Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Edward Leigh and Richard Graham

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

They may not concoct it; it may be entirely true—we do not know. However, what we all know is true is that every asylum seeker who arrives in Dover will say that they cannot be sent to Rwanda because of their own personal history, and every single one of us would do the same thing.

Last year, we had the farce of the judgment issued by the Council of Europe, which we will be discussing in more detail later. I have been a member of the Council of Europe for 14 years. We now know that this ex parte judgment, this rule 39, was perhaps not delivered according to international law, and apparently, in discussions with the European Court of Human Rights, we have now sought assurances that it is going to be tidied up. But even if our own courts allow somebody to proceed through them, with their case to be heard, even if we manage to appoint a sufficient number of judges, even if the person does not create a history and even if our own courts allow them to be put on a flight, there is this right of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. We therefore have no certainty that these cases will not be heard and delayed.

I accept that this is the toughest Bill we have ever had. It is a good Bill in its own right. If we had produced it two years ago, we may have been getting people to Rwanda by now, but time is running out. We have perhaps nine months until the next general election. If we do not amend the Bill, we could end up in the worst possible situation, where we, as a Government, say that we are committed to stopping the boats, we have passed the necessary legislation and then we have egg all over our face because nobody is actually put on the flights. We will look extremely stupid.

In my view, the only solution is that when people arrive here, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, they are detained, but within a matter of days they are offshored, and the only justification for not being put on a flight is a proper medical condition. That is the only way we will get people on these flights.

[Richard Graham]

May I posit a slightly different approach? As my right hon. Friend says, all of us on the Government Benches want to do something about the problem. There are Opposition Members who are quite happy to subcontract our immigration decision making to the evil people smugglers operating small boats across the channel, but we are united on trying to do something. The only issue on which we differ is the extent to which we wish to override domestic and international law on individual human rights. My right hon. Friend has stood up for his constituents in their most difficult times, so he will understand that to do so would be a massive step that most of us on the Government Benches are not prepared to take.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to see the Bill through, in the face of opposition from those who, at times, risk looking as if they are keener on putting sub-postmasters in jail than illegal immigrants, and make sure we have an option and a deterrence that will almost certainly work? Or is he prepared to sacrifice that huge step forward on the altar of an amendment to try to rule out all possibility of any individual human rights complaint being upheld?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

To be fair to my hon. Friend, I do not like what I am suggesting, but we are faced with a national crisis and we have to look at our own experience of what has and has not worked. We all know that overwhelmingly the people who are crossing are economic migrants. They are all perfectly nice people—I make no complaint about them personally; they are just trying to get a better life—but we all know the truth is that they would do anything to avoid being put on one of these flights.

I agree with my hon. Friend that we would not normally want to circumvent human rights, but in this case we know that is what is going to happen. We are almost arguing on the head of a pin about legal uncertainties, when we know from practical experience that everybody will appeal and be able to create a credible case, based on personal political involvement, mental health or some other reason, and nobody—or only a derisory number of people—will be put on the flight. The Government should grasp this nettle and accept these amendments, although I fear they will not. If they do not, we will be in a very dangerous place in relation to public opinion.

State Pension Age for Women

Debate between Edward Leigh and Richard Graham

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I know this is a very important issue, but I am afraid it is a custom of the House that the Public Gallery has to remain silent. I apologise.

[Richard Graham]

I understand the point the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is making. That was covered in considerable detail in the report of the Work and Pensions Committee, which was chaired by his colleague, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). There are claims both ways on that. I suspect that there were definitely people who did not know, but perhaps not quite as many as has been suggested.

Let me come on to the Opposition parties’ proposals. In the first debate in this very Chamber some time ago, which, as the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) should know, was as well-attended as this one is, I warned the WASPI campaigners that they were in real danger of being led up the garden path by Labour and the Scottish National party. I note that, in 2016, the Labour party said it would commit £860 million to extend pension credits. That was reduced in its manifesto to £300 million, alongside a line that said:

“Labour is exploring options for further transitional protections.”

After two and a half years, I would have thought that it would have come up with some result from its explorations, but there is none so far. The Scottish National party, which simply said in its manifesto:

“We will also continue to support the WASPI campaign”,

now has the devolved powers in Scotland to give additional discretionary sums of money to those affected.

[Richard Graham]

No, I will not take any further interventions. There are many people who want to speak.

My strong recommendation to the Minister is this. He is a new, capable Minister, and I know he has looked at this issue. He should focus on what extra support he and the Government can give to those women who are still in work longer than they otherwise expected to be. In particular, he should spell out more about what the Government’s strategy for “fuller working lives” involves. Meanwhile, he has in his in-tray two important issues to look at, which affect other pensioners: the fact that there are real issues for people who are getting net pay and not benefiting from their employer’s contributions, and those people with too little to get over the hurdle to get the pension at all—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Time out, I am afraid.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Debate between Edward Leigh and Richard Graham

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That is a fair point and it leads directly to the last point that I need to make. All too often in this place, when we see abuses continuing, we fly to the temptation to create new legislation. What we need to do is to enforce the existing legislation better and ensure that it is modernised and updated, because it is in place.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the legislation being in place. Does he agree that consumer behaviour is the key to this issue? For example, parents who go with young children to look at puppies will often find themselves in a difficult place emotionally if they decide not to take the puppy that their children want, even if they do so because it is unsuitable, it is too young or there is no mother there. Does he agree that consumer behaviour is one of the things that we need to change?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

That point is absolutely right.

