Afghanistan

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I know that the right hon. Gentleman understands the situation very well. It is not open, I do not think, to the Taliban to enforce a military solution, but neither is it open to us—to NATO—to have a military solution. I am sure that he will accept that. What we want is a negotiated settlement; I think that is in the best interests of all parties.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has been given a hard time today and I have a lot of sympathy for him because, given that we have to follow in the wake of the Americans, we have very few cards to play. I give him credit for coming here and taking it on the chin, but this is a catastrophic defeat for the west. It is a very sad day for tens of thousands of British personnel whose life’s work may now lie in ruins, and an abandonment of all our friends in Afghanistan. Let us be honest, the Taliban will probably take over large tracts of the country and the rest may be taken over by a warlord, so it is a desperate situation.

Given that we have spent all this money on overseas aid—more than £825 million, I think, in the last four years—and given that we know from our Syrian experience that there is no point in dispensing aid in a completely war-torn country, as it just leads to corruption and disaster, is the Prime Minister prepared to work with our NATO allies to ensure not only that our embassy is protected, but that aid workers are protected and that there is some minimum military force? Otherwise, there is no point in disbursing this aid to Afghanistan; it will just go up in flames.

[The Prime Minister]

We will do whatever we can to ensure that we protect our diplomatic and development assistance, obviously, but I just do not accept the characterisation that my right hon. Friend has given of what is happening today. After all, the main strategic decision to end Op Herrick took place in 2014. I believe, actually, that the legacy of UK involvement in Afghanistan is a proud one and will be a lasting one: millions of children educated who would not otherwise have been educated; millions of girls in school who would not otherwise have been in school; the reduction in the terrorist threat for that country for decades; and still the chance, I think, of a political, negotiated settlement involving the Taliban, which is really the only realistic prospect for that country.

Covid-19 Update

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Right at the end of his statement, the Prime Minister echoed the words of his predecessor, Sir Winston Churchill, who said,

“let us go forward together”.—[Official Report, 13 May 1940; Vol. 360, c. 1502.]

Of course, precisely 80 years ago, on 12 May 1941, my right hon. Friend’s predecessor was standing in this devastated Chamber when he committed us to freedoms in the future. In that spirit, may I ask a practical question about the future? We had compulsory ID cards in the war, and they worked so successfully. Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that, if we had them now, the whole test and trace system would have worked superbly? They could be made to work in future—for instance, it could be made clear on a person’s smartphone that they had been vaccinated or whether they had been in touch with infections. It is all very interesting for the future. My right hon. Friend cannot give a definitive answer now, but will he at least have an open mind on how we can deal with future pandemics?

[The Prime Minister]

I am a long-standing admirer of the libertarian school of thought that I have generally associated with my right hon. Friend. He makes an interesting point about data and the importance of being able to access it fast to help people. Perhaps the idea of ID cards is slightly different, if I may respectfully suggest that to my right hon. Friend, and I think we are still some way off that solution.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

I rise to propose Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 1S to 1U. I should once again like to thank Lord Robertson for his constructive contributions to debates on this issue.

It has always been the case that the measures in the Bill will not leave our service personnel at greater risk of investigation by the International Criminal Court. By adopting the amendments, we are happy to offer further reassurance and put that beyond any doubt. I should like to reassure hon. Members that service personnel and veterans will continue to receive the benefits of the additional protections provided by part 1 of the Bill in respect of historical alleged criminal offences under the law of England and Wales. Including war crimes in schedule 1 of the Bill will have little practical impact on the protection that the Bill affords our armed forces personnel. The Government are therefore delivering on our commitment to protect our service personnel and veterans from the threat of legal proceedings in connection with historical overseas operations many years after the events in question.

We have listened, and we believe that these proposed Government amendments in lieu will satisfy the House of Lords in respect of relevant offences, and they demonstrate our continued commitment to strengthening the rule of law and to maintaining our leading role in upholding the rules-based international system.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Can the Minister name any country in the world that, 50 years after the event, would prosecute two of its own soldiers for killing a terrorist?

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention. He is, of course, referring to legacy cases in Northern Ireland. I am confident, as I stated at the Dispatch Box last week, that legislation is forthcoming to ensure that our Northern Ireland veterans are protected from any prosecutions in the future. I urge that the Government amendments in lieu be accepted this afternoon.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I first met Prince Philip over 40 years ago, when I was a young councillor. He came to County Hall, and of course one was shy and did not really know what to say, so I said to him quite proudly, “Sir, you might know my father: he’s the clerk of the Privy Council.” I was expecting some conventional remark, which by now would have been completely forgotten, but quick as a flash, he said, “The Privy Council—what a boring and pointless institution! Thank God the meetings do not go on too long.” Of course, in all those comments he actually showed how astute he was. Queen Victoria ensured that the meetings of the Privy Council were so boring and so long that ever since then Privy Counsellors have been forced to conduct the meetings standing up, which makes them very short, although I can say from my personal experience that the Queen concentrates all the time, wedded as she is to her duty.

I met the Duke on other occasions of course, but I remember once when we were all invited to Buckingham Palace, and of course I was late, unfortunately—typical— and a presence emerged behind me, and it was the Duke. He made it quite clear that he had noticed that my wife and I were late, and we got a right good ticking off, and then we had a fantastic conversation.

I think it is a marvellous aspect of the man that so many people in this debate have said that they met him. We all know that receiving lines, whether as a member of the chain gang, the local Member of Parliament or visiting royalty, can be quite a trial—let us be honest about it—with the small talk, but he had this amazing knack of putting everybody at ease with a joke and getting really to the heart of matters. In a world of increasingly anaemic politics and conversation of many public figures, I like to think of him as the patron saint of a sort of lack of political correctness—of speaking your mind—and I think that is terribly important.

I think it is particularly important to remember the Duke as a patron saint of all those who are forced in life to do what they do not really want to do, which is to perform a subordinate role and always be walking behind the person who is more important. The fact that he did this for decades is a staggering compliment to him, especially as it was not easy for such a man of action.

I like to think of Prince Philip as a patron saint of perseverance. One of the biggest challenges we face in our country is that of marital breakdown. We know that we cannot turn a spotlight on other people’s marriages. We know that marriage is difficult and has many challenges, but imagine being in a marriage where the spotlight is always on you and having to sustain that. That can only be sustained out of love. What a tremendous example the Duke of Edinburgh is to families up and down the country. I therefore like to think of him as a patron saint of perseverance.

I remember when the Duke came to Lincoln as a very old man to open the frieze on the front of the cathedral. I was struck not so much by what he said, but by the fact that here was a man well into his 80s, even into his 90s, still carrying on. All over the western world, there is a cult of youth and older people are shoved aside and expected to be certainly not heard and perhaps not even seen, but here was a man who kept going well into his 90s. That is such an inspiration for so many older people.

I want to pay tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh as a man of the countryside and as a man of deep faith. That is summed up by something that he wrote:

“If God is in nature, nature itself becomes divine, and from that point it becomes reasonable to argue that reverence for God and nature implies a responsibility not to harm it, not just for our own selfish interests, but also as a duty to the creator.”

He was a very great man and a deep thinker. We will always miss him and today we salute him.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). I personally believe that, faced with the most severe challenge for any Government since the second world war, this Chancellor and his Budget are entirely realistic. We are and must remain the party of sound Budgets, and we must return to borrowing only to pay for investment. That is our long-term aim, but faced with this pandemic, we have to make accommodations.

Although I commend the Chancellor for his Budget, the most important thing, of course, is to get the economy moving again and get us out of lockdown. The success of the vaccine roll-out, which will get the economy moving, has been absolutely staggering. Only this morning, I went to Lord’s cricket ground—probably the only time I shall ever be invited there, to the executive suite—for my second jab. I was in and out literally within 10 minutes. Like all the wars we fight, perhaps we do not perform very well at first, but we exit well; we have exited this war against the virus more effectively than any other country in Europe, and that is down to this Government and this Prime Minister.

As with all Budgets, we have to be realistic. I may make some gentle criticism, but I fully accept that the Chancellor has been faced today with an impossible task.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

In making those gentle criticisms, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will challenge the Government on the issue of small businesses that now have to pay VAT when dealing with the European Union. They can reclaim it, but there is a delay, which brings cash-flow problems. I am mindful particularly of the heritage craft sector, from blacksmiths to silversmiths and so on; they do so much for our economy and employ nearly 200,000 people.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My right hon. Friend makes an entirely valid point. One of the points that I want to make in my short contribution is that we have to accept that the high street and small businesses have moved on. The truth is that we have a very unequal tax system. Giants such as Amazon are paying an infinitely small proportion of their profits and turnover in business rates, and are driving small businesses and shops out of the high street. I personally think that there is something to be said for abolishing business rates all together. How would we pay for that? We could actually pay for it through a 3% increase on VAT on all businesses. That, of course, would hit the very large businesses such as Amazon, which pay derisory levels of tax, very hard indeed. My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point.

