Russia and the Council of Europe

Debate between George Howarth and Edward Leigh

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I fear I will be the grit in this debate, but maybe it will produce a pearl of a speech from the Minister—like him, small, but perfectly formed. I will see what I can do to put an alternative point of view, at least for the sake of debate. I am not one of Lenin’s useful idiots. I have no illusions about President Putin. Like everybody here, I could list all the appalling human rights abuses.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. The three Front-Bench spokespeople have indicated that they are prepared to take a little less time, so we should have enough time for people to complete their speeches, although they will still have to be fairly brief.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Thank you, Mr Howarth; I will try to make these points as quickly as I can. As I was saying, nobody doubts Russia’s abuses. We did suspend their voting rights because of Crimea.

Without getting into all the history, I should say that the history of Crimea is complicated and somewhat different from that of Gibraltar. Nobody, as far as I know, in the Council of Europe, the House of Lords or the House of Commons objected when Khrushchev wrested Crimea from Russia in the 1950s and transferred it to Ukraine by decree, against the wishes of the people. I am just now repeating the common view among Russians—it is important that we understand it. No one doubts that the Russian community in Crimea is in the overwhelming majority. Despite all the doubts about the exactness of the referendum, nobody doubts, surely, that the people of Crimea, having been part of Russia for hundreds of years, wish to remain part of Russia. This history is complicated.

Were we right to suspend their voting rights? I do not know. The Russians are a proud people. Russia is not a developed democracy like France or Germany. We cannot expect instant success. As a proud people, it would surely be too much to expect them, having had their voting rights suspended, to say, “Fair enough. We will carry on turning up without voting rights.” None of us would do that here, would we? If we had our voting rights suspended, none of us would agree just to sit around. That is their point of view and we have to understand it.

What of the future? I believe it would be wrong to kick Russia out of the Council of Ministers. As has been said, it is a bicameral system. The delegation and our ambassador talk the whole time. He engages robustly with the Russians. He puts across our point of view. We engage robustly with the Russians through our Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary.

The Council of Europe is not the European Parliament, nor is it this Parliament; it does not have executive authority. It is primarily, in my view, an inter-parliamentary union. When we admit people to that union, we accept that we have to take them warts and all. We know, for instance, that Azerbaijan has a bad human rights record and, although it has been found to be corrupting the Council of Europe, it is still a member. Surely it is better to engage—to have jaw-jaw not war-war—and at least make some effort to influence them. It would be a dangerous development if those 144 million Russians had no access at all to the European Court of Human Rights. It may be imperfect access, as I have said. The record of the Russian Government in obeying its judgments may not be up to standard, but at least it is some way forward.

I hope that, in those terms, we can view this in a moderate, middle-of-the-road way. We should constantly attack the Russians, stand up to them and condemn all their human rights abuse, but at least engage with them. I would be grateful if the Minister said whether he thinks that our ambassador, in doing all this work in the Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe, is fulfilling a useful role.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between George Howarth and Edward Leigh

Report: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth]

The difficulty with the hon. Gentleman’s argument is that he assumes that the Prime Minister of the day, regardless of which party he is in, would take such a decision in a vacuum, but it simply could not happen that way. He would have to be satisfied first with proper legal advice that it is in the interests of national security. Secondly, he would have to be satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate. Passing all those tests requires a lot of advice, and I doubt that any Prime Minister would take the decision lightly. Bringing any Speaker into that decision-making process means that they must be linked to that legal and security advice to satisfy themselves in the same way as the Prime Minister would have to do. I therefore cannot see the difference.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I can see what the difference would be in a time of national crisis. The information will be clearly set out by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister. I do not believe that it would be beyond the abilities of any Speaker now or in future to take an informed decision and to be convinced by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary that the interception was not a political interference but a matter of national security.

All hon. Members agree on that—that the communications can be intercepted if it is a matter of national security—and we all agree that they should not be intercepted because it is politically expedient to do so. All I am asking is that the Speaker, who by the nature of his office does not consider political expediency, can say, “Yes. This is a matter of national security.” I do not believe that that is beyond his abilities. After all, he is ably assisted—is he not?—by the Clerk of the House and a band of parliamentary Clerks, most of whom have spent years accumulating knowledge, wisdom and experience of the ways of the House. They are not radicals or people who will take decisions lightly or wantonly. Together, they form a deposit of institutional memory, which the Prime Minister and No. 10, by the nature of their daily tasks of government and political management, can never be. They must always, necessarily, take a short-term view. That is not a criticism but the nature of the office.

Each of the privileges of this House, in addition to being daily fought for and won over the centuries, exists for a reason. Like many traditions and customs, we interfere with them at our peril. I appeal to the Minister of State, who is deeply aware of the importance of traditions and customs. We may wonder today why this or that one exists, but if we disregard them, we will soon find that the dangers they protect us from are very real.

We also may doubt the day will ever come when a Prime Minister would dare to authorise the monitoring of Members’ communications for politicised reasons, but it is therefore better to remove even the possibility of that temptation existing by simply requiring the Secretary of State to consult the Speaker. It has been said before but it is worth saying again. Nearly 375 years ago, William Lenthall reminded the sovereign that the Speaker had

“neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.”

All I am asking in amendment 1 is that that tradition be maintained. We would do well to continue to put our trust in that defender of our law and our liberties.

Shakespeare Theatre (Knowsley)

Debate between George Howarth and Edward Leigh

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the proposal for a Shakespeare theatre in Knowsley.

Let me begin with a few acknowledgments of those who helped me to prepare what I am about to say: Professor Kathy Dacre, a Shakespearian scholar who is heavily involved in this project; Dr Stephen Lloyd, the archivist at Knowsley Hall, who made some helpful suggestions; Mr Mike Harden, chief executive of Knowsley Council; and, last but by no means least, Professor Elspeth Graham of Liverpool John Moores University.

Prescot, my home town in Knowsley—which I also share with my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer)—has a unique place in theatre history. It is a market town and one of the oldest settlements in Merseyside. In the later Elizabethan period, Prescot was a lively town providing lodgings, hospitality and entertainment for visitors, including gambling and cockfighting. In 1592, it supported 19 alehouses and by 1622 it had an astonishing 43 such premises—far more than were needed for the town’s modest population of a few hundred. That reflects the fact that it was an entertainment centre to which people would travel for the market or the theatre, which I am about to describe. It also explains why there were very few people in each of the alehouses.

Prescot was the site of the Playhouse, the only free-standing, purpose-built theatre outside London in the Elizabethan period. It was built in the 1590s by Richard Harrington, who was closely connected to the Stanley family, the Earls of Derby, who were one of the most influential families in England. Ferdinando, Lord Strange, fifth Earl of Derby, and his brother William, the sixth Earl, were directly involved in the theatre, maintaining a talented group of professional players. Several important companies performed in Knowsley, and it was home to the Earl of Derby’s Men and Lord Strange’s Men, the troupes of actors which later formed the core of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men, who performed Shakespeare at the Globe in London.

The original Playhouse in Prescot was a relatively small theatre that held public performances and rehearsals prior to more prestigious performances at Knowsley hall and the further estates of the Stanleys, such as Lathom house near Ormskirk, as well as those belonging to leading families in Lancashire. William Shakespeare attracted audiences from all social backgrounds and his actors had played at the Globe, where performances were effectively public rehearsals for more intimate and prestigious evening performances at the court.

There is evidence that some of Shakespeare’s earliest plays, which contain tributes to the Stanleys, were first staged at Prescot or Knowsley hall. If so, William Shakespeare would almost certainly have supervised the performances and may even have acted in them. They included “Richard III” and “Titus Andronicus” by Strange’s Men, and “The Taming of the Shrew” and “Love’s Labour’s Lost”, which were written to flatter his patron. Later, he would write “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, which was first performed at the wedding of the sixth Earl of Derby to Elizabeth de Vere in front of Queen Elizabeth. Last summer, there was a professional and accomplished performance of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” in Prescot, partly in the parish church of St Mary’s and partly in the churchyard. It was given by a local company of performers and I had the privilege of attending.

In “Love’s Labour’s Lost”, which is set in a deer park, King Ferdinand’s ambition to make his court

“the wonder of the world”

is likely to have been based on the real plans of Ferdinando Stanley. It was said that, had he lived longer, he would have been the leading English contender for the throne. Shakespeare almost certainly wrote his early plays while under the powerful patronage of these powerful Lancastrian families. Evidence from archival records is supported by references in the plays.

Let me turn to the proposal for a Shakespeare theatre of the north. The aim is to create a unique, internationally renowned educational facility to encompass a commemorative theatre, to provide a key link between national, regional and local cultural and educational policy, and to contribute to the economic regeneration of an area that has deep connections with one of the nation’s greatest cultural icons. The Shakespeare North trust plans to commemorate the significance of Prescot’s history by creating a playhouse built to designs drawn in 1629 by Inigo Jones for the Cockpit theatre. Inigo Jones was one of the greatest English architects and theatre designers of his day and designed the perfect stage on which to present the plays of his time, the most celebrated of which were Shakespeare’s.

The project has the capacity to create a Shakespearian triangle with Stratford and London. As such, the Playhouse in Prescot will be unique as the only replica of this indoor Jacobean court theatre in the world, and the site of the only actor training programme in Shakespearean performance in the UK. It will be a leading public theatre with a student programme at its core and a purpose to realise one of the UK’s premier cultural assets. It will be home to Shakespeare’s language, lyrics and performance potential.

At this point, it is worth summarising what we are trying to do with some words from, appropriately, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”:

“The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen

Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing

A local habitation and a name.”

I contend that that name is the new Playhouse in Prescot.

An overall programme of education and community engagement would be integrated with the work of the Playhouse so that all aspects cohere around the philosophy and aims of Shakespeare North. That will allow individuals to participate at many levels linked to college work either through discrete courses, workshops and activities, or in a developmental series of activities through the stages of people’s lives. In particular, the activities involving early years and school-aged children are designed to provide a strong platform for the years of compulsory education and beyond.

There are a number of strands to the project’s work and themes, including the seven ages of man. In particular, there will be postgraduate education in the form of a master’s degree programme in Shakespearean performance and practice; an exploration of language and lyrics linked with formal education providers; informal education and community engagement; priority for groups in collaboration with existing local government and voluntary sector initiatives for special focused-needs groups in which applied drama work will offer a range of relevant and productive frameworks; a music and memory programme of work for elderly members; a plan to increase the skills base and employment prospects of local residents through a range of skills training and volunteering opportunities; a base for the Shakespeare schools festival performances in the north-west; and finally, the Knowsley international Shakespeare festival, which we propose in conjunction with the project.

The trust’s fundraising strategy to secure the cost of the scheme, which is likely to be in the region of £19 million—this is not special pleading—is likely to be the basis of a lottery bid. However, if the Chancellor happens to find a spare £19 million in his budget, we would be grateful to receive it towards the capital costs. The business plan indicates that the development would achieve sustainability in a relatively short period and would not need to rely on regular revenue funding.

Shakespeare North has been established to work in partnership and improve the attainment of education and skills needed for long-term local and regional resilience and to help to create a place where people aspire to live, visit, work and do business. I am not asking the Minister for anything in particular, but I would be grateful for some indication of the Government’s general support for the programme, without any specific, tangible support at this stage, although, as I said, that would always be gratefully received.

I conclude with a request to the Minister by way of some words from “Hamlet”:

“Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue. But if you mouth it as many of our players do, I had as lief the town crier spoke my lines. Nor do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus. But use all gently.”

We look forward to the Minister’s gentle response.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Minister—in Shakespearean English, please!

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Alas, poor Howarth, he cannot sum up, under the rules. I have asked whether he can, but—just say a quick word; go on.

[Mr Howarth]

I will just make two quick points. First, although the Minister’s comments about local government funding and the recent comprehensive spending review are welcome, Knowsley will find it difficult to take advantage of those opportunities, simply because the tax base is not there to allow it to do so.

Secondly, the Minister quite rightly indicated the tourist potential of the Liverpool city region and his ambitions, which I share, for our city region. I simply point out that Prescot is proud of the fact that it predates Liverpool. Although we very much associate with Liverpool and, equally, with St Helens, we feel that there is something unique and special about Prescot.

I am grateful for the general support that the Minister has offered, and I hope that we can collaborate with the Shakespeare North trust and others over the coming months to try to bring this ambitious, but exciting, opportunity into reality.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between George Howarth and Edward Leigh

Monday 20th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

Absolutely. The courts made that quite clear recently.

Before somebody leaps to their feet and tries to make out that we are defending people being beastly to gay people in the workplace, let me deal with this important point and make a statement of the obvious: protecting freedom of conscience does not mean protecting the freedom to be beastly to anybody. Equality law protects sexual orientation, gender, race and belief, but no one would say it provides for the right to be horrid to people who disagree with on any of these things, so there is no danger of that happening with new clause 6.

[Mr George Howarth]

On the logic of his argument, does the hon. Gentleman think that a science teacher, for example, should be free to teach creationism?

[Mr Leigh]

It may happen that creationism or some other belief becomes a quasi-religious belief. In fact, many people believe it is a religious belief. If I was a passionate creationist—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Leigh]

No, no; the right hon. Gentleman is making a silly point. He is just trying to play games with something that is very important.

The hatred that is sometimes poured on those of us who simply believe that marriage is between a man and a woman is rather sad in many ways. We are elected politicians. We are tough enough to put up with it, and we get reinforcements from our own constituents who, by the way, overwhelmingly—certainly in my constituency —support my point of view. We are tough politicians, but what about ordinary members of the public who are picked on at work in this way for believing in traditional marriage? Some refuse to believe that this happens, but we have evidence to prove it does.

In January, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, which was backed by a good 86 votes to 31 on a Division. I called it the “Adrian Smith Protection Bill”—I said I would come to the evidence of what is now happening in the workplace and this is it. I named the Bill in honour of a gentleman who was demoted for “gross misconduct”. This was a man with a perfect work record who lost 40% of his salary. What did he say? Was he guilty of homophobic behaviour? No; all he said was that same-sex marriage in a church was an “equality too far”, and he put that on a Facebook page. He said it on his private Facebook page, but a colleague at work took umbrage. He raised it with his superiors at Trafford Housing Trust and they pounced on it. They were up, I have to say, for some new gay rights award—nothing wrong with that—and clearly they wanted to burnish their PC credentials. They threw the book at poor Adrian Smith—just a chap with a perfect work record who had not said anything nasty, beastly or homophobic in any sense. He had simply expressed his profound beliefs.

Adrian Smith was told by his bosses that he deserved to lose his job, but that they would commute his sentence to demotion, in view of the high quality of his work. He did not have the money to take the case to an employment tribunal and—this is the important point—on the basis of existing case law, lawyers said that he would not have won anyway, because of the current state of employment and equality law. When there is a clash between gay rights and religious freedom, I am afraid that gay rights come first in our case law. Then an organisation came along that offered to cover his legal bills and, with some expert creative legal advice, he was able to take a High Court action. He won a ruling that his employers had breached his contract. The Government say, “Well there you go—he won. What’s the problem?”

The problem is that employment and equality laws were not in Adrian Smith’s favour. He won only a contract action. The court did not have the power to give him his job back—he never got it back. It could not even give him proper compensation—he never got that either. In fact, the judge lamented the fact that he got the enormous sum of £100 for all the upset he had been caused, simply for expressing a very moderate point of view. The whole exercise cost £30,000 in legal fees, which would have been well beyond his means if he had not had the backing of campaign organisations, and he was one of the lucky ones.

The Government are refusing to recognise that they are not legislating to redefine marriage through this Bill in a vacuum. They are legislating in a culture that has been so coloured with political correctness that people such as Adrian Smith—mild-mannered people expressing reasonable beliefs in moderate tones—are treated like villains. The outlandish views of the loony left of the 1980s—the views of the Lambeth councils—have now become embedded in high places. In typical leftish fashion, all those who disagree with those views are treated with hatred and contempt in order to marginalise their point of view.

My wife says that as I get a bit older, sometimes, very late at night, I get a bit cross-eyed, but if you accuse me of being swivel-eyed, Mr Speaker, I could take you to court on disability grounds. Unfortunately, many people with traditional points of view—whether on gay marriage or immigration—somehow feel that they are being marginalised in political debate. This leads to alienation and more people voting for protest parties. This is going on and we should recognise it. These people are dismissed as bigots because they object to having their marriages redefined over their heads by rewriting the Marriage Act, under which they got married, which is the most important thing in their lives.

[Mr George Howarth]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. May I give him some reassurance? I do not think for one minute that he is swivel-eyed—just myopic.

[Mr Leigh]

I take that as a serious intervention, but I do not think I am myopic. There is a real sense of alienation in this country among people with traditional views. They are decent people and I believe that they have a right to feel comfortable in society, and particularly in their workplace, expressing those views and speaking out for what they believe in. I do not think that that makes me myopic at all.