Debates between James Cartlidge and Bill Esterson during the 2017-2019 Parliament

Tue 4th Jul 2017
European Union (Approvals) Bill
Commons Chamber

2nd reading: House of Commons

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Debate between James Cartlidge and Bill Esterson
2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 4th July 2017

(6 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate European Union (Approvals) Act 2017 View all European Union (Approvals) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson Portrait Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The Bill was included in the Queen’s Speech. The background notes refer to helping to grant Serbia and Albania observer status at the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency, and an agreement for enhanced co-operation between competition regulators in the EU and Canada. However, I will not be the only one who was somewhat surprised that it was chosen as the second Bill to be given a Second Reading in the new Parliament. Why was it given such a high priority, given what might have happened, and given what was, at one point, in the Conservative party manifesto?

We could have suggested some alternatives. For instance, the Government could have addressed the pay cap. Members of the Cabinet and members of the Conservative party are now doing that, and quite an argument seems to be going on, but we could have been debating the subject in the House today.

James Cartlidge Portrait James Cartlidge
- Hansard - -

The hon. Gentleman will know that the civil war in Yugoslavia was an horrific, scarring experience for our whole continent. We should not belittle it by underestimating the importance of those nations’ reaching our level in terms of human rights and so on.

Bill Esterson Portrait Bill Esterson
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Of course the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, which was why it was right for the Bill to be in the Queen’s Speech. I was merely questioning why it had been given such prominence. Given that it consists of only two lines, why was something weightier not presented first?

I have mentioned the pay cap, the turmoil in the Conservative party, and the agonising over whether public servants should be given a pay rise. There is also the debate about tuition fees, the debate about whether there should be more police and firefighters—