Conservative and Unionist Party MP for Chester South and Eddisbury since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
228
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 | Chester South and Eddisbury | – 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
The Budget was a missed opportunity for our rural economy, which yet again this Government have failed to back. My message to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor is simple: stop saying that every postcode matters, and start showing it. In Chester South and Eddisbury, around our farms sit the contractors, vets, farm shops, pubs and family businesses that keep our villages alive.
The hon. Gentleman is a champion for farmers in his community, and he is right—the Chancellor had the chance to repeal the vindictive family farms tax and family business tax, but he chose not to.<span id="641" class="column-number" data-column-number="641"></span> Nearly nine in 10 rural businesses have paused investment, and when investment stops, the consequences ripple through the whole rural economy. Conservatives would scrap those damaging taxes. The Government also had the chance to give small businesses some much-needed breathing space. They did not. Our rural businesses, particularly in hospitality and tourism, are being squeezed by rising costs, higher taxes and more regulation. When businesses are struggling they stop investing, they stop expanding and, crucially, they stop taking on staff. These are the businesses that give so many young people their first step into work, and we should be making that easier, not harder. That is the difference between this Government and the Conservatives: we would halve the jobs tax for under-25s and create 100,000 new apprenticeships, because the best way to get young people into work is to back the businesses willing to employ them. This Budget did neither. Then there is the cost of fuel. The fuel duty freeze is welcome, but the Conservatives kept it frozen for 14 years because we understand how much rural communities rely on their cars. This is not just about fuel for transport. On Saturday, I was out chatting to residents in Audlem, and so many of the people I spoke to are living off-grid. The price of heating oil has nearly doubled this year, and families are wondering whether they can afford to fill their tanks before winter. Rural communities are being left out in the cold, quite literally, and the Budget offered them nothing. That is the real cost of this Budget in the countryside: investment on pause, young people not taken on, homes going cold, and family farms wondering whether they will survive. The contrast could not be clearer. The Conservatives would back our family farms, cut taxes on jobs, bring down energy bills through our cheap power plan, and get our rural economy growing again. The president of the National Farmers’ Union described this Budget as “tinkering while Rome is burning”, and he was right. Our farmers, rural businesses and families do not need more promises, more consultations or more plans for the future. Rural Britain needs action now, and this Budget has failed to deliver it.
<Question HRSContentId="{6EB45330-0EE4-4FF9-80D8-DC265ADB768D}">11. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{245B72DD-26B1-43CA-8E64-92B916A067D8}">What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on levels of employment in the oil and gas sector in Scotland.</QuestionText> </Question>
The Government are accelerating the decline of an industry that supports thousands of jobs across Scotland, while promising replacement jobs that are not materialising quickly enough. Scotland’s oil and gas workers are paying the price for the Government’s ideological opposition to the oil and gas sector. Will the Secretary of State confirm now whether he supports Labour’s ban on new licences?
After 18 months of dither and delay, and cuts to the farming budget, Labour’s shambolic SFI scheme closed within hours, leaving farmers unable to access funding to protect and restore nature. We now know, through freedom of information requests, that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs knew the scheme could collapse within hours, yet the Government pressed ahead regardless. Now, environmental charities, including the Rivers Trust, are warning that that will undermine nature recovery. Does the Secretary of State recognise that by failing the custodians of our countryside, she is failing nature too?
<Question HRSContentId="{8CEF34B1-C942-44B7-8DD0-A7BA89EECB9F}">1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{A68FC82E-7C9F-4568-B432-23E3DD133525}">What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help support the creation of jobs for young people. </QuestionText></Question>
The wonderful family-run Ice Cream Farm in Tattenhall is one of our region’s largest youth employers, giving many young people their very first job, but the current rules limit children below school-leaving age to just two hours’ work on Sundays, even during school holidays. For businesses in rural areas, where parents often have to drive considerable distances to get their kids to work, this simply is not practical. Will the Secretary of State review the restriction while maintaining important safeguards, so that businesses such as the Ice Cream Farm can offer more young people vital first work experience?
I thank the Minister for giving way and for setting out her arguments. I am just wondering whether she will actually come on to Piddington and the impact on the residents there—we have people in the Gallery today. This issue is about the impact on women and girls there. I would be interested to know how many Ministers have actually been to Piddington and spoken to the residents themselves directly.
The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and nowhere is that duty more important than across our communities and in the protection of women and girls, who have a right to feel safe, and a right to expect the Government to do everything in their power to protect them. Today’s debate is an opportunity to send a clear message that we will not accept policies that put our communities at risk, and that we are prepared to take the difficult decisions necessary to restore control of our borders. The grooming gang scandal is a national disgrace. Girls, some as young as 11, were raped, abused and trafficked by organised gangs, and when they cried out for help, too often they were ignored, disbelieved or dismissed. Those in positions of authority, whose first responsibility was to protect them, failed them appallingly. We must never allow that to happen again. That means <span id="409" class="column-number" data-column-number="409"></span>putting victims first, listening to their experiences, and having the courage to confront uncomfortable truths, however difficult they may be. In July, I raised the case of Shabir Ahmed, the Rochdale grooming gang ringleader, directly with the then Foreign Secretary. She agreed that every possible lever should be explored to secure his deportation, yet three months later, he remains in the UK. When the law protects the man who raped a child rather than the child he raped, something is profoundly wrong, and this House must have the power, and the determination, to put that right. Our rights in this country long predate the ECHR. Under our Conservative borders plan, we will leave it, with illegal arrivals removed within a week, every foreign criminal deported, and an end to the cycle of last-minute claims that let dangerous men run down the clock. What is this Government’s answer? It is to house over 1,200 single men at MOD Bicester, next to Piddington, which is a village of just 350 people, with limited local infrastructure and services. The way these plans have been imposed on a small rural community has left many others fearing that they could be next. In villages such as Audlem in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, residents have raised serious concerns about the future of the old grammar school site. When I asked Ministers whether any site in Audlem had been approved for asylum accommodation, the Government failed to give me a straight answer, and when I asked about the suitability of rural locations, I was told that the Home Office does not even record asylum accommodation according to whether it is in a rural area. Many of the concerns raised in Piddington are equally relevant to Audlem. Small rural villages simply do not have the infrastructure to accommodate what would realistically be an influx of young men. My constituents deserve clarity. They deserve straight answers about the future of that site, and above all they deserve an immigration system that tackles illegal arrivals in the first place. That means a credible deterrent, and that is delivered by leaving the ECHR. That is why I wholeheartedly support the motion, because whether it is Piddington, Audlem, or communities across the country, people deserve to feel safe in their homes and communities. Above all, we owe it to every woman and girl in this country to do everything in our power to protect them.
<Question HRSContentId="{7AF706FD-B4B0-4B97-9F38-2A30E71AE1F1}">T6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{4DAB8FC1-4678-48DD-B4D3-042155DDBBAB}"></QuestionText>I recently met Lesley and her adult daughter Alice, who has profound disabilities and requires two carers around the clock. Lesley loves caring for her daughter, but she is finding it increasingly difficult to recruit skilled carers, leaving her filling exhausting gaps and unable to earn a living. What is the Minister doing to ensure that families like Lesley’s receive the support that they desperately need?</Question>