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 73 of 122.
“It is not just that they are in a vast prison camp; unlike the rest of us, they do not have any right to economic self-determination or to travel—all the normal things we take for granted. Just listen to this report: “Daily life is a battle for the deprived residents of one of the world’s most densely populated places on earth.” We can look just at one person cited by the report: “The horrific scars disfigure Mona Abu Mraleel’s otherwise strikingly beautiful face. Swathes of bandages cover the injuries the 17-year-old sustained to her arms and legs in a blaze from which she narrowly escaped with her life. Still racked by pain from burns to 40 percent of her body, she goes to hospital on a daily basis to have her dressings changed. Specialist doctors are preparing to carry out a delicate skin graft...”
“We should thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), because this is a debate and both sides of the issue have to be put. I am sure that everyone in this Chamber is totally committed to Israelis being allowed to live in peace and security in their state. Given the appalling oppression that they have suffered historically, how could anyone disagree with that? Everyone accepts that Hamas is an appalling organisation and that the rocket attacks are appalling. However, I want to focus on humanity. That is what this debate is about. It is not, in a sense, about high politics, the two-state solution, or why the state of Israel was founded, but about the suffering humanity and 1.7 million of our fellow human beings who are living in appalling conditions.”
“I say this as a strong supporter of the state of Israel, but there is a real danger that more and more people in the world believe that a people who were formerly oppressed are now becoming the oppressors, and that the state of Israel is thereby losing its soul. What is its soul? It is the soul of an oppressed people who have made a great and wonderful nation. But there are other nations in this world and they must be treated fairly and must have an equal right to health, dignity and freedom.”
“Yes, this is only a little debate in Westminster Hall and we are only Back Benchers, but we must do our bit to articulate a sense of outrage that our fellow human beings are being treated like this, and we must spare no effort, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said in his most passionate speech. I share his passion. We must spare no effort in trying to persuade our Israeli friends that they are losing the battle—to put it that way—of world public opinion. They are not helping their cause. By all means, if someone is attacked, they should reply strongly in military terms, but not punish a whole people and reduce them to utter poverty and destitution.”
“Israel has a right to peace and security, but surely the people of Israel and all of us must rise up and say, “There is hope for peace. They must stop these settlements, and they should start dismantling them. They must end the blockade of Gaza for the sake of the people who live there and the fishermen.” We have heard about the fishermen. How can anyone fish just 6 miles out in filthy water? How can anyone live in a place where 90% of the water is undrinkable? How can farmers be shot just for going within a mile of an electric fence while going about their business? As the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) asked, would that be tolerated in any other part of the world? Would our Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the UN not be stopping it?”
“I do not think we should have a sense of hopelessness. We should be indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and others who try. We may have inadequate means, but we are parliamentarians, and at least we are trying to do our bit to highlight the issues. I do not share the general pessimism about the peace process. I was in the west bank recently, visiting a hospital in Bethlehem run by a charity of which I am a part. The hospital helps many young people to have children in good conditions, and we do our best to run it properly, but how can we have a peace process when virtually every month ordinary Palestinians see a new settlement coming on the hillside? I saw for myself, travelling through the checkpoints, how people were humiliated.”
“I was not actually standing, Mr Speaker, but if you want me to, I will ask one very short question. Why were we consulted in the first place—why us?”
“Assuming that Ministers feel that their job is to protect not only the sacrifices made by the present generation of armed forces personnel but that of previous generations, will they take the opportunity of the debates in the coming months to argue that the sacrifices made by the millions of people who served in the first world war was not part of some European power play, and that it served to defeat militarism and stand up for the freedom of smaller countries?”
“We were told, understandably, that the armed forces had to take their share of pain through the time of recession. Surely, by the same coin, as the economy is growing they can take their share of the gain. If the reserve recruitment programme does not go as well as we all hope it will go, can we at least keep the door open—I am not asking for a commitment now—to once again recruiting more for the Regular Army in the future and increasing it to meet our commitments as they arise?”