We have to resist the temptation to legislate. I say gently to my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) that I am not sure that it would be wise to stop pet shops selling puppies through legislation in this place. That might be too heavy-handed. We have to be careful that we do not, because of our concern and emotion about these subjects, bring in more legislation that might be unenforceable. We must remember that enormous numbers of puppies are brought in from without the jurisdiction and from where we have very little control.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) makes an important point. First, we need to enforce the legislation that we already have. Local authorities have the powers. Secondly, we need to proclaim the message that the key to this problem—all the organisations and charities that are involved in this matter agree with him about this—is to inform the consumer. It is the consumer who must make the informed choice, as we did, to go to the dog breeders to see the puppy with the mother. They should not buy a puppy in some halfway location or go to a pet shop. They should do their research and work out whether they have the resources to look after what is a living creature. I hope that we can send that message from the debate, rather than calling for more and more legislation.

amendment of the law

Debate between Edward Leigh and Richard Graham

Monday 25th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) will forgive me if I do not follow on from what she said, but she spoke a lot of sense about air passenger duty and I agree with her.

One of the most powerful points made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who led for the Opposition, was when he mentioned somebody who visited his constituency surgery only last week who, after serving in a job for 30 years, had been made unemployed. As it happens, I had a similar case of somebody who had served for 30 years but who had now, through no fault of her own, been made unemployed, could not find a job and was in negative equity. That brings home to all of us the human nature of what we are dealing with. Although we may bandy statistics across the House, we are dealing with a desperate situation—for which, by the way, I do not blame the Chancellor—and we should put at the forefront of our minds the appalling human tragedy of ordinary people who are being put out of work and who cannot find work.

In my view, the best way to recreate the conditions in which people can find work is to create a balanced economy that can recreate confidence. Unfortunately, our public spending is unbalanced: half of our £730 billion or £750 billion budget is taken up by health and welfare, which are ring-fenced, and that puts enormous stresses and strains on all other budgets.

Despite the attempt by the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), with characteristic chutzpah, to rewrite history, I am not sure that it is possible to argue that austerity has caused this recession when, in fact, we are spending more than ever before—despite the fact that the figures were manipulated for this Budget—and borrowing more than ever before. The central thrust of the Labour party’s argument, which is that the problems have been caused by this Government, does not add up and the British people do not think that it adds up. They want more positive suggestions from the Labour party that show what it would do better in the face of the desperate international situation.

[Richard Graham]

Did my hon. Friend find it curious that the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) seemed to be unclear about why our exports are effectively stagnant, when they had been expected to rise by 6%? Surely he must know that exports to the EU have fallen off a cliff while other exports have risen.

[Mr Leigh]

Absolutely. That shows the sort of difficulties in the Labour party’s arguments. If it is to form a Government, it must come up with a viable alternative.

I do not support cutting for the sake of cutting. If Tesco has a problem in its bread department, it sells bread more efficiently; it does not cut the number of loaves it sells. I agree about that, but the Labour party cannot give simplistic solutions based on more wasteful spending, nor can it constantly say that our problems would be solved if we restored the 50% tax band, when every study proves that it reduced revenues to the Treasury. As we know, the top 1% of earners pay 24% of all tax revenues. Labour has to come up with something more intellectual and rational if it is to convince the British people that it is ready for government.

The situation is dire. The incomes of 2007 will not be seen again until 2019. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we will need a further £9 billion of cuts to public services after the next election. In 2015, there will be £70 billion more borrowing than was predicted in 2010. Any Budget giveaways—I accept that this Budget is politically astute—will be soaked up by inflation rising faster than wages. That point has already been made about the 1p cut in beer duty. One would have to drink five pints every night for seven nights to save 35p a week. I am not sure that will impress anybody. The cut in corporation tax is welcome, but that is only a small part of the total cost to business. Business rates have increased by 13% in three years and are the prime motivator against growth in the small business economy.

The problems that we face are difficult, complex and international. I am still firmly convinced that we need a strategy based on levelling taxation as much as is possible. The attempt to bring corporation tax more in line with small business tax is a first step. We should try to flatten all capital taxes and business taxes. We should then move on to income taxes and get rid of the plethora of allowances, which fuels an industry based on evasion and avoidance.

At first sight, the excellent scheme that the Chancellor is trying to bring together to help with home loans is very good if it does not lead to a property bubble. However, it is a bit like somebody climbing a ladder with loads of our money, throwing it over the edge and saying, “May the fittest come and get it.” It is a bit like the person rushing towards the pool of Bethesda.

It would be much better to have a flatter, simpler form of taxation so that people make their own decisions and do not rely on Government handouts, and so that we do not have a huge industry based on evasion and avoidance.

We are creating a special child care allowance for people who want to put their children into child care. That is great, but why have we not fulfilled our pledge to introduce a married person’s tax allowance?