Health and Care Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 30th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Three Members are standing and I want to get you all in, so we will have a four-minute time limit.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Obviously, abortion is a deeply emotional issue and we probably all know where we stand, but this is not a debate about abortion. At-home abortions were brought in as a purely temporary measure to defend women’s health. It was always the understanding that the measure would continue just as long as the pandemic continued.

There are many different arguments about this issue. I could go through the statistics that have been given to me that some people might deny, but it is undoubtedly the case that more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion pill at home provided by the NHS in 2020 needed hospital treatment. There is therefore an issue around safety and women’s health and we need a proper debate. This amendment was brought in in the House of Lords at night-time. Barely a seventh of the Members of the House of Lords actually took part in the Division. We need a proper, evidenced debate on this issue. There is nothing more important when a human life is at risk.

Of course, we all support telemedicine; I chaired a meeting yesterday on atopic eczema and we are making wonderful steps, but as important as curing atopic eczema is, it is nowhere near as important as a situation where a life is at stake. I know that there are different views about coercion, but surely the whole point of the Abortion Act, for those who supported it, was to get abortions into a safe medical location and to get them away from the backstreets. People surely did not want them to be done at home, where there is risk. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) spoke about the case of the 16-year-old girl who delivered a foetus who, apparently, was 20 weeks old. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals for Children welcomes the Government’s stance, and why children and young people will be provided with protections.

I urge hon. Members, whatever their view, to think, to consider the evidence and not to rush in. The amendment goes completely against the whole spirit of the Abortion Act. Whatever we think of that Act, the amendment would be a huge new step that I believe would put more women’s health at risk and possibly lead to coercion—we need more evidence on that. I therefore support what the Government are doing today.

Russia’s Grand Strategy

Debate between Edward Leigh and Nigel Evans

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

No, I have given way three times already.

Ukraine is divided. The second-largest party in Ukraine is a pro-Russian party. It ranks very high on the corruption index. When it controlled eastern Ukraine, it did everything it could to deny autonomy to Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine. Members can agree with me or not, but they have to understand that that is the point of view of many Russian people, and they are entitled to their view as much as we are.

Learn from history: look at Afghanistan. Look at Iraq. We in the west are not prepared to fight for these people. Why are we destabilising the region by pretending we are when we know perfectly well—everybody in this Chamber knows perfectly well—that we are not prepared to risk a drop of British blood? We have to live with this Russian Government. We have to stop talking about expanding eastwards. We have to stop playing Putin’s game.

I know this is realpolitik. I know it is not redolent of great liberal imperialist speeches about how we must make the world safe for democracy, and that the Iraqi people, the Afghan people or the Ukrainian people have a right to live under a democratic regime. What nonsense I am talking—these are the facts of life. This is realism. Are we really prepared to muck up eastern Ukraine in the same way we have mucked up Iraq and Afghanistan?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The wind-ups will begin prompt at 4.30 pm, if not before.

Point of Order

Debate between Edward Leigh and Nigel Evans

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is there any reason why you have just announced that Back Benchers were not allowed to ask a question during the business statement? It was only announced today and it would have been a perfect opportunity for Back Benchers to come in on spec and hold the Leader of the House to account. There is no reason why that should not have happened. There could not have been a call list because it was only announced today.

You said earlier that a very large number of Members of Parliament could not get in for the Prime Minister, despite his best efforts, and I was one of them. I might have wanted to ask him why the old should not be allowed to self-isolate if they want and the young to work if they want, but I was not able to ask that question. Perhaps I could have asked it to the Leader of the House, but you decreed otherwise. When we have these ad hoc business statements in the future, given that we are talking about civil liberties and very important matters tomorrow, we should be allowed to come into the Chamber, as we used to, and hold the Leader of the House to account.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I fully appreciate the point that you are making, Sir Edward. Of course, you could have asked the Leader of the House for the option of a debate on the question you just asked, not ask him to answer it, but I am being pedantic. I fully understand Members’ frustrations, but the decision was taken because of the business of the House that we have today and the fact that we asked the Prime Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and answer questions for more than two hours, which allowed us to get in 117 Members. That is why we are under time pressure today. I fully appreciate the frustration that you have enunciated.

The House is suspended for three minutes.

Point of Order

Debate between Edward Leigh and Nigel Evans

Thursday 25th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do you recall the situation in this Chamber just a year ago, when people were piling in and virtually everyone was being called to speak on statements and urgent questions? I put this point to you and to Mr Speaker: I hope that as soon as 4 July comes—although it will probably happen in September, but as soon as is practicable—we can allow more spontaneity in this Chamber. After all, we are turning to the 1 metre rule from the 2 metre rule and, generally, as we can see from looking around us, the Chamber is naturally socially distanced anyway. People are quite good at self-regulating, and it is very important to have more spontaneity and people able to come in, particularly for questions, as we have just had with the Leader of the House. The present Speaker, every other Speaker and you have been anxious generally to try to call everyone who wants to get in. I make that point to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and hope that you will take it back to Mr Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you very much, Sir Edward, for that point of order. I, like many Members, am looking forward to 4 July for reasons more than you have just enunciated. None the less, clearly, this is not Parliament as we remember it a few months ago. I know that Mr Speaker himself would wish to see this House working more effectively than is allowed in the current circumstances, as the pandemic is still alive, but he is working with Public Health England to ensure that we are able to make this Parliament as effective and as safe as we possibly can. I thank you for that point of order.

Bill Presented

Business and Planning Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Alok Sharma, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary George Eustice, Secretary Robert Jenrick and Secretary Grant Shapps, presented a Bill to make provision relating to the promotion of economic recovery and growth.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 29 June, and to be printed (Bill 148) with explanatory notes (Bill 148-EN).

Desecration of War Memorials

Debate between Edward Leigh and Nigel Evans

1st reading & 1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for that point of order, and for giving me forward notice of it. I have been a Member of Parliament for 28 and a bit years—[Interruption.] I know; I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for that reaction. Some procedures seem to go back centuries, and others 10 weeks. I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman some hope, at least, that when it is discussed by the Procedure Committee, what he desires can be analysed and, if it is the will of the House, those procedures can be changed.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a former long-standing member of the Procedure Committee, may I say, when it comes to changing procedure, “Be careful what you wish for”? In my experience over 37 years, the ten-minute rule procedure has worked extremely well. It allows a Back Bencher to set out his case over 10 minutes, and it might be quite dangerous to muck around with it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

When my right hon. Friend said, “37 years”, Marie Rimmer did not gasp—I do apologise for that! As James Sunderland can see, the discussion has already begun.

Cost of Living

Debate between Edward Leigh and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 16th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

Will the right hon. Gentleman be too alarmed if an old reactionary like me supports him on House of Lords reform?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Let’s not go there.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Nigel Evans

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Is the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) giving way, or has he sat down?

[Mr Leigh]

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) is desperate to get in, so I give way to him.

Finance Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to new clause 5. Fiona Bruce. Not moved?

New Clause 5

Transfer of personal allowances between spouses

‘After section 37 of the Income Tax Act 2007, insert—

“37A Transfer of personal allowances between spouses

(1) This section applies to an individual who is entitled to a personal allowance under sections 35 to 37 for a tax year if—

(a) the individual is a person whose spouse who is living with the individual for the whole or any part of the tax year, and

(b) the spouse meets the requirements of section 56 (residence, etc).

(2) If—

(a) the allowance exceeds the individual’s remaining relievable income;

(b) the individual makes an election, and

(c) the individual’s spouse makes a claim,

the individual’s spouse is entitled to an allowance for the tax year equal to the amount of the excess.

(3) The individual’s remaining relievable income is found by—

(a) taking the amount of the individual’s net income, and

(b) subtracting any personal allowance to which the individual is entitled for the tax year.”’.—(Mr Leigh.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Leigh]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

In the last Parliament the Prime Minister and other senior Conservatives repeatedly expressed their commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system. There were some very strong statements, particularly by the Prime Minister. For instance, in Glasgow, in July 2008, he said:

“And when it comes perhaps to the most important area of all, families, we will take action not just to support marriage and family stability”,

because he wanted to say

“to parents, your responsibility and your commitment matters, so we will give a tax break for marriage and end the couple penalty.”

