European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution
Friday 20th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Having listened to what has just been said, I am bound to say that it is a complete inversion of what leaving the European Union is all about. The European Union is utterly undemocratic. As someone who has been Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for 10 years, and a member of that Committee for 34 years, I can say that I do know a tiny bit about what has been going on. The reality is that legislation is made in the Council of Ministers behind closed doors by majority voting, in addition to that which is made by consensus and without even a transcript. Fortunately, the people of this country will be able to hear and see what is done in this Chamber today, which they certainly could not do in the Council of Ministers. It is a complete travesty to suggest that, in some shape or another, we are little Englanders or nationalistic; we are nothing of the kind.

This is a watershed moment in our history. This Bill, when it is enacted, will go down in history—in conjunction with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which repeals the European Communities Act 1972—as it stops us being subjugated and shackled by Europe and having rules imposed on us by other member states, allowing us to govern ourselves. It is about law making. That is why, after a free choice by the people of this country, we have been returned to this House. I congratulate the people with every fibre of my being for making their decision so emphatically.

The reality is that this is a historic moment. It compares with the decision that was taken in 1660 when the Cromwellian period ended and we returned to parliamentary government. We re-established parliamentary government in 1688. Then there were the Corn Laws. The working man was given the right to vote in 1867. In May 1940, we decided that we would not be governed by any other country. We defeated Hitler and made it clear that we would be a self-governing nation.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he acknowledge that there are hundreds of thousands of EU citizens in this country—people like me who have come from Europe to settle here—who voted for Brexit and believe in Brexit? The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) seeks somehow to represent all of the EU citizens, but there are hundreds of thousands of us who stand by and are proud of the decision that this country has taken to regain her sovereignty.

[Sir William Cash]

I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said. For me, this has been a long journey. My first amendment on the question of sovereignty was in June 1986 during the Single European Act. I was not even allowed to debate it. I was cut off at the knees by one of your predecessors, Mr Deputy Speaker, for daring to suggest that the matter should be debated. The fact is that we then moved on to the Maastricht treaty, and I had the honour and privilege to help run and then lead the rebellion that was needed to stop European government, which is what that treaty was all about. Then we moved on to Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon.

As I survey the landscape of the enormous change that is taking place today, I see exhausted volcanos of former Prime Ministers who have been constantly in the media telling us that we got Brexit wrong. No, we did not. Furthermore, not only did we get it right, but the British people 100% know that this is one of the great moments in British history. We have been shackled by the European Union. Yes, we will continue to trade with it. Yes, we will have global trading. Yes, we will have our democracy and our sovereignty back. This is a great moment in our history. I can only say that, as far as I am concerned, the most important clauses in this Bill are 29 and 38. One gives the right to the European Scrutiny Committee to determine whether matters of national vital interest need to be protected from legislation, which may well be brought in against us by the European Union from behind closed doors during the transition period. For example, the ports regulation, which was imposed on us only a few years ago, was objected to and absolutely resisted not only by Members of the Committee but by all the trade unions and port employers.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

And by me.

[Sir William Cash]

And by the former Minister as well. We were overridden by Europe. This Parliament was treated with contempt. The regulation was imposed despite the fact that we were completely against it.

The other important clause relates to parliamentary sovereignty. I am glad to note that the wording in that clause is identical in certain respects to that which I put forward in June 1986. Perhaps this long journey has been proved to be worthwhile.

I congratulate the Prime Minister on what he has achieved, and, above all else, I congratulate the voters of this country, particularly those in former Labour seats, for their decision. I was brought up in Sheffield and saw the destruction of the steel industry and the destruction of the coal industry. [Interruption.] No, it was done—[Interruption.] Look, I will not take any lessons from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I voted against the closure of the coal pits. I was one of the very few people—[Interruption.] I am just telling you that it was the European coal and steel community that was at the root of the problem. As vice-chair of the coal communities all-party group, I can tell you that I worked with Labour Members of Parliament on these issues.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian. He knows that he should address the Chair, and not individual Members and, while I am on my feet, I say to him that I am looking at the clock as well.

[Sir William Cash]

I am grateful for that comment, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I agree with it. I will only say, with every fibre of my being, that the European Union has done no good to this country. We run a massive deficit with it and a surplus with the rest of the world. By this Bill, when enacted, we will regain the right to govern ourselves. It is about democracy and trust, which is something so precious that people fought and died for it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It is now a pleasure to invite the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) to make his maiden speech.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 7th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. I do not want to stray too far into the second grouping in Committee, which is indeed on citizens’ rights and which the Security Minister will address, but what this Bill is doing is securing the rights of EU citizens within the UK and indeed the rights of UK citizens in the European Union, because we value the contribution that those EU citizens make to the UK. They have chosen to make their homes here and to bring up their families here, and their rights are protected. That is one of the reasons that I urge Members on both sides of the House to support this Bill.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

During the transitional period, laws will be made in the European Union that we will be expected to obey. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that clauses 29 and 38—one of which deals with the review of legislation through the auspices of the European Scrutiny Committee, where we will be affected by our vital national interests being undermined—provide good protection for the United Kingdom’s national interests? Secondly, does he agree that the question of parliamentary sovereignty in clause 38 will complement that by ensuring that the whole process of legislation under the withdrawal agreement will not affect the continuing sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, and that this therefore effectively provides a double lock on the rights of this House as we leave the European Union?

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to signpost those two safeguards being put in place, in which he played a significant part, but I would say that there are three. I will come on to the third, if I may slightly push him by making that correction. He is right to say that the European Scrutiny Committee, under his chairmanship, will have the right to trigger debates and scrutiny. Secondly, he has championed the clause dealing with the sovereignty of Parliament, which is set out clearly in the Bill. The third element that I would draw to his attention, which is within this grouping, is our legislating for the Government’s manifesto commitment not to extend the implementation period. That will ensure that there is no extension of the implementation period and will therefore ensure that there is no risk of a further one-year or two-year period during which the issue about which he was concerned in relation to those two other clauses could arise. So there are three protections, and not just the two that he mentioned.

[Sir William Cash]

Very, very good!

