Daesh: Genocide of Minorities
Debate between Edward Leigh and David Burrowes(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I agree with all of that, and I want to follow on directly from the speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). This is a vital motion and an important moment for the Minister. We want no more weasel words; we want him to accept this motion; we want him to accept what this motion calls for in clear and explicit terms, which is for the Government
“to make an immediate referral to the UN Security Council with a view to conferring jurisdiction upon the International Criminal Court”.
The Government’s attitude up to now has, I agree, been based on precedent, but I do not believe that precedent is enough in this case, given the horrors that are going on in the world. I would be delighted if the Minister—he can intervene now if he wants—accepted the motion on behalf of the Government. If he does, we have already won this debate, but there is absolutely no point in the Minister using his time to condemn Daesh, and mention all its appalling acts, only to say at the end of his speech, “I am very sorry, but because of legal precedent”—my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, referred to the circularity of the argument—“the Government think it is for the court to take the initiative and that it is inappropriate for the British Government to take action.”
Mr Burrowes
There is one person who is waiting, and who says that he is there, ready to play his full part according to the proper statute: the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. He is waiting for a referral from the Security Council so that he can investigate properly and independently and hold these people to account.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Debate between Edward Leigh and David Burrowes(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Burrowes
As I said, we need to look at ways of supporting such couples to stay together, not least for the sake of their children. Too many children see their parents breaking up. We need to look at the evidence in support of marriage, because these decisions need to be based on evidence rather than on moral judgments. We have heard statistics relating to adults’ and children’s health and well-being, which I will not repeat. Members have talked about public health benefits, and mention has been made of smoking and other issues. Leading research has stated:
“If marriage were a drug it would be hailed as a miracle cure.”
Why are the Opposition so keen to avoid a basic measure to recognise marriage in the tax system? Members should not take my word for all this. Let us go across the Atlantic and hear what Barack Obama wrote in “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream”:
“Many single moms—including the one who raised me—do a heroic job on behalf of their kids. Still, children living with single mothers are five times more likely to be poor than children in two-parent households. Children in single-parent homes are also more likely to drop out of school and become teen parents, even when income is factored out. And the evidence suggests that on average, children who live with both their biological mother and father do better than those who live in stepfamilies or with cohabiting partners.”
We have heard statistics to back that up today. Barack Obama went on to say:
“In light of these facts, policies that strengthen marriage for those who choose it…are sensible goals to pursue. For example, most people agree that neither federal welfare programs not the tax code should penalise married couples.”
He did not want to go against the Bush tax plan, and he recognised that it contained aspects of the Clinton welfare policies, but he wanted to ensure that proposals to reduce the marriage penalty would enjoy strong bipartisan support. It is a shame, given the bipartisan support for recognising marriage in the tax code across the Atlantic, that no such support exists here. We should learn the lessons and take a leaf out of the book of Barack Obama.
I mentioned that the children who were interviewed earlier for BBC “Newsround” would have been confused as to why anyone would disagree with this basic measure. Let us look at the recent history, since 2000, when marriage was not recognised in the tax system. We have heard many of the reasons behind the brokenness of Britain under Labour. One was the lack of recognition of the importance of marriage, not so much culturally as financially. That has certainly played a part, which is why there is a commitment at the heart of Conservative policy to reverse the 15 mistaken years of a system that did not recognise marriage.
One of the criticisms of transferable allowances for married couples is that they amount to giving a few privileged people a bribe to get married. It has been suggested that we are being discriminatory, but where is the discrimination in the tax system? According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the couple penalty facing those considering whether to marry is significant, at £44.70 a week, rising to over £85 per week for couples with children under 16. It is that group who have been discriminated against for many years. Our limited but important transferable allowance provision will begin to erode the discrimination and create a level playing field for those couples. Far from creating any kind of privilege, it will simply remedy an injustice that has been going on for 15 years in refusing to recognise the huge policy benefits of recognising marriage in the tax code.
We have heard that marriage is popular, but it is not popular only with a privileged minority. It is an aspiration that goes across social cohorts, and particularly among young people, 90% of whom aspire to marriage. Many of those people do not take up the opportunity to marry, however, and we need to look at the reasons for that. The transferrable allowance will not mean that all those people will suddenly get married. They will have to find an appropriate partner, for a start, and their marriage will of course be based primarily on love and being well-matched. The bottom line is an issue of social justice, however. Why are there particular barriers to marriage among poorer communities? People in those communities have just the same aspiration to marry, but fewer of them do so. We have to recognise that financial and cultural barriers are involved.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
No transferrable allowance will make anyone get married or stay married, or even encourage them to get married. The whole point is that when one person in a married couple—usually the woman—stays at home to look after the children, they are uniquely disadvantaged by the benefits system. This is simply a question of justice; we are righting an injustice in the benefits system.
Mr Burrowes
My hon. Friend is quite right. We are simply talking about justice. The Government need to take a lead in this area. The culture can change in many ways, but one way we can take a lead is through the introduction of a small financial instrument to recognise marriage in the tax system. That is what we are doing today, and it will help to bring about a change of character across the whole country.
Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill
Debate between Edward Leigh and David Burrowes
Mr Burrowes
I will make some progress.
Mark Jones warned that individuals without the benefit of pro bono leading counsel arguing their corner will be terrified that their careers and reputations will be swept from under them. As he said,
“The majority of them simply resign quietly.”––[Official Report, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, 14 February 2013; c. 163, Q421.]
We do not have sight or sound of them.
