Inheritance Tax
Are there any black Labradors at any of the premises that my hon. Friend mentions?
Conservative and Unionist Party MP for Epping Forest since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
259
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 | Epping Forest | – 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
Are there any black Labradors at any of the premises that my hon. Friend mentions?
These are people who are doing the right thing: farmers who feed us and look after our precious environment, family businesses supporting their local economy and families who work hard to provide a family home. Is not their being able to pass on their farms, family businesses and family homes to the next generation free from inheritance tax, about fairness?
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) on securing this debate, and I thank her for all the hard work she does to highlight this crucial area. I have been privileged to work with her on the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention. I could not make this speech without paying tribute to Andy Airey, Mike Palmer and Tim Owen, better known to all of us as 3 Dads Walking. It has been a humbling privilege to work alongside Andy, Mike and Tim, who tragically lost their precious daughters, Sophie, Beth and Emily, to suicide. United by shared grief, they did something so simple yet so powerful: they walked, they talked and, together, they changed the national conversation on suicide prevention, all while raising over £1.5 million for Papyrus. It was therefore devastating that, in the very week of World Suicide Prevention Day, we heard that Papyrus had gone into administration. Papyrus provided a vital lifeline to young people. There are three excellent charities providing support in this area: Samaritans; Shout, with its crisis text service; and Chasing the Stigma, which provides the Hub of Hope mental health support directory. But with the loss of Papyrus, we have a huge gap. The three dads showed us that prevention and signposting are a critical layer that helps us to address mental health and suicide. I remind the Minister that there is so much work to do across society, and prevention and signposting have to be at the forefront alongside treatment and intervention when crisis occurs. That will help save lives. I urge the Government to act.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I start by offering our sincere condolences to the Prime Minister on the very sad passing of his father. He and his family are in our thoughts and prayers. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for opening the debate and congratulate him on his powerful contribution. We heard many powerful contributions from across the House. Normally at this point, as the shadow Minister responding, I would put my lifejacket on, get in a canoe and start paddling round everyone’s constituencies. However, so many Members have spoken today that I would use up my entire time allocation by name-checking every one, so I will just thank everyone for their powerful contributions and for <span id="498WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="498WH"></span>speaking on behalf of their constituents to raise issues about the unacceptable behaviour and performance of many of the water companies. Every family, household or business uses water. We all need it. It is a life-giving, essential resource. We all have an intrinsic interest in water: how much we pay for it, what services we receive, the performance of our local water company, and the sustainability and future of our water supply. The petition we are debating today reached over 208,000 signatures. I thank all those petitioners and the more than 300 people in my Epping Forest constituency who signed it and expressed their clear dissatisfaction with the current state of our water sector. For too long, customers have seen water companies in the news for the wrong reasons: from awful environmental pollution spills to unacceptable water outages affecting tens of thousands of consumers. In fact, during this summer’s extreme heat in August, many thousands of people and properties in my constituency of Epping Forest, including in Loughton, Chigwell, Buckhurst Hill, and Epping, were left completely without water for up to a week, let down by Thames Water because of burst pipes and failing infrastructure. Vulnerable constituents were left in distress; homes were without water, with people unable to flush their toilets or bathe; parents were left without water to make up bottles for their babies; and livestock owners were panicking over getting water to their animals. Communication and logistics from Thames Water were very poor. Priority service customers were openly saying that they had been told they would not receive any bottled water, despite being priority customers to whom companies have specific duties. As we have heard across the House today, the response by Thames Water in many situations has been wholly unacceptable. Bottled water was provided in too few locations that were not convenient to get to outside Epping Forest, and those who could get there faced agonisingly long queues in the scorching summer heat. It happened in the hottest week of the year. Other locations that did become available in my constituency either ran out of bottled water or were closed early. To add insult to injury, that all took place in the context of the news of Thames Water’s new chief financial officer receiving a £1 million welcome package. My constituents and constituents across the country rightly ask how that can be justified when Thames Water failed to provide basic services while bills continue to rise. A staggering hike of a 36% has already been greenlit by the water regulator for 2025 to 2030, and there is more to come following the announcement over the summer. I know that my constituents and those who have faced water outages across the country would be grateful if the Minister could explain what steps she is taking to ensure that water companies step up to the plate and properly prepare for such crises, so that our constituents are not left in such distressing circumstances again. It is a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister, as I have in a number of debates and Bill Committees, and I know that she is genuinely engaged in this matter. I raised those issues with her over the summer, and I hope she can take it forward and listen to the voices of our constituents in these important matters. In rural and semi-rural areas, we must not forget that water is also vital for livestock such as farm animals, horses and ponies, and I declare an interest here as a <span id="499WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="499WH"></span>veterinary surgeon. As an illustration, a 500 kg horse needs around 25 litres of water a day—that is not on a hot day—and a lactating dairy cow needs upwards of 100 litres. I assure hon. Members that that is no small amount; that is a lot of bottled water. In these situations, water companies do not step up. It is local communities, livery yard owners and farmers who roll their sleeves up and help each other to get valuable water to these animals. I have raised the issue with the Minister before and I hope that she can take it forward and put pressure on the water companies. When we get these outages, which are sadly now predictable and will occur, animals as well as people need to be looked out for. We have heard today about the people, and I have highlighted the situation of vulnerable people in my constituency who have not been able to live their lives with their basic needs met, but there are other situations to consider. I urge the Minister to put pressure on water companies when we get outages, as we have seen this summer in my constituency and in many constituencies across the country. We have frequently debated at the Dispatch Box in this Chamber and the main Chamber the question of people in Kent and Sussex who have had unacceptable water outages from South East Water. I press the Minister once again to explain to the House what steps she and the Government are taking to ensure that a market-based solution can be found for the Thames Water situation.
I will not give way at this point. His Majesty’s official Opposition have been clear: we are not cheerleaders for this water company, but we do not want to see Thames Water fold. Although the water supply would continue, that would carry the serious risk of higher bills for customers and would not solve all the issues facing the company. Bizarrely, a few months ago the third party led legal action that could have sunk the company. With them, Reform—strangely their allies on this issue—appear to be happy for the company to go under, exposing taxpayers to billions and pushing consumer water bills sky-high. That is billions of pounds that we as a country simply just cannot afford, as the Government have admitted. Outages such as the one I described in Epping Forest also highlight the real and present impacts of climate change and increased demand. We have outdated water infrastructure designed to cope with significantly less demand than it is now required to. Changing weather risks more leaks, bursts and breakages. The water outages that tend to follow have knock-on implications for people, schools, businesses and healthcare. It is important to know the economic and social costs of the outages that have occurred over the last few months and years. Will the Minister take this opportunity to provide some reassurance that existing infrastructure is being assessed to prevent leakages or bursts in the first instances and hold water companies to account for that? The work of the previous Conservative Government in this area means that we now understand the severity of the situation surrounding the performance of water companies in the first place—<em>[</em><em>Interruption</em><em>.</em><em>]</em> Hon. Members <span id="500WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="500WH"></span>may laugh but I remind them that, when Labour left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. The previous Government worked proactively to increase that percentage: by the end of 2023, it had increased to 100%. It went from 7% to 100%. This is basic science: it is only when something is measured and vital data is collected that the extent of the problem can be seen. It was the Conservative Government that started that, and that started to put in place measures to address the situation—something they, and indeed the new Labour Government, have found to be complex and not easy to solve.
I am not giving way. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I am just giving hon. Members some facts about where the problems—
Furthermore, the previous Conservative Government’s landmark Environment Act 2021 introduced significant changes to how water quality is managed and monitored in England and Wales. The Act mandates enhanced reporting, monitoring and treatment compliance measures from businesses. It also establishes long-term goals to limit pollution and protect natural water resources from wider range of potential pollutants. I am sure that, in considering what action the current Government have taken, the Minister will cite the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025—I was on the Bill Committee shadowing her, and I really appreciated her constructive work. It is encouraging to see the current Government adopt some of the measures the previous Government had already introduced, such as banning water company bonuses for bosses if the company had committed serious criminal breaches that damaged the environment. However, it was disappointing that they failed to support the constructive amendments the Opposition tabled, including to ringfence funding from enforcement fines for bespoke water restoration funds; to guarantee that companies fix the environmental damage they cause locally; to require Ofwat to create rules on financial reporting in its renumeration and governance rules; to reduce consumer bills if companies were hit with enforcement fines; and to ensure that companies do not leverage too much debt. Those were sensible, constructive amendments that the Government voted down. Indeed, there is a recurring pattern of the current Government attempting to claim credit for measures introduced by the previous Government. The current Government have repeatedly claimed to have secured £104 billion of investment in the water system, but £93 billion of that had already been submitted by water companies in October 2023—under the previous Government. The Independent Water Commission published its final report in July 2025. It was a comprehensive document containing 88 recommendations. Since then, the Government published their water White Paper in <span id="501WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="501WH"></span>January 2026. In May 2026, the King’s Speech included the promise of a clean water Bill. Given that there has been a change in Prime Minister since then, I would appreciate clarity from the Minister about whether the Government plan to proceed with special administration orders for water companies such as Thames Water, as was first suggested. Furthermore, are they going to do that as bespoke individual actions or as part of a nationalisation programme? Will that form part of a clean water Bill? Can she confirm when we will see that clean water Bill come before Parliament? A well-functioning, properly regulated water system is achievable if there is the political will to make it happen. The public want change, as has been proved by the petition today. His Majesty’s official Opposition are ready to work constructively with the Government on ensuring that that is done for the benefit of people right across the country.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Quite rightly, when we enter this life, the NHS and the state support us through obstetrics, gynaecology, maternal health, neonatology and paediatrics. However, at the other end of our life, when we leave this world, the charitable sector picks things up, and the majority of support is delivered outside the NHS. Surely that cannot be right as a society. Surely we have to fix that and sort out palliative care before we go anywhere near this Bill.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on bringing forward this important debate, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I would normally go through some of the powerful contributions we have had today, but it would take all my allocated time to namecheck everyone’s constituencies. Basically, the take-home message has been the importance of protecting our precious planet from the existential threats that we face from climate change. Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems is very close to our hearts and the hearts of our constituents, and it is crucial to national security. As the MP for Epping Forest, I am privileged to see and experience the many benefits of biodiversity in our ancient woodland and beyond. As the heart and lungs of north-east London and our part of Essex, Epping Forest hosts 55,000 ancient and veteran trees and is home to 10 bat species, nine native reptile and amphibian species, over 15,000 fungal species and 28 butterfly species. I want the flora and fauna of Epping Forest and more widely to flourish and thrive, yet water security, air quality and climate change—to name just three risks—threaten biodiversity and ecosystems domestically and globally. That is why the report we are debating today is an important wake-up call. The last Conservative Government’s Environment Act 2021 established legally binding targets, including to increase species abundance, so that by 2042 it is greater than 2022 and at least 10% greater than 2032, and to restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats outside protected sites by 2050. Our Conservative environment improvement plan built on that Act, committing to protect 30% of our land and our sea by 2030. Supporting the COP15 global target, we agreed to protect 30% of global land and global ocean. The security assessment we are debating, published by the current Government in January this year, outlined the immense risk that biodiversity loss and ecological degradation is having and will continue to have unless we take action. It was disappointing that it took an FOI request from the Green Alliance for the Government to publish the report in this abridged form. It is clearly <span id="207WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="207WH"></span>something that the Government do not want us to see in full. Will the Minister say what the Government’s plans are for letting us see it in full? Turning to what was published, the report looks at global factors, such as food supply chains, but it is important that the Government’s approach to supporting biodiversity and ecosystems is not siloed between action abroad and action domestically, but is instead a joint approach. International action to address biodiversity must not solely sit within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but must be co-ordinated with DEFRA and tie into the UK’s domestic agenda to boost supply chains and ecosystems here. The report identified biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as a national security threat. We must all keep that at the forefront of our minds. This debate considers national security and keeping the UK—our families, homes and livelihoods—safe. National security should always be the first and foremost duty of any Government. One of the reasons the threats identified in the report are different from some other national security threats is the unpredictable behaviour of some natural events, such as the extreme weather events we are seeing both in the UK and globally—we have heard that point powerfully articulated today. In the UK this summer, we have experienced one of the worst droughts in history. Over two-thirds of England —approximately 71%—was in drought following the driest July since 1836. In my constituency, the extreme heat facing the rest of the country was made worse by thousands of my constituents being left without running water this summer for about a week due to unacceptable Thames Water outages for several days. They faced hours of long queues for bottled water or waited anxiously for priority service delivery, with little certainty that they would receive any at all. With warmer summers expected as the norm, I would appreciate it if the Minister assured mine and everyone’s constituents that the Government are taking steps to ensure that they are integrating planning for warm weather into the very heart of our water industry’s operations, so that our constituents are not left exposed in such a vulnerable position in future. The Government should also be supporting farmers to adapt to the impact of climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing market volatility. Sadly, the Government have voted for the family farm tax and the fertiliser tax. That is very pertinent to today’s debate, with the report touching on UK fertiliser resilience. There is also the double-cab pick-up tax and increased national insurance contributions for employers. All those actions have not only caused serious economic and cash-flow problems for farmers; they have also damaged job opportunities for young people coming into agriculture. Why is this so important? Our fantastic farmers are custodians of approximately 70% of the UK’s land. Failing to support farmers is failing to support nature and biodiversity in the UK, which is both unforgivable and incredibly short-sighted. Farmers are pivotal to UK food security. The report says: “Without significant increases in UK food system and supply chain resilience, it is unlikely the UK would be able to maintain food security if ecosystem collapse drives geopolitical competition for food.”<span id="208WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="208WH"></span> Therefore, once again, and in a sadly recurring theme, when this current Government should be supporting our family farms to help feed the nation and bolster our food security, there has been a record number of farm closures. Sadly, when it comes to biosecurity, which is intrinsically linked to our food security, yet again the current Government have been slow throughout their tenure. I needed to ask 17 times in Parliament before they provided anything close to the money needed to complete the rebuild of the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s headquarters. They also continue to preside over an illegal meat import crisis at our borders. In the last couple of years, Europe has seen foot and mouth disease, and African swine fever is also advancing up the continent. As we have heard in this debate and this morning’s statement, bluetongue virus is surging in the UK and poses a specific threat in the context of climate change. The virus is rapidly multiplying in the midge vector, the range of which is advancing northwards. Leaving us exposed to those threats is reckless. The report we are debating is a much-needed wake-up call to the Government, who sadly seem to be asleep at the wheel. A report of this kind should have prompted an immediate response, yet we have seen in DEFRA that this Government do not seem to move with speed. That must change. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the points made today. However, more than anything, I would like a guarantee that there will be co-ordination across Government to bolster ecosystems internationally and in the UK. DEFRA must play a leading role in this work. I really hope that the Prime Minister was misspeaking in his comment yesterday about how he rates DEFRA among Government Departments. DEFRA should be at the heart of Government in protecting and feeding our country and looking after our precious environment. I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm that. Co-ordinated policy also needs us to be using every tool at our disposal. I urge the Government to recognise the important role that zoos play in conservation, as we also heard from the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon). Zoos such as Chester and London, through species reintroduction and habitat restoration, do so much to help fight species decline. They need to be used to our full advantage to meet biodiversity targets. In conclusion, when ecosystem degradation is occurring across all regions of the globe and, as the report states, the world could be on a path towards “geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict, migration and increased inter-state competition for resources” the Government must not stand and sit idle. I ask them to act.