A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by a constituency parish newspaper. They posed some relevant and important questions so I thought I would take this opportunity of giving them a wider readership, through the Gainsborough Standard and via my website.
The first question referred to my ‘independent streak’ when voting against the war in Iraq and asked for my position about our role in the continuing conflict in Afghanistan.
I have always been opposed to the war in Afghanistan, but I believe that a comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan must include clear, tightly drawn, realistic objectives that are regularly reviewed. I believe that Afghanistan can be stabilised if a reasonably honest government is established and tribal structures supported. I feel sure that this can be achieved with a much smaller allied force. The use of NATO special forces to train the Afghan army and Police force will be necessary, but it is inevitable that there will always be some level of insurgency in Afghanistan. A larger effort must be made in buying poppy crops thus compensating and appeasing the Afghan people and making them less likely to turn towards the Taliban. These objectives are, given political will and realism achievable. They would also bring great savings of British lives and money.
On the issue of abortion I was asked why I was in favour of its restriction or even its abolition?
My personal belief is that life begins at the moment of conception. An abortion is a premeditated act through which life is taken. As far as I am concerned the 24 week time frame in which it is possible to have an abortion is too long. My personal preference would be for twelve or fourteen weeks. I appreciate that this is unlikely and I will therefore push for abortions to be limited to eighteen weeks after conception.
On the subject of tighter control / restriction of the banking and financial sectors - would I support a future government’s attempts to restrict a free financial market?
I believe the decisions that led to the banking crisis represent a policy failure of historic proportions. We believe we now need deep, wide-ranging reform that matches both the magnitude of the crisis and the scale of the hardship inflicted on the British public. If we can bring stability to our banking system, and reward long-term returns over short-term bonus chasing, then we will have put in place a key foundation stone of an economic recovery.
A Conservative government will
• Abolish the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the tripartite regime it operated with the Bank of England and the Treasury
• Create a strong and powerful Bank of England with the authority and powers necessary to ensure financial stability
• Create a powerful Consumer Protection Agency that will bring together in one place the consumer powers currently split between the old FSA and the Office of Fair Trading
• Demand that banks set aside much more of their own money for their risky lending as a form of insurance policy
• Appoint a Treasury Minister with special responsibility for fighting our corner in Brussels so that European regulations are right for the City of London
• Ask the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission to conduct a focused examination of the effects of consolidation in the retail banking sector.
Further questions covered Europe, pensions, and the ‘broken society’ and I will write about those next week.
Tuesday 8 December 2009
Edward challenges the Chancellor on efficiency in the Queen's Speech Debate: Business and economy - 26th November 2009
I am just about to refer to the Chancellor, so, as he is leaving the Chamber, I hope that he will not mind if I take issue with what he said earlier this afternoon. My point relates to the very serious matter of the loan that was made to HBOS and RBS. I am not arguing with the principle that the Government wanted to keep it secret so as not to destabilise the markets; I am saying that there are clearly established protocols, whereby, when the Government decide to give an indemnity in secret-for instance, on a matter affecting national security-they must inform Parliament in confidence through the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury.
There is a very good reason why. It is not my amour-propre, or that of the Treasury Committee Chairman, who is equally upset about the matter; it is because if I, as the Chairman of the PAC, had been informed of the matter, I would have told nobody. I would not have told anybody from my party's Front-Bench team or anybody else. I would, however, have discussed it with one person-and one person only: the Comptroller and Auditor General. He is the auditor of the Government, an independent figure, and he would have checked matters out and ensured that the whole thing was kosher. That is why he is there, and he would have done so in complete confidence.
Over the eight years that I have been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I have been told in confidence of many instances, particularly concerning national security, when the Government have had to issue indemnity. I have never leaked a single thing. In the 150-year history of the PAC, no Chairman has ever leaked anything that has ever been given to them of that nature. It is a serious matter-that, contrary to all those protocols and conventions, the Government decided not to inform Parliament in confidence through the Chairmen of those two Committees.
Even more seriously, I believe that the reason why I was written to this week, 13 months late, is that the National Audit Office was closing in. The NAO's report on the banking support measures is imminent, and earlier the Treasury Committee Chairman spoke, on a point of order, in much stronger terms than myself. He said that he believed that the NAO was closing in and the Government decided that they had to release the information now, 13 months late. That is a serious matter, and I shall not let it go.
I shall keep pursuing it, because this is why Parliament is set up-to protect the interests of the taxpayer and the people of this country. Occasionally Governments have to do things in secret and to protect the markets, but if they do they have to observe the protocols. They did not do so, and for the Chancellor to tell me yesterday that he was absolved from doing so by the Banking Act 2009, which by the way came into force months after the indemnity was given, is not good enough. I shall leave the matter there, but we must return to it.
Like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I want to express extraordinary concern about the fact that, as of 31 October, total public sector debt stood at £829 billion. That is 59 per cent. of total national output. My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor made the point that there is now a very real danger that the ratings agencies-Moody's, Standard and Poor's and so on-may start to question the UK's ability to pay its debt and downgrade the triple A rating that we currently enjoy. That would make it more expensive for all of us to borrow. For the UK and for corporations, lower investment in the UK and higher unemployment could result, leading to a disastrous double-dip recession.
Let us forget party politics for a moment. There is no choice: we have to address the deficit. The Government tell us that they are, indeed, going to reduce the deficit by half by the end of the next Parliament, but they have offered only broad clues about what they intend to do, with hints at tax increases and spending cuts. They are only hints, however; there are few detailed policies. There was one detailed policy, which would have saved only £300 million, and that was a pay freeze for top public sector earners. That is £300 million; it is nothing. Surely the people of this country, or Parliament, must have some idea of what the Government, if they are re-elected, will do to try to deal with public sector debt of £829 billion.
I shall not get involved in great macro-economic arguments with any ideas that I might have; I shall go right down to the micro level. I have now chaired the best part of 400 PAC sessions, in which we have looked at Government efficiency, and one way in which we can climb out of this black hole-it is only one way in which we will achieve only part of the object-is to carry out Government programmes much more efficiently.
