Bill Cash wants British jobs for British workers

Stone MP BIll Cash is presenting a bill today. It is a:

"Bill to provide that, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, workers or members of a trade union who are UK nationals shall have rights of employment in the United Kingdom equal to or as favourable as those afforded to foreign nationals or conferred by the United Kingdom Parliament."

Mr Cash comments:

“This reference to the United Kingdom Parliament is absolutely crucial because it is essential that legislation is passed by this Government overriding the rulings of the European Court of Justice in accordance with the formula in this Bill, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972.

The posted workers directive which is at the root of the wave of strikes across the country was adopted on 16th December 1996, under John Major’s Government, when Ken Clarke was Chancellor of Exchequer. European Court of Justice rulings cannot be changed except by the agreement of all the 27 Member States and in any case, the negotiations will take years.

However, contrary to statements made by BBC correspondents, the problem can be solved by passing legislation at Westminster as John Monks, former head of a British trade union and general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation stated this morning on the Today programme, effectively endorsing the Bill which was tabled last night.

David Cameron, on becoming leader, in a modern progressive and principled statement, said in his speech to the Centre for Policy Studies in November 2005: ‘For Britain, the first priority must be the return of powers over employment and social regulation. This would be the strategic imperative of my European policy.'

The Bill is supported by former Secretaries of State and members of the Cabinet, including Peter Lilley, John Redwood, David Heathcoat-Amory and Michael Ancram and many other former ministers as well as MPs.

It is clear and fair that UK nationals should have equal rights to everyone else, they should have rights on par with those of foreign nationals and also rights which are presented them to by their own sovereign Parliament. That is why I am presenting this Bill. We need British jobs and British laws for British workers.”

Conservative MPs respond to the Queen's Speech

Yesterday the House of Commons debated the Queen's Speech. Herewith some extracts of contributions from Conservative members.

David Cameron was on very good form. He was funny, and coped ably with questions about Damian Green before turning his fire on the Government:

"Let me tell the Prime Minister what is wrong with this Queen’s Speech. There is no recognition in the Government’s programme of how the world has changed. We are moving into an age in which there is no Government money left, so we need public sector reform to get better value for money. We are moving into an age of massive debt, so we need to mend the broken society and reduce the demands on the state. But in the Queen’s Speech there is no serious reform, just bureaucratic bungling and technocratic tinkering. It is all about the short-term prospects of the Prime Minister, not the long-term future of the country. It is last year’s Queen’s Speech from yesterday’s Prime Minister.

There is no change. Let us look at the promises that the Prime Minister made when he said—remember the phrase?—

“Let the work of change begin.”

Let us examine them. We were told that there would be loads of eco towns, but only one is still alive. He promised zero-carbon homes, but there have been virtually zero of them. There are just 15 in the whole country. He promised 3 million new homes, but house building fell by a quarter last year. What about free nursery education for all two-year-olds? That has been abandoned. More maintenance grants for students were granted last year, collapsed in a complete shambles this year and face massive cuts next year. Then there is the Prime Minister’s promise of a new constitutional settlement. We were promised more powers for Parliament to question the Executive. That one ended up down the nick.

Continue reading "Conservative MPs respond to the Queen's Speech" »

Edward Leigh fails to persuade MPs that adult stem cell research should be preferred to embryonic research

Edward Leigh MP says that there is a better, ethically uncomplicated way of tackling disease: "Adult stem cell research has been much more successful than embryonic stem cell research: "Particularly in the public mind, the debate has been clouded by the sense that there are diseases out there waiting to be cured. Enormous advances have been made on stem cells—there have been 70 successful treatments with adult stem cells—but for the past 10 years, we have been told that useful developments on embryonic stem cells are just around the corner. I sat through most of the Second Reading debate, when the fact that 70 successful treatments have arisen from adult stem-cell research was mentioned several times. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) has mentioned the prospect—we have heard this again and again—of two early clinical trials in the United States. We have heard that for many years, but nothing has happened... I leave the last word to Professor Yamanaka, who was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) in the debate on Second Reading? The professor has turned away from embryonic stem-cell research and is a leader in adult stem-cell research. He turned away because of what he saw through the microscope 10 years ago:

“When I saw the embryo, I suddenly realised there was such a small difference between it and my daughters.”

This measure is a step too far, and we should oppose it."

Bill Cash MP: "It seems quite clear that we ought to have a provision in the Bill, one way or another, that excludes embryonic cell research when adult stem-cell research has been proved viable. If adult stem-cell research becomes viable, it should then be the only kind of research available."

David Burrowes MP: "In this country more than 80 therapeutic treatments have been made possible by adult stem-cell research, and there have been more than 350 clinical trials. We should concentrate on and invest in efficacy and the development of valuable research in this country and overseas, rather than allowing ourselves to be distracted from the results that are being produced."

Edward Leigh's amendment was defeated by 336 votes to 176.  More in Hansard.

William Hague won't commit on post-ratification strategy but says he favours some legislative action to affirm supremacy of Parliament

Click the graphic above to enlarge the screen capture of Tory MPs listening yesterday to the Shadow Foreign Secretary.  Earlier David Miliband paid tribute to William Hague: "He has prosecuted his case in an absolutely brilliant fashion and re-established his reputation as one of the outstanding debaters of our times."

Two Labour MPs questioned William Hague on whether the Conservatives would grant a post-ratification referendum:

Denis MacShane MP (Labour): "If I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s logic correctly, he is saying that the treaty that we are debating now is the same as the old constitution, and that a pledge was given to have a referendum on that constitution, which must be honoured. Is he therefore saying that if we pass into law tonight the treaty that he avers is the same as the old constitution, the position of his party will be to have a referendum on that? We need to know; the nation needs to know."

Mr. Hague: "The right hon. Gentleman says that the nation needs to know. I am saying that a referendum should be held on this treaty; that is the clear implication of everything I am saying. As I have frequently explained, quite a lot of water has to pass under the bridge before there will be any possibility of moving on to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I should also have paid tribute for his many interventions in these debates, including the most memorable one, when he said that the Prime Minister had been wrong about the weight of European regulation—which means that we look forward to his interventions from the Back Benches for many years to come; we have all that to look forward to."

Later in the debate:

Geraldine Smith MP (Labour): "Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the British people have a right to know what his party would do about the treaty if the Conservatives ever came to government? He will not answer that question. If the treaty is so bad for Britain—if it is so bleak—what will he do about it? I happen to think that the right hon. Gentleman and not their current leader may be the next Tory Prime Minister."

Mr. Hague: "I can certainly rule out the last part of the hon. Lady’s question, which was a most mischievous thing to come up with—she need never consider that possibility. The answer to the first part of her question is that people know from the vote on the referendum last week how the Conservative party approaches the matter: we are the only party leadership in the House who stayed true to what we stated in our last election manifesto. At the next general election, we will be true to what we state in our manifesto then."

Bill Cash and Ed Davey quiz William Hague on whether he supports legislative action to protect the supremacy of the UK Parliament:

Bill Cash: "I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend for fumigating the Government’s speeches on the whole question of the treaty and the referendum. Does he accept the importance of stating, in line with my reasoned amendment, which was not selected, that we will defend and protect this Parliament’s supremacy to ensure that we are not overridden by the European Court of Justice, or by our own courts, and that we have a sound constitutional position for any further renegotiations?"

Mr. Hague: "Given the growth of the EU’s powers, British sovereignty and the ultimate supremacy of Parliament need a constitutional safeguard, but I also say to my hon. Friend that the legal implications of any such provision must be absolutely clear. More work would need to be done in the future on the context and formula by which it is achieved, but I have great sympathy with the constitutional safeguard of ultimate supremacy."

Later in the debate:

Ed Davey MP (Liberal Democrat): "The right hon. Gentleman seems to be extolling a new potential Conservative policy when, in response to the hon. Member for Stone, he talked about a new constitutional safeguard. Does he mean the possibility of using article 49A, which, as he knows, gives member states a right to secede from the Union, or does he have something else in mind—possibly something that he might wish to renegotiate with our colleagues if he were to pull out of this treaty?"

Mr. Hague: "I mean none of those things. Only the Liberal Democrats have gone on about the article that allows a withdrawal from the European Union. It is one of the least likely treaty articles to be employed, which is why our consideration in these debates must be on the many other articles that will be employed. I am simply saying what I said a few moments ago: given the steady growth in the EU’s powers, I can see the case for a constitutional safeguard. I would have thought that many Members across the House would also be able to see that."

Bill Cash puts down EDM on EU Treaty

"That this House notes that the impartial European Scrutiny Committee concluded that the Reform Treaty is substantially equivalent to the original Constitutional Treaty; that the Government Manifesto promised a Referendum on the original treaty; that the Conservative Party voted against it in principle on the Second Reading of the Bill implementing that Treaty; that the Prime Minister said that he will reject the Reform Treaty if the Government's Red Lines are not guaranteed on 18th October, but (following the European Scrutiny Committee examination of the Foreign Secretary on 16th October) that these Red Lines do not satisfy UK vital national interests and that the European Court of Justice will determine these matters, not this House; that, contrary to the statements of the Foreign Secretary, parliamentary democracy is enhanced when this House, as the Labour Government in 1975, hands back a Referendum by Act of Parliament to the voters who elect Members of this House; that 27 million voters have been denied a Referendum on any European Question since 1975; that over 70 per cent. of the voters want a Referendum but that the reasons have to be fully explained; that the Reform Treaty is a consolidation of the existing treaties into a merger of the European Community into a European Union involving substantial, fundamental, constitutional and structural change by the Government's own criteria for a Referendum; and insists that the Prime Minister rejects the Reform Treaty on 18th October and holds a Referendum before or after ratification."