Simon Reevell MP: Gay marriage legislation will eventually be enforced against the conscience of the church

Simon Reevell is the Member of Parliament for Dewsbury. Follow Simon on Twitter.

Recently the Chancellor joined the Prime Minister in announcing his support for "gay marriage". Whether the Chancellor is an objective supporter of the proposal or whether he perceives electoral advantage in a proposal that some believe will positively impact on the image of the Conservative Party is unclear. It is perhaps safe to assume that he is motivated by at least one of those considerations.

If objective support is behind the Chancellor’s recent statement about this proposal, it is worth asking what exactly he believes the proposal to be.

In its current form, it amounts to a proposal to allow same sex marriage but to do so by way of legislation that, it is said, will exempt religious groups from its ambit. In other words, Parliament will legislate to end what it has identified as discrimination - same sex couples not being able to marry - but, within that anti-discrimination legislation, Parliament will preserve the right of some people (religious organisations) to behave in a manner that has been identified as discriminatory. If the local authority refuses to conduct a same sex marriage, it will be acting as unlawfully as the B&B owner who will not allow a same sex couple to share the same room. If the local priest refuses to conduct a same sex service, his position will be protected by the exemption. It’s just that sooner or later it won’t be.

Simon Reevell MP: Pressing ahead with Lords reform without a referendum misrepresents what voters agreed to

Simon Reevell is the Member of Parliament for Dewsbury.

The argument appears to go like this: All three main political parties included ‘Lords Reform’ within their 2010 Manifesto. Therefore there is no need to hold a referendum of the British people. Presumably because there can be no greater plebiscite than a General Election. Superficially the logic appears sound – we said we stood for it, you voted for us therefore you want it too!

But what if a particular candidate was known to be against changes to the House of Lords. By voting for him or her, was the electorate in that constituency expressing support for the manifesto commitment, or, based on the candidate’s personal stance, opposition to such ideas? This question applies to all those constituencies that now have MPs who oppose the proposals. Perhaps that doesn’t count; perhaps we can just assume that no one knew their individual views and so all the votes in their favour really did indicate support for Lords Reform despite that policy failing to grace a single billboard on behalf of any political party.

To be balanced about this, and by extension of the same logic, the 7.7% of people entitled to vote who supported independents and minor parties – together with the 34.9% who did not vote at all – must have been against changes to the Upper House! Why else would anyone spoil a ballot paper or vote, say, Respect or BNP….!

Politicians should be very careful when they use the ‘it was in the manifesto’ argument. Firstly, because few read manifestos and, secondly, because fewer still believe they are worth reading against an historical background of failure to deliver.

Simon Reevell MP: High Speed Rail is about demonstrating that the whole UK is open for business

Simon Reevell is MP for Dewsbury.

There has been much talk in recent days about the Government’s decision to build a high-speed rail link between London and the North of England, via Birmingham. The consultation is coming to an end and the two campaigns are gearing up for a scrap over whether it is an affordable and cost-effective scheme which will benefit Britain in the long-term.

As a Conservative MP representing a seat in West Yorkshire I have no hesitation in stating that I support the Government’s proposals wholeheartedly. A couple of months ago I joined together with a number of colleagues of mine – Andrew Jones MP, John Stevenson MP, David Mowat MP, Stephen Mosley MP, Stuart Andrew MP, Jason McCartney MP and Eric Ollerenshaw MP – in expressing our enthusiasm for high-speed rail.

We did this for one simple reason. We believe that the scheme will be good for England as a whole. Travelling to London in just 80 minutes and enjoying better access to Heathrow Airport and the Continent are just two of the more obvious advantages. Time after time I have heard opponents of high-speed rail ask the same question; “What’s the point in shaving 30 minutes off a trip from London to Birmingham?”. What they forget is that the proposed route goes beyond Birmingham to include Manchester and Leeds, two of the most important economic centres in the country. For businessmen and women (not to mention people seeking leisure opportunities) being able to travel from these two cities to the nation’s capital in less than an hour and a half is a big deal indeed. This is not a rich man’s train set, but something which will help ordinary people up and down the country.

Simon Reevell MP: The Government cannot reduce crime and deliver justice on the cheap

Simon Reevell is MP for Dewsbury and a practising Barrister.

Criminal justice in England and Wales shouldn’t be too difficult a subject. After all, it’s hardly new. We have a system which goes back nearly 800 years to the time of Magna Carta and remains the envy of the world. Of course, times change and no system can stand still, but should the process of change really be as angst ridden as has appeared to be the case over recent weeks?

Of course, part of the problem is that what lies behind most - if not all - of the recent proposals is the need to save money because of the country’s eye-watering level of debt. Where better to look for savings? After all, doesn’t the money that goes to the criminal justice system get spent on criminals or worse, lawyers? (Or worse still, lawyers representing former politicians who are now criminals!)

The problem for the Government is that it is difficult to reduce crime on the cheap. Take knife crime – an excellent example of how times have changed and how the criminal justice system needs to reflect the appalling injury and loss of life caused by young men with knives.

A sensible policy might be one which said that anyone caught in unlawful possession of a knife will go to court. No more cautions or warnings. It’s a simple message. The same policy might go on to say that if anyone uses a knife then it’s definitely court, but this time the assumption will be that it’s custody as well.

Another simple message: use a knife and go to jail. But this policy needs court time, legal representation and prison space. A caution at the police station costs a lot less, even if it is only a slap on the wrist for going out with a deadly weapon. And the police seem to like the cheaper alternative. Cautions and warnings are handed out for serious sex offences including rape as well as serious offences of violence. It’s cheap but how can it be right for victims or for wider society?

Simon Reevell MP: The Bahrain Grand Prix must not go ahead

Simon Reevell is MP for Dewsbury.

According to the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), the Formula One governing body, the Bahrain Grand Prix is due to be rescheduled for October 30. This year's race was originally due to take place on March 11 but was called off indefinitely because of the level of violent unrest taking place across the country.

At a meeting in Barcelona, however, members of the World Sport Motor Council are said to have voted 'unanimously' to return to Bahrain. The FIA, in a statement, said that the reinstatement reflected a 'spirit of reconciliation' whilst the Chairman of the Bahrain International Circuit tweeted, "As a country we've faced difficult times, but stability has returned."

This is a decision which will inflame an already toxic situation in Bahrain. Since the anti-government protests began in February more than 30 people have been killed. There have been more than 800 arrests and repeated claims of torture, violent intimidation and physical abuse made against the security services.

Simon Reevell MP: We must ensure we explain to the public the reasons for our continued presence in Afghanistan

Simon Reevell was elected MP for Dewsbury at this year's general election and is a former Army officer.

I support the continued deployment of our armed forces in Afghanistan but I meet people who do not. That is because of the previous Government’s continued failure to explain to the British public the reasons for our involvement.

We went into Afghanistan following the worst terrorist outrage in my lifetime, an act which killed more than 3,000 people, including 67 of our own citizens. These were people who wanted to kill in mass numbers. They wanted to kill our families – indeed, they wanted to kill our way of life. We went in because the Taliban were not interested in doing anything about it. They had overthrown the government in the mid 1990s and were ruling Afghanistan through fear, intimidation and extreme ideology.

Britain does not live in a bunker and we are vulnerable to terror. The poisonous propaganda emanating from the training camps of Afghanistan was absolutely toxic. Indeed it was so bad that it had seeped into the minds of young people as far away from Afghanistan as here in the UK, including in my constituency of Dewsbury, resulting in a young man bringing a bomb to London and blowing himself up.

Britain should be proud of the fact that the deployment of our armed forces in Afghanistan also meant the end of a regime of brutality and terror that blighted the lives of ordinary, decent Afghans. Those young men who travel to join the Afghan national army and go into combat alongside British soldiers do so because they remember the terror and oppression so vividly. Women were treated as second class citizens, unable to read, write or enjoy an education. Employment was prohibited, as was dancing and taking part in a sport. Men were told what to wear and were required to keep their beards to a certain length.

Punishment for disobeying these rules was severe. Rape, beatings and public executions were ruthlessly dished out by the “religious police” and those found guilty of adultery were stoned to death. Never let anyone tell you that Afghanistan is worse off as a result of our deployment in that country.

Because of the previous Government’s inability to get this message across to the public, however, many people make comparisons between our deployment and that of the Russians, but we are not there to conquer the Afghan people. We are not there to impose a regime. We are not there to impose an ideology. It is the Taliban who seek to occupy Afghanistan, not the British Army.

They are fighting hard in the hope that we will lose the stomach for the operation and seek an early exit – “You have the watches, we have the time.” But this underestimates two things. First, the determination of NATO forces to see the job through to the end. And second, the bravery, skill and dedication of the Afghan national army. I am privileged in that I have been able to spend a considerable amount of time with the private soldiers, NCOs, warrant officers and junior officers who have been on the front line in Afghanistan. They are committed to their country’s future in a way that is beyond contemplation. These troops speak well of the Afghan national army. They say that the real task of our training team and soldiers is to instil a sense of discipline to temper the natural courage that they have shown thus far. ANA recruits learn quite literally on the job. They arrive with a rifle and no training. That means that they are wholly inexperienced on day one, but as all their training is gained in combat conditions, they fast become battle hardened. They will increasingly step forward as NATO forces withdraw.

Now is the time for us to hold our nerve. Our soldiers have the kit that they need. They are convinced that they are doing a worthwhile job. We have a sensible and coherent strategy and we are training the Afghan national army to do what every country requires of its armed forces – namely, to protect the perimeter and ensure the safety of those who live within its borders. Until the ANA can take on their task without help and support, British troops should remain in Afghanistan.