Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

As the House will know, the Standing Orders provide for Westminster Hall to be opened on a Monday only for particular purposes, and I did not think it appropriate for us to seek to depart from that in this instance. The hon. Lady asked about the time available for the Backbench Business Committee, and taking today’s debate into account it will have scheduled 25 and a half days’ debate in this Session. The Standing Orders provide for 27 days in this Session, and I am confident that we will meet and exceed that.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

As the Leader of the House will know, last week I raised the urgency of holding a debate in Government time on the Francis report. I discussed the matter with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and she entirely agrees with me, and others, who believe it is becoming a disgrace that we are not holding a debate on that vital issue. There is also the question of Sir David Nicholson and whether he should resign. Will the Leader of the House please speak to the Prime Minister and ensure that we have that debate as a matter of urgency in Government time on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend knows, it is the Government’s intention to have a debate on that issue. He will also know, however, that on 15 January he and his colleagues went to the Backbench Business Committee to ask for time for a debate, but it has not been scheduled. We must remember that as a general proposition this House resolved that the Backbench Business Committee should take responsibility for a wide range of debates, including general debates. If we start to re-import an expectation that the Government will provide time for such debates, it will by extension be impossible to allocate the same amount of time to the Backbench Business Committee. We will have a debate on the Francis report and discuss between ourselves how that is to be accomplished at the appropriate moment. I continue to make the general point of principle that the Backbench Business Committee exists in part to enable the House to debate current important issues, as it did with Hillsborough, for example.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I recall that there is a bust of Harold Wilson in the Members’ Lobby. I hesitate to intrude on the Labour party’s grief, but as the hon. Gentleman described Harold Wilson’s attributes in office it was almost as if he was attempting a critique of Tony Blair at the same time.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In liaison with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) may I ask my right hon. Friend—who will personally recall my parliamentary campaign for a public inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, into Stafford hospital, which was granted by the Prime Minister but persistently refused by the previous Government—to ensure that we have an early debate on the Floor of the House, in Government time, on the Francis report? When will it be?

[Mr Lansley]

When I was shadow Health Secretary, my hon. Friend and I discussed this matter fully. It has now been proved that we were absolutely right then, and I was right as Secretary of State to institute the Francis inquiry. We have the report and we will respond. My hon. Friend and his colleagues have been to the Backbench Business Committee to seek time for debate on this matter. I will, of course, gladly discuss with the Chair of that Committee when time might be available for that debate.

House of Lords Reform Bill

William Cash Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman can go home, but the Government plan to proceed with their legislative programme.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On the question of election, would the Leader of the House be good enough to explain how it can possibly be justified that the Lords in question should be elected for 15 years?

[Sir George Young]

The average length of service now is 24 or 26 years, so the proposal is an improvement.

Code of Conduct

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barron]

I have to say that I am not too sure about that, as I do not know the intent behind the amendment, which does not make things as clear as the change in the code does. It could be argued on a point of law that the action taken was not a matter for Parliament because it was a personal action. It might be a criminal action—

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Barron]

Wait. Under the circumstances I described, when someone was sentenced to six months in jail, according to the law and according to the current rules of this House, that individual concerned—obviously, I hope this never happens—would remain a Member because we do not have the legal provisions to get rid of him at present. That is something that we need to consider.

[Mr Cash]

We are looking at paragraph 15 of the current code of conduct and paragraph 16 of the amended code of conduct. It is curious that the wording has been changed. Paragraph 15, which is where we are at the moment and seems to me to be sensible, says:

“Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust”—

that is good—

“and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.”

The key is “into disrepute”, and it is well known; everyone understands it. Now, for some reason—I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to explain it—paragraph 16 says simply:

“Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally”,

but leaves out the whole question of disrepute. What is the difference and why the change?

[Mr Barron]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

In his usual helpful way, the broad-minded Leader of the House made it clear in his response to the consultation that he was not aware of any recent cases where a Member’s conduct in their purely private and personal life had been so outrageous that the House or the general public would have wanted action to be taken against the Member. Those pushing this proposal cannot come up with any sensible examples.