That was the leader of our party speaking during the last Parliament. This was the key policy response to the challenge of social breakdown, or the “broken Britain” phenomenon, and it became an important manifesto pledge at the 2010 election—a manifesto pledge on which every Conservative MP was elected. It was a sacred bond, as it were, with the electorate to support marriage, which was considered to be an absolutely key part of dealing with broken Britain. We put that in our manifesto.

I know that our party did not win an outright majority, but the commitment, most importantly, got into the coalition agreement with a provision for our Lib-Dem friends to abstain. I am not asking them to do anything, but I am asking our Front-Bench team to fulfil the pledge that they solemnly made in the manifesto and put in the coalition agreement. We are still waiting for it, which is why new clause 5 is so important and why I believe that, whatever else has been going on in the background this afternoon—I need not go into that—it was my duty to move it. If it had not been moved, many people involved in the Christian community or in the Christian Institute or in churches would have wondered why this new clause—clearly on the agenda this afternoon, and a vital part of what we are trying to achieve for Britain—had suddenly been withdrawn. I was not prepared to let that happen. I have therefore moved it to allow a debate, to which the Government should be made to respond.

Since the election the Prime Minister has reiterated his commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system on a number of occasions, including at his second Prime Minister’s Question Time—but no action has yet been taken. Given that the manifesto pledge is backed by the coalition agreement and pertains to the period between 2010 and 2015, the fact that the Government have not yet acted to recognise marriage in the tax system is, I hope, no cause for alarm. This debate is important: the Minister will have to respond to it later, when he can assure us that although it has not been possible to do this yet, it is definitely going to happen in this Parliament because it was in our manifesto and in the coalition agreement. At the very least, I want the Minister to say that.

Since the commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system was made last year, there have been some significant changes, which in my personal view greatly increase the need for swift action. In this context, the tabling of new clause 5 on Report to recognise marriage in the tax system is an important step. It provides an opportunity to put on the record the standard arguments for recognising marriage in the tax system and, more importantly, to set out the changes over the last 12 months that have greatly increased the urgency of taking action in this area. As I have said, the Government are obliged to respond and engage with the implications of the changes as they relate to the importance of recognising marriage in the tax system.

Let us go into a bit more detail. Apart from married couples with at least one spouse born before 1935—a number that will clearly reduce over the years—and couples in which at least one partner is blind, everyone in the United Kingdom is taxed on an individual basis. Unused tax allowances cannot be transferred from a non-earning spouse to an earning spouse.

Under the system of transferable allowances, which we have constantly promoted as a party for several years and as is envisaged in our coalition agreement, a non-earning spouse would be able to transfer the whole or part of the basic income tax personal allowance to their earning spouse. Depending on how it was introduced, the whole allowance or part of it could be transferable, and it could be limited to couples with children under a specified age, or limited to tax at the basic rate. The Government can decide what they can afford and they can bring it in gradually; there need not be dead-weight costs or the other problems that were aired in the previous debate. Moreover, I am not at all sure that it is appropriate to talk about dead-weight costs in this context at all. For 2011-12 the personal allowance is £7,475; if the whole allowance were transferable it would be worth up to £1,495, so we are not talking about huge sums of money.

Let us look at what other countries are doing, because it is important to nail the untruth that this idea comes just from the right wing of the British Tory party, or from the Christian community, when it is very common throughout the world. In fact, Britain is unusual among developed countries in failing to recognise marriage in the tax system. This is something that we did as a country, with cross-party agreement, as it was considered absolutely the right thing to do, right up to 1999-2000. Only 24% of citizens of OECD states live in countries that do not recognise marriage in the tax system in one way or another, and most of those live in just three countries—Mexico, Turkey and the UK. We are very much in the minority in not recognising marriage through our tax system. Why should we not recognise marriage when most countries and tax administrations in the world think that marriage is a force for stability? It is not unusual to want to recognise that. Other developed countries such as France, Germany, Italy and America all recognise marriage. In that context it was hardly surprising to learn that, according to the latest figures—published in May 2010—the resulting tax burden on single-earner married families in the United Kingdom was one third greater than the OECD average.