Conservative and Unionist Party MP for North West Essex since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
544
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
0
As currently published
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | MP | North West Essex | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.
Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.
Not yet retrieved from the register. Parliament's register page
May I also give my thanks to the Clerk of the House and convey to him, on behalf of those on my side of the House, our very, very best wishes for the future? There has been a bit of confusion this week, and I hope that the Prime Minister can clear it up. Does he or does he not want a referendum on rejoining the European Union?
It sounds as if the Prime Minister does not know whether he wants another EU referendum. I certainly do not. It is the Chancellor’s big week, and the Prime Minister popped up on telly and opened his mouth without engaging his brain, not for the first time. Can he explain why he decided, during Budget week, to reopen a debate on freedom of movement?
The Prime Minister keeps talking about our deal, but he is using our deal. He is using our Brexit freedoms to take VAT off energy bills. He used those Brexit freedoms just yesterday to scrap import taxes on hundreds of goods. What he should be saying is thank you. I asked the Prime Minister about freedom of movement. I do not think he has been talking to his Cabinet colleagues, because I will tell him who does not want a debate about freedom of movement: the Home Secretary—she has been very clear on that. The Business Secretary does not want it either. The Culture Secretary and I do not agree on much, but even she does not want the Prime Minister to restart this debate. What about his Back Benchers? Let’s have a show of hands—who wants free movement? I know the Prime Minister does not want to look behind him, but nobody raised their hand. There was someone else who did not want to reopen free movement: an ambitious candidate fighting a by-election earlier this year. He said “the last thing we should do right now is rerun those arguments.” Does the Prime Minister still agree with himself?
It sounds like the Prime Minister does not know if he agrees with himself or not. He wants to remind me about my words. I stand by my words. Where we make mistakes, we own up to them. Labour pretends that it never does anything wrong. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Yes, yes, yes. Indeed, that is the difference between him and me. He wants to remind me about what I said; I think it is worth reminding him what he said just this May about the Brexit referendum: “It’s going to undermine everything I’ve said about strengthening democracy if we don’t respect that vote.” But he does not respect that vote, does he?
I have said many times that, yes, it was, and the Prime Minister is using those freedoms today. He is using those very freedoms, but he does not want to admit that. He is the Prime Minister, not me. He wants to ask me questions. I am very happy to swap places with him, if that is what he wants. I am not talking about something that he might have said 10 years ago, although I can read out those quotes if he wants. I am talking about something that he said just a few months ago. The Prime Minister was not here for the 2017 Parliament, but many of us were. We do not want to go through that again. The country was paralysed—it was miserable, regardless of which side of the debate you were on. <em>[Interruption.] </em>It was, because Labour Members would not respect the result, and they are doing it again. Does the Prime Minister really think the country wants to reopen that debate?
I cannot believe that the Prime Minister actually said at that Dispatch Box that he wants to reopen the Brexit debate. He is in a different place from where he was in Question 1. Let me tell the Prime Minister: the country does not want to rerun this debate; neither, as it happens, do his Back Benchers. This country voted to leave the EU, and we should respect that decision. The Conservative party always has done. Our economy is facing serious challenges. The Prime Minister needs to get borrowing down, because of their stupid decisions. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> One of them asks, <span id="294" class="column-number" data-column-number="294"></span>“Why?” It is because of their stupid decisions. They need to get borrowing down. He needs to get welfare down. He needs to get people’s taxes down. All of this can be done without reopening a debate on the EU, so instead of leaving it to his team again, I will give him one last chance to clear up the mess he has made: will he rule out, after his extraordinary comments, any referendum on the EU or the single market?