May I repeat what I say in every Budget? Perhaps I am a bit of a broken record on this, but I do believe in transparency, and I believe that ultimately we should try to reform our whole tax system. The TaxPayers’ Alliance has counted 1,651 tax changes since May 2010, including: 58 changes to air passenger duty; 130 changes to national insurance; 68 changes to stamp duty; 256 changes to VAT; 53 changes to tobacco duty; and 258 changes to vehicle excise duty. Our tax code is 17,000 pages long—or it was in 2015; it is even longer now. We should compare that with the tax code of an enterprise economy such as Hong Kong, which is only 350 pages long.

As things get easier next year, my plea to the Chancellor is to make our taxes clear, simple and fair. Tax complexity creates a structural bias in favour of the very rich and the big corporations, and that is not fair. Global giants can hire entire departments of tax advisers. I therefore agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings: let us look after middle-class people, who pay PAYE and bear the brunt of all tax increases, and let us direct tax increases at those who can pay, namely the digital giants.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the next speaker, I should explain that we are trying to get everybody into the debate. When there are interventions, if the speaker sticks to the time limit, that is fine—there is nothing against interventions—but the intervention on the right hon. Gentleman has effectively prevented a colleague from getting in. I am just pointing out that we are that tight on time.

Covid-19: Road Map

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is totally right to raise the issue of cancer patients and other patients who need treatment. We are going to do everything we can to clear the backlog as fast as we possibly can. That is one of the reasons we have to keep the covid virus going down. He will hear more next week from the Chancellor about supporting people across the country.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It seems to me that many of the 88 people who have gone before me and been critical of the Prime Minister have been wise after the event, so let me now do precisely that and plead guilty to the charge. If severe quarantine measures had from the very start been as effective as in Australia, and, equally, if tough local lockdowns had been as effective as those in China, does that not rather beg the question—why we did not do it over a year ago? I do not say that to be difficult, but to learn for the future and to ponder on what we should do next time. I think many people in the country think it is better to be tough on foreign travel than tough on children attending schools.

[The Prime Minister]

I think my right hon. Friend speaks for many people in the country when he says that. We do have a very tough regime on international travel—one of the toughest in the world—and we will certainly be making sure we learn all the lessons we need to about the early handling of the pandemic.

Covid-19

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for listening to our representations on keeping places of worship open. Does this not show how, if we work together with a pragmatic approach, we can reopen the economy sensibly? Many of us who will vote for the Government tonight out of loyalty, or because we want to preserve the Government’s authority, are worried that every successive lockdown is less and less effective. That is because while every death is tragic, young people will have noticed reports that out of a population of tens of millions, only 400 healthy people between 16 and 60 have actually died.

Will the Prime Minister tell people like me in the priority groups that there has to be an element of self-reliance, self-isolation and looking after our own health, and that we cannot just rely on successive lockdowns? On carers, in particular, I noticed that the Gainsborough testing centre was turning away people who were not showing symptoms, but surely we want to encourage all carers of all elderly people to be tested. Let us get rid of all these bureaucratic hurdles and get more reliance on self-reliance.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to encourage people to go ahead and be tested, and I think he should encourage all the people of Gainsborough to do that when they have symptoms. As he will know, there are initiatives available for community testing with lateral flow testing that I think should be encouraged by colleagues across the House, as I know that they are. I totally support that. I also think that the British public and this House overwhelmingly support measures to protect the NHS and save lives. He makes a valid point about the way that coronavirus impacts on the population. It does fall disproportionately on the elderly and the vulnerable, but those lives must be saved where we possibly can, and I think that is what people of all generations in this country want to do.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I will in just a minute.

But a thin deal is better than no deal, and not implementing this deal would mean immediate tariffs and quotas with the EU, which will push up prices and drive businesses to the wall. It will mean huge gaps in security, a free-for-all on workers’ rights and environmental protections, and less stability for the Northern Ireland protocol. Leaving without a deal would also show that the UK is not capable of agreeing the legal basis for our future relationship with our EU friends and partners. That matters, because I want Britain to be an outward-looking, optimistic and rules-based country—one that does deals, signs treaties and abides by them.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will in just one moment.

