Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

Monday 20th May 2019 General Committees

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 859).

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Sir Lindsay, for what—by any standards—is an important debate, which is about whether the United Kingdom left the European Union on 12 April. As you know, I would have preferred to have the debate on the Floor of the House.

I shall be voting against the regulations. Whichever way the Committee votes at the end of this debate, Sir Lindsay, you will report the regulations to the House and no other proceedings will follow automatically. However, I shall later press for a substantive vote on the Floor of the House.

I remind the Committee that, with his insulting arrogance, Donald Tusk described this unjustified extension of time—which the European Council imposed on the Prime Minister, although it was dressed up as an agreement and as a treaty, which it is not—with the words:

“Please do not waste this time.”

We certainly will not.

I and 82 other hon. Members have called this debate to annul the regulations, which purport to authorise the extension to 31 October of the exit day defined under section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. When the withdrawal Bill was going through Parliament, “exit day” was defined as

“such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint”.

No parliamentary procedure was applied. The Bill was amended so that the Act specifically defined “exit day” as

“29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m.”

Section 20(4) enabled a Minister of the Crown to

“amend the definition of ‘exit day’…to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom”,

if the day and time at which the treaties were to cease to apply to the United Kingdom under article 50(3) were different from 29 March at 11 pm. Schedule 7 of the Act laid down that a statutory instrument under section 20(4) could be made only by affirmative resolution approved by each House of Parliament.

The draft exit day regulations were approved following debates in both Houses on Wednesday 27 March 2019. The very next day, on 28 March, the exit day regulations came into force at once, moving exit day to 11 pm on Friday 12 April. The Government exploited the Cooper-Letwin Bill, which they said that they opposed, and used it to overturn the approval procedure and turn it into the annulment procedure that, disgracefully, we now face. Astonishingly, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), said that the Government were making that change because

“the Government have no choice but to improve the Bill and limit its most damaging effects.”

He said that the reason why the Government were seeking that change was

“simply to provide the speed that I think this House would want in the context of a deal having being agreed.”—[Official Report, 3 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 1189-1190.]

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Is it not correct that the amendment was probably not available to Members when it was debated because the Clerks were having to produce the amendments on the same day? Therefore, no proper consideration was made of that amendment to primary legislation.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend is completely right. That is part of the disgraceful way in which all of this has been done. The speed was certainly breathtaking. The suggestion that the deal had been agreed is itself a breathtaking statement; really, it was imposed on us by abject surrender.

The regulations that moved exit day to 31 October were rammed through at 3.15 pm on Thursday 11 April by the Minister and laid before the House at 4.15 pm on the same day. Let us remember that section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is inextricably bound with exit day, with the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 in lockstep. The section, says, quite clearly and expressly:

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

Repeal of the 1972 Act is axiomatic to carrying through the democratic referendum vote that took place on 23 June 2016, because that Act is the constitutional and domestic legislative means by which the voters of the United Kingdom were shackled to all treaties and laws imposed on them, without exception—including rulings of the Court of Justice. Those laws are invariably passed behind closed doors by qualified majority vote of the Council of Ministers of the other 27 member states of the European Union

It is about who governs this country and how they do so—general election manifestos and freely exercised democratic votes of the British electorate are the basis of our parliamentary Government, established over centuries—and whether the wishes of the British electorate prevail.

European Scrutiny Committee Report

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

Thursday 28th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the publication of the Twenty-fourth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, on Reforming the European Scrutiny System in the House of Commons, HC 109-I.

The European Scrutiny Committee’s unanimous report is the most radical since the passing of the European Communities Act 1972. It raises fundamental questions about the operation of the Act, which are of great significance to the public and the electors, who have to obey the laws made under and by virtue of it, and the scrutiny of the European legislation that flows from it. I propose to make a short statement without interventions in order to set out the basic issues. I will then give way on specific questions as they arise.

Emphasising the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament on behalf of the electors, the Committee makes proposals relating to a veto to be deployed at national level and asks the Government to respond to our conclusion that parallel provision should be made to enable the House of Commons to disapply existing European legislation. We specifically state that

“there should be a mechanism whereby the House of Commons can decide that a particular EU legislative proposal should not apply to the United Kingdom”

and that

“if such a Motion was passed the UK Government would be expected to express opposition to the proposal in the strongest possible terms, including voting against it.”

