Taxation (Post-transition Period) (Ways and Means) — House of Commons, 2020-12-08
Topic: International Affairs
William Nigel Paul Cash (Conservative, Centre-right): Indeed It is extremely important to point out that these notwithstanding provisions are directly related to the issue of sovereignty, but also related to the substance of our leaving the European Union. Not until we see a copy of the Bill will we be able to make the judgment about the extent to which they would impair or affect that sovereignty. We will have to wait until tomorrow to see exactly what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster presents to the House. We have an outline, but no more than that. The question of sovereignty will no doubt be much discussed tomorrow during his statement I heard the Opposition spokesman declaiming, in line with the amendment that they have tabled, that this is all about breaches of international law. I have to say to the hon. Lady that in the context of the continuous provisions on a whole range of matters, including Finance Bills that the Labour party was responsible for bringing in when it was in government, there are stacks—hosts—of treaty overrides. As I said in my contribution yesterday, such overrides have been passed as Labour party proposals when it was in government, by the coalition in 2010 and the years following that when the Liberal Democrats were involved, and also in some Conservative measures that have been passed that are overrides of international law. I pointed out yesterday that it has been done in the past for very good reasons of national interest, including economic national interests, as they clearly have been in the past. Some of them were hugely important constitutional issues—for example, affecting the independence of India and Pakistan—and there were other provisions that I will not go into in detail now, but I have put them all out there on the record. The extraordinary thing is putting down this amendment based on so-called breach of international law, when actually the Labour party itself has done exactly the same in consistency with—not inconsistent with, but in consistency with—international law. Article 46 makes this abundantly clear. I was very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) conceded that point on the Floor of the House yesterday when he said, at last, that he was going to support the Government on this question. Lord Judge, a very distinguished judge in the House of Lords—the ex-Lord Chief Justice—who has been leading the argument on the question of international law, has said, in effect, that in principle he knew there was a moment at which there were circumstances whereby a given Government would be entitled to take such steps as were necessary in order to protect the national interest Nothing could be more important than protecting our sovereignty. That is what this whole Brexit is about. It is about being able to ensure our having left the European Union lawfully by having passed all the Acts of Parliament—and the House of Lords having passed all those Acts of Parliament as well—and in addition to that, having had a referendum on the votes of the people of this country, which itself was based on the authorisation by Parliament that the referendum should be allowed to take place. That was passed in the House of Lords and the House of Commons—in the House of Commons, incidentally, by six to one—and it was followed, as I have said, by a series of other enactments The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 was passed by 499 to 120, including by the Labour party, so there should not be any question about that, and I do not believe that the Labour party has anything to gain by trying to argue that somehow or other we have unlawfully left the European Union, which is what it seems to be implying in its amendment. Then we move on to the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which, as I pointed out in an intervention, was passed by 120 in this House on Second Reading. It contained the notwithstanding provisions, in section 38, that I had proposed to the Government on 17 October last year. For all these reasons, we have not only lawfully left, but lawfully left on the basis of our sovereignty, which has been endorsed not only by the referendum and by the voters of this country, but by their representatives in this House as the House of Commons. They are elected, unlike the House of Lords, and in the House of Commons they have endorsed these provisions by massive majorities. So what on earth would be the purpose of removing provisions that ensure that our sovereignty can be maintained I can almost hear somebody on the Government Benches perhaps thinking to themselves, "Well, they’re not needed because, actually, the situation has now been firmly dealt with in the Joint Committee". Of that we know nothing, more or less, because I have asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster three times to appear in front of our European Scrutiny Committee, and thus far he has not come on these matters. He knows that, and I have had some very diligent, shall we say, correspondence with him on his not attending, although he did allow the Paymaster General to come and she did appear before us a few weeks ago The point I am making is that this is a critical time in our history. This is the moment when we regain our sovereignty. It is not just a philosophical statement or a constitutional theory; it is actually about the practicality of how this country is governed. It is as simple as that. We are governed by a constitutional arrangement under which, through parliamentary government, the Members of Parliament who are who are elected by the voters pass laws that are imposed upon the people by the consent of those representatives. It is as simple as that.