European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Paul Farrelly and William Cash

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I am so glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. The difference between what I was doing in those days and what is happening now is that we were arguing against the Government’s policy of implementing European government, which is what the Maastricht treaty was about—incidentally, the electorate made it clear in the referendum that they now accept that. Moreover, we were arguing in favour of a referendum, which we have now had. My amendments were moving in the right direction, in line with what the Government have now agreed following the referendum and in line with what the people themselves agreed.

[Paul Farrelly]

The hon. Gentleman—my next-door neighbour from Stone—is clearly enjoying his days in the sun. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), I did not vote for the referendum legislation. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what regard he has had, over his 40 years of campaigning, for the two thirds of people who, at the time when he started his campaign, voted for the UK to remain in the European Union?

[Sir William Cash]

I can only say that, in our democratic system, six Members to one in the House of Commons, and indeed the House of Lords, voted in favour of a referendum, by means of a sovereign Act of Parliament, to give the people a say in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as well as mine next door to it—not to mention in Stoke-on-Trent Central, where quite an interesting test will take place in a few days’ time. The fact is that the decision was given to the people by an Act of Parliament, and they made the decision to leave. That is definitive. I see no purpose in wasting time on the intricate arguments we have heard so far, many of which go around in circles. The real question is: do we implement the decision of the United Kingdom or not? The answer is that we do, and we must. That was conceded by this House, and by almost everybody—I say, with great respect, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe that he did not, but the bottom line is that we are giving effect to the decision of the United Kingdom electorate.

Leaving the EU: Security, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Debate between Paul Farrelly and William Cash

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

It is an enormous pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). He is pretty well my next-door neighbour and we talk regularly. We were even on a Radio 4 programme that he organised only a week ago on Asa Briggs and all the matters to which he referred. I regard him not only as an hon. Member, but as a good friend. The valedictory comments that he just made were rather reminiscent of a maiden speech. I simply wanted to put on record that he has performed a great service to this House and to his constituents before I get into the more substantial questions before us.

[Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, for giving way. Does he agree that my hon. Friend the soon to be departed Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) has, since 2010, been a truly class act in north Staffordshire and the potteries, not least in his efforts to save the Wedgwood collection for the nation?

[Sir William Cash]

Absolutely. We are indebted to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central for that. We have all taken an active part in trying to do what we can regarding the museum, and it is marvellous not only that that collection is still there, but that it is now in secure hands under the aegis of the director of the V&A himself. I do not know whether he has taken up his contract yet, but he is getting close to it. I thank him very much for everything he has done in that context, and for our area and region.

The hon. Gentleman questioned whether, under Brexit, there would be a “Britannia unchanged”. I can assure him that there will be a “Britannia unchained”. That, to me, is the most important question of all, to which I have devoted the best part of 30 years of my political life. I believe very strongly that we will benefit enormously from this. It has been a long journey, and a very interesting historical journey, as people will discover one day when they get the full measure of what has actually taken place. It will benefit not only my constituents, 65% of whom voted leave, but the 70% of leave voters in Stoke-on-Trent Central.

The hon. Gentleman referred to sovereignty as one of the main issues before his constituents. That is connected with the question of trust which, as I said yesterday on a programme on Sky after the Prime Minister’s speech, is at the heart of the issue not only in this country, but across the whole of the European continent, which happens to be, largely speaking, within the European Union. This vote is not against Europe but against the European Union—that is what the discontent is about. There is a lack of trust between the member states, and between the citizens and the institutions and elites within the member states who have implemented these arrangements, which simply have not worked. They have generated monumental degrees of unemployment—up to 60% in some countries, including Greece and Spain. The problems that come from an over-dominating Germany have had a detrimental effect on stability in terms of the progress and evolution of the European Union. The situation has recreated the very insecurity and instability that people wanted to deal with in the aftermath of the second world war, in which my own father was killed fighting against the Waffen-SS Panzer division in 1944, winning the Military Cross, of which I am very proud.

I voted yes in 1975. I wanted to see a situation that could work but, unfortunately, the manner in which this has developed has become dysfunctional. In the discussion on the statement yesterday, I noticed that a sense of realism was bearing down on many Members because we know that we have to make this work. This is not anti-European. It is not anti-European to be pro-democracy. I know that there are some good and honest remainers who are still worried about the outcome, but I say to them, “Have confidence. Have trust in the people”—as Lord Randolph Churchill said in the 19th century. This is not a 19th-century problem, however; it is a 21st-century problem. This is not Euroscepticism in a negative sense; it is about trying to ensure that we have proper democracy, and that when we get on to the great repeal Bill, we will be able to achieve the reaffirmation of Westminster’s jurisdiction.

What does that actually mean? It means that we will be implementing in this Chamber the decisions taken by the electors in general elections, for which the people of this country fought and died. That is a crucial issue for the future of Europe as well; it does not just apply to us, but we were the first to have the opportunity to do something about it, because we had the referendum, for which some of us fought for a very long time.

At a conference at the European Parliament the other day, we discussed matters of security, terrorism and all the rest. In front of about 300 chairmen of various parliamentary committees from all over the European Union, the chairman of the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok—I have parried and fought with him for the best part of 20 years in various forums of the European Union—accused the United Kingdom of cowardice in holding a referendum. I replied that holding the referendum was an act of courage, not an act of cowardice, because we have seized the opportunity to defend the necessity of having a proper democratic system in the United Kingdom, and we will now be able to implement it.

With respect to this business of justice and home affairs, and all that goes with it, my European Scrutiny Committee held an inquiry in April or May last year—before the referendum—into the manner in which decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers. I am prepared to bet that there are people in this Chamber who do not know that virtually no votes are taken in the Council of Ministers. As a result of the European Communities Act 1972, decisions taken by the Council of Ministers—quite often stitched up behind closed doors—come straight down to this Chamber and we are under an obligation to implement them. Such decisions are often on matters such as those we are discussing, and they are of direct relevance to the whole question of security, terrorism and crime.

If people do not know that that is how the system functions, I strongly advise them to speak to me privately, when I can provide them with further information—I will not go into it in the Chamber today, but it is vital to democracy. Such decisions are not taken on a democratic basis, as people have imagined, and that is a reason in itself for our getting out of the European Union. I was absolutely delighted by what the Prime Minister said yesterday. As I said during our proceedings on the statement, her speech was “principled, reasonable and statesmanlike.”

Justice and home affairs was intended to be intergovernmental. It was never meant to be governed by majority voting and all the rest; it was meant to be a separate pillar. I say to the hon. Gentlemen and Ladies of Labour that they, under Tony Blair, collapsed the pillar so that the matter became part of treaties subject to the European Court of Justice. That was never the original intention.

In this debate, we are engaging in an element of déjà vu, but we are also giving ourselves the opportunity to indicate the extent to which we will move forward after Brexit into a different environment in which decisions on all these incredibly important matters will be dealt with by this House on the basis of votes cast by the voters of the United Kingdom and nobody else.

I drafted the repeal Bill in May last year and submitted it to various people. As a result of a process that I do not need to go into in detail, it was accepted in principle by the Government. I have no doubt that the wording will be slightly changed—or somewhat changed—but that does not matter. I set out five principles, which I will not go into now, other than to say that they meant that we would withdraw from the European Union and transpose all legislation currently within the framework of the EU’s jurisdiction into our own Westminster jurisdiction, and that thereafter we would deal with it as we went forward.

I apologise for not being in the Chamber earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was here for the opening speeches, but with my colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) and others, I have been cross-examining my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who was the Minister for Europe and is now the Leader of the House. We had important questions to put to him, and we got some interesting answers.

The repeal Bill will require careful attention. As a result of the Bill, we will be able to reintroduce a proper democratic system into this House. We will have to accept some things as a matter of policy, and we heard some of them in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s brilliant speech yesterday, but we cannot absorb the European Court of Justice. The issue of the Court is raised in debates on this subject matter probably as much as it is on any other subject matter within the framework of the European Union.

The Prime Minister’s speech yesterday made it clear that the UK will continue to co-operate with its European partners in important areas such as crime and terrorism once we leave the EU. She said that, faced with common security threats,

“our response cannot be to co-operate with one another less, but to work together more”—

subject, of course, to the question of the European Court of Justice—and to ensure that the UK’s future relationship with the EU includes

“practical arrangements on matters of law enforcement and the sharing of intelligence material with our EU allies.”

She went on to make it clear that

“we will take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice”.

As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I and my colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome—my wife is from his constituency, so I should be able to remember its name—continue to see a raft of EU initiatives in the sensitive area of law enforcement and security co-operation. The Government tell us that while the UK remains a member of the EU, all rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force, which is true, and that they will

“continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation.”

