Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely. I make it my business to talk regularly to the Home Secretary about this issue, as we share the concerns of the right hon. Gentleman. I also know that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) meet regularly to ensure that we do everything possible to monitor the matter. Across the House, there is a recognition that we must deal not only with violent extremism, but with extremism itself. Those who seek to radicalise and to inject the poison of Islamism into the minds of young men need to be countered every step of the way.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to increase value for money in its spending.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Dominic Raab)]

We are determined to help eliminate the budget deficit and deliver better justice, which is why we are cutting 15% from the Ministry of Justice budget over the spending review, but finding £1.3 billion to overhaul the prison estate so that we drive down reoffending and ensure that my hon. Friend’s constituents get better value for money and better bang for their buck out of the justice system.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Ministry of Justice has faced spending cuts as deep, or deeper, than any other Department in Whitehall, and yet, despite the occasional criticism and row, I am not sure whether the public has noted any discernible reduction in the service provided by the Department. Will my hon. Friend summon in the Secretaries of State for Health, Work and Pensions, International Development and Defence and give them a verbal tongue lashing about how we can emulate the private sector and create more wealth, goods, enterprise, deregulation and lower taxation and still provide better services?

[Mr Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his insightful remarks. As a former Public Accounts Committee Chairman, he will appreciate that we have already slimmed back-office by £600 million so that we can extend rehabilitation to the 45,000 offenders on short sentences, where we have some of the highest reoffending. Now we are cutting the admin budget by 50%, but investing £700 million to modernise our courts. It shows that, whether we are talking about delays at courts or the offenders passing through them, we can drive efficiencies and deliver a more effective system.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rob Marris]

No, I must make some progress. I am sorry.

The European Association of Palliative Care says there is no correlation between the quantity and quality of palliative care in any jurisdiction and whether or not that jurisdiction has legislation like or similar to the Bill. The legislation I am proposing today, as many Members will know, is broadly based on the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which came into effect in 1997. It has been in operation for 18 years. My Bill has the additional safeguard of judicial oversight.

When the Act was passed in 1994, the Oregon Hospice Association was strongly opposed to it. It has reversed its position, and it now recognises—in my view correctly, although I am not an expert—that assisted dying is one of the choices that ought to be available to dying people. In Oregon, 90% of people who have an assisted death—0.25% of those who die each year—are enrolled in hospice care, and Oregon is ranked among the best states in the United States of America for palliative care provision.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the Wagner case? Mrs Wagner was encouraged to take assisted suicide, rather than chemotherapy, on the grounds of cost. It worries many of us that market forces and family pressures will promote ever more assisted suicides.

[Rob Marris]

I will take a detour for the hon. Gentleman, because there are urban myths. Barbara Wagner was a 65-year-old lifelong smoker with lung cancer, who was insured—this is America—under the state plan. Her doctor prescribed medication that cost $4,000 a month which had an 8% chance of extending her life by four to six months. Her insurance health plan did not cover treatment where there was less than a 5% chance that the patient would be alive after five years. When she told her health plan provider that she would not be paying for the treatment, it informed her that one of the other options was the Oregon Act. It should not have done that, and it has since revised its notification process.

I am told that depression is often present among those who have a terminal illness. That is not surprising; if I had a terminal illness, I think I would get depressed. It is up to the two doctors to determine whether depression has driven someone to make this choice, or whether it is a free choice, and if those doctors have doubts, they can refer the patient, as part of the process, for an independent psychiatric evaluation.

Another concern is that patients will feel that they are a burden on their loved ones or the health service and so wish to exercise this option. I hope that patients do not feel that, but I cannot guarantee it. It is patronising and wrong to say that someone should be denied the choice because one factor in their decision making is that they would feel that they are a burden. They should have the choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has read us a very moving letter, and I think the whole tone of the debate does the House credit. This is an extraordinarily difficult issue, and we are all going to face this awful journey—I use “awful” in the old-fashioned sense of the word. We are frightened of dying, although perhaps for religious people it is not so much of death but of dying, and we have to respect each other’s opinions.

When my good friend Father Philip Bailey of Holy Rood Catholic church was dying—he had kidney failure—he was sent to Scunthorpe hospital, which offered him very painful and very intrusive treatment to try to enable him to live a few weeks or days longer. He, a Catholic priest, chose not to take it. I was with my best friend Piers Merchant, a former Member, when he was dying of cancer. His body was filled with morphine, which probably killed him in the end. It was not designed to kill him, however, but to relieve his suffering. My friend Father Philip Bailey took that choice as well.

My view is that we do not need an assisted suicide or an assisted dying Bill; we need a movement for natural dying. We have to come to terms with death as a society and recognise that it is a journey we are all going to take. We have to promote the hospice movement and palliative care, put much more resources into them and be honest with people that increasingly intrusive, difficult, painful operations and medications may not be the way. In that sense, I think we can resolve this issue and emerge with credit from what I regard as a moral maze.

I have one important issue to mention. I suppose people would expect me to do so, but it really has to be underlined. As we embark on the Bill and reflect on what it will mean if it becomes an Act, many of us feel that history will repeat itself. For all the controls that we are told will be there—I am not sure that the High Court’s consideration on paper for a couple of weeks or a couple of doctors in a dying clinic signing for it are much of a control, particularly when most doctors are opposed to it—more and more people will take this route, and as they become ill this general question will increasingly be put to them, “Do you want to end your life now? It is the law; you have the right to do it.” That contrasts with what happens now, where the whole emphasis is on trying to let people die naturally.

What sort of society do we want to create? Do we want to create one in which we solve our problems by killing? I admit that my religious belief informs my view, and people could ask what right I have to impose my religious beliefs—seen in opposition to abortion or capital punishment or to war or to assisted dying or death—on them. I would at least ask them this question: “What sort of society do we want to create when we feel that we can solve problems by hastening death rather than promoting life?” What sort of society are we creating if we say that we value people who are healthy, fit, beautiful and young more than we value people who are poor, old, crippled, ill and dying? We feel that in those people there is an eternal soul waiting there—a beautiful soul that needs to be nurtured. Even if people do not share this religious belief, surely they can come to the conclusion—even as humanists with a humane point of view—that we must promote a society that respects the old, the ill and the dying and gives them every chance of life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Mr Speaker, you will understand that, for legal reasons, I cannot discuss the outcome of a tendering process before the appropriate time. I will make the appropriate statements when the right moment arises.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T6. Further to the Secretary of State’s earlier reply, will he confirm that this country is a proud signatory of the original European convention on human rights and a founder member of the Council of Europe? Indeed, for its first five decades, the convention was hardly a controversial issue. The problem is that the Human Rights Act 1998 has been used by the European Court of Human Rights in a proactive way to deal not with gross abuses of human rights like those that we saw in fascist Europe, but with the decisions of a democratically elected Parliament. Why do we not simply remain a member of the Council of Europe, keep the convention, repeal the 1998 Act and create our own Bill of Rights?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A leading official from the Court came to this House a few weeks ago and described this country as “best in class”. If a country that is best in class on human rights has reached a point where it has lost confidence in the Court, it is clear that something needs to be done. Under a Conservative Government, something will be done.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) and it was good to hear him speaking in the House, after a period in the Whips on the Front Bench, although what he had to say was still a little too loyal for my taste.

I welcome clause 98 and the extension of the offence of allowing a dog to cause injury or the fear of injury to all places, including all private property. That is long awaited and closes a significant loophole in the law. Ministers have simply been much too slow to make this change. Today, however, particularly with new clause 3, the new Minister has the opportunity to act ahead of a serious and growing problem, instead of just giving a long-delayed response to a problem, as we have seen so far. I am talking about the introduction of dog control notices.

We know that thousands of victims are injured and hospitalised each year as a result of dog attacks. We know that the number of owners sentenced for offences related to dangerous dogs has increased by more than one third since 2009. Just in South Yorkshire the police tell me that in the past year they have responded to 464 dog attack incidents, and that just in 2013 they have so far taken out 26 court cases pursuing prosecution against those owners.

The latest case reported to me was that of Rebecca Lowman of Goldthorpe, who was attacked and badly injured in the arm and leg last month when she was defending a woman who was being attacked by her own dog in her own house. While Becky was still in hospital, I sat down with her husband John, who was very upset by Becky’s injuries and very angry that the police had no ability to act on that dog because the attack took place in that private house.