The Leader of the House has been in this place for almost 40 years, but while it seems he cannot think of anything worth investigating, the commissioner clearly can. That is why he is promoting this change to the current code of conduct.

[Mr Cash]

This issue boils down to how the provisions are drafted. No one has any serious doubt about the intentions and the parameters, but problems do arise. The code states that it does not

“seek to regulate what Members do in their purely”—

I emphasise that word—“private and personal lives”, or in the conduct of their wider lives. Rule 16, however, says:

“Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage.”

Therefore, on the one hand we are told the code does not seek to “regulate”, yet on the other hand we are told Members shall “never” undertake certain actions. I do not think there is any real doubt about what is intended, but I am worried about the interpretation that might be drawn if this proposal is passed. That is the problem. This is more an issue of drafting than of intention.

[Mr Walker]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

I appreciate that the Committee and the commissioner are at pains to point out that it is not their intention to create a “red top” charter. I accept that that may not be their intention, but the fact remains that real reputational threat to this place is contained in this flawed proposal.

Backbench Business Committee

William Cash Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. Nobody who knows him will think that this sort of ploy could possibly affect what his Committee does.

I turn to one of the most appalling aspects of today—the whipping on the Conservative Benches. There is no question but that this is House business, and there is no question but that it is Back-Bench business. By convention, such votes should not carry a Whip; they should be free votes. There is no way that the Executive should try to instruct the House how to organise Back-Bench business affairs, but Conservative Members were told last week that we would be on a three-line Whip to vote for this outrageous motion. After protests, the Whips Office reduced it to a one-line Whip. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) laughs, and of course he knows why the Whips Office did that: to keep Back Benchers away from the House. I have received a very nice text from a Member saying, “I’m out working in my constituency. Aren’t the xxx Whips very devious?” That is very true.

After our protests, then, the Whips Office reduced the vote to a one-line Whip, but that is not a genuine free vote, because Members here will still be instructed how to vote. This is wrong, should not be happening and flies in the face of the coalition Government’s pledge to restore trust in Parliament. Even worse, I understand that Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries are on a three-line Whip to vote through this despicable motion. The very people who should have no interest in Back-Bench business are the ones who are being told to vote for the changes. I am more than happy to take an intervention from the Leader of the House if that is not the case. [Interruption.] I see he does not want to intervene. This really is going back to the bad old days.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that some years ago, in an extremely important book called “The Commons In Transition”, a former Clerk of the House said that the root of all the trouble with Standing Orders and whipping was collusion between the two Front Benches in the 1880s in order to take control of Standing Orders away from the Speaker? In those days it was the Speaker who determined these questions, which preserved the integrity of the House.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I think you would admonish me if I went down that route, Mr Speaker, as it is a little wide of today’s debate, although I must say that it has much merit.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

The previous Prime Minister was absent from Prime Minister’s questions twice as often as the current Prime Minister has been and my right hon. Friend, who relishes his performances in the House, has made proportionately more statements to the House than his predecessor and has been at the Dispatch Box for well over 30 hours in so doing.

I remind the hon. Lady that, between 2001 and 2007, bank bonuses went up from £3.1 billion to £11.5 billion at a time when the banks were engaged in irresponsible lending and buying securities that turned out to be worthless. In 2009, the Labour party signed off £1.3 billion-worth of bonuses for Royal Bank of Scotland. That compares with the figure of below £400 million that was approved today, so that was also an unfortunate subject for her to raise.

Finally, on the economy, the International Monetary Fund has forecast the UK to grow twice as fast as Germany and three times as fast as France this year. After the Budget, we will have four days of debate on the economy, which Government Members look forward to with relish.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Minister for Europe has placed a letter in the House of Commons Library, which is addressed by the permanent representative of the UK representation to the EU to the secretary-general of the Council of the European Union, and raises the question of the legality of the treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance, which was signed on 30 January. It states that the United Kingdom

“must reserve our position on the proposed treaty and its use of the institutions”.