A further conclusion of the Committee is that parallel provision should be made to enable a decision of the House of Commons to disapply parts of the existing acquis communautaire, the body of European law that exists under the treaties.

The Committee proposes greater involvement in European legislation by departmental Select Committees, as a whole and individually, including the appointment of a Member of Parliament as a specialist reporter on each and every Committee as a means of focusing the Committees on the enormous body of law constantly arising in relation to policy making and law making within their individual purview. We state that there should be permanent chairs and members of newly created European document debate committees that replace the European Standing Committees. We also propose the reintroduction of EU oral questions on the Floor of the House.

We propose that there should be greater accountability of Ministers, specifically in relation to the problems that arise concerning the activities of United Kingdom representatives in Brussels, including their interaction with the Committee of Permanent Representatives who represent the European Union institutions as a whole, because we believe that there is a significant gap in accountability in that context. We also propose measures to improve debates on the Floor of the House.

There is another concern and it relates to the treatment of European matters in the media, particularly television and broadcasting. We note the importance of providing balanced and informed media coverage on the EU in general, and the scrutiny process in particular, and criticise the chairman of the BBC Trust for refusing to give oral evidence to the Committee. For example, this morning the “Today” programme dealt with a whole range of matters of enormous immediate interest, including tobacco packaging and green levies. There is a stack of stuff that comes up continuously, but there was no mention whatsoever of the EU basis on which those matters are dealt with.

With regard to what is going on in the European Union as a whole—the report refers to this—the body under the treaties that represents the national Chairmen of each of the 28 member states with responsibility for European scrutiny meets about once every eight weeks. There has been increasing awareness over the past year, in the light of increasing European integration, demands for political union and so on, of the need for democratic legitimacy in national Parliaments. When the Prime Minister said in his Bloomberg speech, in relation to his fourth principle, that the national Parliaments are the root of our democracy, I am sure that he spoke for the whole of this House. It is vital that our Parliament gives effect to that principle.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful statement. Will he confirm that this was a unanimous and cross-party report? I note that the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the House, the Minister for Europe and the Chief Whip are all here. Can we take that as an indication that they are keen to implement these recommendations at the earliest moment?

[Mr Cash]

I would be extremely interested to know why they would not be interested in supporting the Committee’s proposals, particularly the basis on which they are derived, which is that we are putting our national Parliament at the heart of the process, because that is the basis on which Members of this House are elected by the people we have the honour of representing.

Backbench Business Committee

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

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.

Connecting Europe Facility

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The problem with this over-arching proposal is basically that it will be carried by qualified majority vote and is therefore, in effect, a form of taxation. Whatever proportion of that overall budget of £43.7 billion eventually falls on the United Kingdom, the Committee of which I have the honour to serve as Chairman believes that the scale of the Commission’s ambition for the 2014 to 2020 financial period is clearly unacceptable. On that basis, there is no doubt that the thrust of the Government’s motion is correct.

Although I happen to agree with the proposals on growth in the Opposition motion, the fact is that the Opposition are guilty of having severely restricted any opportunity for growth through the massive increase in public expenditure that they imposed on the United Kingdom. I and two or three other Conservative Members continually attacked that increase for the best part of three years and, as I repeatedly said at the time, there was no proposal for growth, which was connected to the problems of over-regulation, of which these proposals are yet another example.

The truth is that there should have been a full debate—there still may be opportunity for such a debate—on what is going wrong with the European Union as a whole. That debate is necessary because, as the Government have pointed out, the EU is calling on member states such as ourselves to produce more money for projects that could be better carried out under the so-called principle of subsidiarity at a national level.

At the same time, it is abundantly clear that there is no money in the European coffers. We should be debating the eurozone crisis as a whole in a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House, which my Committee has unanimously called on the Government to provide, but when I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) repeated our calls this morning for a general debate it was denied by the Government, yet again.

[Mr Bone]

On that point, the Backbench Business Committee can, of course, grant a full-day debate on Thursday of next week if the Government release that day, which they are holding back for a general debate. Would my hon. Friend urge the Chief Whip to consider doing that?