[Steve Barclay]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend signals from a sedentary position that he is content with that.

Ultimately, clause 1 will ensure that there is continuity in our laws during the implementation period and that our law continues to operate properly. It is therefore essential and must stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I had hoped for a better initial intervention. We are very clear that we accept that the general election has changed the landscape. The shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has made that position clear, other colleagues have made that position clear, and I will do so in my remarks. Government Members should recognise that, although under our electoral system the arithmetic in this place is very clear, the majority of the British people voted for parties that were not of the mind of the Conservative manifesto and wanted to give the British public a further say. I say that not to deny the reality of the voting in this place, but to urge Government Members to have some caution about the way that they approach this issue and claim authority from the British people.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

I will of course give way. It is always a pleasure.

[Sir William Cash]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I just wanted to clarify one thing. Labour Front Benchers and the whole Labour party—with few exceptions, if any—voted against the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. First, does he confirm that that was the case—I do not think that he can deny it? Secondly, does that not make it clear that, back in 2018 when that Act received Royal Assent, they were refusing to accept the will of the British people and were against repealing the 1972 Act?

[Paul Blomfield]

I am always happy to confirm what is on the public record, but I would say that the Opposition were clear; we campaigned to remain in the European Union because we believed that it was the right thing for our country and for the continent that we share with the other members of the EU, but we accepted the outcome of the referendum and voted to trigger article 50. We believe that there would have been the possibility both of winning an overwhelming majority in this House and of uniting the British people around a departure from the European Union that reflected the 52:48 vote of a divided country in 2016—a decision that would have taken us out of the European Union while remaining close to it, aligned with the single market, in a customs union, and continuing to be part of the agencies and partnerships that we have built together over 46 years. That sort of deal was available and it was Government Members who denied it.

We voted against the Bill on Second Reading because we believe that the withdrawal agreement is a bad deal for the UK, just as we voted against previous withdrawal agreements. When Government Members point fingers, it is worth remembering that we were not alone in that. Albeit for very different reasons, many Government Members, including the Prime Minister, voted more than once against getting Brexit done—on the terms of the previous Prime Minister’s deal and for his own reasons.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons & Committee: 2nd sitting
Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

When dealing with issues of interpretation of European law in the context of our own previous methods of judicial interpretation, those of us who are familiar with Maxwell as compared to Craies know what the differences are. Does my hon. Friend believe that we should be moving towards the stare decisis system—in other words, a system based on precedent—rather than to purposive interpretation, which is the basis on which European law currently operates? Professor Richard Ekins of Oxford University and others are very conscious of that. He has written a very interesting paper.

[Sir Robert Neill]

It is indeed a very interesting paper. Having been brought up as a common lawyer myself, my preference is inevitably to move towards a stare decisis approach. I think that that is something that we all wish to move back to as we reconstruct our statute book and legal texts thereafter. My hon. Friend and I will be entirely in accord on that.

The question is really about the route that we choose to get there and ensuring that we have proper scrutiny of that route, because any deficiencies in regulations would likely result in a judicial review. That is another irony: I am sure that the Government would not want greater risk of judicial review of their actions than is absolutely necessary. It would be a funny Government who made work for lawyers in relation to judicial review. That might be interesting for some of us, but I am sure that it is not something that the Government wish to do. However, without more explanation as to why we are going down that route, that is the risk.

First, I suggest to the Minister that he should seriously consider whether we move to a “necessary” as opposed to “appropriate” test—an objective test—which is much more likely to withstand challenge in the courts, because it is more likely to be readily evidenced and, I would have thought therefore, to the Government’s advantage. If the Government get their ducks in a row early when making regulations and have evidence to back the objective test, they are much more likely to withstand legal challenge.

Secondly, the Government would be much less likely to face challenges and we would get better scrutiny if we moved—certainly for the majority of policy considerations —to using the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. That would perhaps be a fair balance in the House. We will not necessarily be able to do primary legislation for all of our withdrawal, because there is too much of it. Sensible use of secondary legislation, to remove references to the European Union or something of that kind, can of course be done by the negative procedure. When policy considerations are involved, however, the use of the affirmative procedure would be consistent with the Government’s objective of bringing back control to the House, and with the movement towards our traditional UK approach to legal matters. I hope that the Minister will say something about that when he responds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

My right hon. Friend speaks with considerable experience and passion on these issues. Of course I agree with him, but what we want is a free trade agreement for the whole of the UK that addresses these issues and allows us the most frictionless access to our neighbours and good trade for all of us. For Northern Ireland, that would be an excellent result. We have to focus on the fact that this Bill is about the withdrawal agreement, and that includes the protocol. We need to take through the protocol to ratify the withdrawal agreement and move forward into that negotiation.

The Government are committed to maintaining the highest levels of transparency and scrutiny in relation to this Bill and to the implementation of the withdrawal agreement. We have been clear on that, but the exact form of accountability needs to be appropriately framed, so the Government cannot accept new clauses 53, 54 or 65, which would place an undue burden on the Government but not provide the transparency and scrutiny that they purport to achieve. It is no surprise that the Opposition, through amendment 1, seek to place hurdles in the way of our exit, but the result of the general election across the United Kingdom shows that they lack the mandate to do so and that we have a clear mandate to proceed. We should do so without the hurdles that the previous Parliament consistently threw in the way of progress.

[Sir William Cash]

I wish to ask my hon. Friend to reflect on one point. Under this Bill, the European Scrutiny Committee, both in the Commons and the Lords, will have the power to examine certain matters. I know that he knows about that, but there is also the question of interpretation, which comes up in this set of proposals. I wish to reinforce the exchange that I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), which is that clause 5 has not been addressed, and that reaffirms the supremacy of EU law before exit day. We need to keep an eye on the question of the quashing and disapplication of Acts of Parliament as we proceed.

[Mr Walker]

I absolutely take on board my hon. Friend’s comments. As we are discussing parliamentary scrutiny, I am sure that he will welcome the clauses that set out a role for the European Scrutiny Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Regulations that would have been discussed either in the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers, and those people are also elected and have been for decades. Members have been elected to the European Parliament since 1979. I know that, as I am sure Conservative Members do, because I have campaigned for those Members in elections.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Lady just referred to the Council of Ministers. Would she deny for a minute, as is well understood by everybody else, that decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers by a majority vote of other countries behind closed doors and without a transcript? They are therefore not democratic. How can she talk about people being elected when the decisions are actually taken in that manner?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The last time I looked, most—although admittedly not all—of the Government’s Ministers were democratically elected. We participated in the creation of the rules of that Council. I am going to skip ahead in my speech and then come back again, because I wish to remind Conservative Members that it was, for instance, a Tory Government who took us into the single market, with all its rules. They rightly recognised the benefits of the shared rules of a single market. They recognised that they were worth it and that they did not compromise our sovereignty.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (James Duddridge)]

Parliament is sovereign, was sovereign and will be sovereign, and the clause recognises that fundamental principle in our constitutional arrangement, which is of great significance to many hon. Members. Membership of the European Union has felt as though we have ceded control. We cannot pull back sovereignty piece by piece—Conservative Back Benchers mentioned a number of examples. Anybody who has sat on a delegated legislation Committee will have been told by the Minister, “We cannot change this because it has gone through the European processes and we have to rubber stamp it.” The presumption was that we were full members, and that was made worse by qualified majority voting; previously, we had the ability to come back to each individual matter.

[Sir William Cash]

A very simple example of what my hon. Friend mentions is the EU’s port services regulation, which was opposed by every trade union, by the Government and by every one of the 47 port employers but went through this House simply because it had been passed by a majority vote in the Council of Ministers. That regulation was imposed upon us by the abdication of our sovereignty under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.

[James Duddridge]

My hon. Friend is right. We could not do anything about that law or any other specific issue without coming out of the European Union, taking back control and asserting our sovereignty. Clause 38 reaffirms that sovereignty going forward and, crucially, during the implementation period.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

Yes. Clause 38 not only restates the historical position but reasserts our sovereignty during the implementation period. Parliament will be given extra powers, such as the powers being taken by the European Scrutiny Committee, which is important because we will not be participants in the decision-making process.

[Sir William Cash]

In a nutshell, laws are democratic when they are made in line with a manifesto following a general election. The bottom line, therefore, is that decisions taken by the European Scrutiny Committee on vital national interests will also go through departmental Select Committees, and then there will be a vote on the Floor of the House. That means this House will decide whether it wants to obey a legislative arrangement that has come out of the European Union, which is completely different from anything that happened since 1972.

[James Duddridge]

I thank the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. As he knows, the powers will also extend to the House of Lords, allowing for an additional check.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitford]

Clause 38 addresses parliamentary sovereignty. Independent reviews of the clause, including by the Library and the Institute for Government, point out how completely meaningless it is. It purely states something without giving it any power. It has no power in law, yet throughout this Bill, sweeping delegated powers are being taken from this Parliament to the Executive. The Government have just voted against limiting those powers in the standard way that they were limited in the 2018 withdrawal Act to protect things such as the Human Rights Act, the Government of Wales Act, the Scotland Act and the Northern Ireland Act. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was at the Dispatch Box for the previous group of amendments, could not explain why the Government felt that they could not accept such limitations. That is where the concern comes, particularly on clause 21. There is no sunset clause—there is no limit. This plan to rebalance powers between the Executive, Parliament and the courts was in the Tory manifesto, and we literally see it coming to life inside this Bill.

The Minister mentioned clause 5, which gives the withdrawal agreement supremacy over all domestic law. It will not allow parliamentary scrutiny of any of the changes that result from that. These sweeping, broad-brush powers are concerning people. In particular, the removal of clause 31 of the original withdrawal agreement Bill in its entirety means that Parliament has no voice, no influence and no ability to set the terms or aims of the future relationship, which goes way beyond any trade deal. Such actions are making people afraid of what is going on. Furthermore, we have not heard any good argument from the Government as to why Parliament is suddenly being excluded in this way.

It is bizarre now to take this stance of “The lady doth protest too much” and, “Oh, we all believe in parliamentary sovereignty.” In actual fact, what we see is a complete undermining of the sovereignty of this Parliament. We also see an undermining of the sovereignty of the other three Parliaments in the United Kingdom. The devolved Governments are being undermined. They also will have no influence over the future relationship. They are also having to face delegated powers being taken from them, so that the Government can legislate on devolved areas even without the involvement of devolved Ministers. Twenty years after devolution, this is seen as an absolute power grab and an absolute attack on the devolved Parliaments of the United Kingdom.

In amendment 9, we specifically talk about an economic impact assessment. There has not been one since 2018—and that was on the Chequers agreement. Frankly, having read the Chequers agreement, which many Members on the Government Benches, including the Prime Minister, did not support, I can say that it was a complete cake-and-eat-it agreement. Frankly, it was never an agreement; it was just a wish list that had no chance of happening. There has been no economic impact assessment since then, and certainly no economic impact assessment of what this Bill will do.

We have heard all the representatives of Northern Ireland coming together across the divide of the communities to ask for regular economic impact assessments on what this Bill does to Northern Ireland. As someone from a coastal, west of Scotland constituency, let me point out that we will be looking across at Northern Ireland, which will be sitting in the single market. Fishermen in my constituency are talking about losing their businesses or having to register in Northern Ireland to try to compete. Our farmers will face delays at ports and may face tariffs. They will certainly face huge bureaucracy that farmers in Northern Ireland will not face. I have two big just-in-time industries in my constituency: aerospace and pharmaceuticals. How are we going to keep those industries, let alone attract other businesses? They will look at Ayrshire and they will look at Northern Ireland; one is in the single market and one is not. I am sorry, but the idea that the economic assessment that was done on the Chequers deal would count for this deal and this Bill is frankly complete nonsense.

