Labour Party MP for Halesowen since (elected). An MP continuously since .
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
312
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
6
As currently published
Declared while sitting for Labour
£10,530.63
3 of 6 entries state an amount
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | MP | Halesowen | – present | elected | — | Party history |
Parliament's party history for this member: Labour ( – present).
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.
| Date | Category | Entry | Declared value | Sitting for | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3. Gifts, UK sources | Google UK Ltd - £645.63 | £645.63 | Labour | Register record | |
| 2. Donations and support | The Coalition for Global Prosperity (CGP) - £3,900.00 | £3,900 | Labour | Register record | |
| 4. Visits outside the UK | International visit to Qatar between 05 December 2025 and 08 December 2025Doha Forum | £5,985 | Labour | Register record | |
| date registered | 8. Miscellaneous | Member, Halesowen Abbey Trust Board. This is an unpaid role. | — | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 8. Miscellaneous | Member, Rowley Regis Town Board. This is an unpaid role. | — | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 8. Miscellaneous | Trustee of The Birmingham Settlement. This is an unpaid role. | — | Labour | Register record |
The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, in his statement, the Chancellor he did commit to reaching 3% of GDP by 2030. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Conservatives reached 2.7% of GDP on defence?
<em>rose</em><em>—</em>
A few people have mentioned heating oil in the debate. For those who have not looked at the detail of the Budget, there is a 4% reduction in heating oil tariffs among the announcements, and anyone who uses heating oil this winter will be getting £100. There is substantial support for people using heating oil; it is not just about gas.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I welcome the Government’s serious approach to civil preparedness. I want to push back slightly against some Members on the Opposition Benches who implied that there was a difference between being prepared for natural disasters and for some of the hybrid attacks we are seeing across Europe. In recent months we have seen attacks against energy infrastructure, railways and supply chains; the same preparations will help folk in the UK be prepared for both those attacks and natural disasters. I was in the Finnish embassy a few days ago to talk about that issue. As other colleagues have mentioned, in Finland they talk about businesses working together with the voluntary sector and public bodies. Will the Minister say more about how we are learning from countries such as Finland on the whole of society working together?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I will begin with testimony from two constituents. Angela Duffill lost her dad to prostate cancer in 2019. She speaks warmly of the 20 years of NHS care he received at Russells Hall hospital, but she also writes of the time before his diagnosis, when he was sitting on his symptoms and suffering in silence, not knowing what was wrong and not going to the doctor to find out. The familiar mix of embarrassment, stoicism and a public-spirited reluctance to waste NHS time is all too common among <span id="17WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="17WH"></span>men of his age. Angela wonders whether a comprehensive, better publicised screening programme would have encouraged her dad to seek help sooner. Another constituent, Mervyn Jackson, wrote to me with his story. As prostate cancer ran in his family, he was encouraged to have regular tests. In 2021, those tests detected the cancer while he was still at an early stage. Mervyn said: “The worrying thing is that I had no symptoms at all from the cancer.” At the time of diagnosis, he felt completely well. There was nothing to tell him that he needed treatment, and nothing to prompt him to get tested, which he would not have done had it not been recommended based on his congenital risk. Following a successful round of radiotherapy, Mervyn is now 78 and in good health, living a full and active life. When we discuss early diagnosis, that is the possibility we are talking about—finding cancer while there is still time to treat it, potentially giving someone decades more of life. I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce targeted screening for men with the BRCA2 gene and a relevant family history of cancer, but many families will still be left asking where current policies leave them. I hope the Minister will recognise the urgency behind these concerns, and the need to keep wider screening under review and give families clear guidance while that work continues.
