Sir Edward Leigh
MP for Gainsborough · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Those of us who love the Jewish people and faith know that the reason why they have overcome all the empires that have tried to destroy them is that they are primarily people of the book and not the sword, but what is happening in the west bank is violent and egregious.”
“I am grateful to the Secretary of State for looking again at Lincolnshire. I made the point to her predecessor that the proposal for a Greater Lincolnshire authority was, in the eyes of many people, just a gerrymander. Will she look again at it and stop dividing West Lindsey and North Kesteven in half?”
“If the centre does not take action, nasty extremes will take over. The fact is that we are in acute danger. These people can now launch from anywhere on the north French coast and are escorted to our shores. Frankly, we are being invaded, and the public are completely fed up.”
“May I congratulate the Prime Minister on what he said about Ukraine and on how he conducted himself there? Our enemies should know that this House is completely and utterly united in standing behind the Ukrainian people.”
“What concerns me is the jobs of my constituents who work at Scunthorpe. That is all I am worried about; I have no ideological objection. If it is what is needed now, fair enough. As long as the blast furnaces are totally uneconomic because of high energy costs, however, it can only be a sticking plaster.”
“One of the poorest wards in the entire country is Gainsborough south-west ward. Why is the Secretary of State splitting West Lindsey in half? Why is he taking Scampton away from Gainsborough? It makes no sense. Why is he cutting away the nuclear fusion site from Lincoln?”
The complete record
Every one of 6,092 lines we hold for Sir Edward Leigh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 122.
“Father Bashar said that illegal cattle grazing in the olive groves risked the harvest’s failing, creating poverty among the Christian community. The heads of churches in Jerusalem are clear: “The attacks by the hands of settlers against our community, which is living in peace, must stop, both here in Taybeh and elsewhere throughout the West Bank. This is clearly part of the systematic attacks against Christians that we see unfolding throughout the region.” There are of course similar acts of intimidation and violence against our Muslim brothers in town after town in the west bank. It is absolutely intolerable. As part of the UK’s diplomatic efforts, we must be willing to be firm with our friends and allies when they are behaving contrary to international law.”
“We call for an immediate and transparent investigation into why the Israeli police did not respond to emergency calls from the local community and why these abhorrent actions continue to go unpunished.” As well as the violence that erupted, the intolerable situation is made all the worse by settlements continuing to encroach on Taybeh’s land, with illegal grazing and land seizures affecting the livelihood of the local Christians. These extremist settlers have attacked homes, started fires and even created a billboard outside Taybeh that, translated into English, said, “There is no future for you here”. These are people who are only trying to live in peace. They have lived there for 2,000 years, yet they are told, “There is no future for you here”. It is absolutely outrageous and the whole world should be calling it out.”
“These actions are a direct and intentional threat to our local community first and foremost, but also to the historic and religious heritage of our ancestors and holy sites.” Taybeh’s Roman Catholic parish priest, Father Bashar Fawadleh, told the Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need that following the latest violence the Israeli authorities were called twice for assistance, but no one came. With others, I went to the west bank this year, and we saw that extremist settlers are acting with impunity and not being reined in or called in by Israeli authorities. As I say, the attackers were able to behave with impunity. Father Bashar’s concerns were shared by the leaders of the churches, who called for greater accountability as they said: “Even in times of war, sacred places must be protected.”
“It is now the last and only Christian-majority town in the west bank. It is under attack as we speak. Cardinal Pizzaballa, who is the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, the Greek Orthodox patriarch and other heads of churches in Jerusalem visited Taybeh on Monday following the recent violence. I place on record my thanks to the British consul general in Jerusalem, who accompanied the clergy on their mission to highlight to the world the plight of Taybeh. In the ruins of the church of St George, the assembled clergy issued a statement, saying that “radical Israelis from nearby settlements intentionally set fire near the town’s cemetery and the Church of Saint George”— intentionally set fire to a church— “which dates back to the 5th century. Taybeh is the last remaining all-Christian town in the West Bank.”
