Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

Perhaps an apology should come from the hon. Lady about the fact that there was no element of communication when her people were in power for 13 years. Let us not forget—[Interruption.] Precisely! The hon. Lady mentions 1995; she will recall that within two years there was a Labour Government, who were around for 13 years. As I have said, there was no communication from any of the 10 Pensions Ministers. As far as the transitional arrangements are concerned, I responded to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) that a concession worth £1 billion was made, and the time period was reduced.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am not sure that it helps these ladies, some of whom are in very difficult circumstances, for both Front-Bench teams to trade insults. Although everybody accepts that there should be equalisation, I want to mention the case of a widow who came to see me on Friday, who has worked hard all her life but has no occupational pension. Because she paid into the state earnings-related pension scheme, she says that she will lose up to £55,000. That is a real blow for her, because she has little in the way of savings. Is there no way in which we could look at further transitional concessions, or perhaps a cap, so that we could help some of these disadvantaged ladies?

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to discuss the matter in a measured way, but that means that we need to look at it in a broad context. A whole lot of other benefits are available to the women who may be affected—for example, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, income support, carer’s allowance and personal independence payment.

Let us not forget that pensions will be uprated. There is the triple lock, and the simplified new state pension will be introduced in April. Pension freedom allows those who have a pension some flexibility. There has been a permanent increase in cold weather payments. Winter fuel payment has been protected, and more than 12 million pensioners benefited from it last year. As far as female employment is concerned, I have mentioned a number of benefits that we have brought in for female employees. It is important that we look at things in a broad context, rather than simply looking at people in the narrow confines that Members prefer to debate in this Chamber.

Assessment of Government Policies (Impact on Families) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Friday 4th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Ansell]

Thank you kindly. It is in the family where we thrive. The family are the best carers, the best nurturers and the best teachers.

I am so proud of my country. We lead the world in so many ways, but one of the ways in which we lead it is a cause of deep disappointment and huge concern to me: internationally, we are fourth in terms of family breakdown. Let us look at the cost of that breakdown to the person and the child who has experienced it. According to the Centre for Social Justice, they are more likely to grow up in poorer housing, leave home at an earlier age, have more behavioural issues, report more depressive symptoms, become sexually active earlier, become pregnant and a parent earlier, leave school with fewer qualifications, and leave school earlier. A conservative estimate of the financial cost—£46 billion, which equates to the entire spend of the Scottish Government—shows us that family breakdown costs and costs. That is why it is so right that family policy has its place.

Under the Prime Minister’s leadership, we have seen excellent innovation, with new support for relationships, re-recognition of marriage in the income tax system, shared parental leave, the troubled families initiative, and now a new, ambitious programme around house building—excellent. A particularly important moment in the development of the Government’s family policy came in August 2014, when the Prime Minister addressed the relationship summit and announced the introduction of the family test. He said:

“The reality is that in the past the family just hasn’t been central to the way government thinks. So you get a whole load of policy decisions which take no account of the family and sometimes make these things worse. Whether it’s the benefits system incentivising couples to live apart or penalising those who go out to work—or whether it’s excessive bureaucracy preventing loving couples from adopting children with no family at all.

We can’t go on having government taking decisions like this which ignore the impact on the family.

I said previously that I wanted to introduce a family test into government. Now that test is being formalised as part of the impact assessment for all domestic policies. Put simply that means every single domestic policy that government comes up with will be examined for its impact on the family.”

The Prime Minister’s speech was followed in October that year by the inauguration of the family test guidance produced by the Department for Work and Pensions under the sterling leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). The family test guidance has now been in place for over a year. It is a milestone, an anniversary—perhaps not a coming of age, but a good point at which we could look at this prism of the family test and its impact on policy.

In that light, a whole host of questions have been put to Departments. They ask the Minister how many of his or her Department’s policies have been assessed against the family test and what steps have been taken to publish the outcome of such an assessment. I regret to say that the answers to those questions have been rather limited. In many instances, the response was that the guidance urges only a consideration of publication, and therefore no publication had followed. There have been good examples of the assessment in relation to the Childcare Bill and the Education and Adoption Bill. However, the potential within the family test is as yet unrealised.

Therefore, my Bill looks to give the family test more authority, more influence, and more reach. Clause 1 defines the family test. Clause 2 introduces the central component of the Bill by making it a statutory obligation. Clause 3 applies the test to all Departments. Of particular importance given the perhaps as yet limited understanding of how the test has had an impact, clause 2 requires that the assessment be published.

Clause 4 requires that an assessment be made as to whether the family test should be applied to local government, given that so many of those policy decisions touch on family life. It also makes provision for the Secretary of State, through regulation, to subject any other public body to the family test as they see fit. Clause 5 provides greater clarity on the policy objectives that inform the family test, requiring the establishment of indicators for the Government’s work in promoting strong and stable families.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Nobody supports the family more than me, and my hon. Friend is arguing her case well. How does she avoid this becoming an apple-pie and motherhood Bill? How does she avoid adding more and more regulatory burdens on the Government, as on a Christmas tree? If the Government have any sense at all, surely they will instinctively produce Bills, regulations or whatever, to support the family and the nation. That is good sense and good governance.

[Caroline Ansell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that fair comment. We do not want to increase regulatory compliance or render this Bill another checklist for Governments and policy makers to establish. The environmental impact assessment might have started out life in the same guise, but it is now inherent to our thinking and therefore second nature to policy makers. I believe it is important to bring this issue to the fore, so that it informs policy makers and is deliberately made explicit in that process. History shows that Bills can have unintended consequences that impact on family stability, so this provision is important.

This is not a pass and fail test; it is more the opportunity to understand what the impact of a policy on families could be. It is a prompt to mitigate potentially negative effects and maximise positive effects, and we want it to be used in a genuine, meaningful and practical way to benefit families. It is not a blunt instrument to criticise policy.

I hope that the Government will welcome this Bill and look on it as a recognition of the work that they have instituted, and as a means to progress that and raise it to a new level. I thank all community groups and organisations that backed the Bill. The list is too stellar and too long for me to do justice to it in the time available, but I thank them for their contributions, and more broadly for everything that they do across their communities and in our country to promote family stability, with everything that means for people’s life chances. That is central to everything that family stability means.

I know that we cannot legislate strong families into being, but we can ensure that legislation in no way undermines those families, and only strengthens them. I believe that the future of our society rests on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend raises important points. In the autumn statement, the Chancellor highlighted what more he is doing to enable families to get on to the housing ladder. Housing contributes to a stable foundation in family life, particularly for young families who are starting out.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Minister mentions young families. Young families must be able to have a choice. If a young mother wants to stay at home to look after her young children, which is entirely natural, the family often suffers under the tax and benefit system. That is why we brought in the marriage tax allowance. Will she confirm that, although the allowance is quite low at the moment, the Treasury is open-minded about increasing it gradually over the years and making it more effective? That will not just save marriages, but help people who are married and bringing up young children.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The marriage tax allowance is a good example of the Government’s commitment to families. As he says, the Treasury supported the introduction of the policy. It is a good, positive contribution and a step forward in support for families.

Placing the family test on a legislative footing, however, runs the risk of turning the test into a tick-box exercise across Government Departments, when our ambition is to work across government with Departments to embed the benefits of thinking about policy from a family perspective at all stages of policy development, not just complying with legislative requirements.

There are many areas, some of which have been highlighted by my hon. Friends, where the Government are focusing on supporting families, beyond introducing the family test. We mentioned the marriage tax allowance, which will benefit over 4 million couples. We have the ever-expanding troubled families programme, which helps families where no adult in the family is working, children are not attending school, and some family members are involved in crime or antisocial behaviour. The troubled families programme has gone a long way to helping local authorities, stakeholder and third-party community groups, organisations and their partners to develop new ways of working with families to achieve lasting change.

The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) mentioned childcare. We are doubling the amount of hours for free childcare to 30 hours for three and four-year-olds. We have committed to childcare support for disadvantaged two-year-olds. The tax-free childcare policy will benefit families with children, and give parents more choice and flexibility with their childcare arrangements.

The proposal to introduce indicators for family stability is being addressed, as my hon. Friend highlighted, through the Government’s life chances strategy. The new life chances measures will focus on the number of children in workless households and on the levels of educational attainment. We are so focused on the life chances measures and family stability indicators, because we are no longer committed to chasing what we consider to be arbitrary targets. They were the focus of previous Governments’ policies and approach. Our focus is on the root causes of family breakdown—worklessness and poverty—and not just the symptoms.

The Government are committed to introducing a new and strengthened approach to tracking the life chances of Britain’s most disadvantaged children. Evidence suggests that frequent and intense child-related poorly resolved inter-parental conflict has terrible and negative outcomes for children. Couples with children experience greater levels of stress during separation. It is that negativity that affects the outcomes of children. For families that separate, evidence suggests that good relationships between parents and positive involvement from both parents in a child’s upbringing have long-term beneficial outcomes. These are the areas on which we are focusing.

As I have said, we are clear that strong families give children the best start in life and that good measures can help Government to formulate policy across Departments and drive action where it is most needed. It is worth highlighting where we can work with other Departments. I have already mentioned educational outcomes, and naturally we are working with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to raise educational attainment and improve life chances. In this way, we can also tackle areas of social justice and provide support for families or individuals who have experienced debt issues, addiction or alcohol or drug misuse. A combination of those factors can have a negative impact on families and result in family breakdown.

We have also committed to introducing a wider set of non-statutory indicators, including a measure of family stability, and we are engaging with experts in the field, third-party stakeholders, partners and specialist organisations to ensure we strike the right balance and develop policy that is in line with the most up-to-date research and the most robust evidence. We already measure family stability as part of the social justice outcomes framework, which reports the proportion of children living with both birth parents at birth and then every year until they are 16.

We discussed many of these measures, particularly those on life chances, during our deliberations on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, under which we are introducing two statutory measures—on children in workless households and children’s educational attainment —to drive action on improving children’s life chances. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has committed to introducing a life chances strategy setting out indicators on the root causes of child poverty, including family stability, as well as on problem debt and addiction.

I have touched on many areas in which the Government are supporting families. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne spoke about relationship support and the impact of family breakdown. In the last five years, the Government have invested about £38 million in relationship support services, but this is increasing, and we are investing about £8 million in relationship support provision in the 2015-16 fiscal year to provide support for couples and parents and to encourage the take-up of face-to-face, telephone and online relationship support services.

The marriage tax allowance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned, demonstrates the dynamic nature of Government policy and the way we are working across Departments on family stability to provide the right support, whether for children or parents, including relationship support. We are using existing indicators as well. The NHS—so again working across government—is providing early intervention and education, and we are piloting relationship education in perinatal classes to prepare expectant couples for the changes that having a baby will bring to their relationship.

We are providing guidance and training for health visitors on spotting signs of relationships in distress and how to respond. We have had many debates in the House about the role of health visitors and how we can elaborate on that through the provision of guidance and support for new parents. All new parents recognise the challenges of being a first-time parent. We are testing ways of maximising the role of local authorities in providing family-centred services with a focus on supporting and strengthening couples and co-parenting relationships as well.

My Department has a strong track record and is working actively with local authorities to strengthen the services they provide to couples and co-parents in families by providing extra funding and, importantly, expertise for the 13 local authorities in our local family offer trial. We are exploring ways to expand that approach and encourage local authorities to take that leadership role at a local level in supporting people in the community and promoting greater family—

Scotland Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2015 Commons Chamber

That would result in the Scottish Parliament working better and in freeing this Parliament of arguments and contention that it does not need to bother itself with. It would also set a very good example to the rest of us who need to sort out our own alignment on the devolution of welfare. I do not want to return to our own situation in Northern Ireland, however. I am not saying that the proposals in this Bill should automatically be translated into a Bill for Northern Ireland. I support most of the amendments that have been tabled, but I cannot pretend that all the new clauses would work in the context of, or be applicable to, Northern Ireland. There would obviously be differences, and I do not wish to presume anything in that regard. Let us get this devolution right, and let us give the Scottish Parliament the chance to get welfare right on its own terms. That would involve no risk or threat to this Parliament, and it would certainly set an example to the rest of us.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I should like to speak to new clause 55. The explanatory statement tells us:

“This new Clause would remove from the list of reserved matters in the 1998 Act (and so transfer to the Scottish Parliament) all social security schemes, including National Insurance and housing benefit, as well as child support, occupational and personal pensions and war pensions.”

These are complex matters, as I said yesterday, and I have tabled this probing amendment to elicit from those on the Government Front Bench their thoughts on this vital matter.

I shall start by making a controversial statement. I believe that, by dribbling out powers—that is not my own phrase, but one given to me by one of my Scottish friends; I still have one or two left—we are giving the Scottish National party a crowbar with which to blast the Union apart. This Parliament is giving the SNP just enough purchase on that crowbar by giving it just enough powers to feed a sense of grievance. If we were to give the Scottish Parliament full responsibility for social security, it would be difficult for it to feed on that grievance. It would have to be a responsible Parliament and take responsible decisions, and I am confident that it would do so.

My amendment would place all social security within Scotland, including pensions, in the hands of the Scottish Parliament. Scotland has a more ageing population than the UK as a whole, and immigration there is much lower—I never understand why, but apparently it is—so Scotland will need a needs-based formula to protect the pensions of Scottish people. That is precisely the argument I have been using in these debates. A needs-based formula that buttressed a Scottish Parliament with full fiscal autonomy would sustain the Union. I would therefore replace the Barnett formula with such a needs-based formula to protect the pensions of Scotland’s ageing population. That is where I am coming from.

We are not very far into this Parliament, yet already I feel that I might be wearying my colleagues by making the same point over and again. However, it is an important point to make. There are not a huge number of my colleagues present in the Chamber today, but I recall from reading my history books that during the debates on what was to become the Government of India Act 1935, the House of Commons debated the Bill day after day. In those debates, people such as Brendan Bracken, Harold Macmillan and Winston Churchill made the point over and again that dribbling out powers to India would destroy the connection between India and the United Kingdom. Very few people listened to them. I do not claim to be in the same league as them, but I believe that this debate is extremely important. It is important to understand that we could destroy the Union by not getting this right, and we must debate that contention.

[Mr MacNeil]

It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about the angst over the connection with India that was palpable in the Chamber during those debates. Does he agree that the angst—admittedly, there is not much on the Labour and Tory Benches today, given how few of their Members are here—that will be created by the Government’s voting against the wishes of the 95% of Scottish MPs who want to achieve x, y and z in the Scotland Bill will go away some day, when the powers go out from this place? At that time, English Members will need to worry only about matters that relate to England, rather than about those that relate to Scotland.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I think we have to act responsibly and to remember that, unfortunately, only three Unionist MPs are left in Scotland. The SNP has won a notable victory in Scotland and needs to be listened to—we do not always have to agree, but we have to listen. Ultimately, I am as passionate a Unionist as anybody on these Benches, but I believe that there is a better route to maintaining the Union. If we dribble out these powers, we are making a grave mistake.

Let me deal with the point that if we have a single currency system we must have a common welfare system. That is a perfectly respectable point and I completely understand it. It was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) in the debates two weeks ago and has been made extremely well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). I understand where they are coming from, and we are all very much aware of the Greek situation, but I would argue that the comparison is misplaced: the difference between Germany and Greece is infinitely greater than that between England and Scotland. In the United States, full fiscal autonomy for the states works because there is a common English language and full mobility of labour. When there are disparities in wealth, labour moves around the United States in a very vigorous way that is difficult to achieve in the European Union.

The comparison of Scotland and England with the Netherlands and Germany is much more apposite. We have a common language, a common border and very similar systems, albeit separate legal systems—although they are based on many of the same traditions. Members can understand the point that I am making. Of course, if the Scottish Parliament was to act completely irresponsibly and take control of its social security and just spend, spend, spend, the thing would break apart; I agree that the currency union would become unsustainable. But surely as parliamentarians, with confidence in our own Parliament and elected representatives, we should have the same confidence in our fellow countrymen and ladies who will be running the Scottish Parliament. I personally believe that if we gave them full responsibility, they would have to act responsibly if they wished to be re-elected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

No, thank you. [Interruption.] I have already responded informally to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who is on the Front Bench.

These cuts first and foremost will bear down on the most vulnerable and poorest in society. The whole of the third sector in Scotland supports the devolution of working-age benefits to Scotland because there is a recognition that the Scottish Government can and will do things better. They will set out a welfare system competently and with compassion. Make no mistake. Such devolution of welfare powers—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am listening with great care to the hon. Lady, as I hope are my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, because I maintain that she is making the same point that I was making, although from a different direction. If we dribble out powers, the SNP will constantly blame us for everything that goes wrong—“Cuts? They’re responsible for the cuts.” Give them the responsibility and they will have to take responsibility.

[Patricia Gibson]

We will be proud to take responsibility for investing in the growth of Scotland’s economy, in our infrastructure and in the people of Scotland.

Make no mistake: the devolution of the welfare powers in the Bill is supported by Citizens Advice Scotland, Barnardo’s Scotland, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Church of Scotland, Oxfam Scotland, the Poverty Alliance, the Scottish Trades Union Congress—I could go on, but I think I have made my point.

We on the SNP Benches are seeking to protect those we represent in Scotland from the worst excesses of this Government. We speak with the clear democratic mandate of the people of Scotland, and behind that we have the increasingly raised voices of Scotland’s third sector and civic society. We must not balance the books on the backs of the poor. It is time that the Government listened to a valued and equal partner in this Union—Scotland—in the spirit of the respect agenda.

For the record, and for the avoidance of any doubt, the SNP set out unequivocally in our manifesto, as part of our welfare priorities, that there should be an immediate scrapping of the bedroom tax and a halt to the roll-out of universal credit and PIP payments. As far as working-age benefits go, the Bill does not meet what was set out in the Smith agreement.

The Secretary of State has argued that there is no effective UK Government veto over the powers in the Bill relating to welfare arrangements, limited as they are, yet there is a clear requirement for the Scottish Government to

“have consulted the Secretary of State about the practicability of implementing the regulations”.

The Secretary of State would then have to give

“his or her agreement as to when any change made by the regulations is to start to have effect, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld.”

Is it likely that the current Secretary of State and the Scottish people would ever agree on a definition of what is unreasonable? For example, the people of Scotland believe that it is unreasonable that a party that has a far weaker mandate in Scotland than at any time during any of the years when it last led a majority Government now pontificates over what powers Scotland should have while reneging on the all-party agreements arrived at in Smith. The Secretary of State clearly thinks that this situation is entirely reasonable and presides over the Dispatch Box like a colossal Governor-General, with no shame, taking on the elected and legitimate representatives of the huge majority of the Scottish people.

For the sake of social justice in Scotland, for the sake of our most vulnerable, who are being crushed beneath the weight of the illogical and misguided attempts to punish those who require assistance from the state, for the sake of what was promised in Smith, for the sake of Scotland’s position as a “valued and equal partner” in this Union, for the sake of the wisdom of Scotland’s civic society, and for the sake of the SNP’s democratic mandate, I urge the Committee to support amendment 118 and new clause 45.

