Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

3rd reading
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I will simply reply to the Labour party. If I vote against Third Reading this evening, I certainly have no intention of doing a single thing to support the propositions of Labour’s Front-Bench spokesman. Let me get that completely clear. Labour is not doing anything. It has no plan. I want the Bill to succeed, and if I vote against Third Reading it will be because I do not believe, to use the Home Secretary’s own words, that this is the “toughest immigration legislation” that we could produce, nor do I think we have done “whatever it takes”. I can only say that in this context, but it is about the law.

My main concern is that there will be another claim as a result of this. I do not think anybody expects anything else. When it happens it will go to the Supreme Court and the question in front of the Supreme Court will be very simple. I put that point in my speech yesterday, and I do not retract a single word. I am extremely grateful to those very senior people some members of the Government, who said to me privately that they agreed with every word I said.

I say that for this reason. If the Act of Parliament was sufficiently comprehensive, using the “notwithstanding” formula, and the words used were clear and unambiguous, then there is no doubt at all that we would win that case in the Supreme Court. Sadly, I just do not think that that is going to happen. I explained why yesterday, so there is no need or reason for me to go into it now. I have said what I have said. All I can say is that I wish the Government well, but I cannot in all conscience support the Bill, because I have set out my case and, on principle, I am not going to retract it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Final question. I call Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he has made it clear to the new Foreign Secretary, who of course we wish well, that his policy and conduct of EU-related affairs will be consistent with the Government’s 2019 election manifesto and the referendum and that he is now fully committed to UK parliamentary sovereignty, self-government and democracy in accordance with the Government’s subsequent legislation?

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

indicated assent.

[Sir William Cash]

With the greatest respect, I just want to say through the Minister to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) that, although the European Parliament does its job, the laws are actually made by the Council of Ministers behind closed doors, by qualified majority vote and without even a transcript in Hansard. That is not a basis on which one could make any assumption that we would ever agree to them. It was always done by consensus.

[The Solicitor General]

Mr Speaker, you were absolutely right to encourage me to take that intervention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I pay tribute to him for all his work in this House. His announcement over the weekend came as a great sadness, shock and surprise. I know that he has a lot of work to do between now and the next election, and I look forward to these debates in the future. Thank you for encouraging me to take his intervention, Mr Speaker.

Lords amendment 42B is both unnecessary and potentially detrimental to this country’s environmental standards. We have made a commitment at every stage of this Bill that we will not lower environmental protections, and that we will ensure the continued implementation of our international obligations. Indeed, I am reminded of the rare moment of agreement between my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) during our last outing. They found common accord, and they are both right that there is simply no reason or incentive for the Government not to uphold our high environmental standards, of which we are rightly proud. It is simply not necessary for this commitment to be on the face of the Bill, especially not in a way that would make it more difficult to achieve any meaningful reforms that benefit the UK.

I will not try your patience, Mr Speaker, by listing all the Government’s post-Brexit achievements, but some of the steps we are taking go above and beyond EU law. [Hon. Members: “What are they?”] The Opposition are encouraging me to do so, and who am I to say no?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, not here.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Many of us in this House are deeply concerned about the lack of progress in these negotiations. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the sovereignty issue for Northern Ireland still remains on the table with regard to EU lawmaking? Although the context is quite different, it is worth remembering that we are also dealing with the Ukrainian situation, which is also an issue of sovereignty.

The Climate Emergency

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have now been informed that a withdrawal agreement has been agreed. I have been to the Library to ask for a copy to indicate the difference between the document in my hand, which is from March 2019, and the new agreement. I put it on record that this is a matter of extreme importance to the United Kingdom and to our Parliament. We need a copy of the new withdrawal agreement at the earliest opportunity.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I totally concur that we need hon. Members to know what is in the new document. The hon. Gentleman’s point is on the record, and people will have heard it. Let us hope that the document is available very shortly.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

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

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. To help the situation for Members, nothing has been selected for votes as yet, so let’s hope that people will be happy.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The question I raise in this series of amendments relates in particular, as I said in my brief speech just now, to the extent to which the United Kingdom is put under a duty—an obligation —to be subservient to the European Union. I find this Bill deeply offensive for that reason alone, and, as I said earlier, our whole parliamentary constitutional arrangement is based on the fact that we make decisions in general elections by the free will of the British people in a secret ballot. When those decisions are taken and the results come out in the respective constituencies and a majority or otherwise is arrived at to decide upon the composition of this House of Commons, that is a free Parliament based on a secret ballot and on the free choice of the British people.

I believe that we are heading for a general election, and I think that that will sort out a lot of the problems we are currently experiencing with this Bill and, indeed, in relation to the whole question of satisfying the decision taken by the British people in the referendum, and indeed by this House on frequent occasions with the referendum Act itself by six to one, the notification of withdrawal Act by 499 to 120, and then again the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Every single Conservative MP voted for that Act, which clearly stated that we would leave the European Union and repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day, which is 31 October. That is categorically the law of the land, so the whole concept of our democracy, which is somehow or other being subverted by this Bill, is actually already in place; this has been decided and I see absolutely no justification whatsoever for seeking to reverse it. I also see no justification for reversing the votes that my hon. Friends have themselves already cast over and over again in favour of not only the referendum Act—it was also in the manifesto—but the notification of withdrawal Act, and the withdrawal Act itself?

So I can see no justification for the majority in this House, because although this measure scraped through by 29 votes, we know where the votes came from. There is no doubt about it; they came from former Conservative Members of Parliament, and some who are unfortunately —I think by their own choice—in a position where they have had the Whip taken away from them.

I regret that; I saw it happen on a previous occasion with the Maastricht treaty, although it did not happen to me personally, but I can only say that if you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Loan Charge

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Thursday 4th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just wondered what was going on. Is it hot air that is escaping from in here?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Some might say that there is a leaky Parliament at the moment, so we will take it from there.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

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

[The Chairman]

If the Committee takes up all the time, there will be no Third Reading. That is up to the Committee, which is why I want to make progress and get to some of the speeches. I am looking around to see who wishes to speak.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. I think you just called amendment 13. In the selection list, it says “Yvette Cooper”. As it happens, I have here a list of tabled amendments and amendment 13 is in my name.

[The Chairman]

Just to help the House, on my sheet of paper, which we are working to, amendment 13 is in the name of Yvette Cooper.

With amendment 13 it will be convenient to consider:

Amendment 20, page 1, line 11, at end add

“, and that date shall be no later than 30 June 2019.”

Amendment 21, page 1, line 21, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

Amendment 22, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“() Nothing in this section prevents a Minister of the Crown from seeking, or agreeing to, an extension of the period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union otherwise than in accordance with this section.”

This amendment ensures that the Bill does not limit the powers that a Minister of the Crown would otherwise have to seek, or agree to, an extension of the Article 50(3) period.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(8) But the Prime Minister may not agree to any extension of the Article 50 period proposed by the European Council which is later than 22 May 2019.”

Clause stand part.

Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out “2018 Act” and insert

“the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”.

This clarifies the title of the previous Act being referred to.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 7, leave out from “force” to end of line 7 and insert

“subject to the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly of Wales, on such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint.”

Clause 2 stand part.

New clause 4—Amendability of motions—

‘Any motion brought forward under section 1(1) in the form set out in section 1(2) may be amended in line with section 1(3) only to include a date.’

This new Clause would prevent further amendments to standing orders etc.

New clause 5—Amendability of motions (No. 2)—

‘Any motion brought forward under section 1(1) in the form set out in section 1(2) may be amended in line with section 1(3) only to include a date no later than 22 May 2019.’

This new Clause would prevent further amendments to standing orders or business of the House of Commons etc and impose a maximum duration of the extension period.

New clause 7—European Elections—

‘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.’

New clause 13—Procedure for ensuring domestic legislation matches Article 50 extension—

‘In paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (regulations amending the definition of “exit day” to be subject to approval by each House of Parliament) for the words from “may” to “each” substitute “is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either”.’

This new clause changes the procedure for regulations, under section 20(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, altering the definition of “exit day” from affirmative to negative procedure.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need to have short interventions, not speeches. That was longer than five minutes!

[Sir William Cash]

I can say that I do know. I know because I look at the facts as they are now. The facts I have just given demonstrate that inside the single market we run a monumental trade deficit, while we have an enormous and growing trade surplus with the rest of the world. That surplus is the future. That is the vision. That is the means by which we will get jobs and ensure the future of our children and our grandchildren.

To conclude, it is very simple: this is about who governs us. If we get this wrong, we will not be able to organise and establish a democracy in this country, which is what people fought and died for in not just one world war but two.

Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I am so glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is a Eurosceptic, and I take it from what he said that he would be inclined to leave the European Union. Does he accept that if he were to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are definitely not going on to that debate at this stage.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Tuesday 16th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I shall speak from a standing position.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

May I suggest that perhaps the hon. Gentleman ought to take a seat? The last thing that I want him to do is get himself into difficulty, and take too much out of himself. Please, Sir William, do whatever you feel is necessary,

[Sir William Cash]

I will sit down then. I am sorry to have to make my speech in this way, but I have been in hospital for the last four days.

Our problem is this: the situation in which we now find ourselves is not necessary. I speak more in sorrow than in anger, because I have spoken to the Minister for Europe, and we had a good discussion, as we always do. I was also grateful to him for saying in a letter that he was himself grateful for the constructive way in which concerns had been raised. It must be said, however, that the Government have not allayed those concerns, and that is the real point. I shall try to explain why, but let me first congratulate the Government on having listened. They listened over the question of having a referendum at all, they listened over the question of whether we should veto the fiscal compact, and they listened over the reduction in the budget. Those are all positive steps.

Having given the matter as much thought as I could—admittedly, I had an opportunity to do so from my hospital bed—I have to say that, in this instance, I am convinced that the Government are taking a step in the wrong direction. However—I ask Ministers to listen, if they would be kind enough to do so—it is possible for them to retrieve the situation so that there need not be a vote against.

Ultimately, what is raised is a question of trust. There are extremely strong reasons for the provisions in section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, but we have heard very little about those provisions. Let me briefly explain them, so that people will know what we are about to repeal. Most might assume that, given the momentous and historic nature of the EU referendum, what is good enough for a Scottish referendum, a referendum on the alternative vote, and a Welsh referendum—all of which have taken place under Conservative-led Governments in the last few years—ought to be applicable to a referendum that goes to the heart of how we are governed and who governs us.