I am worried that if a new Government are elected in May, or even if this Government are re-elected, Ministers, for instance at the Ministry of Defence, will be under Treasury instructions to cut x per cent. off their budget. So, the number of new aircraft carriers may be reduced from two to one; there may be a question mark over the joint strike fighter; or the number of Trident submarines may be reduced from four to three. In other words, the MOD will get up to its old tricks of moving programmes sideways and delaying them. But what about the efficiency of the procurement executive? New Ministers will have to get to grips with that issue on day one, and they may have to bring in outside help. We cannot allow the public sector, particularly the civil service, to continue with layers of management which simply do not exist in the private sector.
The PAC has, I think, made some progress in the past eight years. We can make only so much, but we have identified proven savings-I wrote to the Chancellor earlier this week on the matter-of £4 billion. However, we have now gone further and identified another £9 billion that we can save without changing a single policy. I know that this is the detail of the debate and that it is not as exciting as the party political debate, but £9 billion is a serious amount of money and it can be saved. The savings have all been audited by the National Audit Office, representatives of which come to our Committee. If any of the recommendations we have made in the past eight years had been carried out, we could have saved not only the £4 billion, but another £9 billion.
I shall give a few examples. Some £1.4 billion could be saved by Departments sharing back-office services such as finance and human resources; and £2.5 billion could be saved by all Departments matching the level of staff cost reductions achieved by the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Defence. Even a relatively simple twist of the hellishly complex benefits system could save a staggering £110 million, which would be a start. If the whole of Whitehall matched the example of some Departments in reducing running costs such as those for accommodation and IT, more than £1.3 billion could be saved. There is more. Improving how the public sector contracts and manages construction projects could save more than £2.6 billion, and developing the commercial skills of those who wield the Government's significant buying power could realise potential savings of more than £700 million, through cannier procurement of goods and services. Better use of consultants-the Committee has done a lot of work on them-alone could save £400 million. That is £9 billion just there.
I am not making a sales pitch for the PAC. I believe that there must be a total change in attitude in the public sector; that Ministers and civil servants should assume that when they are spending public money, it is as if they are spending from their own personal bank accounts; and that the days of rapid rises in spending are now over.
Actually, in a way, the days of targets may be over, because targets work in a growing budget. Typically, in the past 12 years, the Government have come out with a worthy objective and required the civil service to carry it out. When that did not happen, the Government had to impose targets. It is going to be very difficult to impose targets on a shrinking, contracting budget. The Government are going to have to trust professionals and cap their budgets in the health and education services, and they are going to have to ensure that our civil servants and managers deliver services to the front line, and not cut them while protecting their own jobs. That is not a good enough attitude from our public servants.
There is a very good reason why. It is not my amour-propre, or that of the Treasury Committee Chairman, who is equally upset about the matter; it is because if I, as the Chairman of the PAC, had been informed of the matter, I would have told nobody. I would not have told anybody from my party's Front-Bench team or anybody else. I would, however, have discussed it with one person-and one person only: the Comptroller and Auditor General. He is the auditor of the Government, an independent figure, and he would have checked matters out and ensured that the whole thing was kosher. That is why he is there, and he would have done so in complete confidence.
Over the eight years that I have been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I have been told in confidence of many instances, particularly concerning national security, when the Government have had to issue indemnity. I have never leaked a single thing. In the 150-year history of the PAC, no Chairman has ever leaked anything that has ever been given to them of that nature. It is a serious matter-that, contrary to all those protocols and conventions, the Government decided not to inform Parliament in confidence through the Chairmen of those two Committees.
Even more seriously, I believe that the reason why I was written to this week, 13 months late, is that the National Audit Office was closing in. The NAO's report on the banking support measures is imminent, and earlier the Treasury Committee Chairman spoke, on a point of order, in much stronger terms than myself. He said that he believed that the NAO was closing in and the Government decided that they had to release the information now, 13 months late. That is a serious matter, and I shall not let it go.
I shall keep pursuing it, because this is why Parliament is set up-to protect the interests of the taxpayer and the people of this country. Occasionally Governments have to do things in secret and to protect the markets, but if they do they have to observe the protocols. They did not do so, and for the Chancellor to tell me yesterday that he was absolved from doing so by the Banking Act 2009, which by the way came into force months after the indemnity was given, is not good enough. I shall leave the matter there, but we must return to it.
Like all other hon. Members who have spoken, I want to express extraordinary concern about the fact that, as of 31 October, total public sector debt stood at £829 billion. That is 59 per cent. of total national output. My hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor made the point that there is now a very real danger that the ratings agencies-Moody's, Standard and Poor's and so on-may start to question the UK's ability to pay its debt and downgrade the triple A rating that we currently enjoy. That would make it more expensive for all of us to borrow. For the UK and for corporations, lower investment in the UK and higher unemployment could result, leading to a disastrous double-dip recession.
Let us forget party politics for a moment. There is no choice: we have to address the deficit. The Government tell us that they are, indeed, going to reduce the deficit by half by the end of the next Parliament, but they have offered only broad clues about what they intend to do, with hints at tax increases and spending cuts. They are only hints, however; there are few detailed policies. There was one detailed policy, which would have saved only £300 million, and that was a pay freeze for top public sector earners. That is £300 million; it is nothing. Surely the people of this country, or Parliament, must have some idea of what the Government, if they are re-elected, will do to try to deal with public sector debt of £829 billion.
I shall not get involved in great macro-economic arguments with any ideas that I might have; I shall go right down to the micro level. I have now chaired the best part of 400 PAC sessions, in which we have looked at Government efficiency, and one way in which we can climb out of this black hole-it is only one way in which we will achieve only part of the object-is to carry out Government programmes much more efficiently.
