Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

The motion that I will bring forward shortly will give us flexibility to put through all that is required before the end of this Session. The hon. Lady will know that the wash-up negotiations are still going on, so I cannot say at the moment exactly which Bills will or will not be in, but we need cross-party support at this stage of the Parliament to get this legislation through. I will do all I can to make sure that the Bills that are supported are in that final wash-up.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your service, and for calling me to make my last contribution in this House, after over 40 years. I also thank the staff of the House and of my European Scrutiny Committee, which I have had the honour of chairing since 2010, and all Members of the House, of whatever stripe, for their massive contribution to our democracy in this great Parliament.

My Committee is looking at the question of the UK’s sovereignty in Gibraltar. The UK-EU treaty, which is under negotiation, and on the subject of which the Foreign Secretary appeared before us the other day, deals with vital UK defence and Schengen border issues that cause us great concern. Has the Leader of the House been made aware that the constitution of Gibraltar, including its section 47, per section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, sets out specific UK sovereignty reservations regarding external affairs, defence, internal security and the functions of the Secretary of State for Defence? None of those must be compromised.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for his decades of service to this House and the country. The work that his Committee has done in particular is considerable. I served on it briefly, for about three years, and in our first sitting I needed a trolley to get the papers for the meeting to the relevant Committee Room. It is a huge amount of work, and we have been enormously helped by his attention to detail and huge expertise in this area. On many highly technical issues, he often turns out to be right. I am aware of the issue that he raises, and have expressed my interest in it to the relevant Departments. He leaves a great legacy in this place, and whatever the future holds, I am assured that the issues that he cares deeply about—of course, in large part due to his efforts, we now have opportunities and freedoms to exploit, and can enjoy and protect the interests of this country—will be in good hands, and that is largely down to him.

Retirement of the Clerk of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I too would like to associate myself with your remarks, and with the tributes paid to Sir John Benger by all other persons in the Chamber. It is always an enormous pleasure to know that the Clerks Department, which is so important to the functioning of this House, is in such safe hands.

I will just refer to one or two incidents that have occurred. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) and one or two others referred to what I call the paralysis Parliament between 2017 and 2019, where there was a great deal of fractiousness. Effectively, decisions were taken—sometimes by a coalition, shall we call it, across the Floor of the House—the result of which was that nothing could be done. It was a time of very considerable frustration to many of us, but having such wise Clerks such as Sir John Benger at the front of the ship, guiding us through that period of time, was incredibly important. Of course, we came out of it eventually.

That is as compared with 1986—I am bound to say this, am I not? If I did not, I would regard myself as having walked away from the subject. In 1986, I was told by the Clerks, and also by the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, that I was not allowed to even debate the issue of sovereignty. I tabled an amendment to the Single European Act 1987; I have to confess that I was the only person in the House who had an amendment on the subject. By 2020, the situation had changed so much that the sovereignty amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, section 38 of that Act, went through without any adverse comment, either in this House or in the House of Lords. That is a tribute to the changes that have taken place, and to the guidance and navigation of Sir John Benger and others who allowed those important constitutional changes to take place.

People have spoken eloquently about covid, and I could not agree more. I had not the faintest idea what was going to happen when we all returned to the country, up in Shropshire or wherever it happened to be, and wondered what on earth we were going to do—how on earth were we going to be able to participate? It ran very, very smoothly, and it could only have run so smoothly with the wisdom and judgment of those like Sir John Benger, and Sir John in particular. I also pay tribute to his contribution to the funeral arrangements for Her late Majesty the Queen.

With those thoughts, I simply wish Sir John the very best when he gets to St Catharine’s, Cambridge. When I heard that it was St Catharine’s, I thought for one moment that it might have been St Catherine’s, Oxford, but it was not: it is St Catharine’s, Cambridge. Whichever university he is going to, I wish him the best of luck, and I hope it all works well for him.

Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Harman]

I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman. I was appointed by this House in the expectation that I would chair the Committee, with no one speaking against it. After the tweets were brought to light and highlighted, as I am concerned about the perception of fairness on the Committee—I agree that perception matters—I made it my business to find out whether it would mean that the Government would not have confidence in me if I continued to chair the Committee. I actually said, “I will be more than happy to step aside, because perception matters and I do not want to do this if the Government do not have confidence in me. I need the whole House to have confidence in the work that it has mandated.” I was assured that I should continue the work that the House had mandated, and with the appointment that the House had put me into, and so I did just that.

Our report was based on two things: the evidence and our keen awareness of the seriousness of misleading the House. The Committee was unanimous that a sanction that would trigger the Recall of MPs Act was justified in the light of our conclusion that Mr Johnson deliberately misled the House and the Committee. We then felt it necessary to increase the sanction to 90 days to reflect the seriousness of his breaching of the confidence of the Committee, his impugning of the Committee, thereby undermining the democratic process of the House, and his complicity in a campaign of abuse, attempting to intimidate the Committee, to stop us from carrying out our work and to discredit it.

Like the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, with whom I share a great deal—including, it turns out, a necklace—I thank every member of the Privileges Committee. Over the course of the past year, they have considered thousands of pages of evidence and participated in more than 30 meetings to do the job that the House asked them to do with outstanding dedication and commitment, particularly the Conservative members of the Committee, who have also had to be extraordinarily resilient. They have had to withstand a campaign of threats, intimidation and harassment designed to challenge the legitimacy of the inquiry, to drive them off the Committee and thereby to frustrate the intention of the House that the inquiry should be carried out. Yet through all that, they have not given in to the intimidation. They have been unflinching in their duty to the House, and we owe them a huge amount.

We need Members to be prepared to serve on the Privileges Committee. They must be free to base their judgments on the evidence, free from pressure one way or the other. If the House wants its rights to be protected in the future, it must act to stop intimidation of members of the Privileges Committee.

Attacks by hon. Members on other hon. Members designed to pre-empt the Committee’s findings frustrate the will of the House, erode public confidence and thereby undermine our democracy. They may themselves be contempt of the House, because they are attempts to impede the functioning of the House. We will make a further report to the House on that shortly, inviting consideration of what could be done to prevent it from happening in the future.

None of that is a threat to the free speech of Members. Members can engage in the process throughout: they can speak and vote against a referral to the Privileges Committee; they can speak and vote against the appointment of any member of the Privileges Committee; they can bring to the House proposals for changes to the procedure; and they can speak about a report’s conclusions, but what they must not do is interfere with the work the House has mandated.

The report does not create a chilling effect on what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box. If Ministers make a mistake, which inevitably happens, and inadvertently say something that is misleading, they are expected to correct it at the earliest opportunity, and that is done routinely. Inadvertent misleading, promptly corrected, is not an issue; it is the system working. The House understands it if Ministers decline to answer, for example, on matters of national security or market sensitivity.

Too many members of the public already think that we are dishonest, but hitherto I have found in my 40 years in this House that most Ministers, in all Governments, are at pains to tell the truth. The sanction in the report reinforces and upholds Ministers’ high standards and shows the public that that is the case.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The right hon. and learned Lady has referred to the wording “misleads”, which was in the original motion on 21 April 2022. That is not the wording of the resolution of 1997, which still pertains today and quite explicitly uses the words “knowingly misleads”. Does she not accept that there is a huge difference? That decision was made unanimously by the House and it is still in existence and still pertains.

[Ms Harman]

I think the Committee found on the evidence that Mr Johnson knowingly and deliberately intended to mislead the House.

Because he was Prime Minister, Mr Johnson’s dishonesty, if left unchecked, would have contaminated the whole of Government, allowing misleading to become commonplace and thus eroding the standards that are essential for the health of our democracy. Far from undermining Ministers, the report does precisely the opposite.

I want to say something about the press. This episode has shown that wrongdoing has not gone undiscovered and attempts to cover it up have failed, but it would have been undiscovered had not the press doggedly investigated. Many journalists played their part, and Isb want in particular to mention Pippa Crerar and Paul Brand. Democracy needs a free press.

The House sent this inquiry to the Privileges Committee without a Division. It unanimously endorsed the membership of the Committee. We have done the work we were asked to do. This is the moment for the House, on behalf of the people of this country, to assert its right to say loud and clear: “Government will be accountable. Ministers will be honest. There is no impunity for wrongdoing. Even if you are the Prime Minister—especially if you are the Prime Minister—you must tell the truth to Parliament.” I urge all Members to support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have looked around for some parallels for what can be done about a Member who has already left the House by the time the Privileges Committee, the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Standards Committee or the Independent Expert Panel has adjudicated. The only one I can find is Sir Michael Grylls, the former Member of Parliament for North West Surrey, who was involved in the Ian Greer-Mohammed al-Fayed cash for questions row in the 1990s. He stood down in the 1997 general election so he was not an MP by the time the Standards and Privileges Committee reported on him. It said, categorically, in relation to the question of whether lying to Parliament is a contempt that

“Deliberately misleading a Select Committee is certainly a contempt of the House…Were Sir Michael Grylls still a Member we would recommend a substantial period of suspension from the service of the House, augmented to take account of his deceit.”

That is precisely, following precedent, what the Privileges Committee has done in its report. The truth is that Mr Johnson, as Prime Minister, was a senior and long-standing Member of the House. It was not the first time he got into trouble with either the standards system in the House or the rules. He has shown absolutely no contrition. He chose to attack, intimidate and bully the Committee, which could indeed be a breach of the rules in itself. Everything he did fell far, far short of the standards that this House and the public are entitled to expect of any Member.

I just want to say a few words about the process. The House has always claimed, as the Leader of the House said in her excellent speech, exclusive cognisance; that is to say, apart from the voters and the criminal law, the only body that can discipline, suspend or expel a duly elected Member of the House is the House of Commons in its entirety. I still hold to that principle. It is why any decision or recommendation to suspend or expel a Member that comes from the Standards Committee or the Independent Expert Panel has to be approved by the whole House. It is also why the only way to proceed when there is an allegation that a Member has committed a contempt of Parliament, for instance by misleading the House, is via a Committee of the House and a decision of the whole House. That is why we have to have the motion today and had to have the Committee on Privileges. It cannot, I believe, be a court of law. It has to be a Committee of the House. I do not think some commentators have fully understood that, including Lord Pannick and some former Leaders of the House.

I say to those who have attacked the process that they should be very careful of what they seek. There are those who would prefer lying to Parliament to be a criminal offence, justiciable and punishable by the courts, but that would drive a coach and horses through the Bill of Rights principle that

“freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”

So I am left feeling that those who attack the process simply do not believe that there should be any process for determining whether a Member has lied to the House. As I have said before, I kind of admire the personal loyalty, but I dislike the attitude because it is in effect an excuse for appalling behaviour.

[Sir William Cash]

I am most grateful to the Chairman of the Standards Committee. He and I took part in the debate, as he will well remember perhaps, on 21 April 2022. I raised the question of “knowingly misleads” because it was not included in the original motion, which was then passed, which led to the reference to the Committee on Privileges. In the course of the debate, I raised—I think with him directly, but he certainly made the remark, for which I pay credit—the fact that intention is at the heart of this question. If we knock out the word “knowingly”, we knock out the intention as well and that is a fundamental question of process on which I will, if I catch your eye Madam Deputy Speaker, want to refer.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am going to ferociously agree with the hon. Gentleman. I said earlier that Mr Johnson knowingly lied to Parliament and that is what the Committee has concluded. There was a point at which people thought they would only consider “recklessly” but they found that he knowingly, with knowledge aforethought, misled Parliament and was deliberately duplicitous. I think the hon. Gentleman’s point is destroyed—

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Sir Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) does not mind, I will give way to another Member.

[Sir William Cash]

On the point the hon. Gentleman was just making—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) is giving way to Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am wrong; I apologise. However, it is certainly the case that the whole House agreed that membership, fully knowing everything that had been said up until that moment. Three members of the Committee had sat on a previous case in relation to Mr Johnson that came to the Standards Committee. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had found against Mr Johnson, but we, the Committee, found in his favour. I therefore do not think that this was in any sense a biased Committee. Let me also say that anyone who thinks that Speaker’s Counsel, or, for that matter, Sir Ernest Ryder, who ran the whole of the tribunals service in England and Wales, would not stand up for a fair hearing and due process is misleading themselves, and doing so almost recklessly.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am tempted not to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am very hopeful that he will have an opportunity to speak to the House fully a bit later.

Some people have attacked the process for a different reason, and I understand the nature of that attack. They say that Johnson won a general election, and they argue that only voters should therefore be allowed to remove him from office. I passionately disagree with that view, because I hold a different understanding of democracy. It

“does not mean, ‘We have got our majority, never mind how, and we have our lease of office for five years, so what are you going to do about it?’ That is not democracy, that is only small party patter, which will not go down with the mass of the people of this country.”

Members may recognise those words. They are not mine; they are Churchill’s, addressed to the Labour Government in 1947. He went on:

“there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.”—[Official Report, 1 November 1947; Vol. 444, c. 206-7.]

I agree, and that is why I think it important to note that public opinion on this matter is extremely clear. Most people think Johnson lied. A few of them do not think that that matters very much, but most of them do. Most of them think that Ministers who lie should be removed and punished, and being truthful is the one quality that they seek above all else in a Member of Parliament.

Harold Wilson said, in a debate in the House when John Profumo had just been forced to resign for lying:

“The sickness of an unrepresentative sector of our society should not detract from the robust ability of our people as a whole to face the challenge of the future. And in preparing to face that challenge, let us frankly recognise that the inspiration and the leadership must come first here in this House.”—[Official Report, 17 June 1963; Vol. 679, c. 54.]

Leadership means taking a stance. Abstention is a failure of leadership. I believe that today is a good day for democracy. We have remarkably few checks and balances in our system, and the only real check is the collective conscience of the Members of this House. That is the burden of our elected office, and I pay tribute to Conservatives, and people of every party, who have had to face a difficult decision in relation to this. We exercise our conscience on behalf of our constituents. Edmund Burke said that the most important thing we owe our constituents is our conscience. Thereby we tarnish or we burnish the reputation of Parliament. So let us assert today that no one is above the law and the rules apply to all, because every abstention is another excuse. I repeat Wilson’s words: the leadership must come first here in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

It is perfectly reasonable to challenge the views of Select Committees of this House. It is neither eccentric nor, indeed, rare, so I should like to start with some of the things that I think are most contentious in the report, bordering on erroneous.

Let us start with paragraph 48, which makes reference to the fixed penalty notice received by Mr Johnson for the birthday party. It seems to think that the fixed penalty notice is, in fact, an admission of guilt. But in R v. Hamer, Lord Chief Justice Thomas said:

“It is quite clear that the issue of a notice is not a conviction. It is not an admission of guilt nor any proof that a crime has been committed. The scheme of the Act makes that clear. Any person reading the form would plainly understand that it is not to be regarded as a conviction and will not be held against him save in the respect mentioned. It seems therefore clear, both as a matter of the statutory scheme and as a matter of what a person accepting such a notice would reasonably be led to believe, that he was not admitting any offence, not admitting any criminality, and would not have any stain imputed to his character.”

Yet this report, against what a Lord Chief Justice says and against what is a principle of our criminal law, decides to impute a stain upon his character. It seems to me that this is quite clearly a deliberate attempt to take the most unfavourable interpretation of Mr Johnson’s activities, but this is not the only contentious paragraph.

Let us go to paragraph 83, which decides, as if it were an Elon Musk chip, to insert itself in the brain of Mr Johnson to work out what he must have thought at a particular moment. Well, I am glad to say that, as far as I am aware, Mr Johnson does not have one of these little chips stuck in his brain for the Committee’s benefit. Paragraph 83 says

“we conclude that Mr Johnson is unlikely to have been unaware”.

That is an obscure use of a double negative to try to impute malfeasance to somebody where the Committee cannot prove it. The Committee assumes something and imputes something because it wants to come to a particular conclusion.

[Sir William Cash]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very word “disingenuous,” which is used in the context of this report, is in the same category as the things he has just mentioned?

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I refer him further to paragraph 182, on the line to take. Mr Johnson, as Prime Minister, was advised before Prime Minister’s questions to say that the rules had been followed at all times, and the report goes into great detail as to the authority for that advice—who had told him, whether they were senior enough and whether it was right—but it does not ask whether other Ministers were given the same briefing. Was this the cross-Government line to take, approved, as far as I could be aware, by all officials? Well, I can tell the House that, prior to business questions for the weeks when this was at the forefront of public interest, I was given the briefing that the rules had been followed at all times, with “at all times” emphasised. The only reason I did not say this to the House is because the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, never had the wit to ask me the right question. If she had, the cross-Government line to take was absolutely clear, yet this report concludes that the Prime Minister, as he then was, was not advised by senior enough people—that they were involved in the press office. The idea that Ministers are not advised by people who work in communications shows quite how long the Opposition have been out of government.

Based on this tendentious reading of the facts, we come to the 90-day sanction. It is a vindictive sanction, it seems to me, that the Committee cannot implement because Mr Johnson has left Parliament, so the Committee goes from the vindictive to the ridiculous by not allowing him a parliamentary pass. Of all the trivial sanctions that could be imposed, that seems to be the most miserable. But the Committee emphasises in paragraph 229 that this sanction has been made more savage, more brutal and more vindictive because Mr Johnson impugned the Committee and undermined the democratic process.

On what basis? Is it thought that this House, when it comes to a conclusion, must be obeyed? Is it the case that we must not criticise the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 because it was passed by this great and noble House, or are we, in fact, allowed to criticise, as a fundamental of free speech, that which happens to us, that which is reported about us and that which is said of us? When a person is in court, they are allowed to say that the court has made a mistake. The protections of the junior courts, in which juries sit, are rightly very strict, but we can still say that the court has got it wrong. Indeed, we are allowed to say a court has got it so wrong that we may go to appeal. We do not have to kowtow but, for some reason, the Privileges Committee thinks it is in communist China and that we must kowtow. The report goes on to say that Mr Johnson was

“complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee”

without a single, solitary shred of evidence. It is pure assertion.

This leads me on to the issue of partiality. I was most intrigued by the response of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) to my intervention. She said that she had told the Government, that it had all been approved and that it was fine and dandy. I refer her to paragraph 12 of her own report:

“Our guiding principles included being transparent.”

We suddenly discover, in this transparent approach, that there was a secret agreement that her involvement was all right. Well, I was in the Government at the time, and I never heard that this had happened, so it seems to me that it is important to examine the position in which the right hon. and learned Lady found herself. I note that the Committee does not do this in annex 1, which purports to answer appendix 3. I am sure the House is listening and following very carefully, but appendix 3 is the letter of Mr Johnson in response to the draft report. Fascinatingly, although paragraph 6 of appendix 3, on page 100, questions the impartiality of the Committee, annex 1 ignores that. Annex 1 answers lots of other points, but it rushes over this point, perhaps because the Committee thought it was on relatively thin ice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The original motion, which was discussed on the Floor of the House on 21 April 2022, in which debate both I and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) happened to speak, should never have been allowed through by default, as I said at the time. I cannot understand how it happened and I have never had a proper explanation. What I do know, as I said earlier to the hon. Member, to others and to the Chair of the Committee, is that it uses the word “misleading” but not the words “knowingly misleading”. There is a vast difference. It is about intention. It is about whether or not Boris Johnson could have lied. That is the crucial issue.

I put down an early-day motion immediately after the Privileges Committee produced its process report, on 21 July 2022. The Committee itself drew attention, as I have, to the divergence from the established convention of deliberately or knowingly misleading the House—I made that point; I am afraid the Committee did not—as set out in the unanimously agreed 1997 resolution of the House on ministerial accountability. My motion therefore called for the 21 April motion to be rescinded. I have not changed my mind, especially as the proceedings have unfolded. My concern is also that the procedure followed has pursued a course that could even tend to undermine democratic and ministerial accountability because that is contained in, fundamentally, a unanimous resolution of 1997, which is still very much alive and kicking. Every day, the words “knowingly misleads” apply to Ministers who speak from the Dispatch Box. It was well said by the great constitutional lawyer Maitland that

“justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure.”

Thus, the procedures should reflect natural justice and the right to fairness in proceedings. I know that the Chair of the Privileges Committee has chaired the Human Rights Committee. One of the most fundamental questions in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights is fairness in proceedings and trials.

The Committee of Privileges is uniquely concerned with personal accusations and complaints, as compared with all other Select Committees, which concentrate largely on departmental policy. Natural justice therefore requires cross-examination by counsel. The rule of law requires that, where there is an accusation of misconduct or of lying, particularly by Members of the House, an individual should be entitled to have his counsel cross-examine the evidence and obtain the names of potential witnesses. Indeed, counsel can be heard in person with the leave of the House and I truly believe that the Committee of Privileges could and should have proposed that itself.

I have already dealt with the question raised earlier with respect to the admission. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rhondda for saying in the debate on 21 April 2022 that “intention” is essential. I am glad that he reconfirmed that point today. In my view, intention cannot be excluded by any presumption of strict liability. That, as I understand it, was considered by the legal adviser to the Committee and he came to the view that strict liability applied. I do not agree, but that is a personal view and it is a view that I take as a lawyer. I do not think that strict liability is consistent with ensuring that the word “intention” is applicable in such circumstances.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I have two very quick points. The hon. Gentleman has referred to motions of the House. He will be aware that there is also a motion of the House that says that a Member will always represent themselves and not be represented by legal counsel. Therefore, if we are going to barter off motions, that is also the will of the House universally expressed. However, the bit I really cannot understand is why he goes on about this intentionality point, when page 7 of the report says that Boris Johnson was guilty of contempt by “deliberately misleading the House”. That is intentionality. They have proved it.

[Sir William Cash]

I will leave that for a moment. I have more to say on that very question.

Only by cross-examination of witnesses can truth be properly established. The 1997 resolution went through unanimously after a series of many Select Committee reports in the 1990s following the arms sales to Iraq saga. There were intensive cross-party discussions and, eventually, John Major and Tony Blair insisted on the words, “knowingly misleads” in the resolution that was unanimously passed; the House agreed to it. That resolution, as I have said repeatedly, prevails to this day. Therefore, no Minister shall be expected to resign, or be forced to resign, unless that can be proved.

The motion of 21 April deliberately left out the word “knowingly”. It was a Labour bear trap for Boris Johnson and the Government. Changing this fundamental principle through a new precedent would, in my view, affect all Governments and democratic accountability in future, and would, incidentally, apply to civil servants, who are also governed, under the civil service code of conduct, by the words “knowingly misleads”. They are the people who have to put together the answers to the questions that are raised on the Floor of the House and, for that matter, in speeches, too.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

My hon. Friend is, indeed, a true friend and, normally, we find ourselves in the same Lobby under heavy crossfire, but I want to ask him a simple question that I would have asked my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) had he found time to give way to me. Given that he is so hostile to the report of the Committee, will he do people like me a favour and divide the House today, so that we can have the opportunity to cast our vote, either against the report, as he wishes to do, or in favour of it, as I wish to do?

[Sir William Cash]

My right hon. Friend is a very good friend of mine—he really is—as indeed of some Members on the other side of the House. I would simply like to say this. I am not in control of whether there is going to be an amendment. [Interruption.] No, I am making the point that, as far as I am concerned, there is an issue here that is being debated. Many people are absenting themselves for what they believe to be very good reasons. I am simply taking the view that somebody may decide that they are going to divide the House and I am leaving that as an open question for the time being. However, the statements made by Boris Johnson on the Floor of the House—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

Not just now, thank you. I want to get on to this other point.

The statements made by Boris Johnson on the Floor of the House were in fact about legal interpretation of the covid rules and the guidance in respect of No.10. The Justice Committee conducted an excellent inquiry, reporting in September 2021, on the meaning and effect of the covid rules and guidance, several months before partygate emerged as an issue. That report is of great importance because it endorsed the incisive legal analysis of the former counsel for domestic legislation, the present Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. He highlighted the legal uncertainty of the regulations and guidance, stating in evidence to the Committee that

“there has been a lack of clarity as to what regulations applied to specific situations at what times…The combination of regulations and guidance, and the lack of clarity as to where one starts and the other stops, have been recurring themes of the coronavirus regulations.”

I strongly recommend that Opposition Members listen to that. It is very important in deciding whether a person can lie in those circumstances, because the same applied to subsequent regulations. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards emphasised that that lack of clarity undermined the rule of law. That could not have been more apparent than in the differences in approach between that of the Durham police authority on the Barnard Castle incident and that taken in relation to the Leader of the Opposition and beer drinking at a particular event, which led to no action and, on the other hand, the Metropolitan police in relation to No. 10, which did lead to action. The essential point about all of this is that no one, not even the lawyers, knew what the law was. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards made that crystal clear. Even the civil servants who drafted the regulations were fined for non-compliance.

I now come to the fundamental issue of whether Boris Johnson can be accused of knowingly lying to the House. It is clear from what I have said that the accusation that the former Prime Minister had deliberately or knowingly misled that House, as set out in the current and existing 1997 resolution, put together by Tony Blair and John Major and endorsed unanimously by the House as a whole, can only be derived from a proper legal interpretation of the words on which Boris Johnson was relying and of the legal advice he had received inside No. 10 on each occasion on which he is accused. I find no publication of that legal advice in this report. Boris Johnson therefore, in my view, cannot have been found guilty of knowingly misleading Parliament if no lawyers, let alone the Prime Minister, who is not a lawyer, could get the legal position right. The regulations and the guidance entirely lacked legal certainty. Therefore the Prime Minister could not have knowingly misled the House.

Why, as I believe to be the case, did the Committee not obtain evidence from those lawyers in No. 10 who provided legal advice when it was so crucial? If it did, why has that evidence apparently not been published? Boris Johnson cannot therefore have knowingly misled the House, and that should have been the end of it. I do not see how contempt can be attributed in these circumstances, for he simply could not have knowingly misled Parliament on any rational interpretation of the word “knowingly”, which the original motion left out.

Those who argue that now the report has been published it is all over and done, and those who say that the dogs bark but the caravan moves on, miss the wood for the trees. The caravan of this House, having moved on, will certainly come back. Then the dogs will not merely bark, but they will bite, and Parliament will be the victim, and it is likely that any future Labour Government will get caught up in it—although heaven forbid one should ever be elected. I therefore do not approve of this motion.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 18th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

First, the hon. Lady asks me about the National Conservatism conference. That is not a conference that has been organised by Government or the Conservative party, and is therefore not within my remit or responsibilities to respond to. I am taking this as a positive, as she is running out of complaints to raise about my Government.

She raises the matter of HPMAs. I am very proud of my Government’s record, both on improving water quality and boosting the economic resilience of coastal communities and the many things that we have done around the world to protect our valuable oceans, including the Blue Charter and others. I am proud to be patron of that Conservative group that looks after our oceans and the industries they support.

I gently say to the hon. Lady that I hope we all share those aims in this place, but how we go about doing things is also rather important. The complaints that not just Conservative MPs and MSPs have about how the Scottish Government have been going about this, and the concerns that have been raised by many coastal communities, are because the Scottish Government do not consult and do not listen to those communities. It is the same story with their disastrous bottle deposit return scheme, which will impact negatively on recycling rates and cause massive problems for businesses.

I was surprised this week that the hon. Lady decided to have an Opposition day debate on the cost of living, given that the SNP is hiking taxes, spending like there is no tomorrow and failing to deliver on decent public services. We have heard this week that it will now cost more to finish those ferries that are so massively overdue than to do a complete new build. We know that Scottish Ministers appreciate the difficulty for and impact on their constituents and the travelling public, because in order for them to visit the island of Rùm, they had to hire their own boat; they were not able to use the ferry services.

I wonder whether the hon. Lady and her colleagues have read any of Audit Scotland’s reports or acted on any of its recommendations. They have no concept of the catalogue we now have of arrests and raids and multiple police investigations into the mismanagement of their party finances, and of how negatively that has reflected on Scottish politics. We also have the poor stewardship of public funds and an increasing question about the ongoing saga of the Scottish National Investment Bank. We are wondering not just how much longer those CalMac ferries will be in the dock, but how many SNP figures will be as well.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The European Scrutiny Committee, with three formal invitations, has been trying to secure the appearance of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade before our Committee on the issue of retained EU law for almost three months. That is not to mention last week’s urgent question and my business question last week to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Over the past few days, I have been trying to secure the attendance of the Secretary of State through No. 10 and otherwise. My Committee understood that she might appear before us today. Despite everything, that has not transpired, and we have received no response from her or her staff. It is not possible to believe that she does not know that we have been making these representations through No. 10. She must clearly know that, given the timing of procedures, the need for her appearance by today was critical. It is now too late, given the proceedings in the Lords. We have heard nothing from her or her team. The Bill has now completed Report in the House of Lords. The failure to appear before our Committee is a grave discourtesy to the Committee and to this House in obstructing our work and the work of the House. Does my right hon. Friend know why the Secretary of State has been so clearly obstructive to my Committee on a matter of such vital national interest?

[Penny Mordaunt]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he and his Committee have done on this incredibly important issue. He has expressed concerns about the schedule of EU retained law to be revoked, the Government’s policy on that and Brexit opportunities, and the opportunity that his Committee and other Members of this House will have to scrutinise. I go through those concerns, because I emphasise to him that this Government take those concerns extremely seriously. My understanding, and I checked this morning, is that the Secretary of State has agreed to appear before his Committee. After this session, I will make sure that he is updated on that, but that is my understanding as of a few moments ago.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

Can I start by thanking the hon. Lady for her compliments? I very much wanted to be a Pen the king could rely on at the coronation, but I think congratulations should go to all of us across the nation, and huge thanks to all who took part and all who enabled it to be so successful and safe, including many staff of this House. The whole weekend was a celebration of service, duty and love, and the Big Help Out on Monday saw 6 million people volunteering at more than 55,000 events. I hope they had a wonderful day and will continue to volunteer for their community. I am very proud to have played my part alongside everyone else, and I know the whole House would want to send their good wishes to Their Majesties.

Can I reciprocate and congratulate the hon. Lady, as I understand that her band, the Statutory Instruments, has topped a Twitter poll on musical parliamentarians? I have suggested to the Culture Secretary that this might be a back-up plan if Mae and her team are unable to perform at the Eurovision final.

The hon. Lady mentioned our legislative programme. Last week, the Public Order Bill received Royal Assent, taking us to 19 Bills receiving Royal Assent so far in this Session, with 40 Bills introduced so far. The rented homes Bill is not delayed, and I look forward to the Opposition’s support. It will deliver the Government’s commitment to a fairer private rented sector for responsible tenants and good-faith landlords. The Bill will legislate to abolish section 21 no-fault evictions, among many other measures. I hope that all Members of this House will support it when it arrives, which will not be very long or far away.

The hon. Lady spoke about local election statistics, and I have some of my own for Labour’s performance: mid-term and mid-recovery, zero change to vote share since 2019; zero gains in battleground seats; and, it appears, zero principles upon which to base a manifesto. Labour’s leader has flip-flopped 32 times, broken all of his leadership pledges and had to have 12—and counting—relaunch speeches. To borrow from Eurovision legends Bucks Fizz, he will soon find out that there comes a time for “Making Your Mind Up”.

In contrast, we are focused on delivering for the people of this country on the things that matter to them. On healthcare, for example, against the immense challenges stemming from the pandemic, we have reduced waiting lists of people waiting 18 months or more by 90%. General practice is delivering 10% more appointments a month than pre-pandemic levels. We are on track to deliver our manifesto commitment of 50 million more GP appointments, and we have more staff than ever before. Numbers are up by a quarter since 2019. We have increased pharmacy provision, and this week we are transforming how those services can be used, freeing up even more GP appointments.

What does Labour do for healthcare when it is in power in Wales? Some 40,000 people are waiting more than two years for treatment, waiting lists are four times worse than in England and it is the only place in the UK to have had the NHS budget cut. The gap between Labour’s rhetoric and its record is nearly as wide as the gap between its revenue and its spending plans, currently standing at £90 billion.

Further business will be announced in the usual way.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Did my right hon. Friend note that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade has just told the House, in answer to my urgent question, that despite the very serious constitutional implications that I explained—they were endorsed by many others after I asked the question—she will not be able to come to the European Scrutiny Committee because she will be in Switzerland? What this in effect means, according to the current timetable in the House of Lords, is that she will not be able to explain the implications I set out in my question before the Report stage of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill actually takes place. Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to approach her opposite number in the House of Lords, and indeed the appropriate authorities there, to defer the Report stage, which is scheduled for 15 and 17 May? That Report stage will have momentous consequences if it results in changes to this Bill, which was passed by this House by a substantial majority, which would then be being dealt with by the unelected House of Lords.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I do understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. The Secretary of State wants to take a pragmatic approach, but I know that he will also have concerns about sovereignty and other such issues. I will certainly speak to business managers and the Secretary of State to ensure that there can be proper scrutiny of these matters, and I assure my hon. Friend that although there are differences on how we should approach these matters, the Secretary of State shares his aim that we should do this well and not miss the opportunities, having left the EU, to modernise our statute book and make sensible reforms. But I undertake to do as he has asked.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will pass it on to the Transport Secretary that the hon. Lady is missing him dreadfully. She will understand that he has a pressing in-tray, and some of that pressure could certainly be alleviated if the Labour party condemned the transport strikes. I will just leave that thought with her.

Ministers have always been entitled to legal representation while they are in office. That is the standard procedure that has served Governments of every political hue. There are no plans to change that.

The hon. Lady will know that I have been to see all permanent secretaries with my right hon. and noble Friend Lord True, the Leader of the House of Lords, to ensure that all Departments understand their obligations to this House. We have been met with some encouraging actions since our meetings with them.

The hon. Lady asked me to cover the asylum Bill—the Illegal Migration Bill, as it is known—and I note that the Opposition, rather than choosing to attack the policies in that Bill, are choosing to attack their presentation, which I always take as an encouraging sign. It is right that we have proper scrutiny of that Bill. She will know that many actions that we have taken before have been thwarted by legal workarounds. Legal cases have informed the additional measures that we are taking in the Bill. The hon. Lady offers Labour’s plans to stop illegal migration; I am afraid that its plan is to only assist those people if they are able to come here illegally. We want to use our resources to help those people to whom we have the most moral obligation, and we are in a position to help them.

I am disappointed that the hon. Lady does not welcome the measures in the Budget. The country is going through tough times. She talks about living standards. I remind her that under Labour the lowest paid in this country had half the personal tax thresholds that they do now, and they would have seen their council tax bills rise by 110%.

This Budget is one that addresses the issues of hard-working families and businesses, with £94 billion in cost of living support, a fuel duty freeze for the 13th consecutive year, unprecedented expansion of free childcare, the ending of the poverty premium on prepayment meters, the abolition of Labour’s work capability assessment, levelling-up and new regeneration partnerships, and funds to keep leisure centres and pools going, which many colleagues have asked for at business questions. I am sorry also that the hon. Lady has not welcomed the extra £5 billion for defence and security and the path to increasing our defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, which Labour has made no commitment to equal. Nor has she welcomed the many measures to modernise our economy and to stimulate growth and investment.

Instead, we have had the unedifying spectacle of His Majesty’s Opposition talking down the country. Earlier this week, the shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), likened the United Kingdom to Putin’s Russia. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said our nation was a “sick man”. Ours is a great nation, and the modernisation of our economy that we are bringing in will set the potential of this country free—our science bases, our financial centres, our creative industries, our manufacturing and new technologies, and our social and third sectors.

It is only after a Labour Government that this nation becomes the sick man of Europe. Every time Labour has left office, the country has been worse off than when it inherited it. No Labour Government have ever left office with lower unemployment than when they came to power. When they were last in power, youth unemployment rose by nearly 45%, and their slash-and-burn spending meant there was no money left. Labour’s unfunded spending commitments would cost every household an additional £3,000, and it continues to block measures to support families and businesses and to stop the boats. We will stand up for the people of this country. We will deliver on their priorities and on their values, and we will champion the UK across the world.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, may I ask the Leader of the House to kindly tell the House when the statutory instrument relating to the Stormont brake will be laid? Will it be today or tomorrow? On what statutory or other basis, and under what statutory instrument procedure, will it be laid? When will it be referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments? When the date of the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee sitting is set, will she be good enough as to make such inquiries as are necessary to put me and my Committee in possession of those facts and make them publicly available?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will certainly write to my hon. Friend to give him all the details related to this. The instrument will be published on Monday, when he will be able to see the legal basis on which it is published. It will be laid before Parliament under normal procedures. I am announcing it today because I want people to have early notice. I will write to my hon. Friend, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and to other Members who have a direct interest to spell that out.

Tributes to Baroness Boothroyd

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I came into Parliament in 1984, when Jack Weatherill was Speaker of the House of Commons. I had the great pleasure of voting in the election after he ceased to be Speaker, and I came to the conclusion that Betty Boothroyd was the right person for the job. I am not sure that many other Conservative Members voted for her, but she never forgot. We always maintained an extremely good relationship. She was a great Speaker: every one of the tributes we have heard has not only added to her reputation and the lustre of her career but has been extremely accurate.

Occasionally, very occasionally, I go into the Library. I always go into the same room and sit in the same green chair. As I look up, I see the list of Speakers. Of course I see your name, Mr Speaker, and I see your predecessor’s name, and so on. The name I always notice is Miss Boothroyd. As the first lady Speaker of the House of Commons, very much in line with what others have said, she not only made her mark but she was a wonderful person.

It would not do for me not to mention the Maastricht treaty, on which I had to deal with her as Speaker. I cannot remember precisely whether it was under the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means but, at a very important moment, we moved a motion of censure. As I recall it, the decision went in our direction, as a result of which she then had to come in and take over to make the decision that was needed. It was a tie, and she of course made the appropriate decision and that was that. She did exactly what I have heard in these tributes so far: she took the initiative, intervened at the right moment and did the right thing. She was really a remarkable person.

I caught up with her on a number of occasions, because she would come down towards the House of Commons and one would get into a conversation with her. I noticed that she was getting a little older. We might sit down and have a quiet word, and I just said to her, “I do hope you have given up that smoking.” She did smoke quite a lot and it was a matter of concern to me as I saw her getting older and I thought that perhaps this was not a good thing for her to be continuing to do. I want to end on this note: she was a great Speaker, a great lady and a great ornament to this House of Commons.

Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is one United Kingdom, of which my hon. Friend—the hon. Gentleman, to be more accurate—is a great advocate. It is important to understand that Members of this House can represent the whole of the United Kingdom, otherwise we would be insisting that every delegation should have a Member from Somerset or from Yorkshire, and I can see that that would be attractive. Although I very much understand the importance of Northern Ireland, any delegation from this Parliament can represent the whole of the United Kingdom without trying to divide it up into its constituent parts.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As a former member of the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, the Leader of the House is fully aware of the legal and policy expertise of the Committee’s members. We have been doing this for a long time—in my case, for 37 years on that Committee. If I may respectfully suggest so, I believe it would be wholly appropriate for representation on the UK delegation to be ensured for a reasonable number of members of the European Scrutiny Committee, who would play a very good and sensible role, as we do in COSAC—the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union—and other committees, to ensure that we can make a major contribution to the proposed assembly.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend has played a good and sensible role in the history of this nation since he has been a Member of Parliament, and his distinction is, I think, unparalleled in the European debate, so I note what he says. He has of course written to me about this matter and people are aware of the representation that he has made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I would simply like to make it clear, as has already been indicated, that the partnership assembly will not be a decision-making body, and nor is it foreseen as such by article 11 of the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. Decisions regarding the UK’s new trading relationship with the European Union rest with the UK Government, led by Lord Frost in the trade and co-operation agreement partnership council and various specialised committees. The partnership assembly will, however, be a potentially useful forum for Members to meet Members of the European Parliament to discuss the new UK-EU trade agreement and other related issues—rather like COSAC, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe and so forth. As I have said before, the UK may have left the European Union, but good working relations with European counterparts are important for trade and wider co-operation. I believe that the partnership assembly can contribute to stabilising UK-EU relations, and to that extent I welcome the establishment of this arrangement.

With regard to what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has just said about the dire consequences of Brexit, I have to say that that is a pretty average mantra these days from the remainers who persist in saying that there was somehow a level playing field before and that the EU is a democratic body of the first order. Quite frankly, I have never known a body to be described as democratic when it makes its decisions in the Council of Ministers behind closed doors by majority voting—[Interruption.] It is not. I have been a member of the European Scrutiny Committee for 37 years and I know what I am talking about, and so does the hon. Lady, because she was on that Committee with me.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the hon. Member not recognise that the Cabinet makes decisions behind closed doors as well? Many Parliaments and Governments make decisions behind closed doors.

[Sir William Cash]

There is a simple distinction between I have said and what the hon. Lady has just said, because the Government do not pass legislation but the Council of Ministers does. That is the fundamental difference. At this point, I shall resume my place, unless my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) would like to give me another lesson in constitutional law.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Certainly not: my hon. Friend and I have disagreed about many aspects of this matter, but he was absolutely right to say that however we voted in the referendum, that is in the past. He was also right to say that this assembly could have a useful place in securing a sensible relationship between ourselves and the European Union. He and I know that we have not always agreed on this matter, but I would absolutely agree with him—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash]

I have nothing further to say, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

That would be a most helpful mitigation but, of course, if we do not have the assembly in the first place, we do not have to worry about that sort of thing.

Let me move away slightly from the principle and go back to the motion—

[Sir William Cash]

Just before my hon. Friend moves away from the principle, will he give way?

[Mr Bone]

Of course.

[Sir William Cash]

I noticed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) mentioned fixing things just now. I have to say that fixing something gets very close to the idea of making a decision and, as I said in my few remarks, the assembly is not a decision-making body. Any attempt to usurp the processes that have been identified by agreement and to turn it into a decision-making body would be extremely unwise, because what we can agree to do by agreement we can agree to undo.

[Mr Bone]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That was one of the things that concerned me. I picked up from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) that his view was that this assembly should push the boundaries, but I thought that that was what we had stopped when we left the European Union. We do not want that sort of dialogue. Scrutiny in this House is absolutely right, and I would absolutely welcome a Select Committee, but I do not want a committee of Members of the European Parliament interfering in the sovereign business of the United Kingdom. It is not as if we have to create this assembly. Under article 11, it is the possibility of doing it. We should all reject this in the Division Lobby. I am absolutely certain that the British people do not want to see this. Either this is something that is dangerous or something that is a total waste of money.

The final thing that made me decide that this was a bad motion was the statement that the make-up of this parliamentary body will be decided by the usual channels—the usual channels are the Whips. Goodness me, I am a moderniser. Why cannot we have democracy? Why cannot these delegations be elected like we elect Members to Select Committees? If the House decides that it does want this assembly, we should not allow the Whips to appoint who is on it. There was talk of course, quite rightly, of how the chairman of our delegation or our assembly members is to be established. I have my fears that, if the usual channels get involved, the vote will be fixed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) mentioned the Council of Europe. I remember a former Speaker having a battle with the Government over this, trying to establish that it was this House that appointed the members, and that they should not be removed because the Government wanted that to happen over some argument relating to Brexit.

There are a whole number of reasons why we should reject the principle of this and also the way that it has been set up, so I hope that the House will not approve it tonight.

Committee on Standards

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The motion before the House should be viewed, as I have said in several debates over the last few days, from a fundamental perspective that affects all Members from all parts of the House. It is essential to review the workings of the fair trial system—the investigatory panel—created under the Labour Government in 2003 on the recommendation of the Committee on Standards itself, which consisted of six Labour members, two Liberal Democrats and only three Conservatives. This was to ensure fairness for MPs accused of misconduct in serious cases, as insisted upon by a series of high-level reports, which the House then accepted.

All those high-level reports—including the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999, the Wicks report, and the 2003 Committee on Standards report, especially paragraphs 39 to 42, which set up the fair trial investigatory panel—made it clear that the fair trial requirements would only be applied in seriously contested cases, where the facts were in dispute in relation to alleged misconduct by a Member.

Appendix 2 of the third report shows that the particular case of the former Member for North Shropshire fell squarely within Standing Order No. 150(5). The Standing Order clearly states:

“The Commissioner may at any time in the course of investigating a complaint, and if so requested by the Committee on Standards shall”—

I repeat “shall”—

“appoint an Investigatory Panel to assist”

the Commissioner “in establishing the facts”.

This was not done. I am astonished by how few people seem either to have read or understood this point, but it lies at the heart of the issue. No one in this House or elsewhere could say that a person was guilty or innocent, unless that panel had been set up, completed its work and reported, and that was not done in this case. Not to request, and thereby to require, the setting up of such a panel in seriously contested cases seriously impairs the principles of natural justice specifically referred to in Standing Order No. 150, affecting MPs accused of serious misconduct.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Will he set out for the House perhaps just one example of a fact that is contested? Mr Paterson contested the interpretation of his behaviour, but I read the report in full and I did not find a single contested fact. Will he set one out for the House, please?

[Sir William Cash]

I will give my right hon. Friend one example: the question raised by Professor Elliott on the matter of public safety in relation to carcinogenic elements in ham or bacon. As I said in the previous debate on this matter, Professor Elliott recognised that in 35 years, he had never come across such a case. That is one example, but there are others.

Not to request the setting up of a panel also impairs the fundamental rules laid down by article 6—known as the fair trial provisions—of the European convention on human rights, drafted in accordance with British principles of justice in all civil and criminal cases. The failure to implement the requirement of the panel under Standing Order No. 150(5) impairs the report. The door to fairness is opened by the setting up of the panel, and for the sake of all Members of the House it was a mistake not to have done so in this case.

The failure to adhere to the clearly defined six principles of fairness for accused MPs as set out by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999 and article 6 of the European convention—including the examination of witnesses and the cross-examination of other witnesses—has adverse consequences as a precedent for Parliament itself. Not a single citizen in the land, even terrorists and criminals, is denied a fair trial under these principles of natural justice, and has the right of appeal in every court and every disciplinary tribunal. The Member in question should have been afforded the procedures under the fair trial arrangements laid down by Standing Orders because we, as Members, are exceptionally excluded from judicial review by article 9 of the Bill of Rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who is a member of the Committee, argued convincingly that the Standing Orders must be reviewed to avoid conflicts of interest. The procedural reforms that will inevitably now have to be made need proper and full examination by the whole House, not only by the Committee on Standards, but it will be tragically too late for the former Member for North Shropshire when new reforms are properly introduced in the near future.

Committee on Standards

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right about that.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend was interrupted in the course of his speech by an intervention; he was about to say something regarding the question of contested cases, which is at the heart of this issue. Report after report, including by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, has said that in such cases criteria for fairness have to be applied. As he has so adequately stated, this investigatory panel does provide for such a state of affairs but it was not applied by the Committee in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This case is about the whole House, not just an individual Member. It is about the manner, process and principle whereby the case was conducted by the Committee on Standards, although there has been much discussion about the role of the commissioner.

The responsibility lies with the Committee, which is ultimately a matter for the House as a whole. The amendment addresses a failure by the Committee in a serious contested case, as this was, to call for an investigatory panel as it had the right to do and should have done. Had an investigatory panel been set up, it would have brought into play the rules of natural justice, human rights and the criteria insisted on by a series of reports, including that of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.

Under the Committee on Standards Standing Orders, in particular Standing Order 150(5), the commissioner may hold an investigatory panel but

“if so requested by the Committee”

is obliged to hold such a panel. Then all the aspects of fairness and justice that I have mentioned, and that have been insisted on in a series of reports, would have come into play. They include establishing disputed facts, the appointment of a legal assessor and counsel, the right for a Member accused of misconduct to be heard before such a panel, the right for such a Member to call and examine witnesses, and the opportunity for the legal assessor to provide an opinion

“as to the extent to which its proceedings have been consistent with the principles of natural justice”.

All that was denied to the Member in this case. In similar serious contested cases, it is as plain as a pikestaff that Members on both sides of the House would want to insist that such rules of fairness were brought into play for them, as would be expected in any walk of life. It would be utterly inconceivable for Parliament—it would be rightly condemned for doing so—to pass legislation denying to the courts, justice systems, statutory tribunals, professional committees or ACAS that a person accused of misconduct be granted such procedures. In a nutshell, although in courts, tribunals or professional disciplinary arrangements, any person in the land could apply for judicial review where there had been a failure to comply with such procedures, that does not apply because of parliamentary privilege and article 9 of the Bill of Rights.

There is a further question about the role of the lay members. In this case, for a variety of reasons, including recusal and the absence of some Members of Parliament on the Committee when the report was finalised, the lay members were left in a majority, which is clearly not the way in which the Committee was intended to operate, despite past warnings.

For all those reasons, and because the House as a whole has overall jurisdiction over all Standing Orders, I believe that the amendment is essential. An investigatory panel should have been set up to ensure that. If the Committee had requested it, which it did not, the commissioner would have been obliged, under the Standing Orders, to ensure it. I therefore strongly urge that the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I will not, if the hon. Member does not mind. I want to conclude my remarks; I am sorry. He has already caught Mr Speaker’s eye.

We are close to agreeing a report on how we can improve the system. I would also say that the suggested process will keep this running for yet more months. I agree with the Leader of the House: I hate investigations that take a long time, but I will point this out gently. The commissioner was, I think, right to suspend her investigation on the right hon. Member for North Shropshire after his wife’s death. It was only once his lawyers said it was okay to restart that she initiated it again. All the delays in the process have been down to his seeking further extensions of deadlines, and we have always sought to meet those. I think it is inappropriate to keep it going any further.

I also draw a distinction between an appeal on the facts, which we have heard, and an appeal on the sanction. It may be right that there should be an appeal process on the sanction. That is not the process that we have adopted with any other Member thus far, and that is why I think it is wrong to confuse changing the process with the case in hand. It is, as I said earlier, by definition wrong to change the process at the very last moment.

The Committee also says in the report:

“A Member is entitled to contest, even vigorously contest, the Commissioner’s interpretation of the rules and her findings. We do not mark down any Member for doing so.”

The aggravating factor in this case was a lack of insight into a conflict of interest, not a lack of acceptance of breach. I will say this to the Member: this could have been very different if you had come to us and said, “I am sorry. I was trying to do the right thing, but I got it wrong. I want the House to uphold the highest standards, and I accept the reprimand and the sanction. I hope my constituents will deal kindly with me.” The danger is that, if the amendment is carried, his name will become a byword for bad behaviour.

Let me end with this. I hope all Members know that I care passionately about Parliament. The vast majority of Members are here to do good. We make significant sacrifices, as our partners know. We make a big difference, often on campaigns that have no party issue in them—indeed, I hope the House will support my Acquired Brain Injury Bill on 3 December. [Interruption.] I think that was unanimous, Mr Speaker. But if the public believe that we are marking our own homework, our reputation, individually and collectively, will be tarnished. Independence is essential to protect us. A Conservative MP said to me yesterday:

“There have been times when I have been ashamed of being a Member of this House, I don’t want to go back to that.”

Of course, as Chairman of the Committee, I remain a servant of the House, but I also have to look at the public. They want the House to uphold the highest possible standards. Nobody can be above the rules. It is the public who should judge this, and I fear they will find us all wanting if the amendment is carried today. I warn colleagues, with all my heart: do not do something today that we will rue in the future.