In the circumstances, and given that I and others have raised the fact that there are serious questions about the nature and lawfulness of that treaty, and given that the Government appear to share the concerns on that issue, will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate in Government time for at least three hours next week to discuss the nature and lawfulness of that treaty?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed. I have just announced the business for next week and, sadly, there is not an opportunity to raise the specific issue to which he has referred. I cannot guarantee to find time in the near future for his request, but there may be other opportunities for him to raise European business on the Floor of the House, as he has done on many occasions in recent weeks. Of course, there is also the opportunity of debates in Westminster Hall or through the Backbench Business Committee in this Chamber.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

That is a travesty of the views of my right hon. Friend, who has on many occasions paid tribute to the work that nurses and doctors do within the NHS.

On the issue of pensions, our view is that a generous offer has been made to doctors and consultants. The average consultant retiring at the age of 60 will get a pension of £48,000 and a lump sum of £143,000, worth about £1.7 million in a pot. We think that is unsustainable, and we want a system that links pensions to lifetime earnings rather than final salary—a reform that I hope the hon. Gentleman would welcome.

On the issue of NHS reform, the hon. Gentleman knows that there will be an opportunity for a further debate when the other place has finished its consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill. We believe that that reform is essential and that it is in doctors’ and nurses’ interests, because they are put at the centre of clinical commissioning.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Leader of the House knows that there will be a summit on European matters towards the end of the month—probably 30 January; my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) raised the matter last week. The European Scrutiny Committee has unanimously called on the Government to provide for a debate before that summit, on the Floor of the House, for a minimum of three hours. The last time I asked this question, I was told it should go off to Westminster Hall or should be dealt with by a Backbench Business Committee resolution. That is quite inappropriate; this is a serious matter, affecting the whole of the United Kingdom. It needs to have a general debate on the Floor of the House. Can we please have one?

[Sir George Young]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend that it is inappropriate to ask him to go to the Backbench Business Committee and ask for time in this Chamber for a debate on the European Council. That is precisely the recommendation that was made by the Wright Committee at paragraph 145. It explicitly says that the two days for the pre-European Council debates should be handed over to the Backbench Business Committee and it should find the time for them. My hon. Friend will have heard that the Government have made time available to the Backbench Business Committee. I am not sure whether he approached the Committee with a subject for the debate in the weeks that are forthcoming, but that is the appropriate way to get debates on the European Council, as outlined by the Wright Committee, whose recommendations we have implemented.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House yesterday when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement in which he spent some time on Iran. He made it clear that, while nothing should be taken off the table, in the meantime we prefer a diplomatic approach combined with adequate pressure on Iran to see whether we can try to find a stable solution to what is, I agree, a rather dangerous position.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Today I have written to the Leader of the House to say that the European Scrutiny Committee is deeply disturbed by the lack of formal parliamentary debate on the eurozone crisis. We have taken a unanimous decision to call on the Government to give Government time as soon as possible for a full three-hour debate on the Floor of the House. We are also calling on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give evidence to the Committee in person. Will the Leader of the House grant that wish?

[Sir George Young]

The House has found time to debate matters relating to Europe: we recently had a debate on the referendum, and the Government provided a whole-day debate on the Council of Europe, so it is not the case that Europe has been entirely absent from our agenda. I have announced that there will be a debate on the accession of Croatia to the European Union. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has put his request to the Backbench Business Committee. He will know from the business I have announced today that the Government are providing time for general debates—there is one today on armed forces personnel and one on security on Monday week—so I do not rule out at some point a debate along the lines he has suggested.