I am worried that if a new Government are elected in May, or even if this Government are re-elected, Ministers, for instance at the Ministry of Defence, will be under Treasury instructions to cut x per cent. off their budget. So, the number of new aircraft carriers may be reduced from two to one; there may be a question mark over the joint strike fighter; or the number of Trident submarines may be reduced from four to three. In other words, the MOD will get up to its old tricks of moving programmes sideways and delaying them. But what about the efficiency of the procurement executive? New Ministers will have to get to grips with that issue on day one, and they may have to bring in outside help. We cannot allow the public sector, particularly the civil service, to continue with layers of management which simply do not exist in the private sector.
The PAC has, I think, made some progress in the past eight years. We can make only so much, but we have identified proven savings-I wrote to the Chancellor earlier this week on the matter-of £4 billion. However, we have now gone further and identified another £9 billion that we can save without changing a single policy. I know that this is the detail of the debate and that it is not as exciting as the party political debate, but £9 billion is a serious amount of money and it can be saved. The savings have all been audited by the National Audit Office, representatives of which come to our Committee. If any of the recommendations we have made in the past eight years had been carried out, we could have saved not only the £4 billion, but another £9 billion.
I shall give a few examples. Some £1.4 billion could be saved by Departments sharing back-office services such as finance and human resources; and £2.5 billion could be saved by all Departments matching the level of staff cost reductions achieved by the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Defence. Even a relatively simple twist of the hellishly complex benefits system could save a staggering £110 million, which would be a start. If the whole of Whitehall matched the example of some Departments in reducing running costs such as those for accommodation and IT, more than £1.3 billion could be saved. There is more. Improving how the public sector contracts and manages construction projects could save more than £2.6 billion, and developing the commercial skills of those who wield the Government's significant buying power could realise potential savings of more than £700 million, through cannier procurement of goods and services. Better use of consultants-the Committee has done a lot of work on them-alone could save £400 million. That is £9 billion just there.
I am not making a sales pitch for the PAC. I believe that there must be a total change in attitude in the public sector; that Ministers and civil servants should assume that when they are spending public money, it is as if they are spending from their own personal bank accounts; and that the days of rapid rises in spending are now over.
Actually, in a way, the days of targets may be over, because targets work in a growing budget. Typically, in the past 12 years, the Government have come out with a worthy objective and required the civil service to carry it out. When that did not happen, the Government had to impose targets. It is going to be very difficult to impose targets on a shrinking, contracting budget. The Government are going to have to trust professionals and cap their budgets in the health and education services, and they are going to have to ensure that our civil servants and managers deliver services to the front line, and not cut them while protecting their own jobs. That is not a good enough attitude from our public servants.
Wednesday 2 December 2009
A Welcome Grant
In my role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I recently chaired a hearing into the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s campaign aimed at Promoting Participation with the Historic Environment.
One of the hearings witnesses was the Chief Executive of English Heritage Dr Simon Thurley. With my final question I took the opportunity to enquire about his organisation’s decision to cut funding for our historic cathedrals. Aside from the potential damage caused by a lack of funding this has caused our cathedrals to charge more for entrance and therefore potentially cause a reduction in participation.
Dr Thurley replied that English heritage was in the process of conducting a survey entitled The English Heritage Cathedrals Fabric Condition Survey 2009 which had the remit of deciding which cathedrals had significant problems and therefore needed help. The results of this survey were to be published on December 1st and he suggested, as I am a member of the Lincoln Cathedral Council, that I would not be disappointed.
Yesterday the results of the survey were announced. It concluded that despite our cathedrals having spent over £250m on repairs since 1991, it was still necessary to spend another £100m over the next ten years. Significantly Lincoln Cathedral was granted £250,000 for urgent work, and according to Dean of Lincoln, the Very Revd Philip Buckler, this money means “that the current works program can continue”.
I have spoken to the Dean and he has provided me with a breakdown of what the investment will be used for once it commences in the new fiscal year. It will be primarily used for work on the south side of the cathedral between the two transepts. Here the team of in-house craft and tradesmen will work on stone repair, refurbishment of the stained glass windows and roof and lead repair. They will also repair the damaged wood.
The announcement of the grant is encouraging and greatly welcomed. It is tangible recognition of the work which still needs to be done in order to maintain not only Lincoln, but the other sixty cathedrals in England for ourselves, and for future generations. After all, our cathedrals are our greatest architectural heritage. But they are still pathetically under-funded in comparison to some of our continental neighbours. For instance the French Government has just announced it is putting 100m Euros into its own Cathedrals. That said, English Heritage’s announcement is at least a step in the right direction.
Readers may be amused by the pathetic daub that I attempted of the Cathedral, which accompanies this article.
Thursday 26 November 2009
Letter to the Chancellor
This week’s column is fairly heavy going I’m afraid but I hope you will stick with it. With the country’s financial position as precarious as it is I hope that this will illustrate that considerable savings in public expenditure are possible without reducing our vital public services.
In my capacity as Chairman of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, pointing out that recommendations from the Committee have led to savings of in excess of £4 billion over the course of the last two parliaments and that wider take up of the recommendations could reap far greater rewards.
The National Audit Office that is responsible to the Committee could and should work with relevant Government departments to identify even more savings attributable to the recommendations in specific reports. At the moment there is little evidence of the Committee recommendations being used as a spur to action across government despite the fact that they could be repeated in a number of areas.
My letter contains an appendix that goes into great detail; the savings can be broken down into five areas:
1. better financial management; 2. better information management; 3. reducing complexity and improving processes; 4. exploiting the scale of spend; and 5. improved outcomes.
In addition to setting out the financial impact that has been realised, I have included some examples of projected savings amounting to over £9 billion that could be realised.
I point out to the Chancellor how slow progress is in realising the savings we set out shows that the biggest challenge is translating aspiration into action. Our work has consistently shown over a number of years how efficiencies can be achieved in practice. The Public Accounts Committee are convinced that much more can be done and hope this summary provides a constructive contribution and inspiration for further action.
After all of our reports we get a formal government response. These do not pick up on the wider implications. I invited Mr Darling and his colleagues to drive the greatest possible savings from the Committee’s work by ensuring future responses explain what is being done to drive wider take-up of relevant recommendations, and to provide firm commitments of action where recommendations are agreed.