However, it is not just about trust. We do not know what the outcome of the promised discussions and consultations will be, but we do know that conducting a referendum in a manner that is unfair on the voters is an extremely retrograde step in the kind of democracy that we uphold. The provisions in the 2000 Act were introduced for very sound reasons. I applaud the then Government for that, and, even at this late stage, I appeal to the present Government to think again.

Incidentally, this has absolutely nothing to do with Maastricht or anything like that. There was a rebellion then because we did not have a referendum. On this occasion, we merely wish to ensure that the voters are given a fair choice. That must be one of our prime duties, because we are sent here as representatives of those people. If the Bill is passed, we shall have made a decision to transfer back to those people, by means of an Act of Parliament, the right to make their own decision. Therefore, they will have an absolute right to know that the way the referendum is conducted will in no way be canted or manipulated, whether for yes or no. Taking this out and then asking us to consider on the basis of consultations yet to come seems to me quite bizarre, because if the Government were good enough to accept my amendment 11—I am grateful for the support of many Members on both sides of the House on that—nothing would change in terms of the referendum. It is not going to take place in any immediate future. All we will be doing is re-securing the status quo so that we will then have the restrictions set out in section 125. I will come on to that section in a moment, and demonstrate what we would actually be repealing this evening. This is not just a Eurosceptic argument. This is not about a Eurosceptic position, in essence. It may be that we would prefer to ensure there is a fair vote, but the real question is about our democracy. That, to me, is the main question.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been here longer than most Members, and he should know that interventions must be short, especially if he wants to make a speech later.

[Sir William Cash]

I seem to have spurred my right hon. and learned Friend to a passionate pursuit of his arguments, because he does not want what I am proposing at all. The fact is that the Electoral Commission says the proposal to remove section 125

“could mean that governments and others will be free to spend unlimited amounts of public funds promoting an outcome at the referendum right up until polling day.”

It goes on to say:

“In the Commission’s view, there is a risk that the use of significant amounts of public money for promotional activity could give an unfair advantage to one side of the argument. Unlimited government spending would also undermine the principle of having spending limits for registered campaigns.”

We have already heard about the interference in the Scottish referendum, and what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) said is completely right.

Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

With respect to the question of whether people outside know what we are doing, does my hon. Friend believe, as I do, that they are now much more in a fog than they were because of the identity of the Conservative party being lost in this amorphous coalition—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There have to be short interventions. Sir William, you have already had a speech. We do not want you to make another one. A short intervention was all that Mr Drax needed.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Leader of the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

May I say to the Leader of the House that I did not realise that Mr Cash wished to come in? I call Mr Cash.

[Mr Cash]

I am sorry for inhibiting my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a short moment.

I just want to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said and draw attention to the real reasons why this matter is so important. I have already made the point that the proposal would simply create confusion and the extreme likelihood that there would be interpretations by the courts as a result of a difference of language between what is contained in schedule 1 and the wording of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. It is best left alone; that was the essence of what the Lord Chief Justice said.

As someone who served on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, I want to make something absolutely clear. Curiously enough, the word privilege is almost a misnomer. It is not a privilege; it is a necessity. I would say that of any Member of this House. We cannot have freedom of speech to protect our constituents without having the right to be able to say whatever needs to be said in this House to protect them. That is whether in relation to HS2, on which I share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan)—I am totally against it—or anything else. The absolute necessity for maintaining the right of an MP to speak within the framework of the rules of the House must not be interfered with by any court or any outside agency. We have to have that right as that is the essence of our democracy.

What we are really discussing here, apart from the very important question—I concede that it is important—of not getting into a conflict with the courts or having differences of emphasis or wording that could give rise to interpretations, is that it is absolutely essential to remember that these issues are for the benefit of our constituents and the national interest.

In 1999 the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege —our predecessor committee—said:

“Parliament makes the law and raises taxes. It is also the place where ministers are called to account by representatives of the whole nation for their decisions and their expenditure of public money. Grievances great and small can be aired regardless of the power or wealth of those criticised.

In order to carry out these public duties”—

I repeat the word “public”—

“without fear or favour, parliament and its members and officers need certain rights and immunities. Parliament needs the right to regulate its own affairs free from intervention by the government or the courts. Members need to be able to speak freely, uninhibited by possible defamation claims.”

The Irish Government argued recently at the European Court of Human Rights that

“parliamentary immunity has developed throughout the world not as a constraint upon the rights of the citizen but as a fundamental liberty.”

I could enlarge on this but I do not need to do so.

[Mr Cash]

That is the very point I am seeking to make. I would also point out that a number of other countries have got themselves into serious turmoil and trouble where the right of the people to speak freely is inessential and incidental to the manner in which their constitution is construed. In many countries, whether dictatorships or quasi-democracies, the inhibitions on the freedom of their members of parliament to speak as they must on behalf of the national interest or on behalf of their constituents is constrained by a lot of activities which, in effect, put them in fear. It is precisely because this House as a whole ensures, through its own regulation of the behaviour of Members, that that freedom is maintained, that we can guarantee that we can serve our constituents in the national interest.

That is all I need to say, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I need to say something, just to help you, because obviously I know that you want to discuss the new clause and do not want to drift into the wider arena. I am sure you will have appreciated me trying to help you with that.

[Mr Cash]

Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker, and there is no wider arena than your remit. Having said that, this is not just about a simple, narrow point; it is about a broader issue that interacts with it. As far as I am concerned, that is all I need to say.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is excellent news.

EU-US Trade and Investment Agreement

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I would just like to be of help, because the shadow Minister has taken 10 minutes so far and he said he would only take that long. He will have reached 11 minutes in a moment, so we should be careful.

[Mr Cash]

I will leave it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We will leave it.

2014 JHA Opt-out Decision

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Monday 15th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention will be brief.

[Mr Cash]

Basically, the European Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of the Government at that time, said:

“The presentation of radically changed texts in the last days of a Presidency, with calls for their immediate adoption, does not appear to us to be an appropriate way of determining changes at EU level to the criminal law…The legislative process should be open and transparent and not one of secret bargaining.”

Point of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it a point of order to insist on our having a debate on the Francis report? It was issued as long ago as February, but we still have not had a debate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Gentleman is right; that is not a point of order, but it is certainly a question for business questions tomorrow, and no doubt he will be in attendance.

Bills Presented

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

James Wharton, supported by Sir Tony Baldry, Guto Bebb, Graham Brady, Mr William Cash, Mr Nigel Dodds, Mr Stephen Dorrell, Jackie Doyle-Price, Dr Liam Fox, Zac Goldsmith, Sir Gerald Howarth and Sheryll Murray, presented a Bill make provision for the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July, and to be printed (Bill 11).

High Cost Credit Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Paul Blomfield, supported by Heidi Alexander, Tracey Crouch, Yvonne Fovargue, Andrew George, Rebecca Harris, John Healey, Julie Hilling, Damian Hinds, Stephen Lloyd, Mr Robin Walker and Nadhim Zahawi, presented a Bill to make provision for regulating high-cost credit arrangements and providers of such arrangements; to provide for controls on advertising, information and communications associated with such arrangements; to make measures to address the cost and affordability of such credit arrangements and their associated charges; to regulate matters concerning repayments under such arrangements; to make provision on advice and advice services in relation to debt arising from such arrangements; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 July, and to be printed (Bill 12).

Citizenship (Armed Forces) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Jonathan Lord, supported by Richard Fuller, Kris Hopkins and Sir Paul Beresford, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with applications for naturalisation as a British citizen made by members or former members of the armed forces.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September, and to be printed (Bill 13) with explanatory notes (Bill 13-EN).

Deep Sea Mining Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sheryll Murray, supported by Dr Matthew Offord, Andrew Bridgen, Oliver Colvile, Paul Maynard, Caroline Nokes, George Eustice and Dr Thérèse Coffey, presented a Bill to make provision about deep sea mining; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September, and to be printed (Bill 14) with explanatory notes (Bill 14-EN).

House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dan Byles, supported by Andrew George, Mr David Blunkett, Mr Jack Straw, Jeremy Lefroy, Sir Nick Harvey, Kris Hopkins, Margaret Beckett, Margot James, Rory Stewart, Dr Thérèse Coffey and Thomas Docherty, presented a Bill to make provision for retirement from the House of Lords; and to make provision for the expulsion of Members of the House of Lords in specified circumstances.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October, and to be printed (Bill 15).

Private Landlords and Letting and Managing Agents (Regulation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Alan Meale, supported by Mr Nick Raynsford, Mr Brian Binley, Ian Swales, Caroline Lucas, Jim Shannon, Jim Sheridan, Graham Evans, Mark Durkan, Bob Stewart, Naomi Long and Jim Dobbin, presented a Bill to establish a mandatory national register of private landlords; to introduce regulation of private sector letting agents and managing agents; to establish a body to administer the national register and to monitor compliance with regulations applying to letting agents and managing agents; to require all tenancy agreements entered into with private landlords to take the form of written agreements; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October, and to be printed (Bill 16).

Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Andrew Gwynne, supported by Alan Johnson, Mr David Blunkett, Catherine McKinnell, Mr Jamie Reed, Dan Jarvis, Barbara Keeley, Tom Greatrex, Bill Esterson, Robert Halfon, Andrew George and Caroline Lucas, presented a Bill to require certain public procurement contracts let by public authorities to include a commitment by the contractor to provide apprenticeships and skills training; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 November, and to be printed (Bill 17).

Delivery Surcharges (Transparency for Consumers) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mike Crockart on behalf of Sir Robert Smith, supported by Sir Malcolm Bruce, John Thurso, Mr Alan Reid, Mr Frank Doran, Dame Anne Begg, Mr Charles Kennedy, Mr Mike Weir, Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil, Mr Andrew Turner and Dr Eilidh Whiteford, presented a Bill to require online retailers to declare to consumers at the start of the retail process the existence of surcharges for delivery to certain addresses in the UK; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September, and to be printed (Bill 19).

Drug Driving (Assessment of Drug Misuse) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Graham Evans, supported by Sir Alan Meale, Mr David Nuttall, John Mann, Tracey Crouch, Fiona Bruce, Gavin Barwell, Alex Shelbrooke, Conor Burns, Charlie Elphicke, Mike Freer and Sir Bob Russell, presented a Bill to provide for the assessment of drug dependency or propensity for drug misuse of persons who, in the course of investigations for certain driving offences, have provided blood or urine samples that reveal the presence of certain drugs; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October, and to be printed (Bill 20) with explanatory notes (Bill 20-EN).

Communications (Unsolicited Telephone Calls and Texts) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mike Crockart, supported by Alun Cairns, Sir Andrew Stunell, Jackie Doyle-Price, Katy Clark, Mr Mike Weir, Dr Julian Huppert, Simon Wright, Steve Brine, Fiona Bruce and Martin Vickers, presented a Bill to reduce the incidence of unsolicited telephone calls and texts received by consumers; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 1 November, and to be printed (Bill 21).

Graduated Driving Licence Scheme Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Justin Tomlinson, supported by Mr Robert Buckland, Sir Nick Harvey, Mark Pawsey, Kelvin Hopkins, Roger Williams, Andrew Percy, Fiona Bruce, Sir Andrew Stunell, Rosie Cooper, Mr John Leech and John McDonnell, presented a Bill to make provision for a graduated driving licence scheme; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October, and to be printed (Bill 22).

Child Maltreatment Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Mark Williams, supported by Jessica Morden, Roger Williams, Mr Robert Buckland, Neil Parish, Dan Rogerson, Geraint Davies, Paul Goggins, Annette Brooke and Jonathan Edwards, presented a Bill to make provision about the physical and emotional welfare of children; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 July, and to be printed (Bill 23).

Communication Support (Deafness) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Mark Williams on behalf of Sir Malcolm Bruce, supported by Stephen Lloyd, Rosie Cooper, Richard Ottaway, Mr Michael McCann, Tim Loughton, Sir Robert Smith, Dame Anne Begg, Mr John Leech, Mr Robert Buckland and Mr Mark Williams, presented a Bill to establish a body to assess provision of communication support for Deaf people and to make recommendations; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 October, and to be printed (Bill 24).

Property Blight Compensation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mrs Caroline Spelman, supported by Dan Byles, Sir Tony Baldry, Mrs Cheryl Gillan, Jeremy Lefroy, Mrs Anne Main, Andrew Leadsom and Fiona Bruce, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to amend legislation to improve the system of compensation for property blight caused by major national infrastructure projects; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October, and to be printed (Bill 25).

Education (Information Sharing) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Andrew Selous, supported by Harriett Baldwin, Steve Brine, Margot James, Charlie Elphicke, Nigel Mills, Martin Vickers, Julian Sturdy, Graham Evans, Sir Bob Russell, Jim Sheridan and Michael Connarty, presented a Bill to make provision about the disclosure and use of information relating to persons who are or have been in education or training.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 July, and to be printed (Bill 26) with explanatory notes (Bill 26-EN).

Prisons (Drug Testing) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Margot James, supported by Harriett Baldwin, Steve Brine, Dr Thérèse Coffey, Ben Gummer, Chris Kelly and Andrew Selous, presented a Bill to make provision about the drugs for which persons detained in prisons and similar institutions may be tested.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September, and to be printed (Bill 27) with explanatory notes (Bill 27-EN).

Gender Equality (International Development) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr William Cash, supported by Sir Malcolm Bruce, Pauline Latham, Mr Bernard Jenkin, Keith Vaz, Jeremy Lefroy, Meg Hillier, Hugh Bayley, Margot James, Sarah Newton, Mr Brooks Newmark and Zac Goldsmith, presented a Bill to promote gender equality in the provision by the Government of development assistance and humanitarian assistance to countries outside the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 September, and to be printed (Bill 28).

United Kingdom Corporate and Individual Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Michael Meacher, supported by Ann Clwyd, Ian Mearns, Caroline Lucas, John Mann, Stephen Pound, Fabian Hamilton, Mr Frank Doran, Kelvin Hopkins, Simon Hughes, Mr George Mudie and Paul Blomfield, presented a Bill to require disclosure of various financial information by large companies; to provide for disclosure of beneficial ownership; to require banks to disclose to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs the identity of certain companies holding bank accounts; to require the publication of the tax returns of individuals with an income of more than a certain level and the largest two hundred and fifty UK companies; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September, and to be printed (Bill 29).

Local Government (Religious Etc. Observances) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Stevenson on behalf of Dr Matthew Offord, supported by John Stevenson, Gavin Shuker, Mr Gary Streeter and Jim Dobbin, presented a Bill to make provision about the inclusion at local authority meetings of observances that are, and about powers of local authorities in relation to events that to any extent are, religious or related to a religious or philosophical belief.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October, and to be printed (Bill 30) with explanatory notes (Bill 30-EN).

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Monday 4th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I assure my hon. Friend 100% that, if this House, in its sovereign right, decides to repeal the European Communities Act 1972—we entered on a voluntary basis in that year—or any provision that emanates from section 2, by, for example, using the “notwithstanding” formula, we are entitled to do so. Nobody can do anything to stop us doing so. Whether the Whips would allow it is another thing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I have been very generous in allowing hon. Members to drift all over, but I am not going back to 1972. I want us to stick to Second Reading. We have a bit of time and a bit of latitude has been given, but I do not want to go to the complete ends of it.

Antarctic Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

It is very kind of my hon. Friend to suggest that, but if any such thing were ever done, I should prefer it to be done after we had defeated those in Brussels. Let us get that done first, and then we can think about some method of commemorating the event, if and when it occurs.

I thought that it would be helpful to give some idea of the sort of activities in which those on the expedition were engaged. There was, in fact, an important expedition within the expedition, which took place in October 1903. Scott writes: “Because the region in which much of our work lay was very beautiful and interesting, I propose to take the reader”—and, on this occasion, the House—“into the details of one more sledging excursion. The party with which I left the ship on October 12th 1903 numbered 12 members in all”, and he says who they were.

Scott led the advance party himself; the second party was led by the geologist Mr Ferrar, with whom went two men, Kennar and Weller. He says: “The original scheme was that the whole party should journey together to the summit of Victorialand, and it was said that there should be an absence of nine weeks calculated for the advance party.” To cut a long story short—[Laughter.] It is quite a long story, but I make no apology for that.

I do want to make one thing clear. Astonishingly, although they were completely lame and exhausted, those who had led the second party were determined to follow the first group. Scott writes: “Once or twice they halted to brew tea to keep themselves going, but not one of them had suggested the halt should be extended.” That was in absolutely incredible conditions. He goes on: “In the hard struggle of the last few hours, some of the men had kept things going by occasionally indulging in some dry remark which caused everyone to laugh. Kennar’s attitude had been one of grieved astonishment. Presumably referring to me, he kept repeating ‘If he can do it, I don’t see why I can’t…My legs are as long as his.’”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Perhaps he could, but the hon. Gentleman cannot. I know that he is desperate to return to the Second Reading debate, although he has given us a great history lesson and we welcome that. I just hope that we do not spend too much time on global warming, given the amount of his speech that he has already used up.

[Mr Cash]

I simply say that it is important to put on record that all the work that is being done in Cambridge and is being talked of now refers back to those amazing people, who were, as Ernest Shackleton wrote subsequently, “the life and soul” of the party. The archives include the “South Polar Times”, and I think that people should take a look at that. In his letter to Mrs Kennar, Shackleton wrote that

“the Prince of Wales read the South Polar Times with great pleasure.”

The importance of the archiving, and the historical context of all this, need to be reaffirmed by all of us who are fascinated by the Antarctic expedition. We should recognise the work that is being done now, the work that will be done under the Bill, and the tremendous courage and determination of those who started all this. That deserves to be recalled. At the same time, we should to do all that we can to ensure that the existing organisation that was referred to by the hon. Member for Cambridge and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud and for Romford is maintained, and that the finances are in the right shape to enable it to continue in the manner that was intended by those on the original expedition. It is quite right that the Government are supporting the Bill.

European Convention on Human Rights

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

Is the Home Secretary aware of the series of speeches made by the Lord Chief Justice to the Judicial Studies Board and others? He has made it abundantly clear that in his opinion the judiciary, including the senior judiciary, have given far too much attention to the Strasbourg precedents and not enough to what he describes as the “golden thread” of the English common law. He says that it is therefore essential that we get this right and do not engage in generalised waffle about the question—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had two interventions that have taken up speaking time. I am sure he would not want to do that, in case he wants to catch my eye later.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I simply wish to say that I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) really put his finger on it. He told us exactly what the position is with regard to which paper we were considering and he identified the questions that needed to be asked, as did my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). This is about whether that treaty that we entered into all those years ago, after all that contention, has or has not done its work. It has failed, and it has failed not only this country but Europe as a whole. That is why we need to vote against the motion; this motion makes an assumption that this treaty is still alive. It is as dead as a parrot.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That must be the shortest speech that Mr Cash has made.

Question put.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The polling that has been carried out suggests that the public support fixed-term Parliaments. Indeed, if we think back to the previous Parliament, there was a general sense, both in the House and among the public and commentators, that the “will he, won’t he” debate about whether the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) would call an election on becoming Prime Minister was not helpful to good Government or to good democratic accountability. It will be helpful to have greater certainty, as that will benefit us all. Let us ask ourselves this question: if the Bill became law, and fixed-term Parliaments became the norm, would any Minister realistically be able to come to the Dispatch Box and suggest with a straight face that we should change the position and give the power back to the Prime Minister to hold an election at a time of his choosing to suit his political party? Would anyone take that proposition seriously? I suggest that they would not.

[Mr Cash]

Has it occurred to the Minister that part of the problem with this wretched Bill is that it is trying to organise things to suit the requirements of this coalition? Decisions on the future should actually be down to the public at large, and if they want to get rid of a Parliament, they will do so in their own way. That is where the question of a confidence motion starts to kick in.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are not dealing with the whole Bill; we are dealing with the amendments. I am sure that the Minister will take that into account in his answer.

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recall that Madame Lagarde herself, the prospective head of the International Monetary Fund, said on 17 December last year on that very point:

“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the eurozone”?

She was being very clear and telling the truth.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) responds, may I warn him that he only has three minutes to go?

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I did not say anything adverse about it at the time other than that the opportunity was not taken, despite advice I tried to give, to use the treaty opportunity to say to other member states that we would not agree to the treaty and would veto it unless we were taken out of the EFSM; we could then have brought forward the arrangements currently proposed for 2013. That proposition was eminently reasonable, eminently possible and €440 billion was available under the facility, which is in operation until 2013. In other words, the whole EFSM issue pivots on vanity and a determination not to unravel something that cries out for unravelling. It is not just; it is not right; it is completely irrational.

There are going to be further and deeper riots and protests. Worse still, I believe that the Government are contributing towards instability throughout Europe while claiming that within the time frame extending to 2013, bailing out the German and French banks—we should remember that that is what lies at the root of the problem—as well as Portugal and Greece will achieve stability. It will not. The argument is not only wrong, but totally—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Private Members’ Bills

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I hope that my hon. Friend will be good enough to note that if a Member introduces and prints a presentation Bill, that will demonstrate to the country what they intend to do. My Prevention of Terrorism Bill, for example, would unwind the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 and give us a proper terrorism law. Does he also appreciate that it is possible to attach signatures to such Bills by tabling an early-day motion? On one occasion, there were as many as 350 signatures attached in that way. That provides ample evidence of the support that a Bill has, even though the Government, by their continuous diminishing of the opportunities for the House to vote on matters that are important to the people at large—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [Lords]

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows what I am going to say. I do not want to spoil what he is going to say on Third Reading, so it might be better if he stuck to the subject of the amendments. That would be more useful to us at this stage.

[Mr Cash]

I am very glad to be able to follow that advice. In order for the provisions contained in the amendments to be inserted in the Bill, it is essential for the House to be aware of the implications of judicial authority, the assertions of the Supreme Court in that context, and the sovereignty of Parliament. There is, for example, the question of fiscal policy and the charter, which is set out in clause 1(2) and to which the question of economic growth and job creation would be added by the amendments. Clause 6(3) states:

“The Office must, in the performance of its duty under section 4, act consistently with any guidance included in the Charter by virtue of this section.”

I am deeply worried about the legal status of the charter in this context.

As for fiscal policy, I remind the House that the other day, probably for the first time since 1640—Pym and Hampden and all that—the Government passed a motion saying that we were only primarily responsible for it. I voted against the motion—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and a number of others—but the whole House should have voted against it, because in fact we are exclusively responsible for fiscal policy, and that is what the Bill is supposed to be based on.

What worries me particularly is the inconsistency with fundamental questions that are in the background, involving the primacy of European law, sovereignty and judicial authority. I need make no further points, because in a nutshell, if those issues cannot be reconciled with what is in the Bill, and if the duties of the Office for Budget Responsibility are to examine and report on the sustainability of the public finances, to prepare “fiscal and economic forecasts”, to make assessments and analyse sustainability, and to act consistently with the charter as a matter of law, we are surely entitled to ask: which law will prevail?

Obviously, I agree with all the ideas that are being presented. We all want an efficient economy, we all want jobs and we all want growth. We cannot survive without growth, and we cannot generate the revenues to pay for the public sector without that growth in the private sector. What worries me is that all those ideas are being imposed through a Bill, rather than through the judgment of Ministers who are accountable to the House of Commons, and should not be required to refer back to the judicial authority of the courts or the alleged primacy of the European Union.

I fear that we are embarking on one of those Lewis Carroll-type situations. I am reminded of “The Hunting of the Snark”. Members may recall the phraseology. We know that we want it, we know it is there, but the question is, what is it going to do? I have a serious problem with the Bill for that reason. I fear that we are engaged in a process of wishful thinking rather than achievement, and that we are being locked into a withdrawal from parliamentary accountability—and, as some Members may know by now, I regard that as the ultimate test of our democratic system.

European Union Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Does the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) wish to move his amendment formally?

[Mr Cash]

I will not move the amendment, but I do not agree with what the Minister has just said.

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 10

Parliamentary control of certain decisions not requiring approval by Act

Amendment made: 3, page 9, line 2, at end insert—

‘(1A) A Minister of the Crown may not vote in favour of or otherwise support a decision to which this subsection applies unless Parliamentary approval has been given in accordance with this section.

(1B) Subsection (1A) applies to a decision under Article 48(7) of TEU which in relation to a provision of TFEU applies the ordinary legislative procedure in place of a special legislative procedure not requiring the Council to act unanimously.’—(Mr Lidington.)

Third Reading

European Union Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 41, page 11, line 25, at end insert—

‘(1) The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law is hereby reaffirmed.’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 10, page 11, line 30, at end insert ‘and not by virtue of a common law principle.’.

Amendment 52, page 11, line 30, at end add—

‘(2) The Secretary of State shall prepare an annual report on the extent to which in the previous 12 months the provisions of subsection (1) have been challenged or questioned in the courts, including the European Court of Justice, identifying any challenge to the declaration contained in that subsection that the status of EU law is dependent on the continuing statutory basis provided by the European Communities Act 1972.

(3) The report made under subsection (2) shall be laid before Parliament for its approval.’.

Clause 18 stand part.

New clause 1—Parliamentary sovereignty—

‘Section 3(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 shall not extend to the construction or interpretation by the courts of the United Kingdom as to the nature or legal effect of parliamentary sovereignty and section 3 shall be amended accordingly.’.

New clause 4—Saving for existing law—

‘Nothing in Part 3 adversely affects or shall be construed as affecting the existing constitutional law of the sovereignty of Parliament in relation to EU law.’.