Business of the House

William Cash Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I think I would like to take some advice before I go down that particular route. The position is that if a witness fails to attend when summoned, the Committee reports the matter to the House and it is then for the House to decide what further action to take. As I said, there has not been a case of that kind for some considerable time. The House can order a witness to attend a Committee; apparently this has not happened since 1920. I would like to take some advice on the rather dramatic course of action that the hon. Gentleman has recommended to me, whatever the consequences might be with regard to News International.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

With regard to the terms of reference for the Leveson inquiry, will my right hon. Friend make a note of early-day motion 2088, which is signed by 14 Select Committee Chairmen from all three main parties, the chairmen of the 1922 committee and the parliamentary Labour party, and representatives of the Northern Ireland party and Scottish national party which lead the devolved Assemblies, and has been passed on to No. 10? It proposes that the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry should

“be extended to the whole media, including sound, visual and social media, and include blagging and other unethical or illegal practices”

and not be confined to phone hacking.

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend made this point in yesterday’s exchanges. Of course, the broadcasting media already have their own statutory regulation that does not apply to the press. I know that the Prime Minister will take on board the suggestions that have been made about changing the terms of reference, and we will consider that before final decisions are made.

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

William Cash Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB.

The motion stands in my name and those of right hon. and hon. Members across the House: the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the leader of the Scottish National party, the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the leader of Plaid Cymru and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I thank them all for joining me in tabling this motion. I also thank those Conservative Members who have set out their support for the motion in advance of the debate.

It is unusual, to put it mildly, for a motion in this House to succeed before the debate on it begins, but this is no ordinary motion, and this is no ordinary day. Make no mistake: the decision made by News Corporation was not the decision it wanted to make. It may have been announced before this debate, but it would not have happened without it. Above all, this is a victory for people: the good, decent people of Britain, outraged by the betrayal of trust by parts of our newspaper industry, who have spoken out up and down this country, and who have contacted Members across this House and told us of their concerns. The will of Parliament was clear, the will of the public was clear, and now Britain’s most powerful media owner has had to bend to that will.

This debate is an opportunity to understand how we got here and where we go from here. I will speak briefly, to allow others to speak in what has been a curtailed debate. The terrible revelations of the last week have shaken us all. They have caused immense pain and heartache to bereaved families, as they learned that their most private moments were stolen from them to sell newspapers. As each day has gone by, I am sure all of us will have felt the same: surely it cannot get any worse than this. But it has: the phone of Milly Dowler, the victims of 7/7, the families of our war dead, and the personal details of our former Prime Minister. And we are told that there is worse to come. These revelations have uncovered a pattern of sustained criminality that is breathtaking, and they have called into question our faith in the police’s capacity fully to investigate wrongdoing.

There are many things that we need to do to put these wrongs right. We have done one of them today. This was a time for the House of Commons to give voice to the views and feelings of the British public about the integrity of our media, which should be at the centre of our democracy. The principles at stake go to the heart of the country we believe in. They are about whether we allow power to be exercised without responsibility, about whether the responsibility we need goes right to the top of our society, and about the truth that no corporate interest should be able to write the law or be above the law.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the point that I put to the Prime Minister earlier, which is that it would be incongruous to have terms of reference for this particular inquiry—most of the terms of reference having been announced—that exclude the sound and visual medium? We talk of “the media” generally, but most of the argument turns on the question of the word “press” and newspapers. Should the definition not be extended?

[Edward Miliband]

I am sure that that point will be considered, but what I say to the hon. Gentleman is that the abuses that we have seen are in our newspaper industry, and we want this inquiry to get on and concentrate on where there have been abuses. It will, of course, examine cross-media ownership, and I think it is right for it to do so.

This debate is also about the relationship between private power and the power of people, given voice by this Parliament. We need strong entrepreneurial businesses in this country, but we need them to show responsibility, and in these highly unusual circumstances it was right that Parliament intervened. The case was clear about why the stakes were so high in this bid—I will say something about that—about why the revelations of the recent past comprehensively undermine this bid, and about why the motion was necessary. I will deal with those points briefly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

It makes sense to allow the inquiry to take place before we pronounce a verdict on whether there is comparability with what happened in America, but the way that we have responded was the right way to respond, rather than to indulge in the sort of cover-up that happened over the Atlantic.

