Global Britain

Debate between Steve Baker and William Cash

Thursday 30th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The title of this debate seems to be shorthand for the United Kingdom taking up its separate and equal status among the nations of the world, and everything that that means. As we approached this debate, people might have been asking, “What would it look like if Brexiteers had thought in advance about Britain’s global future? What would it mean if we had had a comprehensive analysis of every area of relevant policy that would change as we left the EU? What would it mean if we had actually drawn a picture of what Britain’s future would look like if it was global?” What if we had set out:

“Why the EU needs to Change

The Change we need

How Britain would gain influence outside an unreformed EU

How Britain would prosper outside an unreformed EU”?

What if we had then brought it together in a substantial conclusion.

I do not suppose, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to read 1,030 pages into the record, but for anyone who thinks there was no plan, and that Brexiteers had not thought through what it would mean to leave the EU and where we wanted to go, I encourage them to Google—or use their preferred search engine to search for—“Change, or go” by Business for Britain, which was published before the designated period of the referendum began. I am very proud of that document. I recently revisited it to see what it said about trade policy, and I think it stands the test of time. I am sure it contains something I will not agree with, something outside the boundaries of the manifesto, but anyone with a fair, objective mind should understand that we have always been clear about where we wanted to go.

This really matters, because ideas inform action, and both ideas and action are guided by values. At the heart of the difficulties we have faced recently is the fact that too many people have not understood our values. Brexiteers, people like me, are liberals of the old kind: open and tolerant, and believers in a diverse society, one that makes progress. For a long time, I was in favour of the European Union as it was, including, at one point, the euro. Why did I change my mind? It was because of Gordon Brown going off and signing that Lisbon treaty on his own, trying almost to hide what he was doing. I came to realise that democracy was under threat. When I recall how I felt at the time of the Lisbon treaty, watching the European constitution being hammered through, positively against democracy and with a refusal of a mandate, I remember fear and anxiety. I remember that I was concerned for the future of the country.

I therefore listened to the concerns of our opponents—the opponents of Brexit—expressed in the past few years. I have listened to them with considerable sympathy. Today it is incumbent on all Brexiteers to manufacture consent for what we are doing, to recognise that we have won: we have the Prime Minister we wanted and the policy we wanted, and the majority in the House of Commons necessary to give the Prime Minister the power necessary to put that through.

The Prime Minister is a centrist. Anyone objective, looking at our manifesto and our programme for government, will see that he is willing to intervene in the economy, that he wants to be outside the EU but that he is open, liberal, tolerant and turning to the world. I am therefore making an appeal today for grace and patience, for people to be kind to one another, particularly as we approach this celebration. It is difficult to be kind to people when they have been trying to delegitimise election results and referendum results, including the recent election: I heard people talking about first past the post, seeking to delegitimise the result. It will not do to be trying to delegitimise the constitutional arrangements that have served us very well. It is difficult to be graceful to people when they are demonising you, in one case saying that Brexiteers—indeed, the European Research Group—were worse than Nazis. That is a ridiculous comment, yet demonisation has been common. It will not do for leaders of our society to be constantly seeking to demoralise the public, but that is what we have seen. No more—no more demoralisation, no more demonisation of opponents and no more attempts, please, to delegitimise legitimate results.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason he is so right is that the outcome of the general election, which endorsed the result of the referendum itself, is a tribute to the British people, who made the decision that we should be returned to this House in the numbers that we see?

[Mr Baker]

Absolutely, and I shall come on to the question having been asked and answered.

Currently, journalists are asking me how I feel about tomorrow, the day of our leaving the European Union. It is, after all, the conclusion of what I have worked for for a good 10 to 12 years of my life—I got into politics because of that fury about the Lisbon treaty—so I should be elated. I should be rejoicing, but I am reminded of Wellington:

“Believe me, nothing except a battle lost is half so melancholy as a battle won.”

I approach tomorrow in a spirit of some considerable melancholy. I very much regret the division that this country has faced. I very much regret the cost of coming so far—the things we have had to do in British politics to get to this point. I very much regret the sorrow that my opponents will feel tomorrow as some are rejoicing on the streets.

I know that we are going to celebrate. I will celebrate—I will allow myself a smile and that glass of champagne and I will enjoy myself—but I will celebrate discreetly and in a way that is respectful of the genuine sorrow that others are feeling at the same time. That means not that I am giving in—it does not mean that I am turning away from what I believe—but that I recognise that all of us on the Government Benches who have won the argument now have a duty to be magnanimous. I urge that on everyone, inside and outside the House, even as we press forward. There are some who take an attitude of “no quarter” after the events of the past few years, and I say to them no, enough. We have to forgive and turn away from what has happened in the past, because we need to create the future that we can all enjoy and be proud of in this country. It is not a future based on past grievances; it is an open and expansive future that embraces the infinite value of every other person, even when we disagree with one another.

I do not wish to make a speech about disagreeing gracefully—perhaps on another occasion—but I do want to pick up on what the Secretary of State said about the battle of ideas raging around the world. She is absolutely right. It is a subject about which I have talked before, and if anybody is interested in my analysis, it is in the pinned video on my YouTube channel. A true conflict of ideas is going on right now—a widespread crisis of political economy—and when we listened to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) talk through his ideas, some of the difficulties and conflicts about how we go forward in the world were evident in what he said.

I am not going to be critical of what the hon. Gentleman said, but one point that I shall draw out is that so many people, including him, have made a plea for us to comply with the rules-based international order. I want us to do that. I want us to build up the World Trade Organisation—a great multilateral organisation that does not involve having a supreme court with wide-ranging powers to deliver free trade—but I say gently that if we comply with the World Trade Organisation rules, we cannot discriminate against food that is safe to eat, yet there are Members of this House who make both pleas: they plead that we ban American food that is safe to eat at the same time as making a plea for complying with WTO rules. People will have to make up their minds as to what they want to do. I want to respect international institutions—the things we have carefully built up to pursue human flourishing through liberty under the rule of law, not only nationally but internationally.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and William Cash

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

Ha, ha—well, I must say I find that very amusing, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying it.

The name that this Parliament has now acquired and deserves—the Purgatory Parliament—is, I believe, appropriate and right in the circumstances. I would say this to the Committee, as I did some weeks ago on another occasion: in the name of God, go. I believe that this is the moment for this Parliament to depart, in the words of Oliver Cromwell all those years ago. The Speaker has quite frequently referred to 17th-century precedents, so I say again to this Parliament: in the name of God, go. Let us get on with a general election and let us get Brexit done.

[Mr Baker]

Amendment 14 has the effect of aligning the registration deadline for Scotland with the registration deadline in the rest of the United Kingdom, by removing the need for the St Andrew’s day bank holiday in Scotland to be taken into account. I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in bringing forward that sensible amendment, but I wonder whether he could confirm that Scotland is being treated fairly with this amendment. On the Conservative Benches, we are most concerned to ensure the fair treatment of Scotland. We are very proud that Scotland is in the United Kingdom, and we are determined to ensure the fair treatment of people throughout the great country of Scotland.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and William Cash

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: Second Day: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I am indeed. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who also serves on the European Scrutiny Committee. The provisions I refer to would be express provisions. Therefore, the question of principle is fundamental and will also, no doubt, be taken up in the House of Lords. Furthermore, former Law Lords and members of the Supreme Court have expressed their concerns.

The European Scrutiny Committee’s unanimous view when we met this morning was that Parliament as a whole needs a solution that confirms the principle of parliamentary sovereignty along the lines of declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, as I indicated in my correspondence with the Prime Minister, whose letter I received on 9 January. To take this forward, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to intervene to give me and the House an assurance that when the Bill is in the House of Lords, the Government will constructively engage with the European Scrutiny Committee, with any other Committees of both Houses and with the advice of the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor to explore and find a proper solution to the constitutional issues I have raised in the national interest?

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the case that he has made. The Government are well apprised of the issue that he has brought to the House. It is absolutely right that we respect and uphold parliamentary sovereignty—

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and William Cash

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)]

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Hoyle. I very much hope that my voice makes it through these remarks.

I rise to support clause 1 stand part and to speak to Government amendments 381, 382 and 383. It may help the House and members of the public if I say that the decisions on those amendments will be taken on days seven and eight.

Clause 1 reads:

“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.”

It is a simple clause, but it could scarcely be more significant. In repealing the European Communities Act 1972, the clause will be a historic step in delivering our exit from the European Union, in accordance with last year’s referendum. I hope that all people on all sides of this issue can agree that the repeal of the Act is a necessary step as we leave the European Union.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my hon. Friend recall that the official Opposition voted against the Bill on Second Reading and therefore the repeal of the 1972 Act? They still claim that this Bill is not fit for purpose and that it usurps parliamentary sovereignty, when in fact it does exactly the opposite.

[Mr Baker]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and I look forward to seeing whether Opposition Members support clause 1 stand part.

If we were not to repeal the European Communities Act, we would still, from the perspective of EU law, exit the European Union at the end of the article 50 process, but there would be confusion and uncertainty about the law on our own statute book. For example, it would be unclear whether UK or EU law would take precedence if there was a conflict between them. The status of new EU law would also be unclear once the UK left the EU.

I intend first to set out briefly the effect of the European Communities Act on our legal system and the implications of its repeal. The UK is a “dualist” state, meaning that a treaty, even when ratified, does not alter our laws unless it is incorporated into domestic law by legislation. Parliament must pass legislation before the rights and obligations in a treaty have effect in our law. The European Communities Act gave EU law supremacy over UK law. Without it, EU law would not apply in the UK. The 1972 Act has two main provisions. Section 2(1) ensures rights and obligations in the EU treaties and regulations are directly applicable in the UK legal system. They apply directly without the need for Parliament to pass specific domestic implementing legislation. This bears repeating in the context of the clauses to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

Indeed. I have often thought that the scenery of our constitution had remained in place throughout my lifetime, but not the practical effect the electors of this country expected it to have.

[Sir William Cash]

In response, vicariously to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), may I point out that most decisions taken by the Council of Ministers are effectively made by consensus behind closed doors, with no record of who said what, how the decision was arrived at, or, unlike this House, with no record of any of the proceedings either?

The Government's Plan for Brexit

Debate between Steve Baker and William Cash

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

No, it is not the first time—I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

I want to pick up on what the Secretary of State said—that there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. I will go on to talk about what else might be said, but, first, what has the Prime Minister said? In particular, she has said:

“Our laws made not in Brussels but in Westminster.

Our judges sitting not in Luxembourg but in courts across the land.

The authority of EU law in this country ended forever.”

Of the deal, she has said:

“I want it to include cooperation on law enforcement and counter-terrorism work.

I want it to involve free trade, in goods and services.

I want it to give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within the Single Market—and let European businesses do the same here.

But let’s state one thing loud and clear: we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration all over again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That’s not going to happen.”

So the Prime Minister has said a great deal, and it has been supplemented elsewhere.

One thing I particularly welcome is my right hon. Friend’s work to secure reciprocal rights for those EU citizens currently resident in the UK and for those British citizens currently resident in the EU. What we have learned through the press is that 20 member states seem to have agreed to her framework arrangements, but that the Chancellor of Germany and EU officials at the most senior levels are obstructing that—indifferently and intransigently—when they could actually put people’s minds at ease by agreeing with our Prime Minister.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my hon. Friend accept that what goes with the Prime Minister’s very clear statements is that jurisdiction returns here? After the negotiations and the repeal, we will bring in our own Bill to deal, for example, with immigration and with a whole range of other matters. It will be this jurisdiction that deals with those things, not the European jurisdiction.

[Mr Baker]

I fully accept that. In fact, together with the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who spoke a few minutes ago, I very much hope that we are able to deliver a much more equal immigration policy, which treats people much more fairly, from wherever they may come.

On the point about reciprocal rights, I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson). Although he has not long been in the House, he has been absolutely indefatigable on this issue, and I look forward to seeing what else he has to say.

On the EEA and the customs union, I refer to the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), who made the case brilliantly. We cannot stay in the customs union if we want tariff-free trade with other parts of the world. We cannot stay in the EEA if we want 80% of our economy to be subject to new free trade arrangements with the rest of the world, because one has to put one’s domestic regulation on the table. Therefore, the implication of what the Prime Minister has said—that we are going to be a beacon of free trade—is that we must leave both.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and William Cash

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

New clause 1 states:

“Notwithstanding any enactment or legal instrument”,

so that would affect the Broadcasting Acts and the charter. Under my proposals, the Secretary of State would make provision by regulations

“to ensure the impartiality of broadcasters during the referendum period.”

There would also be a requirement for

“the appointment by the Secretary of State of a referendum broadcasting adjudicator”,

who would be completely separate. In effect, during the referendum period, the adjudicator’s arrangements would take the place of those of existing broadcasting authorities and the BBC. I do not dispute the fact that the Government do not want to go down that route, but it has emerged from the correspondence between the Secretary of State, Ofcom and the BBC Trust that serious discussions are taking place to make sure that the BBC and broadcasting authorities generally are properly impartial during the referendum campaign. There are those who do not think that there is a problem, but there are many who think there is, and that it needs to be rectified.

Even if the Government do not accept my amendment, the elements that I have described will need to be addressed in the charter review. The problem is that it is highly possible, if not probable, that the conclusions of the charter review will emerge after the referendum. It is therefore a matter of urgency that we sort this matter out in the run-up to the referendum, and before the charter review is completed. We shall look into this in the European Scrutiny Committee proceedings, to which we have invited Lord Hall, and we will continue to look into it because we believe that it could have a significant bearing on the outcome of the referendum if the situation is not remedied. If, on the other hand, the matter is taken seriously by the BBC and the broadcasting authorities, we will be able to find a solution in the framework of the existing legislation. This is a really serious matter.

I will not spend too much time on the other amendments, except to say that I think I will get an interesting response from the Minister to my amendment 1, which proposes a referendum period of not less than 16 weeks. I shall therefore not dwell on that one. We have to have a proper length of time for the referendum, so that the arguments can be properly put and understood on all sides.

New clause 11 deals with the limit on the expenditure of registered political parties. We have taken advice on this, because it is a matter of grave concern that the political parties, three of which are known to be pro-EU in the broadest sense, might find that they had too much money at their disposal, or at any rate have what we think is too much money if we look at this from the point of view of those who wish to leave. We have proposed a cumulative limit of £14 million. We have also proposed:

“Each political party’s share of the cumulative limit shall be determined in proportion to its share of the total votes cast at the general election that took place on 7 May 2015.”

The new clause also proposes that

“the Electoral Commission shall calculate and notify each political party of its share of the cumulative limit.”

For practical purposes, I look to the Minister to give me his view on that one.

In addition, I have tabled amendment 3, which states:

“Regulations made under this Act or the 2000 Act in respect of the referendum must be made and come into force not less than six months before the start of the referendum period.”

We discussed some aspects of that in the debate on the previous group of amendments. A further amendment relates to the question of permitted participants and the European Union. I should add that quite a lot of my amendments have been endorsed by the Electoral Commission. The Minister can no doubt refer to that body as he goes through the amendments. This is not just a matter of Back Benchers coming forward with proposals; I have been in discussion with the Electoral Commission on many matters, including my amendment 78, which we covered in the previous debate. The commission endorsed that amendment, but unfortunately it was not accepted by the Labour party.

A significant number of Members have signed my amendment 2, which proposes that

“a permitted participant must not accept a relevant donation, irrespective of whether or not it meets the requirements of the 2000 Act and this Act, if the donation is funded directly or indirectly in whole or part from moneys, resources or support disbursed or allocated by or at the direction of the European Commission, its agencies or any related European institution to the donor or via other parties to the donor.”

The object is to ensure that no funds come from the European Union for the purposes of promoting pro-European arguments, including, obviously, the yes vote. It is an important amendment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has sensibly suggested that we add the words

“Notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”,

just to make sure we do not slip up by finding that there is some law in the European Union that would contradict our proposals.

[Mr Baker]

rose—

[Sir William Cash]

Before my hon. Friend intervenes, I ought finally to add that the Electoral Commission does not agree with this.

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend has taught me many things, one of which is the importance of brevity.

[Sir William Cash]

I entirely agree with that, which is why I will now sit down.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and William Cash

Tuesday 9th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

My hon. Friend knows my view about money and banking, which is that we should have market-based moneys. That is one of the things that has gone profoundly wrong. He prompts me to say, however, that we are very clearly, across the world, in the midst of a profound crisis of political economy, and that is what we must wrestle and cope with. Some of the old, simplistic and unpleasant arguments of the past must be put to rest. We need to rediscover a true liberalism, one in which people are accepting of one another.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that the eurozone is a de facto entity, whereas the question before us in this referendum is about being part of the European Union? The eurozone is a basket case, but at the same time it is dominated by one country which causes a lot of distortion to the way in which it works.

[Mr Baker]

Indeed. It is important that there is a degree of flexibility in currency systems, and Alan Greenspan’s wonderful book on gold and economic freedom is something I commend to everybody.

As the Minister knows, I have misgivings about some of the details in the Bill, which some of my colleagues have already fleshed out. But it is a happy occasion today, because our party is wholly united in supporting the principle of the Bill. It is long overdue. We are delighted that it has come forward and we look forward to its progress.

In due course the people will decide. On the one hand they have the choice of radicalism—political union across Europe. That is the radical choice. The moderate, conservative choice is trade and co-operation among friendly nation states. People in the end will choose either for the European Union, or for Britain.

Money Creation and Society

Debate between Steve Baker and William Cash

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly important speech. I only wish that more people were here to listen to it. I wonder whether he has read Nicholas Wapshott’s book about Hayek and Keynes, which deals very carefully with the question that he has raised. Does he agree that the unpleasantness of the Weimar republic and the inflationary increase at that time led to the troubles with Germany later on, but that we are now in a new cycle which also needs to be addressed along the lines that he has just been describing?

[Steve Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What he has said emphasises that the subject that is at issue today goes to the heart of the survival of a free civilisation. That is something that Hayek wrote about, and I think it is absolutely true.

If I were allowed props in the Chamber, I might wave this 100 trillion Zimbabwe dollar note. You can hold bad politics in your hand: that is the truth of the matter. People try to explain that hyperinflation has never happened just through technocratic error, and that it happens in the context of, for example, extremely high debt levels and the inability of politicians to constrain them. In what circumstances do we find ourselves today, when we are still borrowing broadly triple what Labour was borrowing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Baker]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I welcome the spirit in which he asks that question. The vast majority of us, on both sides of the House, live on our labour. We work in order to obtain money so that we can obtain the things we need to survive.

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts another remark that I was going to make, which is that there is a categorical difference between earning money through the sweat of one’s brow and making money by just creating it when lending it to someone in exchange for a claim on the deeds to their house. Those two concepts are fundamentally, categorically different, and this goes to the heart of how capitalism works. I appreciate that very little of this would find its way on to an election leaflet, but it matters a great deal nevertheless. Perhaps I shall need to ask my opponent if he has followed this debate.