I thank the Secretary of State for the constructive way in which he has approached the Bill since he was appointed. He has built on the good work of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), <span id="842" class="column-number" data-column-number="842"></span>who is no longer in the Chamber but who gave a powerful speech about why the Bill is so important for victims as well as others who are affected. I think that it should reassure veterans that the process of repeated investigations is coming to an end, and it should give survivors and the families of victims—many of whom are soldiers and police officers themselves—a stronger route to finding answers, and a route to justice for crimes committed during the troubles. I want to speak about the new protections for veterans, and about why I think they address the real concerns of those who were worried about repeated investigations. I also intend to mention concerns that victims groups have raised with me about their privacy and the anonymity of the process. Let me deal first with the additional protections for veterans. I know how difficult it was to serve in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) spoke powerfully about the difficulties that those veterans faced. I did not serve there myself, but I worked alongside many soldiers and Marines who had, and some of them told me that it was more difficult to serve in Northern Ireland than in Afghanistan because of the complexities of the environment in which they were operating. We should accept that, and we should thank the veterans, including those who were in the Gallery earlier, for the service that they gave. I think it right for the new legacy commission to consider that. I strongly welcome new clause 32, which requires the commission or any inquest to take into account the context in which soldiers are operating. It is now made explicit that training, experience and perceived threats, among other factors, must be considered by the commission in any inquests. I also welcome the statement in the new clause that the investigators “must not regard lawful action taken in the course of duty as equivalent to action taken for terrorist purposes.” Many people have made that point, and it is important for it to be in the legislation. However, the biggest concern that I have heard about from veterans in Halesowen and veterans groups across the country, as well as many Members, is about repeated investigations. Under the existing legislation, soldiers have been worried about being asked to come back time and again to go over evidence that they have already given. Government amendment 192 directly addresses that by requiring the director of investigations to consider what information can be obtained from public authorities before unnecessarily duplicating work. That adds to the Bill’s existing protections against the duplication of previous investigative work. When I discussed the veterans’ concern explicitly with senior members of ICRIR last week, they told me that many of these cases have been investigated in the past. There have been many inquests and other cases in which veterans have been accused of crimes, that more than enough evidence is already available in public bodies. They did not believe that the case of any veteran under investigation would be taken forward by the legacy commission under this new legislation, and I think that veterans should take reassurance from what has been said by the people who are involved in conducting these investigations.<span id="843" class="column-number" data-column-number="843"></span> At the same time, there have been improvements in evidence collection—for example, through DNA or technical evidence—since the 1970s and 1980s, when many of these crimes were committed. We know that ICRIR is examining the links between different types of evidence, looking at, for example, the campaign of bombings in England during the 1970s: the M62 bombing, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), and the Guildford pub bombings and others. The commission thinks that there are connections that may lead to further investigations that might give answers to some of the victims. We should bear in mind that many of those victims are family members of servicemen who were killed in England. ICRIR felt that, on occasion, veterans who were witnesses to those crimes might be asked to give evidence to the commission to add value to the new evidence that is coming forward. I think veterans would appreciate that, because they would be giving evidence that might give answers to the family members of their colleagues who were killed by terrorists. That is something that the commission is doing correctly. Indeed, it is protecting veterans while at the same time getting answers for victims. There are other welcome amendments and new clauses. Government amendment 162 allows witnesses to give remote evidence, meaning that they would not have to travel to Northern Ireland, while Government new clause 45 and Government amendment 240 ensure that veterans will not be approached by the commission directly, so there will be there are no cold calls. I know that that was a big concern. Although there are many improvements to the protections for veterans, some veterans’ groups have said publicly in the last few days that they still do not feel that the Bill goes far enough in providing those protections. The protections give a lot of support against repeated investigations, but there needs to be a backstop to ensure that they are working properly. That is why I am really pleased that new clause 53 requires, within two years, an independent review of whether the protections will give veterans the safeguards that they need against repeated investigations.
I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. I remember the outrage from communities all across the Black Country after the pub was demolished in 2023. I share his outrage and that of the communities he mentioned. I notice that there have been difficulties with the process of getting it rebuilt. Does he have an estimate of when the fantastic heritage asset might be rebuilt and when the community can see the crooked pub again?
That is a sensible suggestion. I like the hon. Gentleman’s proposal that the public should be informed about a potential sale—or, indeed, about any other changes listed in the Bill. How does he see such communication happening with the public so that those who are not on the internet can find out about a potential sale and stand up for their pub?
Will the hon. Member give way?
Held . Recorded result: Lab Gain. Majority 4,364. 38,578 votes cast from an electorate of 68,549. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alex Ballinger | Labour | 15,023 | 38.9% |
| James Morris | Conservative | 10,659 | 27.6% |
| Jonathan Oakton | Reform UK | 8,484 | 22.0% |
| Ryan Priest | Liberal Democrat | 2,261 | 5.9% |
| Emma Bullard | Green Party | 2,151 | 5.6% |
| Seat | Dates |
|---|---|
| HalesowenElected 1 time | – present |
| Committee | Dates |
|---|---|
| Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill | – present |
| Finance Bill | – |
| Foreign Affairs Committee | – present |
| Human Rights (Joint Committee) | – |
X (formerly Twitter)
Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site
Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .