Protecting Children in Conflict Areas

David Crausby Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. I want to call the three Front Benchers at 10.30 am, and we have three more speakers. If hon. Members could keep their contributions to not much above five minutes, then everyone will get the opportunity to speak.

Centenary of the Balfour Declaration

David Crausby Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Robert Halfon]

On a point of order, Sir David. Just to be safe, I refer Members to my interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

[Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Thank you. I will call the three Front Benchers to speak at about 3.40 pm, which gives us about 40 minutes for Back Benchers. I will not impose a time limit, because I do not think that is practical, but I ask Members to keep their contributions to about two or three minutes. That will give everyone an opportunity to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that if they speak for longer than three minutes, I will not be able to call all Members who wish to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this very important debate.

The centenary of the Balfour Declaration should not be celebrated in any way, but should instead be a time when we can pause, think about the situation that we are in now because of this statement by a previous parliamentarian, and look carefully at its impact on the situation today. Our responsibility as a country is to find a solution to the problems in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Examining the rights and wrongs of the past does not solve anything, but they do give us a context in which to move forward and find a solution.

If we look at the wording of the declaration—I will not read it again, as it has already been read out a number of times—we see that the first part has been achieved. The second part has not. Indeed, in my view the Palestinian people’s situation is much worse than it was in 1917.

I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On my recent visit to Jerusalem and the west bank, I was shocked and horrified at the way that Palestinian people are living and being treated in the occupied territories. I found the trip emotionally draining, but I am so pleased that I went to see for myself the reality of the situation.

I saw illegal outposts, often surrounding Palestinian communities, being built at a rapid pace in area C. I saw communities under threat of demolition. I saw water being diverted away from Palestinian communities to serve the illegal outposts, and I visited the military courts. The way that children are being treated—indeed, the way that our delegation was treated—in those courts was horrific. It is not what I would expect anywhere in the world—being lied to and being thrown out of court, first for “security reasons” and then, we were told, because it was too crowded. It was an utter disgrace. Finally, we saw the intimidation that everyone feels from the IDF presence in the occupied territories. The horror of the wall; the sight of young people walking around the Old City with machine guns on their back—it was horrific.

I absolutely respect the right of the state of Israel to exist and to be recognised, and the right of its people to live in peace. I also accept all of the wonderful things that, as a state, Israel does. I absolutely accept that, but I also respect the right of the Palestinian people to have a state, to be recognised and to live in peace, on equal terms.

It is time that the British Government take responsibility for the actions of Lord Balfour and the Government of 1917, and do their part in fulfilling the second part of the Balfour Declaration. I will quote John Kerry’s speech on middle east peace in December last year, when he said, “Britain has an enduring responsibility to the two peoples in the Holy Land”—a responsibility which is not fulfilled by leaving the strong and the weak to “sort it out between themselves”, or by waiting for President Trump.

I would like the Minister to respond to a couple of issues. The British Government should recognise the state of Palestine, to fulfil our moral obligation to the Palestinian people, including the 5 million refugees, who have a recognised right to return. The Government should do everything within their power to get a two-state solution and urgently ensure that international law is upheld in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

[Sir David Crausby (in the Chair)]

I am going to move to the two Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons now, because we only have about 20 minutes left. I ask them both to keep their remarks to around five minutes each, because I think we all want to listen to the Minister and give Dr Offord a chance to sum up the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Crausby Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, I call Mr David Crausby.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

What is the difference between a Russian Government who deserve sanctions for their involvement in bringing down MH17 and an Israeli Government who refuse to apologise for bombing hospitals and killing children who were playing football on the beach?

[Mr Lidington]

We have to look at each case on its merits. With regard to Russia, the Prime Minister made our position very clear in the House yesterday. The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the desperate need in Gaza is for a ceasefire and a cessation of the appalling violence and loss of life among men, women and children on both sides. The sooner that happens, the better. Our diplomatic efforts are designed to help bring that about.

Ukraine

David Crausby Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

That happened in the early stages of the Russian operation, and it was clearly designed to try to conceal the fact that it was a Russian operation. However, all such pretence was subsequently cast aside, because many thousands of Russian troops appear to have been deployed to Crimea. It shows that this was a well-planned, perhaps a long-planned, operation, and that it was put into force in a way that tried to minimise the reaction of the international community.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Will the Foreign Secretary quickly lay out the Government’s position on sanctions against Russia in general? In particular, what is his view about calls for a complete boycott of Russia’s Olympic games?

[Mr Hague]

The winter Olympics have happened; the Paralympics are taking place over the next couple of weeks. As I mentioned in my statement, we will not be sending UK Government representatives, but the Government do not believe in sporting boycotts of Olympic events. Our athletes will continue to go to the Paralympics, and I am sure that they will have the support and enthusiasm of this House in the great endeavours they will make.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

David Crausby Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

rose—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)]

Order. It would be nice if we could get back to clause 4 stand part.

[Mr Lidington]

Indeed, Mr Crausby. I welcome the outbreak of bipartisanship.

Finally, one of the lessons is the importance of building alliances with other member states on these issues, because we are far from being the only country that has these concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 4, line 4, at end insert ‘or subsequent’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 5, page 4, line 7, at end insert—

‘( ) The House of Commons may amend a draft of an instrument laid before it under subsection (1), insofar as that draft contains regulations pursuant to section 4. A draft so amended may be taken as the draft laid before each House of Parliament under subsection (1).

Amendment 2, page 4, line 8, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

Clause stand part.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Amendments 1 and 2 are straightforward. I am sure that Her Majesty’s Government, in their amazing wisdom, will consider these issues from their fine position of understanding, benevolence and kindliness. The Minister for Europe—that great Minister of parliamentary scrutiny of matters European Union, who is to the scrutiny of European matters what Simon de Montfort was to the House of Commons appearing in the first place—knows, in his bold way, that the better the scrutiny, the better the legislation.

My amendments, which are modest and humble, would make a small improvement to the House’s scrutiny of the regulations introduced under clause 4. That clause has just passed without a voice being raised against it; none the less, it raises important questions about the penalties in different parts of the UK, as we have just discovered, and under it Ministers will be able to make regulations. Amendment 2 would simply take something out of the Bill. It would simplify the legislation. I thought we were all in favour of making our laws clear and easy for the average elector—those outside the inner workings of the House—to understand.

The amendments would allow Her Majesty’s Opposition, who I hope will join me on this occasion, better to hold the Government to account and ensure that Members were able to address our constituents’ grievances more effectively and swiftly by making further amendments, after the initial statutory instruments were introduced, subject to the affirmative, rather than the negative, procedure. That would enable us to turn up, as I am sure we all would, at the statutory instrument Committees debating the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

Before the Minister concludes, will he answer my question about the security of the border with Bosnia, which he promised to do earlier?

[The Temporary Chair (Mr David Crausby)]

I think that relates much more to Third Reading, when the Minister will have an opportunity to deal with the question.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful for that guidance, Mr Crausby. I have some details on that matter and will be happy to speak about it on Third Reading.

Member states signed the Croatian accession treaty with the firm intention that it should be ratified by 1 July 2013. We believe that new member states should be able to join the EU when they have fulfilled their commitments as part of the tough and demanding accession process and are ready to take on the obligations of membership. Given the progress Croatia has made and the transparent commitment of its Government to completing the reforms that are still outstanding, we think there is no reason to delay this legislation coming into force and that we can be confident, on the basis of evidence, that Croatia will be ready. We should be eager to grasp the opportunities for the United Kingdom, both political and commercial, that stem from EU enlargement. Therefore, I think it is right to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North to withdraw his amendment and for the House to support clause 6 as it stands.

UK Constituent Parts (EU)

David Crausby Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Ann McKechin]

My hon. Friend has spent much of his time campaigning on financial services, because they are relevant in his constituency. He hits the nail on the head, because we have a significant financial services sector in Scotland. It is the second largest outside the City of London, and has many jobs, not just in banking, but in other financial services, such as equity markets and insurance funds. Many of the people who use those funds and many investors live not in Scotland, but in other parts of the United Kingdom.

There are many questions to be asked about the currency that will be used, and the regulations. We can take it as certain that the EU will take a precautionary approach, and will ask for those issues to be tested and examined in great detail. As yet, the Scottish Government have not produced a comprehensive document setting out the proposals. At the moment, they seem to think that the rest of the UK will continue to act as the financial regulator, but there is no guarantee that it would be tempted to do so. Why would it take on the risks and responsibility for institutions outwith its borders and over which this Parliament would have no direct control or responsibility? The UK Parliament’s risk would increase.

Given the gridlock of other membership requests, and that other EU states are much less relaxed about national referendums for secession, there is every risk that the application and negotiations could drag on with consequent risks and uncertainty to our economy and particularly our financial services. I would be interested to hear today the Foreign Office’s perspective on such a scenario. Will the Minister confirm what the legal standing of a separate Scotland would be with the World Trade Organisation if at the point of secession it was not a member of the EU? Have the Scottish Government ever asked his Department for information about that? Has there been any formal dialogue with the EU Commission on the proposal for another EU member’s central bank to be Scotland’s bank of last resort?

We have discovered in the last few weeks that the truth can be difficult to admit, but surely anyone who believes that a country’s citizens should be able to make the right choices also believes that they should be provided with full answers to those tricky questions, because they will not go away.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

I will call the Front Bench Members at about 10.40 am. Although I am not going to impose a time limit, it would be helpful if Members kept their contributions to not much more than five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

That is an extremely apposite remark, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for it.

One thing that needs to be considered is the implications that would arise for the European Communities Act 1972, which has not yet been mentioned, because of course if we have a referendum and if the vote is yes—at the moment, that seems extremely unlikely, but I will not presume to say that it will not happen—the reality is that that in itself will not create the legal and constitutional consequences that would flow from that political decision. The reality is that we then have to look at the 1972 Act. All the obligations under section 2, through our own enactment here, of which Scotland is currently a part, would have to be dealt with. It will be an extremely complex business to deal with the issues between the United Kingdom and Scotland, let alone between Scotland and the European Union or the United Kingdom and the European Union.

I would like to refer on the record to the extremely good—extremely well written—note from the House of Commons Library. I mention that on the record because I think that many people who will want to consider this question will do well to look at that note if they can get access to it. It draws together a lot of the complications that arise in international law and constitutional law. It includes a lot of discussion about the allegations made against the First Minister; I will not enter that debate, but simply say that there are complex questions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) pointed out, there is no provision in the European treaties for the secession of states. He mentioned article 4.2 and the unanimity of all 27 member states. The European Commission made some comments on that in response to an MEP, but that was on the basis of the thinking then. If I may say, having read all the papers, I do not think that there is a settled view about what would happen.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) is right to say that there would be massive uncertainty. For example, in respect of financial regulation, the jurisdiction has been already transferred, extremely unwisely, to the European institutions, but the consequences are that it is already being done in relation to the City of London with serious consequences, of an unlawful nature, for voting rights between ourselves and member states in the eurozone. There are so many uncertainties that the issue will have to be given much more consideration. There is also the question of the repeal of the Act of Union. None of the legal consequences of the referendum, even if there was a yes vote, are capable of being unravelled until we have got to grips with the constitutional implications of the matters I mention.

Despite the fact that we have one and a half hours, going into all the questions today would be far too complicated, so that is all I want to say. I put down a marker that a yes vote will be monumentally bad for the UK, monumentally bad for Scotland and monumentally bad for the people governed under the Act of Union. I and many others take that view, and I think it will prevail.

There are implications for the European Scrutiny Committee, in that it must look at all the legislation as it applies to the UK, in respect of those matters that apply to it under the Standing Orders. I will leave my contribution at that. The complications regarding Scotland have not been thought through. It is not only an emotional question or even a purely political question, but a question of grave uncertainty. The more the vote tends towards no—the direction that public opinion seems to be going—the better.

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

To accommodate all Members who wish to speak, it would be appreciated if Members kept their remarks to four minutes.

National Referendum on the European Union

David Crausby Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

I will not be voting for the motion this evening, not because I do not believe that the British electorate are entitled to a referendum on European membership; I do. I shall not vote for the motion because the third option makes complete nonsense of the proposal. It establishes the motion as belonging to the far right of the Conservative party, which wants nostalgically to return to the 1970s when the common market was a big businessmen’s club with no workers rights that contained only nine member states. If that were not the case, the motion would include further left-wing options to improve workers rights, for example, but then it would start to look like an even more ridiculous referendum.

The matter should be clear. The question should be whether we should be in or out of Europe. The present three-way proposal would result in a complete dog’s breakfast, leaving the British people as frustrated as ever. What is clear to me, however, is that public dissatisfaction with our Euro-relationship will not go away because Britain has never really had a fair and democratic say.

We were taken into the Common Market in the first place by a Conservative Government without a referendum because Ted Heath knew full well that the public would not have voted for entry. He was well rewarded by defeat at the next election. When Harold Wilson delivered his promised referendum on the so-called negotiated terms, it was a complete farce. To be fair, his Government were rewarded by defeat at the next election.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I was active in the Labour party at that time and I voted no. My hon. Friend might remember that the great majority of Labour MPs at that time voted no in the referendum and that a special Labour party conference had a big no vote on the referendum as well. It was the leadership who supported our continued membership of Europe.

[Mr Crausby]

Things have certainly changed. The 1975 referendum yes campaign was all about arguing that leaving Europe would take us into isolation. There were even claims from the yes campaign that if we left we would be starved of food. My own employer at the time wrote to every employee, urging them to vote yes, claiming that leaving the Common Market would cost jobs. They employed more than 3,000 people at that time; now they employ just 100—so I suppose matters could have been worse.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I was on the same side as my hon. Friend in 1975 and I voted to come out of the EEC as it then was, but does he agree that the biggest lie told then about the referendum on entry to the EEC was by Ted Heath when he said that there would be no loss of sovereignty?

[Mr Crausby]

I will come to that. Voters were deceived by promises of huge increases in national prosperity and soothed by the leadership of the three political parties into voting yes. On one side of the argument sat the three party leaders—Harold Wilson, Ted Heath and Jeremy Thorpe—and on the other sat Enoch Powell and Tony Benn. The British media almost universally portrayed the issue as established common sense against the extreme fringes. The Government produced a document entitled “Britain’s New Deal in Europe”—I kept it because I knew I would be able to hold it against them one day—in red, white and blue. It recommended a yes vote; it was delivered by the Post Office to every home and it made clear promises. The most important promise was that Britain had a veto on all important new policies and developments. It said:

“No important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British Minister answerable to a British Government and British Parliament.”

Just 10 years later, another Conservative Government completely reneged on that vital promise without a referendum. This time, it was Margaret Thatcher who gave up Britain’s veto when she signed the Single European Act, which actually makes Maastricht and Lisbon look like a sideshow. To talk now about “no new powers to Europe” is, quite frankly, shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted. It may well be that this is not the time to resolve the British people’s dissatisfaction with our membership of the European Union, but the time must come.

[Michael Connarty]

I often find that people list all the things that they are against when they make an argument, but given my hon. Friend’s background in the trade union movement, surely he must welcome the fact that the social chapter and social Europe have been massively important for improving the lives of our people?

[Mr Crausby]

I do, but my point is that we will not resolve this issue until we have sought the consent of the British people, which we have never done.

The leaders of our major political parties must face the facts. If they wish constructively to maintain our relationship with Europe, with public support, they should have the collective courage to take the argument to our people, instead of huddling together against a referendum every time it arises.