Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and I am not aware that I am a foreigner, but it has many difficulties and we are missing the essential point. For what it is worth, I support this Bill, but I am concerned that, in the absence of these people who land here being detained, if they are threatened with being deported to Rwanda at some stage in the future, they are simply going to bugger off into the community.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman means that they might disappear into the community. That phrase would be preferable.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I was using rather colourful phraseology just to make my point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I take my ticking off.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will forgive the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion: they will disappear into the community. I call Mr Simmonds.

Migration

Debate between Edward Leigh and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I wanted to talk about the challenge posed by legal migration, but there is not much time. Therefore, as my constituency is about to be the victim of illegal migration, I must follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) in talking about that topic and once again raising the issue of RAF Scampton. I apologise if I am wearying the House on this issue, but unless people groan when you stand up, you are probably not making progress in this place, so I will keep referring to it.

The decision to house 2,000 migrants at RAF Scampton is a perverse decision that makes no sense in terms of public policy. To remind the House, RAF Scampton is an iconic RAF base, the home of the Dambusters and the Red Arrows. It is to the RAF what Portsmouth is to the Royal Navy. We had the most exciting scheme ever developed for a former RAF base, with £300 million of investment and really exciting proposals, but the Home Office is now intending to put 2,000 migrants in that base. It wants to take the whole base. There are 800 acres, miles of perimeter fence, a two-mile-long runway and 100 buildings—many of them listed, such as Guy Gibson’s office. We were going to have a heritage centre. I have talked about the past and the rich heritage that could, and does, make RAF Scampton an iconic base, but most excitingly of all—as I said to the Innovation Minister yesterday—we were going to have a spaceport on the runway. We were going to launch rockets into space carrying satellites, so a whole new technology was about to be developed.

Why is the Home Office taking this huge, historic base to house 2,000 migrants? Apparently, it wants three or four decaying airmen’s blocks that could maybe take 300 or 400 people, and a bit of hardstanding. The Home Office must own hardstanding all over the country; why can it not put portacabins up on hardstanding, and not try to stymie £300 million of investment? It would be a reasonable proposal as a starting point if the Home Office said to us, “All right, there are these airmen’s blocks. We will take them and put a fence around them”—of course, we cannot lock people up under the refugee convention, but they could go to their own entrance and take a bus to Lincoln, where they could access health, education, sport and all the rest of it—“and we will release the rest of the site to West Lindsey District Council.” It has not even offered us that.

It gets worse. This is something that I have not yet said in the House, which I think is really bad: this is not an isolated site in the middle of the countryside. It is just five miles from Lincoln. There are 1,000 people who live cheek by jowl next to the RAF base in the former married quarters. Some of those people—maybe 100 of them—are still serving RAF personnel. What is really bad is that there has been a total lack of communication between the Government and those private citizens who live in the married quarters, who have bought their own home and put their life savings into those houses, but there has been regular communication with the Ministry of Defence personnel.

Only two or three weeks ago, there was a so-called secret meeting at the village hall on the site, with two military policemen outside, at which the MOD personnel employed by the RAF were told that because migrants were now going to be placed next to them, they would be moved at public expense. That offer has not been made to the ordinary people who have bought their house. The Minister will say, “I am not responsible for the MOD”, but we have collective responsibility. How can the Government say that it is so shocking that their own people, who they employ, should live next to a migrant camp that they are prepared to move them at public expense?

The buildings that we are talking about are old—some of them were put up in the war. They are not built to a modern standard, they may be riddled with asbestos, and there has been contamination by fuel. The Government say, “The fact that we are going to put them in an RAF base is a deterrent”, but I can tell them that if a person is desperate—if they come from the likes of Syria, Somalia or Iraq—they are not going to be deterred from coming to the United Kingdom because they will be put up in a warm room in RAF Scampton, rather than a hotel in Skegness. Skegness is very bracing; it might actually be warmer in RAF Scampton. The thought that we are going to deter people just by taking over an RAF base simply does not make sense.

There is such a lack of communication with the local authority, too. We have asked for risk assessments, but they have been denied us. We have asked for an assessment of the risk of asbestos and that has been denied us.

If the Illegal Migration Bill goes through—I warmly support it; it is the only hope that we can deter people because they know they will be detained and offshored—people will come to Manston. Apparently, they will then be immediately sent to RAF Scampton. By definition at that stage, if the Bill becomes law, they will be illegal migrants, but they will be in RAF Scampton. The Government tell us that there are no plans to make RAF Scampton a detention centre, so those people will be able to walk out the front door, take the shuttle bus to Lincoln, take the train to London and vanish. We have no ID cards. We will never find them. What is the logic of all this? It simply does not make sense.

We should have joined-up government. We are supposed to believe in innovation. Why are we stopping a fantastic piece of innovation to launch satellites into space? We are supposed to believe in levelling up, so why are we destroying £300 million-worth of levelling up? We are supposed to have a coherent policy on migration. Putting as many as 2,000 migrants in one place is not a good idea. By the way, it is not supported by local people, the local authority or the Refugee Council. It is bad for their stability and welfare to have 2,000 migrants in one place. For all those reasons, I very much hope the Minister will think again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

COP26

Debate between Edward Leigh and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

And the hon. Lady certainly must not shout at me.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I urge the Prime Minister and other world leaders not to get ahead of public opinion on this. The people of Gainsborough South West ward, which I represent—the 27th most deprived ward in the entire country—are worried not so much about the future of the Great Barrier Reef in 50 years’ time, but about their great big bloody heating bills now. They are heavily reliant on gas, of which we have an abundant supply. Manufacturers in northern levelling-up towns are worried about their competitiveness with China, as more and more regulations are imposed on them. To be fair to India, in Uttar Pradesh, there are millions living in dire poverty whose emissions are very low. Do we represent them? Their whole future depends now—this minute—on fossil fuels; otherwise, they might literally starve. Be realistic.

Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body

Debate between Edward Leigh and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I welcome this motion. I served, under Dame Caroline Spelman, on the Joint Committee that recommended that we proceed in this way. I have done a considerable amount of work on the subject over the years because, as the Leader of the House said, our primary concern should be the saving of public money.

I would like to have served on the sponsor body, but it was not to be. I wish those who have been appointed every success, because they have a very important task. Given the crisis that we are facing, we have to think again, and I am sure that when those on the sponsor body address the subject, their No. 1 concern will be to save public money, ensure the safety of Members and preserve this historic building.

Even before the public health crisis that we are facing, there were difficult decisions to be made about public spending, increases in taxation and trying to divert resources from London to the north of England in particular. Even before this crisis, which will probably necessitate the largest expansion of the state since the second world war, I think that people would have started to look askance at our spending billions of pounds on ourselves when there might well be a cheaper alternative. When the sponsor body has its first meeting, it might consider that this is the moment to review the whole project and look at whether we can do it significantly more cheaply than the present option.

When the House voted, quite narrowly, for a full decant, we were in a very different world. Of course, the original Select Committee on which my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) served accepted a full decant on the basis that it would be possible to create a temporary Chamber in the courtyard of Richmond House. The Committee was actually given the wrong measurements; the incompetence of this is beyond belief. It was then announced that because it was no longer possible to create such a Chamber, which the authorities claimed would have to be exactly the same size as the existing one, with the same size Division Lobbies—the whole works—it was now proposed to demolish all of Richmond House, at a cost of many hundreds of millions of pounds.

I have been working with SAVE, the architectural heritage body. We have come up with well-costed proposals, designed by architects, to create much more cheaply, if it was deemed necessary to have one, a temporary Chamber in the courtyard of Richmond House that was exactly the same size—[Interruption.] It would be exactly the same size as this Chamber. There is absolutely no need to demolish Richmond House, which is an award-winning listed building.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s passion about this subject, but this is a very narrow motion about the membership of the Committee, not about the exact dimensions of any proposed future Chamber. I must hold the right hon. Gentleman to the particular matter before us. He can address the general issue, but talking about exact dimensions is going a bit far.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will certainly not dwell on the exact dimensions. I was making the simple, general point that there might cheaper options than the proposal to demolish Richmond House and build a permanent replica Chamber.

The other point that the new sponsor body has to consider is what will happen when the House of Lords is moved to QEII. It would be possible to place the Lords quite cheaply and simply in that building at a relatively small cost. There is already a large conference chamber there, which holds up to 700 people—big enough even for the House of Lords. Their lordships may have to forgo their planned rooftop terrace dining room, which would cost £200 million, but, given the present crisis facing the nation, I am sure that they will be prepared to do that.

