the very distinguished Scottish National party Members, I am sure that they will not forget that Adam Smith was the Scotsman who defined the whole nature of free trade and the ability to compete effectively. The tradition in Scotland has always been to support the ideas of fair and free competition, and that is the essence of these provisions. I am afraid that I cannot come up with an example from Wales, but I am sure there is one. What I can say is that the objects of the Office for the Internal Market will not override decisions made by the devolved Administrations. That is my understanding, and we will hear what the Minister has to say.