Since I started campaigning on this issue in the past few weeks, a lot of people have contacted me, including Norma Saunders, who told me that she knows someone who was a victim of a dog attack. She said:

“After the dog attacked several times, our community felt terrorized. I did not let my little boy play in the garden & I did not walk to the shops, but the authorities were not interested.”

I pay tribute to Hallam FM in South Yorkshire, which has taken up this campaign, aired the problems and given listeners the chance to give their experiences over the past week. A couple have phoned in with very powerful points. One said that the law must be changed:

“I was mauled by an American Pitt bull crossed with a Bull mastiff at my friend’s house and as it was in its rightful house nothing could have been done…I have been left with traumatic memories and ugly scars, this dog has not been put down and has in fact bitten someone else”.

Another caller simply said that we should

“just do what is definitely necessary to prevent any more horrific and fatal attacks on innocent people and children.”

The Minister has the chance to do just that this afternoon.

I urge the Minister, taking advantage of his fresh mandate as a new Minister in a new post, to accept new clause 3. Dog control notices have been legislated for in Scotland for three years and this represents a sensible extension of the scope for local authorities, courts and the police to take action against a person in control of a dog whose behaviour is out of control. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) has explained some of the steps and sanctions available to the authorities when a dog control notice is in place.

Labour has been arguing this case but Ministers have been dragging their feet for three years now. During that time, thousands more have suffered serious and often debilitating injuries. Most dog owners are responsible and their dogs are well behaved, but a minority see dogs as status symbols or even offensive weapons. The Government must go further than this Bill. Closing the loophole in the legislation over attacks on some private property is a sensible step, but one that they have been pushed to take. Let us see Ministers take the next sensible step this afternoon, introduce and accept the principle of dog control notices and help to reverse the rising trend of attacks and to head off some of the attacks we will otherwise definitely see, which will leave adults and children badly scarred, badly injured, badly traumatised and, in some cases, dead.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I support the Government’s gradualist and sensible approach and I urge the Minister to resist new clause 3. We all regret and are desperately unhappy about vicious attacks by dogs, particularly on children—although also on anybody else—and if legislation could solve that problem and new clause 3 could deal with it without causing massive potential inconvenience to millions of peaceable people who own dogs, I would be in favour of it. However, like all such amendments, it would probably, sadly, do little to control the vicious people who use dogs as weapons and it could impact severely on millions of ordinary, peaceable dog owners.

I declare an interest because, like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a dog owner. My dog, a little border terrier called William, is a lot smaller than yours. I saw yours in the Westminster dog show last year and many people think that your breed of dog is quite powerful, but I know from having witnessed your dog that it is well brought up and peaceable.

Let us be sensible about this. I know that new clause 3 is well intentioned, but it could have draconian effects. All it states is:

“Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control”.

It requires a reasonable belief—that is not probability. We all know that there are disputes between neighbours, or that people have rows with other people. That is such a small bar to get over for an “authorised officer”.

[Luciana Berger]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I had better not give way, because I do not want Mr Deputy Speaker to set his dogs of war on me. I shall be very brief and will not take any interventions.

Let me make a simple point. Who is this “authorised officer”? What is this “reasonable cause”? Simply because that officer of the state has some sort of belief, which might have been motivated by other people, the dog might have to be muzzled, neutered or prevented from going in particular places. I am very worried about that.

I am also very worried about the other amendments. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who was talking about 14-year sentences. It was in the papers last year that somebody had driven their car dangerously and killed somebody while they were looking at their global positioning system device. They did not look out of the window for 18 seconds and they killed a cyclist, and they went to prison for three years. We all think that is ridiculous. Are we really going to send someone to prison for 14 years for this offence?

Let us be honest about it. Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be guard dogs. Even my pathetic little border terrier, William, barks when people come up the garden path. That is what dogs are bred to do. All this nonsense about Liberal party canvassers who are scared of getting their fingers bitten when they put a leaflet through the door—I have delivered thousands of useless Conservative party pamphlets through the door. When I see a dog behind the door, I am delighted not to put the pamphlet through the letterbox. Just show some common sense. Dogs are dogs. We cannot change dogs with legislation.