My point is that if a great fountain of new money gushes up into the financial sector, we should not be surprised to find that the banking system is far wealthier than anyone else. We should not be surprised if financing and housing in London and the south-east are far wealthier than anywhere else. Indeed, I remember that when quantitative easing began, house prices started rising in Chiswick and Islington. Money is not neutral. It redistributes real income from later to earlier owners—that is, from the poor to the rich, on the whole. That distribution effect is key to understanding the effect of new money on society. It is the primary cause of almost all conflicts revolving around the production of money and around the relations between creditors and debtors.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend might be aware that, before the last general election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and I and one or two others attacked the Labour party for the lack of growth and expressed our concern about the level of debt. If we add in all the debts from Network Rail, nuclear decommissioning, unfunded pension liabilities and so on, the actual debt is reaching extremely high levels. According to the Government’s own statements, it could now be between £3.5 trillion and £4 trillion. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is extremely dangerous?

[Steve Baker]

It is extremely dangerous and it has been repeated around the world. An extremely good book by economist and writer Philip Coggan, of The Economist, sets out just how dangerous it is. In “Paper Promises: Money, Debt and the New World Order”, a journalist from The Economist seriously suggests that this huge pile of debt created as money will lead to a wholly new monetary system.

I have not yet touched on quantitative easing, and I will try to shorten my remarks, but the point is this: having lived through this era where the money supply tripled through new lending, the whole system, of course, blew up—the real world caught up with this fiction of a monetary policy—and so QE was engaged in. A paper from the Bank of England on the distributional effects of monetary policy explains that people would have been worse off if the Bank had not engaged in QE—it was, of course, an emergency measure. But one thing the paper says is that asset purchases by the Bank

“have pushed up the price of equities by as least as much as they have pushed up the price of gilts.”

The Bank’s Andy Haldane said, “We have deliberately inflated the biggest bond market bubble in history.”

High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and William Cash

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

rose—

Accountability and Transparency in the NHS

Debate between Steve Baker and William Cash

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Baker]

Of course I would rather that the money was spent on standards and performance and not on prosecutions, because I would rather the problems did not occur. I do not wish to lecture the right hon. Gentleman, and I feel sure he did not quite mean it this way, but if we do not intend to apply the law of corporate and individual gross negligence manslaughter, let us repeal it, or amend it so that it does not apply to the NHS. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it does apply to the NHS and that in certain cases, as Francis has said, things are so bad it should be applied.

I ask the Government to look at democratic control. I am delighted that the Secretary of State is reforming the Care Quality Commission, but how can we make sure that there is more direct accountability, perhaps to the health and well-being boards, and the overview and scrutiny committees? How can we give them the power to sanction or perhaps even, through due process, dismiss a board or a chief executive?

I think here of Paul Ryan, a man with vascular disease who had lost one leg already when he found himself sick. He had four days of GP visits and spent nine hours in accident and emergency on a Friday. He was then sent home, having had an MRI scan, after which he was expecting to lose his leg on the Monday. He was told to expect a phone call, but no phone call came. The Ryans eventually called 999 and were told that it was better to get a GP. The GP arrived and called an ambulance. It took two hours for that to arrive and Paul Ryan died in the ambulance with his wife on the way to hospital.

[Mr Cash]

Does my hon. Friend agree that accountability does reside also with the Secretary of State, as set out in the national health service legislation? That is essential in relation to our functions in this House and those of this Secretary of State and former Secretaries of State.

[Steve Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point, although it has been examined at length, so I do not want to go down that rabbit hole with him—I hope he will forgive me.