If ministers with responsibility for spending departments were encouraged to take forward the specific opportunities set out in the annex to my letter much greater progress could be made.
The full text of my letter can be viewed at the following link. http://edward-leigh.net/LettertoChancellor.aspx
In my capacity as Chairman of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, pointing out that recommendations from the Committee have led to savings of in excess of £4 billion over the course of the last two parliaments and that wider take up of the recommendations could reap far greater rewards.
The National Audit Office that is responsible to the Committee could and should work with relevant Government departments to identify even more savings attributable to the recommendations in specific reports. At the moment there is little evidence of the Committee recommendations being used as a spur to action across government despite the fact that they could be repeated in a number of areas.
My letter contains an appendix that goes into great detail; the savings can be broken down into five areas:
1. better financial management; 2. better information management; 3. reducing complexity and improving processes; 4. exploiting the scale of spend; and 5. improved outcomes.
In addition to setting out the financial impact that has been realised, I have included some examples of projected savings amounting to over £9 billion that could be realised.
I point out to the Chancellor how slow progress is in realising the savings we set out shows that the biggest challenge is translating aspiration into action. Our work has consistently shown over a number of years how efficiencies can be achieved in practice. The Public Accounts Committee are convinced that much more can be done and hope this summary provides a constructive contribution and inspiration for further action.
After all of our reports we get a formal government response. These do not pick up on the wider implications. I invited Mr Darling and his colleagues to drive the greatest possible savings from the Committee’s work by ensuring future responses explain what is being done to drive wider take-up of relevant recommendations, and to provide firm commitments of action where recommendations are agreed.
If ministers with responsibility for spending departments were encouraged to take forward the specific opportunities set out in the annex to my letter much greater progress could be made.
The full text of my letter can be viewed at the following link. http://edward-leigh.net/LettertoChancellor.aspx
Thursday 19 November 2009
Two Victories
I went along to the Chamber and found out that the Government had run up the white flag over Lord Waddington’s free speech amendment on the Coroner’s and Justice Bill.
This is a great victory for free speech which in a democracy should be paramount.
In the evening I debated at the Oxford Union alongside the Bishop of Winchester and Jonathon Aitken. At a well attended debate we won by ten votes, 145 to 135, proposing the motion:
“This House believes that Britain needs a return of Christian Values”
Everything conceivable was thrown at us, even the slave trade. It was interesting that we didn’t talk about homosexuality, but our opponents were adamant that Christians are obsessed by it.
I just concentrated on the teachings of Christ; a better guide then the life of a most Christians since!
The following day I took the train on the long journey up to Durham to debate at the University’s Union. This time I was opposing the motion:
“This House would ban the Bomb”
Many of the arguments have changed little in the past forty years, except that we now live in an even more hostile world. Given the setting of the debate, it was perhaps a little surprising to once again emerge victorious.
Last summer I joined Peter Lilley and John Redwood in successfully proposing a motion at the Cambridge Union, praising the record of Lady Thatcher. This was possibly an even more unlikely result at a university debating society than at Durham.
Maybe this is a straw in the wind, that Conservatives can once again win debates amongst students.
This is a great victory for free speech which in a democracy should be paramount.
In the evening I debated at the Oxford Union alongside the Bishop of Winchester and Jonathon Aitken. At a well attended debate we won by ten votes, 145 to 135, proposing the motion:
“This House believes that Britain needs a return of Christian Values”
Everything conceivable was thrown at us, even the slave trade. It was interesting that we didn’t talk about homosexuality, but our opponents were adamant that Christians are obsessed by it.
I just concentrated on the teachings of Christ; a better guide then the life of a most Christians since!
The following day I took the train on the long journey up to Durham to debate at the University’s Union. This time I was opposing the motion:
“This House would ban the Bomb”
Many of the arguments have changed little in the past forty years, except that we now live in an even more hostile world. Given the setting of the debate, it was perhaps a little surprising to once again emerge victorious.
Last summer I joined Peter Lilley and John Redwood in successfully proposing a motion at the Cambridge Union, praising the record of Lady Thatcher. This was possibly an even more unlikely result at a university debating society than at Durham.
Maybe this is a straw in the wind, that Conservatives can once again win debates amongst students.
Wednesday 11 November 2009
From Leigh to You
Clearing through some old papers last weekend I came across two old copies of The Times, one for Saturday 20th January 1996 and another for Friday 4th February 2000. I must have saved them for some particular reason though looking through them now I can't now imagine why.
Thirteen years is not a long time but it does make you realise how issues that seemed so vitally important at the time were not with the benefit of hindsight. I'm not saying that the ones I've highlighted were important, clearly they were to those involved, but here are a few that caught my eye.
The front-page headline from 1996 read "Maxwell brothers are cleared." Many of you will remember Robert Maxwell who was, for a time, a Labour MP, owner of the Daily Mirror and Chairman of Oxford United Football Club. I've no doubt that in those capacities he had some influence in the country's affairs but he is now but a footnote in our history. The headline referred to the trial of his two younger sons who were cleared following a long investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into the pension funds of his companies.
On the political pages one of the headlines states "Lilley orders clampdown to cut £730m housing benefit fraud." Peter Lilley was, in 1996, the Government minister for Social Security. Had that headline appeared in the paper's of today it would have surprised none of us.
In the 2000 edition I note that Manchester United were top of the Premier League followed by Leeds, Arsenal and Liverpool. United and Arsenal are still in the top four and Liverpool could still finish there despite a run of poor results, but Leeds fell on hard times a year or two later. But looking through the league as a whole things are still pretty much as you will find them today.
Elsewhere the paper incudes stories about the minimum wage, worries about mis-use of databases and a Government minister claiming that there was a whispering campaign against her.
The minimum wage story was an announcement by the then shadow chancellor Michael Portillo that a future Conservative Government would not reverse the minimum wage legislation. That remains our policy by the way, and the minister concerned about the whispering campaign was the late Mo Mowlam. Interestingly enough the letters column contained one from one Alistair Campbell - Tony Blair's press secretary - denying that such a campaign existed!
Change the name of the worried minister to whoever Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson have in their sights and the story could be running this week
As regards databases - there are now thousands more of them open to mis-use. This Government alone has created scores of them, all containing the most personal information about us and, over the years, managed to lose laptops, disks and memory sticks containing far too much of it.
If you have any thoughts on today's political issues I can be contacted at the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA or in these postal strike days email me at leighe@parliament.uk
Thirteen years is not a long time but it does make you realise how issues that seemed so vitally important at the time were not with the benefit of hindsight. I'm not saying that the ones I've highlighted were important, clearly they were to those involved, but here are a few that caught my eye.
The front-page headline from 1996 read "Maxwell brothers are cleared." Many of you will remember Robert Maxwell who was, for a time, a Labour MP, owner of the Daily Mirror and Chairman of Oxford United Football Club. I've no doubt that in those capacities he had some influence in the country's affairs but he is now but a footnote in our history. The headline referred to the trial of his two younger sons who were cleared following a long investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into the pension funds of his companies.
On the political pages one of the headlines states "Lilley orders clampdown to cut £730m housing benefit fraud." Peter Lilley was, in 1996, the Government minister for Social Security. Had that headline appeared in the paper's of today it would have surprised none of us.
In the 2000 edition I note that Manchester United were top of the Premier League followed by Leeds, Arsenal and Liverpool. United and Arsenal are still in the top four and Liverpool could still finish there despite a run of poor results, but Leeds fell on hard times a year or two later. But looking through the league as a whole things are still pretty much as you will find them today.
Elsewhere the paper incudes stories about the minimum wage, worries about mis-use of databases and a Government minister claiming that there was a whispering campaign against her.
The minimum wage story was an announcement by the then shadow chancellor Michael Portillo that a future Conservative Government would not reverse the minimum wage legislation. That remains our policy by the way, and the minister concerned about the whispering campaign was the late Mo Mowlam. Interestingly enough the letters column contained one from one Alistair Campbell - Tony Blair's press secretary - denying that such a campaign existed!
Change the name of the worried minister to whoever Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson have in their sights and the story could be running this week
As regards databases - there are now thousands more of them open to mis-use. This Government alone has created scores of them, all containing the most personal information about us and, over the years, managed to lose laptops, disks and memory sticks containing far too much of it.
If you have any thoughts on today's political issues I can be contacted at the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA or in these postal strike days email me at leighe@parliament.uk
Thursday 5 November 2009
The Right must continue to make the case for real reform
In all the furore over Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time, the voice of the moderate right has had little chance to express itself.
The first truth is that the Labour government itself has given a tremendous boost to the BNP with its immigration policies. The careful controls such as the Primary Purpose Rule which had controlled immigration under successive Conservative Governments were torn up. There has in the last twelve years been an unprecedented wave in immigration of over 2 million people. One report I read this week suggests that in the not too distant future our population will reach 77 million.
A cap is needed now on immigration.
In case anyone thinks there is something racist in this I would argue that the uncontrolled eastern European has long been a problem, much as I love Poles and their work ethos.
Even the Conservative asylum policies, designed to admit small numbers of political refugees, were a problem. Within the last twelve years these rules have been abused.
The second boost to far-right parties has been a general sense of hopelessness engendered by our increasingly rule based, regulation driven, politically correct society. We should remember that Britishness is primarily about freedom from the state. We are the only country in Europe never to have been a police state or had one imposed on us. Again a new Conservative government must have the sort of bonfire of controls that the Conservative government of 1951 initiated.
The third boost to the extremist policies has been the moral relativism of mainstream liberal thinking. Politicians are frightened of proclaiming an ideal because it may not be attainable by everybody or because they themselves fall short of it. An obvious example is marriage. It may be difficult for people to commit themselves to each other for life, to bring up children, but that does not mean it is wrong or that in acknowledging the fact we are attacking alternative lifestyles.
The fourth boost for the far-right, and most difficult to talk about, has been the squeamishness of mainstream politicians in dealing with Muslim extremism, not just the terrorist but the cultural variety. I make no secret of my admiration for Britain’s Jewish community. Muslims should learn from their example. Jewish people here have kept their religion, (if they want, of the liberal or orthodox variety) they have kept their identity, but they have chosen to integrate. They have become more British than the British; they have contributed enormously to Britain’s cultural, intellectual and business strength.
I admire Islam, its spirituality and its values. But Muslims who choose to settle here, and they are most welcome, must see themselves primarily as loyal Britons, not just in the sense of citizenship but cultural sense as well.
The last boost for extremist parties has been the lack of radical intellectual vigour in the mainstream ones. There are too few back-benchers on the opposition party and too little encouragement given to radical ideas which appeal to the party loyalist. I recently attended a Conservative county wide dinner. I was the only Conservative MP there. This doesn’t matter much, but what the party should be worried about is that there were only 40 people there. There were 2,000 journalists at the party conference but only 1,500 delegates. To break through you need ideas coming up from below. You must inspire your activists.
Back-bench MPs and MEPs who come up with new ideas should be encouraged. I am not saying that the leadership should adopt all there policies, just that we need a debate about them.
Let me give a few examples. First, localism. If we really believe in this should local authorities not be given the tax licensing powers, for instance through local sales tax being set free from central government.
In the education world we must trust the professionals. Schools really should be set free. Heads should be entirely free to set the curriculum, hire and fire staff and select and expel pupils as they wish, as happens so successfully in the private sector. Parents should be able to able to buy into the private education sector with a discount equivalent to the cost of state education. I say this by the way as a parent of a child in a comprehensive school.
The NHS is not a religion. People who have contributed all their lives as tax-payers should be able to top-up NHS care with private care or private medicines if the NHS can’t provide them with what they need. Pensioners should be allowed to claim tax relief for private health insurance (the policy of previous Conservative governments) and this should be extended as circumstances permit. I say all this as someone who has to rely exclusively for himself and his family on the NHS. At present I can afford nothing else.
We must continue to be explicit about the state of the public finances, acknowledge the need for cuts in the public sector and unveil efficiency programmes. Much progress has been made in this respect. For a long time people like me, who argued for breaking free of Labours spending plans, were called dangerous extremists who would cost us the next election; who says that now?
And of course when we take power we need a referendum on our relationship with Europe and ensuring our national sovereignty.
And so the list goes on. We need radical ideas from the grass roots. We need of course to capture the middle ground but politics needs to be fun as well!
The first truth is that the Labour government itself has given a tremendous boost to the BNP with its immigration policies. The careful controls such as the Primary Purpose Rule which had controlled immigration under successive Conservative Governments were torn up. There has in the last twelve years been an unprecedented wave in immigration of over 2 million people. One report I read this week suggests that in the not too distant future our population will reach 77 million.
A cap is needed now on immigration.
In case anyone thinks there is something racist in this I would argue that the uncontrolled eastern European has long been a problem, much as I love Poles and their work ethos.
Even the Conservative asylum policies, designed to admit small numbers of political refugees, were a problem. Within the last twelve years these rules have been abused.
The second boost to far-right parties has been a general sense of hopelessness engendered by our increasingly rule based, regulation driven, politically correct society. We should remember that Britishness is primarily about freedom from the state. We are the only country in Europe never to have been a police state or had one imposed on us. Again a new Conservative government must have the sort of bonfire of controls that the Conservative government of 1951 initiated.
The third boost to the extremist policies has been the moral relativism of mainstream liberal thinking. Politicians are frightened of proclaiming an ideal because it may not be attainable by everybody or because they themselves fall short of it. An obvious example is marriage. It may be difficult for people to commit themselves to each other for life, to bring up children, but that does not mean it is wrong or that in acknowledging the fact we are attacking alternative lifestyles.
The fourth boost for the far-right, and most difficult to talk about, has been the squeamishness of mainstream politicians in dealing with Muslim extremism, not just the terrorist but the cultural variety. I make no secret of my admiration for Britain’s Jewish community. Muslims should learn from their example. Jewish people here have kept their religion, (if they want, of the liberal or orthodox variety) they have kept their identity, but they have chosen to integrate. They have become more British than the British; they have contributed enormously to Britain’s cultural, intellectual and business strength.
I admire Islam, its spirituality and its values. But Muslims who choose to settle here, and they are most welcome, must see themselves primarily as loyal Britons, not just in the sense of citizenship but cultural sense as well.
The last boost for extremist parties has been the lack of radical intellectual vigour in the mainstream ones. There are too few back-benchers on the opposition party and too little encouragement given to radical ideas which appeal to the party loyalist. I recently attended a Conservative county wide dinner. I was the only Conservative MP there. This doesn’t matter much, but what the party should be worried about is that there were only 40 people there. There were 2,000 journalists at the party conference but only 1,500 delegates. To break through you need ideas coming up from below. You must inspire your activists.
Back-bench MPs and MEPs who come up with new ideas should be encouraged. I am not saying that the leadership should adopt all there policies, just that we need a debate about them.
Let me give a few examples. First, localism. If we really believe in this should local authorities not be given the tax licensing powers, for instance through local sales tax being set free from central government.
In the education world we must trust the professionals. Schools really should be set free. Heads should be entirely free to set the curriculum, hire and fire staff and select and expel pupils as they wish, as happens so successfully in the private sector. Parents should be able to able to buy into the private education sector with a discount equivalent to the cost of state education. I say this by the way as a parent of a child in a comprehensive school.
The NHS is not a religion. People who have contributed all their lives as tax-payers should be able to top-up NHS care with private care or private medicines if the NHS can’t provide them with what they need. Pensioners should be allowed to claim tax relief for private health insurance (the policy of previous Conservative governments) and this should be extended as circumstances permit. I say all this as someone who has to rely exclusively for himself and his family on the NHS. At present I can afford nothing else.
We must continue to be explicit about the state of the public finances, acknowledge the need for cuts in the public sector and unveil efficiency programmes. Much progress has been made in this respect. For a long time people like me, who argued for breaking free of Labours spending plans, were called dangerous extremists who would cost us the next election; who says that now?
And of course when we take power we need a referendum on our relationship with Europe and ensuring our national sovereignty.
And so the list goes on. We need radical ideas from the grass roots. We need of course to capture the middle ground but politics needs to be fun as well!
Tuesday 27 October 2009
From Leigh to You
The Public Accounts Committee that I chair publishes around sixty reports each year. Some hit the headlines and others have a more limited appeal to the general media though they are often reported in detail in specialist magazines. This week’s was very much in the Premier League as reports go and I was inundated with requests for interviews.
Understandably so since it concerned the equipment and support given to our Forces in Afghanistan.
The Committee found that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has had some successes in providing support notably, the delivery of life-saving medical treatment at the front line, but in other areas the process is creaking.
New equipment has mostly performed well but the serious downside is that problems with reliability have sometimes emerged only after the kit has actually been deployed.
The process of getting equipment and supplies out to our forces is undeniably a demanding one but the fact that the MOD continues to fail to meet its own supply chain targets is of concern. The Department must improve its logistic information systems so that it always knows where stocks are and can fully track through the supply chain their movement to our troops.
Iraq and Afghanistan have presented considerable operational challenges for the MOD. Long distances between both countries and the UK, as well as the lack of direct maritime access to Afghanistan, complicate the transporting of personnel and equipment. In addition, undertaking operations in these countries means coping with difficult environmental conditions - harsh and varied terrain, extreme temperatures and dust. In Afghanistan, the pace and intensity of operations continues to be high against a determined enemy threat. The support the Department provides to forces deployed on operations is crucial in enabling military capability.
The provision of medical support, including life-saving treatment at the front line, has been a success. This is reflected in the increasing number of survivors following severe battlefield injuries.
The provision of pre-deployment training is responsive to changing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and theatre commanders are confident of its quality. But pre-deployment training is constrained by a number of factors, particularly the shortage of equipment to train with and delays in replicating Middle Eastern environments. The proportion of soldiers who are not training with their units before deploying is increasing, passing risk on to theatre commanders.
The majority of equipment procured has performed well in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
There have, however, been shortages of spare parts. Parts for the Merlin and Apache helicopters are in short supply, and cannibalisation of helicopters to support the fleets deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan has contributed to an 11% shortfall in helicopters available for training and to support contingent operations.
The Department has not met its supply chain targets for the delivery of stock to Iraq and Afghanistan. Since July 2007 only 57% of demands made in Afghanistan and 71%made in Iraq met the supply chain targets. Measures to improve this performance, including action to increase the proportion of routine stocks that are delivered by surface transport. Despite progress, the Department's logistic information remains inadequate.
I opposed the deployment to both Afghanistan and Iraq but the Government having taken that decision must improve on the present situation.
Understandably so since it concerned the equipment and support given to our Forces in Afghanistan.
The Committee found that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has had some successes in providing support notably, the delivery of life-saving medical treatment at the front line, but in other areas the process is creaking.
New equipment has mostly performed well but the serious downside is that problems with reliability have sometimes emerged only after the kit has actually been deployed.
The process of getting equipment and supplies out to our forces is undeniably a demanding one but the fact that the MOD continues to fail to meet its own supply chain targets is of concern. The Department must improve its logistic information systems so that it always knows where stocks are and can fully track through the supply chain their movement to our troops.
Iraq and Afghanistan have presented considerable operational challenges for the MOD. Long distances between both countries and the UK, as well as the lack of direct maritime access to Afghanistan, complicate the transporting of personnel and equipment. In addition, undertaking operations in these countries means coping with difficult environmental conditions - harsh and varied terrain, extreme temperatures and dust. In Afghanistan, the pace and intensity of operations continues to be high against a determined enemy threat. The support the Department provides to forces deployed on operations is crucial in enabling military capability.
The provision of medical support, including life-saving treatment at the front line, has been a success. This is reflected in the increasing number of survivors following severe battlefield injuries.
The provision of pre-deployment training is responsive to changing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and theatre commanders are confident of its quality. But pre-deployment training is constrained by a number of factors, particularly the shortage of equipment to train with and delays in replicating Middle Eastern environments. The proportion of soldiers who are not training with their units before deploying is increasing, passing risk on to theatre commanders.
The majority of equipment procured has performed well in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
There have, however, been shortages of spare parts. Parts for the Merlin and Apache helicopters are in short supply, and cannibalisation of helicopters to support the fleets deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan has contributed to an 11% shortfall in helicopters available for training and to support contingent operations.
The Department has not met its supply chain targets for the delivery of stock to Iraq and Afghanistan. Since July 2007 only 57% of demands made in Afghanistan and 71%made in Iraq met the supply chain targets. Measures to improve this performance, including action to increase the proportion of routine stocks that are delivered by surface transport. Despite progress, the Department's logistic information remains inadequate.
I opposed the deployment to both Afghanistan and Iraq but the Government having taken that decision must improve on the present situation.
Thursday 15 October 2009
From Leigh to You
The Party Conference season has come and gone and for many of you it will have given an opportunity to assess the state of the parties in these last few months before the General Election.
Without wanting to be too political all I would say is that my own Conservative Party showed themselves well aware of the magnitude of the financial mountain to be climbed and set out a clear path towards restoring our financial health.
It was a message that, to some extent, we don’t wish to hear but I am a firm believer that the public must be made aware of how serious a position we are in. The current deficit is projected to be between £175 and £200 billion next year. This is totally unsustainable.
Unless you have hours of spare time and the inclination to watch the BBC Parliament channel all you will see of the Conference will be glimpses of the main speaker winding up each session. But to get a real feel for the mood of the Party and the debates that quite rightly go on within any party you need to be there in the bars, restaurants and most of all in the fringe meetings.
The Fringe provides an opportunity for pressure groups, think tanks and the media to arrange debates and ‘Question Time’ style events. Some feature the front bench spokesmen, others outside speakers and backbenchers pushing their particular concerns. All in all it’s a rich mix.
The Cornerstone Group of MPs, of which I am the co-chairman, held a meeting that was addressed by the Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt. Rev’d. James Jones.
It’s always refreshing to hear an address that links politics and morality. Without a moral foundation our politics is much the poorer.
The Fringe includes meetings that are aimed at highlighting some of the many problems governments must grapple with. There are disability groups, animal welfare organisations, trade associations and so many more.
But now parliament has returned and it’s back to the serious business of holding the Government to account.
As ever I’m keen to hear your views, please email me at leighe@parliament.uk or writer to the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Without wanting to be too political all I would say is that my own Conservative Party showed themselves well aware of the magnitude of the financial mountain to be climbed and set out a clear path towards restoring our financial health.
It was a message that, to some extent, we don’t wish to hear but I am a firm believer that the public must be made aware of how serious a position we are in. The current deficit is projected to be between £175 and £200 billion next year. This is totally unsustainable.
Unless you have hours of spare time and the inclination to watch the BBC Parliament channel all you will see of the Conference will be glimpses of the main speaker winding up each session. But to get a real feel for the mood of the Party and the debates that quite rightly go on within any party you need to be there in the bars, restaurants and most of all in the fringe meetings.
The Fringe provides an opportunity for pressure groups, think tanks and the media to arrange debates and ‘Question Time’ style events. Some feature the front bench spokesmen, others outside speakers and backbenchers pushing their particular concerns. All in all it’s a rich mix.
The Cornerstone Group of MPs, of which I am the co-chairman, held a meeting that was addressed by the Bishop of Liverpool, the Rt. Rev’d. James Jones.
It’s always refreshing to hear an address that links politics and morality. Without a moral foundation our politics is much the poorer.
The Fringe includes meetings that are aimed at highlighting some of the many problems governments must grapple with. There are disability groups, animal welfare organisations, trade associations and so many more.
But now parliament has returned and it’s back to the serious business of holding the Government to account.
As ever I’m keen to hear your views, please email me at leighe@parliament.uk or writer to the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Thursday 16 July 2009
How Gordon Brown changed the subject when I asked him about public spending cuts
This morning in the Liaison Committee I questioned the Prime Minister about spending cuts. I was not surprised by his evasive answers, but it was somewhat depressing to hear the usual combination of stonewalling and red herrings.
I note that a report by the Centre for Cities think tank says that some of our cities are so dependent on public sector jobs that they will soon face “significant cutbacks”. From 2011 to 2014, they say, around a quarter of a million jobs, and maybe more, could be lost. It is not cheering to learn that two thirds of the 1.2 million new jobs created in our cities under this administration are paid for by the tax payer.
What this means, as the report makes clear, is that many cities are economically dependent on vast injections of government spending.
Below is an edited paraphrase of my encounter with the Prime Minister, of which a full transcript is not yet available.
EL: Should there be an open debate about where cuts should fall?
GB: Our first priority is to get growth and employment into the economy and therefore there is a need to spend now.
EL: I know that one shouldn’t believe everything that one reads in the papers, but what about the Sunday Times article which claims that senior civil servants are drawing up plans for cuts of up to 20% in public spending?
GB: I agree that one shouldn’t believe all one reads. The article is ridiculous. We’re only 15 months into a 3 year spending review and we’re not sure of the future so we can’t choose which departments to cut at this stage.
EL: Peter Mandelson has recently made comments that cuts will be necessary within the public sector. Given that he is in effect your right-hand man do you agree with him?
GB: I would emphasise to you our plans for asset sales and efficiency savings. It would be wrong to say in July 2009 what cuts may be needed in the future and where they need to be.
EL: How much are we spending this year in Afghanistan?
GB: £3 billion, on top of the defence budget.
EL: But, for example, in 2002 we spent £19 million buying up poppy crop in Afghanistan. Is there a cost benefit analysis of the progress made in Afghanistan? And regarding the renewal of Trident, will there be any cost-saving reduction in that programme?
GB: We have identified £9 billion in efficiency savings across all government departments within back room services in order to get money to front line public services. [Also reiterated that there are to be asset sales but didn’t specify which assets.]
EL: Not everything can be paid for by efficiency savings.
GB: The families of our soldiers in Afghanistan won’t welcome news about cuts when their boys are out fighting.
EL: With respect Prime Minister that isn’t relevant to the question.
GB: We have made announcements on tax increases and also on reductions to capital spending.
I note that a report by the Centre for Cities think tank says that some of our cities are so dependent on public sector jobs that they will soon face “significant cutbacks”. From 2011 to 2014, they say, around a quarter of a million jobs, and maybe more, could be lost. It is not cheering to learn that two thirds of the 1.2 million new jobs created in our cities under this administration are paid for by the tax payer.
What this means, as the report makes clear, is that many cities are economically dependent on vast injections of government spending.
Below is an edited paraphrase of my encounter with the Prime Minister, of which a full transcript is not yet available.
EL: Should there be an open debate about where cuts should fall?
GB: Our first priority is to get growth and employment into the economy and therefore there is a need to spend now.
EL: I know that one shouldn’t believe everything that one reads in the papers, but what about the Sunday Times article which claims that senior civil servants are drawing up plans for cuts of up to 20% in public spending?
GB: I agree that one shouldn’t believe all one reads. The article is ridiculous. We’re only 15 months into a 3 year spending review and we’re not sure of the future so we can’t choose which departments to cut at this stage.
EL: Peter Mandelson has recently made comments that cuts will be necessary within the public sector. Given that he is in effect your right-hand man do you agree with him?
GB: I would emphasise to you our plans for asset sales and efficiency savings. It would be wrong to say in July 2009 what cuts may be needed in the future and where they need to be.
EL: How much are we spending this year in Afghanistan?
GB: £3 billion, on top of the defence budget.
EL: But, for example, in 2002 we spent £19 million buying up poppy crop in Afghanistan. Is there a cost benefit analysis of the progress made in Afghanistan? And regarding the renewal of Trident, will there be any cost-saving reduction in that programme?
GB: We have identified £9 billion in efficiency savings across all government departments within back room services in order to get money to front line public services. [Also reiterated that there are to be asset sales but didn’t specify which assets.]
EL: Not everything can be paid for by efficiency savings.
GB: The families of our soldiers in Afghanistan won’t welcome news about cuts when their boys are out fighting.
EL: With respect Prime Minister that isn’t relevant to the question.
GB: We have made announcements on tax increases and also on reductions to capital spending.
Tuesday 23 June 2009
Thursday 18 June 2009
Expenses
Anyone interested in finding out about my expenses for 2004-08 can check the details on www.parliament.uk
Tuesday 3 March 2009
Jack Straw tilts at windmills over Iraq invasion
I took Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, to task in the House of Commons last month about the Government's decision to withold from public scrutiny the minutes of the Cabinet's discussion of the decision to invade Iraq. You can read the Hansard record of my intervention below:
Commons Hansard 24 Feb 2009 : Column 165
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): Is not the Secretary of State tilting at false windmills? He knows perfectly well that no sensible person wants to reveal all Cabinet discussions and no sensible person wants to curtail honest discussion in Cabinet, but does he not agree with the commissioner and the tribunal that this is a special case? Surely the people have a legal right to know the legal basis of a war in which up to 600,000 people have died. This whole thing stinks.
We are not trying to curtail discussion. What we accuse the Government of is the absence of any proper discussion of the Attorney-General’s statement and advice. We want to have answers now, and so do the public.
Mr. Straw: That is the hon. Gentleman’s opinion, and it was also—although slightly more carefully put—the opinion of the majority of the tribunal. However, if the hon. Gentleman refers to paragraph 88 of the tribunal’s decision document, he will see that the minority expressed what was essentially the view that I have taken: that
“Exceptional cases may create an exceptional need for confidence in Cabinet confidentiality to be strong.”
Essentially, the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the more important the issue, the less significant should be Cabinet confidentiality. I do not accept that argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)