It matters that Britain has negotiated a treaty with the EU Commission and the 27 member states; and it matters, ultimately, that the UK has not gone down the blind alley of no deal. It means that our future relationship starts on the basis of agreement, not acrimony.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

This is the nub of it. Those voting no today want yes. They want others to save them from their own vote. Voting no, wanting yes. That is the truth of the situation, and that is why my party has taken a different path.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on doing the patriotic and right thing today, but there is quite a lot of interest in the country in what deal he would have negotiated if he had been responsible for the negotiations.

[Keir Starmer]

A better one than this, for the reasons that I am about to lay out. [Interruption.] I will go into some of the detail—not too much—but if anyone believes what the Prime Minister has just said about financial services, they have not read the deal. With no further time for negotiation, when the default is no deal, it is not a mark of how pro-European you are to reject implementing this treaty. It is not in the national interest to duck a question or to hide in the knowledge that others will save you from the consequences of your own vote. This is a simple vote, with a simple choice—do we leave the transition period with a treaty that has been negotiated with the EU, or do we leave with no deal? So Labour will vote to implement this treaty today to avoid no deal and to put in place a floor from which we can build a strong future relationship with the EU.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

  If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 December.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

I visited Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital yesterday to see the first clinically approved vaccine being given to people in London, as it is now across the country. This is a fantastic moment for all of us in this House, and I know that everybody will want to join me in thanking the NHS, the vaccine taskforce, the scientists and all the volunteers who have made this possible.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

When I was a spear carrier in the Brexit referendum campaign, led by my right hon. Friend, we assured the British people that a trade deal was entirely achievable, so may I urge him to make one last effort? Surely that deal is achievable, because we have no intention of lowering our standards, but the EU should know this: if, consistent with national security, he cannot secure that deal for us, this parliamentary party will back him to the hilt, because strength comes with unity.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend. He is entirely right: a good deal is still there to be done, and I look forward to discussing it with Commissioner von der Leyen tonight, but I must tell the House that our friends in the EU are currently insisting that, if they pass a new law in the future with which we in this country do not comply or do not follow suit, they should have the automatic right to punish us and to retaliate. Secondly, they are saying that the UK should be the only country in the world not to have sovereign control over its fishing waters. I do not believe that those are terms that any Prime Minister of this country should accept. I must tell the House and reassure my right hon. Friend that, whether our new trading arrangements resemble those of Australia’s with the EU or whether they are like those of Canada with the EU, I have absolutely no doubt that, from 1 January, this country is going to prosper mightily.

Public Health

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I want to make a little bit of progress, because I want to say something now about our hospitality sector, which I know the House will want to hear. We all accept that the burden on the hospitality sector has been very great, and we feel this deeply, because our pubs, our hotels and our restaurants are, in many ways, the heart of our communities and part of the fabric of our identity as a country. Everybody can see that the hospitality industry has borne a disproportionate share of the burden in this crisis. There is no question about it. That is obviously because we want to keep schools open and we have to take such measures as we can. I just remind the House, however, that we are not alone in that: in France, bars, restaurants and gyms will not reopen until 20 January at the earliest; and in Germany, the hospitality sector will remain closed in its entirety over Christmas.

We will do everything in our power to support our hospitality sector throughout this crisis. We have already extended the furlough scheme for all businesses until the end of March. We have provided monthly grants of up to £3,000 for premises forced to close and £2,100 for those that remain open but have suffered because of reduced demand. We have allocated £1.1 billion for local authorities to support businesses at particular risk. Today, we are going further, with a one-off payment of £1,000 in December to wet pubs—that is, pubs that do not serve food, as the House knows—recognising how hard they have been hit by this virus in what is typically their busiest month. We will also work with the hospitality sector in supporting their bounce back next year.

I want to stress that the situation is profoundly different now, because there is an end in sight. I am not seeking open-ended measures this afternoon; on the contrary, the regulations come with a sunset clause at the end of 2 February, at which point we will have sufficient data to assess our position after Christmas. Though I believe that these types of restrictions will be needed until the spring, they can be extended beyond 2 February only if this House votes for them.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In the week up to 25 November, Market Rasen ward had six cases and is to go to tier 3; East Ham ward in London had 40 cases in that week and is to go into tier 2. What I want from my right hon. Friend is an absolute personal commitment that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will look personally at the case of Lincolnshire and do their level best to get us out of tier 3 by Christmas.

