Conservative and Unionist Party MP for Broadland and Fakenham since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
873
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 | Broadland and Fakenham | – 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
<Question HRSContentId="{0BC82081-7CDA-4AFE-84BB-47D51C889F99}">14. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{34B42D6C-FBF7-4B4F-BA07-61482986AD51}">What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on levels of employment in the oil and gas sector in Scotland.</QuestionText> </Question>
The Government spent two and a half years virtue signalling about the North sea. They said there was no future for oil and gas and had a ban on licences, as well as increasing taxation. The result has been 25,000 job losses—1,000 every month and counting—not because of an external shock, but because of a crisis 100% caused by Government policy. When will this Government leave their student politics behind, back British business and get us drilling again?
My hon. Friend is making a very good point. I wonder whether he is aware that since the last election, the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds has risen by 30.1%, which is coincident with youth unemployment rising by 54,000. Does he think there is a link?
I will go out on a limb and say that this is a terrible Budget. It is not just a “steady as it goes” Budget, because everyone in this Chamber knows that we have got some serious problems that have to be addressed by this country, both politically and economically. This will be known as the “kick it down the road” Budget. It has its eyes covered and its fingers in its ears, pretending that these problems are not real and are not now, and that we can afford to push them all down for another 12 to 18 months. Look at national debt. We have already peaked above £3 trillion of national debt in the past couple of weeks, yet this Parliament is now on course to increase borrowing above what was planned in 2024 by £308 billion. That is an increase of more than a quarter of a trillion pounds in borrowing, with no plan to get it down and no credible plan to reduce welfare spending, which is the next major issue that we have to address. Welfare dependency now makes it reasonable for 1,000 people a day to apply for the personal independence payment, because they know that they will get paid more on benefits than if they got a job. The Government recognised that needs to change and tried to make a very modest change last year, but that was voted down by Government Members, and it led to the defeat of the previous Prime Minister. What was the Government’s answer? The Timms report, which was created out of the failure of the debate last time round, and part of its objective is not to reduce spending—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I would be grateful if Members listened to the speech being made, rather than making their own from the Government Front Bench.<span id="398" class="column-number" data-column-number="398"></span> Welfare dependency has to be addressed, yet we are waiting for a report, and then a response from the Government, and then a White Paper sometime next year, apparently. Then, after that, there will potentially be legislation to go through this House. That is no way to address this issue. This country faces a key and present economic, social and moral danger, and this Government are pretending that it is not there. Then we come to defence. We are told by this Government that we must prepare for a war within 1,000 days, but do we have a plan to get to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030? Not a bit of it. We have a plan for next year, so we are supposed to be satisfied with a plan to get to a plan. This is ridiculous. We have Ministers telling us that we have to stockpile food, but we have capital expenditure that is due to take place after that 1,000-day period. This is back-to-front government, and it is a negligent Treasury that is imposing this on our defence sector. We have a plan that reduces next year’s economic growth from 1.6%, which is pretty anaemic, down to 1%, and at no point during the forecast period does it get as far as 2%. This is outrageous.
I will not. I have only a minute left. We have tax rises being imposed on savers. What a weird argument that is—that increased taxes should be imposed on people who are doing the right thing. As for banks, which are the funders of growth, the CEO of one UK bank is reported to have said: “Taxing the engines of growth to reduce VAT on gherkins is end-of-Rome level of stupidity.” It is hard to disagree, is it not? We have four really serious issues for our country, and a Budget that pretends they are not there. It is a Budget that kicks the can down the road. It is a Budget that says “steady as she goes” is the right answer. I could not disagree more.
<Question HRSContentId="{90B995E5-6AAE-48A0-BA8E-85BA30231102}">Q2. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{0F47231D-5492-420E-917A-2C48555F1E12}"></QuestionText>Last week the Prime Minister struggled to disclose all his dealings with the owners of Manchester City football club, so I ask him this: in September, did he have a meeting scheduled with Khaldoon Al Mubarak?</Question>
Fakenham needs a banking hub. It is a vibrant market town; it has about 80 high street businesses, as well as light industrial and manufacturing concerns, and it is the economic hub that services more than 17,000 adults and their children. However, with the exception of Nationwide, all of the banks have left. This petition—together with a separate petition by Councillor Liz Vickers, supported by Councillor Christopher Cushing and more than 1,470 residents—requests “that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure face-to-face banking services are accessible in Fakenham” through a banking hub. <em>Following is the full text of the petition:</em> <em>[The petition of residents of Fakenham</em><em>,</em> <em>Declares that Fakenham is the service and market centre for a large rural community in North Norfolk; further, that despite serving over 17,000 adults, supporting more than 80 high street businesses, and facing some of the poorest access to alternative banking services in the county, the town has been denied a Banking Hub; further, we call on LINK and the banking industry to reconsider this decision and ensure that residents, vulnerable customers and local businesses in Fakenham have access to the face-to-face banking services they need.</em> <em>The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure face-to-face banking services are accessible in Fakenham through the establishment of a Banking Hub.</em> <em>And the petitioners remain, etc.</em><em>]</em> [P003245]
A moment ago, the Secretary of State for Defence said that the Government would set out a path to spending 3% of GDP on defence, but he forgot to say by which year that would happen. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that this is 3% defence spending by 2030?
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does the Minister have any idea how long it takes to design and then apply for an SFI? All that is then chucked away in a six-hour lottery. The Minister’s response today—he has got his back to me; he is not even listening to my question—has been symbolic of the shrugged-shoulders attitude that the lanyard classes have had to farmers for far too long. He has had two and a half years to fix the problem—if, as he says, he inherited it. Does he even understand the boiling sense of frustration and anger that farmers have?
I think I am in the slightly novel position of being fresh to the Dispatch Box myself, but also able to welcome both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to their new places, which I do with gusto. Last month, the Attorney General published her new “Attorney General’s Legal Guidance”, a direction to all Government lawyers on how to advise Ministers on lawfulness and legal risk, which replaced the advice of Lord Hermer. Across the board, she has removed references to international law. She has removed Lord Hermer’s demand that “the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”; she has removed Lord Hermer’s direction that the Government “should not invite Parliament to legislate contrary to international obligations”; and she has removed the whole paragraph in which Lord Hermer instructed Government lawyers that compliance and respect for international law must be a critical factor in legal advice. She served as Solicitor General under Lord Hermer for a year. What persuaded her that his guidance to Government lawyers was wrong, and that the Conservatives were right all along that his guidance needed to be replaced?