Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I will not give way for a very simple reason, which is that both hon. Gentlemen have consistently tried to obstruct Brexit for the most specious and completely unacceptable reasons.

[Mr Speaker]

Has the hon. Gentleman completed his oration?

[Sir William Cash]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

He has. [Interruption.] There is a rather unseemly atmosphere in here. Mr Linden, you are a very over-excitable fellow today; calm yourself. Mr Newlands next to you is clearly moderately embarrassed. He is going to try to encourage you to tread a path of virtue, and we should say three cheers to that. Meanwhile you can smile, Mr Linden, because I am about to call your leader—Mr Ian Blackford.

Early Parliamentary General Election

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The situation is very simple, and the bottom line is this. The Labour party is scared—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman, who is Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee and has served without interruption in this House for the last 35 years, must—and will—be heard.

[Sir William Cash]

The bottom line is this. I heard the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) talking about disrespect just now, and I heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about trust. What those who are abstaining or voting against the motion are doing is utterly disrespectful to their own constituents and utterly disrespectful to our democratic system. They are not trusting the people, they are not removing the uncertainty and they are not allowing the British people their democratic right to choose Members of Parliament whom they wish to elect in individual constituencies.

What the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber are doing is denying democracy. That is completely and totally unacceptable, whether people are remainers or leavers. The democratic right of the British people is to have a general election in the situation we are in now. Yes, certainly we should be supporting leaving the European Union, but remainers, too, have the right to vote, and that is being denied them by the Leader of the Opposition and every single Labour Member of Parliament and others who are either abstaining or voting against the motion today. That is a total denial of democracy. When it comes to the general election, I trust that the people who know why they have been denied it will vote against those Members of Parliament, to make sure that those Members themselves see the damage they have done to our democratic system.

Business of the House

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Now, a very serious parliamentarian—who shall we have? I call Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On Tuesday, the vast majority of the Labour party, the Lib Dems and the SNP all voted against the Bill and therefore against sovereignty and the clause to protect UK vital national interests, on which the Prime Minister rightly insisted. Those clauses would protect the whole United Kingdom and voters from every political party from destructive European legislation, such as that on taxation and state aid, undermining UK enterprises, businesses, jobs and global trading. Will the Leader of the House join me in urging the entire House to support not only the Bill, but clauses 29 and 36, which will protect the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and voters from all political parties?

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Let us focus on the arguments and the issues. As a long-serving Member of this House who is sadly no longer with us once said, “It’s about policies; it’s not about personalities. It’s not about personalities; it’s about policies.” I do not want to get into the personalities of it. I know that the Leader of the House disapproves of jiggery-pokery, because I have heard him say so in the past—if memory serves me correctly, on 26 March 2015, in the Chamber, he made the very point that he deprecated the use of jiggery-pokery.

I do not want to get into that, but I suppose what I want to say is this: there are precedents for changes in business being announced on points of order—it is not the norm, but there are precedents—and I do not want to ascribe any improper motive to the Leader of the House, whose personal courtesy to me over the years has been and remains unfailing, and I hope that I have reciprocated it. He made the judgment that he made. There was very little notice that he was going to say what he said, but that was really perhaps a product of the circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman might think that the circumstance could have been anticipated and some advance notice would have been helpful, but we were where we were. I do not complain about having to respond to points of order. The Leader of the House did not stay for all the points of order—he stayed for some of them—but I feel certain that he will since have familiarised himself with all of them. We will hear from the Leader of the House later, and I am sure we look forward to that.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. A couple of days ago, on a point of order, I said that the law of the land was set out in section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which quite unequivocally states:

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

Exit day is on 31 October. The Benn Act 2019 has not yet done anything, other than in respect of the letter, to change the repeal of the 1972 Act. Therefore, I simply put it to you, Mr Speaker, that, as you mentioned in your statement, the question whether there are issues relating to the law being obeyed is not an issue at this stage in proceedings. For that reason, I simply ask you whether it is possible for you to reconsider your decision, because the reality is, I am afraid, that the law of the land remains as it was last Friday.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose experience in these matters and whose prowess as a lawyer I readily acknowledge. I hope that he will not take it amiss—but if he does, it is a regrettable inevitability—when I say that he has put on record his understanding of the legal position, and he has said it, as he has on previous occasions, with crystal clarity. Other people have a different view about the legal position and the significance of the so-called Benn Act. If memory serves me correctly, I did not dwell in my statement on adherence to the law. I touched on that matter only in response to the point of order from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I totally understand what the hon. Member for Stone thinks and why.

Moreover, I made clear in the statement the option open to the Government, and I reiterated it in response to the hon. Member for Wellingborough. The amendment in the name of Sir Oliver Letwin, I remind not just Members but those attending our proceedings, explicitly specified that the legislation should come first. Suddenly to have at the next sitting day a debate on the same matter upon which an explicit conclusion was reached on Saturday would seem very unusual, and I have made the judgment that I have made.

Colleagues, I am stating the obvious, but when you make a judgment on these matters, manifestly some people, if it is controversial, are pleased and other people are displeased. That is in the nature of the responsibility. I have simply sought to discharge my obligations and to do what I believe to be right, and that is what the Speaker has to do.

Business of the House

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I intend to move on at quarter past six, so it may well be that not everyone gets in.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

With regard to what happened on Saturday, I simply make the point that, as in the case of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and his son, and that of a Secretary of State as well, I, too, was subjected to an attempt to “take me out”, I suppose we would say. However, there was a remarkable response—not that I was the slightest bit fazed—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to be unkind or discourteous to the hon. Gentleman, but what I am looking for are single-sentence questions. I am very sorry if the hon. Gentleman was unhappily interrupted, but I want a single-sentence question and not an explanation of his experience on Saturday.

[Sir William Cash]

The police were very brave. In respect of this Bill, however, I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend has said about the Benn Act, which was pushed through in a completely unacceptable manner involving the tearing up of Standing Order No. 14, whereas this Bill is in accordance with all the proper procedures, and will deal with the constitutional freedom of this country so that we can regain our self-government.

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Of course I will come to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) momentarily. I call Sir Oliver Letwin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will take it in the right spirit if I say that, having known him for more than 20 years, I feel that our proceedings would not be complete without a point of order from the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee. [Interruption.] Somebody is suggesting a Division, but I will not allow one on that matter.

[Sir William Cash]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is much talk about the law of the land, but the law of the land as it stands at this moment in time is quite simple. Section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 categorically states:

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

That is 31 October—just in case anyone cannot read.

[Mr Speaker]

I am always grateful, and I am sure the House will be indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his legal exegesis. There are other views on that matter, but he has registered his with his customary force.

Prime Minister's Update

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but he, too, must be heard. I want to hear his question and the answer to it.

[Sir William Cash]

The Supreme Court mentioned that the Prorogation had an extreme effect on the fundamentals of our democracy. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is more than an extreme and undemocratic effect for Parliament itself to tear up its own Standing Order No. 14, because the priority that that Standing Order gives to Government business, as compared with private Members’ business such as the surrender Act, derives exclusively from the fundamental democracy of the voters of this country in general elections, and to remedy this, they must be given an early general election to decide who governs this country?

HS2

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Reiterating my plea for brevity, I hopefully call Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. Secondly, I entirely endorse the views of my right hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) and for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). The reality is that this whole project is completely out of control. The costs have gone up repeatedly. I voted against it. There is a petition in the House of Lords, which my constituents were absolutely right to pursue. This whole project is a complete white elephant and should be cancelled.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Under the terms of the Order of the House yesterday, amendments for the Committee stage of the Bill may now be accepted by the Clerks at the Table only. An amendment paper containing all amendments tabled up until 3.30 pm today will be available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website by 5.15 pm. Members may continue to table amendments up until the start of proceedings in Committee of the whole House. If necessary, an updated amendment paper will be made available as soon as possible during proceedings in Committee. For the benefit of everyone, however, I encourage Members to table their amendments as soon as possible.

The Chairman of Ways and Means will make a provisional decision on selection and grouping on the basis of amendments tabled by 3.30 pm, and that provisional selection list will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website before the start of proceedings in Committee. In order to make the texts of the amendments available to Members as soon as practicable, it may not be possible to publish all the supporting Members’ names immediately. I hope that colleagues will not be unduly discombobulated or offended if that is the case. Those names will be added to the permanent online version of the Committee notice paper in due course. I hope that that advice is exhaustive at least for the narrow purpose that I had in mind.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It will be perfectly obvious to anyone watching these proceedings and, for that matter, the entire House that this incredibly rushed procedure is a travesty in itself. This will be incredibly difficult, even given the manner in which you put your statement just now, due to the speed with which we are going to have to assess the Bill, which we have not even seen yet and which, I understand, is only just being made available in the Vote Office. We will then have to make amendments to the Bill and then see the people who might support them. All that raises some incredibly difficult questions not only of procedure, but of the drafting of the amendments. That is my first point.

My second point is that there is an issue regarding Standing Order No. 14, which relates to the timing within which private Members’ Bills of this kind should be introduced. I would be grateful if some consideration was given to that point right now or shortly after you have had a chance to talk about it with the Clerks.

My third and fourth points are to do with Queen’s consent and the money resolution, because we went through all this in relation to the so-called Cooper-Letwin Bill. You made rulings on these matters then but, of course, this Bill is significantly different from that Bill on a whole range of matters. I understand you have had an opportunity to consider these questions privately, with the Clerk of Legislation I imagine, and I would be grateful if, in that context, you could give a ruling on the questions of both the money resolution and whether Queen’s consent is required.

The issues are there, and it is perfectly apparent that vast sums of money are being involved on a monthly basis as a result of the extension of time under the Cooper-Letwin Bill. It is at least £8 billion from April to October, and now it is being extended by a further three months, which is even more money.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I will attempt briefly to respond to each of the important points that he legitimately raises.

In terms of timing, it seems to me that there are two senses in which that concern can be aired and needs to be answered. The hon. Gentleman, if I understood the terms of his point of order correctly, focused in particular on the issue of time in the sense of the lack of it for Members to study the Bill and to table amendments. My response is as follows.

First, the hon. Gentleman is a quite remarkably experienced, skilled and dextrous parliamentarian. Now, admittedly not everybody has his level of experience, skill or dexterity, but I know he would not imagine that that of which he is capable is completely beyond everybody else. In other words, if everybody else has the opportunity to study the Bill and to come to a view about whether they wish to table amendments—the basic subject matter of the Bill was well known to them—they will be able to do so, probably at least close to his own level of acceptability and his own standard. That is the first point.

The second point on timing is that, of course, it is intended that the Bill will go through all stages today but, of course, there are several precedents for that. Those Bills have ordinarily been Government Bills, very often concerning Northern Ireland, but I accept it is unusual. What it is not, in any sense, is disorderly.

The hon. Gentleman has raised very important questions about a money resolution and Queen’s consent. Yes, this Bill is different, but I have, of course, consulted the Clerk of Legislation and other senior Clerks, on whose procedural expertise we regularly call. My ruling on Wednesday 3 April 2019, in respect of the earlier Bill that the hon. Gentleman referenced, was that

“the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill does not require either a Ways and Means motion or a money resolution… extending the period under article 50 would continue the UK’s rights and obligations as a member state of the EU for the period of the extension, which would have substantial consequences for both spending and taxation.”—[Official Report, 3 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 1130-31.]

Clause 4(1) of the Bill before us today would require exit day to be moved to match any extension agreed with the European Council. The financial resolutions passed on Monday 11 September 2017 give fully adequate cover for the exercise by Ministers of their powers under sections 23 and 24 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to move exit day in order to keep in lockstep with the date for the expiry of the European treaties, which, of course, is determined by article 50 of the treaty on European Union.

So far as Queen’s consent is concerned, my ruling on Wednesday 3 April was that

“as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under article 50 of the treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same article 50 of the treaty on European Union.”

The Bill before us today could require the Prime Minister to seek and accept an extension in certain circumstances, although it would still be up to the European Council to agree unanimously to an extension with the UK. In these circumstances, and I say this on the basis of professional advice, my ruling is that Queen’s consent is not needed for this Bill.

It will probably not satisfy or even humour the hon. Gentleman when I conclude my response with what I am about to say, but it is this: he will not be altogether surprised to know that we did consider these matters, not least in the expectation that they are legitimate issues that might be raised either by him or by others. I have been advised, I am satisfied with that advice and I would not rule unless I had asked the questions and got the answers, and I have done. I have asked the questions, I have received the answers and I have been satisfied that it is orderly to proceed and that the answers I have given in respect both of the money resolution and of Queen’s consent are correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

It is not ordinarily the case that the courts look at how we make our decisions. There is quite an established principle of comity with the courts, and the principle is that our procedures are respected and, in turn, we respect those of the courts. As I say, I will happily reflect further on the right hon. Gentleman’s point, as I will reflect upon the point raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), but I am entirely comfortable that we are proceeding in a proper way.

I ought to say to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that, of course, I am conscious, as every Member is, that there are different opinions about the merits of the procedure being followed today, as there are about the merits of the procedure followed yesterday and of the procedure followed at the time of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), but those are matters of political dispute, not, in my judgment, of rule observance or procedural propriety. We are proceeding in a proper manner. That manner may offend the instincts of some Members, but that does not make it improper. It may mean simply that it is distasteful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry if that is the case, but it does not mean that he has made a valid point of a procedural character.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I am so fond of the hon. Gentleman and have such respect for him that I will take one more point of order, but after that we really must proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand your ruling. I just want to put on the record the fact that where I was referring to discussions that have taken place, those have been based on some extremely learned analyses, for example, those by Dr Robert Craig, which are available on blogs and in various papers, and Sir Stephen Laws, a former First Parliamentary Counsel. So these issues have been looked at over the last period, and I just wanted to put that on the record.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. What he is really saying, if I may put it in shorthand, is that there are clever and distinguished people who take a view with which he agrees and which it is therefore useful for him to invoke in the course of this exchange. I absolutely accept that, but, knowing him as I do, I know that he would not, for one moment, cast aspersions on the character, integrity or ability of the Clerk of Legislation, who is deeply versed in these matters and regularly consults his scholarly cranium in order to provide advice to Members in all parts of the House on them. If, on this occasion, the view of the Clerk of Legislation is uncongenial to the hon. Gentleman, that is, obviously, most unfortunate, notably for the hon. Gentleman, but it does not further advance his cause this afternoon. I hope that we can leave it there, because—

UK Ambassador to USA: Leaked Emails

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 8th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

These toxic and unjustified attacks on the President of the United States and his Administration are completely—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Sir William Cash]

They are regarded by many people as completely unjustified. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I was more than well aware of Sir Kim’s own prejudices in relation to the EU. Surely it is not his so-called frankness that should be the issue, but his lack of judgment that disqualifies him from his post.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is a perfectly reasonable inquiry. My understanding—I think it is also in conformity with what has happened in the past—is that we would simply roll forward by a week. Therefore, I must advise hon. Members that it is not intended that the shuffle will be done again. If the hon. Gentleman was successful in the shuffle—I do not know, because I am not privy to that—he can dance around the mulberry bush in joyous appreciation of the fact that, when we do get to those questions scheduled for the following week, his success is something to which he can continue to cling. I hope that brings happiness into the life of the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir William Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am most grateful to you again. You used the word “deprecate” just now. You will forgive me for perhaps embellishing it by saying, frankly, that I think this whole thing stinks. It is completely unacceptable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) pointed out, that we should be denied the opportunity to debate these questions today or tomorrow, given their importance to the national interest.

[Mr Speaker]

My counsel to the hon. Gentleman, whom I am not seeking to contradict or to argue with, is that if he feels as he does, it is open to him to vote against motion 1 when it is proposed by the Government, which will be at some point today. That opportunity does exist for him. I am well aware of the consternation, indeed bordering upon disgust, of the hon. Gentleman at the way in which a number of matters have proceeded in recent times—I am referring not specifically or only to Government handling, but to other matters of parliamentary procedure that have attracted his indignation—but there is a recourse for him, and it is to vote against motion 1.

Moreover, the hon. Gentleman requires no encouragement from me, but if he wishes to vent his displeasure about these matters, he will have the opportunity to do so with eloquence and force when the Prime Minister comes to address the House today. The hon. Gentleman, I feel certain, will be superglued to his seat until the point at which I call him, when he will leap to his feet with alacrity—and he can rest assured that on this occasion, as on every other, he will be heard.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is more than capable of looking after himself, so this is no disrespect to him, but he must be heard and he will be heard.

[Sir William Cash]

So he will, Mr Speaker.

Cromwell continued:

“Depart, I say…In the name of God, go!”

As far as I am concerned, that applies to many Members of Parliament who have reversed their votes and who have repudiated the vote of the British people and denied our democracy.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it really in order for a Member of this House to try to delegitimise other Members of this House, all of whom have our own mandates from our constituencies, simply because he does not agree with what we agree with?

[Mr Speaker]

It is not procedurally improper. It has offended the sensibilities of a considerable number of colleagues, but my hunch is that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) will not suffer any loss of sleep as a consequence of that. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has made her point was considerable force, and it is on the record. Had the hon. Gentleman concluded his oration?

[Sir William Cash]

One last remark, Mr Speaker. I trust that the hon. Member for Wallasey will reflect on the fact that, as far as I am aware, she voted for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 when this House passed it by 499 votes to about 120. That is a fact—[Interruption.] But perhaps she did not, so she can tell me about that.

Business of the House

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

Just one moment—if I may, I will finish my initial response. I have to say that there are some difficulties arising on that question. Actually, the Government’s business taking precedence under Standing Order No. 14 gives this right to the British people, in line with a majority that does exist.

[Mr Speaker]

For the avoidance of doubt, I think I am right in stating to the House that Sandbach is a place and indeed, that it is not all that far from where the hon. Lady represents, but she is of course Antoinette Sandbach, the hon. Member for Eddisbury.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for allowing the intervention, because I had always thought that it was a principle that Parliament has ultimate sovereignty in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I will not comment on rumours. He has had his fun. I hope he has enjoyed himself, and I am glad that he has preserved his sense of humour. A resolution will be achieved very soon; patience is rewarded.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Meanwhile, the epitome of solemnity, Sir William Cash.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. If it turns out to be a tie, and I have no idea if it is—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I very politely suggest to the hon. Gentleman, whom I always treat with the utmost courtesy and respect, that rather than asking me what will be, he just waits for a very short time? I know exactly what the situation is in the as yet hypothetical scenario that he describes, and I will give a very clear ruling to the House. If he is still unclear or dissatisfied after that, he can come back at me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

No more required; I am being teased mercilessly by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and possibly by others—[Interruption.] I thought it was he, but anyway, people were saying, “More!” They do not want more, although I think that the hon. Member for Stone usually does.

[Sir William Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let me simply say that I quite understand the way in which that decision was arrived at. I did refer briefly to Speaker Denison’s rule. Of course, it so happens that this particular Bill should be about the European issue, on which the Maastricht treaty was also extremely important.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want to tease the hon. Gentleman, but I think that Hugo Young’s book has a whole chapter about him. The hon. Gentleman is not only an historical figure; some people might think that he is a world historical figure.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Under the terms of the business of the House motion to which the House has just agreed, amendments for the Committee stage of the Bill may now be accepted by the Clerks at the Table. An amendment paper containing all amendments tabled up until 6.15 pm today, and the names of signatories, will be available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website by 7 pm. Members may continue to table amendments up until the start of proceedings in Committee of the whole House. If necessary, an updated amendment paper will be made available as soon as possible during proceedings in Committee. For the benefit of everyone, however, I would encourage Members to table their amendments as soon as possible. The Chairman of Ways and Means will take a provisional decision on selection and grouping on the basis of amendments tabled by 6.15 pm, and that provisional selection list will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website before the start of proceedings in Committee.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order regarding the need for a money resolution under the Standing Orders in respect of the Bill. For example, if the Bill was to result in a very great extension, the cost could be £36 billion of taxpayers’ money. Fifty MPs have written to you, Mr Speaker, in my name and theirs, in the belief that a money resolution is required, particularly as the matter is apparently decided by the Clerks of the House of Commons. That raises a question for the Procedure Committee as to whether or not there should be a money resolution. I therefore ask you, Mr Speaker, first of all, what is your conclusion on that, as advised; and, secondly, whether the matter can be referred to the Procedure Committee, because in my judgment it is completely unacceptable for matters to be decided in this way?

[Mr Speaker]

I will respond to the hon. Gentleman, but I will first hear the point of order by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am absolutely certain that the hon. Gentleman got vastly better than unclassified in everything. As I said, he is a very clever man. My point was about this issue, not about his intelligence.

If there are no further points of order on this matter, I will now give a definitive ruling on which, as I have been advised, no further points of order will arise. We will then proceed to the business before us.

As the hon. Member for Stone knows, the view taken by the Clerk of Legislation, who decides these matters in the first instance, is that neither Queen’s consent nor any financial resolution is required for the private Member’s Bill presented by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Under the terms of the Bill, if enacted, the Prime Minister “must” move a motion agreeing that she should seek an extension of the negotiating period under article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union to a specified date. The Bill requires the Prime Minister to have the approval of the House before agreeing an extension of the negotiating period. An extension could come into effect only if the European Union 27 decided unanimously to agree an extension with the UK.

As the House will recall, no Queen’s consent was required for the contents of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which was introduced in January 2017 after the UK Supreme Court decision in the Miller case. My ruling is that as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under article 50 of the treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same article 50 of the treaty on European Union.

I recognise, colleagues, that extending the period under article 50 would, in effect, continue the UK’s rights and obligations as a member state of the EU for the period of the extension, which would have substantial consequences for both spending and taxation. I am satisfied that the financial resolutions passed on Monday 11 September 2017 give fully adequate cover for the exercise by Ministers of their powers under section 20(3) and (4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to move exit day in order to keep in lockstep with the date for the expiry of the European treaties, which of course is determined by article 50 of the treaty on European Union. This has been demonstrated by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Exit Day) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, with which I know the hon. Member for Stone is keenly familiar, and which were laid before this House on 25 March and approved by the House on 27 March. Accordingly, my ruling is that the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill does not require either a Ways and Means motion or a money resolution.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Forgive me; I have treated the hon. Gentleman with the utmost courtesy, as I always do, and I am happy to discuss the matter further with him. However, that is a ruling on advice, to which very careful thought has been given, and we cannot debate it further. We must now proceed with the business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

Can the right hon. Lady tell the House how long the extension will be, because that is also a matter of principle? It is not just a matter of committing to it. What does she expect the words in square brackets in the Bill to be? Three months? Nine months? Two years? Secondly, does she agree that it is extraordinary that such an extended period would cost the British taxpayer billions and billions of pounds?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently point out that there are three Front-Bench speeches to be heard, and that a number of other hon. and right hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. There is therefore a premium on brevity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I shall be very brief indeed; I want to make a point to which I have referred before. As my European Scrutiny Committee report made clear back in March last year, this entire process is being driven by the guidelines and the Government and Prime Minister’s humiliating supplication to the European Union. That is true and clear. Furthermore, I point out the reversal of the position at Chequers, where the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which had been overtaken by events, was, on a pre-planned basis, turned into a new arrangement that became the withdrawal agreement.

My final point is this: there is profound humiliation for the British people in our being required to do what the EU says. The Bill will ensure that the EU dictates the terms. As Sir Paul Lever, I and others have made clear over the years, things will be decided by Germany in the Council of Ministers and the European Council. Sir Paul says, as do I, that this is a German Europe, run by Germany; that is the bottom line, and that will be the case in relation to this decision as well.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, that is one of the shortest speeches the hon. Gentleman has ever delivered in the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Under the Order of the House of today we shall now move to Committee of the whole House.

[Sir William Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, I will take the point of order before we go into Committee.

[Sir William Cash]

I have just been to the Vote Office and, most unfortunately, for some reason that we cannot understand, the copy of the Bill we should be getting actually malfunctioned in some way or another, so, as I understand it, it cannot be obtained from the Vote Office.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that a Bill is itself capable of malfunction. My imagination, which is quite vivid, is being stretched. It may well be that there has been some malfunction that has caused the absence of the Bill, which the hon. Gentleman wishes to see and of which he would want a copy. That is unfortunate and I hope the matter can be speedily remedied. [Interruption.] I have just been advised—I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—that it was the amendment paper that was not forthcoming. However, I gather that honour is served. The amendment paper is here, the Chairman of Ways and Means is in his place, he has made his selection and the House is going to hear it.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, very well. If the Minister feels a responsibility to correct the record, he will do so. If not, knowing the eager beaver that the hon. Lady is, I have a feeling that she will be penning a letter and ensuring that it wings its way to the Secretary of State before very long. Whether he will await that letter with enormous enthusiasm is open to doubt.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The next business is the presentation of Bills, and it is to do with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill, which the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will be presenting. Would it be appropriate for me to raise a point of order on it now or after she has presented the Bill?

[Mr Speaker]

After. Thank you.

Bill Presented

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on something that I raised yesterday in relation to the business motion and my very grave concern, I think shared by many people throughout the country—let alone in the House—about the idea of a Bill that is of such importance as this effectively being rammed through in one day. It is a Bill

“to make provision in connection with the period for negotiations for withdrawing from the European Union.”

In short, this is a reprehensible procedure in the context of the vitally important issue of our leaving the European Union. It is unconstitutional, and it is inconceivable that we should be presented with a Bill that could be rammed through in one day. In making this point of order, I want to ask you whether you have observations on the point that I just made.

[Mr Speaker]

My observation is threefold. First, that the hon. Gentleman is of this view was made very clear to me by his oration yesterday. Indeed, I say in no spirit of discourtesy to him that I rather imagine that anybody within a 50-mile radius of this place would be aware of his views on this important matter, given the force and frequency with which he has expressed them. Secondly, the House voted yesterday to give precedence tomorrow to a business of the House motion, which has not yet been tabled, so we await that. Thirdly, although this is of course an unusual state of affairs, it is not unknown for a Bill to be pushed through the House in one day. For a Bill brought forward by a Back-Bench Member, it is very unusual, but it is consequent upon a decision of the House. Bills being brought forward and taken through their various stages in one day in Government time are not particularly unusual at all. For example, Northern Ireland legislation has often been taken through the House on that basis. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not object to that in the way that he objects to this, but I do not think it is as unprecedented as he supposes. It is unusual and it is a bit different from those other examples, and it grates immensely with the hon. Gentleman, but that does not of itself render it disorderly. Upsetting the hon. Gentleman is displeasing but not disorderly. I think we will have to leave it there.

EU: Withdrawal and Future Relationship (Votes)

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman invests me with powers that I do not claim to possess. It is late at night. I think we have to await, as Macmillan used to say, events, and see what transpires tomorrow. God willing, I shall be in my place, and I will always seek to facilitate the House, which is it is the responsibility of the Speaker to do, but I cannot say with any confidence what will happen, and in that respect I think I am, frankly, not in a minority. I think that most colleagues would say with confidence that they do not know what is to follow.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of the word “blockage” that was just used, and the suggestion that somehow or other there is something wrong with our democratic system, may I simply say this? I recall the fact that section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 quite clearly states, as a matter of law, that the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day, and if that exit day happens to be 12 April, so be it. That is the law of the land. That is something that we ought to hang on to, because it is the anchor of the referendum in which the British people voted.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. He has represented his own position correctly, and I know that because I have heard him make that point with comparable eloquence on several occasions. Whether he has entirely fairly characterised the position of the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), I do not know, but the hon. Gentleman will doubtless study the Official Report and make his own assessment.

United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Friday 29th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking to catch the attention of the Attorney General, and wondered whether he might have a loss of hearing or something.

[Mr Speaker]

In my experience, the hon. Gentleman is both noticeable and audible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

We have heard a great deal—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand the hubbub and air of excitement in the Chamber, for which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is suitably grateful, but the House must hear colleagues deliver their speeches—in the first instance, that of the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Sir William Cash]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have heard a great deal about the process and the underlying reasons for this motion this morning, but we are really dealing with whether the withdrawal agreement should be passed and approved today, and if not, why not. The first point I make in that respect is quite simple and straightforward: under article 4 of the withdrawal agreement, we will, for a significant period, lose control over the lawmaking conferred on the House by virtue of our election as Members of Parliament according to the wishes of voters in general elections. It is unconscionable that, for whatever reason, the House should be politically castrated by the arrangements set out in article 4. For that reason alone, it is therefore unthinkable that the withdrawal agreement should be passed.

I just refer to the state of affairs within the German constitutional court, which takes precedence over all EU laws. That court often expresses rulings insisting that the EU can only operate or legislate in accordance with what the Bundestag has given it, and that EU actions are illegal if they depart from the terms in which the Bundestag gave that power. If that is good enough for Germany, it is good enough for this country, is it not?

I asked the Attorney General whether there will be a withdrawal and implementation Bill even if the withdrawal agreement goes down this evening. I got no answer, just as I received no answer from the Prime Minister to several questions I put to her about whether the Attorney General had given legal advice in accordance with the ministerial code. One characteristic of this debate is that, when we ask difficult questions, we tend to get no answer. That is not good enough, in terms of the accountability of the Government to the House. That is point No. 1, regarding control over laws. It is unconscionable.

[Sir William Cash]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I have to point out to him that, under EU law, it has been made abundantly clear in several cases regarding the constitutional orders of member states—van Gend en Loos, Costa and similar cases—that the European Court asserts superiority over the internal constitutional orders of the country in question. The reality is that the question he and I raise demonstrates a conflict over competence, because, as I have stated, the German constitutional court will not countenance direct contradiction of its own lawmaking.

The next point I wish to make regards the Northern Ireland backstop. I know that many Members are more than familiar with this; we have justifiably spent an enormous amount of time on this question. However, it really boils down to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. The European Communities Act 1972—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I think, if I may say so, that we should reflect on the fact that the debate is being widely viewed. It is rather discourteous when a Member is addressing the House for there to be a hubbub. Let us listen to the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir William Cash]

I add to that, Mr Speaker, that if Members are so blind that they do not want to listen to these points, it makes no difference to me. The points I am making are significant to the question of whether we agree to the withdrawal agreement.

Sittings of the House (29 March)

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[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.

EU Exit Day Amendment

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The first point I would like to raise is about the ministerial code and the actions of the Prime Minister. It is quite clear under the ministerial code—I am glad to see the Attorney General sitting on the Front Bench—that the Law Officers must be consulted in good time before the Government are committed to critical decisions involving legal considerations. Even if I was prepared to concede, which I am not, that the Law Officers do not necessarily have to divulge their opinions—actually, the Attorney General was obliged to do so by a resolution of the House on 4 December 2018—the question is whether, as a matter of fact, the Prime Minister, who today and two days ago resolutely refused to answer me, had consulted the Law Officers. I asked her that, but she twice refused to tell me, and the inference is that she did not do so. Is this not misleading the House? That question worries me intensely.

Having dealt with that serious issue, I also have to say that I take the strongest possible exception, as do many other distinguished lawyers, QCs and former judges, to the Government’s action in entering into a binding agreement in international law, which purportedly alters the UK’s exit date from the European Union in advance of the votes in each House on the draft regulations, the effect of which would alter exit day in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

It has been suggested that the Act provides that the draft regulations can only be submitted to each House for affirmative resolution once the date of exit has been altered at international level. That is simply not correct. The provision for approval by affirmative resolution is free-standing in paragraph 14 of schedule 7, under which a draft instrument is to be submitted to both Houses. It was incumbent on the Government to respect the normal practice of allowing Parliament to approve any legislative changes before entering into a binding international obligation.

I was the shadow Attorney General during the Iraq debacle. On that occasion, it became apparent that there should have been consultation with Parliament on a matter of the gravest national importance. If I may say so, I obliged, or created the circumstances in which the then Attorney General submitted his opinion to the House. More recently, we had a similar situation with regard of the bombing of Syria. The idea that Parliament is not required to postpone approval of any legislative changes until we enter into a binding international obligation is well established in recent precedent.

The course that the Government have taken seeks to present Parliament with a fait accompli whereby Parliament is pressured to approve the draft regulations because, the Minister alleges, failure to do so would cause disconformity between the UK’s international obligations and domestic law.



Under our constitutional law, the power of the UK Government to conclude binding agreements with states and other international actors such as the European Union exists under the royal prerogative. It is a basic principle of our constitutional law that the royal prerogative may only be exercised consistently with the intention of Parliament. Any purported exercise of the royal prerogative that is inconsistent with the intention of Parliament is unlawful and of no effect in our internal legal order.

I am troubled by what could be the outcome of the meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments today. That is why I intervened on the Minister. I asked whether there was proper consideration of whether the matters before it were intra vires or ultra vires. I do not know the answer because I have not been given the information. I ask the Minister to check whether the Committee considered the question of vires in relation to the issues before it today.

The intention of Parliament is to be found solely in Acts of Parliament. It is not shown by resolutions of the House of Commons. Unless an Act of Parliament says otherwise, such resolutions do not have effect. Under the principles of public international law, in article 46 of the Vienna convention, a state is entitled to invoke the fact that its apparent consent to be bound by an international agreement has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law, if that violation is manifest, which is defined as “objectively evident”, and concerns a rule of internal law of fundamental importance. Those criteria are clearly satisfied, so there is manifest violation of our internal constitutional law. The Government’s actions are completely unlawful.

It is abominable that we should be faced with having to vote on the specious ground of so-called uniformity, which the Minister has presented. I do not blame him personally. I ask him to forgive me for suggesting that he is taking advice from other persons who purport to be learned in the law. I am afraid that they are entirely wrong.

Only yesterday, Lord Pannick himself raised those very questions. Lord Pannick, of course, is a most distinguished lawyer. In fact, he was the lawyer for the plaintiff Gina Miller in the case that resulted in the requirement for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. Lord Pannick knows what he is doing. In fact, I and others instructed him in relation to the Rees-Mogg case back in 1993, so I know a little bit about the brilliance of Lord Pannick. He said:

“The legal concern which some lawyers have expressed is that a power to specify the day and time when the treaties are to cease to apply is not satisfied by identifying two possibilities; it is not possible, if this SI is enacted, to identify exit day simply by reading it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 2019; Vol. 796, c. 1721.]

It is worth considering the fact that Lord Pannick is not to be taken for granted and that he has raised serious doubts about the matter.

[Mr Speaker]

But I think the House will be relieved to know that it is to be spared a dilation on the matter of Lord Pannick’s involvement in the Rees-Mogg case—of which sparing I think I can be comfortably reassured by the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir William Cash]

Absolutely. I do not need to dilate on that question at all; I am simply using it as a point of reference. The draft regulations contain unlawful sub-delegation.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on the whole question of Standing Order No. 14, given that we operate a system of parliamentary Government, not government by Parliament. That is for a good reason: in a nutshell, Government business takes precedence under Standing Order No. 14 because it is the wish of the majority of Members of Parliament, who form the Government, and therefore the wishes of the electorate are at stake. Would you be kind enough to answer my question, Mr Speaker, since I regard this to be a matter of fundamental constitutional importance?

[Mr Speaker]

I very much look forward to listening to the speech that the hon. Gentleman might make in the course of the debate, and he knows that he can always look to me and very much expect to catch my eye. So far as the Standing Order is concerned, the fact of its presence is well known to everybody, but the House is the owner of the Standing Orders, and if a proposition is put to the House for a change in those arrangements, including in a particular case the suspension of a Standing Order or more than one Standing Order, it is perfectly credible and reasonable that that should be put to the House. I did announce my provisional selection of amendments earlier, and I do not think—although I accept that the hon. Gentleman objects to this amendment—that it came as any great surprise that the cross-party amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) was selected. As to whether it is acceptable to the House, that remains to be seen. It is obviously not acceptable to the hon. Gentleman, and we will hear further and better particulars of his objection in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

That is absolutely true. Indeed, if memory serves me correctly, I remember having a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman at the Chair at the time, and more recently. He was an exceptionally capable Minister—I do not doubt that. I cannot comment on how good a Whip he was beyond apologising for the offence that I might have caused. He certainly was an immensely capable Minister at the Dispatch Box. I do not dispute that for one moment. I thank the right hon. Lady for what she has said.

[Sir William Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) just said that this was a constitutional innovation. I think he may have rather underestimated the fact that it is in fact a constitutional revolution, and the House will come to regret it.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

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.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 14th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Alarmingly, during his speech, the Chancellor of the Duchy—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House must calm itself. We are about to hear from the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee.

[Sir William Cash]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Alarmingly, during his speech, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not answer when I asked him for confirmation that the express repeal of the 1972 Act under section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 would be continued. This includes the time and date of our leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019. This is the law of the land, which, despite any motions that might be passed, precludes not only an extension of time but the revocation of article 50. This is what the voters voted for in the referendum.

Moreover, the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), in his exchanges with me last week, asserted that he wanted the repeal of the 1972 Act itself to be repealed. I would be grateful to hear whether he wishes to contradict that.

Exiting the European Union

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, very well. I have some remarks to make in a moment that I hope will be helpful to the House, but pending that, let us hear the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir William Cash]

We understand that the media have been in possession of these documents for some time. We have not had the same opportunity, but, as far as I understand, they are in the Table Office now. Could we be assured that they will be put on the internet so that the public at large can be guaranteed an opportunity to see these documents in full?

[Mr Speaker]

They are Government documents, so really it is for the Government to make that arrangement, but I see the Minister for the Cabinet Office champing at the bit, so let us hear from the fella.

[Mr Lidington]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that all the documents are in the Table Office now—[Hon. Members: “The Vote Office!”] In the Vote Office, Mr Speaker. The motion has been tabled and I can give a clear assurance that, when I came to the Chamber and for a fair part of my statement and response to questions, the talks between the Prime Minister and President Juncker were continuing in Strasbourg. As far as I am aware, the Government have not given any prior copies to the media, and in fact could not have done so because talks were still taking place. I do not know what was happening at the Strasbourg end, because of course there was a negotiation going on when texts were being circulated between the two sides.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of Attorney General’s questions this morning, I thought it would be convenient—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I probably ought to say that is not the norm to take points of order at this stage, but in deference to what I would describe as the celebrity status of the hon. Gentleman, and the salience of his inquiry to earlier exchanges, of which he has recently notified me, I am willing to take his point of order now, and I think the House should listen with bated breath. I mean that most sincerely.

[Sir William Cash]

I am extremely grateful, Mr Speaker. Tomorrow, as recorded on page 12 of today’s Votes and Proceedings, the European Scrutiny Committee will be publishing a unanimous report—“The draft EU/UK Withdrawal Agreement: key legal and political questions”—and written evidence entitled “Ministerial Correspondence”. I thought it would be convenient for the House, and for those who pick up on these things in the press and otherwise, to know that that would be available as of tomorrow.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is ever solicitous towards the House, protective of its interests, and periodically keen to secure its attention for what I might describe as a helpful public information notice. I feel sure that he would work on such a basis in any event, but given his additional status as a highly respected and experienced Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, we are, if I may politely say so, doubly grateful to him.

UK’s Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I do not concede what the hon. Gentleman says for one very good reason: it is part of the United Kingdom.

That is my first point on control over laws. Article 4 is so offensive because it hollows out this House and hollows out our democracy. On that basis alone, one should not vote for the withdrawal agreement.

As I said in my exchanges with the shadow Secretary of State, I want to know why anyone would want to undermine the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, which is the law of the land and is contained in section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act itself. I would also like people to be honest enough—those who wish to rejoin the European Union, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—to say why on earth anyone would want to rejoin the European Union when it is in complete and total implosion. People are voting with their feet in so many countries, including in Italy.

In a nutshell, the withdrawal agreement is deeply, deeply flawed and we ought to vote against it. I believe that the decision at the moment—as I understand it, it has not been concluded—is that the amendments are going to be withdrawn, but I look forward to hearing from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).

[Mr Speaker]

We are quite extraordinarily grateful to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

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

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

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.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That was not advice from the House; it was a Twitter feed. Moreover, I am authoritatively advised—do not forget that I have been in the Chair since 2.30 pm, so I have not been attending to those matters—that the record has since been corrected. I believe it has been corrected, or certainly that the intention is to correct it. I have been advised that it has been corrected, so that is no longer the situation. I do not think I need to elaborate further, although if there is concern or anxiety, or even confusion, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will return to the matter tomorrow. However, the concern that I think she had, quite understandably, should now be allayed by what I have just said. It was, I think, an innocent error, but it was an error.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The agreement appears to have been initialled by the Prime Minister about 10 days ago. Am I right in construing what you have just said as meaning that if there is a new withdrawal agreement so initialled a second time with a new signature, then effectively the entire procedure—whether with regard to the question of the contempt motion or, for that matter, with regard to the question of section 13 and its effectiveness—is that we have to go back to square one?

[Mr Speaker]

Broadly speaking, the answer is yes. We would have to treat it as a discrete item that was beginning and needed to be continued and completed, and I would expect that that which had applied to the existing, but as yet by the House unapproved, agreement would be sought in respect of the new agreement. That would be the premise from which I would work.

Withdrawal Agreement: Legal Position

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On the issue of precedents, there are five—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand that the House is mildly animated, but we must hear what the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee wants to say.

[Sir William Cash]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

There are five precedents over the past 40 years of full disclosure being made of an Attorney General’s advice for compelling and exceptional reasons in the public interest. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he can—as in my view he should—consent on his own independent account as Attorney General under the ministerial code to the full publication of his legal advice given that, as cited in the Queen’s bench division in July 2009, the then Attorney General’s advice on the seminal Factortame case was disclosed, which dealt with the incompatibility of the European Communities Act 1972 with an Act of Parliament, the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was then struck down in the courts, analogous to the legal status of the withdrawal treaty in relation to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act passed by this House in 2018, and with which that treaty is incompatible?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The time limit is now two minutes.

[Sir William Cash]

There is just one fundamental point that I would like to make about this debate, which is that the decision that was taken in the European Union Referendum Act 2015—by six to one in the primacy of this House of Commons and in the House of Lords, which endorsed it—was to accept that the people of this country, not 650 Members of Parliament, would make the decision in the referendum. I need say only one word about this: our constitutional arrangements in this country operate under a system of parliamentary government, not government by Parliament.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, because I have the texts of the two amendments in front of me and was just about to make the point that they are not that different. Both state that the Government

“must follow any direction in relation to the negotiations under Article 50(2)…which has been—

(a) approved by a resolution of the House of Commons”.

What on earth is that supposed to mean? There is no way in which this House of Commons—650 Members of Parliament—can arrive at a motion that would prescribe what the Government will do in the negotiations. It is not simply a question whether we are somehow or other departing from normal constitutional procedures; it is that the amendment is complete nonsense and makes no sense.

Furthermore, what would such a resolution say? I heard the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who chairs the Exiting the European Union Committee, talk about the customs union and the single market and so forth. However, the amendments talk about approving a resolution of the House of Commons. Who would devise it? What would it say? How on earth would we get 650 people to agree either on what the motion would say or on what the outcome would be?

I have listened to this debate with great interest, and I must say that this is just a cover for a reversal of the decision. That has to be said, and it has to be said clearly. I find it extraordinary that there should be some attempt to throw the matter to the House of Lords so that they can then tell us—we, the people who are elected by the people of this country, who themselves were given the right by the transfer specifically of the responsibility to make the decision on behalf of themselves, their families and future generations—what to do. This is what people fought and died for, which is who governs this country. I say—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard. I have never known him to be shouted down, and now is not going to be the first time.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 19th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the shadow Secretary of State is that he has made his point with force and alacrity, it is on the record, and the Secretary of State has responded in a similar vein. This dispute—it is a genuine dispute about what the facts are—can and doubtless will continue, but by means other than the point of order procedure. I hope that honour is served.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Just as I am about to proceed to the next business, I see leaping to his feet, with his characteristic energy and suppleness, the young representative from Stone, Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do you regard the outrageous abuse and intimidation that has been levelled against the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and others as sufficient evidence of a contempt of the House? Page 262 of “Erskine May” states that it is a contempt of the House to molest and intimidate MPs by abusive language outside or inside the precincts of the House. Is there a prima facie case for contempt in the circumstances that I have described, with this completely and totally outrageous behaviour by members of the public towards those Members?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which I treat extremely seriously. I do so partly because of the content and partly in deference to his renowned parliamentarianism. The short answer is that there could be such a case. The particulars would have to be studied and it would be imprudent, and therefore inappropriate, for me to seek to venture a judgment here and now. However, as he will know, if there is an allegation of contempt to be made, it should properly be made in writing to me and I will then reflect on it, taking such professional advice as I think I need, but I thank him for raising this point of order, which I know he does out of a concern to protect the rights of Members in all parts of the House. Any Member could be similarly affected, and he has done a public service. Knowing his dogged tenacity and his insistence on following through, I imagine that his letter will be winging its way to me ere long.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Points of order tend to come after urgent questions, so we will look forward with eager anticipation and a sense of excitement to the contribution of the hon. Gentleman at that point.

Women’s Suffrage Centenary

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am sorry that I was a little late, Mr Speaker, but I had something else that I could not avoid. However, I am so delighted to be able to celebrate this centenary. As some may know, men also played a major part in ensuring that the vote was given to women. In the late 1860s, Jacob Bright, with Richard Pankhurst, brought forward the first Bill to give women total female suffrage, and I believe that that tradition can be continued. For example, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for her help in getting my Bill, which is now the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, through to protect women. We men are behind everything that you have said.

[Mr Speaker]

I was not intending to draw attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman was three quarters of an hour late, but unfortunately, he has done so for me.

Leaving the EU: Implementation

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

Just this afternoon, the European Union finalised its directives setting out its negotiating position on the implementation period. On Friday, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union made a speech setting out the UK Government’s position. Formal negotiations on this very issue are therefore due to start this week.

As the Secretary of State said on Friday, we will be seeking a strictly time-limited implementation period to allow a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union. This builds on the Prime Minister’s announcement, in her Lancaster House speech in January last year, that there would be a “process of implementation” once the article 50 period ended. It has been supported by businesses both here and in the European Union, which will have to make only one set of changes as we exit the EU. During this period, the UK will be outside the EU. We will have left on 29 March 2019.

This is an absolute necessity. The EU can only legally conclude our future partnership once we are outside it. Such an agreement on the future partnership will require the appropriate legal ratification, which will itself take time. That will need to happen during an implementation period. However, if such a period is to work, both sides must continue to follow the same stable set of laws and rules without compromising the integrity of the single market and the customs union, to which we will maintain access on current terms. Both sides should approach this period in the spirit of our future partnership. That means each side committing itself to taking no action that would undermine the other.

During the implementation period, we will still make our voice heard. We will have to agree on a way of resolving concerns if laws are deemed to run contrary to our interests, and if we have not had our say. We will agree on an appropriate process for this temporary period, so that we have the means to remedy any issues through dialogue as soon as possible. All that will be provided for in the withdrawal agreement that we reach with the EU, which will have the status of a new international treaty between the UK and the EU. We will no longer be formally part of the EU treaties during this period.

As the Secretary of State said on Friday, we have made it clear that during this period we will be able to negotiate and sign our own free trade agreements. Here at home, we have already announced that we will present a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will provide for domestic implementation of the withdrawal agreement and the implementation period. We have made it clear that as we leave the EU in March 2019, we will repeal the European Communities Act 1972. That will be done through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which recently received its Third Reading in the House of Commons and will shortly be discussed in the other place.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Paul Blomfield. [Interruption.] But not before we have heard from Sir William. I was simply seeking to build up an air of anticipation of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield).

[Sir William Cash]

I am deeply grateful, Mr Speaker.

Given the document to which the Minister has just referred, which was issued by the European Union to the United Kingdom about two hours ago, can the Government reconcile their policy of leaving the European Union with their own implementation proposals during the transitional period? Furthermore, will this apply when EU laws are imposed on us when we will have no say in either the European Council or the European Parliament, and when our courts will be obliged to apply European Court case law without having a judge in that Court?

Do the Government intend to make a new EU treaty? How long is the so-called strict time limit? Given that we are leaving the EU, and therefore the customs union and the single market, and ending the provisions relating to freedom of movement, will the Government reject this new EU ultimatum, including the statement that the European Court of Justice will continue to apply to the UK? Will the Minister reject the idea of the enforcement mechanism set out in the document? Will he reject the suggestion that the European acquis will apply in relation to the United Kingdom, as well as the notion in the document that European Union law will continue to apply to the UK during the transitional period with direct effect and primacy?

Under these arrangements, we will be required to remain in the customs union and the single market, with all four freedoms, and to continue to comply with EU trade policy. Will the Government reject the assertion about the European Union acquis, so that we will not be made subject to supervision and control proceedings under European Union law?

In short, do the Government reject this Council decision as inconsistent with our leaving the EU, which we are entitled to do under EU law itself and article 50 of the Lisbon treaty and which was achieved through the enactment of the arrangements for withdrawal that was supported by 499 Members of this House?

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: Second Day: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the case that he has made. The Government are well apprised of the issue that he has brought to the House. It is absolutely right that we respect and uphold parliamentary sovereignty—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I had—I will not say revelled in the expectation, but had been taking quiet satisfaction in the expectation, that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) had in fact completed his speech.

[Sir William Cash]

I was completing my speech by inviting the intervention that my hon. Friend is now making.

Legislating for UK Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I gently remind hon. Members who arrived after the statement started that they certainly should not expect to be called. Although I am very keen to accommodate the extensive interest in this statement, there are two well-subscribed debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee to follow, to which I need to have regard, so we need short questions and short answers.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for the clarity and thoughtful analysis that lie behind the White Paper. With the great repeal Bill, we will be returning sovereignty to this House so that decisions about our lawmaking are taken in this House by the representatives of the British people, in line with their wishes at general elections. That it is not—I advise the Opposition to bear this in mind—the situation at present. So often, as we find in the European Scrutiny Committee, such decisions are taken behind closed doors.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. With extreme brevity now from both sides of the House, I call Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash]

First, this is a very simple Bill that is merely about notification and triggering. It is as simple as that. Secondly, the plain fact is that judicial review, which my right hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) dealt with so well, would be a gift to the courts and the lawyers. It really is completely inappropriate. My third point is on the question of parliamentary sovereignty. The fact is that the issue today is not about parliamentary sovereignty. In fact, it is about undermining a decision that has been made by a referendum of the British people that was itself conferred by a sovereign Act of Parliament. That is the distinction and that is what we need to concentrate on.

My last point is simply this: we cannot tie the Prime Minister’s hands. It is inconceivable that we would legislate, make that judicially reviewable and, at the same time, pass amendments the effect of which would be to introduce a Committee of Parliament that would decide on questions that have to be decided on by the Government. Our constitution operates by parliamentary government, not by Committee of Parliament, otherwise we would go back to the 17th century; and I invite people to look at the Barebones Parliament.

The Government's Plan for Brexit

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Listening to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has been notified of this, but I should notify the House that, although the clock can be stopped at this point, the time limit for Back-Bench speeches is being reduced to five minutes, with immediate effect.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, and to those who are attending our proceedings, is that who the Government field to respond to a debate is a matter for the Government. The hon. Gentleman will probably—on the whole—be relieved to know that the matters for which I am responsible do not include the Chancellor’s movements, and I am bound to say that—on the whole—that is a considerable solace to me too.

There will be people, and I get the impression that the hon. Gentleman is one of them, who will feel that it is somewhat discourteous if a very senior Minister who is responsible for the policy area in question is not present in the Chamber, but it is not against the rules of the House. I would hope that the Chancellor would have some interest in what Members think about the matter. That would be courteous, and it would show a degree of humility and respect, but beyond that, it is a matter for the Government to choose. I gather that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will respond to the shadow Chancellor, and that is perfectly orderly.

[Sir William Cash]

(Stone) On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to the resolution of the House of Commons of 1997, which states:

“It is of paramount importance that Ministers should give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”

Last week, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he had

“secured two vital treaty changes”.—[Official Report, 8 June 2016; Vol. 611, c. 1184.]

I subsequently sought a correction. Today, I received a letter from the Prime Minister stating that my letter to him was “misleading”. His reply flies in the face of the published facts, the law and common sense. In those circumstances, Mr Speaker, will you take note of the fact that I am stating that I believe that there has been a breach of that resolution?

[Mr Speaker]

I do take note of what the hon. Gentleman tells me, and I take what he has said very seriously. He is an extremely long-serving and serious-minded Member of the House. However, I have already advised the hon. Gentleman—to whose representation I paid very close attention—that I do not think it proper or necessary for me to add anything to what has already been said on this matter. I would simply say to him, and to other Members, that although of course I have my own thoughts on these matters, I do seek wise professional counsel, which is impeccably independent and based on very great experience in the service of the House. That does not automatically mean that it is right, but it does mean that it is serious.

I think we must leave it there. I have, I think, very generously given the hon. Gentleman full opportunities to record this thoughts, and they are now recorded.

Voter Registration

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I will take further points of order if they appertain to this matter. If they are on unrelated matters, they should come after the Standing Order No. 24 application. It is unrelated, so I save up the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman cannot have a commitment that is more important than the Chamber. He is the ultimate parliamentarian. We shall hear from him soon, and I am becoming increasingly excited about the prospect of doing so.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), the Prime Minister made an assertion on the question of treaty change. He said that he had secured “treaty changes”, but that is clearly not the case. This may have been inadvertent and if so, I have no doubt that the Prime Minister will take the opportunity to correct it. I have to say that it was not a statement that could be sustained in the light of the facts.

[Mr Speaker]

I am at a disadvantage by comparison with the hon. Gentleman because I do not enjoy a precise recall of everything that the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s Questions earlier, although I rather imagine that the hon. Gentleman does have such a recall and may even be capable of reproducing the verbatim text of prime ministerial answers backwards. Anyone who gives incorrect information to the House is responsible for correcting it. If the Prime Minister judges that he made a mistake, which would naturally be inadvertent, the responsibility is no less great or absolute on him than it would be on any other Member. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I feel sure that he, too, will not let go of the bone until he receives satisfaction. I will leave it there. His point of order will have been heard on the Treasury Bench, and doubtless its contents will wing their way towards No. 10 Downing Street ere long.

Removal of Foreign National Offenders and EU Prisoners

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 6th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to explain how she will address her continued failure to remove 13,000 foreign national offenders remaining in UK prisons and communities, and specifically the removal of EU prisoners, who make up as much as 42% of all foreign national offenders in prison, back to their EU countries of origin.

[Mr Speaker]

That was a bit cheeky of the hon. Gentleman. He will have an opportunity to dilate in due course, but in the first instance, he should stick to the terms of the question—and the puckish grin on his face shows that he knows he has gone a bit beyond the boundary.

Scotland Bill

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993—the Maastricht Act of Parliament —there is a requirement on the Government:

“Before submitting the information required in implementing Article 103(3) of the Treaty…to report to Parliament for its approval an assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure”. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is a serious point of order to which I hope Members will want to attend. If they do not, they can always pursue their enthusiasms elsewhere. I want to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, as should those on the Treasury Bench.

[Sir William Cash]

As the Minister knows, that provision concerns convergence criteria, and stability and growth factors. The trouble is that the document we have been given, entitled, “2014-15 Convergence Programme for the United Kingdom: submitted in line with the Stability and Growth pact”, contains in pages 141 to 145 a detailed assessment of the position on welfare caps and other spending, including matters relating to disability benefits and personal independence payments, about which there has been a great deal of controversy over the past few days.

I therefore submit to you, Mr Speaker, that it is impossible for the Government to be able to submit that document, which has now been significantly changed as a result of the controversy of the past few days, and it is therefore inappropriate for them to proceed with this debate. What is your view?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which I think I will describe as a conscientious effort at derailment of the Government’s intended programme of business. I say that not in a pejorative sense, as it is a perfectly legitimate attempt. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench, and other Government Members, are cognisant of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and that they have followed the logic of his argument and the substance of his thesis. I am not altogether sure that all expressions on ministerial faces have been entirely comprehending of his point, even though it is pretty straightforward, but my advice to the hon. Gentleman is that if at the end of the debate he is dissatisfied he will have to register that with his vote. He is saying that the terms of trade have changed, but that is often the case, and he should seek to catch my eye to develop his arguments more fully in the course of the debate.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that there is really a further point of order, but as it is the hon. Gentleman, I am minded to indulge him.

[Sir William Cash]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to mention the ministerial code. After all, it is incumbent on Ministers to give accurate information to Parliament, and I wish to register that point.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has registered that point, although, as he will know, I am not responsible for the ministerial code. Others are, however, bound by it, and therefore have a responsibility to it. That point is on the record.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Veritably, my cup runneth over at the generosity and good grace of the Minister, to whom we are indebted.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Minister calls on the law. The question of voter trust in this referendum, as I said to both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on 3 and 25 February, is paramount. For the voters who will decide this question, knowledge is, as we know, power. Does the Minister deny that under sections 6 and 7 of the later and express provisions of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, a legal duty is imposed on the Government to provide referendum information and the voter is entitled to accurate and impartial information, as the Minister for Europe agreed in reply to me when the House debated that Bill, through and from the Government and all Ministers of the Crown equally, and that this therefore being a statutory obligation overrides any prime ministerial prerogative such as the Cabinet Secretary acted upon in the guidance of 23 February? Does the Minister therefore deny that civil servants as Crown servants are legally obliged to provide such information accurately and impartially to all Ministers within their Departments so that the voters are properly informed and empowered to answer the question in the referendum?

EU Referendum: Timing

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), is seeking to fox the Chamber. I will not say that he has perambulated around the Chamber, but he has entered, most uncharacteristically, from a different door and he is seated in a different place. There is nothing disorderly about this, but it is mildly confusing and I hope that he might perambulate towards his normal position in due course, because that would make us all feel so much more comfortable.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 6, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 2 to 4 and 7 to 12.

Lords amendment 13, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 14 to 46.

[Sir William Cash]

I tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5 because amendments were moved in the House of Lords, not the House of Commons, and accepted by the Government in respect of, in Lords amendment 5, a duty to publish information on the outcome of negotiations between member states and, in Lords amendment 6, a duty to publish information about membership of the European Union. That might sound all very well and good, but the problem is that they contain a whole raft of question marks that I want to raise today.

I will just give a brief outline of Lords amendment 5. On the outcome of negotiations, the Secretary of State will be under an obligation to publish a report,

“alone or with other material”—

we do not know what “other material” would involve—containing:

“a statement setting out what has been agreed by member States following negotiations”.

We have just seen the letter from Mr Tusk on the current state of the EU’s assessment of the negotiations and I do not think it makes for very pretty reading for the Government. In fact, I would go further than that. I find this quite astonishing, but the apparent point of the letter was to satisfy, and provide a solution for, the Prime Minister. I thought the real objective here was to satisfy the United Kingdom, in particular its voters. That, after all, is what the referendum is all about. It is not about what the Government think. Parliament is handing over the entire exercise to the voter, which is only proper and for which I have campaigned for 25 years.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

I begin by referring particularly to my amendment on the impartiality of broadcasters. It will be observed that I have not confined my remarks exclusively to the BBC. I am aware, having been on the Broadcasting Bill in the 1990s, that the broadcasters have different regimes: the BBC has a royal charter and the other broadcasters are regulated by statute. I introduced an amendment to the second of the two Broadcasting Bills to ensure impartiality that was accepted by the now Baroness Bottomley when she was Secretary of State. Impartiality is a fundamental necessity in relation to the function of broadcasters. Given that £3.7 billion—I think—of the BBC’s total annual income of over £5 billion comes from the taxpayer, I think the taxpayer has an absolute right to be certain that there is no manoeuvring and completely unbiased reporting and comment.

I was deeply disturbed, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, when I set up an inquiry into the BBC’s handling of European issues, against a background that I will explain in a moment, when the right hon. Lord Patten, then BBC Chairman, refused three times to appear before the Committee. I had effectively to require him to do so through the aegis of the Liaison Committee, which unanimously supported my proposal. I had exactly the same experience with Lord Hall, who also refused three times. I again had to use the aegis of the Liaison Committee to ensure he appeared, which eventually he did. On the other hand, Rona Fairhead, who is now the Chairman of the BBC Trust and who did not have the protection of being a Member of the House of Lords, did appear. The correspondence, which is set out in our report, is interesting to read. Whatever the excuses given, both Lord Hall and Lord Patten, as Members of the House of Lords, were in a position to refuse a summons from a Select Committee. This seemed completely extraordinary, and eventually, through the good offices of the then Chairman of the Liaison Committee and others, both of them did eventually acquiesce, although Lord Patten subsequently resigned because of ill health. The bottom line is that it was a very serious situation.

It has been claimed in evidence to us, which I am now slightly paraphrasing, that the BBC is effectively completely independent. This is simply not the case. First, it has to report to Parliament. Secondly, its representatives ought to appear in front of Select Committees. I have to say that they do appear before the Public Accounts Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but I am talking about the European dimension, which is my main concern and which is relevant to the conduct of the Bill, and to how the taxpayer will be affected if there is not complete impartiality

The late Hugo Young, whom I knew extremely well, wrote a book called “This Blessed Plot”. I knew him since we were about 10 years old. We both lived in Sheffield and more or less grew up together in our respective ways. We were not very close friends, but knew one another well enough. He went to Oxford as I did: he went to Balliol, I went to Lincoln. We used to speak to each other. He went on to become one of the most celebrated journalists in our time.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too modest or self-effacing to inform the House that there is a chapter in that book named after him and devoted to a study of his activities.

[Sir William Cash]

I do not know what to say. That is true. I did not know it was going to be written. In a discussion over lunch during the Maastricht period, I heard Hugo Young, one of the greatest journalists of his generation, say “Bill, you’ve got The Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail; we’ve got the BBC.” I thought that was pretty revealing. The bottom line is that there is a serious concern here, although I believe it is now potentially capable of being remedied.

The BBC remains the most important source of news for the country. An Ofcom survey in 2013 noted that 34% of those who consume news named BBC 1 as the most important news source to them. According to Ofcom’s calculations, the BBC has the highest share of each of the platforms on which it has a presence— 56% on television, 64% on radio and 27% on the internet. As reflected in the conclusions of the European Scrutiny Committee report, after evidence was taken from wide sources, 58% of the public look to the BBC for the news they trust. This is very important, and we need to be certain about the degrees of impartiality maintained during the referendum campaign—not only for taxpayers and licence payers, but for voters, 58% of whom, as I say, look to the BBC for the news they trust. It is a hugely important issue.

Correspondence published recently by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, following the report of the European Scrutiny Committee, is also important. I sent a copy to him as well as to the Prime Minister and others. The Secretary of State wrote to the chairman of the BBC Trust, which has the responsibility for enforcing BBC standards. He said that the corporation’s coverage of Europe had not been “faultless” in the past. A committee had been set up—in 2005, I believe—called the Wilson committee, which was extremely critical of the manner in which the BBC covered European issues. I was not surprised when I discovered from another source—I hope I am right in quoting it—that when it comes to newspapers, people in the BBC tend to come from what might be called The Guardian stable. The figures on that were interesting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

I entirely agree with that, which is why I will now sit down.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech. We are grateful to him.

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the definition of devolution, which of course we understand because we live and breathe it every day. We are grateful none the less for the definition. I would like to remind him that Scottish taxpayers paid more tax per head to the UK Treasury in every one of the last 34 years. I would also like to remind him that the opportunity to devolve powers in relation to English laws comes by virtue of having an English Parliament. I suggest that he is perhaps trying to have his cake and eat it at the same time. There are financial consequences for the people of Scotland of legislation that will be discussed here and that you will term as “English only”, and that is why—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. These interventions are, in equal measure, stimulating and a tad over long. I am referring not simply to the hon. Lady, but to a number of others and we must stop a trend developing, much as it is displeasing to interrupt the hon. Lady, whose flow I always enjoy.

[Sir William Cash]

As I say, I enjoy debating with SNP Members because they always come to the point as they see it, just as I come to the point on the European issue as I see it—I will continue to do so. I do not hold it against them for wanting independence, just as I want to get out of the European Union, but there is a bottom line here. I am now going to deal with some of the points the hon. Lady has made because this is very important in practical terms—I refer to the proportionality of the Scottish question to the United Kingdom as a whole. I hope that this does not create a great—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman prides himself on many things, including a most impressive memory. I am sure he will recall the Deputy Speaker advising colleagues of the merits of trying to stick to 10 minutes. Now that the hon. Gentleman has reached 11 minutes, I am sure he will assure me that he is not too far from his peroration, because quite a lot of other Members wish to contribute and we wish to hear them.

[Sir William Cash]

Yes, indeed. I would not in any way want to disregard or disrespect anything that was said from the Chair at any time—that goes without saying. Doing what has to be done in relation to these matters that have been doing on for 400 years in the space of 10 minutes is quite a big ask, but I will do my best.

I want to make a point and I hope it does not create a great furore among SNP Members. It is worth considering that the 1.6 million voters in Scotland who wanted independence, on a turnout of 84%, represent only 2.5% of the population of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is point No. 1. Point No. 2 is that of the United Kingdom’s total population of 64.1 million, England represents 53.9 million, Wales represents 3.1 million, Northern Ireland represents 1.8 million and Scotland represents 5.3 million. The bottom line is that the proportions in respect of the total Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tax receipts are: England 85.3%, Wales 3.5%, Northern Ireland 2.6% and Scotland 9%. That raises a question of proportionality.

I am going to bring my remarks to a conclusion, because of your subtle but none the less perfectly understandable intervention, Mr Speaker. The real question that lies at the heart of this is almost impossible to resolve, because independence is sought by the SNP, in all candour. That is understandable from its Members’ point of view, if that is what they want and if that is what they feel they have been elected to deliver. Conservative Members believe in the Union and in fairness for the English voter in relation to exclusively English matters. All I can say is: never the twain will meet. That is the real problem in this House and in this debate. Ultimately, the question raised about health and education on both sides of the border can be resolved only by the Scots dealing with health and education for their electorate, and by us dealing with it for ours—and with the other matters that go with it.

There are many other things that I would like to say but in the short time now available I have only one further thing to say. I said earlier that the consequences of the referendum result would be that the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) would come down like Parnell did in relation to what happened in the context of the Irish vote in the 1880s, and that is turning out to be only too true. I produced a very short amendment that would give the Speaker, by way of a certificate, the right to determine these matters very simply, in seven lines. Undoubtedly, Mr Speaker would be faced with a barrage of points of order for the first three months every time he simply said, “This is English, and that’s Scots.” The bottom line is that, after three months, Members would give up, because Mr Speaker would not allow them to continue. That is one of the essences of coming to this United Kingdom Parliament, otherwise one might ask—even if I am not going to ask it myself—what is the point of coming here?

Counter-terrorism

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In the couple of interventions I made on the Minister and on the shadow Minister, I returned to a point I made in the lead letter in The Sunday Telegraph of 8 March. Following its lead of the previous week, I said that we were talking not about just an accident, but about a failure of legislation in dealing with the question of human rights and the charter of fundamental rights in relation to all the matters we are now discussing and to the whole problem of counter-terrorism. The Minister has had a pretty hard time from me over the past couple of years on this subject, but I wish to say to him that I acknowledge that difficult issues are clearly involved here. I am not denying that for a minute. But many of us were deeply disturbed when in a recent discussion—I cannot give the precise details but I am paraphrasing—the question arose as to whether taking action against terrorism would have human rights consequences. In that instance, the human rights lobby indicated that human rights should prevail.

I find that view completely impossible to understand, not least because the first human right is the right to be secure—the second, and equal, human right is the right to life. We have only to consider what happened in the case of Lee Rigby or in the case of the terrible murders that have been taking place in parts of the middle east to realise the difficulty that such a view represents. On the simple proposition that human rights does not trump terrorism, we have to be absolutely clear. I am very glad to see a slight nod from the shadow Minister, because she knows that this is true. But the trouble is that there is a tremendous amount in these documents—I will not make a long speech on this, but will simply get it on the record. We discussed judicial oversight in relation to an amendment when these matters were before the House of Commons. I cannot remember whether the amendment was defeated or withdrawn, but it then went into the House of Lords and it was that shambolic debate that we recall. Judicial oversight has now come in. My point is about the substance of the issue: if judicial oversight is part and parcel of these issues before us today, then on the basis that the judges have to obey the law and the law does invoke the question of human rights, be it under the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act, or the more difficult and invasive charter of fundamental rights, which is justiciable by the European Court of Justice, we have got a real problem on our hands in dealing with terrorism. The reason why many people whom we have tried to deport—in some cases for more than a decade—were not deported was to do with human rights. Everybody should be in favour of human rights, but there are questions over how they are applied and what the procedures and thresholds are.

I conclude with this thought: we have not got it right. As I said in that letter in The Sunday Telegraph, tinkering with control orders, TPIMs and the rest of it might go some way to dealing with the problem but it will not resolve the issue if people can launch a challenge in the courts based on human rights or the charter of fundamental rights. They will not be deported and they will not be dealt with.

In the Prevention of Terrorism (No. 2) Bill that I introduced in 2005, I proposed that we should override the human rights laws to ensure the security of the citizens of this country. I said that habeas corpus was absolutely fundamental. All people who are accused of a crime, whether of terrorism or anything else, are entitled to a fair trial and due process. If we have those two things, and we override the Human Rights Act and the charter, we are in a position to deal with the problems, to satisfy the requirements of fair and judicial process and to ensure that the people have a proper trial.

My final thought is on this question of whether terrorists can get away with what they do. We know that there are many sleeping terrorists, so we are talking about a question not of if there is some form of terrorism, but of when. We should remember that the charter of fundamental rights, which came in under the Lisbon treaty, is much more difficult to deal with than the Human Rights Act, because of sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. In the context of the judicial process as a whole, it is imperative to recall that those on both Front Benches during the Lisbon treaty debates wanted to exclude that charter.

In one of his last statements to the House, Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister, said that we had an opt-out from the charter. We in the European Scrutiny Committee took evidence on that matter. Lord Goldsmith, who analysed and negotiated the arrangements in the Lisbon treaty, gave evidence. Sadly, those arrangements did not work and we are now finding that the European Court of Justice is continuously getting involved in applying the charter on a case-by-case basis. My concerns about the charter remain in relation to terrorism. Unless we resolve that, we will not be able, either under these orders or other terrorism legislation in general, to provide the security and stability that the people of this country deserve.

[Mr Speaker]

I was pleased to hear the words counter-terrorism towards the end of the hon. Gentleman’s oration. We are all reassured.

European Council

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that, in accordance with usual practice, Members who arrived after the Prime Minister started his statement should not expect to be called to ask a question. I want to accommodate as many Members as I can on the statement but am keen to move on to the next business at, or as close as possible to, 5 o’clock.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the increasing assertiveness of Germany in the EU, as shown in the language used by Wolfgang Schaeuble regarding the Greeks, for example? Does he accept the assertion made by Mr Prodi on the “Today” programme last week that the Germans are the leaders in Europe? Does he accept that we must step up to the mark and show that we will stand up for the interests of not only the United Kingdom, but Europe as a whole, as we have in the past?

Serious Crime Bill [Lords]

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 23rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we move to the second group, it might be for the convenience of the House to know my response to the point of order raised earlier by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), upon which I undertook to reflect. In seeking to ensure an opportunity to speak and possibly vote on matters appertaining to abortion, he asked whether I would consider conflating groups 2 and 3, or eliding group 3 into group 2, for that purpose. As I hope he will understand, it would be a very unusual thing to do, so rather than elide one group into the other, as he suggested, I think there might be good will across the House to ensure that both groups are spoken to and, as appropriate, voted upon. I am hoping, therefore, that we can keep the groupings as they are and that the debate on the second group will run for no more than approximately an hour—preferably not later than 8 o’clock—so that there is an opportunity to address the third group. It is what is ordinarily known as an old-fashioned British compromise. However, it is not in my hands—it is my will, but it is not in my hands—and it depends upon the co-operation of the House. I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied. I am afraid it is all I can offer him tonight.

[Sir William Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to confirm that my amendment 20 will be pressed to a vote.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Given that the point has been raised, I should say that separate Divisions on any non-Government new clauses will come at 9 pm. I have shortly to leave the Chair, but I shall return at, or shortly after, 9 o’clock, and it is my very strong wish that the many discrete issues should be tested through the division of the House. If Members want to test the will of the House, within reason there should be that opportunity. He can therefore rest content for the next couple of hours that the opportunity of a Division upon his important matter will come erelong. I hope he is now happy.

New Clause 23

Throwing articles into prisons

After section 40CA of the Prison Act 1952 (inserted by section 75 above) insert—

“40CB Throwing articles into prison

(1) A person who, without authorisation, throws any article or substance into a prison is guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) the reference to an article or substance does not include a reference to a List A article, a List B article or a List C article (as defined by section 40A);

(b) the reference to “throwing” an article or substance into a prison includes a reference to doing anything from outside the prison that results in the article or substance being projected or conveyed over or through a boundary of the prison so as to land inside the prison.

(3) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show that—

(a) he reasonably believed that he had authorisation to do the act in respect of which the proceedings are brought, or

(b) in all the circumstances there was an overriding public interest which justified the doing of that act.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine (or both);

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine (or both).

(5) In this section “authorisation” means authorisation given for the purposes of this section; and subsections (1) to (3) of section 40E apply in relation to authorisations so given as they apply to authorisations given for the purposes of section 40D.”” —(Karen Bradley.)

This New Clause creates a new offence of throwing any article or substance into a prison without authorisation (so far as not already prohibited under the Prison Act 1952). The offence would be triable either way with a maximum penalty (on conviction on indictment) of two years’ imprisonment.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Devolution (Implications for England)

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A very large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate all of them if possible, but if I am to do so of the essence is brevity. I call Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Where there are clearly devolved functions, Scottish and other MPs from devolved parts of the United Kingdom have no justification whatever to vote on exclusively English matters—and the voters get this. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that this matter is dealt with in the near future by amendment of our Standing Orders as I proposed, and not by legislation—thereby avoiding interference by the courts. Will he do this?

Criminal Law

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

As my right hon. Friend will know, the European Scrutiny Committee has considered all these matters carefully. If, as is the normal course of events, we were debating a Bill rather than what is provided for by the Lisbon treaty, all 35 of these measures would be before us in the form of separate clauses, and amendments would have been tabled. What we have been debating, however, is a non-amendable motion. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Home Affairs Committee itself said that there must be a separate vote on the European arrest warrant? How does she reconcile what she said this afternoon—and, indeed, what she is saying now—with the fact that there will undoubtedly be no vote on the European arrest warrant, although several Select Committees have said that there should be?

[Mr Speaker]

I would have called the hon. Gentleman to speak on this proposition in due course, but I have a feeling that he has already done so. So be it. I call the Home Secretary.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

As I made clear earlier, I am well aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, and his colleagues who chair the Justice and Home Affairs Committees, have indicated their wish for separate motions and separate debates on particular parts of the measures, including the European arrest warrant. However, I have also made clear that the Government put the regulations before the House today so that the House could see the legislative process that would be put in place. There is no requirement in legislation for any measure to be put in place for us to remain party to the European arrest warrant.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is excessive noise in the Chamber. However, I feel sure that there will now be an atmosphere of hushed anticipation for Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Given what the Secretary of State has just said, and given what he said yesterday in regard to the issue of English laws for English voters, how does he reconcile his statement from the Dispatch Box with collective responsibility in this Government? In the light of that question, is it not time that the coalition was brought to an end?

Business of the House

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I was concerned that my right hon. Friend did not reply to the shadow Leader of the House on the question of the ports services regulation. The reason I raise this is that there is a grave issue of European scrutiny at stake here. The position is that the ports services regulation is opposed by the trade unions as well as by all 47 port authorities. The matter was referred to the Floor of the House by my European Scrutiny Committee, but the Government declined that request and referred it to a European Standing Committee, which imploded yesterday because documents were not made available to the Committee, and the Chairman rightly adjourned the Committee as a result. That was extremely unusual—indeed, it was almost unprecedented. There are grave scrutiny concerns involved in all this. The real question, when it comes down to it, is this: we have called again today for a debate on the Floor of the House, but the Leader of the House’s statement has made it clear that the Government have not made such a debate available. Furthermore, because of the timetabling, the real question is going to be about 8 October. Finally, I would simply say: may we have a debate on the Floor of the House on this matter? How can this regulation be stopped? That is the crucial question.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is better able than any other hon. or right hon. Member to conduct a debate with himself, which he both opens and closes.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House is in his place and I have a sense that the point of order from the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is of a pressing topical character, so we will take it now before we come to the Select Committee statements.

[Sir William Cash]

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I entirely accept your observations on my attempting to get in during business questions, but I was not here earlier because I was waiting outside the Chamber, as I feared that the Government might introduce a Command Paper, of huge importance to this House and to the United Kingdom, on the issue of justice and home affairs and the opt-outs and opt-ins on 35 measures. That is the reason for my point of order. I fear that I have to say that the Government, knowing that that was the case, did not refer to that paper in the business statement. The difficulty is that by reason of it not being raised before, I was precluded from seeking an urgent question, because I was not entirely aware of the fact that it was going to happen. I simply make the point that I feel very strongly that we should have a debate as soon as possible on the issue. Perhaps the Leader of the House will be good enough to indicate the position through you, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that that was a point of order, but he has put his concerns on the record. The Leader of the House will say whatever he wants to say, but I just point out that he did reference the general debate on the UK’s justice and home affairs opt-outs, which will take place on Thursday 10 July.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us have a respectful silence for Mr William Cash.

[Mr Cash]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend will know that my International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 came into force last night. Will he note that it will protect women and girls throughout the world and that, furthermore, in places such as Nigeria and Syria, it provides us with an opportunity to do whatever we can to relieve their tragedy? Will he be good enough to have a word with the excellent Secretary of State for International Development and ensure that we will do whatever we can to use the Act to help people who have been so severely afflicted?

Afghanistan

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Nobody can deny that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr Havard) used his temporary leadership opportunity comprehensively, and I hope he is satisfied with the result. Mr William Cash.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In my earlier question to the Prime Minister, I mentioned Nigeria and Syria, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear today, Afghanistan is also right at the top of the tree regarding gender equality and international development, and I am grateful to her for her remarks. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank not only her but the staff in her Department, the Minister of State and others for playing an active and very supportive role on this issue. That extends to the whole House, including members of the Opposition, who gave their support to the International Development (Gender Equality) Bill to ensure that it went through Parliament. I thank them all very much indeed, because it will do a huge amount to help women and girls throughout the world.

Henry Thorley and HMRC

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

Whether or not it was malicious, the question is whether an apology is due, given the fact that—of this there is no doubt—there was a prosecution, my constituent spent time in jail, the conviction was quashed and then he was released. I am simply asking for an apology. There is an element of farce about the situation. I do not want to be told that I should go off to the Ombudsman; I am talking to the Minister, who is accountable to the House. He has responsibility for HMRC and for the conduct of Customs and Excise before it, in one form or another. All I am asking for—it sounds as though I am not going to get it, even this afternoon—is an apology on the Floor of the House from the Minister in relation to this. It is no good just reading out all the bits of paper that have been supplied—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is a little on the long side. He has expressed some frustration that he does not think that he will get what he wants this afternoon but, on the strength of his 29 years of service in the House and the indefatigability with which he has pursued a variety of causes over those years, he will be well aware that it is open to him to pursue the matter again, and again, and again.

[Mr Gauke]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for setting out that prospect.

What I am seeking to say to my hon. Friend is that his constituent clearly feels wronged. He was, as my hon. Friend says, convicted on a case brought by HM Customs and Excise, and that conviction was subsequently quashed. I understand my hon. Friend’s position, which is, in essence, that in any circumstances when someone has been wrongly convicted, the prosecuting authority should apologise to that person. I fully respect that position. However, it must also be said that the fact that an individual is found not guilty after a criminal trial or their conviction being quashed by a higher court on appeal does not necessarily mean that it was inappropriate for the case to have been investigated, or even prosecuted, in the first place. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as a distinguished lawyer, can appreciate that point.

It may well be that in this investigation over 30 years ago HM Customs and Excise behaved wrongly and inappropriately. If that is the case, then his constituent would deserve an apology in those circumstances—let me clear about that—and I would be very happy to give that apology on behalf of HMRC. However, before HMRC is in a position to give a full apology, it needs to see the facts more fully. As I say, the mere evidence that a conviction has been quashed does not necessarily mean that HM Customs and Excise behaved in an unacceptable way. That is why I believe that it is essential that my hon. Friend’s constituent provide all the available paperwork that he and his advisers hold to enable HMRC fully to assess the reasons for the quashing of the conviction.

Business of the House

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In the light of the imminent end of this parliamentary Session, I gently remind hon. and right hon. Members that somewhat greater ingenuity than normal will be required if their business questions are to be in order, bearing in mind, as they will, that those questions must relate to future business of the House. Perhaps we can be offered a textbook example of the genre by Mr William Cash.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I shall certainly try, Mr Speaker.

Last Saturday, 30,000 people gathered in Stafford regarding the outcome of the Francis report on the whole Stafford hospital saga; my right hon. Friend is well aware of the tragedy. The Prime Minister has given his personal assurance that there will be a debate in due course. Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House prepared to make sure that it happens much sooner rather than much later?

Royal Charter on Press Conduct

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to the Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3) (Motion).

[Mr Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman does not always choose quite the best moment. Obviously, I am bursting with anticipation to hear the observations of the hon. Gentleman through his point of order, but if he can just be a tad patient we will come to him. We could not forget him.

On the programme motion, it may be helpful to the House if I point out that manuscript amendments (d) to (i) to the programme motion have been tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), with the support of a number of other hon. Members. Copies of those manuscript amendments, I understand, are available in the Vote Office. I have selected amendments (d) to (i), but not Mr Bone’s tabled amendments (a) to (c). I will therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to move amendment (d) in the course of debate.

When in a moment I call the Leader of the House, it will be to move the programme motion, but I am sure that he will indulge the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash).

[Mr Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday, the Leader of the House announced the business for this week, and he added that following the European Council meeting there would be a statement by the Prime Minister. We have not had an occasion before when the European Council has not been followed by a statement. My point of order is therefore to ask why the Leader of the House suggested there would be one, but we have not had one today.

[Mr Speaker]

We have not had one today. The Prime Minister has heard the point of order and he is very welcome to reply if he wishes.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have not yet had the opportunity to study the material in question, for reasons that will be apparent to all. I shall, of course, do so and will revert to him if it proves necessary.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the rejection of the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), there is an important question relating to the Francis report that I have raised repeatedly with the Leader of the House. An urgent debate is needed. If a debate cannot be granted in respect of Mid Staffordshire and Monitor, one is certainly required in the context of the Francis report as a matter of urgency on the Floor of the House and in Government time. Would you agree?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We appreciate his display of a sense of humour in these circumstances. I will say two things to him. First, strictly speaking, points of order do not arise pursuant to refused Standing Order No. 24 applications. I was willing to hear him, as who could be denied that particular privilege? He made his point with his usual force and eloquence, and it will doubtless have been heard very clearly by those on the Treasury Bench. The hon. Gentleman will have been in the House for 29 years in June, so he knows that there are many opportunities to pursue matters; there is rarely just one opportunity. He is as persistent a woodpecker as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who also feels impelled to raise a point of order.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the blueprint published over the weekend by Mr Barroso, which contains 50 pages of detailed proposals for a full banking, fiscal and, ultimately, political union? Does he think that any of the proposals that this country has made have the remotest chance of being listened to in the context of that document, and of what Mr Noyer said the other day? Lastly, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the European Scrutiny Committee receives an early explanatory memorandum from the Government on those proposals?

[Mr Speaker]

I know that the legendary intellectual agility of the Minister of State will enable him to provide one pithy reply to the three questions that have just been posed.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That is an interesting point, like many of the hon. Gentleman’s points, but it is not a point of order for the Chair, as he knows perfectly well.

[Mr Cash]

That was not really a point worthy of comment, but I will certainly reply to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who is my colleague on the European Scrutiny Committee. The question of legality has already been canvassed. The Government have demonstrated that in the letter written by Sir Jon Cunliffe, on their instruction, to the secretary-general of the European Council, which expresses severe reservations about and, in effect, disputes the advice of the legal adviser to the European Council. Without wishing to prejudice what the European Scrutiny Committee may conclude in our report, the fact is that there is already sufficient notice of the concerns over legality for the matter to be considered by the whole House, rather than just in the Committee, as important as that is. There is one simple reason for that: silence or acquiescence can be assumed to be consent. I will explain that point in a moment.

While the question of legality is allowed to continue without challenge, and while it is decided whether the European Court of Justice should be called upon to make a judgment about this matter, which will itself take time, we are depending on the action, legal or otherwise, of the Prime Minister, who is going to the Council tomorrow. It is therefore important for us to at least indicate our view in this debate, in amplification of what the European Scrutiny Committee is considering and what it may yet conclude. I cannot make any assumptions about what its conclusion will be. We have certainly had the most powerful evidence from the likes of Professor Paul Craig, who is by no means unknown in European Union circles as a person of immense stature.

Treaty on Stability, Co-ordination and Governance

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I seek leave to debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the legal and other action now to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in upholding the rule of law and protecting UK interests in respect of the nature and content of the treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance in the economic and monetary union. In my remarks I shall refer to it as “the treaty”.

This is not an EU treaty. The fifth draft was made available only immediately before the last European Council. It confers functions on EU institutions, including the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. The importance of this matter is that the treaty—a non-EU treaty—is between only 25 of the 27 EU member states, the Prime Minister having exercised the veto. However, the treaty makes use of certain institutions of the EU, in particular the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. The United Kingdom Government have expressed grave reservations about the legality of the arrangements, as demonstrated by the recent letter from the UK ambassador to the EU, Sir Jon Cunliffe, to the secretary-general of the European Council, which has been placed in the Library. Concerns expressed by pre-eminent lawyers about the treaty include concerns about breaches of European and other aspects of the rule of law, both in principle and by reference to specific articles of the treaty.

The urgency of the matter arises from the fact that there is a European Council meeting on Thursday 1 March, which the Prime Minister will attend. The question of the legality of the treaty and whether the Government intend to take the issue to the European Court of Justice is a matter of great urgency, given that other member states and their Parliaments, such as the Bundestag yesterday, are deciding the issues and the ratification of the treaty. In respect of the United Kingdom, there are legitimate concerns about the legality of the conferral under the treaty of those functions on the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, which are institutions of the EU.

The European Scrutiny Committee is taking evidence on the treaty. Last Thursday at business questions, the Leader of the House declined the request I made as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee to allow a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House. We are holding an inquiry into the treaty and its legality. The Foreign Secretary has twice declined the unanimous request of the European Scrutiny Committee to appear before the Committee in reasonable time, although the Minister for Europe did give evidence last Thursday.

It is essential that the United Kingdom Parliament, on behalf of the voters of the UK who are affected by the treaty proposals and the Government’s decision on the question of legality, debates this subject as a matter of urgency. My proposal is supported by many Members of Parliament. I suggest that the Attorney-General attend the debate. I would of course be grateful for the support of the House for my proposal for an emergency debate to be held before the European Council, which takes place on Thursday this week.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter—

Common European Sales Law

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

I rise simply to say that the City of London corporation has also provided a method of objection and to add it to the other representative organisations I mentioned.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is some confusion here. I think the hon. Gentleman either thought or hoped he was intervening on the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), but the latter is signalling that he has concluded his remarks. I am sure that that fact will be of close and abiding interest to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), knowing what a great interest he takes in the observations of other hon. Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

On the question of legal base, does my hon. and learned Friend recall that originally the Secretary of State for Justice took the view that he had doubts over whether article 114 was appropriate? There was then the question of whether article 352 might not be more appropriate. Unfortunately, because of the enactment of the European Union Act 2011, primary legislation had to be passed before the Government could give their consent to the adoption of the proposal on article 352. Therefore, there is a serious question over whether there has been complete compliance not only with the principle of subsidiarity but with the legal base.

[Mr Speaker]

The principle of subsidiarity is important, but there is also a very important principle of interventions, and that is brevity.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 31st October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I would say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I shall look into the specifics of this case, and in particular into what he has just said about attributed quotes. Secondly, let me reiterate a point that, as he rightly observes, I have made on innumerable occasions: it is a matter of straightforward courtesy and parliamentary propriety that statements of policy should first be made to this House, not elsewhere, and not by nods and winks or by leaks. I hope that is clear.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a statement on the eurozone crisis. As the Prime Minister has now returned to the country, many people would have expected him to come to the House today to give his report on the recent summit, and especially on the proposals for the creation of a two-tier Europe. To my knowledge, this is the first time that the Prime Minister has not appeared before the House in such circumstances. Will you take such steps as are necessary to urge him to do so on this vital question that affects not only this House but the whole of the country?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member with 27 years’ service in the House, so he will know better than most of his parliamentary colleagues that whether Ministers make statements—and if so, when—is a matter for Ministers, not the Chair. However, through making his point of order, he has made his point, which may possibly have been his intention.

Global Economy

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Chancellor will know that our trade balance between 2002 and 2009-10 with the other 26 member states has gone up from minus £14 billion to minus £53 billion in one year? Does he not agree that even Edward Heath would have repudiated and vetoed a fiscal union with a hard-core Europe with such an incredible trade deficit against us? The coalition agreement, according to the latest answer I got from the Prime Minister, determines our relationship with the European Union. Does the Chancellor disagree with the Deputy Prime Minister, because we must have radical renegotiation of the treaties and the repatriation of powers so that we can achieve growth for all our businesses?

[Mr Speaker]

I enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman’s words so much that it is in my interest, Parliament’s interest and the national interest that they should be suitably rationed.

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would like to accommodate many more colleagues on this important subject, but in order for me to do so, I require brevity. I call Mr William Cash—[Laughter.]

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has referred several times to the future of the regulation of the media, not just the press. About the terms of reference that we have been told about, he says that “the inquiry should look not just at the press, but at other media organisations, including broadcasters and social media if there is any evidence that they have been involved in criminal activities.” Does that preclude what the 17 Select Committee Chairmen and others have called for, which is an extension of the terms of reference to deal with regulation of all the media, not merely the press alone?

Summer Adjournment

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the rather unusual circumstances of the debate tomorrow, we have not yet had notice of the motion or the terms of the debate. However, the 17 Select Committee Chairmen, plus the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the chairman of the 1922 committee, and representatives of the four leaders of the devolved Administrations, have all expressed their concerns about the terms of the inquiry. I simply ask you whether it will be possible for us to table a manuscript amendment tomorrow, in the event that the motion requires amendment to satisfy the terms of early-day motion 2088.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is even further ahead of the game than usual. As he has acknowledged, there is, as yet, no formal recall tomorrow, as the Standing Order does not operate until this sitting is adjourned. I can assure him and the House, however, that shortly thereafter, I shall sign the necessary order. Only after that will we know the form of the motion for tomorrow. So his point is hypothetical at the moment, but I have noted his words, as I invariably do. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Phone Hacking

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would like to accommodate a few more colleagues, but to do so I require brevity. I call Mr William Cash.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Thank you for that, Mr Speaker.

The Prime Minister has referred repeatedly to media organisations and media executives and he has noted the fact that the word “media” covers a wide range. Does he agree that to be fully comprehensive the terms of reference should also be extended to sound and visual media? It is not impossible, given the uncertainty and unexpected turns of events, that that side of things might be involved, too.

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[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.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for advance notice of it. The short answer to the query he raised and the concern he expressed is that I have not been informed of any oral statement on this matter today. I had understood—and, at the time of speaking, I do understand—that there will be a written ministerial statement from the Ministry of Justice about public bodies, but I have not seen the contents of it. I say what I do with some care because it is my best understanding at the moment. If I am wrong or if the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied, he can return to the matter. I am sure that he will in any case find other ways of pursuing it.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No day would be complete without a point of order from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). We will come to him; I am saving him up; we look forward to hearing him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is a persistent and indefatigable fellow, but I need to say two things to him. First, that is not the way we go about the confirmation of business in this place. Secondly, although it is extraordinarily generous of the hon. Gentleman to refer me to the PoliticsHome website, I am not among those who browse it with any frequency. [Interruption.] “Very wise” says a Government Whip on the Treasury Bench; I suppose Government Whips know about these matters. I think it was the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) who volunteered that helpful advice to me.

[Mr Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have the problems with the Division bells in Portcullis House been sorted out? Would you be good enough to look into the matter, Mr Speaker, as last night a number of problems led to significant delay. Has it been sorted out; is the root cause being investigated?

[Mr Speaker]

I was not aware that there was a problem; I am now. I hope that there is not still a problem. I have known the hon. Gentleman for at least 13 or 14 years and the thought that he might, as a result of some failure, miss a vote is something that saddens me. Whether the same would be said of him by the Government Whips is a matter of legitimate speculation and conjecture. We will leave it there for today.

European Council

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is extensive interest in this statement, but there is another statement to follow, and a heavily subscribed debate thereafter. What is required, I say hopefully, is brevity.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister be good enough to put on record his appreciation of the support and encouragement of the British people and Members of Parliament in securing the terms from the negotiations on the Greek bail-out, and will he now take that further and do whatever is necessary to take the lead in both the United Kingdom and Europe to get us out of the mess the existing treaties got us into?

Passenger Name Records

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In wishing the hon. Gentleman a happy birthday, I call Mr William Cash.

[Mr Cash]

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker; thank you very much for that.

As the Minister knows, the European Scrutiny Committee is somewhat concerned, to say the least, about the blizzard of opt-ins and the fact that the negotiations on a number of very important matters are still going on. There is therefore some concern about the possibility of our opting in on the hoof, and we will keep these negotiations under close scrutiny, in particular the negotiation on the length of time for the retention of data, but also that on the definition of a serious crime and the question of proportionality in using these data for offences such as racism, xenophobia and sabotage. There is also the whole issue of sensitive personal data in itself. I know the Minister is apprised of these issues, but will he understand that we are extremely concerned and that as there are these important continuing negotiations it is not good enough simply to say, “We will accept it in principle and then discuss it all afterwards”?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. [Interruption.] Order. It makes a very bad impression on the public as a whole, and others are waiting to contribute. I think the Prime Minister has finished.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

During the recess, a number of European issues have arisen: the Portuguese bail-out, the increase in the European budget and proposals for corporation tax at the European level. Will the Prime Minister re-coin a phrase and simply say to all those matters, “No, no, no”?

Business of the House

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In the light of the earlier exchanges with the Prime Minister, when I asked about the arms embargo and the “notwithstanding” provision of the UN Security Council, will the Leader of the House be kind enough to refer the matter to the Attorney-General, so it can be addressed when the summary of the advice comes out?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is an extremely experienced Member of the House, having entered in 1984. These substantive matters can, should and will be debated on Monday. This is a narrow business statement.

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Friday 18th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

Having had that ample demonstration of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom—the Prime Minister deserves our congratulations on that statement, given the opposition from within the European Union, for example—I can now resume the previous debate.

As I said, I want to cover a number of practical examples. It would be fair to say that 60% or 70% of all our legislation now comes from the European Union. When Members are debating Bills, there is frequently—almost invariably—no way for them to know whether the legislation emanates from EU law. When I was a member of the Statutory Instruments Committee many years ago, I managed to instigate a system to ensure that legislation emanating from the European Union was denoted by an asterisk to show where it came from. It would be extremely helpful for MPs to have that included in all Bills—for convenience, perhaps it could be in the explanatory notes—because if we are not entitled to legislate inconsistently with European law, MPs should know that. As for the proposals in this Bill and the clause that I suggested might be added to it—we come back to the “notwithstanding” formula, which has been brought up about half a dozen times in the last hour and a half—it is important that people should know the extent to which we are trammelled in our legislation. Indeed, many Acts of Parliament would be better understood by the public at large if they knew where the obligations came from.

That is one practical point. The other practical questions relate to the diversity, magnitude and volume of such legislation. We hear a great deal about better deregulation and attempts within the European Union to regulate better, but the statistics are incredibly bad. There is virtually no deregulation going on in the European Union, despite the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has placed a great deal of faith in renegotiating legislation, some of which has a very damaging effect on our potential for growth. In fact, I have recently quoted Lord Mandelson, who said when he was Trade Commissioner that over-regulation from the European Union amounts to 4% of GDP, and Mr Verheugen has demonstrated that over-regulation costs many billions of pounds. The most recent calculation I have seen is that since 1999 European over-regulation has cost the British economy and British business alone £124 billion. This is absolute madness. We are talking about over-regulation and unnecessary regulation, the manner in which it is passed and whether, on the basis of what the Government say—I would be fascinated to know how the Minister will respond to this—there is any intention whatever of following the precept that the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] If I can detach the Minister from his colleague, I would like to draw his attention to a point to which I would like him to respond. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is courteous for Members on the Treasury Bench to pay attention. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) is referring directly to Ministers, so it would be a courtesy if they were listening.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me point out that I intend to give the Minister a 10-minute winding-up speech, so the hon. Gentleman has a brief opportunity to contribute if he so wishes.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The simple reason why I am speaking to my amendment is that, as I indicated on Second Reading, I take the gravest exception to the Bill, for a variety of reasons.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, to whom I look forward to listening, but just for clarification, as I think he knows, we are not debating an amendment; we are debating a group of two new clauses. It is to the new clauses that he is speaking.

[Mr Cash]

Yes, indeed. I am seeking to amend the Bill through a new clause, and I am grateful to you for making that subtle distinction, Mr Speaker.

The point is that the title of the Bill is a give-away. It refers to “Parliaments”; it does not refer to “Parliament”. Therefore, there is an underlying assumption that the process in question—which is inevitably tied up with the concept of the coalition politics, which are increasingly regarded as a perpetual burden that we will be expected to comply with—is inherent in the arrangements for the proposals in the Bill. The use of the word “Parliaments”, in the plural, simply emphasises that.

As one who believes firmly in the idea that our constitutional arrangements have stood us in good stead for a long time, but without being obtuse about the need for reform, I would say that there are changes in our constitutional arrangements that, periodically, can be justified. However, my proposal is, effectively, a “stop and restart” provision. That is, if there is any merit in continuing the arrangements, if they were to survive for as long as the period allocated by the leaders of the parties and the coalition agreement, then there is always the possibility—to put it no higher than that—of referring to some of those outside this place who, as far as I am concerned, are the most important people of all, namely our electors, and not leaders of parties or parties themselves. The real question is: what do the public think about all this? Of course, they have not been asked; indeed, there is not the slightest intention that they should be asked.

What I am suggesting is that the very concept of a fixed-term Parliaments Bill is offensive to the hallowed principle—that simple constitutional proposition—that no Parliament can bind its successors. I have therefore decided—I am glad to be joined by a number of other hon. Members in this notion—that we should have what we describe in the title of new clause 5, namely the “Expiry and revival of section 2”. I happen to hope that such a revival does not take place, and I shall explain why. “Expiry”, certainly; however, as I was very sensibly advised, because of the scope of the Bill and its background, rather than proposing what I would otherwise have put forward, namely a sunset clause—or, as I think it would be better described, a “cast into the darkness of hell” clause—I have proposed that clause 2 be required to expire when the Parliament summoned to meet in May 2010, on that fixed and prescriptive date, dissolves. You might have an interest in this, Mr Speaker, because, if anything were to happen, there might even be the need for the re-election of a Speaker. In such rare circumstances, you might take a particular interest in this provision. I am suggesting that clause 2 should expire in those circumstances.

It is important to bear in mind the provisions in clause 2. We have moved on from the Committee stage to Report, and I remind the House that I tabled amendments to clause 2 in Committee because I took the gravest exception to certain elements in it. I am therefore anxious that it should expire, because I do not believe that it is a constitutionally satisfactory provision. Clause 2(1) states:

“An early parliamentary general election is to take place if the Speaker of the House of Commons issues a certificate—

(a) certifying that the House has passed a motion that there should be an early parliamentary general election,

(b) certifying whether or not the motion was passed on a division”—

I do not think that there would be much difficulty in demonstrating that. The clause continues:

(c) if it is certified that the motion was passed on a division, certifying that the number of members who voted in favour of the motion was a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats).”

I have no intention of going back to the discussions that we had on the clause. I tabled amendments to it and argued my case fairly, I thought, but the Whips got in the way—I do not know the reason—and the result was that I lost my Division. If I may say so without presumption, I do not believe that I lost the argument, but hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly Back Benchers, are prone to believe our own arguments.

European Council

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Although it is not my normal practice to call a Member who was not present at the very start of the statement, I note that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) chairs the European Scrutiny Committee and therefore, exceptionally, I shall call the hon. Gentleman on this occasion.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful, Mr Speaker. I really only came here to wish the Prime Minister a happy Christmas. Does the Prime Minister share the concern of many of us that the present financial mechanism is unlawful, and that Britain is exposed until 2013 while the black hole of Portugal and Spain opens up before us? Does he therefore think there are serious grounds for challenging the unlawfulness of it and not exposing the British electorate to the prospect of having to contribute to that while suffering such severe austerity cuts?

Finance Ministers’ Meeting (Ireland)

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is much interest and little time, so in questions and answers alike I require brevity.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The €440 billion eurozone facility can be used without infringing either UK liability or sovereignty. The Darling guarantee mechanism with qualified majority voting involves, unnecessarily, both UK liability and sovereignty. Where it is in our national interest and we can afford it, why not provide a UK-Irish but non-EU loan?

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that colleagues will understand if I say that at this point, pending any further study, I feel confirmed in my suspicion by that exchange that we are having a continuation of the debate. That may be stimulating, but it is not really within the realms of points of order. Someone who I am sure knows about the realms of points of order on the strength of his 26 years’ service in the House is the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash).

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am extremely grateful to you for reminding me of that.

What happened last night was somewhat affected by the fact that the Minister’s statement came at the end of the debate. Would it not have been far more convenient and courteous to the House if he had made that announcement at the beginning of the debate? The announcement affected proceedings and the status of amendments that were not debated.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that that may or may not be so, but unfortunately, it is not a matter of order. If he or other hon. Members are seeking to increase the powers of the Chair, they must find ways to do so—if he is asking whether I would strenuously resist, the answer is almost certainly no—but within the powers that I have, I cannot do anything about the matter other than to allow him, within limits, to expatiate, which is what he just did.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The response of the Deputy Leader of the House has been noted and I am grateful to him for it.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that a few minutes ago, in the House of Lords, the motion to refer the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill to a Select Committee with regard to the possibility of hybridity was rejected in a vote, but I would be grateful if we could be informed whether, in this House, such a motion would be out of order on the grounds that the Bill did not affect a particular private interest. I would be grateful if we could have a note on that.

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that that is not a matter for today. More fully, I think I know him well enough to know that he is unlikely to rest content with what I suppose he would judge to be a holding response. I have just a smidgen of a suspicion that it is a matter to which he will return on other occasions, and if he does, so will I. I hope that is helpful.

European Union Economic Governance

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

This debate and the Minister’s remarks remind me of what Alice said in “Through the Looking-Glass”, when she referred to Humpty Dumpty and his rather scornful tone:

“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said…‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master—that’s all.’”

That is the essence of the question of European economic governance. We have been told that it is good for us, that it does not affect us and that it does not make a difference. However much one gets into the interpretation of those words, the European Scrutiny Committee’s report makes it clear that there are significant differences, in aggregate, between different parts of the regulations and directives. If the proposal is accepted by the Government, they will effectively cross the Rubicon and similarly, by acquiescing in ever-greater European governance over our economy, they will significantly undermine our ability to govern ourselves. We need less Europe, not more.

The proposals extend to the United Kingdom, as a member of the European Union, thereby raising questions of sovereignty. Under the aegis of the forthcoming Bill on the European Union, my Committee will hold an inquiry so that we can sort out once and for all whether it is the House of Commons, Parliament and that sovereignty which governs the country, or whether it is the European Union. Under Standing Orders, the Committee’s duty is to report to the House, not to the Government, on matters that we regard as requiring debate by reason of their legal or political importance. The scrutiny reserve remains in place until the debate has taken place, and thereafter Ministers can, and no doubt will, vote and/or agree the proposals, but may continue negotiations.

I was glad that the Minister’s explanatory memorandum stated specifically, on several vital matters, that the Government would

“seek to ensure in negotiations”

that matters of concern would be improved. In doing so, the memorandum by definition conceded that these issues have not been resolved entirely, that negotiations could improve them, that they do make a difference to the United Kingdom, its Government and its Parliament and that they have to be remedied. As Chairman of the Committee, I have placed in the Library a note in my name on all these matters, so anyone who wishes to look at them may do so.

I was puzzled by the Prime Minister’s response to a question that I asked during his statement to the House on the outcome of the European Council meeting. He accepted that the matter was complex and required a greater opportunity for exchange of opinions and explanation, but he also said:

“This is not a new framework.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 614.]

I find that extremely puzzling, however one construes it, given the evidence before us and the specific reference to a new surveillance framework in the taskforce report and in the presidency conclusions that he signed off. The truth is that the Commission intends to exert peer pressure on all member states of the European Union. The taskforce report of 21 October preceded documents being placed in the Library, following an urgent question I asked, emblazoned with the word “limité”, which means very restricted circulation. They included a letter of 9 July from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to other member states. It might be thought that there was every reason to present those documents to the European Scrutiny Committee, even if they were not specifically depositable. The Committee does not operate by website.

A substantial question on whether the UK is affected has been dealt with in a note that I received from the Library, from which I shall quote, on increased macroeconomic surveillance. It says:

“It is proposed that a greater role is played by the Commission in macroeconomic surveillance. This surveillance mechanism would be distinct from that currently taking place under the SGP”—

the stability and growth pact—

“because it is non-fiscal in nature; it will focus on countries’ broader macroeconomic positions in relation to the rest of the EU.”

The note goes on:

“The idea of deeper macroeconomic surveillance was put forward in March this year as part of the…Europe 2020 proposals”,

which were, of course, under the previous Government. The note continues:

“As originally envisaged, the deeper surveillance framework would apply only to the euro area countries; however, the Commission proposals of 30^th June”—

after the general election—

“and the Task Force Report of 21^st October”

both apply to “all Member States”. That is a matter of considerable concern. Why have the coalition Government agreed to extend the framework to all the member states, whereas the previous Government appear to have confined it exclusively to the euro area? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) said, the taskforce recommends deeper macroeconomic surveillance, with the introduction of a new mechanism underpinned by a new legal framework based on article 121. The Minister’s explanatory memorandum specifically refers to the legal impact and therefore the jurisdiction of these matters, as I have already mentioned, which clearly shows that there is a legal impact on the UK. Therefore, by definition, the proposed mechanism affects the UK and hands over jurisdiction in these matters to the European Court of Justice for interpretation and construction.

Furthermore, it is possible, and even likely, that the stricter reporting requirements will apply to the United Kingdom under the macroeconomic surveillance proposals, particularly if the UK were placed in an excessive imbalance position. We have always conceded, right from the beginning, way back to the time of the Maastricht rebellion, that there would be no sanctions because of the opt-out that we achieved. The fact that the Government continuously state that it is a victory not to have had sanctions imposed is merely a statement of the obvious. I go further. I would be grateful if someone could tell me which member states have ever paid any fines or had any sanctions imposed upon them under any of these arrangements. The answer is none, and there are those who argue that there never will be.

We are in a difficult situation with regard to how we will vote on the motion. Serious questions arise, and I was concerned when I read the letter and the appended document from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I had to extract by way of an urgent question, for which I was most grateful, Mr Speaker. In that, there is a description of economic governance, the words of which would not be easily understood. It states:

“Democratic legitimacy is vital to everything that the EU does, and Ministers need to be accountable both to other Member States and to their electorate.”

I find that a new and strange doctrine, and a rather dangerous one. I had no idea that Ministers were accountable to other EU member states. It is conceded, and I agree, that the United Kingdom Budget will be presented first to the UK Parliament, but the essence of the problem is that in the compilation and the construction of the Budget, a series of data and statistical information would have to be provided. That in itself creates the framework that constricts our ability within our parliamentary process to act on our own terms and in line with the principles that underpin our parliamentary Government—that matters of taxation and spending and the formulation of them depend upon the House of Commons, not upon the European Union.

Given the significance that has been attached to these ideas, they represent a drift and an acceptance of European economic government through the surveillance framework by increasing the powers available to the Commission. This does not in any way alter the degree of intrusion into the construction of our Budget before it is presented to Parliament. One of the most difficult aspects is that far from our having a need for much less European economic governance, we are having more. As we move further forward and become more absorbed into this arrangement, we have to ask what is actually happening in the EU itself. As one of the other national European scrutiny committee chairmen said to Mr Van Rompuy when I was in Brussels the other day, “Will the European Union go bankrupt if we refuse to obey your rules?” Other member states are beginning to get the message, which is why I think Mr Van Rompuy issued that assault on Euroscepticism throughout Europe. He is getting the message that people in national Parliaments are not prepared to accept, for example, the fact that their economies have failed because of the EU’s refusal to deregulate and repatriate. I mention in brief the Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks on that subject, because he clearly stated that there would be no repatriation, despite what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asserted in his speech to the Centre for Policy Studies in 2005.

We need to generate enterprise for small and medium-sized businesses. There is the failure of the Lisbon agenda, massive unemployment, of more than 20% in some countries, riots, protests and a sense of failure, despair and democratic hopelessness. This is reflected—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying very considerably wide of the matters under discussion. I know that he is a sensitive fellow and will be aware of the significant number of other Members who wish to contribute, so I feel sure that, in bringing his remarks to a fairly early close, he will focus on the matters that are before us, rather than those that are not.

[Mr Cash]

I entirely accept that and will bring my remarks immediately to a conclusion.

Rules and regulations will not turn the European Union into a thriving economy with which we trade. It is said that 50% of our trade is with the European Union, and that the proposals before us are necessary to achieve stability in the European Union. The crucial point is that, underneath all those rules and regulations and the determination to achieve European economic governance, we are going the wrong way, not the right way. The measures do affect us. We need more enterprise, more small businesses, more deregulation and repatriation. I am not surprised, therefore that in a recent opinion poll 80% of people said that they wanted the repatriation of powers from the European Union.

We are being more and more absorbed by a failed European Union. Under this coalition, roadblocks are being put up to prevent us from sorting that out, and the new surveillance framework is part of the problem, not the solution. I shall vote against the motion.

Defence Treaties (France)

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the arrangements will in no way affect our operational theatres of war, so that we will in no circumstances find that there is a conflict of any kind between orders that were given by our military or other services as compared to those of the French?

Secondly, if this Anglo-French arrangement—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member to whom I always listen with great interest, that one question is enough—he should not be greedy.

Economic Governance (EU)

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): I have an urgent question for the Prime Minister, which is being answered in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to what negotiating position the Government intend to adopt on the conclusion of the taskforce on strengthening economic governance in the European Union that was presented to the European Council on 21 October with the claim that the endorsement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly. Secondly, may I say to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who has 26 years’ experience in the House, that this is not the point at which he is supposed to dilate? He will have his opportunity. He has said what the substance of the matter is, and we look forward to the Minister responding.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not get too excited: he will have his opportunity. I have granted him his chance, and he should not worry: we will come to him in due course.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to update the House on the conclusion of the taskforce on strengthening the economic governance of the European Union, and to report on the UK’s position on the taskforce. In particular, I wish to restate that the UK is exempt from the current and future sanctions regime.

Heads of State and Heads of Government commissioned the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, to produce a report on EU economic governance and report back to the October Economic Council. Mr Van Rompuy chaired a taskforce meeting consisting of EU Finance Ministers, and the Chancellor represented the UK on the taskforce. The report has been agreed by the taskforce, and the European Council is expected to endorse it tomorrow. Copies of the report, along with the Chancellor’s submission to the taskforce, have been placed in the Library of the House this morning.

The report concludes that the EU should take steps to reinforce fiscal discipline and that the euro area in particular must face tougher surveillance of its fiscal policies, with sanctions for non-compliance with the pact where appropriate. It also recommends measures to improve EU-level co-ordination of macro-economic policies. That will ensure that any harmful macro-economic imbalances between member states can be identified and corrective action taken. Finally, the report notes that there should be a permanent crisis resolution mechanism for the euro area. The UK supports its conclusions.

A strong and stable euro area is firmly in the UK’s own economic interests, given the high level of UK exports to those countries and our close economic ties. In the years before the crisis, fiscal discipline was absent, and not just in states in the eurozone. High levels of debt have exacerbated the problems that some member states face during the economic downturn. The taskforce recommends that there should be greater focus on member states’ public debt levels in future, and the Government agree with that approach.

I am pleased to note that the report explicitly states that sanctions cannot be applied to the UK under the stability and growth pact. Domestic fiscal frameworks play a crucial role in ensuring that member states act responsibly. EU surveillance is useful, but as the House knows, national Parliaments and national institutions must hold Governments to account for their economic and budgetary policies.

Let us be absolutely clear: yes, we want to see a strong and stable eurozone. That is in our interests just as much as those of our neighbours. The UK has led the way on economic governance. Multi-year budgets and independent statistics and forecasting have already been introduced, and we have a clear fiscal mandate to eliminate our structural deficit. We are leading the eurozone, and our high standards have already received international endorsement. We will examine any proposals to help the eurozone overcome its problems.

However, as the Prime Minister has just said, we will not agree to any changes to EU treaties that move more powers from this country to the EU. The UK’s exemption from the sanctions proposal will be explicit, and there will be no shift of sovereignty from Westminster to Brussels. The report makes that clear, agreeing that

“strengthened enforcement measures need to be implemented for all EU Member States, except the UK as a consequence of Protocol 15 of the Treaty”.

While we are looking at problems in the EU, I should like to say that we have serious concerns about the proposed size of the 2011 EU budget. I was shocked to see that on the day of the spending review, the vast majority of Labour MEPs voted against a freeze in the EU budget. When countries across Europe are taking tough decisions to put their public finances in order, it would be wrong—unjust, even—to have a 6% rise in next year’s EU budget, as has been suggested. We cannot accept that and will fight it hard. We are protecting British interests in the EU and doing what is right for our country and our people, and the Prime Minister will update the House next week.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to raise what happened last night regarding amendment 3 to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. Many people judged what happened to be a breach of the underlying conventions of the House—the spirit of the rules—irrespective of the precision that could be applied to the Standing Orders themselves. We saw the cynical adoption of amendments with which the coalition Government clearly disagree merely to induce a negative vote. No opportunity was given for my amendments or those of other hon. Members to be debated or voted on in Committee. The threshold amendments are about percentages and proportionality, as is the principle of the Bill itself. I urge you to protect the underlying fundamental conventions of the House and the spirit of the rules on this matter on Report.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I respond to the hon. Gentleman, I think the House will want to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House.

Draft EU Budget 2011

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I gently say, with reference to the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and as an encouragement and a cautionary note to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), that I know the hon. Gentleman’s response will very much focus on matters relating to the European budget?

[Mr Cash]

It will, indeed. I shall make no response to that absurd intervention.

We must achieve our objectives, which are not only to prevent any increase in the budget, but to reduce it. I say that to my hon. Friends as one who, I think, can undoubtedly claim to have fought these battles relentlessly, persistently and consistently for the best part of 25 years—and, if I may say so, with some degree of success in establishing the parameters within which we are now able to address the European issue. In a moment I shall mention what happened at the European Scrutiny Committee this afternoon, merely to illustrate the progress that we have already made in the few weeks that I have had the honour of being the Committee’s Chairman. The whole process has to be conducted in an effective and orderly manner. Otherwise, it plays into the hands of those such as the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), who want to pretend that somehow there is no justification for our adopting the position that we need to adopt. Tortuous and tedious as it is, the most important thing is to get it right. We have to get the blocking minority if we want to move from wanting to stop the increase to achieving the reduction that follows from it. Let us be responsible about this.

I do not have the slightest objection to the sentiments that lie behind the other amendment. It bothers me, however, that we have two amendments that appear to compete with one another, but in fact convey the same ideas, yet one is orderly while the other is disorderly. I leave it at that; it is for my hon. Friends to judge.

Point of Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Monday 13th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise the question of the written ministerial statement laid at 11.35 am today by the Minister for Europe regarding the proposed Bill requiring any proposed future treaties and amendments to be referred to a referendum. The problem is simply that the statement has not been accompanied by any pre-legislative scrutiny as regards a Bill with which we are going to be provided and it dodges the issue of the transfer of powers under the Lisbon treaty as well as the majority of voting arrangements and co-decision. May I invite you to consider allowing the House to hear an oral statement from the Minister so that we are in a position to ask him questions about this extremely important constitutional proposal?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is a seasoned campaigner in the House and first entered Parliament 26 years ago, so he will know very well that the decision on whether a statement should be written or oral is not a matter for the Chair but a matter for the Government. However, the hon. Gentleman’s words will have been heard very clearly by those on the Treasury Bench. In addition, the hon. Gentleman’s new position as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, on which I congratulate him, will afford him an unrivalled opportunity further to explore these important matters.

European Investigation Order

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Many Members wish to ask questions, and as I said before, there is great pressure on business, so brevity is required. Hopeful of a lead on that point, I call Mr William Cash.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am deeply concerned that the EIO has not been considered by the European Scrutiny Committee, which was formally set up last night, and nor have many other important matters. The legal basis is qualified majority voting, co-decision and the European Court of Justice under the Lisbon treaty. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the EIO applies to all investigative measures, and that it gives undue rights to police officers from other European countries to order our police to gather sensitive personal information —and, furthermore, DNA and banking records—in relation to non-criminal matters, and from those who are not even suspects? The grounds for refusing an EIO request are totally inadequate, and I am sure that the ESC will demand a debate and call evidence, but regrettably, it cannot do so until 8 September, because it has not been called to sit until then.

European External Action Service

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman replies to that witty intervention, I will remind him of what I am sure he already knows—that the Minister has a right of reply and will need to be called at 6.52 pm. It is conceivable that other Members might also wish to contribute.

[Mr Cash]

Having spoken for only two minutes, I can guarantee that I will not speak for more than five at most. As for intervention of a few moments ago, I think the Court of Auditors might have something to say about the matters that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) raised. After all, it has not signed off its accounts for the last 15 years.

I am deeply concerned about this whole operation. I add that in the report mentioned in the documents before us, the European Scrutiny Committee said that this important proposal is

“likely to be the most significant change in the conduct of British foreign policy for many years”,

which is why a debate on the Floor of the House was, exceptionally, recommended. That is the truth and the reality. I am deeply concerned that in being asked to consider the functions of the Foreign Office under this decision, there is a huge issue to do with the impact this new global diplomatic service will have on Britain’s ability to promote her own bilateral interests.

This is not a small matter. The question is how we are going to be able to maintain our own bilateral interests if we are suffocated by the decisions that are taken. Anybody who reads these documents in detail—I do not have time to go into that detail today—will appreciate that there is a very severe danger to the continuation of our bilateral interests, however hard my hon. Friend the Minister and the Foreign Secretary will work, as I know they will. Given the depth, the range and the landscape of this monumental creation of a new foreign service on a European scale, it is difficult to see how our bilateral interests can be preserved.

In conclusion, there is also the declaration on political accountability. I would be grateful if the Minister told us some of his thoughts on that. He said in evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee last week that he hoped the decision would

“end up providing a more coherent and effective platform for the delivery of the EU’s engagement with the outside world.”

For my part, I hope that our own foreign policy will be conducted in a manner that will properly reflect the interests of this country. I am happy to co-operate with other countries throughout Europe—and, indeed, anywhere else in the world—because we have a responsibility to do so, but I am deeply worried at the way this entire legal framework is liable to subsume our own ability to ensure our own national interests.

I regard this as a mosaic, as it were, within a labyrinth, and I fear that there will be a confusion of control and command in military matters, in relation to Kosovo and our relations with Iran, for example. We need to be extremely cautious about giving this more than a very tepid welcome.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust

Debate between William Cash and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which was well overdue because the previous Government declined to do what he has agreed to do. I also thank the Prime Minister—a former candidate for Stafford—who took a very active part in this extremely important decision, for which both my constituents and those in Stafford will be deeply grateful. The Secretary of State has rightly dealt with the question of oaths and of compulsion of witnesses. Will he also indicate that expenses relating to the provision of legal representation for witnesses will also be made available? In addition to dealing with issues relating to whistleblowers and targets, will the whole question of self-assessment by hospitals and hospital trusts be considered? Will the inquiry examine those matters? A similar inquiry in 1984 led to a great improvement in the national circumstances relating to hospitals. The same hospital was involved in the legionnaires disease inquiry that Baroness Thatcher incorporated. I again thank the Secretary of State for making this decision, which will be greatly welcomed in my constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

Although we heard about four questions there, I am sure that the Secretary of State will content himself with one reply.