The post-mortem on Mr Ryan indicated that he probably would have suffered the same fate in any event, but the system let the Ryans down—Mrs Lyn Ryan made that point to me and to the local newspaper. Unfortunately, the case plays right into the fears of the public in Wycombe, because we lost our accident and emergency facility in 2005 and we recently lost our emergency medical centre. We have just had two similar repeat occurrences of the minor injuries unit failing to refer people across the car park into the excellent cardiology and stroke units. We have seen an enormous range of little problems, for example, an 85-year-old lady with dementia was sent home in a taxi at 2 am in just her hospital gown. This cannot go on, and the public’s concerns are justified. The trust is being investigated by Sir Bruce Keogh and although I have heard good reasons why its mortality levels are justified—they relate to running hospice care, in particular—this must be taken as an opportunity to improve things.

Finally, I wish to make a point on transparency. Yesterday, I spoke to Anne Eden, the chief executive of the trust. I am not going to put on the record the entire content of the conversation, but when I told her that I intended to raise this issue of corporate manslaughter on the radio this morning, I was told, in terms, “To protect the reputation of the Buckinghamshire trust, legal action would be sought.” This is a matter of public interest being raised by a Member of Parliament in good faith, but I have had to—[Interruption.] To be fair to her, she was talking about the radio. But I have had to rely on privilege to protect myself from being sued on this matter. It is not acceptable that such a matter should have to come to a Member of Parliament, simply to rely on privilege. The situation reinforces something I have experienced again and again since becoming an MP: second-hand rumours and half-truths about the state of health care in Buckinghamshire. I have encountered: people stymied; people thinking it is helpful to give half a rumour to a friend to repeat to me so that I can know how bad things are; and people’s frustration at not being able to do anything. I know that Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust is obviously close to your heart, Mr Speaker. I know that it expects to satisfy Sir Bruce Keogh, but it is really time for proper accountability and that must include the courts.

National Referendum on the European Union

Debate between Steve Baker and William Cash

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

A few months ago the Prime Minister asked me after a debate to write to him about my views on the European Union, so I wrote him a pamphlet called “It’s the EU, stupid.” That was a reference not to him, but to Bill Clinton’s recognition that the economy is at the heart of the issue. In just the same way, I believe fundamentally, as I have set out in the pamphlet—I will quickly encapsulate some of the thoughts it contains—that this is first of all a matter of principle. The referendum issue has been going around since before the Maastricht referendum campaign. I voted yes, as it happens, in 1975, but since then we have seen the accumulation of powers and the broken promises, betrayals and prevarication. The argument is that it is never the right time to deal with these issues, but that is the problem, and the British people feel that they have been betrayed by a failure to deliver on those promises.

[Steve Baker]

I would have voted yes in 1975, but does my hon. Friend agree that the EU has gone far beyond that which is necessary to guarantee peace and prosperity?

[Mr Cash]

Yes, indeed, and I will go further: the EU has created a situation in which it actually damages our economy. That is the problem, and that is the reversal of the situation, with massive over-regulation—£8 billion a year, according to the British Chambers of Commerce—over the past 20 years in this country alone.

As I said earlier in my interventions on the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary, we are running the single market on a deficit that has gone up in the last year alone by as much as £40 billion, so it would be inconceivable for us not to take a rain-check and say, “We cannot just continue with this and pretend that nothing is going on.”

If ever there was a time to tackle the issue in principle, it is now, and that is what the motion is about: whether there is a case for renegotiation or for leaving the European Union. On renegotiation, we must establish the fact in line with the wishes of the people of this country—not because the Whips have said, “You’ve got to do this, that and the other” or, with great respect, because the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary have said so, but because we have a sacred trust, as elected Members of this House, to do what is right, in the interests of the British people as we see it for our constituents, and in the national interest. This is exactly that issue tonight.

The Prime Minister has given two speeches over the past year or so—one was about rebuilding trust in politics, and the other was about a European policy that we can believe in. I strongly recommend that people tonight, tomorrow or at some point read those speeches again and ask themselves, “What is going on in this debate today?” We know that the Whips have been strongly at work, but I had all that over Maastricht, we have had it over the years and it becomes something that we have to get used to. The reality is that we are doing the right thing for the right reason. That is the point.