I say quite explicitly, however—I put this to the Leader of the House this afternoon—that during the period in which we are engaged in the negotiations, it is absolutely essential that we have proper explanatory memorandums on matters relating to security and terrorism and to justice and home affairs, because we must examine such matters properly and form a judgment about the extent to which we will actually implement them. When, on a matter requiring unanimity, we are in a position to vote against it, we must do so, and when a matter is subject to qualified majority voting, we must insist on a vote, rather than allow an agreement to be stitched up behind closed doors.

As my Committee recommended, we must at the same time give reasons for what we are doing, to increase transparency and accountability. Some of these matters to do with the question of terrorism and all that goes with it are so important to our security that if we do not believe that what the EU is proposing is in our national interest, we must take a stand. In my opinion, there is an absolute requirement on the Government to make sure that the reasons for that are put on the record.

Although the generalisation that we want to achieve a degree of co-operation is important, if we do not like things that are proposed—things that are not in the UK’s interest and that we would never contemplate accepting post-Brexit—we must not allow them to go through by consensus in un-smoke-filled rooms. Indeed, if we had had our wits about us, we would never have accepted such things in the first place. The European scrutiny process therefore needs to be considered, and my Committee is looking into it very closely.

As the House will recall, the coalition Government decided that it was in the UK’s national interest to rejoin 35 EU police and criminal justice measures that were adopted before the Lisbon treaty took effect and were subject to the UK’s 2014 block opt-out decision. They included Europol, Eurojust, the European arrest warrant, joint investigation teams, important data sharing instruments—EuroDac and so on—the Schengen information system, the European criminal records information system and the so-called Swedish initiative, which provides a simplified mechanism for the exchange of law enforcement information and intelligence. Since then—the Prime Minister was then the Home Secretary— the Government have rejoined the Prüm measures, which provide for the rapid automated exchange of information on DNA profiles, fingerprinting and vehicle registration data. The United Kingdom also participates in the European investigation order, which will take effect in May this year, and many other criminal justice measures.

On the new EU justice and home affairs proposals, there appears to be inadequate recognition in the explanatory memorandums that the context in which the UK will continue

“to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation”

has changed profoundly because of Brexit. To quote the Prime Minister, the UK is leaving the European Union. The Government cannot continue with business as usual within COREPER and UKRep. I trust that Sir Tim Barrow will, as the new UK representative, carry on in a way that will be entirely consistent with what is required in relation to COREPER and UKRep. We cannot continue with business as usual in the handling of sensitive EU justice and home affairs proposals in COREPER, the Council and the trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament. Given that the UK is under no obligation to participate in most new EU justice and home affairs proposals, the Government must explain on the record in each case how a decision to opt in would be in the national interest and consistent with taking back control of our laws, as the Prime Minister said, and ending the jurisdiction of the European Court.

Since last June’s referendum, the European Scrutiny Committee has pressed the Government to clarify how the measures in question will be affected by the UK’s decision to leave the EU and how they envisage managing security and law enforcement co-operation post-Brexit. Under the repeal Bill and otherwise, there will need to be significant adjustments to how that is handled. What sort of relationship do the Government intend to establish with Europol and Eurojust? Will they seek an agreement to enable the UK to continue to apply a new arrangement regarding the European arrest warrant? We cannot have it both ways. We cannot be out of the jurisdiction of the European Court and yet have all the laws interpreted by the judges in the European Court in Luxembourg. That just cannot happen, and that has to be taken on board.

What assessment have the Government made of the operational value of EU data sharing instruments? Would access to those instruments require the UK to comply with EU data protection laws in practice, even if it was no longer under a legal obligation to do so? Answers to those questions are absolutely fundamental, because otherwise we will not be able to implement the commitment to

“take back control of our laws and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice”.

As I said in an intervention, we also have to take into account the fact that justice, home affairs, terrorism and security—all the problems that have accumulated in the 21st century—are not exclusive to the European Union. They apply across the whole world. The fact that the European Union exists and has developed a body and a framework of law does not give it any absolute value. This House and its predecessors have been legislating for 400 years or more. We do not need to be told how to do this. Yes, we want to co-operate with other countries, but for heaven’s sake let us take on board the fact that we can work out what is in the interests of our own citizens in accordance with the decisions they take in general elections. We will bring in our own immigration Bill, not have one imposed on us through deals done behind closed doors, and it will do exactly what the British people want, because they will have voted for it.