Even more cheaply—speaking in very general terms, Madam Deputy Speaker, to comply with your ruling—it may not even be necessary to have a temporary Chamber erected in the courtyard of Richmond House. Having commissioned architects to work on this subject, I can say that it would be perfectly possible for this Chamber to move temporarily to the House of Lords Chamber, as we did in the second world war, with a line of route through Westminster Hall and Saint Stephen’s Chapel.

To sum up, there are many cheaper alternatives that must and should be explored by the sponsor body, as our primary concern is to save public money, carry out these works as expeditiously as possible and not waste time, perhaps until 2027, waiting for a replica Chamber to be built. We should get on with the work now and preserve this historic building.

High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill: Revival

Debate between Edward Leigh and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Carry-over motion & Bill reintroduced & Bill reintroduced: House of Commons & motion to revive Bill: House of Commons
Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a procedural point, my hon. Friend will be aware that there are some experienced politicians who could use various tactics to delay this measure. I would not like to join those people. Can I just mention, though, that if we are spending £100 billion on this, my constituents are very keen on the Government giving £1 million only to London North Eastern Railway for our through train to Grimsby and Cleethorpes via Market Rasen? I would very much hope that the Minister, in terms of procedure and ensuring a smooth passage and support for this measure, could perhaps give a gentle green light to my through train for just £1 million.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. No, the right hon. Gentleman cannot talk about Grimsby. I call the Minister.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Since the moment when Sir David Amess was in the Chair and asked hon. Members to speak for no more than five minutes or so, everyone has taken at least 10 or 11 minutes. That really says something about behaviour in the Chamber.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is a truth universally acknowledged that one’s own speeches seem short and incisive, while others’ seem long and discursive. If I speak for more than five minutes, please order me to exit, Mrs Laing.

Frankly, there has been a lot of hype about this Bill. We have had nearly 70 hours of debate on it, which is all very welcome, but there has also been a lot of hype. All this Bill does is put into our own law what was previously in EU law. It does not change how we leave the EU. Therefore, I for one welcome the spirit of compromise that seems to have broken out today. I welcome the fact that we are all going to vote, if there is a vote, for amendment 400 and for the original amendment 381 that put the date in the Bill. Perhaps we should have put the date in the Bill in the first place, because Brexit means Brexit, Brexit means that we are leaving the EU and Brexit means that we are leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. For all the hundreds of hours of debate, that is all that matters because we are obeying the instructions given to us by the British people.

I was slightly worried about amendment 400 when I was first told about it very kindly by the Whips Office over the weekend, but I listened to the Prime Minister’s assurance today that this measure would only be used to delay the exit date by a very short period, only in exceptional circumstances and only by an order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. All that amendment 400 does is to ensure that this Bill—it will then be an Act—marches step by step in accord with our treaty obligations under article 50.

Make no mistake that, whatever amendment 7 says, it does not make much practical difference. The situation could, of course, be dealt with by simply withdrawing clause 9. The amendment prevents the Government from making preparatory orders, but it does not delay the process. I therefore welcome what the Minister has said today. He has been clear from the Dispatch Box—I say this to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who has just again repeated the question—that the Government are not seeking to subvert the will of the House of Commons as expressed last week. That is good for us leavers, as we are leavers because we believe passionately in the sovereignty of Parliament. I welcome the fact that we are having 60 hours of debate and that we will come back to debate the Bill in another week. I welcome the fact that more legislation will be needed. The more Bills, the more motions, the more affirmative orders—I welcome them all, because we cannot reverse this process.

I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that, yes, there will be an implementation period. During that period, we will be law takers, not law givers. To that extent, we will be a colony of the EU. That is why it has to be a short period, and it is why—this is a firm policy of the Government and the firm view of the overwhelming majority of Conservative Members of Parliament—we will leave the single market and the customs union after that short implementation period. That does not necessarily mean that we will not be a member of a customs union or a single market, but we would not be a member of the regulatory single market, because if we were, we would not control our own borders.

