Here is our weekly update on how your Stone MP has voted in recent parliamentary sessions and also any debates they’ve taken part in.
As part of the service offered by TheyWorkForYou, we receive daily summaries of voting and debate participation for our Stone MP, these are catalogued and this weekly summary is produced in chronological order.
We’re publishing the information of the votes, as well as a link to the debate and the results of the votes. Feel free to explore the topics being debated and the votes being cast by clicking on the description that goes along with the vote.
[divider style=”solid” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]
19th April 2022
Bill Cash : 1 Commons debate
Easter Recess: Government Update
Bill Cash: I have heard the remarks of both my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates that it is crystal clear that a fixed penalty notice, such as was applied in his case, is a civil penalty fine, which, if paid within 28 days, eliminates the possibility of future prosecution in the criminal courts and, furthermore, can be paid without any admission of guilt. The judgment in a recent Court of Appeal criminal case said that if the payment is made within 28 days, a fixed penalty notice is held not to be a conviction, as the defendant is
“not admitting any offence, not admitting any criminality, and would not have any stain imputed to his character.”
That is the perspective on this case.
[divider style=”solid” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]
20th April 2022
Bill Cash : 15 votes
Building Safety Bill – Before Clause 117 – Meaning of “relevant building”
Voted aye (division #242; result was 310 aye, 188 no)
Building Safety Bill – Before Clause 117 – Meaning of “relevant building”
Voted aye (division #243; result was 314 aye, 189 no)
Building Safety Bill – Before Clause 117 – Meaning of “relevant building”
Voted aye (division #244; result was 316 aye, 186 no)
Building Safety Bill – Before Clause 117 – Meaning of “relevant building”
Voted aye (division #245; result was 317 aye, 183 no)
Nationality and Borders Bill – Before Clause 11 – Interpretation of Part 2
Voted aye (division #247; result was 295 aye, 228 no)
Nationality and Borders Bill – Clause 11 – Differential treatment of refugees
Voted aye (division #248; result was 304 aye, 221 no)
Nationality and Borders Bill – After Clause 12 – Changes to the Immigration Act 1971
Voted aye (division #249; result was 292 aye, 243 no)
Nationality and Borders Bill – After Clause 15 – Safe third State: commencement
Voted aye (division #250; result was 300 aye, 236 no)
Nationality and Borders Bill – Removal of asylum seeker to safe country
Voted aye (division #251; result was 302 aye, 234 no)
Nationality and Borders Bill – After Clause 37 – Immigration Rules: entry to seek asylum and join family
Voted aye (division #252; result was 302 aye, 234 no)
Nationality and Borders Bill – After Clause 37 – Refugee resettlement schemes
Voted aye (division #253; result was 302 aye, 228 no)
Nationality and Borders Bill – Clause 39 – Illegal entry and similar offences
Voted aye (division #254; result was 308 aye, 227 no)
Nationality and Borders Bill – Clause 40 – Assisting unlawful immigration or asylum seeker
Voted aye (division #255; result was 305 aye, 227 no)
Nationality and Borders Bill – Clause 62 – Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection Clause 62
Voted aye (division #256; result was 305 aye, 225 no)
Nationality and Borders Bill – Before Clause 64 – Confirmed victims in England and Wales: assistance and support
Voted aye (division #257; result was 293 aye, 182 no)
[divider style=”solid” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]
21st April 2022
Bill Cash : 7 Commons debate
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Bill Cash: “The Leader of the Opposition has just said, quite rightly, that this issue affects everyone in the House. Does he accept that at this moment there is a complication, namely that the Committee on Standards is conducting a report, under the aegis of Sir Ernest Ryder’s recommendations, which raises questions about whether a fair trial and natural justice are possible at this juncture? That is currently under discussion in the House. The same rule applies with regard to the question of the Committee of Privileges, which has already been criticised. I was on the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, and I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that serious problems arise in relation to the need to rectify those omissions in procedural fairness.”
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Bill Cash: rose—
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Bill Cash: rose—
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Bill Cash: “I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because what he just said is what I was going to raise with him. The “Ministerial Code” says that it is open to a Minister to correct
“any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”.
The question rests on “knowingly”, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point clear.”
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Bill Cash: rose—
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Bill Cash: “I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I also commend the Justice Committee and him in his role as Chair for the investigation that took place in respect of fixed penalty notices. The Counsel for Domestic Legislation, as he will remember, says that there was a great lack of clarity over what regulations apply to specific situations at what times and so on, and I shall refer a bit more to that if I am called to speak a bit later. The bottom line is that I am sure that this very distinguished Chairman of that Committee appreciates that, in relation to the rule of law question that he has just raised, it is by no means clear exactly what the law is on these subjects.”
Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges
Bill Cash: “As I indicated in my response to the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday, the entire issue, the legal status of fixed penalty notices and what the law really is remain on the table. It is, unfortunately and regrettably, an extremely complex matter, which is charged with political and understandable emotional underpinning.
For example, the Justice Committee has had a great deal of importance to say in seeking clarification of those matters of law and the rule of law itself in this context. Even now, the legal situation remains immensely unclear and inconsistent. Despite the presumption that one Opposition speaker after another makes that the Prime Minister has lied, there is lack of clarity and inconsistency between different police authorities, different circumstances and different locations.
The Counsel for Domestic Legislation to this House said in evidence to the Justice Committee that
“there has been a lack of clarity as to what regulations applied to specific situations at what times, there is evidence that local authorities and police forces have on some occasions misunderstood” the circumstances and so forth. It is even arguable that, under section 73 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, the regulations did not apply to No. 10, as part of the Crown Estate, anyway. Resolving that issue will be a massive test, even before a court of law.
On contempt and the role of the Committee itself and the current procedures whereby privileges or contempts are referred to it, the great constitutional authority, “Bradley and Ewing”, states that the Committee’s procedures have “been criticised” in the Nicholls report of 1999. As I have said in previous debates on the Committee on Standards, and again today, all that is currently under review, here in this House, with Sir Ernest Ryder’s important report relating to the principles of natural justice and fair trials before that Committee. Indeed, it will need some very good legal advice.
In 1999, it was concluded that the Committee on Standards should devise an appropriate procedure to ensure natural justice and fairness. As I said in my exchanges with the current Chair, all that is being undertaken by Sir Ernest Ryder’s report. How the Committee of Privileges will cope with the situation is one thing, but it is crystal clear that not waiting until the Sue Gray report has been delivered, as well as the conclusion of the Metropolitan police’s investigations, will lead only to further confusion and the need for the Committee to suspend its proceedings before they have begun.
The question remains: has there been a contempt? What is the proper procedure that should be applied? Are the proposed procedures fair as a matter of natural justice? That depends on the evidence, the facts and an understanding of the law. The Committee will have to address all that before it can even sit and draw conclusions with any degree of competence.”
[divider style=”solid” top=”20″ bottom=”20″]
Related Posts:
