Employment Rights: Terminal Illness

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Lee Barron]

One of the things that has always got me is the number of personal stories people tell about what they have faced. We cannot remove those stories and those situations. I cannot imagine the distress, and I do not know if anybody else in here can. All I know is that I have met people who have gone through this experience, and that should never happen in our society. I have always said that the compassion and values that we hold as a society should not end at the front door of the workplace; they should be part and parcel of the workplace. That is why it is so important that we discuss issues like this.

Most people will never have to think about the implications of working with a terminal diagnosis. Those who receive a terminal diagnosis and their families should not have to worry about paying the bills or about their job, on top of everything else. The reality is that not all terminal illnesses are treated equally under the law. The prior part of employment, when people fall under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, is protected. It is when they get a terminal diagnosis, and when capability comes into it, that they are not protected. That is the part that needs to be protected; that is the loophole in the law.

I met a lady who worked for Nottinghamshire county council. The council signed up to the Dying to Work charter on a Thursday, although she had passed away on the Friday of the previous week. She had decided that she wanted to stay at work because that was where her friends—her social outlet—were; she did not want to sit at home, bouncing off the walls. She took that decision for herself, and her employer did the right thing by saying, “We’ll give you the freedom as far as that decision is concerned.”

Many people are proud of the work they do. They often wake up early to work long, hard days to provide for themselves and their loved ones. They greet and talk to their colleagues, who they see almost every day. They deserve dignity and respect, and they deserve our support.

Some terminally ill people may want to continue working as long as they can, finding peace and distraction in their professional lives. Others may decide to step away, prioritising their family and themselves. While the Government are rightly levelling up workers’ rights, we must seize the moment to ensure those with terminal illness are treated with fairness, compassion and the respect they deserve in the workplace. Protections like those enshrined in our Dying to Work charter should be universal, not optional. Legislation must be introduced to best protect vulnerable people in our workplaces. In the meantime, it is essential that we persuade as many employers as possible, including Government Departments, to sign up to the Dying to Work charter to protect as many workers as possible. Dignity at work is not a privilege; it is a right.

Some organisations do have death in service payments, but if a person is fired, they and their family are no longer entitled to any of those benefits. Every worker deserves to know that they will not be forced out of their job when they need it most. People at the end of their life should be able to decide whether they want to continue to work.

I was delighted to hear that the Government will be implementing the Dying to Work charter as best practice in Departments, but we need to go further. We need to review the Equality Act 2010 so that there are not gaps in rights for those who are terminally ill. We need to protect people’s employment when they are ill. We need to give the most vulnerable people in our society the right to choose and the right to dignity. We need to implement new legislation to protect these workers.

Protecting employment for those who are terminally ill means that they can focus on what truly matters, whether that is continuing to contribute to work or stepping away to spend their remaining time with their loved ones. Ultimately, that choice should be theirs and theirs alone, and if we need to we should protect that choice in law.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they must bob.

Royal Mail Takeover

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that some of my early discussions in this role have been with Ofcom, and indeed with Royal Mail about its performance. There is a shared determination between not just the regulator and the Government but the trade union, the workers and the new owners to drive up that performance, because we can all clearly see that it is not good enough at the moment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thirty-one years ago, when I had the Minister’s job, I was trying to privatise the Post Office, but I was stopped by rebellious Tory Back Benchers—nothing new there. I was sacked a week later. So I warn him that this is quite a difficult issue.

What people were worried about was the universal service obligation—it costs so much more to deliver in rural Lincolnshire than in central London—so I think that what we are all worried about is that, as the Royal Mail moves ever further away from public ownership, this new private company will try to chip away at the universal service obligation, particularly in rural areas. Can the Minister reassure us that he is really on the case?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Is he now the rebellious Back Bencher, I wonder? We all share those concerns about the universal service obligation. This deal is not contingent on the universal service obligation. We have had discussions on how we improve the current state of affairs, because it is clearly not good enough. I hope that his constituents will see an improvement in service as a result of this deal.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind all Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. Twenty-four Members have put in to speak, so I will have to impose a time limit of six minutes, because I am anxious that everyone should get in. I remind you all that the more interventions there are, the more likely it is that someone may not get to speak at all.

Budget Resolutions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Chancellor, in his excellent speech, mentioned that he would unleash £100 million-worth of levelling up. Hon. Members may guess the subject to which I will briefly allude, which I constantly mention in this House. There is a bit of levelling up in Lincolnshire, worth £300 million, which is the levelling up that we were hoping to achieve at RAF Scampton, the most iconic RAF base in the country. That levelling up would involve using a 10,000-foot runway and superb heritage buildings that were the home of the Dambusters and the Red Arrows, so I appeal once again to the Government to listen to me. I have been begging them for the last year to agree to a compromise on this. I see one of my Lincolnshire colleagues on the Front Bench, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), and I am sure that he has a certain amount of influence on his fellow members of the Government. I hope that the Government will listen to what I have been saying for the last six months, which is that we should compromise by taking some migrants on a small part of the base and unleashing the rest of the base for levelling up. That is what Lincolnshire needs more than ever: it needs more jobs and more growth, and I hope that this is a Budget for that.

This is a debate about the Budget, not about illegal migration, but this whole saga of putting up more and more people in hotels or in military bases must end. We have to get the Rwanda Bill through Parliament, we have to have a proper deterrent and we have to stop these people who are making a joke of our border control, but the far more serious problem than illegal migration is legal migration. When I entered the House 40 years ago, net legal migration was running at about 17,000 a year. Twenty years later, it was 185,000 a year, and now it is over 600,000. That puts a massive strain on the economy.

The fixation on importing cheap labour is immoral and unpatriotic. We cannot undermine our own workers by letting in people and paying them lower than average wages. There is a single thing that the Chancellor could do, and that would be to end all the shortage schemes and simply insist that if someone wants to come and work in the UK, they would have to earn the UK national average wage of roughly £33,000 as a minimum. Not only does such an influx of people drain our economy, displacing investment in domestic skilled work; it also puts an immense strain on public services, with more British citizens than ever, including the least advantaged, struggling to get GP appointments and secure school places for their children.

We must deal with net legal migration. It is the single biggest problem facing our Government and we have to act on it. We know that we are importing all these people because we are not paying enough to our NHS or care staff. We therefore have to import people from all over the world, but there are 9.3 million people of working age in the UK who are claiming benefits, and that statistic is set to rise remorselessly. Productivity rates are decreasing and they are projected to fall further in the coming years. We have to address this fundamental weakness of the British economy: we are not paying proper wages to our people; we have too many people of working age on benefits; and we are importing too many people from the rest of the world.

On the broader case, I have been listening to what my colleagues have said and I would have preferred a cut in income tax to a cut in national insurance. That would have been much more dynamic, and people understand it. Also, many people do not pay national insurance, including savers and people of pension age. There is no point in keeping the triple lock if we are dragging more and more pensioners—not rich pensioners—into paying tax and sometimes into a higher rate of tax. I would have preferred a cut in income tax rather than national insurance but I understand where the Chancellor is coming from on that.

I want to say a word about the Office for Budget Responsibility. I cannot understand why we seem to have outsourced so much of our economic management from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the OBR and the Bank of England. People say, “Look what happened when we did not listen to the OBR in the ‘disastrous’ mini-Budget”, but the reason that that Budget went wrong was not that we did not listen enough to the OBR’s forecasts—which are often wrong—but that there were too many unfunded tax cuts. As a nation, we have to become a dynamic, low-tax, low-regulation economy. That is the only way forward for a Conservative Government. I am very dubious about these OBR forecasts.

Generally, we should not put too much faith in opinion polls, which are simply a test of opinion. What will matter in the coming general election is that people have a choice. We accept that we are paying too much tax, we accept that we have been hit unbelievably badly by lockdowns, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, and we accept that people are regulated too much, but when my constituents go to vote—in May, November or whenever—I will ask them, “Do you want to pay even more tax? Do you want even more regulation, and even more migration to this country?” The answer is a resounding no, so speaking for myself, I shall be voting Conservative.

Financial Risk Checks for Gambling

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees]

Payday loan sharks might be an example, but I am sure the Minister will respond in due course—I think I slipped out of that one, or I tried to. The responsibility lies with industry and operators, not customers.

In summary, it is understandable that industry bodies, operators and the horseracing community have concerns about the introduction of financial risk checks, but the idea of introducing checks is not new, and the need for regulation against harmful betting is supported by industry and consumers alike. The issue seems to be that such checks need to be frictionless, without negative impact on punters or operator revenue, and without pushing vulnerable gamblers into the black market. It would be useful if the Minister took this opportunity to outline how frictionless checks will work and when pilot schemes will be introduced.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. We have three hours, which is quite a long time, but I want to get everybody in and I do not want to impose a time limit at the moment. Perhaps, those who are called early can look around them, see that a lot of people are trying to take part in this debate, and keep their speeches brisk, which is always the best policy, and certainly not take more than 10 minutes. I am sure that I can rely on the first Member I call, Philip Davies, to give a brisk speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I know that my hon. Friend is a big supporter of Windsor racecourse in his constituency. I will come on to that later. I hope you will think about the interventions I am taking, Sir Edward. I do not want to get in trouble.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

You can have injury time if you want, Mr Davies.

[Philip Davies]

Thanks.

Thankfully, readers of the Racing Post and punters still believe in the timeless Conservative principle of individual responsibility. In a recent poll of punters carried out by the Racing Post, when asked who they thought was best placed to assess whether their betting is affordable, 96.6% said that they were, 1.8% said the Gambling Commission, 1% said bookmakers and 0.6% said the Government. If that is not a giant raspberry to the proposed affordability checks, I do not know what is.

Everyone knows that the problem gambling rates in the UK are extremely low, and certainly do not justify anything remotely close to what is being proposed. However, it is also pretty obvious to most people with common sense that the affordability checks are likely to make things worse for people with a gambling addiction, rather than better. Does anyone seriously think that anyone who has a serious gambling addiction, if and when they are told by online bookmakers that they are no longer allowed to bet with them, will just stop betting completely? It is pretty obvious that those people will do all they can to carry on with their addiction, and that will mean going to the black market where there are no controls on people’s behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I do not think that this is—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Let’s not have a private bit. Let’s get on with it.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am very happy to get on with it. The point I was seeking to make is that gambling addiction is a health issue. The NHS will very shortly be opening a gambling harms clinic in my constituency. It will join a network of 15 across the country that are tackling the serious problem of gambling addiction. Hon. Members have asked, “What requires an intervention? What is the difference between gambling and going out and spending £150 on a meal, shopping and other leisure activities?”, butI do not see the NHS treating those activities as a serious health issue, as it does with gambling addiction.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. That is exactly what we are trying to do, and what the statement is all about. As I said, we have compensated 64% of victims thus far with full and final compensation, and provided interim compensation to practically everybody who has come forward with a claim. She is right that we are disappointed that more people have not come forward to overturn their convictions. That is exactly the problem that we are trying to solve, and we are looking at innovative legal ways to do that. As I said, we hope to have some news very shortly.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am glad that the Minister is asserting the principle of ministerial responsibility, which has long been clear, ever since the Crichel Down case. Even if the Minister is not personally responsible, he is responsible for what goes wrong. When I was Minister for the Post Office, that was made clear to me. It is reprehensible that at least one of my successors is trying to dodge the bullet and just say, “I was given the wrong advice.” If we own the Post Office, the Minister is responsible. That is a principle that we have to establish.

Looking to the future, I have often been in touch with the Minister regarding the views of David Ward, who is the president of the sub-postmasters north-east branch. What the branch wants now is for a line to be drawn under this, for compensation to be paid, for the reputation of the Post Office to be re-established and for the Post Office management to treat sub-postmasters properly from now on.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. As Ministers, we must bear responsibility for what we do, as well as expect people within the Post Office, Fujitsu and others to bear responsibility. As Ministers, we must serve a useful purpose. I totally agree about drawing a line under this. That is exactly what we want to do, in two ways: by overturning convictions and by paying full and final compensation. I am pleased to say that around 30 people with overturned convictions have been able to draw a line under it by being compensated fully for what happened to them. We should try to build on that, and make it happen much more quickly. That is what we are working on right now, and we hope to deliver solutions in the very near future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I believe there is a quarterly register that may contain some of the information the hon. and learned Member is asking for, but I am not able or going to list every single export decision that has been made by the export control joint unit. I will see what I can do to get her a fuller answer, but she will know that this is a very sensitive issue. I have a quasi-judicial role, and I must be seen to be impartial at all times. I will do what I can to provide the information she wants, but I do not have a list to provide her with this morning, and certainly not on the Floor of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On Scunthorpe, what major economy does not have a blast furnace and the ability to make virgin steel?

[The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Almost all the G20 countries have operational blast furnaces, and a number of those are transitioning to electric arc furnaces as well. We know the importance of Scunthorpe, which is a key driver of economic growth. British Steel provides a third of all domestic production supplied to the construction and rail industries. We continue to be in negotiations to make sure that we secure the best deal, and one that is good value for taxpayers, when it comes to Scunthorpe.

Future of Horseracing

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of horseracing.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to open this debate on the future of horseracing. As we can see by the sheer number of colleagues who have made the time to come today, it is an issue that affects the whole country, and there is a great deal that we need to do to secure the future of horseracing. That is why I was motivated to call this debate.

We all know that British horseracing is essential to this country’s culture, to our language and many of the idioms that we use, to our heritage, and of course to our economy. It means a huge amount to many, many people. Horseracing is the UK’s second-largest sport, in terms of those who watch it and those who go. It provides great joy and excitement. There are 5 million race-goers annually, with almost 100,000 jobs and more than £4 billion-worth of economic activity in the industry. That ultimately means jobs and pay for those who are employed in horseracing. For those on the Treasury Bench, there is more than £300 million in taxation, which I am sure would not go amiss.

There is also a global significance. British horseracing is the pre-eminent horseracing industry in the world, but it is also under significant challenge. Modern technology has improved British horseracing enormously, but ultimately it is the most ancient of sports. As with many other successful things, many places claim to be the first in the world to have horseracing: some in the Gulf, some in the downs of southern England, and also near Chester, where I grew up—there is a case for saying that the first known horserace, or at least the first on which there was betting, was held near Eaton. Of course, betting is integral to the sport of horseracing—I will come to that in a moment.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend mentions history, but we believe we have had racing since 1800 in Market Rasen, in my constituency. It depends crucially on betting. Lincolnshire people are sound, sensible and prudent people. The whole future of smaller racecourses such as Rasen is now being put in jeopardy by these affordability tests on betting. I hope my right hon. Friend will give a really powerful speech defending the industry.

[Matt Hancock]

I certainly intend to. My right hon. Friend will be the judge of whether I manage to give a powerful speech, but there is certainly a very powerful case for saying that there is a really serious policy error going on that we need to fix. It is having a really serious impact, especially on the mid-size and smaller racecourses.

I am lucky enough to represent Newmarket, in my West Suffolk constituency, which is home to two of the finest—in fact, the two finest—racecourses in the country. It is the global headquarters of flat racing, and it has grown over the 12 years that I have represented it. It is an incredibly important sport for the whole town, with more than 7,000 people in and around Newmarket employed directly and indirectly in horseracing. It generates over £250 million in my constituency, and obviously attracts thousands of others, positively impacting and supporting local businesses, the hospitality trade and the like. It is also integral to the town. The horses walk through town every morning on the way from the stables to the gallops. As my right hon. Friend suggests, I will speak about the problems that affordability checks have brought.

Regulatory Impact Assessments Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I welcome this Bill. In the light of recent experience, it seems to be an excellent idea. It gives Parliament more power to scrutinise what is going on. A Conservative Government surely, above all, is about low taxes and deregulation, but unfortunately—maybe for reasons beyond our control, and we all know what those reasons are—we have had too many taxes and too much regulation. I will not deal in detail with the whole covid saga, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) has dealt with that powerfully, but the fact is that we all now know that there should have been far more consideration within Government of not just regulatory impact but every other kind of impact.

In terms of ensuring scrutiny of Government, we have the other place, and it does its job. We should be very wary of meddling with the structure of that place, because it seems to be able to scrutinise legislation more effectively than we do in this House. In recent weeks and months, I have been particularly involved with a lack of impact assessments in terms of my own constituency. If we look at all the borders Bills and the recently passed Illegal Migration Bill, we can see that some sort of impact assessment would have been very useful in determining whether that Bill was going to achieve what it set out to. I am particularly interested in how illegal migrants are going to be dealt with when they arrive on these shores, whether or not the Government win their Supreme Court case. There is an understanding that they will be illegal and that they will be detained, but the Government have now determined that they are going to send 2,000 illegal migrants to the former RAF Scampton base in my constituency. We are still awaiting any clear idea of when they will arrive.

Have serious impact assessments been carried out on the pollution levels that naturally remain at this base, which was originally the home of the Dambusters, for a long time was used by Vulcan aeroplanes carrying nuclear bombs and was used latterly by the Red Arrows? Surely there should be a proper, published impact assessment of environmental pollution and of security arrangements.

Apparently, these 2,000 migrants will not be detained and will be able to come and go, so what is the security impact on the 700 residents who live there? Interestingly, Scampton Parish Council has put in a freedom of information request to the Home Office about a community impact assessment, but the FOI request has been turned down by the Government. Astonishingly—the House will be amazed at this language coming out of government— it was turned down with the excuse that the Government need to have, “A clear space, immune from exposure to public view, in which it can debate matters internally with candour and free from the pressures of public political debate.” That is a reply to Scampton Parish Council, which is only trying to do its job; 700 people have put their life savings into buying a house on this base and the Government say that they need a clear space free from public scrutiny. The Minister who is sitting on the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), knows all about this issue because he went through all this with a proposed migrant camp in his constituency, which is not now happening because it was a victim of the Conservative leadership campaign.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will my right hon. Friend explain what he has just said?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will not go further into former grief.

We are simply saying that, when it comes to housing illegal migrants, it should be done on the basis of, for instance, value for money. We have conclusively proved that, because there has not been any properly published impact assessment, it will cost the taxpayer more money to put migrants into the former RAF base at Scampton than to put them into hotels, because a 2-mile long runway has to be maintained and there are 100 buildings, many of them listed, including the office of Guy Gibson and the ones relating to the Dambusters. I have made the point about the impact on the local community.

I believe in transparent government and what I fear about this whole RAF Scampton episode is that this is not being done to save money or to look after migrants properly—obviously, it is not in their interest to have 2,000 migrants in one place, overwhelming local social services, the police and everybody else. It is being done because the Government simply want to make the statement, “Sadly, we have not managed to stop these people coming over in boats and therefore we are going to put them in former military bases, rather than in hotels.” But of course this has no deterrent value at all. We cannot do an impact assessment on what is going on in the minds of people fleeing various hellholes in the world, but I can tell the House one thing: someone fleeing Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan is not going to be deterred from coming to these shores because they might end up in a comfortable room in a former RAF base. So this provides no value for money or deterrence, there are worries about security, pollution and community impact, and no assessment has been made, yet the Government just carry on.

The worst thing is that I keep emailing, writing to or texting Ministers, but I never get a serious response. The parish council and West Lindsey District Council are treated with contempt and given generic replies. As the environmental enforcement authority, West Lindsey District Council put a stop notice on the Home Office a few weeks ago, and the Home Office simply ignored it and carried on working, presumably because it thinks the land is Crown land. If the Home Office were a private sector employer, it would be taken to court and made to pay huge fines, but the Government think they can get away with it.

My constituents and I are victims of a lack of candour by the Government—a lack of proper impact assessments in a variety of fields. We have seen that with the whole covid saga, of course, and above all, we have seen it with High Speed 2. We need not go on about HS2, but it is probably the biggest waste of public money that any Government have ever indulged in. It is ludicrously over-engineered and we are still facing the consequences of it. For years, I have been arguing for us to have a through train from Grimsby and Cleethorpes through Market Rasen and Lincoln to London, which would cost £1 million. I have been told, “No, no, there’s no money, but we’re quite happy as a Government to spend £100 billion on HS2.”

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am not going to go on and on about this, but I will give way to my hon. Friend if he wishes.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I do not want my right hon. Friend to go on and on about HS2, but does he agree that one of the issues now is that there is no impact assessment of the revised proposals, and there has not even been a fresh instruction to the Committee of this House that is dealing with it?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Above all, there has been no impact assessment for the poor people living north of Birmingham who live on the line, whose farms have been taken and who have perhaps been forced to give up a place that they have farmed for generations.

[Esther McVey]

I do not think there will ever be enough scrutiny of what went on with HS2. Is my right hon. Friend concerned at all that the cost went up from about £36 billion to—if Lord Berkeley, the Labour peer in the other place, is to be believed—£180 billion? Thankfully, it was stopped, but is my right hon. Friend concerned that an impact assessment was not done on those staggering changes of cost?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It is just amazing how we walked into this disaster: how no one questioned why HS2 was so ludicrously over-engineered, with the trains running far faster than they do on the continent, for instance.

Before I end, I want to deal with a matter very close to where we are now standing: this building. The whole restoration and renewal saga of Parliament is an HS2 in bricks and mortar. There has never been any proper assessment of what we have been doing. I sat on the sponsor board and I have been dealing with this matter in various Committees for years. I am now on the programme board, which reports directly to Mr Speaker. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been sunk into making ever more complex and over-engineered plans for restoring and renewing this building. We should just have got on with it six years ago, but we still have not come to a final decision.

We are meeting on Tuesday—yet another meeting in which we are going to be asked, believe it or not, whether we should have a full decant. I have been arguing about this for years. We are still talking about going to Richmond House, if the House of Commons ever voted for a full decant, which is totally unsuitable. We would have to rip out the courtyard and knock down bits of a listed building. There would be years of argument, another public inquiry and more delays. This decant will not affect anybody who is now sitting in the House of Commons. It will not happen for years, but still we are returning to the same arguments. The delivery authority keeps returning to this; it keeps saying that it is cheaper, more cost-effective, and all the rest of it to have the full decant. However, we have got on with repairing Speaker’s House and Elizabeth Tower, and we are going to work on Victoria Tower. We should just get on with the work.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the R and R issue. This week, there was a meeting of the Procedure Committee to which representatives came along and in response to questions they told us that, if there was to be a complete decant, it would probably take between five and seven years to build the building into which the decant would go, so the works could not begin until 2029 at the earliest.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

As a former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, what I hate so much in politics is that people are so casual with the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. I loathe that attitude. If it was their own affairs in dealing with restoration and renewal, they would just get on with the job. They would get various estimates and do what was necessary—the minimum necessary—to make this building safe. But because it is public money, we set up committees and create these huge bodies such as the one running HS2 and the one running R and R, with people paid huge salaries and making endless, over-engineered plans. It is frankly disgraceful.

[Esther McVey]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, should the House decant somewhere else, it may be to an inferior Chamber? It may be not as secure or safe. In such an inferior Chamber, everything we are talking about here—full scrutiny, proper debates and being held to account—might be overlooked, just as how we were not holding the Government to account during the lockdown period, when we missed some debates and some votes.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We all know how a Chamber is so important. We saw that through the extraordinarily anaemic debates we had during the whole covid period, when there was, frankly, an appalling lack of scrutiny of the Government.

The Bill is extremely timely. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I cannot understand why the Government will not accept it, but I am sure that in a few moments this eminently sensible Minister will give it the green light.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

No, I am not. I know the Minister well—he is a very good man—and I know he would not be swayed by what the blob was trying to tell him to do or not do. He is a man of his own mind and a very talented Minister, and I have no doubts about his decision-making skills. However, I am afraid that the idea that I should be reassured at the Government, in effect, handing over more decision making to some unelected body of the great and the good of the elite, and that I should put all my trust in them, does not give me any reassurance. To be perfectly honest, it somewhat horrifies me that the Government are farming out these things to the great and the good of the establishment.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am rather confused by my hon. Friend’s speech. Normally, he is a sunny chap who looks on the positive side of life, but from what he is saying, it does not matter whether or not we have a serious impact assessment and whether or not it is worked on, because Governments of all persuasions at all times are so hopeless that nothing is ever going to improve, and we are going to have as many cock-ups in the next 100 years as we have had in the last 100 years. Is that really what he is saying?

[Philip Davies]

I think that is a pretty fair summary. If my right hon. Friend wants me to give a summary, that is not far off the mark. Yes, I am pretty sure that that will be the case.

I am afraid to say that, frankly, that is not going to change until Members of Parliament raise their game, to be perfectly honest. I am not particularly pinning the blame on the Government. They do their thing and their job is to get through what they want to get through. The people who should be holding the Government to account are us—those on these Back Benches and on the Opposition Benches. Our solemn duty is to hold the Government of the day to account, yet my point is that we are absolutely hopeless at doing so. As I have said, during the passage of the Climate Change Act, nobody was interested in the cost-benefit analysis. They were just voting for it like sheep because they thought it would be popular, or because there had been an email campaign encouraging them to do so. They were not doing the job they were paid to do, which was to scrutinise the legislation.

This comes back to the other flaw in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said that the Government should have to bring forward a cost-benefit analysis, and Members of Parliament could then scrutinise it and make a decision. I have to say to him that, if the Government refuse to bring forward an impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis, Members already have the power to say, “Actually, we’re not going to support this until you do bring forward a cost-benefit analysis.” The solution to the problem he is seeking to solve already lies in the hands of Members on the Back Benches and on the Opposition Benches if they are simply prepared to assert themselves and make it clear to Ministers, “We’re not just going to rubber-stamp something because you tell us it’s a good thing to do. Until you bring forward the evidence that shows it’s a good thing to do, we’re not going to support it.”

How many times do Members of Parliament ever say that to the Government? They do not say that; they just nod and go along with it. I do not think the Government are actually the biggest problem. I think it is Members of Parliament on the Back Benches and on the Opposition Benches who are the biggest problem, because we do not need this legislation. Members of Parliament should assert themselves and force Ministers to do this anyway.

A cost-benefit analysis brought forward by the Government in effect amounts to Ministers marking their own homework in that, when they bring forward a Bill, they also bring forward the cost-benefit analysis. I am not persuaded at all by the Minister that some body of the great and the good is rubber-stamping what the Government have come up with, no doubt after being appointed by the Government to do that job. What use is that? We want people who have not been appointed by the Government to scrutinise the Bill, not people who have been appointed by them.

Of course, we know that this is the case because it goes back to what George Osborne said at the time he set up the Office for Budget Responsibility. The reason he set it up, as colleagues will remember, is that he was fed up of the previous Government coming up with bogus forecasts to justify their policies and decisions at Budgets and autumn statements. They had, in effect, manipulated the figures to stick within the arbitrary rules they had set for themselves, which they then perhaps no longer wanted to keep. They were in charge of the forecasts and the figures, and they manipulated the figures for their own political advantage. George Osborne’s stated reason for introducing the Office for Budget Responsibility was, in effect, that the Treasury could not be trusted to come up with honest figures that we could all rely on, all the figures were dodgy and we needed an independent body to do it.

If the Bill passes and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch says, “I want the Minister to come up with a cost-benefit analysis,” all we are doing is handing the cost-benefit analysis to the Treasury, which previous Chancellors have said cannot be trusted to come up with accurate forecasts and figures. I am not entirely sure what use it would be to the decision-making process if we ever got to the point where a Member of Parliament was actually interested in what the cost-benefit analysis said.

I feel slightly conflicted. On the basis of what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and my right hon. Friends the Members for Tatton and for Gainsborough said, this seems, at face value, a very obvious, simple thing to do. I repeat that I cannot understand why any Minister who wanted to make decisions would not want to go through this process. But I fear that, despite the best intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, it would not deliver the outcome that he seeks or, in the end, particularly improve decision making in this House.

Post Office: Horizon Compensation

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words and for all the work she does as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. She is right to say that there are three separate schemes, and there was probably a good reason for that at the time. It is not ideal to have three schemes, and Sir Wyn Williams referred to that in his comments, but we are all keen to see consistency across the three schemes. That is why I welcome the work of the advisory board, which will cover all three schemes to make sure there is consistency across them. I am determined to make sure that happens, and I will keep her fully informed on progress.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This is a terrible scandal, and Post Office Ltd is not fit for purpose. Thirty years ago, when I was a Post Office Minister, I tried to privatise this body, and it is still in a mess. Only last week, I had a meeting with sub-postmasters led by David Ward, one of my excellent local sub-postmasters, and they are calling for something good to come out of this scandal—namely, that we pass control directly to sub-postmasters, for instance through mutualisation.

We have the chief executive of Post Office Ltd paying himself a salary five times more than the Prime Minister, with a bonus of £400,000 a year on top of that. We have banking remuneration to Post Office Ltd coming to £205 million, of which only 27% went to sub-postmasters. We have 11,000 sub-postmasters in a state of managed decline, earning virtually the minimum wage. I wrote to the Minister on 14 March, so he will have received the letter by now. I do not expect him to reply immediately to my question, but will he at least have an open mind about trying to take us forward and preserve the wonderful world of our sub-postmasters, particularly in rural England?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his points, and I also hope that some good comes out of this terrible scandal. I am a big fan of mutual organisations. I am happy to have a conversation with him. I will respond in writing, and perhaps we can meet following that.