[Mr Cash]

I certainly would. I endorse that course of action, and I would be grateful if the Whips on duty would pass that message to the Chief Whip—and, indeed, the Leader of the House—because we are faced with a monumental crisis in the European Union. That is only a symptom of the problem, which is generated by the intrinsic defects of the accumulated treaties, particularly since the Maastricht treaty in the 1990s.

So much is decided by qualified majority vote despite the fact that we currently face such severe restrictions and so much austerity, which is causing difficulties for our hospitals, schools, transport and so much else. Proportionality in respect of allocations is required. Getting that balance right is vital for our national interest. We should therefore have a debate on the Floor of the House, and not only on this one issue, important though it is.

I attended the multiannual financial meeting of about eight weeks ago as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee on behalf of the United Kingdom national Parliament, and I felt compelled to get up and complain bitterly about the complete “Alice in Wonderland” attitude that prevailed there. People were calling for an ever-greater increase in the amount of money that should be made available to the EU, and they were justifying that by reference to the Lisbon treaty, for example. They said that as the functions had grown, there ought to be more money. There is absolutely no recognition of the fact that there is simply not enough money to go around. We should be proceeding on the basis that we must reduce, rather than merely freeze, the budget.

The Government motion is right, therefore. However, we are facing demands from the financial transaction tax—I accept that we can veto that—and there are also attempts to stop our rebate and proposals to increase own-resources. Cumulatively, those moves are putting pressure on us to move in the wrong direction. There are great opportunities for the UK in a trading environment that is global—across the world, rather than just in the EU, important though that may be—and that is the direction we should be going in. All transport issues, including aviation policy and the development of our local infrastructure, should be taken by ourselves in the interests of the UK, rather than determined by QMV involving the other member states.

The European project is completely misconceived, and it is failing; the eurozone crisis will ultimately lead to collapse. The current situation is rather like the phoney war of 1938 and 1939: everybody knows the situation is doomed, but they are continuing to pretend that somehow something will turn up.

My message is that the Government motion is right in general, but that there is not enough determination to renegotiate the treaties. I welcome the veto, but once we cross the Rubicon, we cannot cross back. The reality is that any attempt to do so will meet with disaster, division and acrimony.

I am glad that we have had this debate, but there are also more important matters that must be debated as a matter of urgency. As I and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough, for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Bury North and many others have said, we must have a proper debate on the extent, range and depth of the eurozone crisis and its impact on the UK.

We must also explore the other key issues facing us, such as why we are being confronted with QMV decisions to impose what is, in effect, a form of taxation to provide for certain facilities. Such decisions should be made on a bilateral national basis. It is not anti-European to say that is what we should do, because doing that is in the interests of Europe. What Europe is doing, however, is determinedly pursuing a completely false prospectus and then compounding that—sadly, with our Government in agreement, it appears—by proposing that we should find yet more devious means of providing money through the IMF to support what is an insupportable project. That simply flies in the face of common sense.

European Budgets 2014 to 2020

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I, too, take that view. My hon. Friend is completely right. I note that the motion states that the House

“supports the Government’s ongoing efforts to reduce the Commission’s proposed budget”.

I would hope to go further, but we shall see.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he wanted to gain more reductions, but seemed to imply that he was held back by qualified majority voting. Does my hon. Friend believe that the Prime Minister has a veto, or is it down to QMV?

[Mr Cash]

I have already quoted article 312. There is no doubt that the whole process can be blocked by unanimity, but once the European Council has made a decision to go ahead, the decision reverts to qualified majority vote. I think that is right, but the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.

I want to deal with one fundamental question that came up over and over again. That conference was regarded as important because it supposedly carried the national Parliaments with it. That was partly the case, although it did not apply to the United Kingdom Parliament—certainly not to me in my capacity there. Growth is the key question, but, over that too, they are living on another planet, because their idea of growth simply means more investment of public money. I had to ask them, “Where is the money coming from?” There were about 300 people there—I was a little bit in the lions’ den, but it was worth doing simply to see the unreality. As T. S. Elliot said:

“humankind cannot bear very much reality”.

