Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between William Cash and Eleanor Laing

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I do not really feel that there is anything terribly useful I can say at this stage—I have heard all this before. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who speaks for the Opposition, is simply repeating what he has said before. Not only that; it is perfectly apparent that these amendments are just wrecking amendments, and the hon. Gentleman has not even addressed the arguments about international law. He knows perfectly well—because he cannot answer my questions on this issue—that we have a dualist system, and if we decide to legislate in our own Parliament, the courts themselves will implement that legislation.

The real point is this: let us get this Bill done, and let us get the House of Lords to calm down a bit. At the same time, let us wait for what is inevitably going to be another claim and then see the judgment of the Supreme Court on the wording of this Bill, provided that it is clear and unambiguous. That is all I need to say. I may come back again, however, if the Lords insist again on these ridiculous amendments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

Migration and Economic Development Partnership

Debate between William Cash and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

That concludes proceedings on the statement from the Home Secretary. I thank everybody for taking part.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I strongly support what the Home Secretary has been saying, but I am concerned with ensuring that, in the ping-pong that will ensue when the Illegal Migration Bill returns from the House of Lords—that should be quite soon, we hope—we will not in any way be inhibited by the fact that judicial proceedings are taking place. It will be a really quite important debate, and we need to be able to conduct it with as much latitude as possible, so I seek your guidance. Perhaps I could ask you to give that some thought, if I may.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It is a point of order, which is a good start—points of order are not usually points of order—and I can assure him that sub judice rules do not apply while legislation is being considered. While the actual process of legislating is under way, sub judice rules do not apply, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry on that ground.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and Eleanor Laing

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it possible, as I believe it is, for a Bill of the importance of the Relationships and Sex Education (Transparency) Bill to be printed after it has been drafted by the Public Bill Office? That sometimes happens. As it is such an important Bill, I thought I would draw the House’s attention to that fact.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It might come as a surprise to any casual observers of our proceedings that a Bill, when formally presented, as the Bill has just been, might not be printed. There is probably a general assumption that, when a Bill is presented, it will be printed. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that not all Bills that are formally presented are in fact printed, so I say to him that I will look into the matter.

Point of Order

Debate between William Cash and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today’s Order Paper specifically stated that the Committee of Privileges’ report relating to the opinion of Lord Pannick QC in relation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) would be published this morning at 11 am. Mysteriously, that is no longer on the Order Paper. It appears that the report will now not be available until after the House has risen tomorrow. That would mean that there will be no opportunity for Members to raise questions in the House on these serious matters, including the resolution of the House of 19 March 1997, until 11 October.

Given the precedent for Chairs of Select Committees to answer questions on the publication of reports, would it not be in order, and necessary, for the Chair of the Privileges Committee to tell the House what is in the report and that it will be available tomorrow, in good time, before the House rises for the recess?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure the whole House understands his concern and may well share it. As far as the Order Paper is concerned, I am reliably informed that there is in fact an error and that there was not an expectation of the report being published at 11 am today. I am also reliably informed that the report will be published in due course. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has made further points and stated his opinion on the matter, but he will understand that that aspect is not one for the Chair. I am sure that the report will be published in due course.

Bills Presented

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Suella Braverman, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Brandon Lewis, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Mr. Secretary Rees-Mogg, Graham Stuart, the Attorney General, Andrew Griffith and Tom Tugendhat, presented a Bill to make provision about economic crime and corporate transparency; to make further provision about companies, limited partnerships and other kinds of corporate entity; and to make provision about the registration of overseas entities.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 154), with explanatory notes (Bill 154-EN).

Health and Social Care Levy (Repeal) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Chris Philp and Richard Fuller, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the repeal of the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 155), with explanatory notes (Bill 155-EN).

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr. Secretary Rees-Mogg, supported by the Prime Minister, Nadhim Zahawi, Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Robert Buckland and the Attorney General, presented a Bill to revoke certain retained EU law; to make provision relating to the interpretation of retained EU law and to its relationship with other law; to make provision relating to powers to modify retained EU law; to enable the restatement, replacement or updating of certain retained EU law; to enable the updating of restatements and replacement provision; to abolish the business impact target; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 156), with explanatory notes (Bill 156-EN).

Point of Order

Debate between William Cash and Eleanor Laing

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to put on record my congratulations to the Government on bringing in the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which of course was not a point of order for the Chair. I assure him that he will have an opportunity to speak to the issue that he raises when the Bill has its Second Reading in the House.

Sir Richard Shepherd

Debate between William Cash and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

No one has yet mentioned Richard Shepherd’s passionate defence of the rights of this place and the Members of this place. I well remember, before the days when we had automatic timetable motions—new Members will not be able to imagine that there could have been such days, when we did not have timetable motions and the Government had to introduce a so-called guillotine motion if they wanted to curtail the debate on any Bill or, indeed, any matter—that Richard Shepherd used to sit there, on the second Bench below the Gangway, and oppose and speak against and vote against and force a vote upon every single guillotine motion that the Government brought in. That had quite an effect. It was hard to believe then that he was in fact such a charming, passionate gentleman.

[Sir William Cash]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. He also sought to be Speaker, and he received 136 votes in that contest. Heaven alone knows what would have happened if he had managed to win it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sure that the answer to that point of order is that we would have been sitting all night, every night.

Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

Debate between William Cash and Eleanor Laing

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash]

I have nothing further to say, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Points of Order

Debate between William Cash and Eleanor Laing

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Once again, I will repeat from the Chair what Mr Speaker has said on many occasions: it is indeed the duty of every Minister to respond to letters and questions from Members of this House. I know that, as constituency MPs, we are all finding it very difficult to get responses to our inquiries on behalf of our constituents within a reasonable time. It is noted that the Home Office is possibly not giving the Home Secretary and her Ministers the support that they need at a time such as this to answer our inquiries on time. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this point of order and I merely repeat what Mr Speaker has said many times, but I do hope that not only Ministers but those who are employed and trusted to support Ministers would please pay attention to this situation.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like some guidance on the question of the content of the Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill, which we are about to discuss, relating to the question of taxation and, on the basis of a statement made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the removal of the clauses—the “notwithstanding” clauses—that would otherwise have appeared. They remain part of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, from which they have not been removed. I am putting down amendments to reinsert the “notwithstanding” clauses on Report, and I would be grateful if, first, you could note that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, secondly, you could provide some guidance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Is it about the timing by which he can submit amendments for Report? Obviously, the amendments for the Committee stage are already submitted and we will very soon be debating them. We will come to Report tomorrow. Is he asking me by what time he can submit amendments for tomorrow?

[Sir William Cash]

I am most grateful to you for the way you put that, Madam Deputy Speaker. First, I want to be clear that I am going to do it, and, secondly, I would like to know by what time I need to put my amendments down. With all this virtual stuff, it is quite difficult to know.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is indeed difficult to know. I decided yesterday to have the deadline today at 12 o’clock. I am not quite certain exactly at this moment what the deadline will be for tomorrow, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am asking the Clerk to note and to pass on to the appropriate offices that he wishes to submit amendments. Thank you.

There was to be another point of order, but the hon. Gentleman concerned has left the Chamber.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between William Cash and Eleanor Laing

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will now have a time limit of five minutes.

[Sir William Cash]

When I read the account of proceedings in the House of Lords, I found that the Lords were very strong on assertion, but empty when it came to the question of argument. I found that rather disturbing, because, after all, they have potential power under the Parliament Acts. I also appreciate that, towards the end of the proceedings, in reference to the powers in part 5 of the Bill, and the clauses under discussion regarding “notwithstanding”, Lord Judge said:

“‘We may need these powers at some stage’. Maybe we will; I hope not.”

He then said that it would be

“open to the Government to come back to us, to Parliament, to put before us emergency legislation.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1431.]

The circumstances that we face could not be more important and relevant, and my view is that what he said effectively conceded the principle.

EU-UK Partnership: EU’s Mandate

Debate between William Cash and Eleanor Laing

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash]

To answer the second point first, I am, of course, very conscious of what is going on in the negotiations. I hear what has been said repeatedly by the Government with respect to maintaining and protecting our vital national interests, and I believe that that will be the outcome—namely, we will ensure that we are not made subject to EU state aid in the way in which we have experienced it in the past. I have made the case. I can say more about it, but I do not need to for the moment.

With respect to the question of arbitration, it refers back in a funny way to my reference to John Bright, who was one of the initiators of the notion of international arbitration in the Alabama case. I will simply say this. I believe that the European Court’s jurisdiction cannot be allowed, but I go further: I think that some form of arbitration may be necessary, but not, under any circumstances, including our being subjugated to the rules and jurisdiction of the European Court.

I will now move on. For our report, my Committee consulted with 24 Select Committees, and we are immensely grateful to all of them for their contributions. The Prime Minister, in a written statement, followed by a Command Paper in February, made it clear—in line with Acts of Parliament that had already been passed, not to mention the outcome of the general election—that there would be no rule for the European Court of Justice, nor any alignment of our laws with the EU, and nor would any of the European institutions, including the Court, have any jurisdiction in the UK. Those statements and policies are entirely consistent with the democratic will of the British people. We asked the Government to publish their draft legal text, and I am glad to say that that has been done.

The timing of this debate is crucial because the Prime Minister will engage in a high-level meeting towards the end of this month. I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the exact date when that will take place, the agenda that will be before the meeting and who will attend on behalf of the EU and the EU27. This, in turn, is crucial, because Germany takes over the presidency on 1 July and there is all the sensitive history associated with Germany’s engagement with the EU, which I have debated and written about since April 1990, and have discussed face-to-face with many of its leading politicians, including Helmut Schmidt and others. My approach has been demonstrably justified by events. For example, the coronavirus package would move the EU towards greater EU fiscal and political integration, which the Germans would influence much more heavily than even they do today. Their slogan for the presidency is:

“Together. Making Europe Strong Again”

I simply add that we were not a minute too soon in leaving the EU.

The Government, in their Command Paper, say that by the end of June there is the opportunity for the

“outline of an agreement…capable of being rapidly finalised by September. If that does not seem to be the case...the Government will need to decide whether the UK’s attention should move away from negotiations and focus solely on…preparations to exit the transition period in an orderly fashion.”

Recent correspondence between our chief negotiator, David Frost, and Michel Barnier indicates that there is no real progress in the negotiations, because the EU is invariably asking for the impossible and, as correctly indicated by David Frost, the EU is not offering a “fair free-trade relationship” but a

“low-quality trade agreement…with unprecedented…oversight of our laws and institutions..”

Our vital national interests, which derive from our democracy and self-government, which is what this debate is about, are paramount.

I was extremely glad to hear what the Leader of the House said at today’s business questions on the issue of the extension of the transitional period, because he used the hallowed words of the late Margaret Thatcher, “No, no, no.” I am delighted to hear similar sentiments expressed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this afternoon. Any extension of the transition period, through which Mr Michel Barnier is outrageously trying to seduce remainers, would simply prolong negotiations; as David Frost stated, it would create more uncertainty, leaving us paying far more to the EU and binding us to EU laws, when we have democratically and lawfully decided to leave the EU by our own sovereign decision and our own sovereign legislation.

As for the Labour amendment to this motion, it completely turns the purpose of the “good faith” and “best endeavours” in article 184 of the withdrawal agreement, which places an obligation on the EU to enshrine European sovereignty, on its head. The amendment would betray that and with it the democratic will of the British electorate. In conclusion, I urge the Government to review the Northern Ireland protocol, which raises concerns about EU law and European Court jurisdiction, and the status of Northern Ireland. I look to the Government to ensure that the whole UK leaves on our own terms, because our sovereignty and self-government is an absolute bulwark of our freedom and our democracy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I should warn the House that after the speech by the Scottish National party spokesperson there will be a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of four minutes; of course, that does not apply to Joanna Cherry.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Debate between William Cash and Eleanor Laing

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 3, page 1, line 8, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Amendment 4, in page 1, line 12, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 34, leave out “two-thirds” and insert “nine-tenths”.

Amendment 2, page 2, line 37, leave out “two-thirds” and insert “nine-tenths”.

Clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 2, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Amendment 6, page 4, line 6, after “force”, insert

“and notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.

The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that the Bill meets the rule established by Willes J in Phillips v Eyre (1870) LR 6 QB 1 that the courts will ascribe retrospective force to new laws affecting rights if by express words or necessary implication it appears that such was the intention of the legislature.

Clause 3 and 4 to 10 stand part.

That schedules 1 and 2 be the First and Second schedules to the Bill.

New clause 1—Review of prison deradicalisation programme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to review the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme.

(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) may enter any prison premises in order to scrutinise the operation of the prison deradicalisation programme.

(3) The person appointed under subsection (1) must make a report to the Secretary of State on the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme before the end of the period of 6 months after the date on which this Act is passed.

(4) The person appointed must make further reports at intervals of not more than three months to the Secretary of State on the operation of the provisions of the prison deradicalisation programme.

(5) The person appointed under subsection (1) may include in any review or report under this section consideration of the adequacy of resources made available to the prison deradicalisation programme, including resources made available for the supervision of probation and rehabilitation work.

(6) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must make arrangements to lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament as soon as the Secretary of State is satisfied that doing so will not prejudice any criminal proceedings.

(7) The Secretary of State may, out of money provided by Parliament, pay a person appointed under subsection (1), such expenses and allowances as the Secretary of State determines.”

This new clause would require the appointment of an independent reviewer of the prison deradicalisation programme.

New clause 3—Review—

(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for an independent review of the impact of sections 1 to 9 to be carried out in relation to the initial one-year period.

(2) The Secretary of State must, after consultation with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, appoint a person with professional experience relating to the imprisonment for offences of terrorism to conduct the review.

(3) The review must be completed as soon as practicable after the end of the initial one-year period.

(4) As soon as practicable after a person has carried out the review in relation to a particular period, the person must—

(a) produce a report of the outcome of the review, and

(b) send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the report sent under subsection (4)(b) within one month of receiving the report.

(6) The Secretary of State may—

(a) make such payments as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of the review, and

(b) make such other arrangements as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate in connection with the carrying out of the review (including arrangements for the provision of staff, other resources and facilities).

(7) In this section, “initial one-year period” means the period of one year beginning with the day when this Act comes into force.”

[Sir William Cash]

I have already canvassed some parts of what I am about to say, but there is more to say, for a very sound reason. Parliament is full of opinions and Ministers are full of opinions. Two Ministers are sitting on the Front Bench at the moment, no doubt debating the issue before the Committee, but their opinions are not the law, and nor are those of leading counsel, whether senior Treasury counsel or those involved in academic discussion. I say that really seriously. I have been practising the law since 1967 and I know a little about how the law is interpreted. We saw the Gina Miller case the other day. How many times were we told that there was absolutely no question but that the Government were right in their interpretation? I served as the shadow Attorney General and saw the whole of the Iraq and Peter Goldsmith exercise. We were told over and over again in the House this, that and the other about interpretation—“This is what will happen. This is the way it will go.” That is no way to make decisions on matters of this kind of critical importance.

There are occasions on which the question of interpretation may merely be about a modification of policy; this is actually about saving human life. I repeat that: saving human life. Where it is possible for the House to ensure that human life cannot be unreasonably and wilfully disposed of by people who are intent on murdering for no reason at all, we need to take seriously the question of whether or not we can exclude the courts —because this is Parliament, not the judiciary—from making wrong decisions when matters come before them.

I heard with interest the Chairman of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and the various cases he mentioned, and I have just heard the Minister refer to the Uttley case. There is also the Hogben case, which was of course in 1985, before the Human Rights Act 1998. Reference was also made to the del Río Prada case. As a matter of fact, the legislation does not depend on an interpretation of those individual cases by way of precedent, and that is not what we should be worried about; we should be thinking about the purpose and scope of the Bill and its objective, which is to do everything that we can to ensure that human life and public safety come first. I do not want this to become an argument about the interpretation of law, which is why I tabled amendment 3 to clause 1.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between William Cash and Eleanor Laing

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong: House of Commons & Ping Pong
Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Very short contributions are required, as there are only 20 minutes left. For two minutes, Sir William Cash.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I simply want to say that I concur entirely with what the Secretary of State has said, and to refer very briefly to Lords amendments 2, 3 and 5.

Let me say first that the Government’s arguments about the question of the lower courts in relation to the Supreme Court are completely valid. I think that an enormous number of complicated problems will emerge from Lord Mackay’s amendment. The use of expressions such as “is of the opinion” and

“set out the reasons for that opinion”

will create a quagmire of interpretation.

As for Lords amendment 5, when I had the pleasure of advising on the Canadian constitution back in about 1982, I engaged in extensive discussions with Mr Geoffrey Marshall of The Queen’s College, Oxford, who is the greatest authority on the question of conventions. I entirely agree with the Government’s position on that, in the light of my own experience of what conventions actually mean, and I have to say that I have heard a lot of hogwash this afternoon in support of the alternative view.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Christine Jardine.