I say to Members on the Government Front Bench, if they need any encouragement: I welcome the spirit of compromise today; I welcome the fact that we are going to be generous to EU citizens here and that we have made progress; and I welcome the fact that the Brexiteers are co-operating with every single compromise that the Government are prepared to make in order to take this process forward and ensure that we have a long and lasting friendship with our friends in Europe.

Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill [Lords]

Debate between Edward Leigh and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 7th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I gently remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) that although I did not want to interrupt him when he was in such rhetorical form in his intervention, matters concerning the health service are in the next group of amendments. The House so much looks forward to hearing what he has to say then, but that will be after we have finished debating this group of amendments, having heard Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is of course a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), with whom I normally agree. I quite understand his enthusiasm for referendums, which in one sense surprises me, because a traditionalist like him would normally have opposed the concept of referendums. He would have opposed them in the past because it was felt—this point has been made many times in the House of Commons—that they were a fundamentally unparliamentary device that has often been used by Governments who are dictatorships to impose extreme changes on society.

I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from, however, because in recent years referendums have been seen as a fundamentally conservative force. Generally, the people vote against change. I understand his arguments and I understand why the Government are wary of accepting any amendment promoting a referendum, because they have looked at what has happened in the past, particularly in the north-east, where people voted against change. The Government are determined to drive change forward and fear that if there is a proposal for a referendum, people will usually vote no. This is a very interesting argument.

I want to dwell on amendment 56, which was tabled by my hon. Friend—and indeed real friend—the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). Normally I agree with him about most things, but on this occasion his amendment concerns me, and I want to make a few points about the situation in Lincolnshire and give the Minister the opportunity to reply.

My hon. Friend represents north-east Lincolnshire, and I represent Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire is a very conservative county. It is so conservative that the Gainsborough constituency—which I am proud to represent—has had only three MPs in 90 years, and all three have been Conservative. People do not like change in Lincolnshire, and they are wary of any device such as that in amendment 56. The Government appear to have accepted the amendment, albeit with a sunset clause, and it is quite unusual for a Back Bencher to table an amendment that the Government then accept.

People in Lincolnshire—and, I suspect, other rural counties—want to proceed by consent, which seems an admirably conservative point of view. Normally, proceeding by consent means dealing with the tried and tested, and taking things forward together. Many people are scarred—this has already been referred to—by the events of the 1970s, when ancient counties were swept away. There were different enthusiasms then. They may not have been in favour of elected mayors, referendums or unitary authorities, but everything was done on the basis of Heath-ite efficiency. We now know that that drive towards Heath-ite efficiency was fundamentally wrong and unpopular, and it imposed Whitehall centrist ideas on what local people wanted. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) is here. As a result of 1974, we created the ludicrous county of Humberside, destroying Lincolnshire, East Yorkshire—what madness. We know that is not the right approach.

Speaking as a Conservative—not just as a party politician, but as someone who tries to understand Conservative values—I appeal to the Minister to proceed with great caution and to take people with him on this matter. Now, elected mayors are all the rage, but a few years ago so were police and crime commissioners. We had a mixed history with that—low turnouts, lack of interest, and not necessarily democratic accountability.

Lincolnshire County Council is generally well run, popular, and has been in place for 130 years. The district councils have been in place for more than 40 years. It is not for me to speak for local councillors in Lincolnshire, but since they cannot speak in this place and have only me to say these things, I hope nobody minds if I say that we do not want a solution imposed on us. What worries me about the amendment—and the Government’s ready acceptance of it—is that, as the county council and district councils recognise, in terms of unitary authorities, elected mayors and devolution, we do not want a bruising battle over many years between district and county councils about which should be abolished.

We want to proceed by consent and to get together. We are happy with the idea of central Government devolving more powers to a county such as Lincolnshire, but we recognise that we are not Manchester, Birmingham or London. We are a large, quite poor county with a low rate base and a scattered population. There is no question that we could run the NHS or anything like that; we are not in the business of devo-max. We want to leave the present structure in place with district councils and county councils, and perhaps form a new body on which those will be represented. We would then accept new powers for that body. That is how we want to proceed by consent. Given many of our discussions so far, I am worried that in our rush for change and innovation, we may ride roughshod over what local people and councillors want. Being sensible people and knowing their area, they generally want to proceed slowly, cautiously, and by consent. With that, I feel that I have made my arguments and I will let others speak. I am sure they will be far more interesting than me.

Finance Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is not for anyone else to judge who will speak and not speak in the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman is, indeed, well aware of the rules of the House, as a seasoned performer in this Chamber. I know that he will appreciate that I also am aware that he was here for much of the debate, but not for the opening speeches. There are other people whom I have prevented from speaking earlier this afternoon because they were not here for the opening speeches. It is, however, obviously open to the right hon. Gentleman to intervene during the winding-up speeches that are about to begin from the Front Benches.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very interested in your ruling. In future, will it not be open to members of the Whips Office, either Government or Opposition, to drag people in late in a debate to speak? Will that not be open to the Whips Office?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That has never been the case. If a Member is not here for the Minister’s opening speech and the opening speech of the Opposition, whichever Opposition that might be, they do not have a right to be called in the debate. But I have just ruled that there is nothing to stop a Member making an intervention in the speech of another Member, should there be some very pressing and important point that that Member wishes to make.

Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011

Debate between Edward Leigh and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 23rd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Allen]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the annunciator appears to be broken. We are on the hatred of Liberal Democrats and the coalition debate, and I am waiting for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act debate. Will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, ensure that the annunciator gets repaired, so we can carry on with the House’s business?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I appreciate the eloquence and humour with which the hon. Gentleman has made his point, but it is of course not a point of order.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am coming to an end. I have put it several times to our beloved Prime Minister that we should end this coalition, which is haemorrhaging our support, and the support of the Liberal Democrats. He says that he cannot do it because, under this ridiculous Act of Parliament, he could not call a general election, and the Leader of the Opposition might be in power by teatime. I do not know whether or not that is right, but there is a certain rigidity in the system. We should end this coalition and go to the people at an appropriate moment.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is a constitutional aberration. It was cobbled together without pre-legislative review or proper national debate. It could and does result in zombie-government in the latter part of the term. Indeed it could conceivably lead to a Belgian situation of weak Government and weak Parliament. As is found around the world, it could and does lead to rigidity and angry calls by a disaffected public to extra-parliamentary activity. It actually leads to the growth of extremist fringe parties, as we are finding in our own country.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The right hon. Lady makes her point very well, but she and the House will know that that is not a matter on which I can make any ruling whatsoever from the Chair.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My speech is just like one of the train journeys from Market Rasen to London—it is a bit of a stopping service.

I was making the point about capacity. Frankly, this proposal would have got through without any controversy if railway economists had started by making a careful case for capacity and if we had considered things such as better signalling, reducing the number of first-class carriages and the M40 corridor. There are many other proposals for lines—the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has proposed improving the service from Birmingham Snow Hill to London—but there is an element of suspicion among the general public, is there not, that this is now a political project that we have to proceed with at all costs. I am not sure that that is the best way to invest in the public infrastructure of the future. Surely the best way to make decisions is to base them on careful, transparent and open studies, and that is what I urge the Government to do.

European Union (Referendum) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Friday 8th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is this a debate about the merits of remaining part of the European Union, or not?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I have already explained this morning that I am listening carefully to all Members to ensure that they adhere strictly to the terms of the amendments they are proposing. The right hon. Member is in order in the remarks he is making.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Laing]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. A referendum is not an election; it is a completely different part of the democratic process. The hon. Member for Rhondda and others have compared turnouts in general and local elections, in which voters choose between three, four or five candidates, with referendums, but they are not the same. If they were, a referendum would be called an election. A referendum is a plebiscite. In a referendum, the people are consulted on a particular issue on a yes or no vote; that is not the same as an election and comparisons between the two regarding turnout or other aspects are therefore irrelevant. The simple, inescapable principle is that a change to the voting system is a significant constitutional change; that is why the Government have decided to have a referendum—and rightly so. The outcome of a referendum to change our constitution must be, and must be seen to be, decisive. It must command confidence and respect and it should not be challengeable. If there is a derisory turnout, the result will not command respect or confidence. Indeed, it is worse that that.

[Mr Leigh]

Is not the virtue of my hon. Friend’s amendments, compared with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), that hers would not encourage abstention? With hers, everyone who wanted AV would go and vote for it and everyone who did not would vote against it.