Amendment of the Law

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary and the rest of the Treasury team on the Budget. I also congratulate them, even more emphatically, on the extraordinary record of the last five years which enabled a Budget of this kind to be presented. I think it must be acknowledged that we took over a worse situation in 2010 than any Chancellor had taken over since the war. It was even worse than the winter of discontent in 1979. I have not looked up the debate on that first Budget, but I believe that our present position would then have been beyond the wildest dreams of most Members on either side of the House. That is why this Budget gives us such a firm foundation for making further progress.

I also congratulate the Treasury team on the type of Budget that we have been given. I am relieved and delighted that it was not a gimmicky Budget, and that we did not see one of those foolish attempts to start buying votes with populist measures. Chancellors who are facing elections are always besieged with requests for them to do unbelievably silly things in the belief that the public will respond by voting for them, but the public are usually far more sensible than most of the journalists and most of the politicians, and have never responded to such measures in the past. Admittedly, both the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) and I eschewed that type of Budget, because we were producing the last Budgets for Governments who on any sensible view were doomed to be defeated at the next election, but we did what has been done on this occasion. It is not a question of the electoral purpose; it is a question of the national interest. A sensible, competent, prudent Budget is in the national interest, and gives us the best opportunity to deliver what we hope to deliver over the next five years.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In her peroration, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) produced a great, long shopping list of things that could have been done in the Budget. “It could have been a Budget” for this, that and the other. Would not the best response to the hon. Lady be “It could have been a Budget to bankrupt Britain if Labour were in charge”?

[Mr Clarke]

I think that it would. Blatantly going around telling people that their pay will go up and that expenditure will be increased in a number of instantly popular ways, along with Labour’s earlier promises to start ordering companies to reduce the prices of sensitive products in highly volatile markets, is totally irresponsible. I hope that, were the population so foolish as to return a Labour Government in six weeks’ time, their policies would be hastily abandoned when they found themselves confronted with the realities of power.

In basic terms, this is a fiscally neutral Budget, which is plainly what was required. During Budget debates, we used to spend more time discussing the Budget judgment, and on this occasion that judgment was “fiscally neutral”, which I think has been widely applauded. That does not mean that the Budget is devoid of significant measures, including measures that will have a considerable impact on the rest of the human race—the ordinary men and women out there who have ordinary, moderate incomes. I am rather surprised that so little attention has been paid to the wider impact of another rise in personal allowances, which will not only have the welcome effect of taking the very low paid out of tax altogether, but will have a big impact on the great bulk of the population who are receiving perfectly ordinary pay. Some 27 million people will benefit, and average taxpayers will be better off by £900 million a year.

However, so that the Budget could remain fiscally neutral, that easing of the problems of the ordinary population has been balanced and financed by a rather eye-watering increase in the bank levy—which I think is a perfectly sensible way of raising money now that the banks are on their way to recovery—and a further reduction in tax relief on the pension contributions of not the very wealthy, but the better off. They can build up a pension pot of £1 million, which is not to be sneezed at; they have secure jobs, are making contributions, and have plans for their retirement. How that measure can be characterised—as the activities of this Government often are—as helping the rich at the expense of the poor and ignoring the demands of the ordinary man, I cannot imagine. It is the banks and the better off whose taxation has been raised, and the ordinary man and woman whose income tax has been lowered. That shows that free-market economics can be combined with a social conscience, which I have always believed is the best guiding principle for the Conservative party when it is running the macro-economic affairs of the country.

There are also further measures—which, again, will not create pleasure among all the rich—to deal with tax avoidance, of which a great deal has been made. On this occasion, they mostly involve corporate tax avoidance. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set a very ambitious target for the future—he is aiming to get another £5 billion out of tax avoidance—but he has already introduced a general tax avoidance measure in the Finance Act 2012, which has had an enormous impact on what we can do. We have agreements in the G20 and with Switzerland and Liechtenstein, and it is now impossible to hide money in the way that caused a scandal recently, when it was discovered that in 2007, under the last Government, thousands of British taxpayers were finding it easy to evade tax abroad. That is not favouring the rich. The present Government have done far more to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, and to make the raising of revenue more efficient, than any of their predecessors for 20 years or more, including the Government in which I served. Looking back, I have to concede that.

I do not have time to go into all the other measures that have been introduced, but ending the annuities racket and giving more flexibility to those who are saving for their retirement and their old age, so that they can make more use of their own resources, is a major social reform, on which I congratulate the Government and the Pensions Minister in particular. All that has been taken further in the Budget, together with our drive to help business. That is very important: we have to be pro-business. We are trying to revive the economy through lower corporate taxation and more extension of investment allowances, and by easing the tax burden on North sea oil. This Budget is an extremely responsible package, and it bodes well for the future if we are returned to office.

The debate has been dominated by extraordinary arguments about deficits: the size of deficits in the past, the size of deficits now, and where the deficit will go in future. Most of those arguments are based on strange interpretations of statistics or wild over-reliance on forecasts that are at least five years out, which has reduced the debate to a rather simplistic level. I agree—indeed, it is absolutely fundamental—that tackling the problems of debt and deficit is an essential pre-condition of putting the disasters of 10 years ago, and since, behind us, and paving the way for a modern, competitive economy in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I would very much like to help more. In the last financial year, 2013-14, we helped 35,000 individuals into Access to Work, which was 5,000 more than the previous year. That is a good start.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is all very well for Germany to lecture us on the importance of the free movement of workers in Europe, but that is what it is supposed to be about—workers. Because Germany has a contributory system, one cannot arrive there and claim benefits. Will the Secretary of State take action, sort this matter out, take on the European Commission and say that people have to contribute taxes for three years before they can claim benefits here?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We have already taken action. We have closed many of the loopholes and tightened things up. Come Monday next week, nobody will be able to claim out-of-work benefit for more than three months, and after that people will have to leave the country. They will not get housing benefit, they have to be able to speak English and they have to show that they are resident here. And that is only the beginning.

Benefit Entitlement (Restriction) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Friday 17th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now Read a Second time.

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship for the first time on a Friday, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This is one of a series of Bills presented, and for every week that has passed since it was first printed, it has become more relevant. There is tremendous public concern about this matter. The Bill would make

“provision to restrict the entitlement of non-UK citizens from the European Union and the European Economic Area to taxpayer-funded benefits.”

Last week, the front page of The Sunday Times carried a big headline reading, “Ban migrant welfare for two years”. Those were the words of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who was quoted in the article as saying:

“Britain should be able to say to a migrant: ‘Demonstrate that you are committed to the country, that you are a resident and that you are here for a period of time and you are generally taking work and that you are contributing… At that particular point…it could be a year, it could be two years, after that, then we will consider you a resident of the UK’”.

Unfortunately, what my right hon. Friend says does not accord with EU law, so it was no surprise to read the brief on my Bill produced by the policy research unit, which referred to the quote from the Secretary of State, but then said:

“However, this is not Government policy. Sources close to Mr Duncan Smith stressed he was expressing an aspiration for the future, rather than spelling out a policy.”

That is the problem. Senior politicians, whether it be the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions or even the Deputy Prime Minister, can beat their chests and say, “The present state of affairs, with EU migrants coming here and sponging off our taxpayer-funded benefits system, is unacceptable”, but when one looks at the detail, one sees that despite their huffing and puffing, they cannot do anything about it, except perhaps for the first three months that somebody is here, which is no big deal. Once someone from another EU country has been here for more than three months, they effectively have as much access to our benefits system as you or me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Apparently, one reason we cannot do much about it, legally, is that we have a universal system, rather than a contributory system. The Bulgarian Prime Minister says that our Prime Minister is being nasty, but he is not. It is actually much more difficult to get benefits in a country such as Germany, so we are just being sensible, and if the only way we can deal with this problem is to move to a contributory system, perhaps we should. There is a desire among many countries, particularly Germany, Britain and other developed countries, to try to solve this problem. It is not about being nasty; it is about being sensible.

[Mr Chope]

I certainly agree that it is about being sensible, but I am not sure the solution lies in trying to change our benefits system. Surely, we, as a sovereign country, should be able to decide what benefits system we want for our own people and should not have to try to tailor it so that it cannot be abused under EU rules.

The bigger problem was referred to by Dominic Lawson also in an article in last week’s edition of The Sunday Times. He wrote that

“although the great majority of east European migrants are entrepreneurially seeking the much higher wages available in the richer nations, a proportion will be welfare tourists.”

He then referred to the

“point made many years ago by Milton Friedman, who believed in open borders: he asserted that you can have a generous welfare state or open borders, but not both…There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state, it is a different story; the supply of immigrants will become infinite.”

Indeed, that is the concern of people in this country—that the supply of immigrants is becoming infinite. We look in the Government statistics for the numbers, but again we find that they fudge the figures and do not even collect the raw material.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

As I shall go on to discuss, the problem is that EU law in this area is evolving and changing. That is largely being done through regulation, but it is also occurring through decisions taken by the unelected judges in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. They are, in effect, giving an interpretation of what was originally a free movement directive—everybody would have gone along with that, because one core element in the European Economic Community was that people should be able to go from one country to another and take up employment there. Following the successive treaties, directives and regulations, the interpretation now is of people having a right to go to claim benefits in any country in the European Union once they have been there for more than three months.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We are told that this proposal is against European law, but clearly the law is evolving. In any event, people cannot claim benefits in a place such as Germany unless they have been there for a considerable time. So why do the Government indulge in the politics of the pre-emptive cringe, kowtowing before what the European Commission might say in the future? Why do we not just say, “You cannot get a benefit for 12 months” and see whether it takes us to court? We could argue about it for years, so I do not know why we do not just stand firm on this.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, he will see that clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill state:

“Notwithstanding…the European Communities Act 1972”.

In other words, the Bill would ensure that we were able to decide these things for ourselves, as a sovereign legislature, and override European Union law. My hon. Friend’s point was, in a sense, echoed by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in an article in The Sunday Times to which I referred earlier. It states that he

“added that reforming benefits was part of a wider move towards no longer automatically accepting rulings from the European Commission and courts.”

He welcomed the comments by Lord Judge, the former lord chief justice, that ‘we shouldn’t always assume straight away that anything that comes legally out of Europe we have to impose’ and said he was optimistic that there was the ‘beginning of a twitch with the Supreme Court”.

My Bill is designed to go a bit further than a twitch; it is designed to ensure that we change our law. If we suffer infraction proceedings in the European Court of Justice, one thing is certain: they are unlikely to reach a conclusion until you and I are in our dotage, Madam Deputy Speaker. The ECJ involves a very long-winded process, and because it is so long-winded, the French Government, for example, will deliberately defy EU law in the knowledge that any sanctions arising from their defiance will not be apparent until many, many years later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I signed that letter, as far as I know. I certainly support its content, and I am sure that if it were suggested that I had signed the letter when I had not, one of the Whips would have come to tell me about it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It was suggested that our proposal that Parliament should have a right to veto European legislation is contrary to European law, but it is interesting that a member of the German Bundestag said on the “Today” programme that, in his opinion, such a veto is not contrary to European law because the German supreme court can apparently strike down legislation that is contrary to the German constitution. So the proposal contained in the letter from our hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is eminently sensible, and we could do it. We should at least include the proposal in our manifesto.

[Mr Chope]

I agree with my hon. Friend. If the Government were more open with the people about the fact that they have no scope under existing law to do anything about the people’s concerns on other European Union citizens’ access to our taxpayer-funded benefits, that would help the Government to make the case for a completely fresh arrangement with the European Union. At the moment, we are deluding ourselves and the people in thinking that we can address those very serious concerns.

When my hon. Friends and I launched our Bills after the Queen’s Speech, the noble Lord Ashcroft commissioned a survey of the popularity of the proposed measures. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the proposal in clause 1 to record the nationality of everyone with a national insurance number or on benefits received the support of 71% of the sample, with only 8% of people against the proposal and 21% undecided. On the proposal to restrict welfare benefits to UK citizens only, which is effectively the rest of the Bill, 74% were in favour, with another 13% undecided.

I hope the Minister will realise that he should not be in any doubt, if there is any doubt, about the public demand for the measure. At the moment, the public are demanding the measure and the Government are not saying, “No we can’t do it because we are tied by European Union law. We therefore have to change the European Union law or get out of the European Union.” The Government are pretending that they have freedom and flexibility to act under European Union law when they do not. I suppose no one really wants to admit impotence, least of all a Government, but that is their situation in the face of the evolving European Union law in this field.

I will not address in great detail the way in which European Union law has evolved, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer some of the questions I asked in the debate on 5 June 2013 that were never answered. I asked:

“Does the Minister agree with the basic proposition that if someone from another European country decides to move to the United Kingdom, they should not expect to receive taxpayer-funded assistance for their housing, health care, education or living expenses?”—[Official Report, 5 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 256WH.]

If the answer is that the Minister does not agree, let us have it on the record. It is no good ducking these questions. If a non-British EU national cannot afford to live in the United Kingdom without recourse to taxpayer-funded services, should not that person return to his own EU country rather than relying on UK taxpayer handouts? If the Government do not agree with that they should say so and then we can have a proper debate. I am sure we will then get even more letters than we do at the moment from UK Independence party supporters saying how out of the touch the Government are with the feelings of the people—but that is only an aside, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I hope that we will get some answers to those questions and will move away from the very carefully worded statements that on close analysis mean absolutely nothing, such as, “People will not be allowed to have benefits subject to their European Union rights.” Since their European Union rights give them access to almost all benefits, I submit that such a statement is without any value.

In essence, what happened was that we joined the European Economic Community, the fundamentals of which include freedom of movement, but over a period of time freedom of movement has been extended by treaty, directive, regulation and case law into areas that nobody could ever have contemplated. None of those extensions was discussed with the British people and hardly any of them were discussed with our Parliament.

The legal annexe, which is a scholarly document, spells out in frightening detail the extent to which the European Court of Justice has extended the scope of the various directives. For example, paragraph 47 states:

“In the case of Metock”

in 2008, the European Court of Justice made it clear that the free movement directive

“should not be interpreted restrictively and that its objectives must not be interpreted so as to deprive them of their effectiveness. The particular impact of the case in terms of the UK’s competence was its clear assertion that a member state should not be imposing additional requirements on those seeking to rely on free movement rights in addition to those set out in the existing legislation”.

The European Court of Justice is extending the law because it has direct application and because of the so-called shares of competence, which effectively mean that if the European Union legislates in this area it is not open to the UK Parliament or the UK Government to legislate in conflict with that.

Through the process of treating people from other countries in Europe who come to the United Kingdom as equals, we are moving inexorably towards the ever-closer union whereby people would not be citizens of an individual country but would just be citizens of the European Union. That is the agenda. When one sees the European Court of Justice’s interpretation of the various expressions in the legislation, one can see exactly what the threats on the horizon are and that they go beyond those that we have already witnessed.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

Our priority—apart from publishing the regulations, which we hope to do tomorrow—is to address this matter. I will meet a Justice Minister, and we will find a vehicle to simplify the way in which the employment records are obtained for those who are making claims on the mesothelioma fund, so that we can do exactly what it says on the tin. What we have wanted to do all along is secure a speedy resolution for those who need access to the fund because they have no other recourse, and it is imperative for the House and Ministers to ensure that that happens. I hope the hon. Lady accepts that we are working very hard, and are also asking for legal opinions on whether we can take some action between now and the passing of the Bill.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Could the matter eventually be dealt with by means of delegated legislation?

[Mike Penning]

I understand that that is possible. It could also be dealt with through a deregulation Bill. In any event, we will find the necessary vehicle. As I have said, the Ministry of Justice does not want the courts to be clogged up with requests for court orders, and the matter will be resolved.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I hope that collectively the House can strengthen the Minister’s arm and send a strong message to the industry that we do not consider the scheme to be good enough yet and that we expect and demand improvements.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Obviously, we want to try to help people who are suffering—everybody has accepted that—but these are complex areas. The hon. Lady has spent much of her speech attacking the insurance industry, which might be fair enough, but it rather raises the question: what was going on during the 13 years Labour was in power?

[Kate Green]

First, the hon. Gentleman might have missed the history I just rehearsed of the legislative process to date, and secondly, he is right that the condition and the legal circumstances surrounding it have been extremely complicated—there has been considerable litigation in this area, not just in the UK but internationally. I share his frustration that it has taken so many years to bring justice to victims, but it is not true that no efforts were being made. In particular, as colleagues have noted, in making what progress has been made, we have been powerfully supported by our colleagues in the trade union movement, so there has certainly not been utter indolence when it comes to securing justice for victims.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that when Ministers make regulations, they take the fullest advice possible. That advice came to us; it was checked and it said that the regulations were fine. The High Court upheld them. It was the Appeal Court that decided that an element of that was not correct.

I do not wish to make this a political issue, and I take full responsibility for everything that goes on in my Department. I accept that we wish we were not in this position, but if the right hon. Gentleman supports the idea that people who have been mandated to do work, should take jobs and do work experience once they have volunteered without messing around otherwise they lose their benefit, I hope that we can look forward to his supporting the legislation that will ensure that we do not have to pay out money against a judgment that we never anticipated.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T4. Is the Secretary of State aware that Conservative Members support his courage and his battles in trying to reduce the crippling burden of the social security budget? In particular, may I commend his quiet courtesy this weekend in reminding the Archbishop of Canterbury that trapping people in dependency is not necessarily a Christian response? What the Secretary of State is doing is a good and positive way of making work pay.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have no issue whatever with the Church of England and the bishops saying whatever they believe. It is right and proper that they should argue with us and put pressure on us on a variety of issues. However, I do not agree that the way to get children out of poverty is to keep transferring more and more money to keeping people out of work. The reality is that we are having to reform a system that became completely out of control under the last Government and get in place a system that gets people back to work, because being in work is how people get their children out of poverty.

Romanians and Bulgarians (Benefits)

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As the hon. Lady knows, given my track record, I bow to nobody in my scepticism about many of these treaties. Under the Prime Minister, we have made it clear that, should my party get elected into government next time round, a very serious renegotiation will take place, with the option of an in-out referendum. Personally, I think that is exactly the right position. This is one of the key areas over which we want to get back a lot of control, and only my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been bold enough to say we will do that, and test ourselves against that.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I love the Secretary of State, but frankly his answer was so long and complicated that one would need a degree in social security to understand it—I did not understand it. As a recent by-election showed, the people are hurting and they want a clear answer from the Government. Why do the Government not do as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) suggested and either move to a contributory system or say, “We will not pay you benefits until you have stayed here for a number of years”? If the European Court sues us, bring it on, and that will make our case for renegotiation.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am always grateful for my hon. Friend’s support in these matters. I recall that he used to be in a Government busy voting for the Maastricht treaty when I was rebelling against it, so, with respect, I will do whatever I can and I do not bow before anybody in my determination to say no to the European Commission.