Review of Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on tabling the motion, and on the diligent work that he has done on behalf of Parliament and the taxpayer. I have been asked to chair the MPs’ side of the committee liaising with IPSA, and we have done our honest best in recent months to try to put MPs’ views to IPSA. Our meetings are courteous and lengthy. We have covered the entire ground but, at the end of the day, many of our suggestions are simply not acted on. The motion will provide further impetus to IPSA to listen to Parliament. Everyone accepts that we must have an independent body that sets the overall levels of remuneration, but we still have a fantastically bureaucratic system that employs 70 staff and which costs upwards of £6 million just to do the expenses of 650 people. It is an absurdly bureaucratic system that must be reviewed, not for our sake but for the sake of the taxpayer.

It is perfectly possible to devise a system that can command public confidence and result in a much lower cost to the taxpayer. Our first priority is cutting the cost to the taxpayer, who has to pay for all of this. It is an expensive way of doing things. Secondly, we want to minimise the possibility of fraud and error. As we have seen with social security, one of the best ways to do that is to simplify the system as much as possible. Thirdly—this point was made by my hon. Friend and others—we want to open Parliament up, and ensure that it is an attractive place for people of all types, from all regions, of all levels of income, and all the rest of it, who want to come here.

I mentioned all regions, because disincentives are built into the current system. For instance, is being a Member of Parliament, with our existing expenses regime and the way in which families are still treated, an attractive option for a lady GP working in Newcastle upon Tyne? I do not think so. We should encourage in particular women with families who want to serve as Members of Parliament, which means that we must have an expenses regime that understands Parliament and the fact that many people who come to the House are not just coming to London for an occasional business trip. It is often a life sentence, as people have to spend half their time in a constituency that may be a long way from London, and the other half in London. Younger Members of Parliament with young families, in particular, want to be with their families, so ultimately we need an expenses regime—we have to keep repeating this—that is not too bureaucratic, which is attractive, minimises fraud and error and cuts the cost to the taxpayer. The present system does not do that.

We have those meetings in our liaison committee, but we have no power whatsoever. We can make suggestions on all the points that are made to me in e-mails and letters from colleagues, but ultimately we can still be ignored. There has been some progress, particularly on how we run our offices. The way in which IPSA originally tried to set up the expenses regime for MPs’ offices was absurd. It was ludicrously bureaucratic, but we have made progress, and MPs can increasingly use the IPSA debit card to ensure that the money they need to run their offices does not go through their personal bank accounts. The fact that MPs were forced to subsidise their offices from their bank accounts was almost a throwback to the 18th century, when Ministers had to pay for government from their own personal bank accounts. The situation was ridiculous, and we have made progress.

We have also made progress on travel, but accommodation remains a bugbear. I hope that the motion will be approved today and we can make progress. Let us be quite honest about this. MPs’ accommodation has been the kernel of the problem for the past 30 years. It has proved difficult because successive Governments have not wanted to bite the bullet. My hon. Friend originally tabled another motion for the Order Paper, but I understand that there were Government sensitivities about allowing it to go through. However, it would have maximised pressure on IPSA to reach a reasonable settlement on accommodation.

What is the way forward? So many of the problems with which we deal in public life are utterly difficult and intractable, as we know when we deal with the NHS, social security and the economy, but there is a simple solution staring us in the face on this issue, and there always has been. Although the old expenses regime was much criticised, when it began it was not an expenses regime but an allowances regime, effectively providing a flat-rate allowance. As long as it remained a flat-rate allowance, it worked. It began to go wrong when it became the expenses regime. The moment that we began to ask MPs to maximise their so-called expenses by submitting receipts, we ensured that sooner or later a Member of Parliament would end up in prison, which is what has happened. If it had remained a flat-rate allowances system, we would not have had all the issues that we have had.