I will make one final point because I want to allow other hon. Members to speak. New clause 8 and amendment 4 relate to whether the Government’s locks will apply properly. I commend the Government for doing all that they can, particularly through working with the Church of England, to ensure that the locks are adequate. The Church of England is satisfied that the Bill will do what it says. However, it shares the concerns of others that go beyond that. Large denominations such as the Catholic Church and small independent Churches are concerned that they may be discriminated against because of their decision to opt out. The Bill takes us on to new terrain, and not just with regard to the definition of marriage; there is the new terrain of legal challenge. The Government need to be as clear as possible to avoid encroachments on religious liberty.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There was apparently a great degree of merriment when my hon. Friend said that nobody was arrested in the case that he mentioned. However, that misses the point. The trouble is that most people will do anything to avoid a scene and are terrified of the police being involved in any way. There is therefore a danger of self-censorship and of people being worried about speaking up. In this country, people should not be so worried.
Mr Burrowes
Whether it is laughter or jeers that we hear, there is a chill wind blowing.
Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]
Debate between Edward Leigh and David Burrowes(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I want to speak in support of clause 38. It was inserted into the Bill by those in the other place, who voted 150 to 54 against the wishes of both the Government and the Opposition. That is quite an achievement and I pay tribute to the other place for what it has done. In passing, I say that I do not think that such a rebellion would have happened if the other place had been dominated by elected machine politicians, so once again the House of Lords has justified itself on a cross-party basis and forced the Government to see the light.
What does clause 38 do? It removes “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. This is a free speech reform. It has been called for, for years by civil liberties groups, gay groups, Christian groups, secular groups, right wingers and left wingers. It is opposed almost by no one, apart from the Government, until today. Sinners are always welcomed when they repent very late in life, so we should welcome the Government to the lighter side. However, the Home Secretary did not seem entirely convinced, so I hope the House will forgive me for a few moments as I try to explain the rationale for this important campaign, which has been running for years and has united Peter Tatchell and myself—quite an achievement.
Mr Burrowes
I, too, thoroughly welcome this change. On the issue of repenters, there is another category that my hon. Friend has not mentioned—the Opposition. The shadow Home Secretary was distinctly ambivalent in welcoming the fact that the Lords have allowed us to see sense. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that? While we may have the numbers, it is important to recognise the cross-party, cross-issue, cross-everything opposition to having “insulting” in section 5.
Mr Leigh
I do not want to be party political, because many Labour MPs have joined us in the campaign that we have been waging. This is not a Conservative-Labour issue. I cannot really understand why the Opposition are still equivocating when we have had such a long consultation and when the issues are not very difficult. I still hope that the Opposition, at the last minute, in winding up this debate, will get off the fence. The House, along with people who have been campaigning on the issue for years, are entitled to know where they are.
The campaign has been waged for a long time. I spoke about the issue in 2011, during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012—that, too, was on Second Reading. I then tabled an amendment that was exactly the same as clause 38 in this Bill—unsurprisingly, as the same people who have been campaigning drafted both clauses. It was co-sponsored by 64 Members of the House, from every party and every shade of opinion. The Joint Committee on Human Rights—a Committee of Parliament—described it as a “human rights-enhancing measure”. We had been speaking on the issue for years, so we did everything to secure a debate. I do not want to talk too much about Government bad behaviour in the past; one should not perhaps do so when they have done something right. We got the measure tabled as new clause 1—we got there first at the end of the Committee stage. However, unfortunately, after we had got 10% of the House to co-sign it, the Government then took the unusual step—I will not say any more—of using a programme motion to prevent it from being debated. Why? Perhaps they feared that we might defeat the Government—something that happens very rarely in this place.
However, we did force the Government to have a consultation, which was great. The consultation started, lasted a whole year and closed on 13 January 2012—a year ago. We were still waiting and now we have a few words from the Home Secretary. That appears to be the end of the consultation, but it would still be useful to see it, because this is an important issue. We want to know why the Government have changed their mind on this, so it would be quite nice for the consultation, a year after it was closed, to be published.
Why is clause 38 so important? It is important because it removes section 5 of the 1986 Act, which was undermining civil liberties. The breadth of cases suggests that virtually anyone could find themselves at the wrong end of section 5. They have been cited several times, but I want to go through some good cases—there are many others—to show how section 5 was being used against civil liberties and freedom of speech. Section 5 was cited in a court summons given to a 16-year-old protester for holding a placard saying,
“Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult”.
A Tynesider named Kyle Little was convicted and fined under section 5 for saying, “Woof!” to two Labradors. Thankfully, that conviction was quashed. An Oxford student, Sam Brown, was arrested under section 5 for saying to a policeman,
“Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?”
Thames Valley police said:
“He made homophobic comments that were deemed offensive to people passing by.”
My friend Peter Tatchell was charged under section 5 for condemning the murder of gay people by Islamic extremists. His placards were deemed by police to be insulting and likely to cause distress. Blackpool café owner Jamie Murray was told by officers that playing DVDs showing text from the New Testament was a possible section 5 offence.
The police have often used section 5 to freeze debate and stop difficult people speaking out, but in this place we should cherish difficult people. That is what this place is about: cherishing people who do not always go with what the establishment wants. In another case, animal rights protesters were threatened with arrest and seizure of property under section 5 for protesting against seal culling by displaying toy seals coloured with red food dye. One of my favourite cases—I think I can end on this one, because it goes against what I normally talk about and believe in—involved an atheist pensioner in Boston, in my part of the world. He wanted to place a small sign in his window saying:
“Religions are fairy stories for adults”—
I never thought I would repeat that in this House, but that was his crime, apparently. He was told by Lincolnshire police—our very own police—that if anyone complained, he could be arrested and dealt with under section 5.
These cases are worrying. We might be tempted to blame poor on-the-spot decision making, but when there are so many, with such wide variation, and when some of them progress to the courts, it is no longer a joke. We have to conclude—and we have concluded; and now, thank God, the Government have concluded—that there is something wrong with the law.