UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Bill Cash

  • Bill Cash – 2022 Speech on Migration and Economic Development

    Bill Cash – 2022 Speech on Migration and Economic Development

    The speech made by Bill Cash, the Conservative MP for Stone, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

    Although the High Court ruled that the Rwanda policy is lawful, as has been said there were only eight asylum claimants. Those cases have all been set aside by the Court, which said in its ruling that the circumstances of each claimant had not been considered properly. Latest Home Office website figures currently show that more than 160,000 individual cases are outstanding. Furthermore, as the Home Secretary—in whom I have the greatest confidence—stated, the European Court judge who issued the injunction clearly did so without proper consideration of the Rwanda policy, and such rulings do not command our respect.

    Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that for all those reasons it becomes more essential than ever to apply the “notwithstanding” formula to the new legislation that the Prime Minister has announced for mid-January? That must also distinguish in our own law between genuine refugees and illegal economic migrants, not only in the interests of saving life, but also to prevent organised criminality, and to assert UK parliamentary sovereignty, overriding the European convention on human rights, and at the same time dealing comprehensively with the current backlog of those 160,000 outstanding asylum cases.

    Suella Braverman

    My hon. Friend makes an important point. The European Court of Human Rights did not rule on the lawfulness of our policy. It did not rule that the policy or relocations were unlawful, but it did none the less prohibit the removal of individuals on the 15 June flight, via interim and injunctive relief. We have a proud tradition of defending fundamental rights in this country, and we will always retain a robust approach to protecting and preserving human rights. However, that does not mean that we will have a migration system that can be abused and exploited by those who do not have legitimate claims to be here. As the Prime Minister announced last week, we will be bringing forward legislation to ensure that we have a robust migration system and secure borders.

  • Bill Cash – 2022 Parliamentary Question about HS2

    Bill Cash – 2022 Parliamentary Question about HS2

    The parliamentary question asked by Bill Cash, the Conservative MP for Stone, in the House of Commons on 17 November 2022.

    My right hon. Friend argued for sound money and sound foundations. Would he be good enough to explain how it is that High Speed 2 will continue beyond Birmingham at a verifiable cost of at least £40 billion, when every independent report on HS2 condemns the project and confirms that phase 2 will make rail services to all west coast destinations north of Birmingham much worse? I ask him to make a clear commitment to keep this matter under review at all costs; it is in the national interest.

    Jeremy Hunt

    My hon. Friend is right that the increases in the budget for HS2 are disappointing, but a strong economy needs to have consistency of purpose, and that means saying we will make sure that we are a better connected country. The lack of those connections is one of the fundamental reasons for the differences in wealth between north and south, which we are so committed to addressing. There is a bigger issue about the way that we do infrastructure projects: it takes too long, and the budgets therefore get out of control. We are just not very good at it, and we have to sort it out.

  • Bill Cash – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson Returning as Prime Minister

    Bill Cash – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson Returning as Prime Minister

    The comments made by Bill Cash, the Conservative MP for Stone, on Twitter on 21 October 2022.

    I’m backing Boris Johnson and call on others to do so now. Action this day!

  • Bill Cash – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    Bill Cash – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by Sir Bill Cash, the Conservative MP for Stone, in the 9 September 2022.

    I returned to Westminster, after the dreaded news, from our home at Upton Cressett in Shropshire, having this morning tolled our Hanover bell, struck in 1701 to respect the Act of Succession. I struck it 96 times in respectful memory of Her Majesty. Farewell our longest, and most loved and devoted sovereign in the history of our country and of the Crown in Parliament. She loved her people, and they loved her, as did my constituents in Stone, for whom I speak. They showed that in those heady days of her 70th jubilee, which they joyfully celebrated with her, never forgetting the profound loss of her dearly loved husband, Prince Philip, only a few months before.

    As the Queen requested, God helped her to keep her vow of service, which she made on her accession to the throne in February 1952. Born as I was on 10 May 1940—the very day that Churchill became Prime Minister—I vividly recall that moment in February 1952, at the age of 11, when the headmaster declaimed to us: “The King is dead. God save the Queen.” I watched her coronation with wonder on a small television screen in black and white on 2 June 1953, just as Hillary climbed Everest and we won the Ashes—it was a triple whammy because of the coronation itself.

    The Queen was graceful in her majesty and, in equal parts, she was selfless; she had Christian faith and integrity; she was constant; she was wise; she had an extraordinary, spontaneous beauty; and she had the kindest and most expressive eyes, and a gentle and humorous smile. I was honoured and privileged to meet her and to speak with her several times. What she said to this lowly Back Bencher was more poignant than I deserved. “We read you in Hansard”, she said once. “Your Majesty”, I replied, “I am very surprised: very few do—particularly on the issue of Europe.” She thought that was very amusing.

    I was proud to be knighted by the Queen herself at Windsor, one of the greatest honours of my life. She was the mother of our nation and of the Commonwealth. She was a supreme diplomat for our country and, as many have said, in Ireland also. She lived in the hearts of her subjects, who will always remember her. For them, she will never die. All our prayers are with the whole royal family. Mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, may she rest in peace. God save the King.

  • Bill Cash – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    Bill Cash – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The speech made by Bill Cash, the Conservative MP for Stone, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    This Bill stands behind the Union, and the Union itself is dependent on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. These are fundamental constitutional issues, on which the Bill rightly insists. The European Union has been intransigent about the protocol, which undermines the Good Friday agreement. Furthermore, its intransigence is motivated by considerations that are completely contrary to our right as a third country, and it refuses to change its mandate. It has no right to insist that in relation to a third country, such as the United Kingdom, it should exercise European jurisdiction over Northern Ireland, through the European Court, now that we have left the European Union. The European Union would no more allow any part of the national territory of any one of its member states to be governed by other countries which are not members of the European Union than, for example, the United States would allow Texas to be partly governed by Mexico, or Canada to exercise legislative control over parts of the United States. It is simply inconceivable.

    As for the question of our parliamentary sovereignty, section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020—in particular, subsection (2)(b),which expressly provides that we can override direct effect and direct applicability notwithstanding European law in relation to Northern Ireland—enables us to take the necessary constitutional steps to dispose of parts of the protocol in our national interest, and, in doing so, enables us to save the Good Friday agreement. In respect of the democratic deficit—on which I had an exchange with the leader of the Democratic Unionist party—the European Scrutiny Committee, which I chair, revealed in its March report that since we left the European Union, European legislation relating to Northern Ireland has been turning into a motorway. The Bill will allow us to prevent that from happening, in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole.

    One example of EU law that is on the way to being imposed on Northern Ireland was presented to the European Scrutiny Committee just last week, but there is a whole stack of them piling up. This is only one of a continuous stream of regulations, and is known as the construction products regulation. It will become the law of Northern Ireland. It consists of 120 pages and seven annexes. This has to stop, and so does the peril of the democratic deficit that goes with it. It must be borne in mind that such legislation—and there are at least 40 examples in the pipeline—is made by majority vote of all the 27 countries in the European Union, made in the Council of Ministers of the EU, and made behind closed doors and without even a transcript. That is how the United Kingdom was being subjugated by the EU since 1972.

    As for international law, there are numerous precedents in which our pre-eminent judges, such as Lord Denning and Lord Diplock, have made it completely clear that international treaties are subject to parliamentary supremacy, and similar principles were enunciated by the judges in the recent unanimous decision in the case of Miller. The principles that underlie this Bill are sovereignty, our national interest, and the need to protect Northern Ireland as part of the Union and, in particular, the Good Friday agreement. That is why the Bill is so necessary.

    We have been prepared to negotiate over the past two years and more, but our attempts have been rebutted by intransigence and the EU’s refusal to renegotiate its mandate. We had to draw the line. Ultimately, this has become a matter of necessity consistent with international law itself. Indeed, in 1937 Mr de Valera himself repudiated the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 in fundamental respects when setting up the constitution of the Republic in its own national interest. We want good working relations with the Republic and with the European Union, but not at their price. It is well reported that one of the key EU negotiators indicated at the outset of the negotiations on these matters that the price of Brexit would be Northern Ireland. That will not be the case, and this Bill will ensure that it does not happen.

  • Bill Cash – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

    Bill Cash – 2020 Speech on the Future Relationship with the EU Bill

    The speech made by Bill Cash, the Conservative MP for Stone, in the House of Commons on 30 December 2020.

    In these historic days, as we regain our freedom and independence, I pay a profound tribute to our democracy and to the sovereignty of the mother of Parliaments, but above all to the voters in the referendum and the general election last December and, of course, to our Prime Minister, who, against all the odds, led us out of parliamentary paralysis last year to victory, delivering us from 48 years of subjugation to EU laws and European Court jurisdiction and regaining our sovereignty. Our Prime Minister—a great classicist—is, like his hero Pericles, the first citizen of his country and, like him, has saved our democracy. Like Alexander the Great, Boris has cut the Gordian knot. Churchill and Margaret Thatcher would have been deeply proud of his achievements, and so are we.

    This Bill on our future relationship with the EU provides for a new exciting era for our trade with Europe and the rest of the world on sovereign terms—not on those of the EU, as with the Chequers deal. We must pay tribute to David Frost, Oliver Lewis and the Attorney General and her advisers for the successful outcome of the negotiations. There remain challenges on fishing and in relation to Northern Ireland; we must use our new and renewed sovereignty to exercise the political muscle that it gives us to resolve those challenges. We can, and I believe we will.

    Regaining our right to govern ourselves is a true turning point in our great history. In peacetime, it compares only with the restoration by Monck in 1660, on the absolute condition of parliamentary consent, then followed by the Hanoverian succession in 1689 and the evolution of our modern parliamentary democracy, which has been the bedrock of our freedom and which enabled us, with the leadership of Churchill, to repel the danger of conquest in May 1940.

    In April 1990, I was asked by Margaret Thatcher to lunch at No. 10 with members of the Cabinet. Margaret Thatcher asked me what I felt about Europe. I replied, “Prime Minister, your task is more difficult than Churchill’s. He was faced with bombs and aircraft. You are faced with pieces of paper.” Our Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), has achieved what all those years ago I was told was impossible. I refused to believe that. So did the Maastricht rebels and, last year, the 28 Tory Spartans. That opened the way to where we are today. We have now won back our sovereignty, despite those European pieces of paper, and we in this country owe our Prime Minister our deepest congratulations on his achievement.

  • Bill Cash – 2020 Speech on EU Negotiations

    Bill Cash – 2020 Speech on EU Negotiations

    Below is the text of the speech made by Bill Cash, the Conservative MP for Stone, in the House of Commons on 4 June 2020.

    I welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has adopted, on behalf of the Government, the motion proposed by the European Scrutiny Committee, which I have the honour to chair. This motion derives from section 13A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as provided for by the 2020 Act. I emphasise that, because it was passed on Second Reading in this House by a majority of no fewer than 124 Members.

    Under the motion, my European Scrutiny Committee has the duty of reviewing EU laws made and proposed during the transition period that affect UK vital national interests. In pursuance of that, and our report of 11 March, the motion is concerned with the Council decision in February that sets out the EU’s negotiating mandate, instructing Michel Barnier, which raises clear matters of our own vital national interests. We left the European Union on 31 January. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has special responsibilities in relation to these negotiations, consistent with those of his distinguished predecessor John Bright, who coined the expression “the mother of Parliaments”.

    The 2020 Act passed following the general election last December, and it contained in section 38 the historic affirmation of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament, to rectify the failure of successive Government policies on the EU, including the European Communities Act 1972 itself. Now that we have left the EU as the result of a succession of Acts of Parliament, including the referendum Act itself and the result of the referendum to leave, endorsed by the general election last year, we have a Conservative majority of 81. That endorsed Brexit, and left the other parties floundering in the wake of the democratic will of the British people, in line with the Conservatives’ commitment to our democratic self-government.

    My Committee’s report on the EU’s negotiating mandate noted that, on the one hand, the EU recognises the autonomy of the UK, as well as our right to regulate economic activity as we deem appropriate. That is then contradicted by the EU proposing draconian conditions of UK compliance with what the EU describes as

    “robust level playing field commitments”.

    These include massive EU tax, social, employment and environmental standards, and EU state aid laws, as well as a fisheries deal with the EU enjoying pre-Brexit access to UK waters—not to mention the vexed Northern Ireland protocol.​

    That protocol was badly conceived by the previous Administration and included concessions on EU jurisdiction and the status of Northern Ireland. There were even reports that Martin Selmayr, the then deputy to Mr Juncker, regarded Northern Ireland as the price that the UK would have to pay for leaving the EU. Furthermore, there never has been a level playing field. For example, the subsidies in relation to steel and coal generally have always been continuously distorted against the interests of the UK.

    I can remember raising these questions over 20 years ago in relation to, if I may say to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), my experience having been brought up in Sheffield, which was surrounded by coal communities and, of course, was the engine of the steel industry of the United Kingdom and the world. It was quite clear that the European Coal and Steel Community was operating on a basis that, for example, gave the German nation £4 billion a year in authorised subsidies, which put it in a hopelessly advantageous position as against us. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard and a list of other great economists have continually made clear the distortions in relation to state aid that have such a devastating impact upon us. We cannot allow ourselves to be drawn back into the framework of state aid prescribed by the European Union.

    Indeed, according to The Brussels Times a few days ago, the German economy is receiving 52% of the total state aid approved by the European Commission under the EU coronavirus package. Similarly, the EU insisted on law enforcement and criminal justice conditional on our continuing with the European convention on human rights and personal data law along EU lines. It went further, insisting on an overall governance framework that would include a continuing role of the European Court of Justice. What planet are they living on?

    This is encapsulated by the difference in language between the EU and the UK in relation to these negotiations. It speaks about a new partnership. Our White Paper refers to the future relationship. The EU is not a sovereign state. We are, and we have a sovereign Parliament. We have decided to leave, and we have left. It is bound to recognise us as such, but it refuses to do so.

    Hilary Benn

    The hon. Gentleman has set out the clear Government policy that they will not accept the adjudication of the European Court of Justice, but in any agreement—and we all hope an agreement is reached—there will have to be a dispute resolution mechanism. It would be helpful if he could tell the House his views on what kind of mechanism that would be and whether there might be a place within that for independent arbitration to deal with disputes. Given that he has just argued that EU member states have got away with state aid to the disadvantage of the UK, is he satisfied that the Government are asking for sufficient reassurance from the European Union that that will not happen in future under any agreement that is reached?

    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.

  • Bill Cash – 2020 Speech on the Persecution of Christians

    Below is the text of the speech made by Bill Cash, the Conservative MP for Stone, in the House of Commons on 6 February 2020.

    It is a great honour to speak in this debate and to follow the excellent speeches that have been made by the Minister and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work he has done over decades on this subject, and to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) for the interesting analysis that he has just presented us with.

    As a Christian, I am well aware that this is not a new subject; it is a very ancient subject indeed. In fact, we had Christian persecution during the Roman empire on a monumental scale. It persisted through the middle ages and the wars of religion in France, and it was of course endemic in the communist era under Stalin. This is not only a question of what is going on in China today; it is something that permeates our history and our civilisation. I shall be bold enough to say that, in my opinion, religious toleration is the best evidence of a civilised society. I say that because it is not just about law-making; it is about attitudes, cultural life and thinking. Where there has been a proper degree of religious toleration in the past, there has tended to be peace. When that toleration breaks down and people compartmentalise their own ideology and use it as a weapon—and as a state weapon in the case of certain countries, many of which have been mentioned today—we end up with the increase in persecution that Open Doors has identified so well. This debate is quite rightly ​about Christian persecution, which of course does apply and has applied in the past more particularly where there have been atheistic regimes and regimes that discriminated against Christianity but also against other religions.

    I welcome and applaud what Open Doors has said. This has not been specifically mentioned yet, but Open Doors estimates that 260 million Christians in the top 50 countries on its world watch list for 2020 are being persecuted for their religious beliefs, compared with 245 million in 2019. In 2014, only North Korea was ranked as extreme for its level of persecution of Christians. In the 2020 report—only six years later—11 countries fall into that category, and Open Doors estimates that attacks on churches have risen by 500%, from 1,847 to 9,488, over the past year. That massive increase is highly dangerous and problematic not only for stability in the countries in which such things are happening, but in relation to what this country must do to attempt to mitigate and prevent them. The International Society for Human Rights estimates that Christians are the targets of about 80% of all acts of religious discrimination or persecution worldwide, so it is significant that this debate focuses on persecution against Christians.

    I welcome the initiative of the Prime Minister and, indeed, the manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) has taken over as special envoy on this matter, under the auspices—if I can use that expression—of my hon. Friend the Minister and the Prime Minister. I will issue a word of encouragement, rather than warning, because when I read the Bishop of Truro’s report, and the commentary around it, I noted that only two of the 22 extremely important and significant recommendations are Christian-specific. It is worth making that point, because if the proportionality demonstrates that the increase in attacks on Christians is so much greater than in those on others, and that that is largely happening in countries with a particular state ideology about religious beliefs that is antipathetic to the Christian religion, then inevitably it is a serious problem on an international scale. For that reason, I am glad that the United Nations is taking an active interest in the matter.

    It is one thing to say we do not like persecution, but it is another to say that it is coming from certain quarters and certain countries, and that it is aimed at certain categories of religious minority—in this case Christian—while the volume of persecution against Christians is increasing. It therefore becomes a matter of extreme importance to us, and I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has said about the matter. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister are hitting the nail right on the head. It is one of the most intractable problems, as shown in the historical outline I gave from the Roman empire onwards, and it will not just go away. It will require careful diplomatic, belief-based and religious tolerance from those who want to prevent the situation from escalating.

    As I said during the shadow Minister’s very good speech, we must be careful not to generalise the subject in such a way that our attention is distracted from attacks on Christians. I have always been a strong supporter of Holocaust Memorial Day, and I feel intensely about the matter. I had the opportunity the other day to ​sign the book, and I remember writing, “Never again.” I do not need to write 10 lines, just the words, “Never again.” Having been born in 1940, I am the oldest Member in the House of Commons, so unlike many others—I mean no disrespect; this is a problem of age—I actually lived through that period. I can remember as a small boy seeing the extent of the persecution when I watched black-and-white films after the war about what went on in the concentration camps.

    One must remember that some people were taken to those camps due to their Christian beliefs. We all know about Bonhoeffer and Father Kolbe—St Kolbe as I think he is now—and so on, and I am just trying to contextualise the debate a little by saying that this is not a new problem and it is not confined to Christianity. However, this debate is especially important because of the degree to which Christians are now being targeted in a new wave of anti-Christian persecution by certain states that have either atheistic or, in some cases, Islamic objections to Christianity and have weaponised their state control in order to persecute Christians.

    We must also be aware of the use of sanctions. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) impressed me by mentioning the imposition of conditions on the aid we give. Members will know that I promoted the Bill that became the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014. Its aim was to protect women and children from FGM and all those other matters. The Bill imposes a statutory obligation that where the Government, through the Department for International Development, are giving aid, they are allowed to impose conditions to promote the idea of protecting women and children, including from trafficking, honour killings and other matters whereby women are unfairly treated in different countries.

    As we have heard, many countries are actively using state powers to promote anti-Christian persecution. Imposing conditions could be a fruitful line of inquiry and needs to be worked on, because although the 2014 Act related to the protection of women and children, it could just as well be used for ensuring that Christians are not persecuted. The law is already there, and I remember the former Prime Minister saying to me, “You do realise, Bill, that you have changed the law in a really big way,” because the £13 billion that we give in international aid now has embedded in it a statutory obligation, subject to judicial review. I would be keen to see that principle applied to the purpose of ensuring that Christians in other countries are not persecuted.

    This debate has been incredibly useful for many reasons, and I will finish by saying something about my great friend Jeremy Lefroy, the former Member for Stafford, who has sadly left this House. He is doing the most amazing work, and I am sure we shall hear more about it from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). His work, and that of others doing similar things, can play a big part in ensuring that we get this problem straightened out. I will finish on the domestic abuse of Christians. It has bothered me for a long time that some people appear to be able to go up and down Whitehall with placards attacking Christians—make no mistake—without being properly prosecuted. If Christians were to attack other religions in the same ​context, it would immediately fall into the category of what is called human rights law. I am not against human rights and never have been, but I am deeply concerned—[Interruption.] I see one or two Members shaking their head. I have a very deep concern that human rights laws sometimes protect some people but can give rise to the invasive question of proper control over the misuse of freedom of speech. That is highly controversial and we do not have time to go into it now, but I put that forward as a proposition.

    It is important that issues of religious toleration have complete equivalence of treatment under the law. Once it gets out of control, it becomes so pervasive and causes so much division in society—I come back to Holocaust Memorial Day and my concern for the Jewish population, and to what I have seen in the press about some aspects of the accusations against some members of the Labour party.

    We all owe it to everybody to be fair, reasonable and tolerant, but also to put our foot down, using sanctions where necessary and financial conditions where required, to ensure that we do not allow Christians, either abroad or at home, to be persecuted. Such persecution is unjustified and hateful, and we can do something about it.

  • Bill Cash – 2019 Speech on Brexit Business Motion

    Below is the text of the speech made by Bill Cash, the Conservative MP for Stone, in the House of Commons on 1 April 2019.

    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 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.