When this Government talk about their precious Union, it is important that they respect the devolved Governments, who are being given no locus in the future relationship. The fact that the Scottish Parliament will be voting on withholding a legislative consent motion for this legislation was dismissed as irrelevant by the Prime Minister himself at the Dispatch Box before Christmas. If it is so important to Members on the Tory Benches to preserve their precious Union, may I suggest that it is a bit like a marriage? Imagine turning around and saying to the missus, “Tough, I won’t give you a divorce”, “Tough, I don’t want to listen to you”, or “Shut up, because I’m in charge.” Imagine saying things like, “Yeah, give me half your wages” and “You can’t leave me, because I bought a big 4x4 and now we have an overdraft.” That is what the relationship looks like from Scotland.

As the former Prime Minister and the Attorney General both pointed out, it is not possible to maintain a union of nations that is not voluntary and that countries do not wish to be a part of. That has repeatedly been put forward as a Brexit argument. You will not keep Scotland in your precious Union with the utter disrespect that is being shown for her Government, her people and how her people voted. The Scottish National party is the party that people voted for, so repeatedly saying that the people of Scotland “don’t want this” and “don’t want that” is nonsense. If Government Members believe in democracy, they should be respecting not just the Scottish Government, but the Scottish Parliament. They cannot ride roughshod with delegated powers over the devolved Governments of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It will certainly not protect their precious Union.

[Sir William Cash]

The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, “What is this sovereignty?” It is terribly simple; it is the ability to make our own laws in our own Parliament, in accordance with the electoral decisions taken by the people in line with a manifesto and with their constitutional arrangements, which have been in place for many generations. It is this for which people fought and died in world wars. The very simple reality is that sovereignty is about whether or not we can govern ourselves.

My rebellion against the Maastricht treaty was based on the simple proposition that that treaty created European government. In 1971, we entered into arrangements—then enacted through the European Communities Act 1972—on the basis of a White Paper that said we would never give up the veto under any circumstances, and furthermore that to do so would be not only against our own national interest, but contrary to the fabric of the European Community itself. Believe it or not, it was understood in Government circles at that time that the veto enabled us to retain the actuality and reality of the ability to make our own laws. Gradually, over the next 30 or 40 years, that veto was whittled away to extinction, and the processes that I have to deal with day in, day out in the European Scrutiny Committee—and have been doing so since I first went on the Committee in 1985—have demonstrated to me that, in fact, we have not been governing ourselves. That is why I entered into opposition to the Maastricht treaty and then to Nice, Amsterdam and ultimately Lisbon. The reality of what has been happening is that the individuals who sit on these green Benches have simply had their ability to make the laws that they are entitled to make on behalf of the people who vote for them reduced to rubble.

In return, we have been faced with an increasingly dysfunctional European Union that did not work in the interests of the British people, and that is why we got the result we did in the referendum. It was the people who voted. Interestingly, when the decision was taken to hold the referendum, it was decided by six to one in the House of Commons. We voluntarily agreed that we would abdicate our right as Members of Parliament and let the people of this country make that decision on their own behalf. All the resistance we have seen over the past three years from the Opposition Benches and from a number of our recalcitrant colleagues, many of whom are no longer in the House, was based on a complete failure to understand that the decisions that were taken in that referendum were authorised by Parliament and, indeed, by themselves.

Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—I did the first draft of the Bill, which was accepted by the Government—said that the European Communities Act 1972 would be repealed on exit day. That is now in fact implementation period day, but for practical purposes it comes to the same thing. The Opposition religiously—or irreligiously, depending on how one cares to put it—decided that they would oppose that Bill in principle, as they did on Second Reading and on Third Reading. Every single Conservative, even my recalcitrant colleagues—even Kenneth Clarke—voted for the withdrawal Act on Third Reading, but the Opposition denied not only the sovereignty that was being restored by the repeal of the ’72 Act but the democracy that went with it. That is a fundamental issue. They destroyed their credibility with the British people, and I believe that the ordinary man in the street—the people who voted in the last general election—understood that.

I have already made the point that European laws are made behind closed doors by a majority vote. Nobody can say that the decisions that were taken, which we had to accept because we had no alternative, were laws made by our elected representatives. I have never heard such trash coming from a Front Bench as the suggestion that the fact that these people happen to be elected Members of Parliament in the Council of Ministers conferred upon them some form of democratic right to decide.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is making absolutely the right case about sovereignty. I mentioned Van Gend en Loos and Costa v. ENEL. The point about those two cases is that they were judicial statements. One was about direct effect and the other was about the whole idea that European law had supremacy. They were never voted on in this House. Nobody agreed to them. Nobody said, “This is what we wanted.” That led to something quite interesting—the imposition of the extension of welfare payments to EU migrants who came here was the result of a judicial review of something that we had never voted for, and it cost us a lot of money.

[Sir William Cash]

That is a very good point. Those cases happened before we came into the European Union, and they invade the very concept of the constitutionality of this country and of other countries too, because they say that we are obliged to obey not just any law, not just all laws, but even constitutional laws. That is the point. It is an utter invasion. It is a complete and total destruction of the decision of people through the ballot box in general elections. That is the problem. Sovereignty and democracy are intertwined at the heart of our constitutional system. The hon. Member for Bristol West ought to reflect on the rather absurd propositions in her speech, because she cannot prove a single point that she made.

[Mr Paterson]

A key function of Members sent here—the earlier Parliaments were in Shropshire, of course; it is a regrettable tendency that we have had them in Westminster for the last few hundred years—is that we pass supply, vote funds and are responsible for moneys raised from our constituents. “No taxation without representation” is fundamental. The current rules are in complete breach of that. It is worth reading the National Audit Office report which says that between 2005 and 2015, the EU demanded £642 million back because of the unsatisfactory manner in which the last Labour Government introduced CAP reform. There was absolutely nothing that a single Member of Parliament could do by voting here to stop that money being demanded from the UK Government.

[Sir William Cash]

In conclusion, I will simply say that I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend has said, as indeed I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said. The bottom line is that our passing of the withdrawal Act, in conjunction with the general election that we have just won, gives us back the opportunity to make laws on behalf of the people of this country in a democratic, constitutional arrangement of such importance that I believe it will go down as a historic moment when the Bill’s Third Reading is passed tomorrow.

[Stephen Farry]

I rise primarily to address amendment 35 in my name and its intersection with clause 38. I do not intend to press it to a Division, but I want to highlight some of the issues that arise from it.

More generally, on the point of parliamentary sovereignty, I want to make a couple of comments, as other Members have, about the irony with respect to the level of delegated powers that the Bill will create, as well as the lack of scrutiny of the future relationship, which is of particular importance to us in Northern Ireland but also, of course, for all colleagues across the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland/Ireland protocol, which is of such importance to us in Northern Ireland and has almost bedevilled the process of Brexit for many years, was only in effect programmed for two hours today. Many of the Northern Ireland voices were not properly articulated on that.

The concern of my amendment is the rights protections under the Good Friday agreement. The Good Friday agreement is, of course, an international agreement, but its implementation in domestic law falls to the UK Government. The agreement sets out a comprehensive set of rights, including the political participation of women, the right to freely choose one’s residence, freedom from sectarian harassment, a statutory equality duty and, perhaps most significantly, the requirement for the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into UK domestic law.

Most of the debate in Northern Ireland and beyond around Brexit, as it pertains to our situation, has focused on issues around borders, including the business community, the economy, trade and what the future holds in that regard. But people are also deeply concerned about rights issues, for a whole range of reasons. Article 2(1) of the protocol on Northern Ireland/Ireland provides a commitment that there will be

“no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity”.

That is very much welcome, but we have seen a gradual weakening of the level of commitment to rights protections since the original draft of the joint report in December 2017. The European Union is very clear that it falls to the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the rights under the Good Friday agreement are protected as part of the future relationship.

The specific concern that I am trying to raise through amendment 35 is that there seems to be an inconsistency between section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and clause 38 of the Bill, which is the focus of this section of our debate. Clause 38 stresses parliamentary sovereignty notwithstanding section 7A, which is used to give some degree of reassurance that there will not be any threat to rights, but there is the potential that section 7A could be overridden in some shape or form. There are several reasons why we have some concern in this respect. First, not all Good Friday agreement rights relate to the European convention itself; some are broader than what the convention contains. Some of the proposed legislative commitments apply only to Northern Ireland Departments and public bodies, and do not extend as far as the UK Government themselves, and in that there may well be some potential danger.

There are also concerns about whether the UK Government have, to date, fully respected some of the rights under the Good Friday agreement. As Members will appreciate, identity is a very complex issue across these islands, but it has been managed to date through a number of different forms—for example, the common travel area; more recently, the Good Friday agreement; and hitherto, of course, the joint membership of the European Union by the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Up until now, both jurisdictions have moved in tandem on issues involving the European Union, including on matters such as the Schengen agreement, which the Republic of Ireland has also opted out of. We are now faced with the fact that, for the first time ever, we are going to see the UK and Ireland move in different directions in terms of the European Union. That may well throw up a whole range of issues, challenges and anomalies that will need to be managed successfully.

Brexit strips away a lot of those protections, and perhaps does create a certain degree of risk. If I may, I will take one example in that regard. Members may well be aware of the Emma DeSouza case regarding immigration. It drew attention to the fact that the UK Government have not reflected in UK domestic law, particularly in relation to revision of the British Nationality Act 1981, the right of someone born and resident in Northern Ireland to identify solely as Irish, and to have Irish citizenship. What the law currently says is that anyone born in Northern Ireland is, by birth, automatically British, and to many that goes against both the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday agreement.

As long as that case, and indeed other situations, go unresolved there is a latent fear of these anomalies persisting and, indeed, potentially growing, particularly if there is greater divergence between the UK and the rest of the European Union, including the Republic of Ireland in particular. That has implications for what is a very complex situation, which has been managed by the Good Friday agreement—on a faltering basis over the past 20 years, but none the less managed—and we may well be in very difficult and rocky territory. It is important that the Government reflect on some of the fears that are being expressed in Northern Ireland. Although I am not going to press the amendment today, I think it is important that the Government reflect on the matter.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

It would not be the same debate if I did not. I am happy to do so.

[Sir William Cash]

I refer to what has just been said from the Scottish nationalist Benches because in fact this is about the United Kingdom, which made the treaty in the first place and abdicated its responsibility and its sovereignty, but is now reasserting its status within the United Kingdom. It is about parliamentary sovereignty, and it is also about democracy because that decision was taken by the British people in the full knowledge of the voters of the United Kingdom, not any one part of it.

[Paul Blomfield]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We had a whole debate around sovereignty in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) made some very astute observations, but the hon. Gentleman needs to recognise my underlying point: the decision of the general election is not a mandate to bulldoze through a particular version of Brexit at any cost on all the peoples of the United Kingdom, and the next few months must be approached with sensitivity and caution if we are to stay together as a United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House declines to give a Third Reading to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill because the Scottish Parliament has not consented to those parts of the Bill which encroach on devolved competencies, and because it fails to take into account the fact that the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union; and further believes that the Bill is not fit for purpose as it continues to undermine the fundamental principles of the Scotland Act 1998 by reserving to the UK Parliament powers that would otherwise be devolved to the Scottish Parliament upon the UK leaving the European Union.

I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your new position in the big comfy chair—hopefully you have your feet up on the footstool.

I thank all the staff of the Public Bill Office and the Clerks for the support that they have given right across the House in helping to put the Bills together and in helping Members to draw up and submit amendments, which is no easy thing for many of us. They have had to do that through all the stages of Brexit legislation, and all of us should thank them for their work.

Despite all the understandable triumphalism after winning the election in England, we see in this Prime Minister’s deal the potential of a repeat of the Brexit saga of the last three and a half years, as through hubris he is making similar mistakes to his predecessor. She painted herself into a corner with her red lines before carrying out an economic assessment to decide what form of Brexit would be least damaging. There has been no economic assessment of this deal. The last one was in 2018, on the Chequers “cake and eat it” plan, which was such a fairy tale that we could hear the unicorns galloping down Whitehall.

The former Prime Minister launched the article 50 process, with its fixed end-date and the clock ticking all the time, without a scooby as to what the UK actually wanted to ask for from the EU. This Prime Minister has made it illegal to extend transition despite the fact that 11 months is a ridiculously short time to negotiate even a basic free trade deal, let alone the complex shopping list of the political declaration.

The former Prime Minister kept her cards close to her chest, so Parliament had no input or influence on the withdrawal deal as it developed. The removal of clause 31 from the Bill means that Parliament, and indeed devolved Governments, will have no influence on the future relationship with the EU, despite the impact on all our constituents and local industries.

The former Prime Minister was then terribly shocked that, when she finally produced her deal, it was such a flop, drawn like a lifeless rabbit out of a hat and rejected by those on both sides of the Brexit debate, including the current Prime Minister. Members of this House are being sidelined and can therefore only wonder what the future relationship will look like when it is eventually unveiled in December.

[Sir William Cash]

I say, first, how much I respect the hon. Lady. She sits on the European Scrutiny Committee, which I have had the honour to Chair for some time.

On the question of how the negotiations were conducted—as she knows, we have been conducting our investigation into that—a very important point that we made was that the terms and conditions were set by the European Union and accepted by the UK. That will change now because of the general election result—I just thought that I would make that observation.

[Dr Whitford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I think that the tone was set when we saw the former Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), turn up to the first meeting with not a piece of paper in his hand to meet the EU negotiators. That was rather naive.

Early in her premiership, the former Prime Minister spoke of consulting across the House, and across the UK, before she went to Europe, but she never did. This Prime Minister has sought no common ground, within this Parliament or with the devolved nations, despite the fact that two of them voted to remain.

Brexit was never defined during the referendum. Indeed, Nigel Farage and some of the most ardent Brexiteers suggested that of course the UK would stay in the single market—that it would be madness to leave. They just wanted to get back to a common market.

The Scottish Government’s report, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, put forward as early as December 2016— three months before the article 50 letter was sent—the compromise proposal that the UK should stay in the single market and customs union. With a 52:48 referendum result, that might even have provided the basis of a compromise between leavers who did not want closer political union and remainers who wanted to keep as many EU benefits as possible. However, if England and Wales wanted to diverge further, the proposal was that Scotland and Northern Ireland should be allowed to stay in the single market and customs union, which would have respected how those nations voted.

Sadly, the proposals were dismissed by the Government out of hand, and the fact that 62% of Scottish voters voted to remain has been completely ignored, with no quarter given and no compromise offered. Indeed, Scotland and the majority of her elected representatives have been treated with growing disrespect in this place over the last three and half years. I gently point out that we do actually have television and the internet in Scotland and that this is being seen by the Scottish people.

Our request for a devolved or, at least, regionalised immigration process after Brexit has also been dismissed, despite Scotland’s demographic need for immigration. We have to be able to ensure that EU citizens, who have made their home in Scotland—including my other half—can stay without being exposed to the notorious hostile environment of the Home Office, but, in future, we also need to be able to attract immigrants from Europe and across the world. With the risk to our public services and key industries such as tourism and farming, and the threat of depopulation in the highlands and islands, this UK Government are certainly not acting in Scotland’s interests.

The UK Government have already taken the overall power to set the rules in 24 areas of devolved competence. All that the Scottish and Welsh Governments requested was that any new UK frameworks should be agreed rather than imposed, but the Tory Government refused—hardly the respect agenda that we used to hear so much about. With the inclusion of fishing, farming, food standards, food safety and food labelling, as well as public procurement, it is clear that this is about being able to tie up Scotland and sell it out in a trade deal. This power grab already drives a coach and horses through the Scotland Act 1998, but in voting down yesterday my simple amendment to protect the devolution Acts from sweeping delegated powers we saw a Government taking power to alter the devolution settlement without even parliamentary scrutiny.

Last night, the Scottish Parliament voted by 92 to 29 to withhold legislative consent from the Bill, due to the risk that it poses to Scotland and the current devolution settlement. Ignoring this voice and riding roughshod over the legislative consent process after 20 years of devolution will undermine the very Union that Conservative Members protest to hold so dear.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I heartily congratulate you on your re-election, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I wish you and the new team the very best of luck in your endeavours as you work with the new House.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) on her speech. She made her points very well, but she will not be surprised that I disagree with virtually every single word. Above all, I disagree with her attitude and the gloom and the misery on the Opposition Benches, when I see this as a day of great celebration.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) on coming top of the private Members’ Bill ballot today; I hope he chooses a subject that gets agreement across the House. A long time ago, in 2005, I came 16th in the ballot. I must acknowledge the part played by my near constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He and I worked together closely drafting a private Member’s Bill, the European Communities Act 1972 (Disapplication) Bill, in which was used the memorable “notwithstanding” phrase, in clause 1(2):

“This subsection applies to any enactment which includes the words: ‘The provisions of this enactment shall take effect notwithstanding the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972.’”

[Sir William Cash]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wording of this Bill’s parliamentary sovereignty clause, clause 39, which is about to pass its Third Reading, is exactly the same as that in our private Member’s Bill and in the amendment I tabled in 1986?

[Mr Paterson]

With great prescience, my hon. Friend makes exactly the point I was about to make. Here we are, 15 years later, and, moved by the Government, the “notwithstanding” clause is going into law, subject to the other place being sensible. I pay tribute to him. He has been mocked, traduced and insulted, but he has stood for the simple democratic principle that members of the public, every few years, are given the opportunity to vote for individual human beings to come to this place and make laws. If those laws are satisfactory, they will get re-elected; if not, they will get booted out. They will be sent here to raise money by extracting it compulsorily, by law, from people’s bank accounts—that is what taxation is—and if that money is well spent, they will be re-elected; if it is not, they will be kicked out. It is an incredibly simple, basic idea. I find it staggering that we are still today listening to miseries from the Opposition Benches cavilling about this simple principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a real pleasure to see you back where you belong, Mr Deputy Speaker—in the Chair—and I congratulate you on your stunning success in securing that position. I think that we have a fantastic team of Deputy Speakers, and I look forward to serving under you for years to come.

I wish I could say that it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), but it is not. I think that I represent the almost extreme other side of the Brexit debate. I usually say that it is good to speak in a Third Reading debate, but unfortunately I cannot say that either. This is something that the people of Scotland will very much regret and mourn. We are not “leaving” the European Union; we are being taken out of the European Union against our national collective will, and believe me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is something that will not stand.

As is conventional on Third Reading, I shall offer my congratulations to a series of speakers. I congratulate the Secretary of State—who has just departed—and his team on getting the Bill through the House of Commons. He is the one Secretary of State to be actually attuned with his Prime Minister, unlike a succession of others who did not quite see to eye with their Prime Ministers and the direction in which their Brexit was travelling. I also pay tribute to all the Opposition teams, and, in particular, to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who has just assumed her new role and who, as always, has led our debate with such distinction and articulateness.

The people I most want to congratulate, however, are the real winners of today, the hard Brexiteers and the Farageists. Their success has been total, brutal and absolute. Not only have they managed to secure the hard Brexit that they have craved for years, but, with this Bill, they have kept in place the bullseye, the gold standard, of all hard Brexits—the possibility of a no-deal departure from the European Union. Their anti-European obsession will be quenched today: insatiable lifetime ambitions of wrenching this country out of the EU will be realised. Their victory is even more impressive because they started as a small, insignificant, cult-like fringe on the edge of the Conservative party. Such is their tenacity and commitment to the cause that they have now gone mainstream. Just one generation ago they were the B-A-S-T-ards of John Major folklore. Now they run the country. Their commitment to the cause has been so absolutely determined that they were prepared to bring down their own Prime Ministers to get their way—[Interruption.] And I shall give way to one of them now.

[Sir William Cash]

I thought it might be helpful if I could distinguish ourselves from what the hon. Gentleman described as the Farageists, for the simple reason that UKIP and now the Brexit Party were never going to form a Government. They could therefore never negotiate, nor could they legislate and nor could they deliver Brexit. They have now been reduced to dust by the decision that was taken by the British people, including in Labour leave marginal constituencies. It is the Conservative party that has now come back into its own and is doing the right thing for the right reason in the national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend makes a good and concise point. I want to return to some of these issues, and I hope that he will come back in, because I think that this is worth being aired, discussed and debated in this House. It is an important key issue—[Interruption.] I can tell that the high priest wants to come back in again, and I will obviously indulge him.

[Sir William Cash]

The Maastricht rebellion took place in 1992-93, long before either UKIP or the Brexit party was even really thought of.

[Pete Wishart]

There is a fascinating journal, account and book to be written about this, and I am looking forward to the hon. Member’s memoirs after all this.

I want to pay tribute to some of the other people who have won today, in the great victory of this Brexit. I know that the Conservatives will, uncharitably, not do this, but somebody has to congratulate Nigel Farage. It is his vision that has been realised today. Without Nigel Farage, there would be no Brexit. Without the pressure that was put on the Conservative party from whatever incarnation of his party existed at the time, there would not be the hard Brexit that they are all celebrating today. Come on, Conservatives—give the man a peerage, for goodness’ sake! He, more than anybody else, deserves it. And wouldn’t it be comedy gold for a man who rails against unelected politicians to be given an unelected place in the legislature? Please do it, just for the comedy value.

We are not just passing a piece of legislation today. We are actually entering into a new age, a new epoch: the age of hard Brexitism. Everything that this House does from this point on will be informed and directed by this new atmosphere, culture and direction of the United Kingdom. I am trying to think of a poster boy for the new hard Brexit age, and the only thing that comes to my mind is the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) in combat casuals flying a Spitfire to the sound of hope and glory heading straight to the ground because his aircraft has suffered engine failure. That is the image that comes to mind in the new Brexit age, and God help us as we go forward. It is viciously right-wing and isolationist, and takes no account of the views of anywhere else around the whole world today. It is this new age of hard Brexit that we are now entering into.

I am looking around for some of the other hon. Members on the Conservative Benches. Obviously the right hon. Member for North Shropshire is here, but I am looking for the newly knighted dark lord of Brexit austerity, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He is not in his place, and neither is the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who so excited us with his tales of English nationalism. None of them is here, but all of them have to be congratulated. They are now the mainstream of the Conservative party. They effectively manipulated what was a moderate centrist party to become this party of Brexit extremists. They booted out all the moderates; none of them is here now. There is no debate or discussion, or any sort of contradiction of the views of hard Brexiteers any more, because they have booted all the moderates out. This is the new Conservative consensus, and I hope that the party today in the Bulldog Club is generous and full of largesse, and that they very much enjoy it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

First, Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your successful re-appointment. Thank you for everything you have done for us in the past.

I welcome the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) to the House of Commons. Her speech was very measured. I do not agree with much of it, as she will expect, but it is a pleasure to have her in the House. I worked extremely closely with her predecessor, Justine Greening. The hon. Lady may not know this, but the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, which I introduced as a private Member’s Bill, got through despite being 16th in the ballot largely because of the support I had from her predecessor, as well as Opposition Members and many others, including Glenys Kinnock and Mariella Frostrup. Justine Greening put real effort and determination into getting the Bill through and it was a real privilege for me to work with her. The purpose of the Bill was to make sure that women and children in the third world and developing countries were protected against female genital mutilation and things of that sort. In saying all that, I want to make it clear that there is a degree of continuity of some sort between the hon. Lady’s speech and mine, although I have to dissociate myself from remarks of hers on which I will not comment right now.

I always enjoy speeches by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—they are such fun. He comes at us 100% and there is never any let-up. I pointed out that we Maastricht rebels—I had the honour to lead that rebellion in 1992-93—acted as we did because for us it was about democracy and the benefits that will now come to us as we leave the European Union. The European Union was going to take the democratic decision making of this country and hand it over to what was, in effect, a European government. As I said yesterday, parliamentary sovereignty and democracy run together. We are not “hard Brexiteers”; we are democrats. We are people who believe that this country should be governed by the people, that people should be governed by themselves, and I would have thought that SNP Members, above all others, understood that.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

In a minute. It may surprise the hon. Gentleman to hear that, while I am a fervent believer in the United Kingdom, which includes Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England, I do understand, for reasons not far removed from my reasons for wanting the UK not to be subjugated to the European Union, why the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire and his colleagues indulge this passion—understandable but wrong—for leaving the United Kingdom. I understand where they are coming from, so to that extent I appreciate some of the remarks he made, but I disagree fundamentally regarding the outcome they desire. It would lead to a lot of trouble for Scotland were it to leave the United Kingdom, as the referendum demonstrated.

The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill is not just about Brexit. It is primarily about the United Kingdom and our future. The reason why we adopted the position we took on Maastricht, and later on Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, and in the debate of the past few years and on the referendum, hinges on one simple principle: the ability of the people of this country to govern themselves through their elected representatives on the basis of their free choice in general elections. We are not little Englanders or trying somehow to make our country less democratic. We fought this battle for democracy and the rights of our own people, our own voters. That is why I am delighted that we now have a significant majority and will be able to put into effect the right of the British people to govern themselves through a range of policies, unconstrained by the European Union and the European Commission.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The argument the hon. Gentleman is making about voters getting who they vote for and governing themselves is pertinent in Scotland. His party have been rejected by 75% of the people of Scotland. We have an unelected Tory Government governing Scotland. Surely he sees the justice of being able to ask the Scottish people whether they want to continue with a Government that 75% of them have rejected, and what they want to do about the European Union, where 62% of them want to remain.

[Sir William Cash]

If the people of Scotland ever were to obtain independence and stay in the European Union, the extent to which they would be subjugated in a range of areas—fishing and many others—would become very apparent to them. That would be extremely damaging to the Scottish economy. Through the qualified majority votes of other countries, Scotland would find that, as a relatively small country, the experience would not be at all advantageous.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Is it not so nice, after so much anguish over the past three years, that tonight we are at last delivering on the result of this referendum, a democratic vote that we are now respecting?

[Sir William Cash]

I so much agree with what my hon. Friend has said, because he has been with us right the way through the passage of this over the past decade and more. People on this side of the House have fought, sometimes against the establishment, in order to achieve this objective. I can only thank the British people with all my heart for the decision they have taken. We have been the catalysts. We have tried to present the arguments. If the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire is right at all, it is about the fact that there has been a victory in the general election: the British people have spoken and they have supported the idea of leaving the EU, and we will do so accordingly on 31 January.

I wish to make a further point. The decision to leave was taken by the British people, but not on a party political basis. The argument in this House always gravitates around party politics, but the decision in the referendum was taken by the British people in their individual homes; at breakfast or on the night before they sat around and talked to one another, asking, “What are we going to do tomorrow?” They made that decision but then found that remainer MPs, whether on the Opposition Benches or even on our Benches, were repudiating the decision that the individual voters had made, whether they came from Labour, Liberal Democrat or, more likely, Conservative constituencies. They deeply resented the fact that they had decided, with their families, to go to the ballot box to vote to leave the EU in that referendum and then found, to their intense annoyance, fury and disappointment, that their Member of Parliament had used the position they had in this House to frustrate the decision that the people had taken. That is why so many Labour Members lost their seats. People in this House did not appreciate the fact that in Labour leave marginals—in particular, in places north of Coventry in coal and steel communities—the European Coal and Steel Community and the massive subsidies given to the other countries had deprived people of their livelihoods, with much of the collapse of the steel and coal industry being driven by the anti-competitive nature of the European Coal and Steel Community framework. If we were to take a map of the UK and superimpose upon it the coal and steel communities, we would see a direct correlation with the decisions taken in the general election, when people drove out Labour Members of Parliament because they were not doing what voters wanted them to do. They wanted to leave the EU, and the Labour Members who were driven out had refused to allow them to determine their own constituency and national interest. That is where the problem lies. The Labour party simply cannot bring itself, even now, to understand the feelings of the people north of Coventry and in other parts of the country who found that their own Member of Parliament had let them down.

There was a simple reason for the referendum: it was clear that the collusion between the two Front-Bench teams in 1992-93 would lead to our having to stay in the European Union and accept the Maastricht treaty. That was what the referendum was all about. We now have a huge opportunity, in a completely new environment where we take control of our own laws in this House in accordance with proper democratic principles, to create a new global trading relationship to ensure that we are able not only to govern ourselves but to work in co-operation with other countries on our own terms, not on the terms that were laid down by the European Union. I look to the Secretary of State in the full knowledge that he and the Prime Minister, and any other Ministers involved in developing policies on the European Union over the next year or two, will do so on our terms and conditions and not those imposed upon us by the European Union.

This is a great moment in our democratic history; furthermore, it is a great tribute to the British people, who listened to the arguments that were presented to preserve their democracy. I have said this before and I will never apologise for saying it: the decisions were taken for democratic reasons. That is why we have ended up getting back our sovereignty, which we abdicated in 1971, after which we gradually gave up the veto. We will now be able to govern ourselves. It is a great tribute to the British people, and to the Members of Parliament who were returned in the election, that they will, through the majority we now have and with our Prime Minister, guarantee that this country will have a bright and effective future.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong: House of Commons & Ping Pong
Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Very short contributions are required, as there are only 20 minutes left. For two minutes, Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I simply want to say that I concur entirely with what the Secretary of State has said, and to refer very briefly to Lords amendments 2, 3 and 5.

Let me say first that the Government’s arguments about the question of the lower courts in relation to the Supreme Court are completely valid. I think that an enormous number of complicated problems will emerge from Lord Mackay’s amendment. The use of expressions such as “is of the opinion” and

“set out the reasons for that opinion”

will create a quagmire of interpretation.

As for Lords amendment 5, when I had the pleasure of advising on the Canadian constitution back in about 1982, I engaged in extensive discussions with Mr Geoffrey Marshall of The Queen’s College, Oxford, who is the greatest authority on the question of conventions. I entirely agree with the Government’s position on that, in the light of my own experience of what conventions actually mean, and I have to say that I have heard a lot of hogwash this afternoon in support of the alternative view.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Christine Jardine.