Tue12Apr1994 - Bob Cryer MP dies in suspicious car crash

[TonyGosling]

Bob Cryer, champion of Labour left, dies in crash
Donald Macintyre @indyvoices Tuesday 12 April 1994 0 comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bob-cryer-champion-of-labour-left-di es-in-crash-1369616.html

BOB CRYER, the left-wing Labour MP for Bradford South and a former junior minister, was killed yesterday in a car accident, writes Donald Macintyre.
Mr Cryer's Rover crashed at 1.24pm on the M1 near Junction 5 for Watford as he was driving down to London for the return of the Commons after the Easter recess.

His wife, Ann, was thought to have suffered minor injuries. Scotland yard said: 'The car overturned, ending up on its roof. It's believed no other vehicle was involved.'

John Smith, the Labour leader, said the whole party was 'shocked and stunned by Bob Cryer's tragic death'. 'He was an indefatigable socialist, a man of tenacious integrity, and a fine parliamentarian.

Mr Smith paid tribute to his 'genial wit and mocking sense of humour'. He said Mr Cryer, 59, a member of the Campaign Group, had been 'the House of Commons specialist on checking the abuse of secondary legislation and he was a terrier-like upholder of the rights of Parliament'.

Mr Cryer's death means a by-election in a safe Labour seat. His majority was 4,902 over the Tories in the 1992 election.


Bob Cryer's Last Speech to the House of Commons
http://www.euronet.nl/~rembert/echelon/bobcryer.htm

In May 1994 Peace Campaigners throughout Britain were terribly saddened to hear the news of Bob Cryer's death in a road accident. Among many achievements in an outstanding parliamentary career he was always a totally committed supporter of the peace movement. His support of the campaign against the Menwith Hill Spy station, its activities and implications, was invaluable and is sorely missed.
This speech, in an adjournment debate in the House of Commons was a succinct rendering of the questions at the heart of the campaign.

It is printed here in full, including the minister's reply on which you may make your own judgement.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford South):

I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this subject. In a curious way it stems from two Ministers; the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, who claimed that there was parliamentary accountability for Menwith Hill Station; and the Minister for Public Transport, who found Menwith Hill Station so secret that he was not aware of it when he was a Minister at the Department of Defence and thought that it was a railway station. In a recent debate, he astonishingly said that his civil servants had prepared him to reply to this Adjournment debate and he then discovered that it was connected with the Ministry of Defence.

The story of Menwith Hill begins in the public area, not with a ministerial statement, debate or planted parliamentary question in the mother of Parliaments. It began on 18 July 1980 when New Statesman published an article by Duncan Campbell and Linda Melvern entitled "The Billion Dollar Phone Tap - America's Big Ear in the Heart of Yorkshire". To suggest as the Minister has, that there is parliamentary accountability for that spy station in the Yorkshire Hills is to torture the truth.

Its establishment has been accompanied by lies, evasion, deceit and a persistent refusal on the part of Ministers to provide proper information to elected representatives in this so-called mother of Parliaments. Indeed the Minister for Armed Forces has refused to allow Labour Members around the base. That is a curious change because in 1981 the former Secretary of State for Defence, Francis Pym, gave me permission to visit the base. The only qualification to that permission was a refusal to allow Duncan Campbell to accompany me because he knew something about the spying and procedures going on inside the base.

Parliamentary accountability is virtually non-existent. There is little point in asking questions when answers are refused. On 27 April 1988, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence "If he will list the agreements authorising the use of Menwith Hill communications base, Harrogate, by the United States National Security Agency."

Mr. Ian Stewart replied:

"The use of Menwith Hill by the United States Department of Defence is subject to confidential arrangements between the United Kingdom and the United States Government." [Official Report, 27 April 1988; Vol. 132, c. 203]

I asked the same question on Thursday 19 July 1990. The then Minister of State said:

"I have nothing to add to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) gave to the hon. Member on 27 April 1988." [Official Report, 19 July, 1990; Vol. 176, c. 654]

I persisted again on Tuesday 16 June 1992 and asked the Secretary of State for Defence

"If he will list the agreements governing the use of Menwith Hill by the National Security Agency of the United States of America."

The Minister replied:

"The use of Menwith Hill by the United States Department of Defence is subject to confidential arrangements between the United Kingdom and United States Government." [Official Report, 16 June 1992; Vol. 209, c. 501.]

In other words elected Members of Parliament are denied information on the appropriation of more than 200 acres of land by the United States Government, who now run a spy station in the heart of our country which is linked up to a global network. That is inexcusable. If there is parliamentary accountability, the moon is made of green cheese.

The Menwith Hill Story starts with the purchase in 1955 of a 246-acre farm on rural moors west of Harrogate. On 15th September 1960, after the expenditure of $6.8 million, the United States army security field station opened. On 1st August 1966, control of the station was transferred to the ostensibly civilian national security agency of America. Francis Raven, who was the chief of G group of United States army intelligence until 1975, claimed that the takeover occurred because the army resisted eavesdropping on diplomatic and economic targets. That claim can be found on page 209 of James Bamford's excellent work "Puzzle Palace". At least the Ministry of Defence is helpful in some respects. The copy of that book has disappeared from the House of Commons Library-it was the only piece of useful information that the MOD has provided on the matter.

Menwith Hill is a spy station- a sophisticated version of the man in the dirty raincoat looking through a bedroom window or the pervert spying through a lavatory keyhole. Those who defend the station's invasion of our land, which has never been approved by parliament, are no better. There is no glory or wonderful purpose involved in Menwith Hill. That is all the more true now that the cold war is over. Ministers justified the Menwith Hill base by saying it was part of the cold war, but we understand that that has finished. What is their justification for the spy station now?

Yorkshire land has been taken away from us to provide an eavesdropping centre that is virtually free from urban, electro-magnetic interference. That is why the station is part of a chain of such stations that span the globe. Their aim is to assert and retain United States supremacy. For example, exactly opposite to Menwith Hill, on the other side of the globe in a prohibited region in Australia stands the twin of Menwith Hill Station, Pine Gap station. When Menwith Hill opened, the United States air force security service listening post at Kirknewton near Edinburgh ceased operations and a former employee is quoted on page 210 of "Puzzle Palace" as saying:

"I had to keep a special watch for commercial traffic, details of commodities, what big companies were selling, like iron and steel and gas. Changes were frequent. One week I was asked to scan all traffic between Berlin and London and another week between Rome and Belgrade. Some weeks the list of words to watch contained dozens of names of big companies. Some weeks I just had to look for commodities. All traffic" -interception material- "was sent back to Fort Meade in Washington"

Menwith Hill took over those functions and continued to pursue military eavesdropping.

Its spying grows. The cold war has ended, but the radomes number 21 after recent expansion. About 1,200 staff, who are mainly American, are employed there-the number has grown from 400 in 1980. United States staff are ordered never to mention the National Security Agency of America and to report all outside contacts with foreign nationals-the British people who live in the region-to ensure that supervision of such contacts is maintained. The base has a few carefully controlled public relations contacts to camouflage its isolation and secrecy, but many British people continue to oppose the base, for which there is no longer any justification, if there ever was.

Throughout the time of the base's existence, Otley peace action group has held demonstrations and campaigned against it. A group of women, including Lindis Percy and Anne Lee has focused particular attention on this foreign intrusion and has repeatedly entered the base and obtained valuable information-more power to their elbow. If Parliament will not provide accountability, people outside always will. While parliament remains inert, it is people outside this place who have pushed Parliament along the road to democracy.

Some of the information was given in a recent Channel 4 "Dispatches" programme. The fact that domestic intrusion exists at Menwith Hill station is surely shown by the fact that British Telecom has a 32,000-telephone line capacity from Hunter's Stone Post Office tower along the B6451 to Otley. There cannot be 32,000 telephones on the base in simultaneous use; that defies credibility. The Hunter's Stone Post Office tower happens to be a pivotal point of more than 1 million route miles of microwave radio connections installed in Britain. The cable from Hunter's Stone Post Office tower runs directly to Menwith Hill. There has never been any parliamentary authority to allow this serious and unwarranted intrusion into our telephone network.

There are two large United States firms within the military-industrial complex: Loral Space Systems Incorporated, formerly a part of Ford, and Lockheed Aerospace. They sell much of the spy equipment and they are both involved in arms sales to third-world countries. Menwith Hill gains information that would be useful to them. Lockheed and Boeing, for example, oppose the success of Airbus Industrie, which has sold many aeroplanes round the world. Can the minister guarantee that information about commercial matters relating to Airbus Industrie and the sales of the Airbus 300, for example, has never been picked up by Menwith Hill and has never been passed on to part of the US military-industrial complex? Both Boeing and Lockheed depend for their continued existence on military contracts from the United States Government. Our Government continue to betray our people by allowing spy stations such as Menwith Hill to be dominated and operated by the United States, without any control that is visible to the people at large.

A recent "Dispatches" programme on Channel 4 examined the matter in some detail. I shall put a few quotations on the record for Parliament. Margaret Newsham is one of the few people who have worked at Menwith Hill who has spoken out. She worked there from 1977 to 1981. She says:

"From the very beginning of my employment, it became very much aware to me that massive security violations were taking place. All the programmes that I did work on were subject to these abuses."

She is referring to interference in commercial traffic. The programme's commentary on Margaret Newsham continues:

"And that wasn't all. Inside Building 36D at Menwith, she was invited to listen in on an American Senator's intercepted phone call. After leaving, she informed the US congress about what she'd seen."

Good on her. Can the Minister assure us that Menwith Hill never listens in to any telephone calls of United Kingdom Members of Parliament, not directly in the United Kingdom, but bounced back over the various satellite systems?

According to the programme, only one person in the world has ever got the National Security Agency to admit intercepting his messages. He was a United States lawyer called Abdeen Jabaro who said:

"It took me eighteen years to get my records finally destroyed. It is like Big Brother. It's like 1984, of-surveilling people all over the globe. And if you're British, if you're French, if you're Dutch, you're any-any people, anywhere you have no rights to complain about this. You have zero rights."

What does it say for parliamentary democracy when people have no rights against these arrogant organisations which are given authority by a clique of people called the Government who have not come to Parliament to get any authority? It is a scandal and a disgrace, and I look forward to the Minister trying to explain that away, as he tried to at Question Time in a superficial and cliche-ridden manner.

A National Security Agency employee was quoted on the programme but the words of an actor were used as a disguise. The Government know all about using actors' words to disguise someone. That employee was quoted as saying:

"Menwith Hill was responsible for intercepting 'ILC' and 'NDC' traffic from 1966 to 1976. Then came the satellite intercepts, like MOONPENNY. ILC is International Leased Carrier-basically, ordinary commercial traffic. Your and my phone calls. And "NDC' is 'Non-US diplomatic communications'. But that job later moved out of Menwith Hill, during the 1970s to Chicksands, where a special unit called DODJOCC was run by the NSA, direct from Menwith Hill. DODJOCC stands for Department of defence Joint Operations Centre Chicksands. Because of the high sensitivity of its work no Britons were ever allowed in."

Was that high sensitivity because they were intercepting British Communications? Howard Teicher, National Security Council member from 1980 to 1986 said on the programme:

"As a rule I believe that the United States government would never spy on the British Government, and would never direct the National Security Agency to try to collect information on British government entities or individuals.
However, having said that that would be the rule, I would never say never in this business because at the end of the day, national interests are national interests. And as close as the US and the UK are, sometimes our interests diverge. So never say never. Especially in this business."

The former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Admiral Stansfield Turner, explained how he met an American called Joe-of course-who said that there was information and he was a CIA operator working secretly and spying in a country, the name of which is not given. Joe told the admiral that there were three contracts competing with United States firms. Admiral Stansfield Turner said:

"What about it Joe?" And he said "Well we don't have any policy on this, so I did nothing."

When Admiral Turner took over at the CIA a new organisation was set up inside the Department of Commerce. Its special function was to receive valuable information from US Intelligence that the Department could use to America's economic benefit. It is the Office of Intelligence Liaison.

The programme makers were not allowed inside, so they used the American Freedom of Information Act which the United Kingdom, the home of the mother of Parliaments, does not have and they asked for the standing orders of the department. They claim that they show that the office receives some of the unique type of intelligence collected at NSA stations such as the one at Menwith Hill. It is called sensitive compartmented information. Of course, the documents that were shown on the programme demonstrated what I have already said, that Lockheed and Laurel are integrated in the National Security Agency's operations. They are still involved in running the computers. I shall quote again the words of Howard Teicher, the former head of the CIA. He said:

"The United States was always concerned about the purchase of non-American advanced armaments by the government of Saudi Arabia. We were certainly aware that by preventing a foreign government from selling something that we hoped would lead to an American entity to be able to sell, it would certainly contribute to our commercial interest, but that was not the first priority."

The first priority that he spoke about was the cold war, and that has ended.

What is the first priority at Menwith Hill? Will the Minister publish the agreement that allows Menwith Hill to be operated at the base near Harrogate? Why should not the people of the people of the United Kingdom know about these matters? It is an outrage that they never have been.

What laws govern the operation of Menwith Hill? Do the United States employees there come under United Kingdom law or does the Visiting Forces Act 1952 apply to civilians? What rights do individuals or companies have if they believe that they are being spied on by Menwith Hill? For example, can the Minister give a categorical assurance that Menwith Hill is not intercepting commercial traffic?

Finally, if the Minister is so confident about democracy, will he allow me and other Labour Members to visit the base, especially since Harrogate councillors have certainly done so?

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley):

I very much welcome the opportunity afforded by the debate and I should like to use the occasion to deal with some of the fundamental issues concerning Menwith Hill station, which would perhaps benefit from clarification, as well as reply to some of the individual points that have been raised. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, the reason for the debate is not totally unconnected with my invitation for him to do so. We are in no way trying to quell accountability for our activities in the United Kingdom - quite the reverse.

As the house knows, I visited the station on 27 January. On that occasion, I received briefings on its current role form the senior UK and American personnel working there, including the head of station. I should make it quite clear that Menwith Hill is owned by the Ministry of Defence, but it may help if I explain the basis on which the United States forces and their civilian component are present before going on to underline the importance to the United Kingdom of the operations carried out at the station and wider significance of the continued US presence in the United Kingdom and Europe. Finally, I shall address the issue of control and accountability for operations conducted at Menwith Hill.

Her Majesty's Government have made the site on which Menwith Hill station is situated available to the US Department of Defense. As such the station is an integral part of the world-wide network which supports United States, United Kingdom and NATO interests. The arrangements has been made in accordance with the agreement regarding the status of forces of parties to the North Atlantic treaty of 1951 and other arrangements appropriate to the relationship which exists between the United Kingdom and the United States for the purposes of our common defence.
To that end, the United States Government have been granted permission to use the site, and the administration of the facility is the responsibility of the station authorities. However the land comprising the site is Crown freehold land. I stress that Her Majesty's Government retain ownership of that land, and it follows that we have control over the use made of the site and its facilities. The United States is aware and entirely accepts that position. At no time have the arrangements between the two Governments for the use of the site conferred any rights of ownership of the land on the United States Government.
The function of Menwith Hill station is regarded by Her Majesty's Government as being of the highest importance to the country's defence strategy and is subject to confidential arrangements between the UK and US Governments. The work carried out there is highly sensitive and rightly classified as secret. I believe very firmly that it would not be in the national interest, and would indeed defeat the very purpose of that work, if I were to comment in any detail on the activities that I have seen conducted there.

United States forces have been stationed in the United Kingdom as a visible sign of the US commitment to NATO throughout the cold war. With changing circumstances in Europe, the US Government, in consultation with all its NATO partners, are realigning their forces to take account of the evolving security situation. Although the end of the cold war has brought about changes in the focus of US and UK defence concerns, the need for Menwith Hill station to continue to live in a very uncertain world and the recent NATO summit has confirmed that the forces of our US allies remain committed to a strong presence in Europe and, therefore in the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, I welcome the continued presence of United States Personnel at Menwith Hill as a tangible sign of the close defence and security ties between the two countries. I also would not wish to underestimate the beneficial impact on the local economy of their presence. I remind the hon. Member for Bradford, South of the number of jobs directly created by the existence of the base, which was referred to at Question Time about three weeks ago. There are currently some 600 UK employees, serving at every level throughout the base, and 1,200 US personnel.

Indeed, those working at the station play a full part in the life of the local community centred on the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) who is regularly in touch with those at the base. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) recently spoke in the House of the excellent relationship between the United States personnel and the local community. I need hardly stress again the economic importance to that part of north Yorkshire of such a base. Its presence is widely welcomed and it is estimated that it contributes approximately £40 million to the local and national economies.

The station's recent construction programme was planned and started several years ago and will therefore carry through to completion. As this has been the subject of much ill-informed speculation, I take this opportunity to state categorically that there are no underground bunkers, either existing or planned, at the station. The recently completed operations centre was built into the side of a hill to take advantage of the natural topography of the ground in that location.

As I stated earlier, there are currently 1,800 personnel employed at Menwith Hill, of whom 1,200 are US Department of Defense personnel and 600 are UK nationals. I also said that I have visited the base. Nowhere was closed to me. I saw US personnel representing all four armed services-US army, navy, air force and marine corps-and Department of Defense civilians and US contractor personnel. I also saw UK personnel, as I have stated at every level.

As in the case of other US bases in the United Kingdom where US forces are based, locally employed UK staff or Ministry of Defence civilians work in support of activities there. A detachment of Ministry of Defence Police is assigned to the base. The MDP officers are responsible for security, the costs incurred being reimbursed bu the United States. However it is worth mentioning that if overtime is occasioned by the activities of protestors, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Bradford, South, that is a direct cost to the United Kingdom. That amounted to nearly £500,000 in the last financial year. These people are not clever. They are merely destructive and wasteful.

In addition to the support staff, senior UK personnel are present at the station. For that reason, Her Majesty's Government are in a position to be entirely confident that British staff are aware of all facets of operations at the station. They are integrated at every level. Consequently, no activity considered inimical to British interests is, or would be, permitted there. On the issue of accountability and control, I stress that Menwith Hill operates with the full knowledge and consent of the United Kingdom Government.

The hon. member for Bradford, South mentioned visits to Menwith Hill by Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament. Previous requests for such visits and briefings have not been approved, on the grounds of disruption to the operational commitments of the base or for security reasons. I have stated that that would be the same for Conservative Members as for Labour Members.

It is not the practice of the Ministry of Defence to organise tours of the working facilities at Menwith Hill. In my reply to the house on 8 March, I said that the strictures applied equally to all. The local constituency Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, has visited the station, but not for the purpose of receiving an operational briefing or a tour. His visit was organised as part of a programme to enable US personnel to understand better the workings of the British parliamentary system. He went there to brief, not to be briefed.

At the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Bradford, South said that local councillors had visited the station. That is true. Some 70 local councillors and 20 council officials had visited it. They were there either for social purposes or for planning purposes. They were not there to study operational purposes. In closing, I would like to state that the personnel at Menwith hill are carrying out an important and responsible job in difficult circumstances. They are accountable to both Her Majesty's Government and the US Government.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hanley: No, I will not give way because I have more to say.

I remind the hon. Member for Bradford, South that we have introduced further legislation to ensure that the work of our intelligence services is more transparent than it has ever been before. However the irresponsible actions of activists who try to disrupt legitimate activities taking place at Menwith Hill cannot be interpreted by any stretch of the imagination as being in our national interest. I am afraid that I can only despise the actions of hon. Members who seem only too happy to jump on that particular bandwagon and to indulge in damaging innuendo and downright untruths about what goes on there.

The Interception of Communications Act 1985 applies to that base as it does to any other. I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, South realises that early-day motion 925, to which he referred, shows ignorance, prejudice, a ready desire to exploit the nation's security interest and, I might add, a total lack of any sense of humour.

I recognise that the hon. Member for Bradford, South is at a disadvantage in not having visited the site. However, most of what he peddles is ill-informed, second-hand fantasy based on prejudice against our allies which in itself is not in the national interest. His colourful language may will make good sound bites, but it is pathetic in its paranoia,

Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.

M.P.s Max Madden and Alice Mahon and a gathering of peace campaigners attended a tree-planting ceremony in memory of Bob Cryer on July 2nd 1994 outside the base. Some time later the commemorative plaque dedicating the tree to Bob's memory was stolen. The tree is still there however.
Updated July 1997
Queries regarding this Page can be sent to Dave Lesley
Floating Point Logo These pages brought to you by Floating Point, Rembert Oldenboom, The Netherlands
E-mail: rembert@euronet.nl

[TonyGosling]

Obituary: Bob Cryer
Tam Dalyell Tuesday 12 April 1994
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-bob-cryer-1369763.ht ml

George Robert Cryer, politician: born Bradford 3 December 1934; member, Keighley Borough Council 1971-74; MP (Labour) for Keighley 1974-83; Parliamentary Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry 1976-78; MEP (Labour) for Sheffield 1984-89; MP (Labour) Bradford South 1987-94; married 1963 Ann Place (one son, one daughter); died Watford 12 April 1994.

BOB CRYER was the first Member of Parliament, other than the Speaker, to be seen on a television broadcast from the House of Commons. At 2.33pm on Tuesday 21 November 1989 Cryer stood up on a point of order:

I understand that, as with the other sessional orders, this one on the Metropolitan Police is debatable. It is the right of honourable members to exercise that function in the debates of the House, whether there are television cameras here or not. I am concerned. I fully support the motion that honourable members should have access to the House, and agree that any obstructions to such access should be removed, but I can recall not very long ago when some members of the citizenry - students - wanted to come to the House and express a point of view. It is important the House considers extending these rights to the citizens and tax-payers who pay for this institution, so that they may have access to this place, and we may know that when they come to make representations, the police will help them as well, and not cause an obstruction, which is what occurred with the students' demonstration.

This was the essence of Cryer the parliamentary man. Had it been almost any other member he or she would have been muttered out of the chamber by colleagues who thought that the member speaking was simply concerned with personal publicity. Cryer was heard in silence and got away with it because he had done the same thing many times before, especially late at night, when the press gallery was sparsely populated, and before the days when cameras were present. Cryer was recognised by friend and foe - and his extreme left-wing opinions had many foes, not only in the government benches - as a champion of parliamentary democracy and basic values as to what the House of Commons was all about.

There was also something rather special and almost unique in Cryer's political history. Since 1945, few politicians have left governments of their own volition on a matter of political principle or genuine differences of belief about policy. And most of the few who did so had some inkling that they were likely to be sacked or gently moved from office for other reasons such as the inadequacy of ministerial performance. One of the exceptions to this generalisation - from a group which can be counted on the fingers of one hand - was Cryer. In 1978 he left the Callaghan Labour government because he would not accept the government's refusal to fund the Kirkby Co-operative. He further impressed his colleagues by not making a great song and dance about political virtue and his reluctance to injure the Labour government. By so doing he proved what his friends had always known, that he was a man of substance. I can also vouch at first hand, having gone to him when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department of Industry on a constituency delegation, that he was a minister who cared about issues and the workforces in other members' constituencies.

Cryer was no mean parliamentary performer. He was an irritant to front benches, both the government's and his own; but he was an effective irritant. He was in the tradition of the parliamentary awkward squad whom ministers ignored at their peril. A man of impeccably good manners, he would rise time and again in a full House to challenge the conventional wisdom. That he was heard at all, and usually with attention, in the parliamentary bear garden was due, I feel, to three factors.

First, he always put a well-informed point of view, however unpopular it might be. Secondly, he displayed clarity of mind and diction and was completely unflappable, even when it was quite obvious that he had gone over the top. Thirdly, and above all, the House of Commons recognised that he was an outstanding expert on parliamentary procedure and indeed was chairman of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Statutory Instruments from 1979 to 1983 and again since 1987.

Cryer had enormous parliamentary stamina and was one of the late-night sentinels of the House of Commons. No governmental short-cut, no ministerial sleight of hand would go through unspotted when Cryer was on duty. And he was on duty most of the time and most of the hours when the House of Commons was sitting.

Yet as his friend Dennis Skinner said last night: 'Bob Cryer was a committed socialist and a full-time committed socialist in and out of the House of Commons. Certainly he was one of a rare breed who could make a relevant extempore speech at the drop of a hat.' Skinner added that whenever one needed an ally for an unpopular cause Cryer was there. And it was my own personal experience that when I was in parliamentary trouble, and in adversity, Cryer was a stalwart friend.

Cryer was born of a Yorkshire industrial family. After the Albert Road school and Salt High school in Shipley he went to Hull University to study economics, law and government. My first memory of him is of a tall, ginger-haired, live figure striding to the platform of the Labour Party conference in October 1962 and demanding that platform speakers and MPs, of whom I was the most recently elected, should not make over-long speeches. In October 1964 he contested Darwin, in Lancashire, but he had to wait until May 1971 to be elected to the Keighley Borough Council. This was the springboard from which he was able to beat the powerful Conservative Joan Hall in February 1974, the first of many elections where his campaigning skills, energy and capacity to make young people think that he was worth working for gained a seat which would not otherwise have gone to the Labour Party. One of his first causes in Parliament was persuading the Tribune Group to oppose the British Isles rugby tour of South Africa in December 1974.

To the surprise of some of Cryer's contemporaries, Callaghan appointed him to a junior post in the Department of Industry in September 1976. It was to his credit that, while he argued inside the government for a left-wing approach, he did not parade his left-wing conscience in public. He proved an extremely competent minister, well-regarded by civil servants who gave him the credit of knowing his own mind. After the Labour defeat, and only then, he criticised James Callaghan for having espoused policies which led, as Cryer saw it, to Margaret Thatcher's victory.

Losing his seat in 1983, Cryer became a member of the European Parliament, simply as an interregnum before he could fight to return to his real home, the House of Commons. His causes, in which he was greatly supported by his wife, Ann, were legion: criticism of the European Community, mandatory re-selection in the Labour Party, antagonism to cruise missiles, and endless left-wing issues. Bob Cryer was a great railway enthusiast and indeed gave technical advice on the film of The Railway Children (1970), in which his family appeared as extras.

Of few MPs can it be said that the House of Commons will be a poorer place without them. Bob Cryer was one such.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

I've just spoken to someone who worked with Bob.
Apparently his wife, with him in the car at the time, says Bob 'fell asleep at the wheel'.