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have thanked the Chancellor for advance sight of his statement, but it was so redacted it was like reading it in the dark. The only numbers were the page numbers, quite frankly. This is Labour’s third Budget in office—<em>[Interruption.]</em>
This is Labour’s third Budget in office, this time with a new Chancellor. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place. I believe there is a term in rugby called a hospital pass, which sums up the inheritance he received from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves). Last year, she gave us the Budget for “Benefits Street”; I said that it would be her last Budget, and I was right. The Chancellor may want to blame external events, but Labour’s last two Budgets weakened our economy before any wars. He has got a big job to do cleaning up her mess, and this Budget fails to do it. The Chancellor is giving this Budget at a time of great economic danger. We are spending more on debt interest than on the Army and schools combined. The rate of interest we pay on our debts is higher than that in Greece, Latvia, Slovakia and even the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Next year, under Labour, the tax burden will be the highest in our country’s history, and our benefits bill is going up by tens of billions of pounds because this Government have put welfare first. We are overspent, overborrowed, overtaxed and drowning in an out-of-control welfare system, and this is the Chancellor’s answer? It is simply not enough—not good enough, not strong enough, and not bold enough. Last week, the Government published their resilience plan. I am afraid that three days of baked beans and a wind-up radio are not going to save us. Labour’s Britain has no resilience. There is no household resilience, because families are struggling to make ends meet. There is no fiscal resilience, because we are borrowing just to pay the interest on our debt. There is no economic resilience, because businesses have been taxed so much that they are closing down and shedding jobs, and there is no national resilience, because we are not ready to meet the security threats of today—certainly not after that speech. We all know why the Chancellor has delayed until tomorrow difficult decisions that he should have <span id="316" class="column-number" data-column-number="316"></span>taken today. It is because the Prime Minister wants to keep the option of an early general election open, putting his party’s interests before the country’s. There are, however, some things in this Budget that I welcome. Some of the Chancellor’s colleagues—the Deputy Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Energy Secretary—were calling on him to increase capital gains tax. I thank him for ignoring them—they were wrong. Tens of thousands of wealth creators have already fled Labour’s Britain, and if he had listened to his colleagues’ bonkers ideas, many more would be heading for the departure lounge. I am also glad that he has broken Labour’s manifesto pledge on the minimum wage for young people; that pledge was wrong, and breaking it is the right thing to do to help young people get jobs. I welcome the Chancellor’s U-turn on ISAs. He is reversing his predecessor’s raid on ISAs—thank you—but his new tax on savers will penalise the prudent and all those people who have done the right thing. I am glad that he has agreed with our campaign on the previous Chancellor’s fuel duty rise. Motorists will be pleased—that rise would have inflicted real pain, especially while petrol prices are so high—but those prices will go up in July. Why? We froze fuel duty for 14 years; Labour can do better than that. I know that Labour MPs probably did not like those bits of the Budget, but can I take a moment to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have been appalled to see the brutal briefing about him from his own side in this week’s papers? One Labour MP called him “slow”. “A dud.” “Visibly out of his depth”, said another. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> We have all read it. They are not my words—they are Labour MPs’ words. One of them said it, and another came in after, but I can assure the Chancellor that he will not be hearing that kind of language from Conservative MPs today. With friends like that, who needs enemies? Most people in the country listening to the right hon. Gentleman’s Budget will be thinking to themselves, “Is that it? Really, is that it?” The Prime Minister came in promising to reverse “40 years of neoliberalism”; instead, we got 4p off gherkins. Unfortunately, just like every other Labour Budget, the headline story is the same: more borrowing, more tax rises and—surprise, surprise—more money on benefits. This Budget does not come close to meeting the moment. Last week, Labour MPs were asking for a Budget that did no harm. That shows how little ambition they have for this country. Let me tell them: the harm has already been done. Not facing up to the tough decisions we need to take is itself an act of immense harm. Many Labour MPs do not understand that our national debt is now more than £100,000 for every household in this country. They do not understand why it is a problem that a quarter of all working-age adults are now claiming some form of benefits. They do not understand that if Russia launches an attack on NATO in the next three years, as the Government’s own intelligence suggests, we will be at war without the means to properly defend ourselves. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em>
Look at them, Madam Deputy Speaker. If war comes, do we want this lot running the country—people so unserious that they do not understand that you cannot have social security without national security? If we cannot defend our country, there will be nothing left to defend. To be honest, I do not blame the Housing Secretary for stocking up on sauvignon blanc. If Russia attacks with these guys in charge, we will all need a drink.
The Defence Secretary is chuntering; he could not even commit to 3% on TV the other day. He is still not doing his job. The fact is that there are huge problems coming down the road, and this Budget is simply trying to get through today. It is a Budget for getting by, not for getting on. I was cautiously optimistic when the right hon. Gentleman was appointed Chancellor. This is a man who once seemed to grasp the danger that Britain is now in. I thought that he was putting country before party when he quit as Defence Secretary—he will remember that I said he was a man of principle. Let me remind him what he wrote in that resignation letter in June. He said: “I am certain that a…date for 3% of GDP on defence in 2030 is what Britain must set.” <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I have not finished—Labour MPs will have to wait for the punchline. They are so slow. He went on to say that if that did not happen, he would be “forced to make decisions that would…increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe.” Today is the day he should have set that date. He is the man who has failed to set a plan for 3%. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Today is the day that we should have got the plan.