New clause 3 is just one extra bit of legislation that will not impact on the people who really cause trouble, but will, as I said, impact on millions of dog owners. We should be calm, take a gradualist approach and support what the Government are doing.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We are on the edge of a profound social change. What a pity there was nothing in the manifesto. What a pity we did not have a Committee stage on the Floor of the House. What a pity we had only two hours to discuss the protection of people in the workplace. This change has been made tonight without full discussion; now it is over to the other place.

Reburial of King Richard III

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

We now come to a most interesting debate on the licensing of the reburial of King Richard III. I am sure that hon. Members will not be guilty of lèse-majesté in their comments.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

An interesting debate indeed.

I pay tribute to Richard Buckley, from university of Leicester archaeological services, who led the dig in the car park in Leicester which found the remains of King Richard III. It was a pleasure to talk to him last week, when preparing for this debate. I also pay tribute to the Yorkist Richard III Society, which proposed the dig to Leicester university and made some funding available to enable it to take place.

It is 527 and a half years since the end of the wars of the roses, a nasty, bloody civil war that tore our country apart. Although people think of it as a war between the white rose of York and the red rose of Lancaster, it was in fact a war between the north and the south and it was as horrible as any of the more recent civil wars of the 20th and 21st centuries. In this debate I do not want to set York against Leicester. Rather, I want to use the stupendous discovery of King Richard’s remains to bring our cities closer together, perhaps as a metaphor for the one-nation politics that all our parties nowadays stand for.

I do not hide the fact that I believe that King Richard III’s mortal remains should be buried in York. However, that is not the purpose of today’s debate. I want the Government to create a fair, independent process for arbitrating between the claims of York and Leicester, and other places, such as Westminster abbey, just across the road, where Anne Neville, King Richard’s wife, is buried. I want the Government, having created such a process, to come to decisions in a dignified way, based on historical advice, and after considering the views of all interested parties. It is the responsibility of the state to decide where, how and when King Richard, former King and head of state for our country, is buried. It is not a decision that should be delegated to a group of academics at Leicester university, as is currently specified in the licence for the dig, issued by the Ministry of Justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley]

Once again, I pay tribute to the role the Richard III Society has played in this whole event. It proposed the investigation based on its own research, and the excavations were expertly carried out by the archaeologists from the university of Leicester. It is too early to agree the compromise solution the hon. Gentleman suggests, but it is a constructive idea, and it is entirely consistent with my view that we should look at ways to bring together people from York and Leicester, rather than set them against each other. The idea has been considered by the Church, and the Dean of York mentioned it to me last week. It is the sort of proposition that could be considered under the process I am asking the Government to set in train.

As I say, the licence refers to persons unknown. Now that the identity of the remains has been established, it is right to reconsider the terms of the licence. Indeed, Sebastian Payne, the former chief scientist at English Heritage, described the discovery to me as a game changer. He is a member of the Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England. The panel has representatives from the Church of England, English Heritage and the Ministry of Justice. It met last Friday, and I asked Dr Payne to seek its advice on this case. Yesterday, I received a reply from Professor Holger Schutkowski, the chair of the panel. He wrote to me, saying that

“since the exhumation was carried out under Ministry of Justice licence, it is APABE’s understanding that the final decision on re-interment rests with the MoJ and that it is open to the MoJ to vary the terms of the licence. Therefore, APABE advises that your detailed questions should be addressed to them. APABE has no views about where the remains should be re-interred or how the place of burial should be marked. APABE recommends, however, that the views of those that have justifiable close links with the deceased, be they historical, cultural or religions, require balanced consideration as, for instance, set out in recent DCMS Guidance. Consideration should also be given to the rights, Canon Law and responsibilities of the Church of England as the legal successor of the Church into whose keeping the body was given at burial.”

The Government have the power to amend the licence; indeed, they frequently amend licences. Back in the 1980s, when the York Archaeological Trust was excavating at Jewbury, in York, the plans were changed as a result of representations from orthodox Jews, who took the view that the Jewish skeletons that were discovered should be reburied quickly, in line with Jewish practice. Four years ago, the Ministry, under the previous Administration, issued advice that, generally speaking, human remains should be reburied quickly. However, that has been found to be impractical in some cases, because it impedes archaeologists’ scientific examination of the remains. The Ministry has therefore amended quite a few licences in recent years to permit scientific examinations.

I have two proposals for the Minister. First, he should appoint an independent committee of experts to examine the historical record; the scientific analysis arising out of the dig; good archaeological practice; and the ethical and religious issues. The committee should advise him on where, how and when reburial takes place. Secondly, he and his Department should give the university of Leicester notice that it may be necessary, having taken advice from independent experts, for the Government to amend the licence and that preparations for reburial should therefore temporarily cease.

There are two other issues I would like to mention. First, the scientific tests to establish the identity of the remains are not yet complete, and archaeologists have not yet published their findings from the dig in peer-reviewed journals. In its letter to me yesterday, the advisory committee said:

“APABE understands that there is evidence ascertained through various scientific approaches that the human remains exhumed from the site of the former Leicester Greyfriars may be those of the late King Richard III. Due to the potential significance suggested by recent media presentation of preliminary scientific results, APABE believes it is in the national interest that decisions about the future deposition of these remains should await completion and peer review of the scientific results.”

I am emotionally inclined to believe the remains are those of King Richard, but the Government would clearly be foolish to set in train arrangements for the burial of the remains of a king—a head of state—if it is not certain that that is what has been found.

Richard Buckley is, of course, certain that he is right, but he has a vested interest in being certain: his reputation and legacy as an archaeologist depend on the identification being accepted. If he is right, he will go down in history, like Howard Carter, who found Tutankhamun, although Carter had the advantage that Tutankhamun was found in a casket that had Egyptian hieroglyphics on the side saying, “This is the body of Pharaoh Tutankhamun.” Unfortunately, King Richard—buried in haste after the battle, naked and with his hands tied by his captors—was found in neither a coffin nor even a shroud, and no evidence was found of coffin nails or of the pins that would have pinned a shroud together.

I mentioned that public opinion is split, with thousands of people supporting Leicester, and three times as many supporting burial in York. I have received many letters and e-mails from members of the public supporting burial in York. Most are thoughtful, well argued and based on scientific facts, but some are, frankly, inflammatory. I talked to the Dean of York yesterday, and some of the letters she has received at the minster are so extreme that she has referred the correspondence to the police. I would say to everybody: calm down. Let us all respect the memory of a former king of our country, and let us discuss, in a dignified and sober way, where his remains should finally be put to rest; we do not want to reignite the wars of the roses.

I provoked some laughter in the main Chamber in October when I said that King Richard is still well regarded in York. His reputation was trashed by that pesky playwright from Stratford-upon-Avon. History is always written by the victor, and the Tudor dynasty had a vested interest in undermining King Richard’s reputation. Of course, Shakespeare would not have got a licence from the Government of the day to perform his plays if he had told the truth about good King Richard. Long may the BBC remain free from Government licensing!

I do not have time to make the case for Richard’s burial in York, except to say it was what he requested in his lifetime. Weighed against that is the case for burying him where his remains were found, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). However, the decision should be taken on independent national advice, not delegated to archaeologists from Leicester, who clearly support the Leicester cause, and who would have found it outrageous if the decision had been delegated to a group of people from York. We need this decision to be taken nationally, in the national interests and by people who are independent of the vested interests of York or Leicester. I hope the Minister will agree.

If I may, Mr Leigh, I will now give the Floor to the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy).

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. It is my job to arbitrate this modern war of the roses. We must give the Minister a decent amount of time, and I would be grateful if the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) kept his remarks brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) on securing this debate on licensing for the reburial of King Richard III. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) for his remarks. I thank both of them not just for what they have said, but for how they said it. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for York Central that it is appropriate that we conduct this debate with the dignity that the subject matter deserves.

I am well aware—if I was not before, I certainly am now—of the level of interest in Yorkshire and Leicestershire, as well as the general public interest across the whole country, about what should happen. The project that we are discussing and the identification of the king’s remains have created a sense of national pride and excitement and have generated renewed interest in English history and archaeology. I am sure we can all agree that that is very welcome.

It is only right that I should start, as the hon. Member for York Central did, by congratulating the university of Leicester, the city of Leicester and the Richard III Society on an outstanding research project that has brought history alive to so many. I note that the archaeology journal Current Archaeology has hailed the search for Richard III as its archaeological project of the year. I therefore congratulate all those who have been directly or indirectly involved in the project on the remarkable results that their work has achieved.

The debate has concentrated on the licence. By way of background, the Ministry of Justice has responsibility for burial law and policy. The law is old and well established. Under section 25 of the Burial Act 1857, exhumation of human remains is permitted only with a licence from the Secretary of State. In this case the project was a joint venture between the university of Leicester, Leicester city council and the Richard III Society and all three parties contributed towards the excavation. All have, as I understand it, been involved in the application for the licence. The director of the university of Leicester archaeological services applied for a licence on 31 August last year and it was granted on 3 September. I emphasise that the application was treated in the same way as any other archaeological application would be. Such applications do not require the consent of the next of kin as they are invariably for unnamed remains buried a long time ago. The Secretary of State has a broad discretion to issue exhumation licences and may attach any conditions considered appropriate. Those invariably include conditions on where the remains should be reinterred, as well as that the remains should be treated with due care and attention to decency. In this case, as the hon. Member for York Central made clear, the licence gave permission to exhume up to six sets of remains, one of which could be those of King Richard III.

A project of this nature clearly required a significant degree of contingency planning. The director of the project thought that it was unlikely that the king’s remains would be found. Nevertheless, the application carefully considered the various possibilities and what would happen in the unlikely event that the remains were uncovered. It therefore indicated various options for reburial, which were dependent on what was eventually found.

The hon. Member for York Central made reference to the tests that were carried out. On 4 February, the announcement was made that the remains were indeed those of King Richard III, as it was put beyond reasonable doubt. In its application to the Secretary of State, the university indicated that it intended to reinter the remains in Leicester cathedral, which is one of the possible locations the licence mentions. The licence actually states that the remains are to be deposited

“at Jewry Wall Museum or else be reinterred at St Martins Cathedral or in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place”.

The conditions attached to the licence were therefore very broad, envisaging both that the remains might be those of Richard III but also, as was thought last summer, that they might not be. Now that the exhumation has been completed, it is the university of Leicester’s responsibility as holder of the licence to decide where the remains are finally laid to rest. That is the law.

Much has been made, not least today, of the fact that the people of York want Richard III’s remains to be buried in York, and I understand the strength of feeling in York and in Yorkshire more widely. However, I should make it clear that York minster has openly supported the reinterment of the remains in Leicester cathedral. It is also right to point out that the default position of the Church of England—the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) made this point—is that the remains should be interred at the nearest Christian church, which in this case is Leicester cathedral.

As I have said, the conditions of the licence were widely drawn. They gave a wide discretion on where the remains could be reinterred. The licence stated that

“the remains shall be reinterred in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place”.

Conditions of a licence can be amended, but that is unusual. The university of Leicester could apply to vary the terms of the licence if it wanted to. However, the broad terms of the licence allow it to reinter the remains effectively where it wants, with due regard to decency and the dignity of the deceased. It is right that the state has an interest in that, but our interest must surely be that there is a suitable location for the remains. I do not think that the hon. Member for York Central is arguing that Leicester cathedral would be unsuitable. He is simply arguing that there may be a preferable site, which I entirely understand.

The key point is that Leicester university has made it clear that it is happy to receive representations on this issue. Many of the hon. Gentleman’s points deserve further consideration, and I hope and expect that those at Leicester university with that responsibility will take into account what he has said. We would be happy to facilitate a meeting between the people he identifies and the university to enable that to happen. I am sure that we would all agree that wherever the king’s remains are finally laid to rest, they will belong not only to the location, but to the whole nation.

[Mr Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. It seems that poor Richard III is as controversial in death as in life. I thank hon. Members for the dignified way they have dealt with this difficult subject.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

Do let us remember whose bad idea it was. We are not resurrecting it; we are talking about a prison that is economically viable and that will save the taxpayer money, but it may not and almost certainly will not be exactly what a Titan prison was. There are many ways of doing this. We could, for example, have a number of smaller institutions on one site and still achieve the same economies of scale. The hon. Gentleman should not believe that this Government will make the same mistakes as his made.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

15. What progress his Department is making on the use of prisoner transfer agreements to allow the removal of foreign prisoners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

We are working hard across Government to remove foreign national offenders from this country. Last year we removed more FNOs under prisoner transfer agreements than the year before. We recently made our first transfer under the European Union PTA and signed a compulsory PTA with Albania, which is the first time we have done so with a high-volume FNO country.

[Mr Leigh]

Have any agreements been reached with any countries recently?

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I entirely acknowledge the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises. I have met the Association of British Bookmakers on two occasions. I have to say that on neither occasion has it raised that as a concern—[Hon. Members: “You need to raise it!”]—but once the cheap seats have piped down, I might finish by saying—[Interruption.] Actually, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) is extremely expensive—that St Paul’s education cost a fortune, didn’t it?

If the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) would like to write me a letter, I will take the matter up with the Association of British Bookmakers.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T7. The blue plaque scheme in London is greatly loved. I remember serving on the historic buildings committee of the Greater London council 35 years ago with Sir John Betjeman. When it was abolished, we were given an absolutely firm commitment, by a Conservative Government, that the blue plaque scheme would carry on. Now that it is in danger, will the Minister intervene to stop the silly games between the chief executive officer and the chair of English Heritage and tell them to get a move on and carry on with this much loved scheme?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Minister answers, I say to the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) that, for the avoidance of doubt, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) is neither cheap nor expensive; she is simply priceless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Grant]

We have lifted 1 million women out of having to pay tax and put an additional £200 million into child care support, and under this Government we have seen the highest number of women in work. That proves beyond doubt our commitment to women and their families.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

8. What steps she is taking to improve cost-effectiveness and value for money in the Government Equalities Office.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

In light of the 38% reduction in the equalities budget in the 2010 spending review, the Government Equalities Office is pursuing efficiency measures, enabling it to do more with less resource while maintaining high quality.

[Mr Leigh]

What progress has been made in ensuring equality in the Government Equalities Office since June 2011, given that a report found then that there was a gender imbalance of two-thirds in favour of women and women in the office were on average paid 7.7% more than men? Are men not equal to women?

[Maria Miller]

As I am sure my hon. Friend would expect, I want to make sure the GOE is doing what it needs to do to promote equality in its own ranks, and I will certainly look in detail at the points he has raised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

5. If he will make it his policy that courts will continue to have the power to impose whole-life tariffs for the most serious offences.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

10. If he will make it his policy that courts will continue to have the power to impose whole-life tariffs for the most serious offences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is right to be concerned, particularly about those types of offences; they give the public a good deal of concern, too. That is why this month we have implemented new sentences, which will allow for a mandatory life sentence for a second serious violent or sexual offence, and for extended determinate sentences for the first or the second offence which is a serious offence and merits it. Those are new sentencing proposals produced by this Government to reflect exactly what my hon. Friend has identified.

[Mr Leigh]

There was some concern that the measure might be struck down by human rights legislation. One of the reasons for all the alienation of people from politics is that they feel that we are no longer in control of our destiny. Will the Minister today proclaim that we are the free Parliament of a free people and it is here that the liberty of the individual is determined, not by some foreign court?

[Jeremy Wright]

The good news for my hon. Friend is that on this issue at least we are in agreement with the European Court of Human Rights, because it has upheld our view that whole-life tariffs are an appropriate disposal in the right cases. Let me make it clear to him—I think that I also speak for the Secretary of State—that for as long as we are Ministers in the Department, its policy will remain that whole-life tariffs should be available.

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The legal position is very clear: this is a reserved matter for this Parliament and not for the devolved Assemblies. As I mentioned, I have already had a discussion with the Scottish Justice Secretary. Clearly, one issue that will have to be addressed in the pre-legislative process is what will happen with the Scottish referendum. We have already started that conversation and it will continue.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Should we not set store by precedent? Am I right in believing that when we signed up to the convention, before the 1960s, those serving as misdemeanours for fewer than six months were allowed to vote but felons serving for more than six months could not? Of course we must be sovereign, but is that not the sort of compromise that could be reached to ensure our continued membership of the Council of Europe?

[Chris Grayling]

That is a very interesting point. It will be for my hon. Friend, given his expertise on these matters, to make representations to the consultative Committee, which we hope will be able to consider all these issues before it forms a view of what this Parliament should do.