“I wish to focus on an issue that I raised a few weeks ago in the main Chamber at Church Commissioners questions: the plight of the Christians in Taybeh in the west bank and the violence from extremist settlers who are seeking to remove them from their land. I dedicate my speech to Mike Huckabee, Mr Trump’s choice as the United States ambassador to Israel, who is an evangelical pastor. He is also a strong supporter of these extremist settlers. The vast majority of our friends in Israel—the peaceful citizens of Israel—are totally opposed to the actions of these extremist settlers in the west bank. Taybeh is an ancient village in the Holy Land, in the occupied west bank. In biblical times, it was known as Ephraim, which according to John’s gospel is the village where Christ went before his passion.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank the special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), for securing this important debate and for all his work. The Prime Minister obviously made an excellent choice. Freedom of religion or belief should be the cornerstone of the United Kingdom’s foreign policy to ensure the rights of minorities around the world, in compliance with our obligations under the United Nations declaration of human rights. As has been said, nations with high levels of religious liberty and tolerance are more stable than those that oppress people who wish only to worship in peace.”
“Before Mike Martin moves the motion, I should say that 16 Members wish to speak, so I will probably have to impose a three-minute time limit after he has spoken. My aim is to try to get everybody in, so if we can cut down on interventions, that should give everybody a chance to speak.”
“I will call Jessica Toale to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
“I commend the Secretary of State for his honesty and I agree with everything he says in his statement. What an appalling mess, but part of the original sin was our intervening militarily and then scuttling out. On a wider point, may I take it that we have learnt our lesson and have got over the liberal imperial itch of the Cameron and Blair eras to intervene militarily in ungovernable countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya? Let us now move on, but I support what the Secretary of State said.”
“There would be £1,000 fines or long banning orders. Are we going to drag people before the courts? I have already talked about the father attempting an entry. Could children or young people who sneak in without harmful intent face having a criminal record? Are we really going to do that? Is that the sort of country we want to create? We do not have a lot of data on how many attempts there are or how much unauthorised entry there is. We should acknowledge that the Euro 2020 final was exceptional. It is unclear whether making this kind of permanent legislative change, and rejecting the amendments, will solve the problem.”
“Small clubs already have to deal with many regulations and with public health. Their finances are very marginal, and covid worsened already fragile financial situations. I hope that when we consider these undoubtedly worthy Bills—as we look at the Euros, Wembley and all the rest of it—that impose more obligations on football clubs, we remember smaller clubs. The Football Association is not always as helpful as it can be with small clubs. Big clubs get attention and support, so it may well be possible for them to police attempts to enter, but it may be more difficult for a tiny club—a very worthy, important and wonderful club such as Gainsborough Trinity FC—to deal with the intricacies of the law and understand it. We are talking about enforcement and police resources, and therefore the measures in the Bill should be very moderate.”
“I am sure that if they could talk these matters through with my hon. Friend, they would think his amendment was a wise and moderate compromise, because people already assume that it is an offence to enter a football ground without a ticket; I agree that the Bill removes the gap between assumption and reality. The other thing that slightly worries me is that while I can quite understand how such attempts could be dealt with by a premier league club, which has stewards and the whole panoply of a large football club, we should consider small clubs such as Gainsborough Trinity FC in my constituency. These small clubs have faced huge challenges, and we are just introducing more burdens on them. During covid, Gainsborough suspended season tickets and capped attendance at just 300.”
“I know that such cases will not go to a Crown court, but that is still a very serious matter for somebody who might just be attempting to enter a place. We will be told by the Bill’s supporters that its enforcement is practical. I understand how entry into a football ground could be enforced, but I am unsure about enforcing an attempt to get into a football ground. Surely police and stewards need clarity. There is no point in us introducing more and more laws when we have a whole slate of traditional laws against riotous behaviour. Laws that may be difficult to enforce just bring the whole system into disrepute. I know that football clubs, police forces and fans’ organisations largely support the Bill, but I am not sure whether they are aware just how widely it is framed.”
“That is quite a different situation from somebody on their own, or perhaps a father with his children, attempting to get into a football ground when they may not have a ticket. They may have been mis-sold a ticket—they may believe that they have a genuine ticket. They may have been sold, at vast cost, a ticket by a ticket tout, but apparently now they will face the full force of the criminal law. Under the Bill, police and courts will be able to ban repeat offenders, as it makes offenders eligible for football banning orders. Those are quite serious consequences for people who may not be rioters at all; they may just be genuine football fans. We are talking about a fine of up to £1,000 and a trial in a magistrates court.”
“If the law were not changed, someone engaging in this bad behaviour could be punished only by ejection from the stadium, but there are criminal laws of trespass and many other ways in which this very bad behaviour can be identified. When Baroness Casey identified in her review the absence of specific offences as a weakness in stadium enforcement, I am not sure whether she was referring to such minor infringements as attempting to enter a football ground. I will say more about that in a moment. I know that the key motivation for the Bill was the Euro 2020 final and the chaos at Wembley when hundreds of ticketless individuals stormed the venue, overwhelmed stewards and endangered legitimate fans. That mass unauthorised entry posed real risks, but that was really a riot.”
“Widening the scope of the Bill to include attempts to enter a ground is quite dangerous. I assume that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be rejected, but I wonder whether it would unduly weaken the Bill if they were passed. After all, the Bill is about having a legal deterrent to crowds of people seeking to force their way into a football ground, but there may be many other ways in which people attempt to get into a football ground that are not riotous disorder and may be quite honest in intention. When creating criminal law, it is dangerous to get into aspects of intention—mens rea, as lawyers call it—rather than, in this case, the actual legal fact of entering a football ground.”
“I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). It seems to me that the way that he introduced his very modest amendment to remove the word “attempts” was entirely proper. I support the Bill, but I think it is quite dangerous to introduce an offence into criminal law of just attempting to enter a football ground, because it is quite difficult to gather evidence of or police that. I assure the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) that I do not want to delay matters much. I will keep my remarks short, because I support the general principle of the Bill. I support making it a criminal offence to actually enter a designated football match; that is in the Bill’s long title and is something we can all agree on.”
“The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but I am making a point about smaller clubs. We are here because of a political reaction to the embarrassment created by one major failure, but we cannot base good law on one major failure that was on all our television screens. We have to look at all clubs and consider all the difficulties that they would have in implementing this change.”
““Attempted entry” is a vague standard and may vary in interpretation by stewards and police. If hon. Members try to imagine the policing of a crowded football match with people pouring in, I wonder whether they would start to agree that “attempted entry” is a vague standard and may vary in interpretation. We are talking about the criminal law. We are talking not just about somebody being ticked off or told they cannot enter the stadium but possibly ending up in court. The amendments would give a clear legal threshold for enforcement and prosecution, on the basis of which somebody can be tried and sentenced in the courts.”
“The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch are sensible. They would better tool the legislation towards its rightful end. First, they focus on the actual harm. By removing attempted entry from the offence, the amendments would criminalise only completed unauthorised entries—clear facts that can be understood and proven. We should target behaviour that truly compromises safety and public order. Secondly, the amendments would ensure that the Bill avoids over-criminalisation. Criminalising failed or minor attempts could lead to disproportionate outcomes, especially for young people or first-time offenders. My hon. Friend’s amendments promote a more measured legal response. Thirdly, the amendments would reduce ambiguity, and the great danger in law is ambiguity.”
“We know that there is an epidemic of lawlessness on the underground and elsewhere. No doubt somebody will try to bring in a Bill on that as well—and good luck to them—but we are talking about a very narrow amendment and a narrowly focused Bill. I am worried about enforcement, which may vary between clubs or regions. Fans may lose trust if they see the law being applied unevenly, and I do not know how clubs will police these attempts. It is unclear whether banning orders will lead to frequent appeals. People would be tried just for an attempt. I know that that would only be in the magistrates court, but if they faced long banning orders, could there be appeals? We have to apply the law fairly and reasonably; otherwise, it risks being a blunt instrument. Surely we should try to make this sort of Bill tightly focused.”
“They keep the law from becoming an unnecessarily blunt instrument and instead preserve a proportionate, targeted response to genuine requests.”
“I am so grateful to you, Mr Speaker; you will be grateful to hear that having made those remarks, I am drawing to a conclusion. We have a duty to ensure that punishment is based on actual misconduct in entering a football ground, not suspicion or misjudged behaviour. Fifthly, my hon. Friend’s amendments would allow for practical enforcement. Focusing on completed unauthorised entry would help police and clubs concentrate their resources on the most serious breaches, rather than chasing marginal cases. The amendments would provide necessary implementation time. The two-month delay before commencement gives football clubs, police and stewards time to prepare for the new legal framework, reducing confusion and aiding smooth enforcement. Finally, the amendments would encourage propor-tionality.”
“We can all argue about the past, but if it helps the Secretary of State, I think we should just say today that the whole House absolutely 100% supports him in his robust attitude. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Of course we all love doctors, but the starting salary is not so very bad. They have a job—a very good job—for life, which most people do not have, and he could also mention that they have a much better career structure than most people. A far higher proportion of them get the top job—namely, as a consultant—and the consultant’s starting salary of £110,000 a year is not a bad whack.”
“We are all in favour of green energy in Lincolnshire, and we do our bit with massive wind turbines in the North sea, but will the Committee do a more in-depth report about the sheer concentration of solar farms in Lincolnshire, with 10,000 acres around the town of Gainsborough? I know that the grid connection is important, but surely the Committee could play a useful role in saying that all parts of the country should do their bit. We cannot simply take 10,000 acres out of good agricultural production in one small part of England.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), but I want to make a different point of order. Have the Government told you that they will come to the House today to make a statement on channel crossings? The channel is in chaos today—already 220 people have poured across—and 1,195 arrived on 1 June. President Macron and the Prime Minister say that this cannot go on. This is an existential crisis for our country, and we want action. Just taking in a swap of 50 a week is not going to solve the problem. On this vital issue, have the Government come to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and said that they want to make a statement today?”
“For 30 long and weary years, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have campaigned for a through-train from Grimsby, which would stop at Market Rasen and end up in London. We have been made numerous promises by Network Rail, which is now saying that the platform is too short, that a bridge needs to be built, and that it will cost £25 million—the usual negativity. The Secretary of State is a feisty Minister. I promise her that if she gets us our train, I will campaign for it to be renamed the “Heidi Alexander, Heroine of Lincolnshire”.”
“He was kind to us younger Members of Parliament. When Mrs Thatcher resigned, I remember sitting in the Tea Room and asking him if he would stand as leader of the Conservative party. To my regret, he felt that he could not. The reason why was those awful events in the bombing of the Grand Hotel in 1984. He showed tremendous courage and stoicism. Above all, although he led our party to victory as chairman in the 1987 election, he refused high office because he wanted to look after his wife Margaret. He devoted his whole life to her in terms of love and devotion as after those terrible events she was in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. It is a great honour and delight in this short point of order to pay tribute to my friend Lord Norman Tebbit.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a brief point of order following the sad death of Lord Norman Tebbit last night. I feel particularly touched by it because I served with him in Parliament between 1983 and 1992, and I suppose I am one of the last Thatcherites left standing here. To us, he was an icon of everything we believed in about small government and deregulation. He was the original Brexiteer and the original campaigner against woke. He had an extraordinary ability with words. He came from humble backgrounds and summed up everything that we believed in by pulling himself up and achieving greatness. I do not want to end on a political note; what I really want to end on is a personal note. I know that he had a reputation as a hard-hitting politician, but above all he was a supremely kind man.”
“The number of small boat crossings is driving people mad and eroding support for the Labour Government, just as it eroded support for the Conservatives. I worry for the Labour Government; I want them to do better on this, for all our sakes. Have not our French friends got a point about this country being uniquely attractive to illegal asylum seekers? We do not have identity cards, and we do not do what the Belgians do, which is to refuse to put them in reception centres. Can we make a study of what every other member of the Council of Europe is doing, and replicate the strongest actions, so that this is not the most attractive country for illegal asylum seekers?”
“The Christian town of Taybeh is the same town as Ephraim in John’s gospel where Jesus went before his passion. This town is entering a new passion: there was a violent attack by extremist Israeli settlers on the town on 26 June. There is a continuing pattern of crops being destroyed and outposts being set up, and it is happening all over the west bank. This is outrageous racial cleansing, deliberately designed to prevent a two-state solution and to drive out the people who have tended their crops there for 2,000 years. Will the Church of England call out this outrage every day of the week in an attempt to put some sort of pressure on the Israeli Government?”
“As always, the Secretary of State makes a good fist of an impossible job, but I think we all know in our heart of hearts that this model, which takes 38% of public funding, is unsustainable in the long term. He mentions the Australian outback; I have been a voice in the wilderness, urging him to replicate the excellent Australian system, which is a mix of public and private. I will not do that again now, but may I ask him to at least look at Australia’s pharmaceutical benefits scheme, which ensures national procurement of medicines, so that people who have a medical card there get their medicines cheaper than people here?”
“I am not sure there is much point in us just blaming each other on this matter. There are historical parallels. In 1935 we were spending only 2.5% of our national wealth on defence. There was massive rearmament following that and consensus on both sides of the House, and by 1945 we were spending the best part of 50% of national wealth on it. It would be much better if the two parties try to work together on this matter and realise that we are facing an existential crisis in the world, and that things are very different now from 2010 or 2015, or whenever, and that we should work together to massively increase defence spending.”
“My right hon. Friend quite rightly mentions covid. I am sure there is one thing that we can agree on. Unfortunately, people were assessed much more often in person before covid, and during covid that was understandably stopped. Surely we can all agree that we have to get those in-person assessments going and get them going quickly.”
“Before we vote for this Bill, do we not think that we should ask the Health Department to have a profound and knowledgeable study, working with the royal colleges, on whether it is possible to have decent palliative care, not just in our wonderful hospices, but in all our hospitals? There is no doubt that in recent years, particularly since Shipman, there has been a fear among many NHS health professionals about providing that degree of palliative care—that degree of morphine, fentanyl or these hugely effective modern drugs. So, just pause and think. We are not voting on a principle; we can come back to this, and, at a later date, we can get consensus and we can have a really good Bill that will allow everybody to die in dignity.”
“It is very difficult to argue that we can ask somebody to assist in a person’s death when they are within six months of dying of cancer—although there is no universal testimony or acceptance about how we work out those six months—but not if they are suffering from some appalling degenerative disease or are a quadriplegic or have no quality of life. So I think there is actually an argument that, if we pass this Bill today, we will move in the direction of Canada and we will have death on demand. I will end on this point. Before voting for this Bill, just pause for a moment and think, “Wouldn’t it be better?” We have heard about the many hours on the abortion Bill, and the universality of clinical acceptance of it.”
“I have been to many hospices and care homes, and talked to many palliative care specialists who assure me that they have the resources and skills nowadays to make those final hours pain-free and bearable, but we have heard testimony from others saying that that is not possible. If they could convince me that there were some extreme cases where people were dying in agony, totally lacking in dignity in their final hours, then I would listen to those arguments, but I do not think that is the Bill that we have before us today. I therefore urge Members to remember that we will be voting on a Bill, and I think that the Bill is so riddled through with difficulties and inconsistencies. I think it will be subject to human rights legislation.”
“I know some people will criticise me and say, “Oh, you would oppose this, because of your religious views and all the rest of it.” Actually, I take quite a sensible and, I hope, pragmatic approach to this. I have listened to all these debates, and we have heard so many harrowing stories of people’s last hours. I think we should treat people on both sides of this argument with respect, understand their points of view, and respect the dignity of dying people. I have always taken the view that we should open up this debate. Actually, I have brought forward a ten-minute rule Bill—which of course will be objected to at half-past 2 this afternoon—saying that we should have a full study, led by the Department of Health and Social Care, by health professionals, to work out how we can help people in their final hours.”
“I have served for many years with the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and, dare I say it, we have not agreed on everything over the years, but we have published a few articles on this topic. Those articles have always started with the fundamental principle of the NHS. Some of us—maybe myself included—have been rather critical of the NHS over the years, but at least when we go into the NHS, we know that everybody is really trying their best to preserve life. That is the fundamental principle. The reason why the right hon. Lady and I both oppose the Bill is that, as has been said several times, we are not talking about just a principle here; we are talking about an actual Bill.”
“Q7. The Government quite rightly give full and unequivocal support to Israel in its bid to end the scourge of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme forever. Will they also work with our allies to try and convince the Israeli Government that it is not in the long-term security interests of Israel to carry on with this policy of illegal settlements in the west bank, which is simply leading to radicalisation and desperation throughout the region? Have not the overwhelming majority of Palestinian people the right to yearn for peace and security in their own homeland, as the Jews yearned for their homeland for 2,000 years?”
“My concerns about these amendments were such that I and others commissioned a leading King’s Counsel to draft a legal opinion regarding their effects. Let me inform Members of his conclusions. I begin with new clause 1. The KC confirms that, under new clause 1, in practice, “it would no longer be illegal for a woman to carry out her own abortion at home, for any reason, at any gestation, up to birth.” I note that the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) acknowledges in her explanatory statement to new clause 1 that her amendment applies “at any gestation”—that is, up to full term. Let us be clear what this means. Under new clause 1, women would be able to perform their own abortions—for example, with abortion pills, which can now be obtained without an in-person gestational age check—up to birth, with no legal deterrent.”
“In conclusion, what we are faced with is an extreme set of amendments going way beyond what public dominion demands, and way beyond what is happening in any other country in the world.”
“A BBC investigation in 2018 found that non-invasive prenatal tests were being widely used to determine a baby’s sex early in pregnancy, leading to pressure imposed on some women to have sex-selective abortions. That evidence led the Labour party to urge a ban on such tests being used to determine the sex of babies in the womb. A report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics similarly found that several websites were privately offering tests to determine the sex of a baby, and the council warned that the increasing prevalence of private testing may be encouraging sex-selective abortions. Passing new clause 1 or new clause 20 would likely make the situation worse.”
“On new clause 20, the legal opinion finds that “the effect of the amendment is that a woman who terminated her pregnancy solely on the basis that she believed the child to be female would face no criminal sanction in connection with that reason, or at all.” Similarly, on new clause 1 the opinion confirms that “it would not be illegal for a woman to carry out her own abortion at home, solely on the basis that the foetus is female.” These amendments are not pro-woman; they would introduce sex-selective abortion. Sex-selective abortion is already happening in this country. Back in 2012, a Telegraph investigation found that doctors at UK clinics were agreeing to terminate foetuses because they were either male or female.”
“It is not often that they will hear me agree with the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the UK’s leading abortion provider, but its assessment of new clause 20 concludes that it would “largely render the Abortion Act 1967 obsolete” and “create a regulatory lacuna around abortion provision and access.” There is one additional angle that Members need to be aware of.”
“Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has added a measure that seeks to amend the Abortion Act 1967, to create the impression that a time limit would remain. However, the Abortion Act only provides exemptions against prosecution under the laws that new clause 20 would repeal, so those offences would no longer remain under new clause 20. Since the Abortion Act itself contains no penalties or offences, and neither would the proposed new clause introduce any, adding a mere mention of an ongoing time limit in the Act would be toothless and utterly meaningless under the law. New clause 20 would de facto have the effect of fully decriminalising abortion up to full term for both women and abortion providers. Hon. Members do not need to take my word for it.”
“I agree. Let me move to new clause 20. I am dealing with very narrow legal points, and it might be of interest to the House that the KC concludes that the new clause “would render the 24-week time limit obsolete in respect of the prosecution of women who undertake termination of pregnancy in typical circumstances.” He explains that “the NC20 amendment would repeal the abortion law offences”, including those relating to a “late abortion”. In other words, new clause 20 would fully repeal all existing laws that prohibit abortion in any circumstances, at any gestation, both in relation to a woman undergoing an abortion, and abortion providers or clinicians performing abortions. In the second iteration of her new clause, the hon.”
“The Foreign Secretary knows that many of us have been prepared to speak up again and again on behalf of suffering Palestinians and be a critical friend of Israel, but will he agree that on this occasion we must stand shoulder to shoulder with our Israeli ally? The fact is, Iran is a death cult, and death cults like the Nazis or Iran cannot be appeased simply through diplomacy. Iran is cocking a snook at us—it is inches away from a nuclear bomb. I am sure he is going to make this absolutely clear, but will the Foreign Secretary therefore stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel and our American ally in proclaiming the right of Israel to exist at all?”
“Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and often has rather different views from his, I wanted to rise to show that what he has just said has universal support in this House.”
“Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It might be useful if a Member of Parliament who has not often taken part in demos in central London intervenes at this point to show that opinion in this House of Commons is absolutely united. In various Parliaments—indeed, in most Parliaments in Europe—MPs have immunity from prosecution. We have never had that system here, and we have always proclaimed what is very much the British way: that Members of Parliament are no different from any other member of the public. If they do wrong, they will be held to account, but they should not be subject to some greater test of culpability just because they are Members of Parliament. As somebody who is not in the same party as the right hon.”