The Economy and Work

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There is nothing wrong with being an ideologue if you temper it with some restraint and reason. I confess that I am an ideologue for lower taxes, for less state regulation and for the supremacy of this Parliament. That is what I have worked for, with my colleagues, all my life here, and I judge every Queen’s Speech by how it advances lower taxes, deregulation and more devolution.

However, I think we should be wary of imposing our ideas on other people in a forced manner. We used to argue consistently that the one-size-fits-all neighbourhood comprehensive was wrong and causing a decline in educational standards. We therefore led the charge for academies, but I do not believe that we should force county councils, particularly rural county councils with small private schools, to academise all their schools. I understand why the Chancellor made that announcement in the Budget—I know where he was coming from and I agree with his long-term plans on education—but I welcome the compromise that has been made in relation to small rural private schools.

The same attitude applies to devolution and to mayors. I am a strong advocate of devolution. The fact is that central Government have imposed too much control on local government for too long. In Lincolnshire, we welcome devolution and we were prepared to have a very simple system in which powers were devolved to a board run by the leaders of the district councils and county councils, but there was no enthusiasm for an elected mayor in a large rural county. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor is still sitting in the Chamber, and I am sure that he is listening to what I am saying. I hope that he will also listen to the local people and not impose an elected mayor on us. That concept might be fine for Manchester, Birmingham or London, but it is not necessarily appropriate for a large rural county such as Lincolnshire.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I represent a large rural community that has not had the benefit of being offered a mayor. Does not my hon. Friend think it is worth trying having a mayor, to see how that might enhance rurality?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We can certainly try it, but the difficulty is that we would have parish councils, district councils, a county council—which, by the way, the Conservatives have controlled for most of the last 100 years —an elected mayor, a police and crime commissioner, a Member of Parliament and a Member of the European Parliament. It would just be too much, frankly. Too many jobs for the boys!

[Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend consider jobs for the girls too?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has made some important contributions to our debates in the past year and I welcome what she says. I know that she has taken an interest in tax credits, and I believe that we have to make more progress in cutting welfare in order to cut the deficit, but it is probably a mistake to cut the welfare benefits or tax credits of people who are already on small incomes and depending on their tax credits. We have to give plenty of warning if we are going to do that. That is surely the lesson that we should learn from the debate on the raising of the pension age for women. We should have given proper notice of that. We did give 20 years’ notice, but we did not write to every woman saying, “Dear Mrs Jones, your pension age will be increased in 20 years’ time.” That is what we should have done, and we should learn from that.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), I am an enthusiast for lower regulation and lower taxes, but we have the longest tax code in the world, and there is still much progress to be made in that regard. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor knows, because I have said this to him again and again, that I hope he will try to simplify the tax and benefit system with every Budget he introduces. I hope that he will strip away allowances and converge taxes so that we no longer have armies of accountants advising people how to avoid tax. We have made all too little progress on simplifying and converging our tax system. I know that it is difficult. I know that we cannot do it all in one step. I know that we cannot have an absolutely flat tax system because the top 1% of earners pay 25% of all taxes. I know all that, but we should make more progress every year in simplifying and merging the tax system.

Before I sit down, the Chancellor talked about announcements that have been made today, but there was an important announcement on immigration figures. The fact is that we still have net migration of 300,000 people into this country every year. It is absolutely unsustainable. We welcome people from eastern Europe coming to work here. I more than any other welcome Polish people and their culture of hard work. However, net migration of 300,000 people a year, fuelled by the imposition of the living wage on businesses and by an unreformed tax credit system, is simply unsustainable, particularly for London and the south-east. There is a vision of Britain leading the world towards free trade, controlling its own borders and proclaiming the supremacy of Parliament, and that is why, on 23 June, I for one shall be voting to leave the European Union.

Anti-corruption Summit

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

This is a massive topic that will provoke a huge amount of interest today and in Parliament next week. I want to confine my remarks to corruption in global sport, which has been one of the major global corruption issues that we have debated and confronted over the past few years. I have been involved in this area through my work on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and as co-founder of the New FIFA Now group, which has campaigned alongside excellent organisations that care about the integrity of sport, such as Transparency International UK, for greater openness and transparency in the way global sports bodies are run, and in particular for reform of major organisations such as FIFA.

On the FIFA corruption scandal, I recall the exact words issued by the US Department of Justice in its indictment against FIFA, published last year. It said that corruption at FIFA was

“rampant, systemic, and deep-rooted”.

The scale of the investigation so far and the number of arrests and indictments against senior officials in FIFA underline the breadth, and what will come in time to be seen as the depth, of corruption within that global sporting body.

As with other areas of corporate corruption, the causes of corruption within sports organisations are reasonably clear and simple to understand. Corruption in sport is an important issue, and it is not only a question of the integrity of sporting competitions and the people who take part in them. That is important in its own right, but we have to recognise that serious criminal elements have used the opportunities that sport presents to move money all around the world, be it through laundering money through the football transfer system or people acquiring stakes and interests in clubs before seeking to hide their identity behind shell companies held overseas. That has been a major problem for a number of years, and the major corruption scandal at FIFA and in other sports has brought it to the forefront.

The reasons why corruption occurs are relatively easy to understand when there are organisations with poor internal governance, led by a group of people who are not really accountable to anyone else and who base themselves in hard-to-reach places, with little scrutiny of the way they use their money and power. If we look at the breadth of allegations of corruption against FIFA officials, they have largely been about people using the organisation’s resources to enrich themselves by taking a cut of contracts, broadcasting rights and marketing rights, or by using their power and wealth to buy the votes of other people in order to secure positions of prominence for themselves and their friends and even to determine where the World cup final is played.

There is not only a lack of transparency within FIFA and how it uses its resources; there is also a lack of any real opportunity for people within the organisation who have a concern to blow the whistle. There is nowhere for them to go, because they are largely making their complaints to the people who control the organisation and who, on the whole, are not that interested in those complaints.

During the FIFA scandal in 2011, David Triesman, a former Foreign Office Minister and the former chairman of the Football Association, who had been intimately involved in leading England’s bid to host the World cup championships in the process leading up to the voting for where the tournament should be played in 2010, used parliamentary privilege to lay before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee allegations of corruption against senior football officials such as Jack Warner, Ricardo Teixeira and Nicolas Leoz, suggesting that they had solicited bribes. Lord Triesman claimed that Jack Warner had asked the FA to pay him a sum of money to secure the rights to show World cup football matches in major stadiums in Haiti to people who had been affected by a recent earthquake. It transpired that Jack Warner was asking for payments from the FA for rights he already owned in an attempt to solicit money for himself personally, with the understanding that if he received that money, he might vote for England to win the right to host the World cup.

That is an example of information we have received. In the case of Lord Triesman’s allegations, which were dismissed at the time by FIFA and not taken seriously enough, the people he alleged were guilty of being involved in corrupt practices have subsequently been indicted by the FBI as part of its investigation. That poses the question: why did the Serious Fraud Office not do more at the time to investigate thoroughly the allegations that Lord Triesman put into the public domain? Are the resources available to ensure that such investigations can take place? Could more be done to reach out to other law enforcement agencies around the world in order to share intelligence and information where a suggestion of wrongdoing is put before the offices in this country?

Sharing of information and international co-operation is important. While it may well be more appropriate for a different international or national authority to take the lead in an investigation, we can still play a very important role in following up on it. I am concerned that there have been occasions in the past when whistleblowers have come forward with information but there has not been follow-through or action on it, and years have been lost that could have been spent going after the wrongdoers and taking a stand against them.

I want to use this opportunity to raise an example that relates to an allegation that was made in the course of the recent FIFA presidential elections but could not be discussed in public because of the action of the lawyers representing Sheikh Salman of Bahrain, who was a candidate for the FIFA presidency. This is an important illustration of the sort of case that needs to be discussed publicly and examined carefully by people who care about issues of corruption. There was a suggestion that Sheikh Salman had colluded with Sheikh Ahmad, who is head of the Olympic Council of Asia and a member of the FIFA executive committee and the International Olympic Committee, so that Sheikh Ahmad could use his financial position as head of the OCA to channel money to football associations in Asia in order to persuade them to vote for Sheikh Salman in the 2013 elections for the presidency of the Asian Football Confederation.

I would like to run through an exchange of emails between the various parties involved, to give an example of the sort of case that should be followed through and examined more closely. In this case, the Football Federation of the Kyrgyz Republic was in email contact with the Olympic Council of Asia. Sheikh Ahmad, the Kuwaiti head of the OCA since 1991, is a sporting kingmaker and a key powerbroker in Asia who is a close friend and associate of Sheikh Salman. The FFKR voted for Sheikh Salman in the AFC election on 2 May 2013, which he won by a landslide. On 26 April 2013, the FFKR’s executive director, Dastan Konokbaev, wrote to the private email address of the OCA’s IT manager, Amer Elalami, with details of flights that the FFKR’s delegation would be taking to and from Kuala Lumpur for the AFC vote. Addressing him as “Brother”, he listed the flights he would be taking with the president, Semetei Sultanov, and the vice-president of the organisation. On the previous day, he had sent an email with his security mobile number, saying,

“it is available any time”,

and wrote,

“this is my private email”.

Mr Elalami replied from his personal account with the signature,

“IT Manager, Olympic Council of Asia”,

and his own phone number. He wrote:

“Noted brother, will keep in touch, just let me know if required any assistance from our side”.

On 29 April 2013, three days before the vote, Mr Konokbaev emailed Mr Elalami at his private email address listing 53 projects and requesting the OCA’s financial support. The subject heading of the email was “About support for Kyrgyzstan football”. These projects included training camps, friendly matches, more than 300 air fares and the construction of a sports centre. The total value of the projects amounted to millions of pounds.

There seems to be no legitimate reason for the FFKR, which is part of FIFA, to seek funding from the OCA. The OCA’s IT manager had no grant-giving role and was using his private email address rather than his official one. Despite this, Mr Konokbaev wrote:

“Brother, I hope you are well! I would like to acquaint you with our plans for 2013 (here included preparatory cycle Kyrgyzstan’s National Team) and indicate”

where you need support. He continued:

“We have previously discussed, and even decide[d] many issues”.

Mr Elalami forwarded the email on to the OCA’s director general, a former pilot he referred to as “captain”. Mr Al-Musallam is Sheikh Ahmad’s right-hand man and the pair work closely together. Mr Elalami appears to have believed that Mr Al-Musallam was already aware of this request for funds, writing:

“Did you receive this email from Dastan?”,

and seeking advice on how to respond. He continued:

“They send a financial support till March next year, what I should reply. Please advise”.

The emails also show that Sheikh Ahmad, Mr Al-Musallam and Mr Elalami were among a 19-strong OCA delegation in Kuala Lumpur for the vote. Bizarrely, the OCA did not have accreditation from the AFC. Instead, it was accredited to football associations.

In a document headed “list of delegates—KL”, which was circulated among OCA officials, Mr Elalami’s name appeared alongside “KYR”, which is believed to mean Kyrgyzstan, in the “accreditation” column. Mr Elalami is a Kuwaiti who had no formal association with the FFKR. In 2009, the OCA had requested accreditation for the AFC Congress but, after being refused this, set up offices nearby and hosted a reception for 30 or so football associations on the day before a vote in which Sheikh Salman unsuccessfully stood for a position on FIFA’s executive committee. On 6 May, the day after flying back from the 2013 vote, the FFKR’s executive director sent a further email to Mr Elalami reminding him of the projects that needed funding. He said:

“Earlier, I sent you”

an email

“describing our needs and as you can see, there are issues that need to be addressed in the next few days [now] that all went according to plan”.

Beneath the projects he wrote:

“Which way you help? How much? Period of time?”

In some cases, he asked how the FFKR would be paid—“by bank transfer” or “in Kuwait”.

These issues warrant further investigation. In this case there is no direct proof that money changed hands between the OCA and this particular football association, but it is curious and suggests that there could be people who abuse their position in global sport to support each other, reward each other and share money between each other as a currency to secure political support. But where does anyone go with such allegations? Where can a whistleblower turn to ensure the proper investigation of such allegations? This has been at the heart of many corruption issues in sport.

Looking to the anti-corruption summit particularly, how can we ensure a gold standard for organisations operating in the sporting world to ensure they comply with high standards in auditing the way their money is used? There are questions for big global accountancy firms such as KPMG, which has audited FIFA’s accounts for many years. Despite its auditing of those accounts, it was possible for Sepp Blatter to pay Michel Platini 2 million Swiss francs, although that money was not accounted for in FIFA’s accounts. How can that be possible? How can major companies that work with global organisations sign off accounts if there concerns about them? What sort of faith can we have in that auditing process?

What sort of auditing is there? What sort of transparency is there in the way money and resources are used, and what sort of enforcement can be taken when there is a problem? Should there be a green light system for global organisations to say there are concerns about the lack of transparency in the organisation? Other commercial partners, whether sponsors or broadcasters that work with those organisations, should be mindful of those concerns when transacting with that organisation or seeking to do business with them.

Do we need some form of specialist unit in the National Crime Agency to look at sports corruption? There is a real problem with a lack of investigators working in this area. The Select Committee recently took evidence from the Tennis Integrity Unit, which has just two investigators looking at problems, largely involving gambling, and allegations of match fixing in tennis. I believe that FIFA had four people in its investigation unit. The UK’s Anti-Doping Agency has one person in its investigation unit.

Do we need greater resources for work across different sports and based in the NCA that can look at allegations of corruption in sport and act on them? Perhaps we need a unit of four or five officers working in the NCA and dedicated to looking at sports corruption, working with global sports governing bodies, having a direct relationship with their own internal integrity units and seeking to co-operate with the FBI and other investigatory bodies around the world. That additional resource would be welcome—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I am becoming a bit worried about time. Given that we had long speeches by Back Benchers, it is only fair not to restrict Front Benchers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will start to bring his speech to a close and perhaps the next speaker will please keep an eye on the clock.

[Damian Collins]

I will wrap up.

Can we look at the way the NCA works and at its resources? Working with overseas territories has been an important question in the FIFA corruption scandal. Jeff Webb is one of the people indicted by the FBA and is based in the Cayman Islands. How easy is it for us here to request information from the Cayman Islands about people we are concerned about and who may have links with sports corruption scandals? I welcome what the Government have said about access to a register and I am interested to hear how the Minister believes that will change our ability to pursue such cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Lady please conclude?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will just sum up.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Very briefly please.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Okay. The Government need to do more and ensure that the public have access to the registers. We saw the power of public light falling on the Panama papers and we need to ensure that the public have the same right of access to the ownership registers. The summit is an extraordinary opportunity for the UK to press ahead with the anti-corruption agenda. There is much to do, including here at home, and we do not want this to be a missed opportunity, so I hope the Minister will provide reassurance this morning that it will not be.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I know that the next Member will be brief and to the point and will on no account speak beyond 10.35 am.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

In the Budget we provided more than £100 million extra to help with the problem of homelessness and the particular problem of rough sleeping. We have provided money for second-stage accommodation for people as they leave hostels, to ensure that they have secure accommodation to go to. I am always happy to listen to further representations or ideas from the hon. Gentleman or any other Member.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Treasury cannot even get its forecast for growth and the deficit correct for next year. Does the Chancellor realise that instructing his officials to produce a speculative report based on thoroughly tendentious figures about what might or might not happen in the event of Brexit simply belittles the reputation of the Treasury for economic competence and forecasting? Instead of relying on fear, why does he not give us his vision, compared with our vision of a free people in a free Parliament, controlling our own borders and leading the world towards free trade?

[Mr Osborne]

Our positive vision is that by being part of a reformed EU we can raise living standards, create more jobs and make sure that consumers have access to lower prices. We have set out in the Treasury analysis a range of possibilities for the alternatives that might happen if Britain leaves the European Union. All of them would make Britain permanently poorer, but if my hon. Friend and the leave campaign want to produce their own plan and their own analysis, then be my guest.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend takes me away from the Bill, but let me say in response that I do not accept his analysis. First, on trade, both voluntary parties to any transaction benefit from trade. Secondly, we have to remember that trade deficits or surpluses are the result of a series of transactions decided by individuals and businesses on the basis of what they perceive is of value. I would argue that it is always desirable to seek to remove trade barriers to facilitate fair and free trade. The removal of trade barriers within the single market is, I think, one of the advantages of membership of the European Union, so I am not persuaded by his argument.

Let me start by looking at the measures in the Bill that provide opportunities for families who work hard and save. The Government have long been committed to the principle that those who work should be able to keep more of the money they earn. As a result of action taken in the last Parliament, almost 28 million individuals received a tax cut, with a typical tax bill reduced by £825. We go even further in this Bill by increasing the tax-free personal allowance to £11,500 in 2017-18—a £500 increase from 2016-17. The higher rate threshold will also increase by £2,000 from £43,000 in 2016-17 to £45,000 in 2017-18. As a result of those changes, we will be cutting tax for more than 31 million people by 2017-18. Compared with 2010, a typical basic rate taxpayer will be paying more than £1,000 less in tax in April 2017. That is a proud record.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We still have one of the most complex tax systems in the world. I do not know if my hon. Friend was here for the Prime Minister’s statement and our long session of questions about tax avoidance, but does he recall that I wrote to him a year or two ago—I have also led debates on the subject—about moving towards a flatter tax system? I appreciate that because the top 1% pay 27% of all tax, we cannot make that move in one bound, but does he agree that unless we stop our tax system becoming so complex and instead have flatter taxation and merge rates and allowances, we will never get rid of the vast tax avoidance industry? I do not expect an answer, but I would appreciate an indication that, as the Treasury prepares for the next autumn statement and Budget, it will be thinking in terms of simplifying our tax system.

[Mr Gauke]

Simplification does matter. One of the measures announced in the Budget—it is not in the Bill, for reasons that will become apparent—is the abolition of class 2 national insurance contributions. National insurance contributions are not covered in Finance Bills, but that is an example of a tax being removed—a tax that created a considerable administrative burden for both taxpayers and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

The Bill also puts the Office of Tax Simplification on a statutory footing. In the last Parliament, the OTS made approximately 400 recommendations, almost half of which have been implemented. The OTS is being strengthened; it has a new chair, Angela Knight, who is already performing a valuable role in leading the debate, and its resources have been increased. I am sure my hon. Friend will follow the OTS’s progress closely, scrutinise its performance and decide whether it is proposing measures that take us in the direction of which he approves.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I have huge respect for my hon. Friend, having worked with him on a range of issues, but we clearly said in our manifesto that we were determined to drive economic growth, and we believe that this is an important part of that. That is why we referred to this last summer.

It is clear that local authorities believe they are the right bodies to hold this power. They represent local people, are accountable locally, know their areas best and want this power, which is why almost 200 have written asking for it to be devolved to them, including councils such as Carlisle, Chorley and, despite what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said, Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is very able and has a wonderful job, but he wants to spend time on a Sunday with his family. I have heard so many Members say they want to keep Sunday special for their family. Why should shop workers be any different?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that not only do people work in shops on Sundays already—in many areas, for longer than the opening hours, because of how shops work—but people working in retail, if they work six days a week, might like to visit retail outlets themselves on Sundays. The internet is growing: we saw a stark warning of that today as Amazon has announced it is opening another centre in Manchester, creating more jobs. That shows how it is growing and the pressure that the internet is applying, but of course we are not forcing anybody to shop on a Sunday.

Councils want this power. They want the ability to zone and to take a decision on trading in their area—for example, if they wish to promote the high street at the expense of out-of-town commercial sites. Our amendment allows that zoning to happen, and no one knows more about their local area than locally elected leaders. This also provides an opportunity for independent businesses to benefit. One of the big voices calling for this change is the Horticultural Trades Association, comprising mainly independent businesses, and it wants this growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is in the Bill an ability to zone. Local areas that want to carry out a pilot will be able to specify exactly how they want to do it and what that zone will look like. This scheme is all about absolutely trusting local people to do what they know is right for their area. By doing it this way, there is no need for amendment 1. Our intention is to increase freedom, protect shopworkers’ rights, grow our economy, and protect our high streets while devolving power from Whitehall to town halls. We want to see power devolving to local areas, because they know their economies and their high streets best and they want this power to see their economies grow.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

If Lincoln applies for a pilot and it goes ahead, will there not be intolerable pressure on West Lindsey next door? Tesco will say to West Lindsey and Gainsborough, “Unless you agree to join this, we will close you down and move to Lincoln.” It is not true devolution. I know that my hon. Friend is a very able Minister and that he is working very hard, but his arguments do not stack up. Frankly, even God took a rest on the seventh day. My hon. Friend should just sit down, rest his case and withdraw the measure.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind invitation to a rest, but I am happy to carry on and try to do the right thing for our economy for just a little bit longer. Let me tell him how this will practically work. As there will be only 12 pilots, no other area will be allowed to take part. If he looks at what we have circulated this afternoon, he will be able to see that the pilots will take place only in certain areas. After that, the matter will come back to this House for full assessment, full debate and full scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), and to be part of the unholy alliance that is doing so. Trust me, it is better to be part of an unholy alliance than to be called a Maoist. The reason that most of us are supporting the amendment is that we are united on several key principles. We stand in support of family life, we oppose the exploitation of shop workers, and we believe in real competition and genuine devolution, which gives fair play to our small shops and supports diversity on the high street. There is unity too because in this country we believe that it is right to keep Sunday special.

Of course society has changed, and the law has changed with it. Some people will point to the recent opinion poll which showed that there is now a bare majority who want to change the law on this matter even further. It is not that we on this side of the House are bitter about opinion polls, but actually, they do not always get everything right. But even if that particular YouGov poll is correct on that matter, let us look at some of its other findings, which show that 58% of the population fear that the Government’s proposals will affect small stores and 48% agree that longer opening hours would be detrimental to family life. Only 27% said that that would not be the case.

The family test has been discussed today, as has the little impact assessment that popped up this morning. Wherever we stand on individual policies, I do not think that any of us would seriously fault the Government’s idea that every domestic policy should be measured against its impact on family life. I really hope that that issue above all else will be taken into consideration. We have a Prime minister who speaks the language of prison reform, who deals with issues such as the stigma surrounding mental health and who, once upon a time, hugged huskies and even Eurosceptics. He himself said that he did not want to change the Sunday trading laws, so does he really want this piece of anti-family legislation to be passed on his watch?

I shall close with the words of one mother, a shop worker, who says:

“As a mother, I would not work Sunday evenings or late afternoons, yet it would be forced on us as we would need more than one manager on a Sunday to cover the hours.”

She is right, and we know that she is not just speaking for herself. She is speaking for hundreds of thousands of people across our country. That is why I believe with the deepest conviction that, whatever our party or background, we need to speak up for those people today.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

When you do not put something in your manifesto—indeed, when you are the leader of a political party and you give a particular pledge—that is a very serious state of affairs. The reason that there is so much disgust with politics all over the world—we are seeing what is happening in America—is that we are no longer trusted. What has changed since the general election? If there were an overwhelming economic case for this proposal, I would understand it, but what has moved on in nine or 10 months?

When I voted, back in 1994, I think it was a free vote. There was no pressure from No. 10 or No. 11, and people were not being shuffled off for chats with Ministers behind the Speaker’s Chair. We were pretty well allowed to vote as we liked, and I voted against. We were told that that was a compromise, and it is a compromise. Are we receiving masses of emails and letters on this proposal? Are there all sorts of pressure from our people arguing that we should change the law? I have not detected any such pressure. So why are the Government running around viewing this as some kind of macho measure? It is not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has just said, it is a conscience issue. I put that point to the Minister, and it is an important one for all of us. I ask all my hon. Friends to think about this, and not just about their careers, before they vote tonight.

We as MPs value our Sundays. I have often heard MPs saying, “I’m sorry, but the only thing I will do on a Sunday is attend a Remembrance Sunday event. Otherwise, I want to be with my family.” We must understand that we have great jobs here, with all the privileges that go with them, and we have a duty to look after people who are much less well off than ourselves and who work unbelievably hard, often in fairly grim jobs. Do we want to force them to work even longer hours? All the pressure from big businesses will ultimately be on them, so do we want them to sit behind a till on a Sunday or do we say to them, “We believe that Sunday is special”? Sunday is special, and what is good for us is good for others.

[Michelle Donelan]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, because I want to finish as soon as possible to obey the Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I am delighted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) by being a co-signatory to his amendment. The Minister is a great man, as befits being the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, but he has had an impossible task today. I have never seen new, serious legislation affecting our country introduced in such a shambolic way. It looks like something delivered by lastminute.com and makes the back of a fag packet look like a sophisticated form of engagement. He has known, the Prime Minister has known and everybody has known for months that many Conservative Members are deeply unhappy with this. I was in the House 25 years ago when we hammered out the compromise over years, not hours or months—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Two years.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

It took two years, but we started the process before that, in 1986, and it was done over a period of time. The truth is that we arrived at that compromise after huge consultation and I believe it has largely worked; we have maintained Sunday as a different day and we have fulfilled the Keep Sunday Special concept. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) is absolutely right to say that this goes to the heart of the fabric of our society; it is not simply about all the things relating to workers’ pay and all the rest of it. It is about the nature of our country, and I fully support what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said on this. As a church warden at the royal garrison church in Aldershot, I think the Government’s proposals are deeply flawed. As the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, there is also no demand for them, with 67% supporting the current arrangements and 90% of shop workers, who will be deeply affected by the Government’s proposal, opposed to it.

Equitable Life

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House congratulates the Government on providing a scheme to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal; welcomes the Government’s acceptance of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in full; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred; further notes that most victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses and that the compensation scheme is now closed to new applicants; and calls on the Government to ensure that the entire existing budget allocated for compensation to date is paid to eligible policyholders and to make a further commitment to provide full compensation for relative losses to all victims of this scandal.

I draw Members’ attention to the fact that I am the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders. I share that honour with the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), who regrettably has to be in another debate, otherwise he would have been here. I hope that he will be able to get here and put his point of view before we conclude. The all-party parliamentary group is one of the largest groups in Parliament, if not the largest group, with 195 members drawn from all political parties.

When I was elected in May 2010, I signed only a limited number of pledges. One that I was very happy to sign, having investigated the matter fully, was a pledge to seek justice for Equitable Life policyholders. There is no doubt that this has been an outrageous scandal in respect of the length of time it has lasted and the repeated failure of Governments of all persuasions adequately to compensate people who were the victims of a scam. These were hard-working people who invested their life savings in a pension scheme that they believed was secure.

We all know that when one invests on the stock market or in such schemes, the market can go up or down. The difference between this scam and other such schemes is that Equitable Life went round inducing people to put their life savings into it, promising huge bonuses and payouts. It swept up enormous amounts of money and numbers of people who thought that it was a great scheme. In reality, the scheme could not finance itself. It could never meet the commitments that it had made. That was very dangerous, but the regulator knew that it was going on, as did the Government and the Treasury. They conspired to prevent it becoming public knowledge so that people carried on investing their money and losing money.

To make matters worse, it took not only court action, but the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to bring to the attention of the public that this was maladministration of the worst kind. The last parliamentary ombudsman made it clear in her excellent report that Equitable Life policyholders who had suffered a relative loss should be put back in the position they would have been in had they not suffered as a result of this scam. I seek to ensure in this Parliament, as we did in the last, that all Equitable Life policyholders are given the compensation they are due.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

After all the debates, the truth is that 95% of Equitable Life with-profits policyholders have received just 22% of their relative losses. That is the bottom line, is it not? The Government have a responsibility, given the maladministration that clearly happened, to help the many elderly people who have faced such appalling losses.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clear statement.

There are three sets of policyholders: the pre-1992 trapped annuitants, who were to get not a single penny under the compensation scheme; the with-profits annuitants, who were to get 100% compensation; and the pension holders, who got 22.4% of their relative losses, as my hon. Friend said. The coalition Government set up a compensation scheme, which I was pleased to support. However, it is a scandal that if someone purchased their policy on 31 August 1992, they got nothing, but if they purchased it on 1 September 1992, they got 100%. The rationale was that if the pre-1992 trapped annuitants had looked at the regulated accounts, they could have seen that there was a problem and that it was a scam. The reality is that when people sign up to such schemes, they do not expect to have to do that. I applaud the Government for taking steps, following the legislation, to partly compensate the pre-1992 trapped annuitants.

EU Referendum: Timing

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman and I will both vote to leave. From a Eurosceptic English point of view—we are self-confident and we know our arguments—we say to the Prime Minister, “Bring it on—no delay, don’t look worried, bring it on!”. We can have a proper debate, and we can win this.

[Mr Dodds]

I respect the hon. Gentleman’s point of view. I understand where he, as an English Eurosceptic, is coming from. I hope he respects where we in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales on both sides of the argument are coming from. We will weigh the arguments and consider whether his view should be tempered by the contributions of colleagues from other parts of the UK, some of whom might share his views.

Points of Order

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Nods of assent from the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House suggest that that is so. [Interruption.] Order; I am trying to help the House. If that is so, that is welcome.

On the subject of amendments, perhaps I can say to the House that if amendments are tabled today, presumably by Members who have seen the text of the motion, those amendments will be on the Order Paper tomorrow. Therefore, they will not be manuscript amendments. However, it is within the discretion of the Chair to consider manuscript amendments. Colleagues who have been in this House for any length of time will know that this Speaker has regularly done so, and if necessary I will be ready to do so again.

It is obviously desirable, not least in the light of what the Leader of the House said about having undertaken widespread consultation with a view to trying to put together a motion that would command widespread agreement, that the motion itself, when decided upon and its text finalised, should have been formally given at the very least to the official Opposition. I assume that was done. [Interruption.] Well, may I say that I think that it would be desirable for that to be done, and it would be entirely consistent with the words the Leader of the House uttered about widespread consultation? If it has not happened, may I say that it would now be desirable for it to happen?

Beyond that, all I can really say is this. The Leader of the House made the point that the one-day debate stretching over 10 and a half hours would represent a time allocation broadly equivalent to two full days on Wednesday and Thursday. I know some people like to be very precise about these matters, and my mental arithmetic tells me that if we have a full day’s debate on a Wednesday and a full day’s debate on a Thursday, and bearing in mind that we have business questions on a Thursday, that would amount to an allocation of time of I think 12 hours—10 and a half is being allocated—and that if it were a Monday and a Tuesday and there were two full days’ debate without interruption by urgent questions or statements, that would amount to 13 hours of debate. So to be absolutely correct about this, it is not two full days’ debate in one—that is not true—but it is considerably more than one and a half. It is also perfectly reasonable—this is a political point for the Leader of the House to make; it is not a matter for the Chair—to say that the time allocation is somewhat greater than has been the case in the past.

I am trying to be completely fair-minded about this. I respect what the Leader of the House has said, and there is some considerable agreement with what he has said, but I recognise that there is some unhappiness. I think the best thing at this stage on matters of procedure—we have the rest of the day available—is to try to maximise buy-in to the procedure and to minimise dissent. Let me try to look at it from the vantage point of members of the public. I think that is what responsible members of the public would expect responsible Members of Parliament to do. I hope that is helpful.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You have been extremely reasonable, and we have to look at this from the point of view of members of the public. I know that you have no ability to extend debates, but let us suppose that by 7 o’clock this evening 100 people have put in to speak. I do not know whether we will be bound by a procedure motion at 11.30. Perhaps discussions could take place between your office and the Leader of the House’s office. There is no reason why the Government should not extend the debate until 11.30 tomorrow, for instance, which would enable perhaps a further 30 people to get in. I am sure we can look at this in a holistic and creative way.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is ever helpful, and that is appreciated. It is not really a matter for my office to engage or collaborate with the Government on the subject of the allocation of time—that is something for the Government to come to a view about and for the House either to agree to or not, as the case may be. However, I heard what he said about the likely level of interest in contributing and I can say that my door is always open, as is that of the outer office in the Speaker’s Office, as colleagues will know. There is no secret about the number of people putting in to speak. As colleagues will know, the Leader of the House and I speak regularly, as do the Government Chief Whip and I, and the same is true for the shadow Leader of the House and the Opposition Chief Whip. Of course I am happy to keep them informed, along with any Member who asks me how many people have put in to speak.

The shadow Leader of the House said that the Leader of the House was a servant of the House. I am a servant of the House, too, and I intend to be in the Chair tomorrow, very fully, to chair the debate. I would be happy, if the House willed it, to sit up all night in the Chair to hear colleagues—it is a pleasure and it is my responsibility—but how much time is allocated is not a matter for me. The Leader of the House will have heard that there is some interest in having the maximum possible time allocated for this important purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

The Chair of the Treasury Committee makes an important point. Of course, on only five occasions in recent decades has the House of Lords blocked or rejected a statutory instrument, but never on a financial matter. We heard a whole range of opinions yesterday—from Lord Butler, the former Cabinet Secretary, to constitutional experts such as Vernon Bogdanor—telling us that this was unprecedented. We are going to have to address it—the Prime Minister has made that very clear. That is what we have to do to make sure that the elected House of Commons is responsible for the tax-and-spend decisions that affect the people of this country.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have written to the Chancellor about a lady in my constituency, Stacey, to whom I have talked at length. She earns only £11,000 a year and says that £31 a week is being cut from her budget. I know that the Chancellor will meet me to discuss that. Surely the point is that we should have the conversations here, and he will listen, and that ultimately we will be held responsible and chucked out. What is not right is that unelected people, who never have to stand again, should decide how the people are taxed and how we spend our money.

[Mr Osborne]

I agree with my hon. Friend on the constitutional point, which is a matter that the whole House of Commons will want to address. I take very seriously the point he raises about his constituent. I have made it clear that we will listen with regard to how we make the transition to a lower welfare, higher wage economy. When we introduced controversial welfare changes in the last Parliament, such as the removal of child benefit from higher earners and the introduction of the welfare cap, we made changes, having listened to Parliament, to smooth the transition to both those important reforms. Of course we will listen to the House of Commons in this respect, but the end goal is clear: this country cannot have an unlimited welfare budget that squeezes out other areas of public expenditure. We cannot have a situation whereby we have 1% of the world’s population and 4% of the world’s economy, but 7% of the world’s welfare budget.

Finance Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

Indeed. That is precisely the point. It is not because we are spinning-eyed nutcases that we wish to get excited about Europe; it is because we find, again and again, that the European Union obstructs us from solving real problems in people’s lives.

On this occasion, it so happens that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) deserves all our congratulations on forcing the issue. I am very glad that my name appears on new clause 7. I must say that those who are attacking us for signing the new clause are probably going some way to diminishing the support they will receive. We are all in the House because we wish not to send messages but to take action that serves our constituents. I would like to break the news to some Members of the House that approximately half the electors of Wycombe are in fact women, and I am very happy to do the best I can to represent them in this place.

It seems to me that there are five courses of action available to the Government. The first is to do nothing. That is clearly untenable. We are in the House today because doing nothing is untenable. Some course of action must be taken to resolve the problem.

[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.