I cannot prejudge what the Committee will do, but it is worth putting a marker in the sand, because we have made the point continuously in the regular liaison committee meetings with IPSA. People nod their heads, but our points are ignored. I just hope that if the evidence from the new Committee supports my point of view, and if the matter returns to the House, the new Committee will not be ignored. If it makes a sensible proposal that has been worked through for many months, with hearings of witnesses who have expressed their views, and offers a proposal to the House, I hope that at that stage the Government will not try to block it once again, just as successive Governments have always blocked every sensible resolution on the grounds that it is not acceptable to public opinion, they are not ready, and all the other issues. I think that public opinion is ready. All members of the public I talk with say, “Why can’t MPs just be allowed to get on with it? They should be paid a proper salary and left to live their lives.”

Some people claim that IPSA has made progress, but its latest reforms almost make the situation worse, because it is getting more involved in the family life of MPs. We are paid extra if we have children, and a slightly increased allowance when the children are between certain ages. What happens when the children grow up, which they always do? There are all those sorts of issues. We are going down the same track as our social security system, with more interference in people’s private lives. Frankly, how an MP lives their private life is none of IPSA’s business, nor anyone else’s. All we have to accept is that all MPs have to live some of their lives in London and some of their lives in their constituencies.

I have always thought, as was said time and again in the liaison committee, that the obvious solution was to build on the old London weighting allowance, which was a flat-rate, taxable allowance. If it is flat-rate and taxable, it is not the business of the Inland Revenue and there is no possibility for fraud or error. I am not suggesting that we can move to such a system immediately, as many MPs have now made arrangements for renting and should be allowed to continue with that very bureaucratic expenses regime, with receipts and all the rest of it, if they wish to do so. However, MPs must have some opportunity to opt out of that bureaucratic system and into a flat-rate, taxable allowance system. Otherwise, we will create perverse incentives. We also said in the committee that the more rules we have, the more perverse incentives there will be. For example, there is a perverse incentive for MPs who have been paying for their second homes with mortgages to rent those homes out and then rent themselves a flat, at greater cost to IPSA. How does that help the taxpayer? It is ludicrous.

I very much hope that the Committee will be set up, take evidence and come back with simple solutions that ultimately protect the taxpayer. That is what we are about. It should also ensure that MPs have the maximum amount of time to hold the Executive to account, which is why we are here. We are not here to have our staff spend hours every week enmeshed in some bureaucratic expenses regime. The only reason for our existence is to hold those people on the Front Bench to account in an independent and satisfactory way. I have to say that IPSA is still not there yet. I hope that, with the Committee being set up, we will finally make progress, cut the cost to the taxpayer and do the job we were elected to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The Comptroller and Auditor General makes it clear that all the NAO’s work will be independent and evidence based. The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that it is for Members to provide the NAO with that evidence. The NAO has a brief to look at the public sector as a whole; as its masthead says, it is “Helping the nation spend wisely”. If Members feel, as a number have said today, that there is a problem not just with the bureaucratic system, but with the time spent administering it by them and their staff, who are employed at public cost, they should take the opportunity to furnish the NAO with that information. I might be going a little beyond my remit here. I do not know how detailed the questionnaire will be. There might not be a specific question about this matter, but I suspect that there will be. If Members provide this information, the NAO will be able to take it into account. It is no good the NAO just looking at the scheme and the direct costs incurred by IPSA. If, because of the way IPSA is operating, it is putting an extra burden on our offices, which are funded by the taxpayer, the NAO should take that into account. The hon. Lady’s point is therefore very helpful, and Members should give the NAO as much information as possible, so that it can write a sensible, evidence-based report with recommendations. No doubt those recommendations will then be considered by the Public Accounts Committee, as is the usual process, and the Committee that we are setting up.

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which was passed in the last Parliament, amended the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 to give IPSA a general duty to behave in a cost-effective, efficient manner, and to support MPs to carry out their work efficiently, cost-effectively and transparently. IPSA therefore has a statutory duty to do what it does transparently and independently, and cost-effectively. The NAO report will help to advise IPSA on whether it is complying with the duties it has to carry out under the law that set it up.