The House is clear that justice should be done. The Government are doing everything we can to make that happen. All Members will remember the scandal over parliamentary expenses that engulfed the House two years ago, almost to the day. Illegality and gross misconduct by a few, cover-ups and a lack of transparency, and the failure of self-regulation were a toxic mix that led to a dramatic change in how Parliament was perceived by the public, with the reputation of the majority tarnished by the actions of a minority.

I see parallels between what happened to us and what is now happening to another important pillar of any democracy, namely a free press. While there are parallels, there are also lessons. As with expenses, the right approach to the current situation is to reach political agreement on the right way forward, to ensure much greater transparency and to move away from self-regulation to independent regulation without impeding the media’s ability to fulfil its democratic role.

[Mr Cash]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir George Young]

I will make progress, as many Members wish to speak. The police investigation, the inquiry that the Prime Minister launched today and the ongoing inquiries being carried out by Select Committees must now be allowed to get on with their crucial work.

[Mr Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that it is a point of order.

[Mr Cash]

We have been told that there are published terms of reference and it would be helpful to have access to them. We do not know where they are and have not been told what they are.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a very important point, but it suffers from the disadvantage of not being a point of order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Whittingdale]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acted on the basis of the advice that he received from Ofcom. The original advice was that he should refer the bid, but Ofcom then came back and said that the undertakings being given by News Corporation were sufficient and that there was no longer a need to do so. At every stage, he has acted on the advice of the independent regulator.

I want to say a few words about BSkyB, which has been an extraordinarily successful company. It has pioneered choice in television and introduced the personal video recorder, high-definition television and 3D television. It has recently passed the 10 million home mark. It has been incredibly successful. It is right that its ownership should be subject to very close scrutiny. I would also like to commend it on its most recent announcement of £600 million of annual investment in UK content, which will do a tremendous amount of good.

The test that my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary put up to be examined was that of plurality. That is about Sky News. It is worth saying that throughout this saga, Sky News has displayed the same objectivity and independence in its coverage of matters concerning its parent company—or the company that sought to become its parent company—as it has in other matters.

[Mr Cash]

We heard earlier about the published terms of reference set out by the Prime Minister. We got them from the Library and they refer to a

“judge-led inquiry into phone hacking”—

but it is confined to the press. Would my hon. Friend, having been consulted and with his Committee meeting tomorrow, agree to look into these terms of reference? Does he agree that sound and visual media journalism has to be included to make the inquiry fully comprehensive?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I have not yet heard any suggestion that similar activities have been undertaken by television or radio companies, but, should that be uncovered, I have no doubt that the judge would request a broadening of the terms of reference to include it. The important thing is that the judge should follow the evidence wherever it leads. As I understand it, that is the undertaking that the Prime Minister gave.

Some have expressed the concern that Sky News might go the way of Fox News. Fox News is very successful, but I do not believe that it would ever succeed in this country. We have an entirely different climate. Nevertheless, that was the key issue under consideration when we examined plurality. However, the revelations over the course of the last two weeks have raised a much more serious issue—the “fit and proper” test and whether or not News Corporation meets it, not just in respect of its 100% ownership, but now in respect of its 39% ownership of BSkyB. That is something that Ofcom will want to consider, but I believe that Ofcom is correct in saying that it should act on the basis of evidence rather than allegation. These matters need to be pursued to the very end. We need to discover the truth, and if it turns out that very senior executives in News Corporation are involved in, or had knowledge of, what has been going on, that will raise questions about the fit and proper test. I have no doubt that Ofcom will pursue them.

It might take years for us to find the full extent of what has been happening and to get to the truth, but if that is what it takes, that is what we must do. This episode must never be allowed to recur. We need to find out the full extent of it. We will try to begin to uncover some of the truth on Tuesday, if those people are willing to appear before us, but this judicial inquiry and the police inquiry must find the truth.