Liberal Democrats MP for Stratford-on-Avon since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
303
Each filed under the party they sat for that day
Register entries
0
As currently published
| Party | Office | Area | Period | Began | Ended | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lib Dem | MP | Stratford-on-Avon | – 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
Does the Home Secretary believe that it is fair to change the rules retrospectively for people who are not earning in excess of £50,000 but nevertheless have built careers, raised families and paid taxes based on the settlement pathway that existed when they arrived? Does this not violate the British value of fairness and risk real damage to our economy and our social fabric?
I welcome aspects of this breathing space Budget. Additional investment in council housing, support for rough sleeping programmes and some positive news on business rates with action to revive our high streets are all steps in the right direction. But for many families, businesses and communities, such as those in my constituency, the Budget does not go far enough to address the pressure they face every day, including the brutal cost of living. People in Stratford-on-Avon worry about the future of their local high streets, about heating their homes this winter, and about whether their favourite shop, pub, café or restaurant—businesses that give our towns their character—will still be there next year. That is why I believe that the Budget misses opportunities in a number of important areas. Our small businesses on high streets—the independent businesses that make our towns unique and create jobs for local people—face pressure from every direction. Under this Government, rising employment costs, energy costs, business rates and regulatory burdens are all taking their toll, and empty units are blighting our streets up and down the country. We need stronger powers for councils to bring long-term vacant properties back into use, and more support for the independent businesses that give our towns their character. The business rates discount will help some, but many will be left in the cold. Hospitality is of particular importance to Stratford-on-Avon; one in nine constituents are employed in the sector. That is why I am disappointed that the Government did not go further on VAT for hospitality. A temporary reduction in VAT would have provided immediate help <span id="666" class="column-number" data-column-number="666"></span>to businesses, while helping consumers who are also feeling the squeeze. Businesses in my constituency tell me that a VAT reduction for hospitality would have allowed them to keep the lights on after the busy Christmas period. On fuel poverty, while the payment of £100 is welcome, we know from the Resolution Foundation that 1.4 million low-income households are in higher council tax bands, and they will miss out on that untargeted payment. Will the Minister look at that cohort urgently, so that they do not fall through the cracks? While I am on the subject, council tax is a deeply unfair tax—we know it, and the Minister knows it, and it needs to change. Many households remain vulnerable to high energy costs, which is why I am concerned about the reduction in funding for the warm homes plan. Investing in warmer homes cuts bills and reduces carbon emissions; it is one of the smartest investments that any Government can make, particularly for families and older residents already struggling with the cost of living. The Budget and the Government’s wider plan place considerable emphasis on devolution. Warwickshire is a long way away from a mayor. People in my constituency want local services that are responsibly rooted in the places that they serve. Any organisational devolution must strengthen local democracy and voices, because whether we are talking about high streets, fuel poverty, housing or hospitality, the people closest to those challenges are often those best placed to solve them. For my constituents, the Budget does not go far enough to support small businesses, tackle fuel poverty and help communities thrive.
In my constituency, the Shipston Area Flood Action Group has led a natural flood management project, working together with local landowners to slow the flow of the River Stour upstream. Does the hon. Member agree that we need greater investment in natural flood management, so that communities are protected before flooding occurs while also helping to restore nature?
Alongside the expansion of illegal settlements, as we have heard, there has been growing concern about violence perpetrated by extremist settlers against Palestinian communities in the west bank. Does the Secretary of State believe that the UK’s current response is sufficient, and what further steps is he prepared to take to hold those responsible to account?
From coastal Devon to rural Warwickshire, we have the same issues. My constituents are not receiving letters on time. They are missing NHS appointments—really important appointments—documents are getting lost, and letters informing people of fines to be paid are arriving too late. We know that our postal workers are doing their best, and are working very hard in very difficult conditions. Does my hon. Friend agree that both Ofcom and Royal Mail need a radical overhaul?