European Union Bill

Debate between Steve Baker and William Cash

Monday 11th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

In a sense, this whole group of amendments is a con trick and an illusion. The test to be applied in regard to the number of people who vote in an election is a matter on which I spoke very strongly in the AV referendum debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) said, many of the people who tabled amendments on thresholds were not the slightest bit interested in them at that time. There is therefore an inconsistency of principle involved. What they are promoting, and everything that they have been doing over the past 27 years since I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee, during which time I have had the pleasure of watching their perambulations and machinations, is designed to force us further and further down the route towards European integration. They have advised Governments of all hues on the Maastricht treaty, the European Government, the exchange rate mechanism and the Nice and Amsterdam treaties.

I must have tabled the best part of 1,000 amendments against those treaties over the past 27 years, and with great pleasure. I have devoted, I suppose, almost a political lifetime to opposing every single thing that those noble Lords have put forward. I do not need to specify them individually; all I will say is that I regard them as having conducted a process that has led to the destruction of the European Community and, now, the European Union. One has only to look at what is happening today and to ask who is responsible for what has occurred. It has been a concert party—a concert party involving not only the United Kingdom establishment but, worse still, the European establishment alongside the United Kingdom establishment—that has led to the mess that the European Union is in now. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he came back from the European Council the other day, although we are glad that he felt obliged to deny that we would be involved in the Greek bail-out—having conceded, I am sad to say, that we would be involved in the bail-out of Portugal—he now has the opportunity, as the Prime Minister of this country, to go forward in the national interest and renegotiate the treaties, to get us out of the mess that those noble Lords, individually and collectively, have got us into.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

We are all grateful to my hon. Friend for his lifelong service on this issue, but on the esoterica of this group of amendments, can he clarify for me that, taken as a whole, they are simply spoiling amendments?

[Mr Cash]

They are, and it is for that reason that I will not be able to vote for them, even though I happen to have some sympathy for the idea of a reasonable test for referendums. However, these amendments are a blind—an attempt to get people to go along with the 40% test for the electorate on the one hand, but also to associate them with a whole range of matters that are entirely inimical to the interests of the United Kingdom. I am not particularly interested in the list that the Government have produced; as I said at the beginning of the proceedings on this Bill, I think that it is a mouse of a Bill. The issue on which we now need to concentrate is the big landscape and the fact that, as the European Council on Foreign Relations paper argued the other day, Maastricht has to be revised. We will have to return to the question of what kind of Europe we want.

This list of proposed matters—which will never come up in this Parliament, as we know—is, therefore, a blind in its own way, but to reduce it to three core issues really makes it an absurdity. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that on the big landscape, this is the time for us to take a bigger, more responsible and more statesmanlike view, in the interests of the people of this country, to see the European question as the failure that it is and to get down to the serious business of renegotiating all the treaties and moving to an association of nation states, so that we can work together co-operatively, rather than by co-ordination, to deal with the real, practical problems that this country faces—the Brazils, Indias and Chinas of this world—instead of dancing on the head of a pin, as we are with most of this Bill.

My argument to my right hon. Friend is very simple. He may have the advantage of having come forward with a few proposals that touch at the margins of this issue, but the real question is what is he—or, indeed, the Prime Minister—going to do to get us out of the mess that those treaties have got not only us but the people in Europe into? Indeed, young people aged between 18 and 25 in several countries are now suffering unemployment of 47%. It is absolutely impossible to accept that, and as I said in the 1990s, when this whole system collapses, it would not surprise me to see the rise of the far right and massive unemployment, destabilising the entire European Union, with the most devastating consequences for the international order. That is the problem that we are faced with, and that is why these amendments are not to be accepted.

Lords amendment 3 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 4 agreed to.

Lords amendments 5 to 13 disagreed to.

Clause 18

Status of EU law dependent on continuing statutory basis