We are talking about important matters arising from the decision taken by the British people, and I pay tribute to them; I do not, however, pay tribute to the campaigns. I thought that the “Project Fear” campaign was a disgrace, and I said so in the House at the time. I do not think there was any treaty change, either, although the Prime Minister kept on telling us there was—I challenged him on that and even put the matter to Mr Speaker. That was around the middle of June, and the Prime Minister was gone by the end of the month. The bottom line, however, is that neither side of the campaign covered itself in glory, and there were things I deeply regretted.

For that reason, I did my own campaign in my own area, and I am glad to say that in the area in which my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central are situated, we notched up votes of between 65% and 72% in favour of leaving. He was quite right: it was about sovereignty and the very matters I am talking about. It was about whether we could run our own country in our own fashion through our representation in this House. It was as fundamental as that. Everything else pales into insignificance compared with democracy, if it is properly conducted. It is absolutely sure that the current EU is undemocratic, and it is as well that we are getting out of it.

Our Committee has issued a press release regarding another matter that I doubt has been mentioned so far—whether UK nationals will need authorisation to travel to the Schengen area post-Brexit. The UK is not entitled to contribute to the proposal being drawn up, as it is not a Schengen country, but the Government will have to monitor the negotiations closely. In that regard, my Committee has some questions. What are the main differences between the model proposed by the Commission for visa-free entry to the Schengen area and the full Schengen visa regime? Do the Government intend to seek visa-free access to the Schengen area for UK nationals post-Brexit? Do they intend to press for an exemption from the new travel authorisation for UK nationals, or will they seek instead to minimise the cost and complexity of the application process? If they cannot secure an exemption, would they wish to introduce a reciprocal travel authorisation system for EU nationals travelling to the UK after Brexit? All those matters are in the press release that was presented to the media this afternoon, and I sincerely trust that they will give it the attention it deserves.

This is a vital debate on the best example of a policy area that impinges directly on citizens. Elsewhere in the EU massive resistance to EU proposals is building up among citizens, but we have had our referendum and the people have decided that we should get out. That is what we are doing. Let us get on with implementing that decision.

Francis Report

Debate between Paul Farrelly and William Cash

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I shall not engage in a vicarious ping-pong match with the hon. Lady. The point has been made and taken—I see that the Secretary of State is nodding—and I know that other people wish to speak, so I shall try to bring my remarks to a close.

[Paul Farrelly]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his persistence, and to the work of the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who was elected only in 2010; this has been the dominating subject of his time in the House.

As well as concerns about the length and cost of the administration process, the University hospital of North Staffordshire has raised concerns that it has not been able to do its own full due diligence at the same time. We cannot quite put our finger on whether that has been because of the administration process or concerns about competition. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when such situations arise in future—and hopefully that will be rarely—we will need to speed things up in a collaborative way and that competition issues will not surface?

[Mr Cash]

I am concerned that there should be a maximum degree of co-operation and collaboration, and perceptible unity has been demonstrated across the Floor of the House on the question of achieving co-operation in the national interest. It is extremely good that that is happening. This is not just about us as MPs; this is much, much more important. This is about victims, patient care, zero harm and people having confidence in the health service. It is absolutely essential that across the Floor of the House we achieve the maximum possible amount of collaboration on this matter.

I wrote to Mr Francis in July 2009 to ask for an inquiry under the 2005 Act, and expressed my concerns regarding the Healthcare Commission investigation at that time. In fact, in that January I had submitted a list of questions, which I had put together with Cure the NHS, Ken Lownds, Julie Bailey and Deborah Hazeldine, to ask what the Healthcare Commission was going to do by way of a report. The HCC reported in March and I hope that our intervention at that point was helpful. If those questions had not been asked, I am not quite sure what the HCC would have said. I was concerned that the reviews by Dr Laker, Professor Alberti and David Colin-Thomé were not as independent as I felt they should be. That is what led me to step up my campaign for the 2005 Act inquiry, for the reasons I gave at the beginning of my remarks.

I pay tribute to all those, from all parts of the House, who have helped to address the matters with which the Francis report has so ably dealt. I remain concerned that some people who should have given evidence were not called to do so, but we now have the report. At long last, after calling for a debate on, I think, 15 occasions, we are holding it. I am absolutely delighted that we are making progress nationally to improve the national health service. Long may it continue.