[Mr Cash]

The group relates specifically to clause 18, and I shall explain a little of the amendments’ purpose.

Amendment 41 would insert at the beginning of the clause, which covers the status of EU law, the simple words:

“The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament is hereby reaffirmed.”

Amendment 10 would add to the end of the clause the simple phrase,

“and not by virtue of a common law principle”.

The effect of that would be to prevent the courts from applying a common law principle, which has become entrenched in certain thinking in influential academic and legal circles, and in the Supreme Court. The explanatory notes suggest that it has also become entrenched in the Government’s thinking.

I understand that the explanatory notes may be in the course of being corrected, as the European Scrutiny Committee and one of its main witnesses suggested. However, precisely what effect that will have remains to be seen. Perhaps we can debate that this afternoon. After all, the explanatory notes may have been prepared to aid interpretation of the statute—statute law is open to interpretation by the courts—but will the removal of the relevant words necessarily have the effect of preventing those most distinguished and eminent Supreme Court judges from departing from principles and doctrines to which they have apparently become wedded?

The two new clauses are directly relevant to clause 18 to ensure parliamentary sovereignty in view of the continuing trend towards judicial interpretation along the lines that I have already expressed. It is a matter of grave concern to many of us—far more than may turn up in the Lobbies today—that the courts, on a range of matters, have accumulated greater and greater influence, and, indeed, action, in relation to their judgments on Acts of Parliament. I refer not merely to interpretation or construction of the words but the underlying judicial activism, sometimes of a quasi-political nature. That has caused a great deal of concern, which has arisen particularly in the case of the Human Rights Act 1998. Although we are not discussing that today, there is an analogy because the charter of fundamental rights, which mirrors the Human Rights Act, is part and parcel of the arrangements under the Lisbon treaty. In that area of law, if there were any inconsistency between legislation—many centuries old and based on well established democratic principles—passed in this Westminster Parliament, would the judiciary presume to make judgments about the nature or legal effects of parliamentary sovereignty?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman]

Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.

[Mr Cash]

I was talking about the crow that was quacking on the fence.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and William Cash

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 4, at end insert

‘other than a loan by virtue of any provision by or under the European Communities Act 1972’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 7, page 1, line 7, at end insert—

‘(3A) Any loans made under this Act, and any repayment of principal or payment of interest received thereunder, shall be denominated in sterling.’.

Amendment 4, page 1, leave out lines 8 to 18.

Amendment 6, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

‘(7A) Before determining the interest to be charged on any payments under this Act, the Treasury must specify the rate of interest by order; and the Treasury may not make such an order unless—

(a) the House of Commons has determined by resolution the rate of interest to be charged; and

(b) the order provides for that specified rate to be charged.’.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

‘(8A) All loans made under this Act shall be repaid by 8 December 2040.’.

Amendment 10, page 1, line 20, at end insert—

‘(8A) Before any loan or binding offer of a loan is made, or guarantee given, under this section, the relevant agreement must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.’.

Clause stand part.

[Mr Cash]

I have just abstained on Second Reading for one simple reason. I had intended to vote for it, but I remain gravely dissatisfied by the answer that I received from the Chancellor regarding the increase in the amount specified in clause 1. I do not want in any way to misrepresent what he said, but as I understood it, it was that that was all right because it was about exchange rates. However, anybody who examines clause 1 carefully will notice that subsection (4) states:

“The Treasury may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a greater amount for the amount for the time being specified in subsection (3)”,

which is £3.25 billion.

The next two provisions simply determine whether any increase will be subject to affirmative or negative resolution. An order would be made under the negative resolution only if the increase is to do with exchange rates, but I can see nothing to say that an increase under subsection (4) would be affected by subsequent provisions. I was bound to take great exception to that. It is a serious matter, because we simply do not know what the greater amount would be. We are totally exposed, subject only to affirmative resolution, which cannot be amended. Such a measure would simply go through on a whipped vote, just as the rest of the Bill doubtless will. That is why I abstained on Second Reading.

Amendment 3 addresses the definition of “Irish loan”. I was staggered when I looked carefully at the Bill, because clause 1(2) states that “Irish loan” means simply

“a loan to Ireland by the United Kingdom.”

The background is the recent debates on economic governance, and the origins of the European financial stability mechanism and the alternative eurozone facility, which as someone pointed out is as much as €440 billion, which is easily enough to cope with the Irish situation. There is a very close interconnect at all points between the so-called bilateral loan proposed in the Bill and the mechanism that I described.

The difficulty is that there is an overall determination to do as much as possible by way of integrating with Europe when it is quite obvious to anybody that this is the time for us not only to step back, but to desegregate from the European venture. I believe very strongly that the technique that is consistently employed in all spheres of activity is to say, “We don’t like what goes on in the EU, but we can just go along with it. Alternatively, to satisfy the Eurosceptics or Eurorealists, as they prefer to be called, we can make parallel arrangements along the lines of what we would have done if we were in the eurozone.”

The research paper helpfully supplied by the Library states:

“It is worth noting that the bilateral element”—

assuming that that is what the Bill is—

“of the UK’s support is broadly equivalent to what the UK would have provided if it were part of the eurozone-only EFSF.”

In other words, we would have provided the loan anyway. The Minister may well say that that is not his intention, but that is what Library researchers believe, and they are often right.