“Overnight residence measures; electronic tagging; restrictions on communication or association; exclusion from particular places; overseas travel bans; restrictions on bank accounts; restrictions on the transfer of property; limitations on the possession and use of electronic communication devices; work or studies measures that require permission to be obtained for specific activities or notice to be given prior to any work or studies being carried out; measures requiring regular reporting to a police station; and measures requiring the individual to allow himself to be photographed. Are those grotesque violations of those people’s civil liberties? No.”
“I am on record as being an advocate of our jury system, I have never wanted to give the police extra powers and I recognise all the ancient arguments for our civil liberties. However, given the danger that some people pose and the views that they hold, what is the gross infringement on their civil liberties that we are talking about?”
“I will deal with the issue of relocation in a moment, but first I wish to support both the Labour Government and the current Conservative Government in having such orders at all, because they are under attack from the civil liberties lobby. If there is a choice for me, as a father, between my daughters being blown up on a London tube, or our constituents being attacked by people who detest everything we stand for and all our liberal values, and there being some minor infringement of those people’s civil liberties, I know what choice I will make. I suspect that 90% of the population would make the same choice. It is said that such orders are a gross infringement of civil liberties.”
“I broadly support what the Home Secretary is trying to achieve on TPIMs. As far as the public outside will be concerned, the debate has been rather skewed, because for most of it a Conservative Home Secretary has been attacked by the Labour party on a civil liberties issue. The House should not indulge in party political attacks but should reflect what our constituents want, which is to feel that they are safe. They want our Home Secretary to do whatever is necessary for that. Before I deal with the issue of whether TPIMs or control orders are right, I point out that as far as most Back Benchers and most members of the public are concerned, TPIMs are simply control orders-lite. There is not a huge difference between them.”
“The hon. Gentleman is living in a dream world. Does he appreciate what these people are trying to do? Does he understand the level of danger they pose?”
“We know that there is some evidence, such as intercept evidence, that is difficult for the Home Secretary to bring to trial. Surely we must have some faith in our Home Secretary. Surely we respect her and the instruments of justice as having the public interest at heart. They are in no way inclined to restrict anybody’s civil liberties unless there is good reason.”
“I do not think so; that is not a great difference between control orders and TPIMs. The Home Office memorandum on the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 states that the Home Secretary must reasonably—again, “reasonably”, and all this is subject to judicial review—consider “that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public”. Let us always focus on members of the public. That is what we are here for, not to debate party political issues. I wish those on our two Front Benches could get together on this issue; it is a matter of national security.”
“In that sense I support the former Labour Government; I think they had to act as they wanted, although we know there was a problem with the courts. It does not seem to me that TPIMs are so very different from what we had before. They are instigated by the Home Secretary with the permission of the High Court, and they are granted on the basis of a reasonable belief in the subject’s involvement in terrorism—that all sounds quite sensible. That is, I agree, a higher threshold than the one for control orders, which required “reasonable suspicion”, but as far as the public are concerned, is there a great deal of difference between the “reasonable suspicion” that was required under the former Labour Government, or a reasonable belief in the subject’s involvement in terrorism?”
“This is not actually the moment; the Government have moved on from control orders, but that is another issue. I would say that if there has been a trial and that person has been found not guilty, fair enough. There may, however, be reasonable suspicion that somebody poses a real danger to the public. This whole debate has been skewed because the Labour party has attacked the Government from the right, but I am more interested in what the public think. When the public look at the appalling outrages that have taken place, and when they consider the plots to blow up hundreds of innocent people for no reason at all, I do not think that most of them think that the sorts of measures that the Labour Government brought in, and that our Government are enforcing, are such a dramatic infringement on our traditional way of life.”
“I also understand that the High Court had a problem with relocation, but I would have thought we could find a way through that. If relocation was absolutely necessary from the point of view of protecting the public, I do not think it unreasonable —I have been listening to the shadow Home Secretary—for there to be some requirement for relocation.”
“I am sure that on a Privy Counsellor basis, the Home Secretary would be happy to brief the right hon. Lady. I am speaking as a Back Bencher, but it seems that when the public are concerned, and when there are people who hold such dangerous views, it is not unreasonable for us as members of the public to ask our two parties of state to work together on this. The memorandum says that the Home Secretary must reasonably consider “that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism,” and with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity, “for TPIMs to be imposed on an individual.” That is not unreasonable. There are two points to consider and I understand the attack from the Labour party.”
“When the Minister sums up the debate, without going into operational details, I would like him to seek, as best he can, to reassure the House that those people have behaved themselves over the past two years, that there is no evidence of new involvement in terrorism, and that in his view, they will not be a threat to society. That would be entirely proper for the Minister to do. Surely all the public want is reassurance that they and their children are safe, and it is the job of us in this Parliament to ensure that those children are safe.”
“I hope my hon. Friend does not mind, but I must finish in a few seconds. I will end with this point, although I would like to be able to give way. We have a right to know that these six people are now safe to be released on the streets. That is a reasonable question. The Home Secretary’s reasonable point of view is that there must be some new evidence that they continue to be a threat to the public, and we cannot keep someone under a control order for ever on the basis of information that is two years old. I think that is her point of view, and that is how TPIMs differ from control orders. From a rational and objective point of view, that is not an unreasonable stance.”
“France has been mentioned. Just how many refugees is it taking? Are we not spending 15 times more than France on humanitarian aid? Our Parliament refused to bomb Syria; France wanted to bomb it. Which approach is more likely to produce peace and light—our approach or the French approach?”
“It is a great pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord) as he brings the passage of this Bill in this House to a conclusion. I was here during its gestation period, on Second Reading, and I am happy to be here now to support it as it is finally delivered. You were in the Chair on Second Reading, Mr Speaker, and I wearied you with a speech of nearly half an hour, so you will be pleased to hear that as this is Third Reading, my remarks will be very brief.”
“Are we not worried about immigration?” However, the number of people affected by this Bill is small, and surely it has always been a principle that when someone serves in the armed forces of a country and puts their life at risk, they are entitled to become a citizen of that country.”
“How amazing it would be if, having loyally served our country in the armed forces, they are told, “I am sorry, but five years ago you were in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban and you have to wait.” Such an approach is extraordinary. Although the number involved may be small—a figure of 200 has been cited—an important principle is at stake. In addition, although the specific number of people we think the Bill affects may be limited at the moment—it is perhaps only 200—about 8,000 foreign nationals are serving in our armed forces, so a considerable number of people are potentially involved. One or two comments were made on Second Reading on the theme of, “Do we want to grant more citizenship?”
“Although this is a small Bill, it has a big heart, because it is about supporting our armed forces and ensuring that another building block of the armed forces covenant is put in place. I was not here during the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981, but it seems extraordinary that we have a sensible provision that someone has to be in this country for five years before they are granted citizenship or the process comes to fruition, yet a country should say that someone should be denied this opportunity to get citizenship because they happen to be serving that country overseas. Let us consider the position of a foreign national, one of our brave soldiers, who is serving in Afghanistan and who has served our country for five years and whose greatest ambition is to become a citizen of this country.”
“It is so pleasant to be here on a Friday morning, when everyone is so polite, nice and calm. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking because steering a private Member’s Bill through the rocks of parliamentary procedure is difficult, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), who is piloting the European Union (Referendum) Bill, is finding this very day to his cost. However, I am sure that, with the help of Lord Trefgarne, the Bill before us will have a rapid passage. I do not believe for a moment that the other place would want to commit the double whammy of resisting the overwhelming will of this House and the people’s right to have a referendum—it is doing that on the European Union (Referendum) Bill. I say that very quickly before Mr Speaker rules me out of order, and I return to the Bill before us.”
“In this House, it behoves us always to support our armed forces and if we find any area where there are glitches or unfairnesses, we should take time to iron them out, and we should always proclaim our support and admiration for them and the work that they do. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak today; I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Woking; and I wish his Bill well as it completes its stages through this House.”
“I entirely agree. As I said, all countries have had this principle that people who have served a number of years in the armed forces of the country should be entitled to become a citizen. Can we imagine some poor Roman legionnaire 2,000 years ago, freezing on Hadrian’s wall, applying to become a citizen of the empire, only for someone to say, “I’m sorry, five years ago, you weren’t sitting around in Rome. You were serving the empire on the Rhine”? It would be ridiculous. There is clearly something wrong with our present laws. This is a good Bill; it will make a good Act. It is important because there is undoubtedly a problem with morale in the armed forces. Their whole role is changing; they are leaving Afghanistan; and there have been severe reductions in the military.”
“As my hon. Friend mentions the Polish contribution to the battle of Britain, it is worth putting on the record that they came here in huge numbers and served our country with great bravery. Subsequently, we did not deal very fairly with their country. Let us pay tribute to our Polish friends. We should remember their contribution when people talk about Polish immigration now. We should always reflect on what they did for our country in the 1940s.”
“Nobody could possibly be in favour of gender inequality, but can my hon. Friend assure me that this is not just another motherhood and apple pie Bill that will place a regulatory burden on the Department by pushing it in a direction which, according to common sense, it should be following anyway?”
“When he is grappling with such a disaster, I do not want some civil servant to be shuffling pieces of paper in front of him because he has to meet some provision that should obviously be met in any event.”
“Humanitarian assistance is a part of the Department’s work that has to be carried out with great speed, and the Minister has to take action not because it ticks some box or fulfils some regulatory function but because it is about saving lives. New subsection (2) says: “Before providing assistance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of providing assistance under that subsection in a way that takes account of any gender-related differences in the needs of those affected by the disaster or the emergency.” Of course the Secretary of State will do that. It would be absurd if there were a disaster in Congo, Somaliland or anywhere else, and he provided assistance in such a way that did not help everybody.”
“It is a very comfortable feeling, but ultimately it makes it increasingly difficult to run these Departments, because every time a Minister is getting on with their job, civil servants are coming to them and saying, “You have to tick this box, that box and the other box.” Ultimately, it is not a very good way of running a Department. My right hon. Friend the Minister is a very experienced Minister who understands his Department intimately, and I am sure he can give me the assurance that this Bill will in no way affect his work. The Bill also deals with humanitarian assistance. I have two daughters who work in international development—one works for War Child and one works for the International Rescue Committee. They are both in Congo at the moment. My family and I are utterly committed to international development.”
“There is a danger, because many of the Bills that passed through this House under the previous Government, particularly—dare I say it?—on Friday mornings, were undoubtedly well intentioned. Nobody could support gender inequality, and everybody wants the Secretary of State to produce programmes that reduce gender inequality, but the House will understand what I am saying. We cannot view Departments like Christmas trees and load more and more fairy lights and baubles on to them to try to satisfy our own prejudices or make us feel good.”
“It states: “Before providing development assistance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of providing development assistance that is likely to contribute to reducing poverty in a way which is likely to contribute to reducing inequality between persons of different gender.” I want an assurance from the Minister that, in a world in which we are placing ever more regulatory burdens on Ministers, his freedom of manoeuvre in the way he conducts his negotiations, provides assistance and runs his Department will in no way be compromised by a Bill that, despite its eminently good intentions, might have some unintended effects, as is often the case.”
“Of course, I entirely support the aims of the Bill—it would be extraordinary if one did not—and the whole House will want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for the effort he has put into this work over many years. He is quite right that there is extraordinary and regrettable inequality, particularly in the developing world. It is absolutely right that the Department for International Development, in seeking to do its job, should try to construct its aims in such a way that reduces gender inequality. However, on Third Reading it is important to scrutinise measures and look at the text of the Bill.”
“I am not opposed to the Bill and I entirely accept my hon. Friend’s point. I want the Department to be run in a successful fashion. I want it to reduce gender inequality and to improve education in the third world. I want the Minister to do all these things, but ultimately I want him and his officials to be able to trust in their own judgment and not have to think about another Act of Parliament that may have unintended consequences and restrict their freedom of manoeuvre. We should trust the Secretary of State. This Bill is obviously going to become law; nobody here is going to oppose it. I merely want to get from the Minister the assurance that I requested.”
“All this is absolutely right—and obvious. Why does it need an Act of Parliament to tell the Secretary of State to do this? Surely she is doing it already.”
“Apparently, one reason we cannot do much about it, legally, is that we have a universal system, rather than a contributory system. The Bulgarian Prime Minister says that our Prime Minister is being nasty, but he is not. It is actually much more difficult to get benefits in a country such as Germany, so we are just being sensible, and if the only way we can deal with this problem is to move to a contributory system, perhaps we should. There is a desire among many countries, particularly Germany, Britain and other developed countries, to try to solve this problem. It is not about being nasty; it is about being sensible.”
“We are told that this proposal is against European law, but clearly the law is evolving. In any event, people cannot claim benefits in a place such as Germany unless they have been there for a considerable time. So why do the Government indulge in the politics of the pre-emptive cringe, kowtowing before what the European Commission might say in the future? Why do we not just say, “You cannot get a benefit for 12 months” and see whether it takes us to court? We could argue about it for years, so I do not know why we do not just stand firm on this.”
“It was suggested that our proposal that Parliament should have a right to veto European legislation is contrary to European law, but it is interesting that a member of the German Bundestag said on the “Today” programme that, in his opinion, such a veto is not contrary to European law because the German supreme court can apparently strike down legislation that is contrary to the German constitution. So the proposal contained in the letter from our hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is eminently sensible, and we could do it. We should at least include the proposal in our manifesto.”
“I have the right to impose a time limit, but I think we should be all right for the time being, if Members are aware of the clock. I shall start by calling Cheryl Gillan, who, I am sure, will be considerate to other people.”
“Order. We are in danger of going round in circles now, so perhaps the right hon. Lady could get on with her speech. Perhaps if she gives way to the Minister, we can get on and hear from other people.”
“The three speeches so far have lasted 20 minutes, 20 minutes and 17 minutes. I am afraid that Members’ speeches are going to have to be a bit more high-speed.”
“A story in The Daily Telegraph on a National Centre for Social Research study said: “One in eight divorced or separated fathers has lost all contact with their children”. Is that not dreadful? Is that not sad?”
“People in government, in schools and in Churches are frightened of speaking out about this issue. They think that if they say they support traditional marriage, they are somehow criticising people who are not married or who, for all sorts of reasons that are not their fault, are no longer married, but that is not the case. Surely we can value everyone in society and how they live, while speaking out for what is right in society, which is marriage and people setting out to stay married if they want to bring up children. Again, we are indebted to the Library for telling us what is going on. These are all statistics and facts. They are not made up by people who come here with a particular point of view.”
“He is either retired or about to retire, and The Daily Telegraph said that he “decided to step down because of opposition from within the judiciary to his support for traditional marriage. He has been placed under investigation and could be officially censured over comments last year criticising the Government for pushing through same-sex marriage legislation rather than tackling a ‘crisis of family breakdown’.” He is a man who knows what is going on and he should be listened to. I am grateful to the Library for its work on the briefing papers, but I do not want to quote a load of statistics, because we all know the truth. It is absolutely clear what is going on and there is no argument about it. The decline of traditional marriage has been an unalloyed disaster.”
“Over the past 50 years, a view has grown in our permissive society that people are happiest if they are completely liberated and can do what they want and say, “It is about me.” The Churches, successive Governments, schools, the BBC, national newspapers and we as Members of Parliament are all complicit in that permissive view of society, which has left a trail of despair in its wake. Sir Paul Coleridge, the family division judge, has been mentioned. He is one of the very few people who have had the courage to speak about this matter. He deals with these issues every day of his working life. He warns of the “yawning public ignorance” of the mental effects on children of conflict between parents, even from birth.”