Palestine

Debate between Mike Hancock and David Ward

Monday 1st December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Unless something changes, things stay the same. In an attempt to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, two routes have been tried—one is violence, the other is negotiations. The violent route will not work. Israel has tried that route and the route of suppression, with attempts at ethnic cleansing, for nigh on 70 years, and that has not worked. That has been matched by violence by the Palestinians on the other side, which has usually resulted in their suffering even more. That has not worked for them, but it has not broken their will. Violence will not work.

The negotiations have proved unsuccessful: why? Negotiations usually require both sides in a dispute to concede something. What more, really, could the Palestinians concede? In Gaza they have given up the air, the sea, the land and indeed the water, as they have done in many other places. There is not much more they can give. Agreement can only really be arrived at when both sides in the dispute believe that the cost of not reaching an agreement is higher than the cost of continuing the dispute.

The Israeli Government have certainly suffered from the insecurity that they have brought on their citizens through the continuing dispute, but the cost of that insecurity has been overwhelmingly outweighed by the territorial gains that they have made and continue to make daily. Why should they engage in meaningful negotiations when they gain so much from the conflict?

[Mr Mike Hancock]

Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that they think that is a price worth paying?

[Mr Ward]

I believe that they do. I believe that the gains they have made as part of the grand design have proved successful for them, and they have considered the price worth paying. That could not of course have continued without the support of many countries, including our own, but most of all the United States. Our Prime Minister recently confirmed his deep commitment to Israel and said:

“When we look across the region and at the indexes of freedom, we see that Israel is one of the few countries that tick the boxes for freedom”.—[Official Report, 26 November 2014; Vol. 588, c. 915.]

However, Martin Linton has supplied the information that in the 2014 index of economic freedom, Israel is placed 44th, behind Macedonia, Latvia, Armenia and Jordan. Are those really the countries with which we should be comparing Israel, rather than France, Sweden or Italy? Is it possible to think of another democracy that flouts UN resolutions on a daily basis and remains a fully fledged member of the international community?

What can change? I was privileged to listen to Rebecca Vilkomerson two weeks ago when she spoke to a small group here in Westminster. Rebecca is the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace, the fastest-growing Jewish organisation in the United States. It grew rapidly during the attack on Gaza. She suggested some changes as ways to bring about something different. The first was using boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. The cost to Israel of not negotiating seriously must be greater. I have an online petition with 80,000 names on it calling for the use of BDS as a peaceful means of applying economic pressure. At the very least that should apply to settlement goods, but I argue that it should go beyond that.

Rebecca also mentioned the increasing change among the Jewish diaspora around the world. Many members of the Jewish community are growing tired of Israel and are embarrassed by it and somewhat ashamed of it. The JVP is growing rapidly and adds a powerful voice.

The final area to be mentioned is public opinion, which has been referred to before. I am accused of pandering to Muslims. That is an insult to me—but I can take that. However, it is also an insult to Muslims and to the many non-Muslims who are sick and tired of Israel’s behaviour.

Local Government Finance

Debate between Mike Hancock and David Ward

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) (LD)]

I will try to take your lead and be as gracious and courteous as you are, Mr Speaker.

Once again, I am very disappointed. First, I have to register my interest as an existing and long-serving member of Portsmouth city council. I would have hoped that in the past month or so those Ministers in the Department who have had experience in local government would have been reading and listening to what their former colleagues in local government have been saying to them about the problems with the current settlement and with what is being stored up for the next year or two.

It was not easy for the Tory leader of Surrey county council to say that Surrey would decline to take the gimmick from the Government to keep the council tax down. I am sure that he did it with a heavy heart, but, as he rightly said—this was recounted again here this afternoon—it is better take the pain when it is evenly spread, and when one is at least in control of it, than to accept a short-term gain only to experience a very long-term pain. I think that there is something seriously wrong when a Minister, such as the Minister who opened today’s debate, can give no explanation whatsoever, and can offer no hope to local authorities such as my own which accepted the 2.5% gimmick cut. I tried to persuade my colleagues not to do it, but they chose to take the opposite view.

For us, that will pose a real problem. In my local authority, the shunted costs—the responsibilities that are being pushed down to us—amount to £1.8 million. That is the extra sum that we shall have to find to pay for services for which we never had to budget before. Examples that have been given are the full recovery of the cost of court proceedings, discretionary housing benefit payments, a 50% cut in the community safety grant, section 117 cases, concessionary fares, what is described as

“Concessionary Fares Increase Care of New Back Office System”

—which has been demanded by the Department for Transport—and the youth justice system. That £1.8 million comes on top of a 10% cut.

I was disappointed when the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked whether it would be easier to explain all this in terms of percentages. I do not care how people explain it. It is painful, difficult and awkward for local authorities to do anything, and they have not acted irresponsibly. The days when Ministers were able to cite the irresponsible council are long gone. As was pointed out earlier, no council has avoided making efficiency savings. It is in our interest to make such savings, and we have tried desperately hard to make them.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hancock]

Yes, but my hon. Friend must be very quick.

[Mr Ward]

I will be.

My hon. Friend has mentioned percentages. I hope he agrees that the real issue is gearing. A 10% cut in an authority with an 80% gearing of formula grant to the rest of its funding will mean an 8% reduction in its overall budget, whereas if only 20% of an authority’s funding comes from formula grant, it will experience a reduction of only 2%. That is the big issue.

[Mr Hancock]

My hon. Friend’s point is well made, but it is falling on deaf ears. It has been made time and time again. It was made last year, for instance. It is unfortunate that no one is listening, and it is very unfair and very disrespectful to Members who serve in local government. Next year, Tory councillors who will be defending their seats in the county council elections will hope against hope that the Government will pull some sort of rabbit out of the hat to safeguard them from having to impose pretty horrendous council tax rises.

This afternoon’s debate is a fait accompli. We shall vote either for or against the motion. I shall vote against it, and I hope that my colleagues who have served or are still serving in local government will do so as well, because this is not doing the cause of local government and local democracy any good. For Ministers not to be able to answer even the simplest, most fundamental question about where we go from here is totally unacceptable and unfair. As Members have said repeatedly, this is shifting the blame. It means more responsibility, fewer resources, and indeed more blame—not for Government, but for local government.

Low Educational Attainment

Debate between Mike Hancock and David Ward

Tuesday 29th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Order. That intervention was very close to being a speech.

[Mr Ward]

Deprivation, of course, knows no geographic boundaries, and is everywhere we look. It needs to be dealt with wherever it is located.

A great deal is being done in many settings, but it is all really amelioration and compensation or, in more prosaic terms, catching up. We clearly need to focus more on the pre-school and pre-early years settings. As we know, many children are already at a disadvantage in the womb. This debate is intended to identify a problem of which many people are already aware, to show that I know a little about it and feel strongly about it, and most of all to send out a clear message that I am extremely keen to work with other organisations and politicians to address the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Ward]

I thank the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) for her interventions. I have already googled you and seen that you have made solid contributions to the subject over many years. Indeed, you have contributed to education, which I was not aware of before. I am not criticising anybody in this debate, because I am aware of the tremendous efforts that are being made by professionals and volunteers to raise the life chances of young people. As the chair of governors of a school in a deprived community, I am really frustrated by the fact that although we have an extremely impressive value added score—our achievement is high—our attainment is very low because of the level at which the children come into the school. However much we do, and we try to do more and more, we continually face the problem of children coming into the school with low attainment.

[Mr Mike Hancock (in the Chair)]

Order. That was very close to another speech. Let me remind Members that when addressing other colleagues in the Chamber, we do not use the word “you”; we use their constituency title. I am not being pernickety; that is the custom of the House. Moreover, when a Member refers to someone who is still a Member, they should do so not by their name, but by their constituency.