[Mr Leigh]

Will the Minister assure that House that when all this excellent work has been done and the Committee makes its recommendations, the Government —I know that he cannot give any absolute promises—will seek to give us a fair wind so that we can implement them?

[Mr Harper]

As with all reports from Committees of this House, the Government will look carefully at the recommendations. I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me, given that the Committee has not even been set up, let alone started its work, to give assurances that the Government will carry out its every recommendation. The Government will of course study its recommendations. If its recommendations are about process, the scheme and how IPSA operates, they will be for IPSA to consider. Only if they are recommendations for legislative change will they be for the Government to recognise. Every Member who has spoken in this debate has confirmed that they are in favour of an independent and transparent scheme for paying our costs. Clearly, even if Members thought that there were issues, they would not immediately want the Government to rush into legislating. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central said wisely that when this House legislates on such matters in haste, it often comes to repent it.

The Government will look carefully at the considerations that the Committee makes, and I hope that IPSA will look carefully at them. If the review is carried out in that spirit, I think that it will be very productive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I made a distinction in my remarks. Clearly, if the Committee, or indeed the National Audit Office, makes recommendations about value for money and cost-effectiveness in the way IPSA operates, IPSA will pay attention to them, as with all its recommendations. It may be that the Committee makes recommendations about legislative change. However, we do not want to go back to a system in which the Government—heaven forbid—or the House start to micro-manage the details of the scheme. We have an independent system with transparency, and it is important that we stick with that. The Committee needs to bear that in mind. There will be two important audiences for what the Committee recommends. In the same way that we should not legislate in haste, we should not re-legislate in haste and change things further. The Committee needs to bear that in mind when it considers this matter, and should not immediately leap to the conclusion that we have to change the entire structure of the system.

[Mr Leigh]

There is a third audience: the taxpayer. Ultimately, nobody is independent of the House of Commons, because the House of Commons is not for us, but for the people—we represent the people and the taxpayer. If serious recommendations are made and IPSA ignores them, the House of Commons has a right to vote on its estimates and to reduce the amount it spends on administration.

Counter-terrorism

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point. I believe that there have been press reports of gas masks being distributed by some in the Libyan regime, but we have no information about whether those reports are reliable or are linked with anything else. Obviously, however, we keep a close eye on everything that is happening in Libya, and on any threat that the regime could use such weapons in any way.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Of course we reject the al-Qaeda characterisation of western policy as an attempt to impose our views on the Muslim world, but in order to win hearts and minds—particularly in the Arab world—will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it is no part of our long-term policy to impose or get rid of a particular regime in Libya, and that our aim is to secure a ceasefire, a settlement and, ultimately, peace, even at the cost of a divided country? I suspect that what most Libyans want is peace.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has made a good point, which is linked to the point made at Question Time by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). We are not there to pick a Government for Libya—to say, “You can have this sort of Government but not that sort of Government.” We are there, basically, to put in place United Nations resolutions 1970 and 1973, and to allow the Libyan people to choose their own Government in their own way. It may well be, in the end, a Government with whom we do not have 100% agreement, but one of the lessons that we have learnt in recent years is that that is how to make progress, rather than our trying—as I have put it in the past—to impose such things from above.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I have some reservations about what we are doing. I am pleased to see the Foreign Secretary in his place; I hope that he will answer some of the reservations that have been voiced today.

My first point is a House of Commons point, because I received an absolute assurance from the Leader of the House two weeks ago on the Floor of the House that before we went to war in future, there would be a substantive vote in the House of Commons. When we went to war in the Falklands, the House of Commons sat on a Saturday. We have to establish the principle—this is not just a House of Commons point; it is a serious and important constitutional point—that in future when we go to war, the House of Commons should vote first.

Secondly, I have a number of questions about what we are doing in this operation. I voted against the Iraq war, because although it was ostensibly about dealing with weapons of mass destruction, in fact, as we know, it was about regime change. A lot of people have said that the current situation is very different, but is it? We are told that it is about humanitarian objectives, but is it not, in fact, about regime change, just as in Iraq? We need to ensure that our objectives are entirely and only humanitarian, and about protecting the people in Benghazi.

In one sense, the current situation is very different from the situation in Iraq, because at least there we were determined to go in and achieve regime change. Speaker after speaker has asked what we are going to achieve with the current operation. People say that we cannot always foretell the future and that that is not an excuse for doing nothing, but surely if we set off on a journey, it is generally a good idea to know the destination. Planes do not occupy ground. Missiles can destroy tanks, but they do not destroy regimes. Bombing Tripoli might bolster the regime’s support among the population there—indeed, it already has.

I have already asked the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House—no answer can be given—what will happen if the current operation just produces a stalemate. What will we do then? Will we be able to resist the moral pressure to get more and more involved, and to send in troops? There is absolutely no enthusiasm in this country for getting involved in a third war in the Muslim world. Aircraft can stop things happening—they can stop tanks entering Benghazi and I will support the operation to that extent—but they cannot make things happen.

A lot of lazy thinking has gone on along the lines that the regime was so unpopular that simply imposing a no-fly zone would make it fade away. Will that happen? Where is our strategic interest in Libya, which after all is 1,500 miles away? What are Egypt and Tunisia doing? They are its neighbours. Why is there not a single Arab plane in action at this moment?

We know that the first casualty of war is truth. The second casualty may well be a UN resolution, so that we are sucked into something far beyond what we have voted for. What are Russia and China doing, or rather not doing? Why is Iran silent? Is it because it supports Islamist irregulars in the east and is already there? Why would Gaddafi need to contest a no-fly zone if he can simply infiltrate troops? Is this a humanitarian war or is it a military war to change the regime? Will our efforts simply make Libya into another long-term brutal Sudan-type war?

It is often assumed that there are good guys and bad guys, but in fact Cyrenaica, in the east and controlled by the rebels, has always been separated from Tripolitania in the west. The two parts only became one state in 1934 and there has been a long-term dispute or semi-civil war between them for a long time. Indeed, in the 18th century Tripolitania invaded Cyrenaica and there were many massacres. History is extremely complicated; this region is very complicated, and we need to understand what is going on.

I was pleased to see the Defence Secretary in his seat. The old adage from Theodore Roosevelt is:

“Speak softly and carry a big stick”,

but we have been in danger of speaking loudly and breaking our sticks in two in the strategic defence review. Reading the British press, one would imagine that the whole world is hanging on to our words. They are not. I was reading the French press, and there was little mention of Britain. In Italy, no doubt, they believe that Berlusconi is taking the lead. There is only one capital that matters and that is Washington.

Oratory is not enough; we need air power. How many Tornados do we have? I believe that the strategic defence and security review was a disaster—as big a disaster as the Nott review, which was finally overtaken by the Falklands war. I hope that this operation overtakes the disastrous defence review. France has an aircraft carrier; Spain has an aircraft carrier; Russia has an aircraft carrier; the USA has 11 aircraft carriers; and we have to fly a round trip of 3,000 miles to impose our military force. By the way, all we have done is send three Tornados and two cruise missiles.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point, which I did not have time to raise. Although it is true that in this case we can get by from land bases, when it comes to the fuel costs of flying a single mission, a Harrier from a carrier would have cost £5,750, one from Sicily or southern Italy costs about £23,000 and one from the United Kingdom costs £200,000.

[Mr Leigh]

My hon. Friend makes the point. We could have had a carrier just 100 miles off the coast. The Prime Minister could have been sending our power. The Army is primarily a projectile of the Royal Navy and the defence review has been an attack on our traditional maritime and air power. I hope that we will use this operation to learn lessons about that.

In conclusion, I believe that we should review the strategic defence review, and that we should state firmly that our operation is simply and only a humanitarian exercise to save people in Benghazi and that there is absolutely no intention of our trying to achieve regime change.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend welcome, as I would, an absolute assurance from the Government that if they feel compelled to escalate our involvement in Libya, this House will be given the opportunity to vote again on this matter?

[Mr Leigh]

I have already said that that is a very important constitutional point. I know that I am just a House of Commons man, but most of the time that is all I have been allowed to be. There is nothing wrong with that, and we on the Back Benches have to say loudly and clearly to the Government that if there is any escalation, we must be consulted through a substantive resolution and that what we are talking about tonight is simply a very limited humanitarian operation using only warplanes, with no question whatsoever of our being dragged into third war in a Muslim country. I hope that point will be made loud and clear by the House of Commons.

Japan and the Middle East

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Like others, I read about that case over the weekend and found what happened extremely disturbing. Anyone who has been to Jerusalem and seen the settlement building, particularly around east Jerusalem, can understand why the Palestinians feel so strongly about building on their land. There is a danger of the two-state solution being built away if we are not careful. That is why this Government have always taken a strong view about the settlements.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Is not one of the lessons of Afghanistan that arming insurgents against a regime that we do not like can have incalculable consequences? Is not the problem with the proposal to do so, and with a no-fly zone, that we could end up with a prolonged civil war in which there would be mounting moral pressure for us to send in ground troops? Will the Prime Minister reassure the British people categorically that there is no question of our being dragged into another war of attrition in the middle east?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me try to reassure my hon. Friend, and through him people who are concerned about this matter. There is no intention to get involved in another war or to see an invasion or massive amounts of ground troops. That is not what is being looked at. What is being looked at is how we can tighten the pressure on an unacceptable, illegitimate regime to give that country some chance of peaceful transition. We would let down ourselves and the Libyan people if we did nothing and said that it was all too difficult. My hon. Friend’s point about Afghanistan is a good one, but I would argue that the real lesson is that the mistake of the west was to forget about Afghanistan and take its eyes off that country, rather than building and investing there when it was making progress. Instead we left it alone, and we have since suffered the consequences.

Libya and the Middle East

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I obviously listen to the right hon. Gentleman, given his experience. The cuts to the Foreign Office are much less severe than cuts to other Departments, so I do not think that that has had a material impact. As for the issue of redundancy, clearly in the case of Egypt, the combination of scheduled flights and adding in charter flights meant that we led the pack in getting people out. In Libya, the situation was different and more difficult, and we need to learn the lessons about what extra capacity we need to put in place. As I have said, it is not as simple as some people think, because if capacity is added too quickly, scheduled flights collapse—bmi and BA both fly to Libya—and you land yourself with a bigger problem. The lessons should be learned. The only point that I would make now is that, as we stand today, Britain is doing a huge amount to help other countries out of Libya, and is helping more than 32 nationalities.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is strange, is it not, that when we have a defence review, we are told that we are no longer a world power and do not need the Royal Navy, yet as we saw last week we need one more than ever? How ironic it was that the only ship that we could find to send was one on the way to the scrapyard. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that as long as he is on the bridge of state, there will be no further cuts in the Royal Navy?

EU Council and North Africa

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I know that the Prime Minister has to use diplomatic language, but we all know that the truth is that if al-Megrahi had come from a non-oil rich, non-strategic country, he would still be in prison. So imagine the pain today of the mothers and fathers, the sons and daughters, of those killed on that flight. Can the Prime Minister somehow, on behalf of the British people, say sorry, apologise and articulate the view that never again will we appease murderous dictators in the interests of realpolitik?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend puts the point very powerfully. I would say to all those who lost loved ones in that appalling terrorist act that we are profoundly sorry for their loss and for how they have suffered. When one of them said, “I’m not able to spend Christmas at home with my loved ones in the way that this man is”, I think they spoke for everybody. We have to understand that when a crime like that is committed, it is not some un-violent sense of retribution just to say that that person should not be released from prison. They have basically committed a life sentence on all those families who are never going to see their loved ones again. Not to understand that is to fail in the duty of a Minister.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie]

