Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I served in this place with John Prescott for many years, and I admired him from afar as being a true Labour man and a man of true grit. I am not sure that my admiration of him was reciprocated, but I held him in great affection. My first memory of him was in 1983, when I arrived in this place as a new Member of Parliament. I gave a speech, during which I could see John grunting and looking furious. He probably thought I was an absurd, young, opinionated Thatcherite brat—and he was probably right.

Talking of Mrs Thatcher, my next memory of him was when I saw him having a quiet supper in the little Members’ canteen we used to have downstairs. The moment my boss, Mrs Thatcher, came in, I could see John waving his hands in fury at her for all that she had done. Neil Kinnock leaned over and said, “Calm down, John, calm down.” I thought, “Here is a man of real strong opinion.” We have so many anaemic politicians today—I am not looking at anybody in particular—so it was wonderful to have a man like John Prescott on the Opposition Benches.

John much mellowed and it was a great joy to serve with him on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I remember him saying that his children wanted him to go on “Strictly Come Dancing”, but he decided not to. That would have been something for the history books—John Prescott on “Strictly Come Dancing”!

As a local Member of Parliament, I pay tribute to John Prescott. I used to take my children to The Deep, and he did a great many things for Hull. I wish hon. Members could have watched Look North, our local television news programme, and seen the tributes paid by local people, who said how loved he was in Hull and how hard he worked for the people. He was a great man and he will be sorely missed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Q6. Today is Red Wednesday, when we remember all those worldwide who are persecuted for their belief. A recent report by Aid to the Church in Need shows that in the countries surveyed the persecution of minorities increased by 60%. In the light of that, will the Government commit to reappointing the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion and belief, a post that has remained vacant since July, as soon as possible and hopefully by Christmas, so that we in the United Kingdom can play our part in defending religious and belief minorities worldwide?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As the Government have announced this month that they are putting RAF Scampton back on the market and the luckless Home Office is now—thank God—out of the picture, the excellent MOD and this brilliant cast of Ministers are now very much in the picture. May I have an assurance today that they will work closely with West Lindsey to further our exciting plans to promote defence industries on this historic site and keep the runway open?

National Insurance Contributions: Healthcare

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We all know that a lot of the debate on assisted dying revolves around the lack of hospice places to help people pass in the best way possible. Similarly, much of the debate on the NHS is about the lack of care home spaces. Leaving aside the cross-party name-calling, may I beg the Minister to consider exempting hospices and care homes from this national insurance increase?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Q8. As a good lawyer, the Prime Minister will want to listen to the evidence, so if evidence mounts from experts and organisations such as the National Farmers Union that smaller family farms of average size—250 acres—will be severely impacted by the tax changes, will he, in a spirit of compromise, listen to that evidence, keep an open mind and perhaps be prepared to raise the threshold in order to preserve our family farms?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

With so much good agricultural land now covered by solar panels, how will the Government incentivise builders to build on brownfield rather than good agricultural land, thus ensuring regeneration rather than imperilling food security?

Business of the House

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have served for several years on the programme boards for restoration and renewal. The existential threat to this building is fire. I have raised on several occasions, as I know others have, the importance of installing a water mist system, installing more fire doors and making sure that they all shut. This is such an important issue. I do not demand an immediate answer, but will the Leader of the House try to persuade the authorities that rather than having endless debates on whether to decant, we need to protect this building with a water mist system? The modern systems are designed so that they will not even damage paintings, but they could save the building.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

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?

St Helena: UK Immigration

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

If it is possible legally to deport illegal migrants from Diego Garcia to St Helena, is there any legal reason why we cannot deport illegal migrants landing on these shores to St Helena or any other overseas territory? Is it, as a former Home Secretary told me recently, because after five years they would acquire rights to British citizenship?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T6. In the run-up to the second world war, during an era of increasing international tensions, the Government opened up many new RAF airfields, in what was called the expansion programme. One of those airfields was RAF Scampton. Now that we are no longer to have illegal migrants there, this matter is sitting in the Home Office’s in-tray: will the MOD work with the Home Office to ensure that we keep the runway open for future use? It is one of the best, longest runways in Europe. Who knows—RAF Scampton might be not just part of the history of the RAF, with the Dambusters and the Red Arrows, but part of the future of the RAF and save us once again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The previous Minister promised me and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) that he had instructed LNER and Network Rail to ensure that we get our through train from Grimsby to London. Will the Minister confirm that she will continue those firm instructions and, above all, ensure that this train stops? If it does not stop in Market Rasen, I am going to lie down on the line and stop it that way.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There are many different opinions on policy in the middle east, but does the Prime Minister agree that what must surely unite everyone in this House is our profound detestation of antisemitism in all its shapes and forces, as well as our profound love for the Jewish people on their day of suffering, especially as many of those who were murdered at the music festival and in the kibbutz were actively working for peace? Will he reflect that there are still many people—many Jewish and Arab people—who want a moderate solution, and that we should give them our support?

Ukraine

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It seems to me that if you are attacked by a demented bear, you either run away or hit him so hard that he runs away, but the west’s policy on Ukraine appears to be to wound and not win. In that context, will the Government make an unequivocal public statement that Ukraine should be allowed to use Storm Shadow and, more importantly, the US-made army tactical missile system? Then we might actually win this war.

Election of Speaker

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 9th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As the first Back Bencher to speak in this Parliament, let me say that I seem to remember that almost the very first thing you said in your distinguished career as our Speaker, Mr Speaker-Elect—you said it almost before you arrived in the Chair—was that your primary job was to defend us Back Benchers, and I know that you will do that with enormous spirit and diligence. This place is primarily about great events and the Opposition holding the Government to account, but it is also about the right and duty of all us Back Benchers to have our views and our say, even if some of our views are a bit idiosyncratic. We all welcome the fact that we are such a diverse Parliament in every single way, but above all, we are a Parliament of a diversity of views. We are all equal. To be fair, some are more equal than others, but you, Mr Speaker-Elect, will defend our right to speak our mind and to hold the Government to account.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Peter Bottomley, who gave such wonderful service to this House. He sent me a lovely little note today. He said, “Have fun, do some good, and make people happy.” You, Mr Speaker-Elect, cannot make all of us happy all the time, but every single day, you try to make most of us happy for most of the time.

[Mr Speaker-Elect]

I call the Mother of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We will try Lincolnshire: I call Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T2. In response to my earlier question, the Secretary of State said that food security was of urgent national concern. Has any Agriculture Minister ever met a farmer who has denied that 3b land is just as good for growing arable crops as 3a land?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Final question, Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

For 14 long, weary years I have been arguing for an end of the faith cap, which is preventing the opening of new Catholic schools and has no proper effect. Does the Secretary of State think that I should keep campaigning and be patient for a bit longer?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T3. There was an interesting debate in the House of Lords last night, in which Lord Hoffmann confirmed my understanding that the European Court of Human Rights was wrong to impose a rule 39 injunction to stop flights to Rwanda, and that we could safely ignore such an injunction. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is his understanding of the law, and if we get the Bill through Parliament and have flights on the ground, will he ignore such an injunction? And would that not be a good issue on which to fight the election?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sir Edward, you should know better. This is topicals. You are a member of the Panel of Chairs as well; you are meant to set an example, not abuse your position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 8th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to a person who will have done 40 years tomorrow, I understand. I call Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Under the old British Rail, we used to have a direct train to London from Grimsby and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) through Market Rasen. I have been campaigning for that train to be reinstated for 40 years—ever since I was elected as a Member of Parliament. Sometimes I wander down from my home in the wolds and wait forlornly on the platform at Market Rasen, but the train never comes. Will the Secretary of State oblige an old campaigner and give us our train back, please?

Departure of Previous Home Secretary

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Can the Minister assure us that the resignation was entirely due to a technical breach of the rules and that there was no policy disagreement between the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary? Many of us had great confidence in the former Home Secretary’s determination to ensure that we meet our manifesto commitments and that we should not replace mass migration from Europe with mass migration from the rest of the world. Can the Minister assure us that the policy remains exactly the same as it was under the previous Home Secretary and that we will stop mass migration? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have conversations between Back Benchers and officials in the Box. [Interruption.] I know but, please, it is very distracting. Can we just make sure that it does not happen?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Final question: Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On behalf of the House, may I thank the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] On behalf of the House, may I thank the Prime Minister for his three-year record of service? On behalf of some of the most vulnerable people in the country, can I thank him for his insistence on rolling out the AstraZeneca jab, which has saved thousands of lives around the world? On behalf of the 17.4 million people who voted Brexit, may I thank him for restoring people’s faith in democracy? On behalf of northern towns, may I thank him for his commitment to levelling up? And most of all, on behalf of the people of Ukraine, may I thank him for holding high the torch of freedom and ensuring that that country is not a vassal state? For true grit and determination, keep going and thank you.

Points of Order

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you heard from the Prime Minister this afternoon, because I am astonished that he is not coming to the House to make this statement? I entirely join my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in what he has said. It would have been perfectly possible for the Prime Minister to come to this Chamber at 3.30 and inform Parliament of what is going on. I quite understand that it is much easier for the Prime Minister to have a few patsy questions from Laura Kuenssberg and her colleagues than to sit here for a whole hour and be grilled by MPs, but are we a presidential system or are we the House of Commons? Who runs this country? Is it the media or is it the House of Commons? I repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said: in future, we must make it clear that if there are any Government announcements, they are made here first, to the elected representatives of the people.

[Mr Speaker]

First, may I say that I am grateful to both gentlemen for giving notice of the point of order? I have repeatedly made it clear how important it is that announcements should be made in this Chamber first. As you are both aware, the Secretary of State will be making a statement at 8.30 pm on covid. That will give Members of the House an opportunity to question him on the Government’s policy. However, it is not what I would have expected, which is a statement to the House before an announcement to the press. It is not acceptable. The Government determine when Ministers make statements, but in doing so they must show respect to this House.

May I just say that we were not going to get a statement until I got involved with Downing Street? The fact is that this has been forced— to actually get a statement today; it was going to be left till tomorrow, which would have been totally unacceptable. The fact is that I understand that the Prime Minister, at the moment, is at NATO—there is a big conference going on—and he is not here. That is why I insisted that somebody come to make this statement. The timing of it is 8.30 pm. I thought that was better than waiting for the Prime Minister to make a statement tomorrow.

This House needs to know; it needs to know first. I find it totally unacceptable that, once again, we see Downing Street running roughshod over Members of Parliament. We are not accepting it, and I am at the stage where I am beginning to look for other avenues if they are not going to treat this House seriously. What I would say is that I think it is time for me to have a meeting with the Prime Minister to put on the record—here and now, but with him—that this House matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Right, let us try the next challenge.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

What progress she has made in securing a free trade agreement with Australia.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

For 600 years, the House of Lords and, latterly, its Appellate Committee did a superb job of being our Supreme Court. Nobody has ever given a proper cost-benefit analysis of what has been gained by abolishing it, apart from spending so much more extra public money. I doubt that the Government, or any Government, have the guts to abolish this wasteful institution, but will the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor make it clear that we do not have a written constitution? We are not America. The Queen in Parliament —in other words, this House of Commons—is supreme, not the Supreme Court. That is particularly important if the Scottish National party should ever carry out its threat of a unilateral referendum against the wishes of this House of Commons in an Act of Parliament. Will the Secretary of State—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sir Edward, you should know that it is not supposed to be a speech; it is a question. You have been here so long you should know that.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think we might have to move on.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Scott Morrison, the Australian Prime Minister, has just announced that he has no plans to open up his borders. Of course, he is absolutely right. I am speaking—I apologise—completely with the benefit of hindsight, but I am sure everybody would agree that if we had done what Australia had done, we could have opened up our economy months ago. It has had only 910 deaths and only 29,000 infections. What I want to hear from the Secretary of State is that he will resist the very powerful lobbyists from the travel and airline industries and from airports, and that he will be absolutely determined to follow the evidence, not allow unnecessary travel—we do not know what variants are out there in the world—and be really tough with the red list.

Business of the House

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Follow that.

[Mr Speaker]

We are about to.

Points of Order

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I confirm that he was given the correct advice, and that under Standing Order No. 55 no amendments can be proposed to the roll-up motions. The matter is therefore not a point of order for the Chair, but the right hon. Gentleman has put his comments on the record, and the House has heard them. As he knows, this has been the longstanding way that the House has dealt with issues, and I gently say to him that he was the Chief Whip and he did not complain too much when he was in charge at the time. There are ways that we can change things, but at the moment we will carry on with the way we are.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When I was on the Procedure Committee, I was instrumental in getting that committee to ensure that we had proper debates on estimates days. On a previous occasion, when I tried to speak about the estimates on estimates days, I was ruled out of order by your predecessor. We have made progress, but I would have thought that the whole debate to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) alluded, shows that we can continue to make progress on this and improve parliamentary scrutiny on estimates. In particular, we should follow up the recommendations of the Procedure Committee in the previous Parliament that we should have a proper Budget committee. I appreciate that you are constrained by present rules, Mr Speaker, but I hope you will forgive me if I make that point.

[Mr Speaker]

As you well know, Sir Edward, that is not a point for me, but I am sure the Leader of the House has managed to hear what is being said. I think we will leave it at that. I will suspend the House for three minutes to allow preparations to be made for the next item of business.

Public Health

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing a very good job—it is his job to criticise the Government, and of course mistakes have been made—but a credible Opposition would have a plan of their own. What is the plan of the Labour party?

[Mr Speaker]

Sir Edward, that is your second bite of the cherry; there are other people as well—please.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

No!

[Mr Speaker]

Sorry, is someone shouting at the back? Sir Edward, silence a little more—come on.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 18th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson) [V]]

Recent analysis by LNER indicates that such a service could be viable and the Department is exploring this further.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go, with audio only, to Sir Edward.

[Sir Edward Leigh [V]]

Mr Speaker, I am sorry that you do not have a picture because the broadband in rural Lincolnshire is so bad. That is why it is even more important that we get our through train from Grimsby and Cleethorpes down to London, which we have been promised again and again. It is a huge catchment area. All the Government have to do is to kick-start this project. Given that they are spending £100 billion on HS2, if they just give us £1 million, LNER will give us the through train. Will the Government fulfil their promises and kick-start the through train to London from Grimsby and Cleethorpes?

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The message is out there. Let us look forward to an early written ministerial statement.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for not waiting until I had sat down, and I will now try to get back on track.

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have had no notification that the Secretary of State is coming forward. However, the hon. Lady has got the matter on the record, and I am sure that people will be listening to the debate that is taking place at this very moment. Let us wait and see.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Believe it or not, this is a point of order about procedure. We have just had a debate and a vote and have approved over £55 billion of expenditure. The Third Reading debate on this country’s biggest ever infrastructure project lasted just half an hour and large numbers of hon. Members were not able to be called. I would have liked to talk about the lack of investment in Lincolnshire’s railways, for example, and other points could have been made. The limits have become absurd, so will you have a word with Mr Speaker? The Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, is looking at this, but we could have a procedure by which you or one of your colleagues could have extended the debate for just another half an hour.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

As you know, it is a matter for the Government how they timetable the business. As you rightly say, you have a view that you wish to express. Unfortunately, we are not in charge of the business. I am sure that everybody who reads Hansard will realise that you have raised this on the Floor of the House, even though it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Illegal Immigrants (Criminal Sanctions) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 4th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That may be a fair point. I do not think that Mr Deputy Speaker would want me to get into a whole debate about the Prime Minister’s renegotiation of benefits for Poles—people who have an absolute right to come here anyway. I briefly make the point that the overwhelming majority of Poles come here to work, not for benefits, but let us leave that to one side.

The people sitting in Calais are not Polish, Lithuanian or Hungarian—those people can all come in anyway. I am afraid that the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) is completely irrelevant. By definition, the people whom we are discussing are not allowed here. They come from outside the EU.

It is true that our benefit system is a draw. I am told that in the “jungle”, England is viewed as a kind of El Dorado—having lived here for 65 years, I have never thought of it as that. Apparently, it is the place where all one’s dreams come true—there are unlimited work and benefits, and all the rest of it. These people come from outside the EU, so I am afraid that my hon. Friend’s intervention was not relevant. The issue is entirely in the hands of the Government. We hear about the staggering level of net migration, at 300,000 a year. The whole of London and the south-east is groaning under the number of people, and that is a particular issue for native working class people.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This debate is about illegal immigration. As Sir Edward pointed out, the intervention of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) was about legal immigration. We need to get back to the relevant point.

[Tom Tugendhat]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We have the absurd situation that someone from Romania who does not work here and will never want to work here can come to this country, but a most distinguished American professor of Shakespearian literature—one of the most distinguished people in the world—who came to Stratford-upon-Avon to talk about Shakespeare but stayed a few days too long, was arrested, frog-marched to a police station and deported. It beggars belief that we are preventing research scientists and nuclear physicists from India or America from coming here. Mass migration from the EU is therefore pertinent to this debate, because people are so frustrated and that is leading to all this illegal immigration.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am glad that Sir Edward has given his ruling, but I will give mine. He may think his intervention was pertinent to this debate, but I do not think it was. The EU has been mentioned and there has been a discussion around it, but I do not want this debate to be dominated by the EU. As has already been said, migration from the EU is legal, but this debate is about illegal immigration. I welcome Sir Edward’s rulings when he chairs Committees, but today I am in the Chair.

European Affairs

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

No! No! Please.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will not give way, because others wish to speak. My hon. Friend has already given me extra time just by standing up. [Interruption.] I will finish my speech, because I do not wish to abuse the procedures of the House.

On a final note, there is a world out there. Let us grasp it; let us trust the people; let us not be afraid and let us regain our freedom.

Childcare Bill [Lords]

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 25th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The trouble is it depends on the Bills. Standing Orders dictate when the procedure is used. We could go a long time without it being used or it could be used every day. I am not sure. The procedures are laid down in Standing Orders, but the hon. Lady has now put her point on the record.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Sir Edward, are you sure it is a point of order? Last time you promised me it was, but it was not.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am sometimes a bit naughty.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I would not say sometimes.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Lady should not get too worried, because EVEL will not change a single part of a single Bill in this or any other Parliament. There is an overall Conservative majority in this one, and, as all the other parties are opposed to it, if we do not have a majority next time, they will cancel it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, Sir Edward, for that non-point of order. I was absolutely correct: you are naughty.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

On Remembrance Sunday there is no time when it is acceptable to project anything on to the House of Commons without permission, but to project a swastika on the visit of a state leader is totally unacceptable. The point has been made, and it will be taken on board and dealt with. I am absolutely convinced that the police will be looking into it as a matter of urgency.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you just explain the procedure of the House, because I have not been here very long—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I know that I do not need to explain it to you, and I do not need to waste any more time because we need to move on to the Bill.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, this actually is a genuine point of order.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am surprised.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I know they are very rare. Am I right, Mr Deputy Speaker, in thinking that it would be in order for any amendment to be moved? I am rather surprised that the SNP has not moved amendment 224 on “full fiscal autonomy but not quite yet”. Is there any reason that would have prevented it from moving that amendment?

Finance Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the other place not two minutes ago, their Lordships voted for a Labour amendment to in effect kill off—[Interruption.] Not for 100 years has the House of Lords defied this elected House. This is a serious matter, and I ask you or Mr Speaker to make a statement to protect the rights of the elected representatives—not just for us, but for the people of this country.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Sir Edward, as you well know, it takes both Houses to agree. The subject has come before this House and I am sure that this is not the end of the matter, but you have certainly enabled us to be informed.

Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 16th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 4, page 1, line 15, clause 1, at end add—

‘(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not reduce the obligations of the authority not to discriminate against—

(a) those with religious beliefs different from those supported or espoused in the prayers or other observances referred to in this section; or

(b) those without religious beliefs,

and to treat them equally in line with the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010, section 149.’

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I warmly welcome the Bill, which seeks to provide a legislative basis for continuing the tradition, wherever it may be desired, of prayers before meetings in local government. The purpose of new clause 1, without at all inhibiting the freedom of councils and local authorities to employ or not employ prayer at their meetings, is to ask those bodies to keep in mind the religious heritage of our country and the religious foundations of the state, which are of a Judaeo-Christian nature. That is what my new clause proposes—having regard to the Judeao-Christian nature of our country.

Helston town council in Cornwall came in for a bit of flak in 2010, when resident Pat Woodhouse attacked the council for having “Christian-only prayers”. The local newspaper reported her to have said:

“Let’s face it, we are supposed to be politically correct now.”

What authority has determined that “we” are “supposed” to be politically correct? Why should citizens of any philosophical or religious world view unthinkingly surrender to the totalitarian and ever-shifting ideology of political correctness? In the Helston case, Ms Woodhouse is reported to have said:

“If anyone really took offence they could criticise the council. It isn’t right. With respect to the reverend who opens the meeting with a prayer, is it politically correct to only have Christian prayers at the beginning of the meeting?”

Note that she uses the word “if” anyone took offence—we are dealing with a pure hypothetical.

Doubtless, opponents of Christian prayer can cite actual cases where offence has been taken by someone, but I suspect it is pretty rare. We are supposed to be mature adults. I believe that anyone who is grievously offended by the Christian nature of prayers in councils needs to have some regard to the roots of our country. I am sure that both sides of the argument agree that we should not be a nation of triumphant Christian supremacists, but nor should we be a nation of molly-coddlers seeking to wrap the entire population in a protective layer of liberal gauze. We should abide by the principles of tolerance and respect: tolerance for belief or non-belief, twinned with respect not just for this country’s present, but its history.

We in Britain are known for our adherence to tradition. I would argue that this Parliament is the most beholden to tradition of any legislature in the world. Chesterton famously described tradition as

“the democracy of the dead.”

For when we make our decisions today, why should we not take into account the Britons of centuries past? Of course, the reality today is that the Christianity associated with the state—prayers before meetings, Remembrance day services, the role of the Church of England—is a thin whitewash over the official reigning ideology of liberalism. That is true, but these acts, be they prayer or worship, tie us intimately with our ancestors. I believe that that is what conservatism is all about. They connect us, I dare say, with the communion of Saints, four of whose number—George, Andrew, David and Patrick—serve as the traditional patrons and protectors of these nations. One can see their images in mosaic form looking down upon us in the Central Lobby of this Palace. Even in law we have the four quarter days of the year: Lady day, the feast of the Annunciation; Midsummer, the feast of St John the Baptist; Michaelmas, the feast of the Archangel Michael; and Christmas, the great feast of the Incarnation of Our Lord, which is celebrated so widely among those of profound religious belief or of none. The reason the tax year starts on 6 April is that it is the Gregorian equivalent of Lady day in the old Julian calendar that we in Britain held out in using for so long.