When I asked, “Where’s it coming from?”, they said, “The taxpayers”, but it is not coming from the taxpayers; it is coming from small business men all over Europe, who, when running their businesses profitably, can then be taxed. But what if they cannot run them profitably? Here we have the problem with social employment laws, and I had the temerity to mention to them things such as paternity and maternity leave, the working time directive, the temporary agency directives and the rest. I told them about the scale of redundancy payments. We saw the Channel 4 programme the day before yesterday on pensions in Greece. Apparently, when people leave work, those pensions remain, for the rest of their lives, equivalent to what they had earned per year when working.

The growth must come from the small and medium-sized businesses. I have here another of these documents—none of them ever see the light of day, but I have the pleasure of being able to tell the House about it today. This one is entitled, “Towards a European Consensus on Growth”, but it, too, is completely and utterly unrealistic. There is no serious understanding of where the money comes from or of the fact that the result of having no growth in Europe is that there is no growth here either, because 40% of our economy is tied in to Europe. But these people will not change the structural system or the labour laws.

The EU representatives are talking and talking, but they are doing and doing nothing, and as a result, this black hole, whether Greece, Italy, Spain or wherever else in the EU, is condemned to getting deeper and blacker, simply because there is no realisation of where the money comes from in the first place. That is the problem at the root of this multi-annual financial framework. The whole project is based on a con trick of monumental proportions. They believe that they simply need to spend money on infrastructure and bridges—I would like to know where the contracts are going and how they are composed—but that does not solve the problem of the small businesses that simply cannot operate in the kind of environment that Europe now represents. That is all I need to say. This is a dead parrot.

Private Members’ Bills

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

Wednesday 30th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend puts that argument much better than I could have done.

I want to go back to the list of Bills, to give the House a flavour of the matter and to show that it is not just three or four Members who are involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who has not been mentioned so far, has a non-controversial Equality and Diversity (Reform) Bill before the House on 21 October. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) has his Master’s Degrees (Minimum Standards) Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) has his Waste Recycling (End Use Register) Bill. I could go on and on, but my point is that these Bills are important to the Members concerned, and they might well be important to their constituents and to the country. They should be heard, and we should not try to restrict debate on them.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I hope that my hon. Friend will be good enough to note that if a Member introduces and prints a presentation Bill, that will demonstrate to the country what they intend to do. My Prevention of Terrorism Bill, for example, would unwind the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 and give us a proper terrorism law. Does he also appreciate that it is possible to attach signatures to such Bills by tabling an early-day motion? On one occasion, there were as many as 350 signatures attached in that way. That provides ample evidence of the support that a Bill has, even though the Government, by their continuous diminishing of the opportunities for the House to vote on matters that are important to the people at large—

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I would just like to get this out of the way, if I may, because it is quite a useful and explicit affirmation of what we could do in practice to ensure that there is no doubt about what is being done. The new clause in question could be phrased in this way: “Any Act of Parliament or legal instrument expressly stating that that Act or instrument shall be ‘notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972’ or ‘notwithstanding the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998’ shall be construed by the courts of the United Kingdom as having the effect of disapplying and overriding any Act or legal instrument to which it refers.” That would put the position completely on all fours with the evidence that we have received from the constitutional experts.

For many years, I have said that we need a way to get round the problem of provisions emanating from the European Communities Act 1972, and the treaties and legal instruments made under it, being inconsistent with our national interests. To achieve that—in line with cases such as Macarthys v. Smith under Lord Denning and Garland v. British Rail Engineering under Lord Diplock, which remain good law despite what the Supreme Court has said recently—we need, precedent to an Act of Parliament and in relation to European Union legislation, to use the expression “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972” to make it clear that we are legislating subsequent to an existing enactment and expressly inconsistently with it. That would oblige the courts to give effect to the later legislation. There are occasions when it is clear that the Government would want to do that but cannot do it, or do not want to do it, or would prefer the whole subject to go away. I am looking closely at the Minister at this point. There is nobody who wants this subject to go away more than the Prime Minister does.

It is a problem. I recognise the dilemma, and I have to say, in all fairness, that I have absolutely no doubt about the need for the remedy. I understand that there are inconveniences in having the European Union producing legislation that this country does not want, which might have been thought to be a good idea in the past. Some thought that the working time directive was a good idea, but it has turned out to have all kinds of unfortunate consequences. The same could be said of other matters such as the over-regulation of business.

When we were in opposition in 2006, I tabled an amendment to the then Government’s Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, based on the “notwithstanding” formula, in order to improve the opportunities for British business, helping it to grow and get away from unnecessary burdens imposed by the European Union. During the afternoon that I proposed that amendment, a series of Whips’ meetings took place. The Whips came to me and said, “Bill, would you be good enough to allow us to adopt your amendment and to put in Tellers?” When the vote took place on the words

“notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”,

teams of the present Government walked through the Lobbies to support my amendment, which they had adopted—and six weeks later on a whipped vote in the House of Lords, they reconfirmed it. There was no doubt about the intention there. The principle is thus established by the European Scrutiny Committee report, by the evidence we received and by the conduct of the Prime Minister who was then the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is generous. Could the whole problem be solved by putting those magic words on the front of every Act of Parliament, thus forcing the courts to interpret the Act of Parliament as the supreme law, not the one from the European Union?

[Mr Cash]

We could do that, although it might not be desirable or necessary to do it for every Act of Parliament. I shall come on to some cases later, but we are about to go into an adjournment, if that is the right expression, when the Prime Minister will make an important statement on Libya and the UN resolution. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) made an important point, which clearly summarises the position. It would not need to apply to every Act of Parliament, but only where it was necessary in respect of European Union law or the European convention on human rights—on issues like votes for prisoners, for example.

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

The use of the sovereignty of Parliament to pass an Act notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, which is inherent in the Bill. The Minister might recall that in opening my remarks, I specifically stated that I had a clause in mind that would put it beyond any doubt that the courts would be obliged to give effect to, for example, what the then Opposition properly did when they voted for my amendment to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.

We should not be arguing about this. I find it astonishing that I should have to raise the matter in a debate. For a Minister to question whether my remarks are valid in one respect or another is again astonishing. I cannot believe it: I know the Minister’s business background; I know he understands the issues; I know perfectly well that he is caught on the horns of a dilemma. I believe that he would personally love to see the repatriation of powers—and I am sure his constituents would, as well. I am afraid, however, that it will do no good if he offers resistance to my simple, straightforward and common-sense proposals. This involves making adjustments to European Community law and requiring the judiciary to give effect to the latest inconsistent Act. I should not have to repeat myself; it is terribly obvious. It is all so simple that I cannot believe that the Minister would want to offer any kind of resistance to the proposition.

Let me provide a few examples—some from the business environment, some from elsewhere—from the massive tsunami of European law. I have already mentioned the working time directive, which is coming up for consideration by the European Scrutiny Committee. We recommended that proposals relating to it should be debated in the House, so we do not need to debate it immediately. I will say unequivocally, however, that the working time directive is causing a great deal of damage to small businesses. There are also questions in the pipeline relating to waste electrical and electronic equipment, which is a matter of concern to a number of manufacturers and to people in the waste disposal business.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way. Does he agree that one problem now is that we have lost so much time for debate as a result of the important statement on Libya? I, for one, will withdraw from speaking so that we can reach a conclusion and vote on the Bill. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I wonder whether my hon. Friend would reflect on that?

[Mr Cash]

Very much so. I am delighted to say that I have come to the end of my remarks, which were to include a reference to the European arrest warrant and powers of entry, as both those matters are causing problems for the citizens and people of this country. Fair Trials International has written an excellent brief on the necessary amendments, but as it knows all too well, only by using the sort of mechanism I have proposed—the “notwithstanding” formula—would we be able to deal with the problem. Further difficulties relate to rulings on pensions, the insurance question for women and so forth.

In a nutshell, this is a problem crying out for a solution. This Bill will provide it. Other measures are necessary to ensure that we retain the sovereignty of this House while at the same time dealing with the difficulties arising for the people of this country in a wide area of business and other legislation.

Bill of Rights

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

Thursday 17th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I totally and absolutely endorse what my hon. Friend is saying. I was much involved in the Damian Green affair—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. I know that we sometimes refer to the Damian Green affair, but we should refer to the hon. Member for Ashford.

[Mr Cash]

I accept your point, Mr Bone, and will refer to the matter of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). Does the Minister worry that there are moves afoot to adjust, in the light of political correctness, the so-called role of the Member of Parliament and degrade it? Are they not missing the biggest wood for the biggest trees by not realising that the Member of Parliament, who is elected by voters and who, if given privilege and using it responsibly, is the best possible defence for the right of the individual to obtain the protection that they need through that privilege, not for our sake but for theirs?