Exactly that debate was had in 1911. After the Osborne judgment, Labour Members could no longer be funded by the unions, which meant, in effect, that they were destitute. Then, in 1911, a flat rate—a beautifully simple Members’ allowance— was introduced at £400 a year. Members were told: “There you go. This is not a salary, a remuneration, a reimbursement of expenses or a payment in kind for services; it is merely an allowance that recognises that there are costs associated with being here, and Members are trusted to organise their lives in the way that is necessary.”

One cannot second-guess and legislate for the topography of every seat or the lifestyles—the changing lifestyles—of every MP, or for the reproduction rates of MPs: we are now on our fifth. One cannot create a system that takes into account whether the trains are working or whether it is going to snow and being told only at 5 o’clock in the evening. There is no way that the route that IPSA is currently pursuing will satisfy the needs of the public to have a Parliament that functions effectively.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

So why not go back to a simple flat-rate allowance for everybody?

[Adam Afriyie]

The Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Bill, which will appear on tomorrow’s Order Paper—of course, I do not know what is going to happen to it—says that that is exactly what we ought to do, because it would save the taxpayer money and give MPs time to serve their constituents. That proposal is not directly related to the motion, but I just point it out. It would take courage to enact such a simple, straightforward scheme, and I urge IPSA to have the courage to do so. There is nothing more transparent than a flat-rate Members’ allowance: everyone can see what it is and everyone can see that every MP gets the same thing.

The current system causes inconvenience and makes things very difficult for Members with families and Members who are less well-off. It also causes problems, because Members are not making claims. Looking back at this year, and certainly over the past six months, I know that virtually every one of my colleagues—I have spoken to 350 MPs one-to-one—has not made the claims that they are entitled to make. That may be seen externally as a great success—“Look, IPSA has crushed the MPs, and they cost far less!”—but we all know that that is not the situation. We know that Members are borrowing from their parents, having to borrow cars from friends, and still sleeping on floors of offices, which they are not supposed to do, because they are not claiming what they rightfully should be able to claim. It is not a good situation.

However, I am not moaning on behalf of existing MPs. I love all the MPs here, but I am not whingeing on their behalf. What I am concerned about is the functioning of Parliament for the next 100 years. Where will we be in 30 years’ time if we continue down this route where only the wealthy can serve? That is where we were before; I thought we had moved on. IPSA, I hope you are listening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As one of the last Back Benchers to speak, I hope that I can say that we have had a good debate. Everyone has said their piece and made a valuable contribution, including the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is fast becoming a national treasure. If he was not there, he would have to be invented, because his arguments have to be listened to.

The fact is—there is no doubt about it—that we cocked up the system. The thing collapsed, and we have a system that we all know is not working, and that is hugely complex and massively bureaucratic. Above all, it is costing the taxpayer more money—namely £10,000 to administer it before any money is handed out. We are only a small body—a medium-sized company of 600 people—and if this was the private sector, there would be a little accounts department run by half a dozen people. We do not need this vast bureaucracy, so in the few minutes I have to speak, I shall offer a simple solution.

I make no criticism of the staff. As I am pretty hopeless with computers, a very nice young man from IPSA sat next to me last week for two and a half hours while, with two fingers, I tried to claim for about five journeys. My criticism is not of the young people who work in IPSA, but of our Front Benchers, and particularly the three party leaders who got into a bidding war last year and landed us with this mess. By the way, thank God they are backing out of this and leaving it to Back Benchers, because this is a Back-Bench affair—it is nothing to do with Front Benchers. My criticism is also of Sir Ian Kennedy who, with his board, seems to have no conception of how Parliament is run.

My first guiding principle is that the electors want complete transparency, yet we have created a system that is so complex and bureaucratic that it is too expensive to publish receipts that were sought in the first place. It is Kafkaesque. My second guiding principle is that the system should cost the taxpayer less, but this is costing the taxpayer more, so no one is happy—what are we gaining?

There is something of the biter bit here, because for years we have created ever-more complex social security systems to try to regulate people’s behaviour. That resulted in massive fraud and error in the Department for Work and Pensions, and now it has come here. Perhaps it is time for us to try to create simpler systems throughout the civil service. That is why I have always argued for a simple system of no-fraud, no-error child benefit—a flat-rate benefit.

We should have a simple, flat-rate allowance like the old London costs allowance, because every single Member of Parliament has to live in London. I say to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and others that it is not for us to determine what that should be—it would be for an independent body. I would be out of pocket under such a system because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), I need a home in my north Lincolnshire constituency, which is three and a half hours away, as well as a home here, but we all know that the secret of happiness is not to compare oneself to others. Let us have the same allowance for every Member of Parliament.

[Duncan Hames]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Leigh]

I cannot give way because I have been told that I have only three or four minutes.

Such a flat-rate allowance should be taxable so that the Inland Revenue is not involved. There would be no fraud, no possibility of error and no receipts. Every Member of Parliament would get the same.

What we have at the moment is fundamentally anti-family. When my predecessor came to the House, he virtually had to buy his seat, and when he left Newark station, the station master would say to him, “When will your next annual visit be, sir?” Over the past 30 or 40 years, we have created a system in which ordinary people with no private means—people such as me, who have been full-time Members of Parliament for all that time—have been able to devote themselves to public affairs. I am sorry to get personal, but for 27 years I have carted my family up and down the A1 for three and a half and hours in either direction. I have created a small family home in Lincolnshire, and a family home in London. Surely we should allow people to preserve that sort of lifestyle.

We are all different—some people have big families, others have small families; some have old families, some have young families—but we need a system of allowances, which I think should be set at a flat rate, and pay that allows ordinary people with no private resources to come to the House and to serve the public. That is all we want to do; nobody comes here to make money or to get rich. We just want to serve the public. We love Parliament, but surely we have to be allowed to do our job and stay with our families. This place should not become the preserve of the rich, as it used to be 30 or 40 years ago. So, away with all this complexity! Away with all this bureaucracy! Just give MPs a decent salary. Every member of the public I speak to says the same. They are sick and tired of this debate; let us end it now.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I just do not agree with the way in which the hon. Gentleman has characterised this. We have said that the support of a significant number of Members is required to have an early election. It is very simple for the House to make a decision. If a simple majority is required to have an early election, we do not have fixed-term Parliaments because if the governing party or parties have a majority in this House, they will simply be able to table a motion, their own side will support it and we will have an election whenever the Prime Minister chooses. If that is what the House wants, fine. However, the House has already decided when it gave this Bill its Second Reading that it wants fixed-term Parliaments, and it did so again when we debated clause 1 last week and decided on the date and the fact that we would have five-year Parliaments. Our proposition is that if we allow an early election on a simple majority, we drive a coach and horses through the Bill.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Just to be topical, what would happen in a situation such as exists in Ireland at the moment, where there is a weak Government, a coalition breaks up, there is a financial crisis and it is clearly essential that the Government renew themselves with an early general election? What would happen in such circumstances if the Bill goes through as drafted? Would we have the absurd situation that two thirds of Members would have to vote to kill off a Parliament that nobody wanted to survive any longer?

[Mr Harper]

There are two parts to clause 2. Importantly—some Members were getting this confused—a motion of no confidence in the Government can still be passed by a simple majority. So if a Government did not command the confidence of the House, the House could express that lack of confidence. I shall not go into that in detail, because we will deal with it when we discuss a later group of amendments—Mr Hoyle is clear about that—but the House can vote in support of a motion of no confidence and the Government will then have the period of examining whether another Government can be formed from within that Parliament.

As the hon. Member for Foyle said earlier, when I do not believe my hon. Friend was present, the Bill also provides the opportunity to renew the Parliament if there is a sense that events mean that it needs to be renewed—I believe that is the view in Ireland at the moment. If a simple majority has lost faith in the Government, a motion of no confidence can be passed. If there is a general sense that there should be an election, we have given the House that opportunity—a power that it does not currently possess. I am surprised, as the hon. Gentleman said he was, that some Members of the House sound as though they do not want a power that is not possessed by the House and has previously been possessed only by the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

That is an interesting idea, but that is not what the Bill says, although I am not criticising my hon. Friend for that. The Bill simply says that

“on a specified day the House passed a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government (as then constituted)”.

I described in an earlier debate the shenanigans of the 14-day period after a day had ended without the House having passed any motion expressing confidence in any Government of Her Majesty. What happens next is that all these people get together in a huddle and then rush up and down Downing street and Whitehall going to see the Cabinet Secretary and receiving some instructions about what they should do, in his view, if they want a stable Government. The net result is that we have a completely chaotic situation driven by behind-the-scenes, unknown negotiations that are then announced—

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend remember—happy days—when we were Maastricht rebels? We defeated the Government on the paving motion, and they then brought in another motion that was related to a no confidence motion, and we were all brought to heel in that way. Although I would not want to encourage that sort of behaviour, at least it was clear, was it not? The Government were saying, “This is where we are—we stand here.” At least that made for strong government.

NATO Summit

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are making very good progress in training up the Afghan police and army. We are a little ahead of schedule. The key thing about this NATO summit was to get other countries to commit to adding to the training mission. There were some very welcome developments, such as the Canadians who, in pulling back on the combat forces front, committed to the training mission. As I said, Britain added another 320 trainers. I think we are on target to deliver the sort of Afghan national security forces we need to complete our drawdown by 2014.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

To be honest, I have always questioned whether foreign combat troops can ever win a war in Afghanistan. What does the Prime Minister say to those who argue that setting a deadline just incentivises the Taliban never to negotiate?

[The Prime Minister]

I think it incentivises the Afghan Government to recognise that we are serious about handing over a country for them to run. It also shows the Afghan security forces that they are going to have to learn to stand on their own two feet. Let me make two additional points. First, there is a serious amount of time to elapse between now and the end of 2014 when all this has to be completed. This is not some rapid deadline; there are a lot of years between now and then to make it work. Secondly, Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary has said about the US forces:

“I think anything that remains after 2014 would be very modest and very much focused on the kind of train and advise and assist role”.

So I do not think we are putting ourselves apart from the consensus on this matter.

G20 Summit

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I did discuss that with President Obama. What is happening in Yemen should be absolutely at the top of the list, because of the al-Qaeda threat that is coming out of that part of the Arabian peninsula. President Obama and I agreed that we have to take a mixture of steps. One of the problems is encouraging President Saleh to see that the al-Qaeda threat is a threat to his own country and needs to be top of the list of what he wants to address. Obviously Yemen also faces problems with rebels in the south and Houthi rebels in the north, but we have to convince it that the al-Qaeda threat is a threat to all of us and to the security of the world, and that is what we will do through aid, through the Friends of Yemen process and through every other means at our disposal.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The deputy leader of the Labour party asked my right hon. Friend what his agenda is. Is his agenda that when he returns in triumph from his 10th or 20th G20 conference, he can tell the House that he has turned round our economy by creating a small-government, flat, low-tax and privatised economy?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend gives me an extremely good script. My agenda at such gatherings is to stand up for Britain’s national interests. Above all, as a trading nation, that is about keeping the markets of the world open, and making sure that British business can create wealth and jobs around the world. That is the agenda we should have. When we are trying to get our economy growing at home, it is very important that we focus on those things that most help us back here in Britain.