Israeli Teenagers (Abduction and Murder)
Debate between David Burrowes and Hugh Robertson(9 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hugh Robertson
Yes. I am very aware of the impact that any form of military action has on life in the west bank, as are many others. My hon. Friend’s constituent and others have properly drawn the international community’s attention to that. On the other hand, we have to understand that Israel is the one liberal democracy in that part of the world and that it lies in an arc of countries where instability is everywhere. Security is Israel’s key concern, and we understand that, but it is important that the actions taken in this regard are precisely targeted to identify and deal with the perpetrators and not a wider objective.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
These appalling and heinous acts of terror have been equally condemned on both sides of the House and by all apart from Hamas. Further to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), may I question how he can draw an equivalence between such an act taking place here and such an act taking place in Israel when it comes to a proportionate response to bring the perpetrators to justice? When Hamas and terrorists are throwing rockets over the border and on to innocent civilians and when Hamas itself sees Israeli teenagers as legitimate targets for terrorist attacks, how can we draw any equivalence when it comes to the response?
Hugh Robertson
The correct response as regards the war on terror, which we have faced in this country for many years through the threat from Irish republicans, is to target what we do very precisely, to avoid escalation and to abide by the rule of law. That is precisely how we relieve the underlying causes of conflict. If one goes further than that, the lessons of history show that that inevitably stokes the conflict and makes things worse.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between David Burrowes and Hugh Robertson(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hugh Robertson
Yes, I will do so. As I have said, the Foreign Office helped to fund Baroness Scotland’s excellent report into many of the issues surrounding child detainees. We not only funded that report, but entirely support it. During my time as a Minister, I will do everything I can to ensure that its recommendations are properly and correctly implemented.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I join hon. Members who have concerns about the treatment of detainees, but is it not important to focus on the source of the problem, which is Palestinian children being infected by the glorification of violence and hate education, which, sadly, are supported by the Palestinian Authority? Can the Minister assure me that taxpayer funding does not support such activities?
Hugh Robertson
Yes, on the basis of three weeks’ work, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. In a sense, his question points to the importance of everybody concerned getting behind the peace process. If that comes successfully to fruition, many of those problems will be solved in its wake.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Debate between David Burrowes and Hugh Robertson
Hugh Robertson
That example shows the danger of trying to make law on the basis of one individual case, particularly when—as in that case—the litigant failed to apply and follow the relevant legal processes, making it difficult to take further action on that basis.
On amendment 3 to new clause 5, the important thing about the public sector equality duty is that it is a duty to think, rather than to achieve, a particular outcome. It could not possibly be used to justify an act of discrimination because of a belief by a public authority. New clause 6 seeks to make it explicit that the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman may be a religious or philosophical belief, and that is indeed protected by the Equality Act 2010. Philosophical beliefs are protected if they are genuinely held, and we are entirely confident that the belief that marriage should be only between a man and a woman meets those criteria 100%.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate would like a few minutes to wind-up the debate, so I will finish where we started. We ran through all these issues in Committee at some length and we will take note of the will of the House tonight and listen to it carefully. Where we find a need to act, we will take action.
Mr Burrowes
I appreciate there is limited time for a debate on serious issues, and what I believe is a consensus across the House—to ensure that religious liberty, and liberty in general, is properly protected. I welcome the recent good news: after weeks of toil in Committee we now have progress from the Government on new clause 1 and an undertaking given to the House that they will take away and seek to amend any guidance. That will ensure, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) properly said, that the Bill is crystal clear and that we understand the balance, and further clarity is welcome. I recognise that as I am sure does the whole House.
New clause 1 is not objectionable in any way and I encourage all hon. Members to read it and see that we are trying to make it clear that no teacher should be obliged to promote or endorse a view of marriage that is contrary to their belief or, as in the new clause, to the ethos of the school. I welcome that undertaking from the Minister and do not wish to take up the House’s time by pressing new clause 1 to a vote. I also welcome the Minister’s assurance that he is concerned, as are a number of hon. Members, to ensure that we have freedom of speech not just for Members but for our constituents, and that he will work on amendment 50 and the Public Order Act 1986.
This has been called the live-and-let-live Bill, but we must ensure that it is not a live-and-let-live Bill only as long as someone agrees with the state’s redefinition of marriage.
On the basis of the assurances that have been given, I will not press new clause 1 to a Division. However, on new clause 3, on registrars, there is a tradition and a precedent for conscientious objections. I therefore wish to press new clause 3 to a Division, along with new clause 6, which was signed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). Equality legislation did not give justice to Adrian Smith, who had to rely on contract law. We need to ensure that the Equality Act 2010 is fit for purpose to protect belief in respect of marriage. Finally, I wish to press new clause 8 to a Division. It will ensure that the Catholic Church and others will not be compelled—we need a clear understanding of “compelled” so that they are not discriminated against for their decision to opt out of same-sex marriage.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games (Amendment) Bill
Debate between David Burrowes and Hugh Robertson
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
As a London Member of Parliament, as a mad sports fan and, indeed, as an owner and friend of newts—they cropped up in the previous speech, and they are not a monopoly interest of the previous Mayor—I am delighted to take part in this Second Reading debate. In acknowledging the commitment of previous Ministers in bringing the Olympics to London, I would particularly like to pay tribute to the present Minister for Sport and the Olympics, who told us in his opening speech of being six years on the beat. He is certainly a reassuring presence as he helps to guide us through the preparations for the Olympics.
Earlier this week, I got into the mood and experienced the emotions associated with the Olympics. I experienced frustration, anxiety, disappointment and then a final adrenalin push as I wanted to get to the end of the line before time ran out. Obviously, I am referring to applying for my tickets to attend the Olympics. We shall get a taste of national celebration tomorrow with the royal wedding, and we look forward to the Olympics when we will again have the opportunity to raise this country’s flag and be proud of what we can produce.
Next year’s Olympics and Paralympics will provide a great opportunity for the people of London and of this country to celebrate sportsmanship and sporting excellence—sportsmanship of which, sadly, we saw too little evidence in last night's champions league semi-final. The dedication and focus of athletes from across the world will set a fantastic example to young people. The investment that this Government and the previous Government have put into new facilities across the country will revive interest in fitness and games at every ability level and inspire the next generation of sportsmen and women, as well as promote a generation of more physically active people. In my neighbouring constituency of Broxbourne, the Lee Valley white water rafting centre is already open to the public, in advance of what will prove to be an excellent facility for canoeing and kayaking.
Furthermore, 2012 will provide an opportunity to celebrate Britain, our culture and our values. As we welcome thousands of visitors to London, we have an opportunity to showcase what it means to be a free country, which can ensure that an event of great size runs smoothly, successfully and enjoyably—without resorting to overbearing methods or controls. The world is watching, British taxpayers are watching and London council tax payers are certainly watching, and we must make certain that all those who support the Olympics can be proud not only of the performance of team GB, but of the manner in which the games are held and our infrastructure copes.
There are real challenges to achieving that. Some will seek to sell tickets illegally, as has already been mentioned, or fob people off with fakes, thereby cheating fans and supporters out of their money and tarring the spirit of the games. Some may try to advertise around Olympic grounds and spaces in a way that unfairly and misleadingly associates their products with the games, tricking those who view them into thinking that the companies or individuals involved are sponsoring or are officially endorsed by athletes or the Olympic games. We saw an example of that at the recent World cup, when orange-clad women were advertising the beverage that they wanted to push. Such ambush advertising is unfair not only on consumers, but on those who have donated and contributed towards the holding of the events that we will be able to experience and enjoy next year. We can look at the criticism of monopoly branding, but we should recognise the immense financial impact of the games—as the Minister said, £700 million is no mean amount of money, which has helped to reduce the burden on taxpayers.
Those representing London constituencies—I see several of my hon. Friends in their places—will be especially aware of the need to ensure careful planning and flexible powers, so that the sheer size and scale of both the Olympics and our city do not interfere with our commitment to provide accessible sites and quick transport links to and from Olympic venues. This needs to be done proportionately, without inhibiting the free flow of normal business in and around London.
The Bill will help to ensure that our 2012 celebrations will be unmitigated by those challenges in a way that is simple, efficient, targeted, transparent and affordable. The Bill contains simple solutions such as increasing the maximum fine for the unauthorised sale of tickets from £5,000 to £20,000—a serious deterrent to those who would take advantage of other people’s enthusiasm for the games—without creating any new offence or a complicated set of procedures. The Bill will give the responsibility for dealing with property confiscated under advertising and trading regulations to the Olympic Delivery Authority enforcement officers, allowing them to make use of powers and procedures tailored for the period covering the Olympics, removing an unnecessary burden from the shoulders of the police.
The key principle, as has already been mentioned, is proportionality, particularly with respect to clause 1, which concerns the removal of infringing articles. As we know all too well, labels are part and parcel of the everyday lives of young people in particular, and the labels on their clothes and the bags that they carry around might technically fall into the classification of infringement. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that proportionality will be applied. I am not talking about planned and organised ambush advertising in contravention of the rules; I am talking about inadvertent advertising by people who attend the games with labels all over their bodies and the articles that they are carrying.
When I referred to proportionality, I did not mean just that officials should not seek to prosecute such people—indeed, we would not expect them to do so—but that the games should not get off to a bad start with the confiscation of articles. For instance, a young person might be carrying the latest man bag with a label emblazoned on it. We should bear in mind that, while it may be appropriate in some respects for local authorities to carry out the task of enforcement, they are, sadly, sometimes guilty of over-zealous application of new powers.
Hugh Robertson
Obviously I explained the position very badly in my speech. Not all enforcement officers will come from local authorities. The ODA will naturally look to them when recruiting officers, because they have some expertise, but anyone who is suitably qualified can do the job. As for the point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, I have been told that under the contract that will be in force, local authorities will be reimbursed for the cost of losing officials if they are selected to act as enforcement officers.