European Union Bill

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

What is simple is that the concept of parliamentary sovereignty requires some explanation, and Jeffrey Goldsworthy does that. The question is not merely about parliamentary sovereignty; it is also about the manner in which the courts apply themselves to that doctrine. That is where the mischief lies and that is what my amendments would deal with.

I should like to respond to the Government’s reply, published only yesterday, to the European Scrutiny Committee. The Government say that they have never claimed that parliamentary sovereignty is under threat from EU law, but a problem remains for them. The evidence to the Committee was that that could well change in future, given current judicial trends; that is exactly what we were told.

The Government claim that disapplying EU law, an issue that has just been raised, would have unacceptable consequences—with infraction proceedings, and so on. But I make the point clearly that according to the evidence that we received, not only are several countries already in breach of EU law—France’s deportation of Roma immigrants, for example; no action was taken—but there is non-compliance on a massive scale. We know all about that, with the stability and growth pact.

There has also been the more recent failure to comply even with EU law itself in respect of the financial stability mechanism. Anybody with two brains to rub together would know that article 122 could not possibly justify—[Interruption.] Well, “Two Brains” could. No one could justify the use of article 122 for the purposes of that mechanism. If in the national interest, Parliament decides to do so, that is that. We obey EU law only in so far as it is a matter of statute and continues to be regarded as a matter of national interest.

As to the background of all this, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made several speeches before the general election that clearly demonstrated that we would no longer allow Britain’s laws to

“be decided by unaccountable judges.”

He said that their role was to interpret not to make law and that the sovereignty of Parliament needed to be safeguarded not only from the EU but from current trends in judicial thinking. We were promised last year:

“you can be assured that you have a Conservative prime minister who will act in the national interest. And putting your country first is about the most important Conservative value there is.”

The Prime Minister also said:

“The Conservative Party has always been a party that puts the national interest first.”

I absolutely and entirely agree. By the way, it was Disraeli who said that the Conservative party was a national party or it was nothing; I agree with that, too.

The tragedy is that the coalition and the Liberal Democrat influence in the formulation—and subsequent discussions, I suspect—of clause 18 and the Bill as a whole have gone a long way towards undermining the commitment to putting the national interest first. I fear that, far from working together in the national interest—and it is not just on this one clause—we are now witnessing policies that in relation to matters as important as the sovereignty of Parliament are actually working against the national interest.

That could be remedied very simply by dealing with the omissions, dangers, ambiguities and hazards that the clause throws up and by accepting my simple and modest amendments. My challenge is this: will hon. Members vote down an amendment that says:

“The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law is hereby reaffirmed”?

We all know that it is not possible to constrain the judiciary in relation to EU law except by using clear words. Those are lacking in clause 18, and I have substituted words that have the appropriate effect.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On my hon. Friend’s point, is he saying that if we had a Conservative Government, we would have a totally different Bill?

Draft EU Budget 2011

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on something about which he knows more than anybody else in the House. His amendment would freeze the budget, while the other amendment calls for a reduction. That may be difficult to achieve, but would it not be helpful, rather than a hindrance to the Minister, as she flies off tomorrow, to know that a certain number of Members want a cut?

[Mr Cash]

That has to be a judgment for Members in deciding which way they will vote on these amendments. In my view, because of the complexity of this problem and the uncertainties about whether we will be able to achieve a blocking minority in the Council of Ministers—I shall explain the procedure in a minute—we must do nothing that would play into the hands of the Eurofanatics in some of the other member states who want to go down the same route as the European Parliament by endorsing this increase and increasing the budget resources, which is what they are intent on doing in the wake of the Lisbon treaty. That is the problem. It is a matter of judgment, but it is also one of analysis, which is why I take the position that I do.

I may say that I had no discussions whatever with the Government on this issue. I simply tabled my amendment last night because it struck me that in the light of the discussions in the European Parliament—and not in light of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton, which I had not seen—the European Parliament was being thoroughly irresponsible, or at any rate the Budgets Committee was. We have yet to discover whether the European Parliament will persist in the same view.

On top of the proposal for the European budget, there is one to extend maternity rights. It is now clear that it is intended to have a £3 billion increase in the European budget for that reason. The 27 member states will be snubbed if the European Parliament votes in line with the European Commission’s proposal. Recent increases do not include the already agreed, and grossly extravagant, €1 billion increase in the European budget for 2010, which was caused largely by the Lisbon treaty.

On the subject of austerity and responsible measures, according to Government figures the collective budget deficit of the EU’s 27 member states will reach the staggering sum of €868 billion this year, which is more than 7% of the bloc’s gross domestic product. That, of course, is because the European financial crisis is real. One need only look at the countries otherwise known as PIGS—Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain—not to mention France, which must be included in a lot of the analysis, to see the real implications of that for the individual lives of voters in this country. The governing economic and financial framework established by the EU must be not only revised but radically curtailed.

The budget increase also relates to the extensive bureaucracy that we are having to pay for, such as the European External Action Service, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) rightly pointed out. Members, including me, raised the gravest objections to the proposals for that body that were made a few weeks ago.

While Westminster and Whitehall, and the country at large, are quite rightly being asked to make savings, what is happening in Brussels? The European Parliament adopted a resolution on 18 May proposing a budget of €1.707 billion, which is a 5.5% increase on the amended 2010 budget and represents 20.28% of the EU’s administration budget.

Backbench Business Committee

Debate between William Cash and Peter Bone

Tuesday 15th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I think that Members throughout the House will consider that to be good news. There are problems with private Members’ Bills, and it would be most welcome if the Procedure Committee could examine them.

[Mr Cash]

In the light of what has just been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight)—the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—and in the light of the important points made by my hon. Friend, does my hon. Friend accept that any restriction on the number of days will exert pressure on private Members’ Bills? For example, a Bill may need more time, particularly on Report. In my 26 years in the House, I have so often seen Bills fall at that point because they needed Government time to reach their final stages and that was not possible. My hon. Friend is entirely right to insist that the maximum possible number of days should be available.

[Mr Bone]

I thank my hon. Friend. I was intending to deal with that issue shortly.

I suggested five additional days to balance the Sessions, but I have not moved the trigger forward. That means that after the eighth private Members’ Friday progress can be made on Bills, which will make it easier for Members taking part in the ballot to ensure that their Bills are heard and passed into law. I thought that there was a bit of smoke and mirrors in the statement by the Leader of the House.

I have not much more to say, but I want to tell the House where I think the five extra days should go. I was going to say something about Wednesdays, but that point has already been dealt with. I propose—this touches on a point made earlier about September sittings—that two of the extra days should be in September, so that the September weeks become even more important. I was not here on the last occasion when the House sat in September, but I understand that there was a feeling that the House was almost “going through the motions”. If two of those Fridays were devoted to private Members’ Bills, the sittings would become even more important. I have also proposed adding one day in October this year, one day in June, and one day in July next year. Sittings on those days would inconvenience no one, and would add dramatically to parliamentary democracy.

Another of the last Government’s objections to more sitting Fridays was that they would somehow prevent Members from carrying out constituency business. As my staff members have reminded me today, constituency business continues throughout the week, and is certainly not restricted to Fridays. Moreover—new Members may not know this—Members do not come to the House on days when private Members’ Bills are debated unless they are interested in those Bills. Normally there is no Whip to ensure that Members attend, so there would be no requirement for a full House.

In proposing the five additional days, I am merely suggesting that the number should be returned to what would be expected in a normal two-year cycle. In a two-year period, we would expect 26 Fridays for private Members’ Bills. Given that there were only eight in the last Session, an additional 18 in the current Session would produce the 26 that would normally have occurred. I am not proposing to increase the number of days for private Members’ Bills; I am proposing to keep it in line with the spirit of Standing Orders and the House.

The public are still clamouring for change in the way in which politics is conducted, and for a check on the power of the Executive. Parliament must be allowed to fulfil its role, and Members of Parliament must be allowed freedom to express their opinions and those of their constituents. How the Government respond to this issue will be an important public indication of their commitment to real openness. I am pleased to have received a pledge from them that this will be a free vote, and that there will be no guidance from the Whips. This is a genuine House matter, and it could lead to a huge leap forward. Tonight, Members will have a chance to express their opinions about private Members’ Bills without any influence.