Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Irrespective of whether people are Brexiteers, remainers or reversers, does my right hon. Friend agree that the fundamental question before the House on Monday regarding an early general election is about their democratic decision to be governed by themselves through their representatives in Parliament?
Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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)
William Cash Excerpts(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
The law will be followed. We are a country that follows the rule of law and this Government assiduously follow constitutional conventions, unlike some other Members of this House.
Sir William Cash
The intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) can only be described as breathtaking. In support of the assertion by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that it was weighted with great arrogance, may I ask him to be good enough to confirm that in fact the European Union Referendum Bill, as enacted, was a sovereign Act of Parliament, which deliberately gave the right to the British people, and not to the British Parliament, to make the decision on the question of remain or leave?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is of course right. We report to the British people; they are our bosses.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I have heard an enormous amount over the last few weeks about the way in which the Government are undermining democracy and our sovereignty. We have just heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) rubbishing a lot of the arguments that the Government have put forward over the last few weeks.
I will simply say this: there are those in this House, however much they like to dress it up—I think I said this on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—who have never accepted the idea that we should leave the European Union, with or without a deal. They just do not want to leave. I understand that, and I actually pay tribute to some of those who have been entirely consistent about these arguments, in particular my right hon. and learned Friend. He knows that I genuinely feel that.
Having said that, I am afraid that I simply cannot accept, under any circumstances, the burden of the argument made by, for example, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). This House, as I said in an intervention on the Leader of the House, made a decision in the European Union Referendum Act 2015—a sovereign Act of Parliament—that deliberately gave the British people the right to make the decision, not this House. Under the Lisbon treaty, which was enacted in 2008, we also agreed the article 50 process in our domestic law, which provided that, once it had commenced, if there was no decision within two years, we would leave on exit day. That was expressed, ultimately, in the withdrawal Act, section 1 of which said that the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 would take place on exit day.
It is impossible, in my judgment, to argue that this debate, all the ripping up of conventions and all the things my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons said, which I entirely agree with, about this improper procedure for the purposes of achieving an objective, can just be washed away on the grounds that, somehow or other, there is an argument about our not having any possibility of leaving without a deal. I simply say this, Mr Speaker, if I may: this is certainly, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, a matter of unbelievably important historical significance.
We came into the European Union in 1972 on the basis of a White Paper. I got out that White Paper only today and it clearly states that we will never give up the veto. Furthermore, not only would we never give up the veto—that was the basis on which we entered into the European Communities Act 1972, which is still the governing enactment—but to do so would endanger the very fabric of the Community. That is why so many people across the whole of Europe are voting with their feet against this system. Look at what is going on in Italy, in Greece and in many other countries. So why would anyone want to remain in this European Union? It is autocratic. It is dominated by one country in particular and by the French as well. The bottom line is that it is not a system that allows us to govern ourselves.
I simply say this, Mr Speaker. It is clear that the government that takes place under the Council of Ministers is a system that enables us to be governed by 27 other member states. The withdrawal agreement, which was never signed, would allow us to be kept in that system of vassalage, governed by another 27 member states. It is an unacceptable system. Yet if we were to leave with no deal—although, I prefer to have a deal—we would be able to trade globally on our own terms. We would no longer be constrained by the deficit that we run with the European Union. We would be able to govern ourselves and we would also ensure that we retain Northern Ireland as part of our constitutional status.
These are matters that transcend the arguments being pushed around in the House today. These are simple questions of principle. These are the questions that we need to address. We must be allowed, as we did for centuries before we entered the European Community, to govern ourselves. The competences have been so grossly extended that we do not govern ourselves. If we stay in this European Union, we will never be able to do so. I am against this motion. I hope that the House will vote against it.
Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(5 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly join the hon. Lady in thanking and paying tribute to all those firefighters working so hard to put out wildfires, which are a problem right across the UK. She is right that we should do everything possible to ensure the public are aware of the risk of these wildfires, and I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On 11 April, the statutory instrument was tabled to extend the period before we leave the European Union to 31 October, and it was rushed through this House during the afternoon following the Council meeting attended by the Prime Minister. Eighty Members of Parliament have signed my prayer for the annulment of that statutory instrument, which we regard as ultra vires and void. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is very soon a debate on that statutory instrument and, naturally, on the issues at stake? We believe that that debate should be held on the Floor of the House.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend will be aware that rejecting this SI would not change exit day as set out in international law, but instead create legal chaos as our domestic statute book would not reflect our current status with the EU. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has made representations for a debate on this subject, and I am pleased to be able to tell him that I will be able to grant a debate on this statutory instrument in due course.
Points of Order
William Cash Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I gave you notice just now of the point I am about to raise, which is a very important question relating to what happened last night.
In respect of the question I put to the Leader of the House about last night’s abject surrender by the Prime Minister to the EU on the extension of the time until our exit day from the EU—which, by the way, the Leader of the House herself and members of the Cabinet refused to support the other day—is it still competent for the Government to move motion 3 on today’s Order Paper, since it contradicts motion 1 on the same Order Paper?
Secondly, Mr Speaker, can you confirm that there is nothing to prevent the Government from moving motion 3 now so the House can indeed sit tomorrow to debate regulations that are, in my judgment, unlawful and not in the national interest? Many hon. Members will table a prayer in order to debate and oppose them tomorrow. Depriving us of the ability to debate those regulations tomorrow is an act of cowardice and chicanery, and the fact that the shadow Leader of the House did not raise these issues smacks of collusion with the Government to avoid a debate. The whole thing stinks.
Andrea Leadsom
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I can clear this up. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is absolutely right that two motions were laid yesterday. In the event that the European Union had declined to provide an extension to article 50, we would have been leaving the European Union without a deal tomorrow. Therefore, it was felt that we needed to have a motion laid, as a contingency plan, for the House to sit tomorrow should it be the case that we were leaving without a deal tomorrow. However, I also laid the motion for the Easter recess. The fact of the matter is that later today I will be moving item 1 on the Order Paper, which is the Easter Adjournment, and we will not be moving item 3, which is the sittings of the House motion. I hope that clears things up, Mr Speaker.
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.
Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman talks about Halloween, ghosts, ghouls and horrors, but the real horror is that we as a Parliament have not yet delivered on what we were expressly told to do in 2016, which is to leave the European Union. That is what we will be spending the next few months seeking to do.
The hon. Gentleman says that that means that we need to consult. He knows full well that the Prime Minister is indeed consulting, and has been for many months, with Opposition Members across the House. However, I would remind him of the words of his colleague the constitutional Minister in the Scottish Parliament who was asked by a Select Committee whether, if there were a second referendum, which I gather is SNP policy, and the United Kingdom were to decide again to leave, he would abide by that. The answer? No. The truth of the matter is that it is the hon. Gentleman and the Scottish nationalists who do not want to listen to the will of the people and who do not respect the will of the people.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Given that the Leader of the House has just made an announcement regarding our going into recess, I am surprised that she has not told the House whether the Government intend to lay today the statutory instrument that is required to implement what is regarded as the unlawful agreement made last night extending the time when we will leave the EU, and that is now, disgracefully, under a negative, rather than an affirmative, resolution. Could she please explain to the House what is going on?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend will be aware that, since the Prime Minister has agreed an extension of article 50 until 31 October at the latest, that is now set in international law. The EU has agreed that the extension can be terminated when the withdrawal agreement has been ratified, so we now need to reflect this change on our domestic statute book. Following the amendments made by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019, the statutory instrument needed to redefine exit day is now subject to the negative procedure.
Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom
The motion will be tabled later this evening. As the hon. Lady will be aware, if Lords amendments come back, the House will consider them later this evening, in line with the Bill. If the debate is brought forward tomorrow—that is subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent tonight—it is not intended that the motion will be with a business of the House motion. Therefore, as a proceeding under an Act, the debate would be subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 16, so the debate will last for 90 minutes.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Bill currently going through the House of Lords is the biggest dog’s dinner of any Bill we have seen in recent times? Are the Government opposed to the Bill? Will they do everything to defeat it?
Andrea Leadsom
I entirely agree that it is a huge dog’s dinner. As I mentioned to colleagues when we were looking at the business of the House motion, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017—the Act to trigger article 50—had two clauses, containing only 58 words. It was debated for five full days in this Chamber. It seems inconceivable that Parliament looked at this Bill for the first time last Tuesday and has had just a few hours of debate across both Houses.
Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Oliver Letwin
That is an instructive example. The last time around, when as my hon. Friend rightly says the Prime Minister sought an extension, in point of fact, she sought a double extension in a sense, because she then brought before the House a statutory instrument which, although not much considered, provided both for 12 April and a later date to be included in the adjusted domestic law, in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. There was, however, no direct discussion in this House of the validity or otherwise of the period for which she sought the extension. I do not complain about that because, as things then stood and as they stand today before the passage of this business of the House motion and the Bill, if they do pass this House, the Prime Minister has an absolute right to seek those extensions—without consulting anyone, actually. There is absolutely no need for her to do so, because it is a prerogative power. She might feel it necessary to mention something to Her Majesty, but otherwise there is no reason for the Prime Minister to tell anyone.
The Bill will provide for a transparent process not for consultation but for approval by the House of the application that the Prime Minister makes to the EU. I believe, as do others who support the Bill, that that is appropriate. Of course, one can have an argument about that—my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) might well disagree—but that is the purpose of the Bill, so I do not think one can deny that, from my point of view or that of someone who shares it, the Bill is therefore necessary.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend made an assertion just now about the law relating to the prerogative. He may recall the Gina Miller case and the great deal of powerful evidence to suggest that he is fundamentally wrong on that very question. Will he accept the fact that there are those who have a very different view?
Sir Oliver Letwin
The idea that after all these years of many charming conversations with my hon. Friend that I would not accept that he might often have a very different view from mine is of course fanciful. I entirely accept that he might have a very different view from mine—he very probably would do.
On this particular point, I do not think that the Gina Miller case is relevant, because the decision by the Supreme Court in that case was in essence based on the question of individual rights. The argument, whether right or wrong, was that in invoking article 50 there was an attempt to use the prerogative power in a way that the Supreme Court believed would arguably deprive individuals of rights. No one can argue that seeking an extension of the existing position, which is that we are in the EU, deprives anyone of their rights. I therefore very much doubt that the Gina Miller case could be used as a means of injuncting the Government to seek parliamentary approval.
In this case, in any event, we have empirical proof. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover pointed out, the Prime Minister has already sought an extension, and she did that quite properly without asking the approval of the House of Commons. Therefore, she and the Government lawyers on this occasion obviously agree with me. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) might well be right and the Government lawyers wrong, but at least I have some backing on the matter.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am well aware that my hon. Friend did, and I welcomed her arrival in the Lobby. I am just pointing out that it was not me who designed an arrangement that meant it was necessary to take these actions.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am terribly sorry, but I will not give way, because I have promised to give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and then to sit down.
Valerie Vaz
Yes, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a former shadow Leader of the House. She is right. She has heard me ask at business questions a number of times for Opposition days, to which we are entitled, and we have debated the fact that the Government decided to rig Select Committees and other Committees by giving themselves a majority on them.
Sir William Cash
A great number of constitutional Bills have been examined by the Clerks and others in relation to matters of this character. Would the hon. Lady be good enough to give us examples of comparisons of different kinds of Bills, or would she be glad to wait for me to explain it a bit later?
Valerie Vaz
I think we can wait for the hon. Gentleman’s lecture later.
The motion allows for the Bill to be considered and asks the Prime Minister to make a proposal to be considered by the House the day after enactment. As with every Bill, a helpful explanatory note to the Bill is available in the Vote Office that describes each clause and exactly what the Prime Minister has to do.
Andrea Leadsom
What is in order about today’s business is entirely a matter for the Chair. The point I am making is that it breaks many years of precedent, whereby the Government of the day, with the confidence of the House, determine the business of the day, and then parliamentarians scrutinise, amend and reject or approve.
Sir William Cash
Many people who have had a chance to look at this Bill have noticed that it is completely shambolic and extremely badly drafted. We will be moving on to consideration of amendments in this very truncated and, in my view, completely reprehensible procedure. Grouping of amendments will be necessary in the circumstances, which means that many important amendments—even those intending to improve the Bill—will simply neither be reached nor passed. Is that not an indictment of the manner in which this entire process is being carried on by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset?
Pete Wishart
What attracts me to this particular motion today is that Parliament is doing this. For the first time, Parliament is actually defining, creating and progressing a Bill through this House. That is an exciting prospect, and I did not think the right hon. Gentleman would be so churlish as not to enjoy that, as somebody who really enjoys such events.
Sir William Cash
I was intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s reference to taking back control because, of course, what actually happened is that the referendum Act, by 6:1 in this House, gave the decision to the British people—that is what the vote was about—and they also voted incessantly, and rightly, for a whole series of enactments. In fact, the sovereignty of this Parliament has been preserved, but it was given to the people so that they could make the decision, and now Parliament is trying to take it back again.
Pete Wishart
I love this—this is really good stuff and entertaining. So taking back control is qualified: it is taking back control as long as it is the hon. Gentleman’s control. This is how these things become particular issues for him.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I have already made my remarks on the methodology that is being employed in respect of the Bill. I think it is reprehensible. It represents a constitutional revolution, and it sets a very undesirable precedent. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) said in his concluding remarks that responsibility for all this somehow lies with those, such as myself, who oppose the withdrawal agreement and related matters. I do not think I am misrepresenting him by saying that, but I think the truth is quite the opposite.
Something of the order of 30 colleagues—I say this with great respect to them, because they are entitled to say and do what they want—are doing something profoundly undemocratic by supporting what my right hon. Friend is trying to achieve, in all its enormity, with this business motion. The precedence that is given in Standing Order No. 14 to Government business is one of the rocks of our parliamentary system. Why? Because we have a system of parliamentary government, and a system of democratic government.
I say in all reasonableness that Standing Order No. 14 gives precedence to Government business for a very simple reason. If a Government are formed because the Queen has agreed that a Prime Minister should take office, it follows that Her Majesty’s Government have a majority and/or a sufficient degree of confidence to be able to carry the business of the House. That is the constitutional convention, and that is what our Standing Orders say.
Sir William Cash
No, I will not.
To rip up that convention, which is basically what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset is doing, is extremely undemocratic and, if I may say so, unparliamentary. It goes to the heart of whether business in this House is conducted in line with the wishes of those who voted either in general elections or, in this case, by virtue of the European Union Referendum Act 2015—the sovereign Act of Parliament that gave the decision to the British people. The business motion and the shenanigans that go with it are an attempt to take back control over that business and give it to Members of Parliament, who have no legitimacy whatsoever to make decisions that they have given, by their own vote in this House—by six to one—to the British people. That is a very simple constitutional point, and I do not think that anybody can dispute it. If anyone wishes to dispute it, will they be kind enough to get up?
Sandy Martin
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that he is trying to have it both ways? Whether or not we believe that the constitution is currently perfect, which I do not, either the Government are capable of delivering decisions or, if they are incapable of forming a majority and making vital decisions, it is surely incumbent on the Members of Parliament to find ways to do so.
Sir William Cash
I could not disagree more, because the manner in which this is being done involves legislating in circumstances that will mean, as I said yesterday on a point of order, Mr Speaker, that all these arrangements are rammed through. There will be no practical opportunity today to make amendments and to get them tabled, discussed and voted on, because of the grouping system that we have under our procedures.
I say to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) that the fact is that this is a shambolic Bill. A number of things have to be changed in it. There are references to Acts of Parliament that do not exist and it is alleged that sections are in force when they are not. This Bill is a most unbelievable shambles, and the reality is that there is no excuse for it. Hon. Members have had the previous No. 4 Bill for some time, and they suddenly decided to accelerate this procedure to try to get some kind of political advantage, undermining the decision of the House in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—that is, the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, which is related in turn to exit day. That exit day has been moved back by a statutory instrument. I personally think that it is unlawful, but that is a separate question, not for today. The repeal of the 1972 Act, on which everything depends—including that it is the anchor of the referendum itself—has to go in lockstep with exit day. Moving exit day does not prevent the repeal of the 1972 Act. All I can say is that that has fundamental relevance to what is going on today.
Turning to my next point, the real question is this: who governs this country? That is what Standing Order No. 14 is all about. I notice my hon. Friend the Member for Sandbach having a bit of a laugh there—
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.
Sir William Cash
That is absolutely the fundamental doctrine. All I am saying to my hon. Friend—I have said it to the House many times—is that when, by a solemn Act of a sovereign Parliament, we transfer a decision to the British people by six to one in this House, that is an act of transferring sovereignty to them so that they can make the decision. It is as simple as that.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Is it not the case that no Prime Minister, no Member of Parliament and no Parliament is above the people, and that we are all supposed to be servants of the people?
Sir William Cash
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said, but the reality is that in these special circumstances, it is about who governs and it is about sovereignty. The sovereignty was given to the people on this particular question by an Act of Parliament, as well as by their intrinsic right to vote in general elections.
My next and last point is on the question of constitutional comparisons. I will refer to a number of Bills on which, on previous occasions, we have had a similar sort of procedure. The Northern Ireland legislation to which you referred yesterday, Mr Speaker, in response to a point of order was something of a particular case, but it was not the same type of legislation that we are dealing with here. There was the War Crimes Act 1991. There was the Parliament Act itself and a series of other Bills. There was the Hunting Act 2004, which I do not think really falls into this category, because it was a different sort of Bill.
When we are making judgments about constitutional matters, the question is one of apples and pears. It is the question of whether there is a distinct constitutional difference. The point that I am making, in general terms, is that there is a very specific constitutional difference between this Bill and the other Bills to which the shortened, accelerated procedure has been applied. These matters were considered by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which was deeply critical of the speed with which certain Bills relating to Northern Ireland were dealt with.
The essence of the problem is that the present situation contradicts the precedents, because this Bill is so shambolic and so badly drafted. Moreover, I think I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset suggest that the amendments would be dealt with in the undemocratic House of Lords. For heaven’s sake! The House of Lords is a body that, in matters of this kind, does not really have the status that the House of Commons has. I put it no higher than that.
Sandy Martin
Given what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the House of Lords, will he join us at some subsequent time in reforming it?
Sir William Cash
The hon. Gentleman is in for a pleasant surprise. I have been talking about reform of the House of Lords, on and off, for the last 20 years, and I believe that it is necessary. However, I will leave that aside, because I do not think it is directly relevant to the point that I am making.
We have had the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018, the War Crimes Act 1991, and the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999. We have also had the Hunting Act, but, as I said earlier, I do not think that it is strictly relevant. In the case of the War Crimes Act and the European Parliamentary Elections Act, the Parliament Act 1911 became involved, which I think is very interesting. The 1911 Act applies a great deal of delay to a Bill, and that is very relevant to this particular case. I think I am right in saying that the reason for adopting this procedure was to speed up the Bill’s progress in order to avoid any delay that would take us beyond 12 April, for example, as a result of which there would not be the opportunities of which the Members concerned wish to avail themselves.
There are some further examples. There is the Parliament Act 1949, and there is the Defence of the Realm Act 1914. The context of the 1914 Act was completely different as well. That Bill was dealt with very rapidly because it was so urgent in the context of fighting the first world war. This is another kind of war—this is a war fought on pieces of paper—and I think that that is part of our biggest problem. We are fighting a battle about who governs the country, and who will be able to determine the outcome. Let us consider, for example, the question of how the laws will be made under the rubric of the European treaties. As I said the other day, if we remain in the transition period for some years—the number varies from two to four—the House will be politically castrated. As things stand, it will not be able to do anything to influence any law in any field or any competence within the EU treaties, and we will effectively be governed by the majority vote in the Council of Ministers.
This Bill is indicative of the problems that we are up against. It is not an expedited Bill; it is not an accelerated Bill; it is a Bill of constitutional execution. It means that, as a result of the procedures followed, and the procedures that will follow from the fact that the withdrawal agreement—if it goes through—will end up allowing 27 other countries to legislate for us, we will have no right to veto any of those laws. That is, to me, the greatest reason for objecting to the proposal. Furthermore, the Northern Ireland backstop is part of that situation with the control of laws.
So I think this is a grave moment in our constitutional history. I think the Bill is reprehensible; I do not think it should pass. I think it is a disgrace that it was brought in, and I have to say that 30 Members of my own party are responsible for this, because otherwise it would never have got through as a result of the combination of votes with those on the other side of the House. I regard the Bill as a grave constitutional indictment of those who have been responsible for bringing it in.
Joanna Cherry
I will not give way to the right hon. Lady because she persistently refuses to give way to me and I do not want to take up too much time, so it is tit for tat I am afraid on this occasion.
I support this business motion and I support amendment (a) because we must keep control of the House, not just for today but, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, very importantly for Monday. I am one of many people who think the Bill laid before the House is somewhat deficient. It certainly would not give the degree of protection that the amendment I moved on Monday would have, and which also had a Bill behind it, but we are not there and there is not much I can do about that. I may try to amend the Bill later, but it is the best we have for now, and I see it as an insurance policy against the talks between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition breaking down or coming up with an even more unsatisfactory situation than we are in at present, which I suspect is what is going to happen.
I also very much agree with the hon. Member for Bath and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central that we must secure the indicative votes slot for Monday and we should be doing that particularly to make sure that composite motions are debated and options for the future combined with the option of a second referendum are debated on that day. The majority of political parties in this House support a second referendum, and I include in that the official Opposition, having regard to their conference motion.
I was interested to hear from the evidence that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union gave to the Exiting the European Union Committee this morning that even the Prime Minister might now acknowledge that a second referendum or people’s vote has to be an option. It has been a cause for concern to some of us that Labour Front Benchers have seemed less than enthusiastic about that option on occasions, but I know that they have not written it off completely. I entreat them to ensure that it stays on the agenda, and Monday will provide a way of doing that.
I also say to Labour Members that if their leader cannot secure a second vote in his talks with Prime Minister, he will never be forgiven. He will be remembered as the Labour leader who helped to deliver a Conservative Brexit, and I am sure that no one in the Labour party would wish him to be remembered in that way. As things stand, I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, because we do not yet know the outcome of those negotiations. However, I also want a fall-back position, which is that the House of Commons should have control of the agenda on Monday so that we can hold the indicative votes.
I know that a lot of Conservative Members are really worried about the precedent that could be set by today, and I sort of understand their worry, but I would say to them that today we really are in extremis. The whole of the United Kingdom is at serious risk of crashing out of the European Union without a deal, and that would be a disaster for the economies of these islands and for our social fabric—[Interruption.] People are muttering at me that I should vote for the withdrawal agreement, but that is not my mandate. Please try to understand and respect the fact that there are Members of this House who were elected on a manifesto of stopping Brexit. They should please desist from trying to ram their opinions down our throats, because that is not acceptable.
Sir William Cash
I much respect the honesty of the hon. and learned Lady, and actually she is right. I have never, in any of the debates on this issue—heavens above, there have been enough of them—criticised the SNP, because I know that it has that manifesto commitment. I also know that its objective is the independence of Scotland. Adding to the point that she has already made, I want to ask her this. If the truncated procedure that we are witnessing now had been applied to, for example, the Scotland Act 2016 or to any amendments to it, would she not have regarded that as an unbelievable travesty?
Joanna Cherry
I would, and that is a point that I am coming on to address. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman, however, that the Scotland Act was indeed an unbelievable travesty because, when it passed through this House, 56 of the 59 MPs who represented Scotland here were Scottish National party MPs, yet not a single one of our amendments was accepted. So in fact, the present system can be a travesty, without having this process tacked on to it.
John Redwood
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
The second big issue that is relevant to this business of the House motion is that, traditionally, only a Minister may move a money resolution in support of legislation that requires the expenditure of public funds. Again, there is very good reason for this, because the Government have to be responsible for the Budget, and they normally understand that, if they want to spend more, they have to raise more through taxes or borrowing. The Government are responsible for both sides of the account.
Again, the House can criticise, refuse to agree or try to get the Government to shift their position, but it is the Government who are financially responsible to the markets and for all the other reporting that has to be done. This proposal could have very significant financial consequences indeed, because staying in the European Union is an extremely expensive thing to do, and I think it would need a money resolution, which should be moved by a Minister of the Crown.
Sir William Cash
I intend to raise a point of order on this question but, as my right hon. Friend is the first person to mention it, he may be interested to know that I have already prepared a comprehensive note on the question of a money resolution. It would cost UK taxpayers some £36 billion if our contributions are extended for up to two years, which is a vast sum of money. I have written a paper for Mr Speaker and others explaining why I believe a money resolution is required, and at least 50 Members have backed my letter to Mr Speaker on this question. That will come up later.
John Redwood
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Again, it is important to have it on the record in this debate for the House’s consideration that we are dealing with things that could have precedents with wide ramifications that go way beyond the next few days and whether we leave in accordance with the views of the British people or not.
The final of my three points is perhaps even more relevant to this particular proposal: it is tradition that the Government have vested in them Crown prerogative, and the Prime Minister and Ministers act on behalf of the Crown in all international negotiations. That is not just our view, important though that is, in this House of Commons; while we still remain subject to the superior law of Brussels, it is also the law of Brussels. The Brussels authorities—the European Union—do not wish to negotiate with groups of MPs. They wish to negotiate with the UK Government, because it is the UK Government who are the signatory to the treaty and the UK Government who have sought the agreement of the EU to our withdrawal—or indeed to our automatic withdrawal under article 50 should no agreement be reached.
John Redwood
It worries me, but I am a freedom-loving young man and I think that people will do what they want to do; I do not want to stop MPs expressing their views and going to talk to people with whom we are trying to negotiate. I also have a right to a view on it and I agree with the hon. Lady that if those MPs went there with the express intention of delaying or sabotaging Brexit—if they went there to weaken the pretty feeble position the Government had already adopted in the negotiations in order to make it more difficult for us to get any kind of agreement that I could agree to—that is a matter of grave regret. That will be judged by the British people in subsequent elections. It is not for me to make the misery of those MPs greater; they will need to answer to their constituents about that.
Sir William Cash
When I was talking about the money resolution, I ought to have mentioned that it is not just me who has made these submissions; I understand that a Minister has also made representations. I just want to confirm, on the record, that it is not just Back Benchers doing this, but the Government, because a Minister has told me that he has raised them.
John Redwood
I am pleased the Government have made that representation, as it adds force to the case I was making.
On this Crown prerogative point, the EU position and the internationally agreed position is that only the Government can formally represent and negotiate on behalf of the UK. So one of my problems, which I raised directly with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), is how far can this House go in instructing and controlling the negotiation? He gave me a sensible answer, saying that the House was not going to try to say that there had to be a delay, because he fully understood my point that that is ultimately in the EU’s gift. As I pointed out, it is in this House’s gift to insist on a Minister seeking a delay. He rightly added that it is in this House’s gift to decide whether to accept any delay should the EU grant it, but the central point is that, assuming this House wanted a delay, most of the power rests with the EU. As we saw the last time a needless delay was sought and granted, quite a long delay—to 30 June—was requested, but the effective delay turned out to be only until 12 April.
The point I am making is that we do not want to take time debating something that misleads people. A lot of people outside this House think that today we are debating a Bill that will require and achieve a delay, whereas it cannot possibly guarantee to do that. People must also understand that even if this House reaches an agreement with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, she may not end up with anything like that which the House was seeking.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who has disappeared, said that she had discovered that we could do anything. I have to disabuse her of that notion in two ways. First, even this House and all Members of Parliament—sometimes the public do not understand this—have to obey the law. Our advantage is that we can change the law if enough of us wish to do so.
Secondly, the hon. Lady also has to understand that great though this House can be once we are out of the European Union, and powerful though it is even still within the European Union, there are a lot of things for which it cannot sensibly legislate. Let us suppose that all working people would like it to rain on Mondays and Tuesdays, and be sunny on Saturdays and Sundays. That would be very convenient and an extremely popular law to pass, but there is no point in passing such a law, because even this House does not control the weather. I feel the same about the European Union.
There is absolutely no point in this House legislating for how the EU should respond, what its conduct should be or what laws it should pass—although they are a matter of great interest to me and many others—because we have absolutely no power over it. Indeed, that was at heart of the referendum campaign. What the SNP never accepts when it uses our phrase, “take back control”, is that the control that we wish to take back is all those mighty powers granted to the European Union, which the SNP is relaxed about. As soon as the Executive here wants any power to behave as a normal Government, however, the SNP says that that is unacceptable and Parliament needs to take it back.
I hope that the House will consider the business motion carefully, that more will come to my view—this is too little time to discuss such fundamental issues—and that they will agree with me that the big issues are to do with our future procedures and with the balance between the Executive and Parliament. I am one who often criticises the Executive, but I do not want to go too far this afternoon so that all government is in effect impossible. They must retain control of the agenda and of the money.
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
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.
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.
Business of the House
William Cash Excerpts(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
A few days ago, I brought in the House of Commons (Precedence of Government Business) (European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) Bill, to which I gave a great deal of thought and that I discussed with many other Members. It is due to be debated on 5 April. The position is this. I did it because of my grave concern about the procedure being employed under this motion in particular, for the following reasons, which I will give briefly.
First, it is well said in our constitutional authorities that justice is to be found in the interstices of procedure. What that means is that through procedure we can ensure that things are done that should be done, based on conventions such as the reason for the rule, which is a fundamental basis of our constitutional arrangements.
Standing Order No. 14 is quite clear: it gives precedence to Government business. As a result of this procedure, we are impugning that rule and substituting for it a completely different arrangement—one that I have described as a constitutional revolution. It is not a novelty, as it was described just now, or, as the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) said the other day, a technical innovation. The problem goes back to the reason for the rule and the Standing Order. Government business takes precedence for one simple reason: the Government are the Government of this country and are given that opportunity by virtue of the decisions taken by the public and the wishes of members of the public, as voters in general elections. That is the basis of our democracy. Likewise, decisions in referendums are taken by members of the public as voters.
It is utterly perverse for us to vote by such a significant majority—I will not go into that, because we know it is the case—and then overturn and invert the business of the House rules as we are doing under this business motion and as happened the other day. Government business takes precedence because of democracy. It is a fundamental question. Parliament decided in the European Union Referendum Act 2015 to give the decision to the British people, not to this House. I have said repeatedly—and it is true—that we operate on the basis of parliamentary government, not government by Parliament. If, by a sovereign Act of Parliament, we confer upon the British people the right to make that choice in a referendum, there is not, in terms of that Act, for which the House voted six to one, an opportunity then to take back control in this context.
It is a very simple question, and, to my knowledge, it has happened only once before. You mentioned the other day, Mr Speaker, or somebody raised with you, a precedent going back to 1604. As it happens, there is another precedent, from the 1650s, when the House became completely anarchic, and different factions started making decisions without reference to any Government policy—and look at the mess we are in now and the anarchy now prevailing, with these indicative votes and everybody making different decisions for no good purpose. Oliver Cromwell came down to this House and said, “You have been here too long for anything useful you may have done. Depart, I say, and in the name of God, go.” He then brought in the Barebone’s Parliament; that collapsed as well, and we ended up with a military dictatorship.
Members of Parliament voted for the referendum Act by six to one, for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and then for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As I say quite often, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) himself voted for the Third Reading of the withdrawal Act. These indicative votes are just a means of trying to unravel the decision taken—that is the bottom line. I believe that it is undemocratic and in defiance of our constitution, our procedures and the reason for the rule. As far as I am concerned, these indicative votes are like a parliamentary bag of liquorice allsorts—or rather humbugs.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I have grave concerns about the way we are dealing now with our business in this motion. I accept that we voted last week to have further discussion and indicative votes today, but the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) would have given the House a chance to decide whether we wanted to continue this process, which the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) continues to undertake. I do not think we can continue to have a business motion that puts another day in and then not have a chance to have that vote.
I am concerned about that, but I also have another concern. I know that all my Labour colleagues, particularly those on the Front Bench, aspire to be in government and they should just remember that this process may well be used when we are in government. Would we like to see that happening?
Sir William Cash
Does the hon. Lady agree that one problem with these indicative votes is that when they are attached, as they are intended to be, by all accounts, to a Bill that will then follow and be put through the House of Commons in one day—[Interruption.] Perhaps it will have one day in the House of Lords as well, for all I know. The bottom line is: we do not know yet what any such Bill will contain. It is inconceivable, is it not, that we should be presented with Bills that will be rammed through the House of Commons on matters of such incredible importance without even seeing them?
Kate Hoey
That just further adds to my view that we should be able to vote on whether we want another day or not after today’s business. We have to remember here, as do people watching, that Parliament abrogated its responsibility to take this decision—we have to say that over and over again—and asked the people. It said, “We will listen to whatever you say.” I do not care what anyone says, the dictionary definition of what “leave” means is very simple. All these motions today, with the exception of the one tabled by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), are designed, in some way or another, to not allow us to leave in the way that people thought they were voting for when they voted on 23 June 2016. It was made very clear—I do not want to go into the details—and we all knew that leave meant leaving all the institutions of the European Union. So I would never question it, but I am disappointed that we will not have a vote on the amendment, as that would have been sensible. I hope that today people remember that the biggest majority in this House for anything to do with the European Union was when 498 votes said we would leave, with or without a deal.