Air Quality Strategy

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Andrea Leadsom

Monday 24th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that pollution is a serious problem, but that for the Mayor of London to demonise the drivers of diesel cars and to use pollution concerns as a smokescreen for fleecing motorists through more taxes is not the answer, particularly as Transport for London figures show that diesel cars represent 10% of the problem? The Mayor should be dealing with 100% of the problem, not just 10%.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is exactly right to say that all councils that have air quality problems will need to tackle them and to deal with 100% of the problem. As the Prime Minister has said, a number of people were encouraged to buy diesel cars by the last Labour Government, and we want to take those people’s needs into account so that we do not end up penalising them for decisions that they took in good faith.

Bankers’ Bonuses and the Banking Industry

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Andrea Leadsom

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Does my hon. Friend not think that the last intervention is reminiscent of arsonists throwing rocks at the firefighters who have worked so hard to put out the fire the arsonists started?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is quite right. It is extraordinary that Labour Members have the cheek to come to the House and suggest that Conservative Members are somehow responsible.

I want to draw to the House’s attention the very prescient quote from the former Prime Minister when, representing the previous Government, he addressed the City in his Mansion House speech in 2002:

“What you as the City of London have done for financial services, we as a Government aim to do for the economy as a whole.”

And didn’t they just? It is absolutely extraordinary that under the “intensely relaxed” Labour Administration, bankers were rewarded for taking excessive risk, and if they failed, were allowed to get away with it—heads they win, tails the taxpayer loses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Andrea Leadsom

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there has been an enormous challenge since the financial crisis. Banks still have a long way to go to work out their balance sheets and to ensure that they are again lending to small businesses. RBS announced recently that it has the single goal of becoming the No. 1 SME bank in the UK. Banks are focused on that issue and it is vital that they are.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that Labour’s crash caused a massive problem in our banking system, which hurt the ability of banks to finance businesses, and that with the long-term economic plan it will become easier for banks to find the reserves that they need to get more money to business and to help grow the economy further?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The financial crisis caused a massive problem in our banking sector. The measures that have been brought in by this Government, such as the funding for lending scheme and the improved impetus towards bank competition, are helping to improve the situation for small businesses—the lifeblood of our economy.

Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill

Debate between Charlie Elphicke and Andrea Leadsom

Friday 1st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I think either option would provide a way forward. The issue I am touching on is justice in Britain and how to ensure that people who are a threat to our national security, who threaten the livelihoods of others or who have committed criminal acts are allowed to escape answering to justice anywhere. We seem to be saying that because the courts of those people’s countries are not safe, they should not face justice at all. That is wrong-headed, and I believe most British people would say that it is wrong-headed and not the right way to go.

Let us take the example of Abu Qatada, a Jordanian who could not be deported to Jordan on national security grounds because of the real risk that evidence obtained by torture might be submitted against him in his own country’s trial for terrorist offences. The answer of the current code is, “Well, let him not face justice at all.” I think that is unwise, and that is what the debate is about. There is no real risk that Qatada himself would be tortured, and the ruling was made despite an earlier finding by the deportation tribunal that the case for his deportation had been well proved on national security grounds as he was seen by many as a terrorist spiritual adviser, whose views legitimised violence.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely difficult for British taxpayers to face the fact that they are going to have to pay huge sums of money for the security of an individual whose outlook on life threatens their style of life and existence? Is it right for British taxpayers to be footing the bill?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I do not think it is, and I noted in an answer given by the Home Office to a question from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee that the legal aid bill in the case of Abu Qatada has been over £500,000—a substantial investment of taxpayers’ money. Most people in this country would say that that money was not well spent.