Business of the House

Debate between Mark Spencer and Iain Duncan Smith

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady pointed out that we would be opposite each other again for the pre-Adjournment debate. I am not sure whether the word that she used was “jewel” or “duel”. I look forward to whichever it turns out to be, but it certainly feels like a duel this morning. The hon. Lady is back with a vengeance, and it is good to see her in her place.

The hon. Lady began by asking about a COP15 debate. That is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee. The Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), said he wanted to have that debate, and there will be an opportunity to reschedule it at some point in the near future. We will try to work with the Chair of the Committee to deliver it.

The hon. Lady went on to talk about defence, and about defence spending. I hope she will recognise that we are the biggest spenders on defence in Europe. We are the second largest contributor to NATO, after the United States. We are exceeding the 2% GDP target. We have committed ourselves to £24 billion of increased defence spending over the next four years. We are world leaders in defence spending, and our armed forces are recognised around the world as the highest-quality armed forces available to any nation on this earth. That is a record of which to be enormously proud, and it is being demonstrated in Ukraine, whose defence services are making use of UK tech as we speak.

The hon. Lady then raised the subject of P&O. As she will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was at the Dispatch Box yesterday explaining how he was going to deal with what was no less than a brazen breaking of employment law on the part of the chief executive. The way in which P&O has treated its own staff can only be condemned as despicable, and my right hon. Friend has urged it to reconsider, but yesterday he set out a nine-point plan consisting of a series of commitments to protect seafarers in the future. I should be happy to read it to the House, but it is available in Hansard. My right hon. Friend should be commended for the action that he is going to take.

When it comes to education, I think we should recognise that progress has been made, but there is further progress to come. We should be proud of and support the £5 billion education recovery fund and the schools White Paper, but even the Secretary of State for Education will acknowledge that there is more to be done, and I think that if the hon. Lady keeps an eye on the Dispatch Box she will see, in the near future, the Secretary of State announce action to continue the improvement in our education services.

The hon. Lady finished by talking about the cost of living and the challenges that we face. She will know that, given what is happening in Ukraine and its impact on global energy markets, a huge ripple is taking place in the value of energy across the world. We are well aware of that, which is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood here last week and set out his plans to try to help hard-working people and their families. Taking 5p off fuel duty was a big step—it means £5 billion a year less tax—and support is being provided through other mechanisms as well.

However, the best way out of poverty is through work. The fundamental difference between us and the Opposition is that we believe in a hand up while they believe in a handout. The best way for people to escape from poverty is by working and being able to keep more of their income and pay less tax, and the way in which we are making that possible means that those with the broadest shoulders carry the burden of taxation.

The hon. Lady wants us to impose a windfall tax on energy companies. Those companies are already paying 40% tax, which is nearly double what other sectors pay. There are 200,000 people employed in the sector. A windfall tax would disincentivise companies from making investments and push up the cost of energy, and the lowest-paid and most vulnerable people would find themselves picking up the tab. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has ensured that the lowest paid will be taken out of tax altogether or will pay less tax, and I think that that is fair.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I want to raise an issue affecting my local area. It involves the North London Waste Authority and the unwanted building of a huge incinerator in Edmonton. Not a single Member of Parliament in the area, Labour or Conservative, actually wants the incinerator, and we do not need it and the fumes that it will emit.

The key factor is the existence of all the criteria that would normally cause the Government to haul in a project. The cost of this project has doubled from £600 million to £1.2 billion; this is meant to be a competitive bid, but that is not the case because the same organisation is still going to be involved; and, finally even the chief executive of that organisation now says that this is excessive and unnecessary.

Given the latest information that the chief executive of the North London Waste Authority has received a salary increase from £300,000 to more than £600,000, it is clear that the organisation is out of control. It will not tell us what remuneration its officials—who are councillors—are receiving.

Why is it that not a single Government Department is prepared to stand up, haul this project in and call it to account, as would be done in the case of any other such project? People are burning public money, literally, on projects that are not wanted by the public and will pollute the atmosphere. Given the COP26 issues, why is that still happening, and may we have a debate about it now?

[Mark Spencer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. I note that he secured a Westminster Hall debate on it in February. I am sure that local taxpayers will be very concerned about what he has reported to the House, and I shall be happy to take it up with Ministers on his behalf after this session.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mark Spencer and Iain Duncan Smith

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I referred to working with other countries, and a large number of other member states also have real concerns about the move and believe that they, too, will be affected. Among them are 17 member states, including Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, that attended a conference we held and they all expressed their concern. We are working with them on a set of agreed principles that we will present to the EU, which I hope will end this nonsense.

[Mr Spencer]

I am glad to hear that the Secretary of State will be robust in his dealings with the EU. What message does it send to hard-working taxpayers in Sherwood who, when they need the safety net of the state, find that it is being abused by those who simply step off a boat and who have not contributed to the system in the UK?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is of course right that we want to support people who, through no fault of their own, fall out of work, and we want to do that for our own citizens. We also accept that for those who have been here for a period of time—hence the habitual residence test—because it is important to support those who are genuinely resident in the UK and delivering something for the UK economy. His constituents will understand fully that it is right to do that. However, it is not right for us to end up with a system—other countries agree on this—in which someone can literally arrive here and, only days after, decide that they are not working and, therefore, they are eligible for benefits. That would be quite wrong for the British taxpayer.