It is important to recall that other laws reinforce the Judaeo-Christian foundations of our society, and they should be celebrated in prayers before our meetings. Nobody is suggesting that should be compulsory; it is simply the decision of the council. Schools are still required to provide

“daily collective worship wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character”.

That is in our legislation. The Guardian finds that “incredible”, and it is worth noting that while we Conservatives can take credit for this requirement in passing the Education Reform Act 1988, The Guardian says that this was last reaffirmed in 1998 under new Labour—so presumably it is not that controversial.

It should be recalled that the etymology of the word “worship” comes from “worth ship”, the act of attributing or recognising worth, honour, esteem or distinction. With their conversion to Christianity, the Anglo-Saxon kings could no longer exert an arbitrary power over the kingdoms and peoples, but were subject to and restrained by, they realised, a higher power. This worship or esteeming of God laid the foundations for His creation—man—with numerous consequent ideas flowing forth about the dignity of the individual and our freedom of conscience. After all, what value is there to worship if it is not done as an act of free will?

Even more recent aspects of British society have Christian roots. Lord Alton, a former Member of this House, now in the other place, has written eloquently about the Christian foundations of the welfare state, noting that

“the thoughts, words and actions of the Christian community were central to bringing”

the welfare state “to fruition”.

Is it any wonder that what we can fairly describe as traditionally Christian countries are the ones that are today so tolerant of those of other faiths or indeed of none? The traditionally Christian societies are the most successful economically because they are tolerant of all other beliefs. It is that tolerance that has laid our economic success.

When we look at the past 50 years and observe officially atheist states such as the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China or officially Islamic republics such as Iran and Pakistan, we find their level of tolerance disappointing at best. Would someone rather be an atheist in Tehran where the mullahs rule the roost or in Beirut where the political and legal culture took root during the decades in which Lebanon had a Christian majority? I suspect that the overwhelming majority of British atheists are mature and respectful people, tolerant and perhaps even appreciative of the Christian foundations of the state and society. Rare is the man or woman given to sudden fits of apoplectic rage at the appearance of a nativity scene in public around Christmastide.

It has been rare in our time that an event has promoted as much comment and discussion on the nature of freedom and its responsibilities as the recent tragedy in Paris. France, of course, has a unique status in British society, serving simultaneously as our favourite traditional enemy as well as our closest friend, whose culture we most enjoy, love and revel in more than that of any other country. Britons will be the first gently to mock the French and some of their silly ways—and we have some silly ways— but our reaction to the recent atrocities committed in Paris has shown that we are the first to rush to their defence and express our solidarity with the French people. Chesterton was very prescient when he restated that to have a right to do something is different from being right in doing so. We believe in the freedom of speech, and while we hope that this freedom is used responsibly, we know that any attempts by the state to act as a determinant or guarantor of what is and what is not said is not a responsible exercise of freedom and is inherently threatening to our liberty. That is why I was a prominent supporter of the Reform Section 5 campaign about the right to offend other people. In this society, we have a right to offend others. If, dare I say it, prayers before council meetings offend some people—I doubt if anyone will be very offended—I believe that it is an inherent right nevertheless and it should be exercised.

It may astonish the House for a moment, but I confess that there are some aspects of political correctness that I find welcome. Political correctness to a certain extent incorporates a good old-fashioned sense of politeness. I am not a Muslim, so satirical depictions of Mohammed are ostensibly none of my business, but I do not understand the mentality that seeks intentionally to degrade and insult someone else’s most deeply held beliefs. To me, it seems plainly rude and ungentlemanly, and while these terms are viewed by some in our society as old-fashioned, it is just such forms of tradition and social dignity that say we should not deliberately intend to insult someone’s religion. That is up to the individual, not the state. It is such ideas, too, that affirm that we should not go slaughtering people because they insult us and our religion. In the end, being outrageous is all too often employed by the unoriginal and uninspired as a handy substitute for talent.

This is an opportunity to think more generally about the role of religion in our society and the world. What a shame, but also how natural, that religion is so often in the headlines because of warfare and conflict—we are all familiar with the so-called Islamic state. However, there are no headlines about the small kindnesses, the little acts of love and dignity, that people all around the world undertake, inspired either wholly or in part by their faith. I see no harm in councils’ proclaiming that faith before their meetings.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 12th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate will soon have been going on for two hours. Before the proponents of the Bill move the closure, you will want to have at least one speech against it, will you not?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The Chair will always look after the Chamber first. Rest assured that whoever is in the Chair will make sure that as many voices as possible are heard before any closure. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to influence the Chair in any way whatsoever, as a senior member of the Panel of Chairs.

Public Administration Select Committee

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In Lincolnshire during this Parliament, we have had an absurd spat between the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner, which resulted in the chief constable being suspended for a time—not for anything operational, just some rubbish about political correctness. Meanwhile, while all this money and time wasting is going on I, speaking personally as an ordinary member of the public, have been a victim of crime twice in Lincolnshire and I have to say that the response of the police was completely underwhelming, with no follow-up and nobody caught. People are increasingly fed up with members of police forces, particularly at the top, who pay themselves quite well and seem to be enmeshed in empire building, political correctness and form filling. What we and the public want to get back to—this is why this report is so good—and what I want my hon. Friend to comment on, is old-fashioned community policing, with the police in our communities, the old bobby on the beat, walking around, knowing everyone, talking to people and not just sitting in their headquarters having these absurd spats—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure that there must have been a question somewhere in that great rant, and I am sure that Mr Jenkin will be able to pick out an answer.

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 9th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. These amendments are really technical amendments, to insert “presenting” rather than “publishing”, but the hon. Lady is very much turning this into a Second Reading debate. She is not speaking to her own amendments.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is for the Chair to decide, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I would point out that I am allowing a little bit of latitude and, in fairness, the hon. Lady has been brought back to the point, to which, in general, she is sticking at the moment. I will decide from the Chair how far we go.

Points of Order

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are just about to proceed to our business on the Sovereign Grant Bill, but because of the timetabling that has been agreed there will be no Second Reading. I know that you are not responsible for that, but it is worth putting down a marker that these are very important subjects. We have waited since 1760 for this important reform but I am not sure that it is so desperately urgent that we do not need Second Reading. Perhaps in future we can so conduct our business, particularly with sensitive matters such as this, which concern the Head of State, so that we get a Second Reading of important Bills.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Let us see what the Minister says when he moves the motion.

Bill Presented

Cycles (protective Headgear for Children) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Annette Brooke presented a Bill to require the wearing of protective headgear by children while riding cycles; to prescribe penalties for contraventions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 4 November 2011, and to be printed (Bill 220).

Sovereign Grant Bill (Allocation of Time)

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just need your guidance as I have a particular general point that I wanted to make. It pertains to clause 13 but I would normally have made it on Second Reading. Will you immediately call me to order if I seek to raise it?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think we will need to listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say.

Employment Opportunities Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 17th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Have you received any request from the Government this morning to give an urgent statement on the crisis in the eurozone? This is urgent and important. President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel are locked in discussions, the Commission is battling to reach an agreement, the Greeks are being prevented from devaluing, and our own people are threatened with having to pay for a £1 billion bail-out. Are Treasury Ministers coming here today to give a statement so we can question them on this important matter?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have no knowledge of a statement to the House being prepared; I have not been given notice of that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for me to ensure such a statement is given; that is up to the Government.

Broadcasting (Public Service Content) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 1st April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Has there been a request from the Government for an urgent ministerial statement on the arrival of the Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kusa? There have been reports overnight that another envoy—this time an official envoy from the Gaddafi regime—is here. These matters are of the utmost importance, because clearly we have embarked on what was to be a humanitarian mission and we are now very heavily engaged in the murky politics of Libya. What is going on? The House would like to know.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have had no indication that there will be any statement.