Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Q8. Will the Government please continue to work closely with me and West Lindsey district council to ensure that RAF Scampton is sold off in a timely fashion at a fair price, so that we secure the future of the runway, the spaceport and the heritage centre, rather than maximise value and cover it with housing?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, the Father of the House, for his question. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking urgent action to clear the backlog of cases and reduce the use of asylum accommodation, saving millions for taxpayers. I will ensure that he is kept fully updated as the Scampton decommissioning and disposal process is followed.

Northern Ireland

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes: we have the withdrawal Act itself, and the right hon. Gentleman is sitting in the place that safeguards our laws themselves.

It is right that we are updating domestic law to reflect the fact that democratically elected representatives in Northern Ireland will now be able to reject new and amended EU law and that the withdrawal agreement’s implementation is subject to robust scrutiny.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The ability of Ministers to govern is already severely constrained by things like the Human Rights Act 1998. What worries me about this is not the deal as such; I am a Brexiteer and want a dynamic and deregulated economy, so what happens when we try to diverge from EU laws? Will some civil servant have to sign this off—will it be a question of “No, Minister” before we even get to the House of Commons? Can the Secretary of State therefore assure me that we will be able to enjoy our Brexit freedoms under this deal?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, which has been put before. It was put yesterday and it is a genuinely fair question. I can honestly say that this package of measures will not change the freedoms and powers we have secured through leaving the European Union or through the Windsor framework. It will not reduce our ability to diverge or our commitment to do so should it be in the interests of the United Kingdom, and if the legislation does carry significant adverse effects, of course the House would expect the Minister to set out any steps to be taken in response to that assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely powerful point. I hope everyone will notice the near—if not complete—unanimity that we will see reflected in the House today. Those who wish to rail against reality and the fact that we have to make choices and deal with issues as they arise, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) has so eloquently pointed out, achieve nothing and contribute nothing. What the House is trying to do is to take this forward and, crucially, to restore the institutions.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am not trying to rail against reality; I am just seeking the truth. Would it be a fair summing-up of the Labour party’s position that it is supremely relaxed about all these future trading arrangements because, if there is to be a Labour Government, they will have absolutely no intention of diverging further away from the EU from a deregulatory point of view? If the right hon. Gentleman becomes Secretary of State, there is no danger that any civil servant will say, “Minister, be careful about this.” Labour is very relaxed about this matter. It is going to get closer and closer to the EU, isn’t it?

[Hilary Benn]

It is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman to say that we are intensely relaxed about the prospect that we might form the next Government, and who am I to disagree with him in that observation?

The point about divergence is that it is a choice. It is striking to note the number of instances since we left the European Union when the current Government decided that they were going to diverge, and then suddenly had second thoughts about it because it did not really make a lot of sense. I make no apology for having given the example of the veterinary SPS agreement that we would like to reach, because it would help our businesses in the UK, businesses in Northern Ireland and businesses in the European Union. That is my definition of common-sense negotiation—the decision has been made, but that does not mean Britain cannot seek to improve the relationship we have with the European Union in our interests and the interests of our European neighbours.

I also welcome regulation 3(3), which would require a Minister before the Second Reading of a Bill containing provisions that would affect trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom either to make a statement that it would not have such an effect, or to set out the reasons why the Government want to proceed none the less. It may be difficult at this stage, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State in winding up could give us an example of the circumstances in which Ministers might want to make use of the provisions in proposed new section 13C(2)(b) to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, found at the top of page 4 of the regulations. In other words, in what circumstances would the Government want to proceed with legislation even though it would have an adverse effect?

I welcome the clarifications made in regulation 4 regarding any independent review that may follow the democratic consent vote. That vote by Assembly Members must take place, as I understand it, by the end of this year. Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with Northern Ireland political parties as to when, exactly, that vote might take place, or does he intend to do so, or is it entirely a matter for those parties?

I will return in the subsequent debate to the matters I wish to raise on the UK internal market regulations, Madam Deputy Speaker. I now bring my remarks to a close.

Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

I am grateful for the service to the people of Northern Ireland that my hon. Friend has given from the Labour Front Bench over the years. He makes a very pertinent point. I was flabbergasted, on a Friday during a real crisis in Northern Ireland, to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland tweeting about “Game of Thrones” and not the situation that was unfolding. That was a negligent approach to the situation and to the responsibility that the Northern Ireland Secretary has to be present. There are several Secretaries of State with responsibility for negotiating, commenting on and making policy that has a profound impact on the people and politics of Northern Ireland. The fact that none of them has come to this place to answer questions in recent days is negligent.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This crisis has been caused by the ongoing negotiations over the Northern Ireland protocol. Given that traditionally the Opposition have worked with a degree of consensus with the Government on Northern Ireland matters, will the Opposition support the Government if they act unilaterally on the protocol in order to ensure the unity of the United Kingdom, which surely the Labour party agrees with as much as us?

[Peter Kyle]

The consensus that needs building is between political parties in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister has now been revealed as having been making promises and pledges to parties in Northern Ireland and failing to meet them, which I think is what underpins the failure we see in Northern Ireland at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Gentleman is aiming his artillery at the wrong enemy. The truth is that this protocol and trade across Northern Ireland are no threat whatsoever to the integrity of the single market. This Government have done their level best to try to get trade flowing completely freely; it is the EU that is making it so impossible.

[Ian Paisley]

No one from that side of the House needs to lecture us about the support that this party and the people of Ulster have invested in this Government—no one. The only reason that GB has Brexit is the support that the Unionist people of Northern Ireland gave to the right hon. Gentleman’s party. Let us make no mistake about that. The reality is that, if the Government had given a fair deal to all the people of the United Kingdom, we would not be debating this issue this evening and the institutions of Northern Ireland would not be teetering on the brink of collapse. I fear that, alarming as the situation is in Northern Ireland, this will not be easily brought back together. The comment made by the right hon. Gentleman, who is a close friend of mine, betrays a lack of understanding of how deep the hurt and the cut is in Northern Ireland this evening. That must be addressed urgently.

Abortion in Northern Ireland

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The short answer is absolutely yes; the hon. Lady is absolutely right. I would go further. She has outlined a couple of specific cases. I did not name people, for a particular reason that she will appreciate. This is not a criticism of what she said at all. She is absolutely right and I know the individuals concerned. It is not just the poor access to healthcare and the harrowing examples that I outlined—the hon. Lady gave an example of a couple of people who have been through dreadful situations—but the bravery of those women in having the strength to stand up and highlight the issues so that others can understand. I also fully understand the abuse that they have had to withstand for speaking out and being clear about their own experience. That is unacceptable and we should all be calling it out.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State be honest and open with the House? He quotes section 9 of the 2019 Act. This House took the fact that the Assembly was not sitting as an excuse to impose its views on Northern Ireland. The Assembly is now sitting. The abortion industry talks about the right to choose; what about the right to choose of the people of Northern Ireland? What would happen if they tried to impose their views on us? The fact of the matter is that Northern Ireland can run its own Government as long as they keep doing things that we do not disagree with. This is not democracy. Whatever our views on abortion, the Secretary of State is putting the Union at risk. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland believe in the sanctity of life. They oppose abortion. They have their own devolved Administration. They should be allowed to run their own affairs.

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend makes a strong point about devolution. It is absolutely right that the devolved Administrations have the ability to move on and deliver on their own affairs, and I absolutely hope that the Northern Ireland Department of Health will do that. This is not about us stepping in on a devolved matter, although I appreciate that others have made that case; it is about us ensuring compliance with the legal duties that Parliament imposed on us in mid-2019. Those duties are such that I am under an obligation to ensure that all the recommendations in the CEDAW report are implemented in Northern Ireland. The fact that the Northern Ireland Executive are back—that is a very good thing, and I hope they will take this forward; of course, they have been able to take it forward themselves with any amendments they like—does not remove the legal obligation on the Government to take forward what was voted on in this House in 2019.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The objection seems to be that we may have to act in this way, but we do not want to break international law. Has my hon. Friend noted my amendment 45, which shows a way through? Under the Vienna convention, which is already mentioned through the conditional interpretative declaration, if another party is acting in bad faith, we can use the declaration to escape from an impossible situation. Will the Minister at least look at that amendment?

[Mr Walker]

I will look at my hon. Friend’s amendment. I will come to amendments shortly—I realise that I need to make some more progress in addressing the many amendments we face. We do not consider necessarily that a unilateral interpretative declaration would be required, although as I said, we will use all the tools at our disposal to resolve the issue within the terms of the protocol before using the powers in the Bill. If that is one that we considered would help, we would not hesitate to use it, but we do not see the need for the amendment in that respect.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me confirm again that we are of course committed to implementing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and have already taken many practical steps to do that. However, as a responsible Government, we cannot allow the gains of the peace process or the economic integrity of the UK’s internal market to be compromised inadvertently by unintended consequences and harmful legal defaults suggested by some interpretations of the protocol.

Finally, clause 50 disapplies certain provisions of the UK Internal Market Bill in the scenario that Northern Ireland’s representatives resolve, under the protocol’s consent mechanism, that articles 5 to 10 of the protocol should cease to apply. This is a practical step to account for and respect the principle of consent enshrined in the protocol. The protocol itself is not codified as a permanent solution for Northern Ireland, and neither should it be in the domestic legislation that implements it. Taken together, these clauses deliver on our commitments to Northern Ireland.

I want to address the amendments as briefly as I can, so I will have to be limited in the number of interventions I will take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I shall speak against clauses 42 and 45 standing part of the Bill.

When five out of the last six leaders of the Conservative party and all five living Prime Ministers are on the same side of the argument, it is time to sit up and take note. It is not often that I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), but her remarks earlier in the debate were absolutely right. The Bill’s attempt to enable the UK to break an international agreement made in good faith is both reckless and damaging. There have been protestations that the measures in the Bill would be used only if an agreement cannot be reached, but their price is the trashing of Britain’s reputation as an honest broker. The Bill will forever allow those regimes that flout international law to counter any criticism and point a finger back at the UK. Is that really a price worth paying? Of course it is not.

How did we get here? The withdrawal agreement clearly made reference to the state aid rules in article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol. The clue was in the title of the article—it was there in black and white: “State aid”. Did no one notice that section? Did no one read that? If not, the Government are grossly negligent. We have learned that article 10’s impact was made fully known to Ministers at the time. Even if it was not picked up in October, it was certainly referred to in those January days when Parliament debated the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill at length before passing it into law. If state aid was such a big deal, I am surprised that Government Members who were so ebullient in their support of the withdrawal agreement Bill are now so eager to say it was flawed and explain why we must pass this Bill instead. Why did they not kick up a fuss at the time? Where were they?

Many from the Conservative party will say that the measures in the Bill will be invoked only as a last resort, but even passing the Bill and allowing the Government to break international law is doing untold damage to this country’s reputation. The United Kingdom is a signatory to and has ratified the Vienna convention. One of the principles that underpin that convention is negotiating in good faith. Passing this Bill will fly in the face of the Vienna convention and give a green light to other countries wishing to break agreements. With the Government having taken this step, how will anyone ever trust anything that they say in negotiations ever again? Far from making trade deals easier, this legislation has made negotiations much harder, with the United States leading the outcry as it sees renegotiating the Northern Ireland protocol as a gross act of bad faith.

The former Conservative leader Lord Howard was right when he asked how the UK could reproach Russia, China and Iran for their actions when the UK itself was willing to break international law, as he lamented the damage to Britain’s reputation for probity and respect for the rule of law. Perhaps the Bill’s intention is to ensure that we leave the transition period without an agreement. Perhaps it is a negotiation tactic, or perhaps it is designed to be a big distraction. Whichever one of those it may be, saying that the Bill breaks the law

“in a very specific and limited way”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]

has diminished Britain’s global reputation.

Just as conspiracy offences carry the same maximum sentence as the original offence itself, even if the powers in the Bill were not used, the fact that the intention was there to do so is proof enough of bad faith. If the Bill passes, even if the power to disapply is not used, irrevocable damage has been done to Britain’s international reputation. Once that reputation is lost it will be very hard to get back.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I wish to speak to my amendment 42. I am optimistic that we can reach a deal for the benefit of both the UK and the EU. My amendment outlines a way whereby in the event that the implementation period ends without a UK agreement we can still provide reassurance on the integrity of our internal market. The statement that EU negotiators made on 10 September, threatening, on the record, that the EU could control the movement of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland was a regrettable escalation. The reality is that we do not need to accept its interpretation of the protocol. The alternative in the face of unreasonable demands is to state clearly our interpretation of what we agreed to when we signed the protocol.

As I highlighted in the debates last year—I also had numerous meetings with the then Prime Minister and the then Attorney General, and the ideas I promoted were incorporated in the previous Prime Minister’s last suggestion—there is an instrument of diplomacy that can be applied to treaties of this kind and it is called an “interpretative declaration”. Any party to a treaty can use this legal instrument on its own initiative. To emphasise that, we refer to it as a unilateral interpretative declaration. I am sorry to get into detail, but this is terribly important. The law is important and we must uphold the law, which is why I have concerns about the current direction the Government are taking. If the Germans have given the world great music and the French have given it great pictures, we have given the world freedom under the law, under parliamentary democracy, so we must remain within the law.

The point is that there may be a way for the Government to achieve their objective without breaking international law. If the EU were to act on its threat, it would violate our sovereignty—one of the most basic principles of international law. This is what lawyers call an act of bad faith in negotiations. It can also be called a manifestly absurd interpretation of the protocol, and under international law no one is bound by an absurd interpretation of a treaty that is entered into in good faith. If we use a unilateral interpretative declaration to spell out our objections, the EU must respond by either explicitly rejecting or implicitly accepting our interpretation. If it rejects, it must formulate and justify an alternative interpretation. If the EU goes along with a unilateral interpretative declaration made by the UK, it becomes a legally binding joint interpretation. If the EU opposes our interpretation, we have at least strengthened our negotiating position, pushed the EU negotiators on to the back foot and gained a basis for appealing to EU national Governments for new instructions to be given to EU negotiators.

Importantly, an interpretative declaration would hand the EU a way out of the escalation, which is why I am putting this forward as a constructive idea to get us out of the impasse we are in. So much of diplomacy is about saving face, and this would help the EU to do so, while securing an agreement. We would not be reopening or unpicking the protocol; we would just be making a small explanatory statement of our interpretation of what we had signed up to in good faith. Stage three of Brexit starts in January, when we will have established a series of new relationships between the UK, the Republic of Ireland and the EU. There have been deep and bitter rifts over this, first about the backstop and then about the new protocol, but two major improvements have taken place. First, we no longer have the backstop. Secondly, the new arrangement will last only as long as it has the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Critics say, “Oh, but Northern Ireland is part of the UK. We will still be linked to the EU.” That is a valid point, but what clear alternatives are they offering?

We have a fundamental logical difficulty here. We have three important goals, and it is difficult to see how they can all be reached compatibly but in full: first, we want to support the Belfast agreement; secondly, we want to leave the customs union; and thirdly, we want a cohesive, sovereign, independent United Kingdom. We cannot reach each of those three goals in full simultaneously without a little bit of give and take, and that is all I am suggesting. We need to invoke the great British spirit of compromise. It may be called muddling through, but it is what we do best.

It is the same in the family of communities that is the United Kingdom and the family of nations in the world. We need to make sacrifices in order to work together. With a little bit of malleability, making some tweaks to the integrity of our internal market, we can preserve the peace in Northern Ireland that has taken so long to achieve. Equally, if we are making some adjustments and sacrifices, the European Union needs to sacrifice its rigid attitudes. That is the compromise I propose, and I hope it is helpful to the debate.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

Yes, and the danger is that that has an impact on the talks that we are trying to progress to a satisfactory conclusion.

Furthermore, the proposed measures are undemocratic. The views of the Assembly on abortion have been clearly expressed. Back in 2015, the Assembly—not by a vote using a petition of concern, but by a majority, and a big majority at that—decided that it did not want to change abortion legislation in Northern Ireland. Indeed, in October last year, a ComRes survey in Northern Ireland showed that 64% of people in Northern Ireland did not believe that this issue should be decided here, but should be decided in Northern Ireland. Significantly, 66% of women took the view that that should be the case, and, among young people, 72% of those aged between 18 and 32 believed that the issue should be decided locally. That being the case, trying to impose change through this place on the people of Northern Ireland, ignoring the devolution settlement, is obviously undemocratic.

If we are going to take extra powers to this House, why take them on some of the most sensitive issues? They could be taken on other issues where people would accept that, but these are some of the most sensitive. The fact that I have had hundreds of emails on this issue within the past week indicates how sensitive it is. Regardless of whether people agree with my views on the two issues before us, they should ask themselves, “Is this the way this should be dealt with?” I do not believe it is. It is not consistent with previous decisions of the House and it is not democratic.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I believe that decisions regarding the law on abortion in Northern Ireland should be a matter for the people who live there and their elected representatives. The whole concept of devolution is based on the idea that different jurisdictions in the United Kingdom are entitled to adopt different approaches to areas within their competence. It was a decision of this House to transfer policing and justice powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and Westminster has not sought to impose legislation in this area at any stage during the history of Northern Ireland since 1921.

In 1967, the elected representatives of Northern Ireland determined not to embrace the Abortion Act 1967. As recently as 2016, the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland voted not to change the law on abortion in any way. In that sense, Northern Ireland’s law enjoys a more recent democratic sanction than that of any other part of the United Kingdom. This is a matter of great debate in Northern Ireland, but there is robust statistical analysis to show that about 100,000 people who are alive in Northern Ireland today would not be if we had embraced the 1967 Act. I point to what the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) just said: polling shows that a large majority of people in Northern Ireland—64%—say that this is not a matter that should be addressed by Westminster, rising to 66% of women and 72% of 18 to 32-year-olds.

Inevitably and understandably, it will be pointed out that the Executive has not been functioning since January 2017. However, for reasons the Secretary of State has articulated on numerous occasions, there has been a concerted effort to avoid direct rule, which is no way to run a complex society such as Northern Ireland’s; only in extremis should it be considered. If direct rule came in, this House would of course be entitled to legislate on matters that are currently devolved. Ministers would be accountable for legislation and for the operation of Executive Departments in Northern Ireland. But direct rule has not been introduced, and while this remains the case, this House cannot selectively intervene in relation to some issues as if direct rule were in place without unravelling the wider devolution settlement.

[Huw Merriman]

If that is so, why did Lady Hale say in the Supreme Court, when looking at whether this is incompatible legally, that Parliament, not the Northern Ireland Assembly, has three choices to correct it?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am going to deal precisely with that point if my hon. Friend will be patient.

The process we are undertaking this afternoon does not assist the talks process—quite the opposite. Some of those who support these amendments and new clauses will claim to generally accept this argument but suggest that abortion is different because there is a human rights imperative to override the devolution settlement. However, significant misinformation has been spread with regard to the status of the law on abortion in Northern Ireland in relation to human rights. Specifically, as we have heard, a number of claims have been made with regard to the CEDAW and a recent report by the CEDAW sub-committee on Northern Ireland.

First, let us consider the position of the legislation on abortion in Northern Ireland in terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. It is important to stress that at this point there has been no declaration of incompatibility with regard to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland. Yes, in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission judgment released in June 2018, a majority of judges indicated that if the plaintiff had standing in the case, they would have made a declaration of incompatibility with regard to cases involving fatal foetal abnormalities and in cases of sexual crime. However, these non-binding comments do not constitute a declaration of incompatibility.

[Emma Little Pengelly]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I had better keep going to obey your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to reply to this point, which has been made in an intervention.

In addition, the Supreme Court, again in non-binding comments, unanimously found that the law on abortion in Northern Ireland was compliant with the European convention on human rights in restricting access to abortion on the grounds of non-fatal disabilities. This part of the judgment is conveniently often forgotten in the rhetoric of proponents of change in the law on abortion in Northern Ireland. One might instead think, listening to the arguments made by some, that the Court found that the decriminalisation of abortion is required on the basis of human rights. That is simply false and needs to be understood as such. Individuals are of course entitled to argue for the decriminalisation of abortion, but they are not entitled to make this claim on the basis of human rights conventions or jurisprudence.

A future panel of the Supreme Court might well make a similar finding to that made in the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission case. Indeed, a properly constituted case is currently before the courts in Northern Ireland with regard to fatal foetal abnormality. However, even if that were the case, the incompatibility to be resolved would be on the narrow grounds of some of the most tragic and difficult cases imaginable—that of fatal foetal abnormality, not on the grounds of decriminalisation of abortion. Furthermore, section 4(6) of the Human Rights Act makes it clear that even had the Supreme Court determined that a piece of primary legislation was incompatible—which it did not in this case—and made such a declaration, a declaration of incompatibility

“does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given”

and

“is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made.”

Indeed, Baroness Hale pointed out that, even in cases where there is a ruling of incompatibility, that does not compel the legislature to change the law. It still has what she describes as a “do nothing” option.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Penrose]

As I mentioned in my response to new clause 1, it is entirely probable that it would not be possible to achieve this by October at all and, when we made those changes more broadly for the rest of the UK in previous years, that was done by primary legislation, not secondary legislation. The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I want to make sure, as people reach principled decisions on an issue of conscience, on a free-vote issue on both sides of the House, that they are aware of the technical concerns so they are making an informed principled choice as well.

I will move on to new clauses 4 and 8; I am trying to pick up speed so that I do not run out of time. These new clauses would oblige the Government to schedule a debate on the issue of progress towards meeting international obligations in relation to the reproductive rights of women, and on the issue of progress towards implementing marriage for same-sex couples in Northern Ireland. I have already mentioned that the Government intend to make an oral statement to accompany the report under clause 3. I hope that people will be comfortable with that and that the Opposition Front-Bench team will feel able not to press those amendments.

I will now move on to victims’ pensions. Amendment 10 and new clause 2 commit the Government to publishing a report on progress towards preparing legislation implementing a pension for those seriously injured in the troubles, and for that report to be debated in Parliament. This is a very important issue and the UK Government take it very seriously. That is why the Secretary of State requested updated and comprehensive advice from the Victims’ Commissioner, which we have recently received. The completion of that advice represents an important step in taking forward a pension for victims of the troubles. The Northern Ireland Office is therefore undertaking detailed work on the next steps, based on that advice, with factual input and support from the Northern Ireland civil service. We will keep the House fully updated on progress and we will therefore be accepting amendment 10 to provide a report on those issues.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the Minister confirm what I understand from his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford): on a very narrow Bill, which is essentially about setting dates for the Northern Ireland Executive, we are going to change the entire abortion law of the entire United Kingdom?

[John Penrose]

No, I think I can probably reassure my right hon. Friend on that, but I would reaffirm to him that there are real technical concerns about the new clause and that those will have to be fixed. He is broadly right on the broader point that a very simple Bill, which is only supposed to change two dates, has ended up with a very large number of other amendments attached, so he has a broader underlying point at least.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central is not indisposed. It is most irregular to beetle out of the Chamber before the exchanges on the question have concluded. The hon. Gentleman is normally the very embodiment of courtesy, so if he is not feeling well, I hope he gets well soon; if he is well, he had better get back into the Chamber sooner rather than later. It is an elementary rule that new Members must grasp: do not leave the Chamber until the exchanges on your question have been completed. I am sure you are all interested in the views that other people wish to express as well as in your own. I am sure I can say that without fear of contradiction.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

7. What recent discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the backstop protocol in the EU Withdrawal Agreement.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)]

My right hon. Friend asks what discussions the Secretary of State has had with Cabinet colleagues about the Irish backstop. The short answer is, a lot. The country and this Parliament seem to have been discussing little else for weeks, and it is the same with knobs on for the Cabinet.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Surely, never has something so important, namely Brexit, been put at risk in preventing something that will never happen, namely a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why will the EU, the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom Government simply not attach an instrument to the withdrawal agreement, making it clear that we will never impose a hard border in Northern Ireland? That can be achieved in time and with good will, first with customs arrangements, then with a free trade deal backed by technology. It is so simple—let us do it.

[John Penrose]

My right hon. Friend raises a creative potential legal solution, which he discussed in an Adjournment debate two weeks ago. The whole House will know that the Attorney General is currently involved in detailed negotiations on how to modify the backstop in line with Parliament’s wishes. Ultimately, it must be for him to judge whether my right hon. Friend’s proposal gets him closer to a legally effective solution that will allow him to change his advice. I will make sure that the Attorney General is aware of the proposal so that he can incorporate it if it is worth while.

Supreme Court Ruling: Abortion in Northern Ireland

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I put on record how much I appreciated the hon. Gentleman’s thoughtful and thought-provoking contribution to the debate on Tuesday.

Some Members have suggested that repealing sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 would somehow enable politicians in Northern Ireland to come together to create the laws that are right for Northern Ireland. Let us be clear that this is about the situation in Northern Ireland. I do not think anyone in this House is suggesting that the decision should not be taken in Stormont—we need the politicians to be in Stormont to do that—but if we proceeded down the path of repealing sections 58 and 59, we would be left with no laws on abortion in Northern Ireland. I do not think a vacuum of laws in Northern Ireland would be helpful to those women and girls we are all thinking about.

I make it clear that we want the politicians in Northern Ireland to make the law on abortion in Northern Ireland. We want them to come together, and we want them to do what is right for the people they represent.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The United Kingdom Government have devolved these issues to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It would therefore be extraordinary if the United Kingdom Government removed or changed some part of the law—that would make the law a complete mess. Whatever our views on this issue, we should have respect for both sides of the abortion debate, as I do. We should also have respect for the people of Northern Ireland who ultimately, ab initio, have to deal with this.

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend is right. The laws on abortion in Northern Ireland were not devolved at the time of the devolution settlements in the 1990s; these laws have always sat with Stormont since it was first founded and since it first sat in the 1920s. It is therefore right, constitutionally and morally, that these decisions are taken in Stormont.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I can certainly confirm that that is the approach that is being taken, which is consistent with the Belfast agreement. The contribution that the Irish Government are making in that context is positive, and we all feel a responsibility to see devolved Government back in place, delivering for Northern Ireland. I know that all the parties recognise that and are working hard to achieve it.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

11. Having been a Member of Parliament for many years prior to devolution, I am acutely aware of the total inadequacy of direct rule. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he is undertaking the negotiations with the utmost urgency and intensity to get a deal on devolved government?

[James Brokenshire]

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that devolved government is the only thing that I am working towards. That is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for and that is what they want to see delivering change for Northern Ireland and having a positive impact on people’s lives. We are approaching that with urgency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There will be more. I call Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Q4. I agree with the Prime Minister. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] We are leaving the EU and we are going to make a success of it, so will she make my day special by saying that she is prepared to reject staying in the single regulated market and to offer instead to our friends in Europe a free trade deal that is very much in their interests? Let us take back control.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!