Labour Party MP for Eltham and Chislehurst since (elected). An MP continuously since .
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
261
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
3
As currently published
Declared while sitting for Labour
£529
2 of 3 entries state an amount
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | MP | Eltham and Chislehurst | – 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 | Millwall Football and Athletic Company (1885) Limited - £230.00 | £230 | Labour | Register record | |
| 3. Gifts, UK sources | Millwall Football and Athletic Company (1885) Limited - £299.00 | £299 | Labour | Register record | |
| 8. Miscellaneous | Trustee of Millwall Community Trust. This is an unpaid role. | — | Labour | Register record |
<Question HRSContentId="{942C002E-EC1F-4CAA-8F9C-C17E49618992}">1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{BAB5C95E-EE80-418F-BE93-34ECB728A1E1}">What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on funding for the infected blood compensation scheme. </QuestionText></Question>
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, and I am sure the whole House echoes his sentiments. There is concern among claimants, particularly those claiming for the estates of those who have passed on, because under Government regulations, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is required to claw back overpayments. These are people who have been traumatised over many years, and those errors—Government errors, not errors on the part on the claimants—are causing distress and forcing people to relive their experiences. Can we ensure that Government and Treasury rules and regulations do not require IBCA to reclaim overpayments in this way?
I welcome the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). What we have here is an American private equity firm that is able to buy a going concern that is present on many of our high streets; to put its desire for profit above the interests of its workers, as well as the 18,000 workers in the supply chain; and to make a mockery of the Government’s plans for our high streets. If there is a viable bid on the table and we do not have the power to ensure that it is prioritised, why do we not have that power?
I very much welcome the statement and any move towards a national care service, but my hon. Friend knows as much as I do that people often experience a clash of bureaucracies, which leads to a slowdown in the delivery of care or care packages. People are stuck in hospitals for a variety of reasons, but for many it is because that clash cannot be resolved to move them from hospital in a timely fashion. We cannot wait for that to be resolved; we need to resolve it now. Can she reassure me that she is working on that, because if we can solve that, we can solve large parts of the problem in this Parliament and not have to wait for the next?
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker, although I had to leave the Chamber briefly for duties elsewhere in the House. Today, 650 people are being released. We know that they are coming—we can anticipate the fact that we need to release 650 people. I googled, “What is the reason we cannot tag people on release?” The answer was a lack of capacity in the companies that have the contracts for attaching the tags. It seems to me that the companies are not fulfilling those contracts. It cannot be beyond their technological ability to tag people on release, so what are they going to do about it?
Thank you for allowing me to take part in this statement, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that I was not here at the beginning—I was carrying out my duties elsewhere in the House. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. What is she likely to do in my part of south-east London for technical and vocational places? I remind her that there is a former education college site in my constituency that is in the ownership of the Education Department, which could be readymade for creating such places. Will she meet me to discuss the future of that site?
I rise to speak to amendment 97 in my name, which would remove clause 10 from the Bill. Clause 10 gives powers to the Secretary of State to vary the proportion of public and private provision of health services if they consider that to do so is in the interests of the health service. In evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee, the chief executive of the Nuffield Trust said that clause 10 “seems to make it more possible for the Secretary of State to explicitly set out to increase private or public provision.” Why does the Secretary of State need this power? Introducing an extra level of nuance now, as clause 10 will do, has the potential to raise fears within the NHS that it could be abused in future. The clause has the potential to create unintended consequences. The explanatory notes for the Bill say that this new flexibility is necessary “where there may otherwise be a breakdown in provision of a health service.” Can we imagine a situation where the Secretary of State has concerns about a health service and that an approach to assist a local provider would be rebuffed? It is hardly likely to happen. The explanatory notes suggest that, in such circumstances, the Secretary of State needs the power to direct local decisions, rather than to work with local health service providers to resolve any difficulties. How does the power to influence the proportion of public and private provision help in resolving a breakdown in service?<span id="786" class="column-number" data-column-number="786"></span> Labour’s 2024 plan to make work pay set out a welcome desire to bring more essential services back into public control—something that is welcomed by health workers across the country, because so far the “biggest wave of insourcing in a generation”, as was promised, has felt more like a trickle when it comes to the NHS. The new Prime Minister and new Secretary of State have inherited the Health Bill from their predecessors, so hopefully they will be able to stamp their own mark on it before it becomes law. Removing clause 10 would be one way of making that mark. The concern for those who work for the NHS and those who support it is that the clause has the potential to be exploited in future by those who would seek to move away from the public provision of healthcare. There are ample powers to enable the Secretary of State to intervene and resolve breakdowns in the provision of a health service. On clause 10, we must balance what it adds in those situations against its potential misuse by an ideologically driven Government that are determined to privatise our NHS. To remove any ambiguity and to protect the NHS from the possibility of the clause being abused by a future Secretary of State, I urge that it is dropped from the Bill.
I welcome my right hon. Friend back to his post, but I must say to him that not all the rewiring of the new Government is welcome. I understand that the Cabinet Office intends to move responsibility for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to a Minister in the Lords. We all have constituents who are raising serious concerns about that process, and we want to be able to come to this House and hold to account the Minister responsible for that agency. I urge my right hon. Friend to take the matter up with the Cabinet Office—and, if the Government do intend to make that change, can we have a statement?
It was a pleasure to join my right hon. Friend at Greenwich council’s development of 435 council properties in my constituency for the launch of the social and affordable housing programme. Some 70,000 homes are planned, and that is welcome and overdue. However, my constituency and ones like it have a lot of sports grounds, and as we push for more land, the temptation is for owners of those grounds to lock the gates, in the hope that they will make a windfall from developing those sites. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that that will not be allowed under the programme to build the housing that we need?
Do the Minister and the Government agree with the principle that an independent body should oversee the Government’s performance in responding to inquiry recommendations? Is that the way we are going to go forwards? The way that the Government—not just this one, but others in the past—have responded to recommendations from inquiries has, to say the least, required improvement for a very long time. Can we be assured that independence will be introduced into the scrutiny process?
Held . Recorded result: Lab Gain. Majority 8,429. 45,566 votes cast from an electorate of 73,979. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clive Efford | Labour | 20,069 | 44.0% |
| Charlie Davis | Conservative | 11,640 | 25.5% |
| Mark George Simpson | Reform UK | 7,428 | 16.3% |
| Sam Gabriel | Green Party | 3,079 | 6.8% |
| Ulysse Abbate | Liberal Democrat | 2,423 | 5.3% |
| Sean Ellis Stewart | Workers Party of Britain | 356 | 0.8% |
| Arnold Tarling | Independent | 307 | 0.7% |
| Christian Hacking | Independent | 173 | 0.4% |
| John Courtneidge | Independent | 91 | 0.2% |
| Seat | Dates |
|---|---|
| Eltham and ChislehurstElected 1 time | – present |
| ElthamElected 4 times | – |
| ElthamElected 3 times | – |
| Post | Dates |
|---|---|
| Shadow Minister (Culture, Media and Sport)Department for Culture, Media and Sport | – |
| Committee | Dates |
|---|---|
| Select Committee on the Armed Forces BillChair | – present |
| Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill | – present |
| Public Accounts CommissionChair | – present |
| Panel of Chairs | – present |
| Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill | – |
| Media Bill | – |
| Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill | – |
| Speaker's Conference (2022) | – |
| Finance (No.2) Bill | – |
| Panel of Chairs | – |
| Culture, Media and Sport Sub-committee on Online Harms and Disinformation | – |
| Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee | – |
| DCMS Sub-Committee on Disinformation | – |
| Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee | – |
| Public Accounts Commission | – present |
| Transport Committee | – |
| Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee | – |
| Transport Committee | – |
| Procedure Committee | – |
| Constituency | Date |
|---|---|
| Eltham |
Website
X (formerly Twitter)
Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site
Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .