Labour Party MP for Glasgow South West since (elected). An MP continuously since .
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
240
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
5
As currently published
Declared while sitting for Labour
£43,890
2 of 5 entries state an amount
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour | MP | Glasgow South West | – 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.2. Ongoing employment | Agreement starting 06 April 2026 - £2,065.00NHS golden jubilee | — | Labour | Register record | |
| 1.1. Payment for work | Payment received on 26 February 2026 - £13,890.00NHS golden jubilee | £13,890 | Labour | Register record | |
| 2. Donations and support | Francesca Sainsbury Perrin - £30,000.00 | £30,000 | Labour | Register record | |
| date registered | 8. Miscellaneous | Honorary surgeon, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde | — | Labour | Register record |
| date registered | 1. Employment and earnings | NHS surgeon - NHS golden jubilee | — | Labour | Register record |
The hon. Gentleman says this country has a defence problem. Could he elaborate on the context of that defence problem, and perhaps reflect on the fact that it may have something to do with the under-investment that has left the Army with unprecedented levels of poor morale and left British soldiers unequipped to do their basic job of defending our country?
When I was first elected to this place as the proud Member for Glasgow South West, many of my constituents lived in great financial uncertainty: the more than 6,000 kids in my constituency who live in relative poverty; the many constituents who have not had a decent wage rise for over 10 years; and the proud shipyards of Govan that are unable to fill their order books. I am proud that I was part of a Government, and a friend of a Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), who helped to eliminate some of that uncertainty by ensuring the fastest wage growth in a year—it was much greater than any wage growth that happened in the previous 10 years —and by lifting the two-child benefit cap. That took thousands of kids in my constituency out of poverty, and probably benefited the local economy to the tune of £4 million. We also secured the Type 26 frigate contract, which will give certainty to Govan shipyard workers for generations to come. It is not only in the large policy areas that this Labour movement does its work. It is at its best when, at the ground level, it feels the pain of ordinary people who are trying to get by and are not able to live the life that they were promised by their forefathers. In that regard, I am very proud of the Budget, and the direction that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken, particularly in relation to energy bills. Through this Budget, we are committed to immediately ensuring that 90% of my constituents will feel the benefit of £100 off their energy bills; and 100% of my constituents will be absolved from the need to pay standing charges on their energy bills. All my constituents will also have VAT eliminated from their electricity bills. No country or Government can insulate their citizens from the pressures of global markets and global conflict, but we can do as much as we can. I believe that we are doing as much as we can on energy bills, and creating the space for people to live more comfortably.
The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a quasi-judicial process, and it would be remiss of me to make undertakings on an issue for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is responsible. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that those calculations have been baked in for many years. This is not some new reference to the assumptions in this year’s OBR report, and he knows that very well; I think he is being a little mischievous in his questioning. Let me return to my principal point about giving breathing space. It is not only families and individuals who need breathing space; it is businesses, including small businesses on the high street. I am really proud that before and in this Budget, we have been lifting many more businesses on the high street out of the need to pay business rates. As hon. Members may be aware, in Scotland, that will not be automatic; it is at the discretion of the Scottish Government. I plead with <span id="515" class="column-number" data-column-number="515"></span>them to ensure that the Barnett consequentials of that decision translate into savings on business rates for ordinary high-street businesses, including pubs. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an undertaking during the summer to reduce business rates for music clubs and pubs. As far as I know, that has not yet translated into a similar policy statement in Scotland. I know that pubs in my constituency, which are around many of the underground stations in Glasgow—students and others like to do a Clockwork Orange pub crawl—crave and would benefit from those savings. I urge the Scottish Government to pass them on with immediate effect. Those interventions all make life a little more bearable and easier. I know that some Members think that there is a binary choice to be made between social and personal economic security on the one hand, and our national security on the other, but there is not; one is very much reliant on the other. That is why we are committed to ensuring that our defence spending hits the 2030 and 2035 targets that our NATO allies expect it to. I am proud that my constituency is contributing to the defence of our nation, whether it is through the shipyards and building the Type 26 frigates that will patrol our seas, or through more novel technologies, and drones being designed in my constituency. Labour Members are proud of investing in defence. Investing in defence is not taboo, contrary to the view that the Scottish Green party and the Scottish National party have sometimes espoused; we in Scotland should be proud that we are at the forefront of defending our nation, and we will always invest in that. I am grateful to the SNP for finally relenting and matching our funding for two defence technical excellence colleges in Scotland, enabling us to defend our nation. In closing, I will just say that when I speak to this Prime Minister and this Chancellor, I find that they understand Scotland, and they feel the needs of Glasgow South West. The Budget that they have delivered will give us breathing space for today, but also—more importantly—hope for tomorrow.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, especially as she is caveating our relative success in removing foreign offenders by providing the wider context about criminality in this country. The vast majority of crime is committed by British citizens—indeed, British-born citizens. Sometimes that is lost in this debate. Following on from that point, does my hon. Friend agree that foreign offenders are often synonymously conflated with violence against women and girls? There are certain elements in our politics that wish to leverage that narrative to demonise certain communities and to further their own political interests. Does she share my concerns about the politicians who do that, and does she agree that when it comes to people who commit <span id="314" class="column-number" data-column-number="314"></span>violence against women and girls, the common theme is largely not one particular community or immigrant population, or indeed foreign offenders, but men?
One hundred years ago this month, my family’s proud tradition of service and contribution to Britain began when my grandfather, Imam Mohamed, travelled from Indian Punjab to serve in the Royal British Hong Kong police force. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister share my concern that, in the light of ITV’s exposé of elected Reform politicians indulging in racist behaviour, families like them, of whom there are thousands in this country, will wonder who now represents them? Can he reassure me that the Government he leads will make sure that everyone’s contribution is respected and recognised?
As a matter of record, it is important for my right hon. Friend to outline why the amendments and new schedule have been tabled now and why they were not included in the original Bill. I know my constituents take a keen interest in this matter, as my constituency has one of the highest amounts of asylum seeker housing in the country.
Does the hon. Lady accept that article 8 was never intended to be interpreted as it is now, and therefore that if we do not provide guidance or adjust it, we will further dampen the British public’s confidence and trust in the immigration and asylum system? I can tell her from personal experience that when that happens, it is people from minority communities that are already here, sometimes for many generations, such as my father, who are first in the firing line. Does she therefore agree that if she, like me, wants Britain to be a compassionate, welcoming country, we must acknowledge that those articles are in some cases not being interpreted in the intended manner and that the adjustment is appropriate?
It is the hon. Lady’s contention that those of us on the Government Benches were somehow manipulated by others to arrive at this Bill. Will she at least concede that toxic rhetoric and hatred do not occur in a vacuum, as I know personally, but often exploit structural deficiencies in systems, and that sadly there are structural deficiencies in this system? Is fixing them not therefore the responsible thing to do, so that we can turn the tap off that these haters and racists use to fire abusive language at Members of Parliament and members of the public who do not look like them?
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as he is getting into the substance of his speech. I want to place on record my appreciation and that of my constituents in Glasgow South West, where there is a large Sikh community, for my hon. Friend’s efforts. He has been tireless since the first day he was elected to this place in trying to secure the release of Jagtar. That resonates very strongly with my constituents in the Sikh community across Glasgow South West. Does my hon. Friend agree, though, that although we are slowly starting to move in the right direction, there is still deep concern because Jagtar faces the death penalty? The Johal family—which includes friends of mine, such as Gurpreet, who is a local councillor in the west of Scotland—must be filled still with trepidation. Does he further agree that there is also a wider context, whereby someone born in this country—a British citizen, a second-generation Indian—has found himself in this situation, incarcerated for nearly a decade? That sends <span id="638" class="column-number" data-column-number="638"></span>shivers down the spines of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people in that situation living in Britain today who would wish to visit India.
The hon. Lady talks about values and culture. She has already mentioned that she served in the last Government. I wonder what the culture of that Government was when boat crossings were at a record high, when the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was opening hotels as though they were going out of season. What was the culture in that Government when it came to attempting to combat this issue?
Held . Recorded result: Lab Gain. Majority 3,285. 35,669 votes cast from an electorate of 68,871. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zubir Ahmed | Labour | 15,552 | 43.6% |
| Chris Stephens | Scottish National Party | 12,267 | 34.4% |
| John Hamelink | Scottish Green Party | 2,727 | 7.6% |
| Morag McRae | Reform UK | 2,236 | 6.3% |
| Mamun Rashid | Conservative | 1,387 | 3.9% |
| Paul McGarry | Liberal Democrat | 958 | 2.7% |
| Tony Osy | Alba Party | 542 | 1.5% |
| Seat | Dates |
|---|---|
| Glasgow South WestElected 1 time | – present |
| Post | Dates |
|---|---|
| Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)Department of Health and Social Care | – |
| Committee | Dates |
|---|---|
| Foreign Affairs Committee | – present |
| Immigration and Asylum Bill | – present |
| Tobacco and Vapes Bill | – |
X (formerly Twitter)
Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site
Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .