UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: David Jones

  • David Jones – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    David Jones – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Jones on 2015-12-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what discussions he has had with his international counterparts on establishing a regime of sanctions against nations and other entities which trade with Daesh.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    The UK has led efforts to create and enforce an international sanctions regime to cut off support, including financial, for Daesh and other terrorist groups, underpinned by UN Security Council Resolutions. UN Security Council Resolution 1267 imposes sanctions on individual and groups associated with Al-Qaida and its affiliates including Daesh. In August 2014, under the UK’s Presidency, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2170 to restrict Daesh’s financial, trade and recruitment networks, as well as sanctioning individuals. In February 2015, we co-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 2199, which tightens sanctions on Daesh, and requires all states to prevent the transfer of economic resources to Daesh, including infrastructure. The UK has also worked with other member states to secure EU sanctions listings to target individuals supplying Daesh oil to the Assad regime.

  • David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Jones on 2016-01-19.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what representations he has made to his Israeli counterpart on the transfer of protected persons from the West Bank to prisons inside Israel.

    Mr Tobias Ellwood

    We regularly raise our concerns about the treatment of Palestinian prisoners with the Israeli authorities, including routine detention of Palestinians from the West Bank in prison inside Israel. We are particularly concerned about the detention of Palestinian children in Israeli prisons. We welcome recent improvements made by the Israeli authorities, including increasing the age of majority from 16 to 18 years old. However, we remain concerned at the number of Palestinian minors held in Israeli detention.

  • David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department for International Development

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Jones on 2016-02-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, what support her Department is providing to Christian communities in Iraq and Syria.

    Mr Desmond Swayne

    There have been horrific cases of attacks on Christians and other religious communities by violent extremists including Daesh. We prioritise reaching the most vulnerable people across Iraq and Syria, including Christians and others who have suffered from such violence. All UK funded humanitarian assistance is distributed on the basis of need, and need alone, to ensure civilians are not discriminated against on the grounds of race, religion, or ethnicity. The UK continues to work with the UN and the international community to ensure all minorities’ rights are protected and our aid reaches those in greatest need.

    To date, the UK has committed £79.5 million to the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. In response to the Syria crisis, we have pledged over £2.3 billion, our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis.

    As a result of UK support to Syria and the region, between February 2012 and June 2015, almost 20 million food rations were distributed, 1.6 million people were provided with clean water, 2.5 million medical consultations were provided, over 4 million relief packages were distributed and over 250,000 children were supported in formal and informal education.

  • David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Jones on 2016-02-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what support his Department is providing to Christian militias in the fight against Daesh in Iraq and Syria.

    Penny Mordaunt

    We are not providing support on the basis of faith or religion. In Iraq, our focus has been on the Iraqi security forces, including the Kurdish Peshmerga, to whom we have provided training in infantry skills and tactics to counter improvised explosive devices. We have also provided medical training. In Syria, we have delivered over £4 million of life-saving equipment to moderate opposition groups including communications, medical and logistics equipment, and protection against chemical weapons attacks.

  • David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    David Jones – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by David Jones on 2016-02-11.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans she has to reform the police complaints process.

    Mike Penning

    Complaints made against the police must be responded to in a way that builds public confidence, and allows lessons to be learned.

    The Policing and Crime Bill will reform the complaints system so that the handling of police complaints is customer focused and that cases are dealt with quickly and effectively, not just for the benefits of the public, but also for officers who have done nothing wrong.

  • David Jones – 2022 Speech on West Coast Main Line Services

    David Jones – 2022 Speech on West Coast Main Line Services

    The speech made by David Jones, the Conservative MP for Clwyd West, in the House of Commons on 15 December 2022.

    First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) on securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee on facilitating it. I guess that the debate is of interest to a considerable number of Members of this House, and I suspect that the reason the Chamber is not fuller today is that a lot of them are in Euston station waiting to see whether they can get a train home. Indeed, to be absolutely frank, the only reason that I am here is that I had the foresight to bring my car on Sunday—I did not want to take my chances with Avanti today immediately before Christmas.

    The west coast main line is one of the most important pieces of transport infrastructure in this country, as it links the capital with major population centres such as Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Importantly for my constituents, as my hon. Friend said, it also connects to the north Wales main line, which links the capital to north Wales towns and Holyhead, which is the principal ferry port to Ireland.

    For my constituents, the west coast and north Wales main lines are a lifeline to the capital city and the major cities of the north-west and the midlands. North Wales is an extremely important holiday destination, so it is vital for the north Wales economy that there should be good, reliable and frequent links to London and other cities. Similarly, north Wales businesspeople and travellers are entitled to have those links to the capital.

    Sadly, the rail network is currently beset by strikes, but that aside, north Wales has not enjoyed a decent train service for quite a long time. For many years, as we have heard, the franchise was operated by Virgin Trains and the service was generally regarded as good, reliable and efficient. In 2019, however, the franchise was granted to Avanti West Coast, which is a joint venture of FirstGroup and Trenitalia, as we have heard. Since then, matters have declined considerably. It is ironic that an Italian company is involved, because it used to be said that the only decent thing that Mussolini ever did was make the Italian trains run on time.

    It is no exaggeration to say that Avanti has performed deplorably for much of the year, and nowhere has that performance been more lamentable than in north Wales. For much of the time since August, there has been, at best, only one through train a day between Holyhead and London. Travellers from stations across north Wales have been obliged to change trains once and sometimes twice at Chester and Crewe. The north Wales main line has been reduced to the status of an inefficient branch line.

    Complaints are legion. I will give the House a flavour of some of the complaints that I have received from my constituents. One said:

    “The current North Wales to London service is the worst I have known in the 30 years that I have used it”,

    and that that makes it “impossible” for them or their wife

    “to hold UK-wide appointments which require our attendance at meetings in London.”

    Another said that Avanti’s management of the west coast route is

    “limiting our growth, because we can no longer rely on trains to and from London, as we did when Virgin ran the train line. As such, we have missed many business opportunities because we have had so many trains cancelled, resulting in our clients losing confidence in our service. We have also had return trains delayed, meaning we have incurred unnecessary expense and inconvenience as we have had to stay in hotels and lose valuable working hours the next day.”

    I received one on Monday that said:

    “I returned to Colwyn Bay on the 18:10 Avanti train from London Euston last Friday. The train consisted of only five coaches instead of the advertised 10 and effectively departed dangerously overloaded due to the number of passengers having to stand. The on-board seat booking system was absent, causing much confusion, no refreshment/buffet service available, and the service arrived over 20 minutes late to Colwyn Bay. In all, a very poor service, which, sadly, I have become accustomed to.”

    I could regale the House with similar personal experiences, such as of my five-hour journey home last Friday that would normally take under three hours.

    Those complaints are entirely justified when one looks at the empirical evidence. The website of the Office of Rail and Road reveals that the average rate of cancellations in Great Britain as a whole was 4.1% in the quarter from July to September 2022. However, in the same quarter, the rate of cancellations for Avanti West Coast was 12.1%—almost three times the national average. On punctuality, the percentage of recorded station stops arrived at on time for Great Britain as a whole was 67.7%; for Avanti, it was 38.8%—almost twice as bad.

    As we have heard, Avanti’s operational problems have primarily been caused by a shortage of available drivers. It has pursued a business model of relying heavily on drivers undertaking overtime work as a matter of course. The short-sightedness of that approach is manifest in the dreadful service that north Wales rail passengers have endured, despite the best efforts of Avanti train staff, who I have no doubt are just as dispirited by the current situation as anyone else. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, I highly value the work of Avanti train staff, who are always cheerful and efficient; it is just that they are trying to do their best while working for a really inefficient operation.

    In August, the vast majority of Avanti staff refused to work overtime, meaning that the company, instead of having the staff to run 400 services, had enough to run only 50. Avanti called this “unofficial strike action”. ASLEF disputes that, saying that drivers do not have to work overtime, and it is hard not to have some sympathy with that view. The fact is that if Avanti wanted to take on the franchise, it was up to the company to ensure that it could deliver on its obligations. Avanti says that all train operators rely on overtime to deliver services, but other, comparable train operators have not had the difficulties that it has experienced. For example, LNER, which runs the east coast franchise, has run a normal timetable since February. Avanti must therefore be incapable of cultivating good relations with its staff in such a way as to achieve an acceptable service.

    Avanti formerly operated the franchise under an emergency recovery measures agreement, which fell due to be renewed on 16 October. Many of us fervently hoped that it would not be renewed; indeed, north Wales Conservative MPs wrote to the DFT urging it not to renew it. However, before the 16th, the Department announced that Avanti’s franchise would be extended to 1 April 2023 to assess whether the company could improve its services.

    As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, Avanti has introduced a new timetable with effect from 11 December, although that timetable still represents a reduction in the normal levels of service. Given the strikes that we are currently enduring, it is probably too early to say whether the timetable will hold. However, it is ominous that, as of yesterday, ASLEF has been balloting its members on strike action over new rosters.

    Frankly, Avanti’s stewardship of the west coast franchise has been nothing short of appalling. It has not provided, and it continues not to provide, a proper standard of service to passengers on the west coast main line, and that failure must not be ignored by the Government. I have had a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister today saying that the Government are working with Avanti to try to improve the service. My suspicion is that, with respect, he is flogging a dead horse, because I do not think that Avanti is capable of improvement.

    The current situation is not just inconveniencing travellers; it is damaging the economy right across the country, not least in the part of the world I represent. It is impossible to see any good reason why Avanti should continue to operate the west coast franchise. At the earliest possible moment, the Government should remove the franchise from Avanti and seek a new operator for the west coast main line. Avanti has had its chance, and it has failed. There is no reason why passengers in north Wales or in any other part of the country should be expected to continue to endure the consequences of Avanti’s sheer incompetence.

  • David Jones – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Iranian Government

    David Jones – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Iranian Government

    The parliamentary question asked by David Jones, the Conservative MP for Clwyd West, in the House of Commons on 16 November 2022.

    Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)

    It has been clear for many years that Iran is a rogue state, presided over by gangsters posing as clerics and seeking to maintain control through the actions of thugs posing as police officers and militia. It is clear that the regime is terrified of losing that control, which is why it is now resorting to executing its own citizens for confected crimes. Does my hon. Friend agree that now is the time for the United Kingdom to position itself on the right side of history by declaring unequivocally that it supports the demands of the brave people of Iran for regime change in that country? I understand that he will not comment on what proscription the Government may be considering, but will he take it from me that very many hon. Members would be delighted if they woke up tomorrow morning to discover that the IRGC had been proscribed today?

    David Rutley

    I understand the points that my right hon. Friend makes. The destabilising activity of the IRGC, be it in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon or Syria, is very concerning, in the region and beyond. We are constantly keeping that proscription under review but, as he knows, I cannot comment at this stage.

  • David Jones – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    David Jones – 2022 Tribute to HM Queen Elizabeth II

    The tribute made by David Jones, the Conservative MP for Clwyd West, in the House of Commons, on 9 September 2022.

    As other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, it is impossible for virtually all of us and our constituents to remember a time when Her Majesty the Queen was not there. I was born a matter of weeks after she acceded to the throne, and throughout my life—indeed, all our lives—hers has been a continuous, reassuring presence, providing wise guidance for the country through good times and bad. She was both an anchor and a lodestone for our nation, and it is indeed hard to contemplate life without her.

    For seven decades, she was there for us, and I think that many of us thought that she always would be. She had a rare, innate ability to generate affection, respect and loyalty not only from the people of this country, but from countless millions throughout the Commonwealth and beyond. Hers was arguably the most recognised face on the planet, and she will be missed not only here but in other lands across the world—even in the few countries that she never visited during her long reign.

    At the time of her platinum jubilee, the BBC broadcast a remarkable documentary called “Elizabeth: The Unseen Queen”, which was part-narrated by the Queen herself. In the documentary, she spoke the following words of an Australian aboriginal proverb:

    “We are all visitors to this time, this place.

    We are just passing through.

    Our purpose here is to observe, to learn, to grow, to love.

    And then we return home.”

    While we and our constituents feel the most profound grief at her passing, and our mourning will undoubtedly continue long beyond her funeral, we must find comfort in the knowledge that our Queen, strong in the Christian faith that sustained her throughout her life, has returned home and is at peace. God bless the lovely memory of Her Majesty. God save the King.

  • David Jones – 2022 Speech on Iran’s Nuclear Programme

    David Jones – 2022 Speech on Iran’s Nuclear Programme

    The speech made by David Jones, the Conservative MP for Clwyd West, in the House of Commons on 30 June 2022.

    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating it. It is, for all the reasons set out by my right hon. Friend, a timely debate. It is also timely because it comes after the report of the board of governors of the IAEA on 30 May and the subsequent resolution of 8 June, which censures Iran for non-co-operation with the agency’s inquiry into nuclear traces found at three non-declared sites. That action on the part of the agency is certainly a step forward, but it goes nowhere near far enough.

    Iran’s nuclear programme has been known about since 2002, when the existence of the facilities at Natanz and Arak were revealed by the Iranian democratic Opposition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The Iranian regime has always asserted that its programme is for civilian purposes only and has always denied that it is attempting to produce nuclear weapons. That simply defies belief. As we have heard, despite the terms of the JCPOA, Iran started enriching uranium to 20% in 2010, and later the same year it moved to 60% enrichment. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, that is considerably beyond anything that is needed for civilian purposes.

    In its report of 1 June, the Institute for Science and International Security concluded:

    “Iran’s breakout timeline is now at zero. It has enough 60 percent enriched uranium or highly enriched uranium (HEU) to be assured it could fashion a nuclear explosive. If Iran wanted to further enrich its 60 percent HEU up to weapon-grade HEU, or 90 percent, it could do so within a few weeks with only a few of its advanced centrifuge cascades.”

    Clearly the time pressure is enormous. The report went on to note:

    “Whether or not Iran enriches its HEU up to 90 percent, it can have enough HEU for two nuclear weapons within one month after starting breakout.”

    That is, by any standards, a very worrying state of affairs.

    It is made all the more worrying by Iran’s increasingly erratic and aggressive stance in the region and, indeed, the wider world. As my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out, Iran is an active state sponsor of terrorism—probably the world’s leading state sponsor. Its proxies are engaged in fomenting conflict in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. My right hon. Friend mentioned the Istanbul incident; I would like to mention the incident in June 2018, when a bomb plot targeting a gathering of Iranian pro-democracy supporters in Paris was disrupted by the French and Belgian authorities. An Iranian diplomat accredited to the embassy in Vienna was subsequently convicted for leading the conspiracy and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. Three accomplices were convicted, and their sentences were upheld, with two years added, by the court of appeal in Antwerp in May. Iran is certainly exporting terrorism not just throughout the region, but across the world.

    Dr Offord

    I feel the need to correct my right hon. Friend on that point. It was not just Iranian politicians and Opposition members who were targeted; five of us from the British Parliament were at risk of being blown up in that terrorist incident.

    Mr Jones

    My hon. Friend is entirely right: it was a gathering of supporters of the NCRI, which takes place every year in Paris and attracts supporters from all round the world. As he points out, had that conspiracy been successful, its consequences would have been catastrophic.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned Iran’s revolutionary guard corps. That is, in effect, a state within a state. It directs, leads and executes the terrorist activities of Iran. As he pointed out, it is a proscribed organisation in the United States, and many will wonder why it is not proscribed in this country. I believe that it should be. Iran is already a global danger, but a nuclear-armed Iran is an appalling and unacceptable prospect.

    The IAEA report makes it clear that the Iranian regime has, effectively, been playing games with the agency for many years. At three locations that the agency requested to visit, the regime razed buildings to the ground and removed structural material and soil, clearly in an effort to disguise what was happening there. Nevertheless, the agency discovered traces of anthropogenic nuclear material. The report states that the regime has

    “not provided explanations that are technically credible”

    for the presence of nuclear material in those locations. The Tehran regime has clearly shown by its actions that it has no intent whatever to co-operate in good faith with the IAEA. Not only is the regime taking steps to advance its enrichment programme by installing more advanced centrifuges; it is doing all it can to restrict the ability of IAEA inspectors to monitor its nuclear sites. It has turned off two devices that the agency relied on to monitor the enrichment of uranium gas at Natanz and initiated plans to remove 27 surveillance cameras from other nuclear facilities.

    On 20 June, Reuters cited a confidential IAEA report, which revealed that:

    “Iran is escalating its uranium enrichment further by preparing to use advanced IR-6 centrifuges at its underground Fordow site that can more easily switch between enrichment levels”.

    In a joint statement to the board of governors of the IAEA on 27 June, the UK, France and Germany expressed their concern about the continued nuclear activities in breach of the JCPOA. They pointed out that the alarming accumulation of enriched material is cause for great concern and is further reducing the time that it would take Iran to break out towards its first nuclear weapon.

    The position, therefore, is that it is clearly known that Iran is taking active steps to produce highly enriched uranium, the only credible purpose of which can be to produce nuclear weapons. The question must be whether there is any purpose in continuing to urge Iran to fulfil its obligations under the JCPOA when it is perfectly clear that it has no intention whatever to do so. The continued efforts to engage with Iran and go the extra mile may be laudable, but, frankly, seem increasingly futile. Iran clearly regards the west as weak and is almost openly laughing at us.

    A new course is called for. Consideration should be given to whether seeking to adhere to the JCPOA as the basis for our future dealings with Iran is realistic or sensible. Rather than clinging to vain hopes that Iran is capable of mending its ways and responding to the IAEA’s censure, the UK should work with the United States and other international partners to refer Iran to the UN Security Council with a view to reinstating the six sanctions-imposing resolutions that were suspended with the JCPOA’s initial implementation.

    Iran must learn that flouting the JCPOA has real consequences, and the west should unite to apply the most intense pressure possible on Iran to wind up its nuclear programme, since it is now abundantly clear that it is not for any peaceful purpose, but is aggressive. Quite simply, Iran is a rogue state, and a rogue state in possession of nuclear weapons is not a prospect that the west can happily contemplate or, indeed, tolerate.

  • David Jones – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    David Jones – 2022 Speech on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

    The speech made by David Jones, the Conservative MP for Clwyd West, in the House of Commons on 27 June 2022.

    The status of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom derives initially from the Act of Union 1800, the sixth article of which provides that, in matters of trade and in treaties with foreign powers, the

    “subjects of Ireland shall have same the privileges…as…subjects of Great Britain.”

    The 1800 Act was augmented, as we know, by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement of 1998, which declares that

    “it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.

    As hon. Members have said today, the Belfast agreement is fundamental to the maintenance of peace in Northern Ireland, and preserves its constitutional status. The fact that the agreement is crucial is acknowledged in the Northern Ireland protocol, which says that the protocol

    “is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement in respect of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent”.

    The essential point is that the protocol, which is part of an international treaty, explicitly acknowledges the primacy of the Belfast agreement—another international treaty.

    The agreement, however, has been undermined by the protocol. It is absolutely clear that the arrangements set up by the protocol are having a detrimental impact on life in Northern Ireland and on the privileges of its people. As we have heard, there are burdensome checks on goods passing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and that has created a border in the Irish Sea between constituent parts of the United Kingdom, which cannot be acceptable.

    As we heard from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), people in Northern Ireland find it difficult to secure many goods that they have traditionally been able to purchase, and there has been a diversion of trade away from mainland Great Britain and towards the European Union. The disruption has also impacted the democratic institutions of Northern Ireland. The Assembly has not been reconstituted since the elections earlier this year, and the Executive remains suspended. This is a worrying and potentially dangerous state of affairs, especially given the sensitive political history of Northern Ireland.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    Given the right hon. Gentleman’s concern for the Assembly and for democracy in Northern Ireland, does he think that the protocol should be decided on by that very Assembly?

    Mr Jones

    The Assembly will, in due course, have the right to decide on it, but that will be after the passage of four years.

    Both the UK and the EU recognise the practical problems of the protocol and its impact on Northern Ireland. Both recognise that those problems should, if possible, be resolved by negotiation, and hon. Members in all parts of the House have repeated that today. Everybody would like the issues to be resolved through negotiation, but for that to happen, it would be necessary for the EU to change the negotiating mandate given to Vice-President Šefčovič—and that it refuses to do. As we heard from the Secretary of State, there have been extensive negotiations over 18 months, and they have been fruitless.

    The Government have a clear duty to take action to restore the privileges of the people of Northern Ireland, so that they are equal to those of people in the rest of the UK, and to respect the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The action that the Government have taken is to introduce this Bill, which does not, as has been suggested, tear up the protocol; on the contrary, it respects and protects the integrity of the EU’s single market and the openness of the land border, both of which are matters in which the EU and the Irish Republic are concerned. There will still be checks on goods arriving in Northern Ireland but destined for the European Union, through a red lane arrangement.

    The Bill explicitly protects the EU single market against the movement across the Irish land border of goods on which the correct EU tariffs have not been paid, or which do not comply with EU regulatory standards. It also provides explicitly that no land border infrastructure or checks or controls on the borders may be created. In every respect, that satisfies the European Union’s concerns.

    The Bill also complies with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It preserves the status of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom by restoring the equality of the privileges of its people with those enjoyed by the people of the rest of the United Kingdom.

    The Bill is wholly necessary. Without it, the peace process established by the Belfast agreement will be dangerously compromised. It is a crucial but proportionate Bill, and it deserves the support of the House.