The comments made by Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough, on Twitter on 20 October 2022.
We must meet our manifesto commitment to stop mass migration. It’s no good replacing migration from the EU with migration from the rest of the world.
The tribute made by Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2022.
I am sure that I speak for other colleagues when I say that when a debate has been going on for four hours, one feels more and more inadequate about what one is going to say and how one can do true justice to this magnificent tapestry.
When Mr Speaker opened the debate, he said that only a score of Members were alive during the previous reign; I must confess that I am one of them, but my memories of it are very dim indeed, as I was so young when the Queen came to the throne. She has been, as so many people have said, an extraordinary guiding star to us. Some of the best parts of these tributes have been wonderful literary allusions, as well as personal memories.
I remember talking to her once during my time on the Public Accounts Committee. I was very nervous because we were trying to abolish the royal train—a train so expensive and slow that it could travel only during the night—but when I raised it with her, she immediately defused the whole issue. She was charm itself, and despite our efforts, I think the royal train carried on running for many years after that—[Interruption.] And still does!
I remember that, at a Privy Council meeting, I was quite nervous—although quite proud—to mention to the Queen that my father had been Clerk of the Privy Council decades earlier. I was particularly nervous, because when I had proudly mentioned it as a younger man, the Duke of Edinburgh said that the whole Privy Council was a “bloody waste of time”—indeed, it is quite formulaic. When Nick Clegg was Lord President of the Privy Council, he actually turned over two pages of orders and nobody noticed apart from the Queen, who immediately stopped proceedings. When I mentioned my father, she was so kind. Of course, the then Clerk had no memory of one of his predecessors from four decades before, but she immediately remembered my father and thanked me for his service. What a wonderful, kind and superbly astute person she was.
Before I sit down, may I just mention one thing? I was struck by the wonderful speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), who spoke on behalf of Muslims. I am not an Anglican—we Catholics had a bit of a torrid time under the first Elizabeth, when one of my ancestors was hanged, drawn and quartered merely for being a Catholic priest, and we did not do so well under the second Charles, either—but I think the Queen played an absolute blinder in the way that she carried out her role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
We all know that so many top politicians just don’t do God. They are embarrassed to talk about religion and feel that by doing so they put themselves on a pedestal that they will be dragged down from. So many people talk about service, and I think that what epitomised her service was that it came from her deep faith. Unlike all of us, who spent so many years trying to get into this place to serve the public, she never asked for this job, but she was sustained all her life by her deep and abiding faith. When people were sad, in mourning or experiencing difficulties, her Christmas broadcast appealed to and comforted people of all faiths and none. We really should thank her for that, because it is so difficult to do.
In one of those Christmas broadcasts, over 50 years ago, she said:
“Wise men since the beginning of time have studied the skies. Whatever our faith, we can all follow a star—indeed we must follow one if the immensity of the future opening before us is not to dazzle our eyes”.
Dear colleagues, she has been our guiding star for all that time. Remember that her first broadcast was 80 years ago, to children displaced by war. She has been our guiding star. Eternal rest grant unto her; may perpetual light shine upon her.
The speech made by Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough, in the House of Commons on 18 July 2022.
The motion before us on the Order Paper is about confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. Since we face this cost of living crisis, war in Europe and all the other challenges, I was rather hoping when I arrived here that we might have a serious debate about how to deal with those issues. Instead, I heard a speech from the Leader of the Opposition that, in terms of vituperation, insult and sheer nastiness, was like nothing I have ever heard before, certainly about a Prime Minister who will be leaving office in a very few weeks.
Where is any sense of kindness or magnanimity? Why do we need to throw these insults around and claim—
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Leigh
I am going to proceed, if I may. Why do we need to claim that this is the worst sort of mass murderer and criminal in political history? It is complete rubbish. The fact is that when this Prime Minister took power, Parliament’s reputation was in tatters.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Leigh
No.
Virtually everybody in this Chamber had voted to have a referendum, yet many Members were doing their level best to frustrate it. Had we not had this Prime Minister, and had we not delivered Brexit, I believe we would have had a meltdown in political trust. He got Brexit done, though I agree that personally I would have liked to have done a lot more with it, and we will do, given time. That is the first issue, and that is why the Prime Minister was given a majority of 80.
The second issue is the pandemic. We have had all these insults against a Prime Minister who was working on our behalf and nearly died in office. It is a disgraceful attack. He was working flat out to save lives. Our record on the pandemic is frankly second to none. Again and again the Opposition tried to force us into more and more severe lockdowns, but this Prime Minister, with his vaccine roll-out, got us out of that mess, and thousands of people are now alive because of him.
Speaking for myself, I wholly regret the departure of this Prime Minister and I remain completely loyal to him to the very end, as I remained loyal to Mrs Thatcher. I think we will ask ourselves, “What have we done? What have we done to a man who gave us this 80-seat majority?”
The third point is that, but for this Prime Minister—the first western leader to arm Ukraine—Kyiv would now be in the hands of the Russians. We led Europe and the world in saving that country. That is the record of this Prime Minister, and I am proud as a Back Bencher to have given him all the loyalty I possibly could, as I will give loyalty to the next leader.
Of course there are challenges. Anybody would think that we lived in a vacuum—that despite the fact that we had the pandemic and the fact that we have a war in Europe, somehow the Government are to blame for all our ills. That is complete rubbish. When the next leader of the Conservative party—the next Prime Minister—comes into office, within weeks the Labour party will be calling for another general election, as we have already heard from the Leader of the Opposition. They will say, “This new Prime Minister is unelected, or elected by a fairly small number of people.” They never said that about the previous Prime Minister, because he was elected by the people with an 80-seat majority.
The problems are not going to go away .We all know that if the Labour party had been in power, the outcomes of the pandemic may not have been a great deal different. We do not know what will happen with Ukraine or with the economy, but the Conservative party, as the Prime Minister explained, is turbocharged because we believe in the power of the free economy, in freedom and in low taxation, although of course we cannot deliver that now. I say to my friends who are competing for the leadership: be responsible. I know it is popular to call for tax cuts now, but we have record levels of borrowing, and we do not solve the problem by borrowing more and more. It is said that we can put the covid expense in a particular box and forget about it for 50 years, and it does not matter, but we all know in our private life that we cannot say to NatWest, “I’ve got this debt on my car—I want to put it in a different box and I won’t have to pay for 50 years.” Debt is debt.
The Conservative party’s reputation is built on economic competence. We have to be careful with the economy. I personally was very unhappy about the rise in national insurance contributions. I am not in favour of tax rises. I believe that the reputation of a Conservative Government depends on low tax. We want to cut tax, but I say to the leadership contenders that we must be responsible.
In conclusion—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I am only trying to give a speech loyal to my party, which is surely no bad thing, and to the present leader of my party.
Shaun Bailey rose—
Sir Edward Leigh
No, I had better stop now, because they have had enough of me. Ultimately, the secret weapon of the Tory party is loyalty.
The speech made by Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough, in the House of Commons on 18 May 2022.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) attacks us for being the party of low growth, but this is the party that has presided over a situation where we have more people in employment than ever before. Unbelievably, the number of vacancies is higher than the number of those who are unemployed. But he is right—this is why I am going to follow the hon. Gentleman—to focus laser-like on what we are told to talk about today, although we are allowed to stray a bit during this Queen’s Speech debate, which is achieving economic growth. That is what the British people care about. In time, we can have an interesting debate about Channel 4 privatisation, about foie gras and about conversion therapy, but those are not the overwhelming priorities of the British people at the moment. What they are concerned about is the cost of living crisis.
There has never been an easier opportunity for the Opposition to attack the Government in terms of broad economic statistics, but that ignores the fact that when the last general election took place we could not possibly have predicted the impact of a global pandemic or, unbelievably, war in Europe as a result of the cruel tyrant Putin trying to recreate an old-style empire. I would argue that no Government since the second world war have faced greater challenges. I would also contend that, generally, the Opposition have failed to provide any substantial alternative policies that would have greatly alleviated the situation in regard to the war in Ukraine or the pandemic.
I am going to hold the Government to account, however. I want to hold them to account on the tax burden. Given that families are suffering and people are lying awake at night desperately searching for a way to pay their bills, and that we are in such a crisis, we have to move in a far more radical direction on the overall tax burden. I put that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday in Treasury questions, and I was quite pleased with his response when I urged him to make this a priority.
We are now facing the heaviest tax burden since the 1940s. Freezing income tax thresholds, combined with more inflation, will push many people into higher tax thresholds. Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that
“almost all workers will be paying more tax on their earnings in 2025 than they would have been paying without this parliament’s reforms to income tax and NICs”.
The rise in inflation is projected to spark the biggest decline in living standards in any single financial year, so I follow the hon. Member for Aberavon in calling for radical policies. I am not against a windfall tax, but I am not sure that, on its own, it will make a great deal of difference after we have divided its receipts between every household in Britain. Frankly, the Chancellor has to come back to this House in time for the Budget, or preferably before, and introduce a cut in the overall tax burden.
I also want to talk about the housing crisis. If we are going to kick-start the economy and help our young people get into housing, we simply have to build much more housing. The number of dwellings where, according to building control figures, building work had started on the site was 41,600 in October to December 2021. That was a 3% decrease compared with the previous quarter and a 3% decrease compared with the same quarter of the previous year. The number of dwellings completed from October to December 2021 was 41,330, a 4% decrease on the previous quarter and an 11% decrease on the same quarter of the previous year. The fact is that this is a crisis.
I welcome that, through the Queen’s Speech, the Government are honestly attempting to find a way through the planning controls to get the housing we need, but we need a similar effort to the one we had after the second world war, when Harold Macmillan built 300,000 council houses a year. We have to see this as an absolute priority.
There is no point building more housing—and it is a crisis we need to address—or cutting taxes if, at the same time, immigration is out of control. The Government have to understand that we simply cannot replace mass immigration from the EU with mass immigration from the rest of the world, which is why the channel crossings are so totemic. The Home Secretary is right to try to address the crossings, for all the controversy.
Last week, from 9 to 15 May, 607 migrants aboard 25 boats were detected in the channel. In the week before, from 2 to 8 May, 792 migrants aboard 30 boats were detected. From 25 April to 1 May, 254 migrants aboard seven boats were detected. This cannot continue. We have to build houses, we have to control immigration, we have to cut taxes and we have to kick-start the economy.
Although there has been great criticism of the Government’s handling of the Northern Ireland protocol, we have to unite this United Kingdom. We cannot have a situation in which there is no proper Government in Northern Ireland. The fact is that the DUP will not come back into government unless we address the protocol. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) that of course we want to respect international law, but we have to sort this out.
The issues we face are urgent and important. I am sure the Government are listening, and I urge them to address these issues as dramatically as they would address the issues following a world war. The effects of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine are so grave that we should all unite, with a sense of compassion, to help people who are suffering with this level of inflation, rising costs and rising taxation.
The speech made by Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough, in the House of Commons on 21 January 2021.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for the way that he introduced the debate, and I am proud, with him, to be a sponsor of it.
This has turned into a saga, which has now been ongoing for decades. The facts of the original case are well known; we have seen them demonstrated again and again. There were dubious practices. This was a company that was too big to fail. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend said, there was a conspiracy to stop matters coming to light before they did. There was a culture of manipulation and concealment.
In addition to the Treasury’s own 2004 report, there have been other reports: the report from Lord Penrose in 2001, and a report from Ian Glick and Richard Snowden. All those showed lessons to be learned, both in terms of corporate culture in financial services and in terms of the state’s role in overseeing the sector sufficiently. Everyone acknowledges that the company was primarily at fault, but the state has a role and a responsibility in regulating financial services. All business today is conducted on the understanding that ultimately, the law and the state ensure an honest and transparent playing field.
More than a decade ago, in 2010, George Osborne announced a £1.5 billion package in compensation. These payments were to begin in mid-July of 2011, but by the end of 2011, many of my affected constituents had not received a penny. Not only were there delays in payments, but some payments were made for incorrect amounts—sometimes wildly inaccurate. These were caught not by the Treasury, but by policyholders themselves. There is also a lack of transparency over how policyholders can verify the amount they have received is correct.
The Equitable Members Action Group has pointed out:
“There is serious doubt over the accuracy and reliability of the methodology used by the Treasury to calculate what’s owed.”
The Treasury insists that there were no mistakes. If so, how can Government explain inaccurate payments? One hundred and sixty complaints of inaccuracy in payment were upheld, yet EMAG reports only eight received recalculations. The Minister needs to explain how this happened.
We must remember that many hundreds of thousands of policyholders were affected by this scandal. The Government scheme offered only partial compensation. I know that full compensation would be expensive, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, let justice be done and let there be full transparency. People need to save for their retirement. Living off their state pension affords little comfort, and most people do not realistically expect to be able to live off it. Very few young people even think about their retirement. But these policyholders did save for their retirement. They are now getting on, and they are elderly and often vulnerable.
Over the years, I have received terrible, sad letters from many of my constituents, some of them received as much as 10 years ago. Some of them will now, I am afraid, no longer be with us. As one said, and this was nearly 10 years ago:
“This is a matter of urgency.”
Another said:
“Sadly my husband died four years ago without the assurance that…he…would ever be recompensed.”
One wrote:
“I am 89 years old, now a widow.”
So I repeat the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East: let us have an inquiry from the PAC, let us have the full light of transparency on this and let justice be done for some of the most elderly and vulnerable—and responsible—in our community.
Below is the text of the speech made by Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough, in the House of Commons on 20 January 2020.
I assure the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) that no Government Member wants to degrade the rights or the dignity of working people—quite the opposite. We are not interested in turning us into some bargain-basement economy by lowering standards.
This Parliament seems to have a much calmer atmosphere. We seem to have passed through a hurricane, and we now have a solid majority. However, some would claim that we are simply in the eye of the storm and that another hurricane will hit us over a so-called hard Brexit and a failure to achieve a free trade deal. I doubt whether the free trade deal will be so difficult to achieve. After all, we start with exactly the same rules, regulations, tariffs and everything. If there is good will on both sides, as there certainly is on ours, I see no difficulty in achieving the free trade deal.
Much has been made of what the Food and Drink Federation said this week, but I see no difficulty there. Are we going to downgrade the Lincolnshire sausage compared with the Bavarian sausage? Are we going to produce low-grade orange juice? Of course not—we will keep our standards. I look at the Chancellor when I say this: there is use in the Government making it absolutely clear, when it comes to environmental standards, working rights and ensuring that we have good-quality products, that we are absolutely top-notch in the world and that we will not downgrade any of our standards. What would be absolutely intolerable is to sign up to a deal that says that for ever more, we have to follow rules made by another jurisdiction. That would be absurd, which is why I am opposed to remaining permanently in some kind of single market or customs union. I know that the Chancellor will be absolutely robust in resisting that, but the free trade deal can and will be achieved, because we are a party of free trade. We are open to the world—that is what we believe in. I am not a believer in a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit; I believe in a Brexit that is good for business—a business Brexit—and I am sure that the Chancellor does, too.
How will we increase our competitiveness in Europe and the world as Brexit takes place, if we are to maintain these excellent standards? I suggest, by way of a Budget submission to the Chancellor, who is sitting on the Front Bench, that we could learn lessons from the past. I think I have now sat through over 40 Budgets in this Chamber, and most have been frankly unimpressive. They have looked to the next day’s headlines in spending a bit more money here and there. The one Budget that really impressed me was Nigel Lawson’s Budget in 1988, because he had a vision. It was a vision of a lower-tax economy from a Chancellor who was determined to strip away the mass of allowances and ensure that we no longer had the longest tax code in the world after India. I remember when the Chancellor arrived as a fresh-faced young Back Bencher in 2010, a man who had been a success in the City of London, and I saw him as a Thatcherite. I want him to remember those early days and at the next Budget to take a leaf out of Nigel Lawson’s Budget.
Nigel Lawson said, “If you reward enterprise, you get more of it”. We are a Conservative Government with a solid majority. Have we got the courage of our convictions? Nigel Lawson reduced the top rate of income tax from 60% to 40%. Throughout the period of the Labour Government, they kept that top rate at 40%, except in the dying days when Gordon Brown increased it to 45%, and it is still at 45%. There is no economic justification for it, nor was there for George Osborne’s attack on young entrepreneurs through national insurance. Has the Chancellor got the courage in this Budget to do what Nigel Lawson did, to be a visionary and to start simplifying our tax system and rewarding enterprise? I would be very happy to give way to him, if he wants to make that clear. As I said to the shadow Chancellor, given that 30% of all income tax receipts come from the top 1% of income tax payers, I accept that it will be impossible, probably, to ever achieve the dream of a truly flat-rate tax system, but we can simplify it and gradually flatten taxes. Businesses are employing thousands of accountants to help them avoid taxation. Why can we not simplify our taxation system? I hope we can make progress on that.
I hope we can be a radical Government in other respects. I hope we do not feel we have to ape the Opposition in promising more and more public money. Of course, we have to spend more on the NHS—we have an ageing population with more and more treatments coming on stream—but we have to be a radical Government in trying to deliver outcomes. What is important is not what we spend on the NHS or social care, but the outcome, so we must not be afraid of promoting within the NHS private sector solutions that deliver more efficiency. What do the public care about? They care about their operation and treatment being on time. How that is delivered is not really a priority for them. I feel in his heart of hearts that the Chancellor agrees and is committed to achieving free-enterprise solutions.
Wera Hobhouse rose—
Sir Edward Leigh
I remember that the Liberal party in its heyday was a party of free trade and liberalism, so I hope this intervention will be part of that.
Wera Hobhouse
Will the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the many vulnerable people who need help who come to my surgery, and whom I see on a daily basis, need good public services?
Sir Edward Leigh
Of course they need good public services, and we are a party of good public services, but we do not believe that the only way of improving public services is by increasing spending in real terms year in, year out. The best way to downgrade productivity and efficiency in the public services is by rapidly increasing spending without tight cost controls on outcomes. I am sure I can rely on the Treasury in that regard.
Where the Opposition have a point, and where we do have an argument, is that some of the big companies, particularly the American digital companies and tech giants, are not paying their fair share of tax. There is also an increasing feeling in this country—this is the one nation point—that the employment rights of some of the people at the bottom of the heap are being downgraded. The Conservative party has an historic opportunity to build on its alliance with working people to improve standards, workers’ rights and the ability of those big companies to pay taxes, and we can do that while also being an enterprise Government and rewarding hard work. By doing that, we can achieve a great deal.
The last part of the jigsaw—this alliance with working people—is the question: why do they vote Conservative? Why did they vote for Brexit? It is because they are fed up with cheap labour being imported into this country and fed up with their rights and employment opportunities being downgraded. If the Chancellor is now looking to the world in terms of immigration, let him ensure that we will no longer downgrade the rights of workers in this country by importing cheap labour. Let us have good-quality labour—people who have something real to contribute.
I believe that there is a real, historic opportunity for the Conservative party to build on this alliance with the working people in the north of England who have felt forgotten for so long. That opportunity is here, and I am confident that this Chancellor will deliver it.
Below is the text of the speech made by Edward Leigh, the then Conservative MP for Gainsborough and Horncastle, in the House of Commons on 16 April 1986.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the criminal law in relation to defendants who are unfit to plead; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is prompted by the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. Glen Pearson, a 32–year-old deaf mute with few communication skills, who was alleged to have stolen £5.40 and three light bulbs and ordered to be detained in custody for an indefinite period by Lincoln Crown court. He was released three months later, after a national outcry. No ordinary person would be treated in that way by the courts.
Why did it happen to Glen Pearson? He was found, rightly, to be unfit to plead. From that moment he was caught in the grip of an infernal machine, as remorseless in its purpose as anything out of a Greek tragedy. Under section 5(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, if a person is found to be unfit to plead the judge has no choice—I emphasise that he has no choice—but to send him to the hospital specified by the Secretary of State. Moreover, the judge must direct that a person so committed to hospital shall be detained as if he were held under sections 37 to 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
For an obviously insane and dangerous person the law is logical, because those sections of the Mental Health Act make it clear that a hospital order can be made only in the case of an insane person if very strict criteria are met. For example, two medical reports have to be furnished to the court, and the court has to be satisfied that the mental disorder is of such a nature that it warrants detention for treatment. [Interruption.] Under section 41 of the Act the court, being satisfied with regard to the offender’s past and that it is necessary to protect the public from serious harm, can order the defendant’s detention without limit of time.
It will come as a great surprise that while my constituent was detained indefinitely as if those criteria applied to him, the court did not and could not consider whether in fact they did apply to him once it had found that he was unfit to plead. As two psychiatric reports and one psychologist’s report showed later, Glen Pearson was not insane and he was not a serious danger to the public, but he was treated as if he was—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has a right to be heard.
Mr. Leigh
I am able to illustrate the extraordinary clumsiness of the law in this area by considering the hypothetical case of an Amazonian Indian visiting this country who is incapable of speaking English and whose language nobody can translate. Assuming that no interpreter could be found and that he was accused of stealing 6p, if he were brought before the courts of this land they would have no choice but to detain him indefinitely in a prison hospital.
My Bill seeks to amend the law so that a person found unfit to plead will be detained in a prison hospital only if the strict criteria of insanity are met. Otherwise, he will be remanded in custody or on bail with conditions, as appropriate, until such time as he is fit to plead. Remand to prison custody would be appropriate only if the offence were of a serious nature and the defendant’s unfitness was outside the scope of the mental health provisions. I must make it clear, therefore, that the Bill in no way lessens the protection available to the public; it simply widens the powers available to the courts.
The Bill provides for the regular review of unfitness, there is no similar provision in the law as it stands. The Bill provides for the case to be brought to a conclusion within a specified period. Mr. Paul Bacon, the solicitor who represented Glen Pearson on this occasion, once represented a client who had to wait seven years for trial. When the court was finally persuaded to bring the matter to trial, it was found that the police had lost the evidence. Lastly, my Bill provides that a case of unfitness should be allowed to be heard in summary as well as in Crown proceedings.
It would seem strange to a foreign legislator, observing our proceedings today, that, sandwiched between questions to the Secretary of State on the very lifeblood of the nation and a debate to be initiated by the Prime Minister on a matter of world crisis, the House should grant to an unknown Back Bencher the right to inform Parliament of the trials the tribulations of an even more unknown deaf mute from a small market town in north Lincolnshire, of which the House knows little. But I believe that the procedure and forbearance of the House in allowing me to do this reflects no more than Parliament’s knowledge and wisdom, accumulated over centuries, from Hampden’s time to the present day, that out of the affairs of small men great issues are often determined.
Moulded by the wisdom of our glorious Judaeo-Christian tradition, we in this country appreciate—as it is appreciated to the same extent nowhere else—that anyone, however reviled or lowly or disabled, has a right to be treated fairly and that anyone has the right to be considered innocent before guilt is proved. It is in that spirit that I ask the leave of the House to introduce this Bill to cover the one small area of the law that I have described which is clearly unfair, inappropriate and in need of reform.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Tom Clarke and Mr. Douglas Hogg.
Below is the text of the speech made by Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough, in the House of Commons on 1 April 2019.
In some ways, this business motion might be seen as the most interesting and important part of the day, because procedure is now everything. The fact that, on this historic day, the Government have lost control of the Order Paper is vital to the debate and how we proceed. Although we will have an interesting debate in the coming hours, I doubt whether a single vote will be changed by what anybody says, what blogs are written or what tweets are posted. Most people have made up their minds, and they have a settled view on what they want—whether it is the customs union, no deal or whatever.
My few remarks are almost by way of questions to the Leader of the House and to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). Like many people, I want to know what will happen under the current procedure. It seems to me that tonight we will probably whittle matters down to one option that has the most support in the House, and we all know that that is likely to be permanent membership of the customs union. On Wednesday, the alternative Government—not the Labour party, but my right hon. Friend—will take control of the agenda. As I understand it, he will then produce a Bill to implement what is decided, which will probably be permanent membership of the customs union.
I put it to the Government that we Conservative MPs will then have a choice: we will have to have permanent membership of the customs union because the Order Paper will have been taken over by Parliament; or we have a general election; or we prorogue Parliament. I say to my right hon. Friend that I think it would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the House if we were to abdicate our responsibility and have a general election. The people asked us to make this choice and to do this job. If we cannot agree on what we do not want, we should agree on what we do want. Therefore, the Government have to move forward with their meaningful vote, if necessary in a run-off with this customs union, and if necessary in a vote tomorrow.
I do not believe that it is in the interests of the nation to have a general election, which would solve nothing: people do not vote on the issue—they vote on who the leader of the party is, who they like or who their local MP is. We all know that every single general election gets out of control. We ourselves have to decide this issue. We have to make the choice. We have to decide what we want, not what we do not want.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Leigh
No, I am going to finish in a moment. The other thing that we surely cannot do—I say this to my friends who, like me, voted for Brexit—is duck the issue by proroguing Parliament. We cannot act like Charles I. We voted leave because we wanted to give control back to Parliament; it would be like someone throwing the football out of the stadium because they are losing the football match.
There is a simple choice for my colleagues now. The Government are on the cusp of losing control and we are on the cusp of facing permanent membership of the customs union, which runs contrary to our manifesto. We have to get real, dear friends: we have to make that choice. My personal choice is that I would rather vote for the Prime Minister’s deal, which at least delivers some sort of Brexit.