Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

A few days ago, I brought in the House of Commons (Precedence of Government Business) (European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) Bill, to which I gave a great deal of thought and that I discussed with many other Members. It is due to be debated on 5 April. The position is this. I did it because of my grave concern about the procedure being employed under this motion in particular, for the following reasons, which I will give briefly.

First, it is well said in our constitutional authorities that justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure. What that means is that through procedure we can ensure that things are done that should be done, based on conventions such as the reason for the rule, which is a fundamental basis of our constitutional arrangements.

Standing Order No. 14 is quite clear: it gives precedence to Government business. As a result of this procedure, we are impugning that rule and substituting for it a completely different arrangement—one that I have described as a constitutional revolution. It is not a novelty, as it was described just now, or, as the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) said the other day, a technical innovation. The problem goes back to the reason for the rule and the Standing Order. Government business takes precedence for one simple reason: the Government are the Government of this country and are given that opportunity by virtue of the decisions taken by the public and the wishes of members of the public, as voters in general elections. That is the basis of our democracy. Likewise, decisions in referendums are taken by members of the public as voters.

It is utterly perverse for us to vote by such a significant majority—I will not go into that, because we know it is the case—and then overturn and invert the business of the House rules as we are doing under this business motion and as happened the other day. Government business takes precedence because of democracy. It is a fundamental question. Parliament decided in the European Union Referendum Act 2015 to give the decision to the British people, not to this House. I have said repeatedly—and it is true—that we operate on the basis of parliamentary government, not government by Parliament. If, by a sovereign Act of Parliament, we confer upon the British people the right to make that choice in a referendum, there is not, in terms of that Act, for which the House voted six to one, an opportunity then to take back control in this context.

It is a very simple question, and, to my knowledge, it has happened only once before. You mentioned the other day, Mr Speaker, or somebody raised with you, a precedent going back to 1604. As it happens, there is another precedent, from the 1650s, when the House became completely anarchic, and different factions started making decisions without reference to any Government policy—and look at the mess we are in now and the anarchy now prevailing, with these indicative votes and everybody making different decisions for no good purpose. Oliver Cromwell came down to this House and said, “You have been here too long for anything useful you may have done. Depart, I say, and in the name of God, go.” He then brought in the Barebone’s Parliament; that collapsed as well, and we ended up with a military dictatorship.

Members of Parliament voted for the referendum Act by six to one, for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and then for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As I say quite often, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) himself voted for the Third Reading of the withdrawal Act. These indicative votes are just a means of trying to unravel the decision taken—that is the bottom line. I believe that it is undemocratic and in defiance of our constitution, our procedures and the reason for the rule. As far as I am concerned, these indicative votes are like a parliamentary bag of liquorice allsorts—or rather humbugs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I have grave concerns about the way we are dealing now with our business in this motion. I accept that we voted last week to have further discussion and indicative votes today, but the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) would have given the House a chance to decide whether we wanted to continue this process, which the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) continues to undertake. I do not think we can continue to have a business motion that puts another day in and then not have a chance to have that vote.

I am concerned about that, but I also have another concern. I know that all my Labour colleagues, particularly those on the Front Bench, aspire to be in government and they should just remember that this process may well be used when we are in government. Would we like to see that happening?

[Sir William Cash]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Hoey]

I will give way to the Chair of my Select Committee—

[Sir William Cash]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one problem with these indicative votes is that when they are attached, as they are intended to be, by all accounts, to a Bill that will then follow and be put through the House of Commons in one day—[Interruption.] Perhaps it will have one day in the House of Lords as well, for all I know. The bottom line is: we do not know yet what any such Bill will contain. It is inconceivable, is it not, that we should be presented with Bills that will be rammed through the House of Commons on matters of such incredible importance without even seeing them?

[Kate Hoey]

That just further adds to my view that we should be able to vote on whether we want another day or not after today’s business. We have to remember here, as do people watching, that Parliament abrogated its responsibility to take this decision—we have to say that over and over again—and asked the people. It said, “We will listen to whatever you say.” I do not care what anyone says, the dictionary definition of what “leave” means is very simple. All these motions today, with the exception of the one tabled by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), are designed, in some way or another, to not allow us to leave in the way that people thought they were voting for when they voted on 23 June 2016. It was made very clear—I do not want to go into the details—and we all knew that leave meant leaving all the institutions of the European Union. So I would never question it, but I am disappointed that we will not have a vote on the amendment, as that would have been sensible. I hope that today people remember that the biggest majority in this House for anything to do with the European Union was when 498 votes said we would leave, with or without a deal.

Sittings of the House (29 March)

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Article 184 of the withdrawal agreement refers to the political declaration and they cannot be separated, so if the political declaration is changed later, the withdrawal agreement would need re-approval. I accept the ruling of the Speaker with regard to this question, but I just make that point about the substance of the question, because it is going to be very important for the debate tomorrow.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the motion seeks to ensure that we can meet the requirements of the EU Council for the extension that will enable us to consider these matters further.

In conclusion, I very much hope that the House can support this motion, and that it will agree to sit tomorrow so that we can make the important decisions the country expects us to take in its interests. I commend this motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that whether the Government intend to tag—using the term that is commonly used in relation to House of Commons motions—the withdrawal and implementation Bill to the motion is a matter for their determination. My understanding is that that Bill was drafted some time ago. I do not think that hot wet towels over officials’ heads or any burning of the midnight oil will be required. The document exists, but whether it is the Government’s intention to table it tomorrow for the benefit of colleagues conducting the debate is a matter for them.

[Sir William Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have very kindly referred to the withdrawal and implementation Bill, which I have raised on a number of occasions over the last few weeks. In its most recent report, the European Scrutiny Committee has insisted that that Bill be made available, because it is quite unfair on the House to be making decisions about a Bill that it has not seen, and I understand that other Committees take a similar view. Will you be good enough perhaps to give the Government a firm nudge in order to produce that Bill forthwith?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes is the short answer. It is a matter for their judgment; it is not a matter of a ruling. However, in light of the fact that colleagues are expressing a desire to see the Bill, I think it would be out of keeping, shall we say, with the legendary—some would say exemplary —courtesy of the Attorney General for the debate that might well be opened by him to be staged without the benefit of that important document. Knowing the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) as well I do and for as long as I have, I have a feeling that if the Bill does not appear tomorrow, in time for the debate, this will not be the last we will hear of the matter.

Speaker’s Statement

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) but first let us go to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems to me that what you have said makes an enormous amount of sense, given that this has been defeated on two separate occasions. Unless there is a substantial difference, it must follow that what you have said, in a very important statement, makes an enormous amount of sense. I just wondered about one thing with regard to the precedent of 1604, which was whether there was any connection between that and the gunpowder plot being very shortly afterwards. [Laughter.]

[Mr Speaker]

Well, the hon. Gentleman is a far superior historian, and he may know this—I will not say. I appreciate also his sense of humour on what is, nevertheless, an extremely important occasion. I thank him for what he has said. I have always respected him as a principled and indefatigable parliamentarian. In fact, I think that across this House, whether people agree with him or not, they know of one thing, which I once said, as he knows, on the occasion of Her Majesty the Queen’s visit to this place. As I said directly to her, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) speaks and votes only and always as he thinks the national interest requires. There can be no greater compliment to a Member of Parliament than to say that to him or her.

Points of Order

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and he will not be surprised to know that I share his judgment in the matter. For the avoidance of doubt and the understanding of people who are not Members of the House but are attending to our proceedings, and are possibly even present in the Palace of Westminster today, let me say this so that it is crystal clear from the vantage point of the Chair: what the Chair is proposing to do is select an amendment because in my honest judgment it is a legitimate selection. It is for the House to vote upon—[Interruption.] Order. It is for the House to vote upon that amendment, and indeed to vote upon the motion. The Chair is simply seeking to discharge the responsibility of the holder of the office to the best of his ability. That is what I have always done, and no matter what people say or how forcefully they say it, or how many times they say it or by what manner of co-ordination it is said, I will continue to do what I believe to be right.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that no amendment to the European withdrawal motion can have any legislative effect and therefore cannot override the express repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 in any shape or form, which was passed under section 1 of the withdrawal Act by this House and by Parliament on 26 June this year?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is right: only statute can overrule statute. As usual the hon. Gentleman’s exegesis of the situation is entirely correct. [Interruption.] Somebody chuntered from a sedentary position, “Not as usual”; well, that was my evaluative comment on the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) based on long experience of him, and on this particular point I absolutely accept that he is right.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I still think it preferable to take it at the end of the statement. I will be happy to take it then, if it is of procedural relevance, which I am sure it is.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the resolution of the House passed on 4 December relating to the Attorney General’s advice will apply to any further arrangements that may be offered to the House as a result of any further negotiations over the next week or so? If it is not the same withdrawal agreement, there must be a question about whether that motion stands, because it relates to something that happened beforehand and not to anything that might emerge afterwards.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend will recall that the Attorney General answered significant questions and wrote a large document setting out the whole legal position on the withdrawal agreement. Should there be significant changes, I think that the Attorney General would certainly set out the legal position on those changes but, in direct response to my hon. Friend, he will appreciate that the terms of the Humble Address he refers to were met with the production of the Attorney General’s advice.

Privilege (Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Advice)

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I must say that I found the answers given by the Attorney General yesterday extremely difficult to understand in the terms in which they were expressed—that is, of relating to the national interest, because that is a question that is contained in the results of the referendum and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Following reports that I have heard, I also find it most unsatisfactory that this issue is regarded as a parlour game, and that we have been told to stop messing around with the process and to grow up. I think that that somewhat underestimates the significance of what we are dealing with here, but I will leave it at that, because people in these circumstances sometimes use language that underestimates the importance of the matters that are being dealt with.

I would like to say to the Leader of the House and to the Law Officers that the question of conventions turns on the reason for the rule. In this context, the reason for the application of this particular convention, which includes the question of the ministerial code, clearly demonstrates that, unless we know what the Attorney General has actually given by way of a full disclosure, it is extremely difficult to know whether or not the public policy that has been pursued is consistent with the legal advice that he gave.

Ivor Jennings was one of the greatest constitutional authorities on these matters. He said that

“conventions are observed because of the political difficulties which arise if they are not.”

I suggest that nothing could better illustrate the current situation, and in particular the issues relating to the ministerial code. The ministerial code states:

“The Law Officers must be consulted in good time before the Government is committed to critical decisions involving legal considerations.”

The Chequers proposals lie at the heart of the beginnings of the issues with which we are considering the withdrawal agreement, and I have been informed that the Law Officers were not consulted before the Chequers proposals. This has had dire consequences. Indeed, I said to the Prime Minister on 9 July that I did not think she would be able to reconcile the Chequers proposals with the express repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which was passed on 26 June, 16 days before Royal Assent was given. We were then presented with the Chequers proposals. Everyone knew, when Royal Assent was given, that the express repeal of the 1972 Act had been enacted, yet it was clear, because it happened only a few days later, that an 80-page White Paper was being produced, the effect of which was to demonstrate that the 1972 Act was going to be considerably altered. I regarded that as a massive breach of trust, but it could have been resolved if we had had the full advice of the Attorney General at that time.

Under that same convention, and with respect to the present withdrawal agreement, it is essential for us to know now whether the present Attorney General gave advice on the issue of incompatibility between the express repeal of the 1972 Act in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and the withdrawal agreement. There is no indication in the Attorney General’s introduction to his legal statement yesterday that he addressed that question as a matter of fundamental constitutional importance. Indeed, he states that the agreement needs a new Act of Parliament in domestic law, but as I pointed out in The Sunday Telegraph that is no more than a wing and a prayer.

I asked the Prime Minister about such matters during her statement last Monday and in the Liaison Committee, but I received no satisfactory answer. I also asked the Attorney General a similar question yesterday, requesting that he draw his attention to a Queen’s bench division that was cited as a precedent for the disclosure of the Attorney General’s advice. There are four other precedents, but Factortame is particularly significant due to the incompatibility between the 1972 Act and the withdrawal agreement.

If we do not have the full disclosure of the Attorney General’s opinion, that is relevant to the question of whether the actual withdrawal agreement itself is invalid under the Vienna convention, because a fundamental failure to comply with internal domestic constitutional law amounts to grounds for the invalidity of such a withdrawal agreement.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir William Cash]

Just one moment. If there is a danger that the withdrawal agreement could be invalid, that is a matter of fundamental importance on which I would have expected the Attorney General to include his opinion, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he referred to that in his opinion, and that is why we need full disclosure. I also understand that there are sheaves of papers within governmental circles unpacking the repeal of the 1972 Act with respect to the prospective withdrawal and implementation Bill, which is again a matter of extreme public importance. By any standards, all these matters fall not only within the ministerial code, but within what I would have hoped and expected the Attorney General to deal with in his opinion and the statement he gave yesterday, but there was nothing there to give me any comfort whatsoever.

To say that we should move on and get real and that what the Attorney General thinks is in the national interest actually is in the national interest does also bear on the question of whether the European Union (Withdrawal) Act is a matter of extreme public interest and fundamental importance. The failure to address that question in the introduction and in the legal statement seems to be a mistake of the first order and, furthermore, to be inconsistent with what I would have expected from the legal opinion of the Attorney General.

As to the role of the Attorney General, I simply refer to the authoritative work “The Attorney General, Politics and the Public Interest”, published in 1984 and written by Professor John Edwards. In his chapter dealing with ministerial consultations with the Law Officers, it is made clear that all legal advisers from all Departments will ultimately turn on the view of the Attorney General. Edwards states that there will be times when the Attorney General, perceiving the legal implications of a Department’s proposed course of action—in this case, No. 10 and the Department for Exiting the European Union—will find it necessary to oppose a Minister’s preferred policy. Such opposition must also derive from the legal implications of the proposed policy.

As Edwards says on page 190 of his authoritative work, for the Government to reject such advice would be quite exceptional and would reasonably lead to serious questioning by the Attorney General himself of his continuing to serve as the Government’s chief legal adviser. Without full public disclosure of his opinion, it will be impossible to get to the bottom of all the considerations that are at the heart of the issue of public trust to which the former Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union referred regarding the manifesto and the reasons for his resignation and the conduct of the Government, to which I have referred myself in terms of broken promises made in the House recently.

The reason why my European Scrutiny Committee is making a full inquiry into this situation is, in a nutshell, because we want to get to the bottom of the conduct and the processes and the outcome of these negotiations, and we will do so by taking evidence. I trust that the Government will take note of the seriousness of the suggestions and the arguments that I am putting forward, because they go to the heart of public trust, the referendum vote itself, the repeal of the 1972 Act, whether the Attorney General has fully addressed the consequences for the withdrawal agreement of the opinion that he has given, which we have a right to see, and whether it is really in the public interest for it not to be disclosed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Sir William Cash]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I will not give way, because I am concluding. It will not take too long, because it is just my one suggestion that I am pursuing. I have made it twice now, so I will not labour it too long.

It seems to me likely that the motion we are debating is going to be carried. There must be a very considerable risk of that. I do not know whether the Chief Whip thinks he has a majority for resisting this motion. Even then, I would hope that we will consider how to do this in a responsible way that does not prejudice the national interest or the interests of British Governments. I would also hope—I am not sure that the Committee of Privileges is the best place to do this, but it was done in the case of the Exiting the European Union Committee, as we have been reminded—that somebody nominated as responsible by the Opposition could have a look at the documents and give the Attorney General the opportunity of explaining why, yesterday, he was so obviously wrestling with a dilemma or problem of conscience about its simply not being in the national interest to put all this in the newspapers. The previous problem was solved by redactions, and I still urge that there should be redactions.

Nobody in the Opposition is going to allow the Government just to hold back things that are politically embarrassing, somewhat at odds with what the Government are now saying or advocating a tactic that the Government in the end chose not to use, and all that. Because we lost the motion for a Humble Address, I fear that Conservative Members have to be braced for that if these documents do come out. However, there is a public interest in not undermining the confidentiality of the legal advice.

I repeat my suggestion. No one knows where we are going in politics, who will be in government and who will be in opposition for very long, but what matters is that this Parliament is not weakened any further and that the ability of Governments of whatever party to rule in the national interest is not undermined. I repeat my suggestion, and I think that if the Opposition are victorious, they should in the public interest consider how far they wish to press it. I am sure that the House as a whole would accept it if they held back in some ways and the Law Officers’ confidentiality was left intact.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman asks about the White Paper, and I am sure that he will be delighted, as will all hon. Members, that the new Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will be making a statement following business questions; there will be the opportunity to ask questions then. In addition, there will be a general debate on the White Paper next week.

Turning to the visit of the US President, I want to make it clear to all colleagues that the objectives of the visit are to recognise and celebrate the unique and close bond between our two countries, to strengthen our bilateral relationship across prosperity, trade, security and defence and to have open, frank discussions on key issues. Opposition Members may like to think that we should simply turn our backs and have nothing to do with the US President, but that means never being able to put our point across. A responsible Government always seek to maintain a close relationship—one where the Prime Minister or the President can pick up the phone at short notice or meet in person to make their case. That was demonstrated emphatically when President Trump strongly supported our response to the Salisbury attack, expelling 60 Russian intelligence officers and encouraging other allies to join our co-ordinated response. The relationship is vital for open and frank engagement.

On childcare, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I, too, have children who have been running around this place. It is not only Scottish MPs who have childcare issues to resolve; parents right across the United Kingdom have to deal with the school holidays. The whole of Parliament cannot possibly go into recess for the entirety of all the school holidays in order to facilitate childcare arrangements. That is not acceptable to the people of this country, who expect to see their elected politicians working pretty much 24/7 to represent their interests. That said, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that I had a very productive meeting with the SNP Chief Whip and I have agreed to try to facilitate arrangements that will suit SNP Members during the October recess, which is a particular problem for them. I look forward to making progress on that.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I note from the exchanges that the White Paper has been made available to those on the Front Benches. I must say that those on the Back Benches have an equal interest and it is a matter of great regret that we have not seen it yet, although I understand the point about the statement that is about to be made. It raises very serious questions. Will my right hon. Friend guarantee that we have a proper dialogue, not merely a listening process, because this matter affects the whole of our democratic self-government into the future? Will she also take account of the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee yesterday issued a summons to Mr Oliver Robbins to appear before it on 24 July at an appropriate time? I thought it would be useful to make that clear to the House.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend has been truly assiduous in his scrutiny of all things to do with the UK’s relationship with the EU over many years. The House owes him a debt of gratitude for his careful consideration of these issues. As he would expect, the House will have the opportunity to debate and listen carefully to views right across the House, as happened with the EU withdrawal Bill, on which we had 290 hours of debate and 1,400 amendments were tabled and considered. There will be a general debate on the White Paper next week and further debates and opportunities to discuss the Government’s proposals in the White Paper, including in the statement to follow.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying the issue of age. He would admit to being a young whippersnapper by comparison, I am sure.

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point about the quorum. I have taken soundings, as I said I would. The concerns are about whether a quorum below four is truly evidence of cross-party decision making. If he were to write to me, I could perhaps liaise with the Procedure Committee, which might be persuaded to look into this from a more formal point of view. I do understand the practical points he raises, but he will, I am sure, equally appreciate that, to be truly cross-party, four is a pretty small number of people to have in the decision-making process.

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that De La Rue prints passports, security documents and money for countries right across the world. The UK, as we seek to leave the EU, will be a global champion for free trade, and so this cannot be one-sided. We need to accept that, just as our brilliant UK businesses generate income and profits from overseas, so other businesses must be able to compete in the UK market.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In relation to the point of order I raised a short time ago, will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate—in consultation, of course, with the Privileges Committee—on the principles and practice by which the House deals with questions of molestation, abuse and intimidation of Members of Parliament, including on social media, and by reference not only to the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), but to all others?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend’s point of order and I am extremely sympathetic to it. As you will know, Mr Speaker, I have also raised with you the issue of how social media can be used to intimidate Members and, potentially, to put out slanted versions of what takes place in the Chamber. I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend and will be happy to look into this if he wants to write to me. I know you have also asked him to raise it with you, Mr Speaker.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the investigation by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee into fake news may look at these issues, and he will also be aware that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is looking carefully at an internet safety strategy for keeping young people safe online, and at seeking further ways to stamp out the sort of horrific abuse that has been described in the Chamber this week.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in his salute both to the Royal British Legion in Gateshead and to the work done by Gateshead Council.

We will always do our best to ensure that there is no unnecessary intrusion of statements on Back-Bench business time, but there are always contending pressures for limited parliamentary hours. Just as Government business sometimes gets curtailed because of the need for time for statements or urgent questions, that applies to Back-Bench business as well. We will try to be as helpful as we can to the hon. Gentleman and his Committee.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Government have rightly decided to appeal to the Supreme Court. Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the vote to leave the European Union was fundamentally based on a sovereign Act of Parliament that expressly transferred the decision from Parliament to the voters of the United Kingdom as a whole?

[Mr Lidington]

As I recall, during the debates on the European Union Referendum Bill, hon. Members on both sides of the House agreed and said in their speeches that that was the political consequence of enacting it. The Court has come to its judgment and we will make a further statement on Monday, after the Attorney General has had the chance to look at it in detail.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

At the heart of the European Union referendum is the question of democracy and the democratic deficit. May I draw attention to the European Scrutiny Committee report that has come out this morning on the lack of a democratic system in the Council of Ministers? Voters are clamouring for facts in the referendum. Some 55% of our laws come from the European Union, the bulk of which are made by officials and nodded through by Ministers, while there is no information about how the 50% of decisions made behind closed doors are reached, according to this unanimous report by the European Scrutiny Committee. How are such decisions arrived at and at what price? Will the Deputy Leader of the House give us a debate on this matter?

[Dr Coffey]

There was a debate on this matter in February, shortly after the Prime Minister announced the EU referendum, and a national debate is going on right now. It is important that people participate in that debate and use this opportunity to vote. Frankly, UK Ministers work very hard to further the interests of the UK within the European Union, and long may that continue. Nevertheless, on the kind of information being given out, may I recommend the House of Commons Library website—www.parliament.uk/business/publications/ research/eu-referendum? The Library is putting out briefings that any member of the public can read and perhaps use to inform themselves in making their decision on 23 June.