[The Prime Minister]

Indeed, I can certainly give my right hon. Friend that assurance: we will look in as much granular detail as we can at the incidence throughout the country. These points have been made with great power by Members from all parties. We will review the allocation of tiers every 14 days, starting on 16 December.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

Tier 2, crucially, depends on all other factors falling into place at exactly the same time. Although we all welcome the chance to see our loved ones at Christmas, I am not convinced that the Government have a sufficiently robust plan in place to prevent a spike in infections over the new year.

Of course this is difficult, and all systems would have risk, but that brings me to my third point. The risks we face in the decisions we make today are much higher because the Prime Minister has failed to fix the major problems with the now £22 billion track and trace system. Before the Prime Minister simply brushes the point aside again, let me remind him and the House that one of the major reasons that the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies advised a circuit break back in September was that track and trace was only having, in its words,

“a marginal impact on transmission”.

The great thing that was going to control the virus was not working then. If we are to control this virus, that really matters, and the Prime Minister having his head in the sand is not helping.

I know that the Prime Minister will say, “We’ve made advances in testing.” I recognise that, and I genuinely hope that it helps to tackle the virus, but let me quote the chief scientific officer, who said that

“testing is important, but of course it only matters if people isolate as well.”

That is blindingly obvious, but only a fraction of people who should be self-isolating are doing so, and the Prime Minister still has not addressed the reasons for this, including the huge gaps in support.

I know that there has been an announcement about the change for those notified by the app—a ridiculous omission in the first place—but it does not affect basic eligibility. Only one in eight workers qualify for the one-off £500 self-isolation support. Anyone not receiving that has to rely on statutory sick pay, which is the equivalent of £13 a day. That is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. People want to do the right thing, but for many there is a real fear that self-isolation means a huge loss of income that they simply cannot afford.

I think—I cannot prove this—that one of the main reasons that people are not passing on their contacts in the way we want is that they fear that those they pass on contacts for will not be able to afford to self-isolate. That is a real problem, and we cannot carry on ignoring it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing a very good job—it is his job to criticise the Government, and of course mistakes have been made—but a credible Opposition would have a plan of their own. What is the plan of the Labour party?

[Mr Speaker]

Sir Edward, that is your second bite of the cherry; there are other people as well—please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a lighter note in a deeply serious debate, my wife had to come in for a bit of House of Commons work today and we sat down at the same table. We were immediately told by a member of your staff, Mr Deputy Speaker, to sit at separate tables. It seems that in covid Britain a person can sleep with a woman for 37 years but cannot have lunch with her.

That raises a more serious point. We do not want to return to the controls of wartime Britain. People romanticise it, but there is a deep attack on civil liberties throughout our country, and we are here to defend the civil liberties of our people. That is our primary duty.

People in West Lindsey are obviously aggravated and upset that they are now in tier 3 when they are right on the national average. Other areas in Lincolnshire have a far lower infection rate. As I said to the Prime Minister, Market Rasen, where I live, has only six per week while Newham has 40, so clearly there are injustices. There is no doubt about that and we all accept it.

I have a commitment from the Prime Minister that he wants to look at a more granular approach. With other Lincolnshire MPs, I went to see the Health Secretary yesterday. He wrote to me just now and said, “I understand the force of your arguments. I know that you made them in the best interests of your constituents, as you always have done. As I made clear in our meeting, we will formally review the data and tier allocations for all areas across England on 16 December.”

So what am I to do? The fact is that this virus does not care whether an area is represented by a Labour or a Conservative MP and it does not care how we vote—all it knows is that it attacks people, particularly the frail and the elderly when they congregate together.

I am a libertarian to the core. I hate, with an absolute passion, what is happening in our country, but those who want to vote against the Government must have an alternative plan. I put that question to the Leader of the Opposition. He cannot answer it, although I suspect that his alternative plan is a complete and total lock- down, which we had in April, when every school closed. That is the only way in which we are going to defeat this virus entirely, so we have a compromise, and it is not ideal.

My personal philosophy is human dignity. Every time I vote in this place, it is on the issues of right to life, whether it is abortion, euthanasia or unnecessary wars. How can I vote against this measure tonight when there is no alternative plan—when the result of my vote tonight is that frail and vulnerable people will die? That would be the effect. Although it is with deep reluctance, although I am a libertarian, and although I recognise that West Lindsey has been put in tier 3, having been given that commitment by the Prime Minister, I will vote, reluctantly, with the Government tonight.