Imprisonment of Catalan Leaders

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for bringing her legal knowledge to bear. That viewpoint is not necessarily the viewpoint of the Spanish courts. It may be the viewpoint of an international body, and it may be her viewpoint, but it may not be that of international courts. It is for the defendants who have been found guilty by the Supreme Court to appeal, if they so wish, to the Spanish constitutional court, and beyond that to the European Court of Human Rights. Let us see whether they do so and how successful their cases are.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

The Minister has been remarkably weak in his responses, and I do not think he has noticed that only one Member in this Chamber has asked a question that is sympathetic to what he has said. Will he forget the whole debate about separatism, which is totally different, and talk to the Spanish Government, reflecting the concerns of Members across parties in this House and speaking loudly for what we have said today?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am sure that the Spanish embassy and the Spanish Government will have heard what individual Members of this House have said. Individual Members can make their views plain, and they have, but as far as it is a matter for Her Majesty’s Government, our position is plain: Spanish courts are independent, and their processes are transparent and robust. The court penalties handed down are a matter for those courts, and any change to Spanish law is a matter for Spain.

Persecution of Christians Overseas

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who made a very thoughtful speech. Mention has been made of the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Glasgow East (David Linden), and I want to thank them for requesting this debate and for their tireless campaigning work in this area. Above all, I think we would all wish to thank the non-governmental organisations, including Open Doors, that have kept these issues in our consciousness for years. We must also thank our constituents who have kept Members across the House informed, and I would like to thank the members of the Penycae Neighbourhood Church of the Nazarene who have kept me informed of meetings that have been happening.

Freedom of belief is a basic human right. It is not a western construct; it is a basic fact of being human. Article 18 of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights makes it clear that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes a person’s freedom to change their religion or belief and the freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest their religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

I commend the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the work that the Bishop of Truro has done in looking at the specific issue of persecution against Christians, simply because of the scale of it. Open Doors is now saying that extreme persecution has increased from being found in one country to 11 countries over five years. There has been a rise in hate speech in state media and by religious leaders. This House, the European Parliament and the US House of Representatives have declared that ISIS atrocities against Christians and other religious minorities—for example, against the Yazidis and Shi’a Muslims—met the tests of genocide. I would like to see that recognised by the UK Government.

However inconvenient it might be for politicians from western democracies, we must recognise that part of that universal declaration includes the right to convert or to change religion or belief, including the right to have no belief, which is a fundamental part of religious freedom. This is not about western values; it is about universal human values, and any extreme form of nationalism that does not allow for conversion goes against that fundamental tenet.

Mention has rightly been made of the Commonwealth, which has a real role to play in this. The blasphemy laws in Pakistan are a total obscenity. They are not somehow loosely based on the codification of laws in the 1860s. Since the 1980s, crimes under these laws have increased, prejudicing religions including certain types of Islam and Christianity, and that is a disgrace.

I would also like us to reflect on an issue of general concern—the death penalty. We have seen an increased use of the death penalty, and the Centre for Social Justice in Pakistan has stated that its use has increased for people accused of blasphemy. In the United States, 29 states still use the death penalty, including some that still use a firing squad. It is simply unacceptable to those of us in the west who wish to advocate on this issue that the US still has the death penalty, and I urge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to challenge it. I also urge everyone in the US who cares about the persecution of Christians to question the use of the death penalty in that country. Lastly, I think we must all take responsibility. I do not want to be partisan, but when people describe Muslim women wearing burqas as looking like letterboxes, that is irresponsible, wherever it comes from. We have to protect these freedoms.

International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I pay great tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is a doughty and tireless campaigner on this issue. He deserves great credit for all his work and campaigning on it and the way in which he raises it constantly in Parliament and beyond.

Religious freedom is the right to believe in something or nothing. It was one of our erstwhile monarchs who allegedly said she had no desire to make “windows into men’s souls”. However, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) rightly said, there was a time when that was not true on these islands and people were burnt at the stake for their beliefs.

Let me tell of an incident rather less grim than that but pretty bad none the less. Of course, it has to be a Welsh example: the Llanfrothen burial case of 1888. Hon. Members will be forgiven if they have not heard of it, but here is what happened. It was a case to ensure that the local rector complied with the Burials Act 1880, allowing a quarryman named Roberts to be interred in the consecrated part of the churchyard rather than a plot described by the lawyer of the day—a certain David Lloyd George—as

“a spot, bleak and sinister, in which were buried the bodies of the unknown drowned”.

That was where they put the Welsh nonconformists: the free Church people. Victory in that case for the dissenting Mr Roberts led to great civil liberties for Welsh nonconformists and free Church denominations. I suggest Mr Lloyd George had not forgotten that when he continued his campaign, which led to the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in Wales.

I do not claim to have the degree of expertise of the hon. Member for Strangford as he talks about the issues of concern in different countries, so I will not try to replicate that, but one aspect of the debate that intrigues me is how faith groups in this country are sometimes spoken about. When political parties are reported as having more than half a million members—something I really welcome—journalists report that as “soaring membership.” When Spurs get a crowd of 85,512 at Wembley, we are told it is “amazing”—I do not know much about football, but that is what one of the papers said. When 72,000 people on average attend a Six Nations rugby game, it is “incredible.” Yet when Church of England attendances reach 760,000, in one report it is all about “downward pressure”. Some poor clergyman or woman quoted in the report said, in slightly macabre terms:

“We lose approximately 1% of our churchgoers to death each year.”

I find it interesting how the debate sometimes goes in this country. That figure, for one church among many and one faith organisation among many, in one part of the UK, constitutes a lot of people and shows that our faith communities are actually pretty vibrant.

In my defence, I will quote something Polly Toynbee wrote—I am not sure she will like that. In 2014 she spoke about the work of the Church of England and its concerns on welfare policy, describing it as being “good on food banks” as she discussed that particular aspect. What she said was quite intriguing:

“Faith makes people no more virtuous, but nor do rationalists claim any moral superiority. Pogroms, inquisitions, jihadist terror and religious massacres can be matched death for death with the secular horrors of Pol Pot, Hitler or Stalin.”

That is an interesting comment in a Polly Toynbee article—I expect a letter from her next week.

We need recognition of the importance of faith in this island and beyond by some of our more secular commentators. We need to welcome the role of faith communities. Of course, we need to welcome them in all our political parties. I was delighted to see the launching of Catholics for Labour at this year’s Labour party annual conference. It is my view that genuine multiculturalism and freedom of belief are not really possible without an appreciation of the importance of our faith communities.

If I may, I will throw two specific but totally unrelated thoughts into our discussion pot. It is right that we have laws against hate crimes of various kinds on our statute book. Freedom of thought and different beliefs is vital, but the discourse needs to be conducted with respect. I do not claim to be an expert on this, but I pose the question whether we should join the 16 other countries on the continent of Europe and make Holocaust denial an offence. Is that not a form of hate speech and something our law should reflect?

My second and unrelated point concerns the United States of America and the death penalty. One may ask, “What does that have to do with religious freedom?”. Quite a lot, I would argue. The death penalty is allowed in 31 of the 50 American states, although I welcome the fact that, of those 31, 12 have an official moratorium or have had no executions in the past 10 years. There are many arguments against the death penalty, but that is not my point today. My point is that perhaps no other nation has such a strong lobby fighting for the religious liberty of Christians across the globe, yet many of the countries where Christians suffer persecution suffer in such a way that their lives may end horribly through the death penalty. If the United States seriously wishes to advocate more powerfully on their behalf, all the states of that nation need to be serious about getting rid of the death penalty. I would be grateful to the Minister if the British Government took that up with the Americans.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

We take that up with every nation. We are committed to the abolition of the death penalty around the globe and it is an issue that I will take up at every opportunity with high commissioners and ambassadors from every nation, not just the United States.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I am most grateful to the Minister for his reassurance. Finally, I wish you, Mr Gray, and every Member here a very happy International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day tomorrow. I fear it will not be quite so happy for the many people who face persecution around the world, but it is our job to continue to take up this cause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones]

Because he was Welsh!

[Martin Whitfield]

He was Welsh and learned. In 1786, the US was still a new country—indeed, many debates took place within these walls at that time—but immigrants from all around the world were flocking to that country, seeking a place of religious freedom. It would perhaps be unfair to say that the US at that time was such a place. Indeed, Jefferson was driven to seek an amendment in the Virginian state because he had seen the repression and oppression of Quakers. They were being attacked for their religious beliefs and marginalised for their ideas. Jefferson wanted that new country to be welcoming to all and free from the repression evident in the old world. His actions were to articulate the right to freedom of religion or belief.

Here we are today, and it would be wrong to say that the situation has improved across the world. Oppression is as widespread now as it was then. I pay huge tribute to Dr Ahmed Shaheed, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and I would like to put on record what he has said:

“Given the increasing global interaction between peoples, allowing persecution across the globe to be immediately felt by others abroad, including diaspora communities, both foreign and domestic policy will be enhanced by developing an understanding of religious or belief dynamics which influence people’s behaviour towards others. It is crucial that we try to see the world as others see it and that we invest more in translating our expressions of solidarity into operational action.”

That is why this debate is so timely and important. As much as it is a celebration, strictly speaking, of an event in 1998, it is much more than that. It is a demand that Governments declare the right of freedom of religion or belief, even where state religions exist, where religious tensions run high, where Governments profess the dangers of their children being led astray, where forced conversions take place, where apostasy is still a crime and where theocracy is the rule. The enactment in 1998 directed the US Government to promote freedom of religion abroad —a cry that has been listened to by other Governments, including ours. It is a desire that must be continually pushed through dialogue, treaty, trade and influence. Tomorrow should be not just a celebration of what should be, but a celebration of what is—a celebration of a move from rhetoric to reality.

I shall finish by returning to Jefferson. When it came to religious belief, he argued that everyone should be answerable to their own god or, I would add, no god. That freedom must be defended by everyone.

Civil Society Space

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for proposing the debate. We all know that he is a tireless and relentless campaigner on these issues. It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, and to follow him and the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Glasgow East (Natalie McGarry).

It is truly shocking that, according to the International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law:

“Since 2012, more than 120 laws constraining the freedoms of association or assembly have been proposed or enacted in 60 countries.”

I am not proposing to read out any more facts and figures from that organisation, but that gives us some context. There are many ways one could start with a debate on civil society, but I suspect that, in common with most people in this country, I began at the first course of refuge, which is Wikipedia. It describes civil society as the

“aggregate of non-governmental organizations and institutions that manifest interests and will of citizens.”

That is all very good. “Collins English Dictionary” told me that sometimes the term is used in the more general sense of

“the elements such as freedom of speech, an independent judiciary, etc, that make up a democratic society”.

Of course, if one wanted to look at it in an even more erudite way than Wikipedia, there is Aristotle’s “Politics”, where the whole idea of civil society—the “koinonia politika”—was of the community coming together with shared values for common wellbeing. More recently, we have works such as Robert D. Putnam’s “Bowling Alone”, which make the point that social capital and people coming together are vital in creating cohesion in different societies.

One very important thing to consider when we look at civil society internationally is how what we do can affect cohesion in this country. The hon. Members for Strangford and for Congleton spoke about a comprehensive range of countries and themes, as they so often do. I do not pretend to have such expertise, but I want to look at the impact of what happens in this country in the context of civil society abroad. An important manifestation of civil society in this country is the coming together of different communities. In north-east Wales we are privileged to have an organisation called Together Creating Communities. Since 1995, it has brought together a range of community groups: faith groups, some unions and other community groups. Together they have facilitated and become strong so that local people can take action.

At the end of last year in December, TCC won a charity award from The Guardian. TCC has a range of different activities that bring society together, including accountability meetings—it sounds a little terrifying and sometimes is—for candidates standing for election. It brings together a range of other campaigns, too. It brought together a diverse range of groups to make Wrexham the first fair trade county in Wales, forming the basis for which Wales became the first fair trade country in the world. It worked with statutory and voluntary bodies to create an emergency night shelter in Wrexham. Critically, it supported the Muslim community in establishing the Wrexham mosque at the old Wrexham miners’ centre.

Interestingly, the English Defence League in north Wales—I emphasise that it was the English Defence League —held a protest, although it did not attract many people. A key figure at the mosque made the point that, although it was Muslims in the area who wanted the mosque, they were backed by members of Christian Churches and by representatives of other groups all standing firm together. There is a lovely quote by one of the Muslim leaders on the Together Creating Communities website:

“When we went to negotiate with the council”—

this was to do with planning and land—

“we had two other TCC members with us and they were wearing dog collars. The deputy chief executive said: ‘Excuse me, I’m a bit puzzled, you’ve come to talk...about the mosque, so what are the two clergy wearing dog collars doing with you?’ The clergy said: ‘We support them, we are with them.’”

That is an important message from a part of the country where Muslims are a small minority and were supported by a larger faith group and wider society.

As I have said, TCC has a range of campaigns. I have described one of them. Others include tackling debt and irresponsible debt lenders and there is also the fair funeral campaign. TCC asked every funeral director in the county to commit to giving out the funeral price before it takes place, and it has secured that commitment from every one. TCC shows a flavour of what good civil society organisations can be like in bringing people together.

More widely in this country, we can be proud of a great deal of our charitable and civil traditions. I am often amused when I read about this subject. The whole gamut of opinion from neoliberals to Marxists have claimed different bits of the tradition as their own. That is because it is a rich tradition, including churches, faith groups, a range of different charities, mutuals, trade unions and a great many advocacy groups. They are all part of what we see as our tradition. That is why many of us were perturbed by certain aspects of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, which ran counter to that tradition. I will not dwell on that Act today, but I will dwell on how our tradition matters.

I am intrigued that, in 1601, charity was discussed in Parliament for the first time. The preamble to the Charitable Uses Act 1601 contained a list of purposes that the state believed were of general benefit to society. Of course, that was later developed by case law, which helped to form our modern definition of charitable purposes. So far, so good. What intrigues me even more was that all that was happening at the time of Elizabeth I, a Protestant monarch, who refused to insist that Catholics converted. That was in the early 17th and late 16th century when she repeatedly said,

“I would not open windows into men’s souls.”

She was told time and again, no doubt by the many advisers—I do not know whether there were special advisers in those days but I imagine there were—

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

They would have all been men.

[Susan Elan Jones]

Probably. The tradition of civil society and openness goes hand in hand with the development of charity in our country. It is fascinating that freedom of thought happened at the same time as freedom of action. That is very important for us to consider today.

I want to move on a few centuries and pay tribute to the work of the Charities Aid Foundation, which, as we know, provides great assistance to UK and international charities. It promotes general donations to charities and operates on six continents with services provided by local experts in nine countries: America, Australia, Bulgaria, Brazil, Canada, India, Russia and southern Africa. CAF has called on the Government to consider working even more with Governments overseas to develop civil society infrastructure where the UK is transitioning out of aid funding. In view of CAF’s expertise, will the Minister comment on that point?

My final thought on that subject is that we are probably in a time when nationalisms of different hues are growing and there is a populist message. The hon. Member for Congleton used a word that perhaps more of us should reflect on: incrementalism. It often starts with something small: a comment, a bit of rhetoric or —dare I say?—a bit of banter. It can then grow to something quite unmanageable: the bashing of Muslims and the insidious growth of anti-Semitism of different varieties on all parts of the political spectrum.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Lady makes an important point in saying that it often grows to something unmanageable. One of the reasons we have such a massive refugee problem today is that so many people are denied their rights in their home places and are therefore displaced. Is that not an example of how we have incrementally caused a major problem?

[Susan Elan Jones]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady on that point. We also need to reflect on the demonisation of migrants, which in some cases seems to have dropped into common parlance. Let us remember that, in our country—I think it was in the early 1970s—there was a case that resulted in Sikh bus drivers being allowed to wear turbans. Let us remember how long ago that was and remember our tradition of tolerance.

[Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]

I have a little word for our friends across the pond. I find it extraordinary that certain of the United States of America still have the death penalty. Many people who claim to support religious and individual freedoms across the world probably get put into greater danger—some of the minorities and some of the Christian groups and the like—and they too face the death penalty. I find the very fact that American states have the death penalty quite extraordinary. The British Government support a global ban on the death penalty, but I find it extraordinary how many states in the US still have it.

More broadly, the story of Christians and Muslims coming together over the Wrexham mosque and similar ones may in the wider world in some small way strengthen the rights of Christians, who, particularly in the middle east and sub-Saharan Africa, face unprecedented hardship. That coming together and those stories from this country are important. If civil society matters at all—most of us believe it is fundamental—it is about bringing people together; freedom of expression; and the right to be different, to exercise freedoms and stand up for people with whose opinions we may disagree. That is a vital right in this country and this place. If we are truly to have a civil society based on community and tolerance, and if we care about civil society space in other parts of the world, what we do, think and say in our country matters.

Saudi Arabia

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

Yes, huge efforts are taking place behind the scenes, involving many countries. My hon. Friend speaks about Ramadi. I place on record the importance of the capital of Anbar province now returning to the Iraqis. That shows that Daesh is on the back foot. The next step is Mosul. That will be significant for Iraq, which my hon. Friend knows well. It is important that that country is able to change the laws on de-Ba’athification and the national guard. If that does not happen, all that work will be challenged.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I think that most of us would agree that last week’s dreadful executions in Saudi Arabia reinforced the case for a global abolition of the death penalty. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that our democratic allies in the west also adhere to that? Will he strongly make the case to Americans in the southern states of the US, many of whom have a deep concern for religious freedom, that their support for the death penalty in their country weakens the case for a global abolition of the death penalty and for religious freedom worldwide?

Britain in the World

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to be elected again to serve the constituency of Clwyd South in this Chamber. It has been a delight to listen to so many maiden speeches, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), who may indeed represent the most beautiful constituency in England. There were many, many good speeches.

The EU will be part of the discussion on Britain in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) referred to Airbus and to one of the reasons why the EU is so important for the economy of Wales—namely, the 6,000-plus jobs and their many spin-offs that are dependent on our membership of the European Union, as Paul Kahn, the president of Airbus, has made clear.

The Farmers Union of Wales, which never pulls its punches—it has criticised unnecessary bureaucracy and rules emanating from Brussels, and that was one of its milder comments—has made it clear that it recognises the value of remaining part of one of the world’s largest common markets and trading blocs. It has been clear that there is no make-believe about it, because we know exactly what it would be like to be outside the EU; we saw that in the rural economy at the time of the foot and mouth crisis, and with BSE.

There are issues to address, of course. Globalisation and the free movement of labour have brought many benefits, but there are other issues. I think that is sometimes seen by people on zero-hours contracts and agency workers, as an agency worker living in Brymbo in my constituency made clear. I do not expect the Government to make changes because they are social democrats or part of a labour movement, but if they believe in one nation and in social cohesion, they must address the concerns about zero-hours contracts and agency work.

I would also like to make a point about religious liberty, which was referred to earlier in the debate. It is of huge importance around the world. In parts of the world we see Christians and other religious minorities suffering persecution, and in many parts it is getting worse. Too often people think that religious freedom means a person’s right to practise the religion they were born into, but it is more than that; article 18 of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights is very clear that it includes the right to convert, and the right to believe in something or in nothing. It is vital that we see those human rights as part of our vision of Britain in the world. I know that the debate on human rights and on what the Government will do is fairly open at the moment, but if this nation chooses to withdraw from international treaties, think of the message that will send. Think of what that would say to countries such as Pakistan, where so many people are already suffering under the blasphemy laws. I think that those are major issues. They are to do with communities such as mine, but they are also to do with this country and with the global community.

Oral Answers to Questions

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Pakistan’s joining the GSP will drive better governance, as it grants vulnerable countries duty-free access to the EU on two thirds of tariff lines if they implement 27 international conventions on human rights, labour standards, sustainable development and good governance. That is good news for Pakistan and for the EU. Pakistan stands to gain an estimated $500 million and 1 million new jobs from this agreement. It is a sign of a deeper and more effective relationship that benefits both our two countries, given that the UK was at the lead on it.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

23. Many of us are deeply fearful about the chasm between the official Government position in Pakistan on religious freedom for Christians, Hindus and other religious minorities, and the reality on the ground. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Pakistani Government on the vexed and vexatious blasphemy laws?

[Mr Swire]

As the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) just said, we raise issues of religious tolerance, particularly in respect of Christian minorities, wherever we go. Baroness Warsi repeatedly raised the issue of religious freedom and minority protections at the highest level during her visit to Pakistan in October 2013, and she referred to the issue in an open letter on 25 December. It is worth saying that she had a frank and open discussion with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hain]

I will come to that point when I discuss whether we should consult groups such as the Royal British Legion.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

One consultee that my right hon. Friend proposes is the National Farmers Union. As urban areas are, by their nature, in the majority, those of us who represent rural areas are always fearful that the voice of rural Britain will be left out. Does he agree that it is of pivotal importance that farming groups are consulted?

[Mr Hain]

I do, and I am about to make that point.

As the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, I am a pro-European, but I am also a critical one. That is why amendments 77, 78 and 68 and new schedule 2 are important. I am not a Europhile who cannot see that the EU needs reform or who wants integration at all costs. I am a practical European. I voted yes in the 1975 referendum but, as an MP in 1992, I voted no in the House to the Maastricht treaty—with the hon. Gentleman, among others—because I did not think the foundations on which the euro was erected were the right ones. Time has probably proved that view correct.

As Europe Minister over a decade ago, I was intensely frustrated with what I call the Brussels bubble, which is mainly inhabited by Commission officials, small-country Ministers and European parliamentarians. It exists in a world of its own, forming an elite and making the EU increasingly unpopular among its citizens. But—and this is the point of a proper consultation—none of this means that we should pull out, any more than Scottish frustrations with the Westminster bubble mean that Scotland should withdraw from the United Kingdom, or voters’ frustrations with all the major political parties, including Labour and Conservative, mean that they should give up on parliamentary democracy.

We need systematic consultation with a report that Parliament can properly assess before deciding how to proceed. I am sure that the Royal British Legion, if consulted, would have something to say. Just imagine if, at the end of the second world war, Monnet and others had concluded that 80 years of bitter Franco-German hatred made European unity impossible.

The following 60 years of Franco-German reconciliation and EU achievement would never have occurred. That is a matter that organisations, particularly veterans organisations, should be properly consulted upon, under sub-paragraph (j) of new schedule 2. It is incumbent on our generation to find the means to take Europe forward on the global stage, not to retreat into reactionary isolationism.

Amendment 68, like new schedule 2, would place an obligation on the Government to consult on all these matters. It is essential that we do so. The consultation would also be an opportunity to recognise that Europe’s first achievement was to remove the internal tariff barriers that held back growth and prosperity across the whole continent, including Britain. We accepted that, especially with globalisation, our interests were best served by bringing down barriers, which enabled Europe to act as one unit in trade and become a more powerful, if as yet imperfect, force for trade liberalisation under internationally agreed common rules. Again, we could be talking to the business sector and exporters about that, if the Government had the courage. It makes me wonder why they do not. Have they got a reason to be worried about a proper consultation?

Consultation under these amendments would also give us the opportunity to remind everybody—in particular, it would give the older generation a chance to remind younger citizens voting in this referendum, if it happens—that Europe’s success in reconciling once-bitter foes established and consolidated peace and democracy across the EU. It is important that there be proper consultation, that this be assessed and that Parliament have a chance to reflect upon it. For example, EU enlargement, first to Greece, Spain and Portugal—countries that until relatively recently were fascist dictatorships—and now to former communist states in central and eastern Europe that were also under a form of dictatorship, has amply shown how the zone of stability, democracy and prosperity can be extended right across a continent on which more wars have been fought over the centuries than in any other part of the world.

Similarly, with proper consultation—my amendment 78 suggests a minimum of 28 weeks—we could assess the impact of our being part of association agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova and of the continuing accession negotiations that the EU is conducting with Turkey. I believe it essential that those negotiations succeed, because Turkey is a vital bridge between Europe and Asia, west and east, Christianity and Islam. If we enter a referendum campaign in the heat and din of a three-week in/out squabble, none of these issues will be revealed, and that is why consultation is essential.

Oral Answers to Questions

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

T10. The Secretary of State will be aware that several non-partisan commentators have expressed concerns that any military strikes on Syria could result in increased tensions between the various faith and cultural groups in the country. Does he accept their assertions in part or whole?

[Mr Hague]

Those issues were the subject of our debate last week. The hon. Lady may have gathered that, in the light of that vote, we are not planning to put forward the same proposition to the House. She could reserve her comments for the unlikely event of such a further debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Susan Elan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

2. What reports he has received on the capacity of the authorities in Afghanistan to preside over free and fair presidential elections in 2014.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

6. What reports he has received on the capacity of the authorities in Afghanistan to preside over free and fair presidential elections in 2014.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

10. What reports he has received on the capacity of the authorities in Afghanistan to preside over free and fair presidential elections in 2014.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones]

The Minister will know that there are concerns about the capacity of the Afghan authorities to hold presidential elections in 2014. In the light of that, what is the Government’s assessment of recent media reports that Hamid Karzai is considering stepping down a year early, thereby triggering an election before the withdrawal of international forces?

[Alistair Burt]

Of course the date of presidential elections that might be triggered by a resignation must be a matter for the Afghanistan Government and the President. That he has made clear his intention to stand down is important in the context of accepting Afghanistan’s own constitution, which limits him to two terms. If an election were to come up immediately, the Independent Election Commission has said it would be difficult, but I think the sense is that the timing is likely to be co-ordinated with the Afghan Administration’s ability to hold such an election. It is a matter for them, but too soon an election might be very difficult, although the Independent Election Commission is working hard at improving its capacity to hold an election at the allotted time.