<Question HRSContentId="{46E2E1D5-1C03-481A-9C10-7D841C757964}">Q3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{D23D8128-2A44-4682-BBB6-A0EF942E826A}"></QuestionText>My constituent Matilda Davis was a wonderful and devoted mum, and a full-time carer for her disabled seven-year-old child. Despite providing round-the-clock care, she received almost no support, leaving her physically and emotionally exhausted. Last October social workers visited Matilda, and she took her own life 15 minutes after they left. She was 36. Research from the University of Birmingham shows that 41% of parent carers have contemplated suicide. Will the Prime Minister meet with me and Matilda’s family to discuss mandatory suicide prevention training for local authorities and other measures, so that no more families suffer such a devastating loss?</Question>
Farmers in my constituency and across the country have been left totally bewildered and deeply anxious by this Government’s handling of the SFI. The scheme, although flawed, was meant to reward good farming and environmental stewardship. Instead, farmers who had spent time preparing applications logged on, ready to apply, only to discover that the available budget had been exhausted almost immediately. This is no way to treat the people who produce our food and who are doing what they can to care for our countryside. The Government’s approach has reduced what should be a strategic, long-term partnership with farmers into a lottery. Farmers need certainty and the confidence to invest. They need to know that when the Government ask them to change how they farm, the support will be there. One of my constituent farmers summed up the mood when they contacted me, writing: “Morale is rock bottom within the industry. Many farm businesses are on the brink… We need a sensible payment system to give us confidence”. We should also not ignore what this prolonged uncertainty means for farmers’ mental wellbeing. When we know that mental health challenges are widespread within the farming community, Ministers should be doing everything possible to provide stability and reassurance, rather than creating uncertainty. To wait until 2027 is deeply unfair to farming and to nature. Will Ministers make additional funding available for eligible farmers who were excluded through no fault of their own, including my constituents? How will farmers continue to deliver the environmental outcomes that the Government expect if access to the very schemes designed to support the work can disappear in a matter of hours? These failures come on top of cuts to DEFRA’s budget and ongoing uncertainty over the future of environmental land management schemes. Farmers are being asked to do more with less, while receiving fewer guarantees about the support available to them. Instead, farmers should be rewarded properly for delivering food security, restoring nature, capturing carbon and tackling climate change, but they need support. They need a Government who have got their back. Ministers must work with the sector, learn from this shambles and ensure that never again are farmers forced into a first come, first served scramble for support. Our farmers deserve a Government who see them as partners and treat them with the respect they deserve.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the petitioners, including hundreds of my constituents in Stratford-on-Avon, for bringing the important issue of EU membership to Parliament for discussion. As someone who came to the United Kingdom from Italy as a student and who has benefited personally from European co-operation and the UK’s ties with Europe, I know at first hand the opportunities that being in the EU gave us, our country and our young people. It pains me to see how poorer and worse off our country has become since leaving the EU. As I have argued before, for our prosperity, our young people and our place in the world, it is important that, in an increasingly hostile environment, where Governments around the world attack the rules-based international order and allow democratic backsliding and repression, the EU has always been a beacon of rights, co-operation and defence. The economic evidence for rejoining is becoming increasingly clear. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that post-Brexit trading arrangements will leave the UK economy about 4% smaller in the long run. Research by the Centre for European Reform suggests that the impact may already be even greater; it estimates that UK GDP is around 5% to 5.5% lower and investment more than 10% lower due to Brexit. That weaker growth is costing the Exchequer tens of billions of pounds in lost tax revenues every year. That matters to our communities because there is less money to spend on our public services, our NHS, our armed forces, our creative sector and our high streets. Stratford-on-Avon is home to hundreds of small and medium-sized businesses, many of which depend directly or indirectly on exports or on European supply chains, manufacturing, agriculture, food production, hospitality and tourism. When trade barriers increase, it means more paperwork, higher costs and reduced competitiveness for local firms. Frankly, my constituents would be horrified to hear what the Conservative Benches come out with. The economic and political damage of Brexit is plain to see, but my deepest upset is with politicians who in 2016 enabled a hard Brexit and the loss of life-changing opportunities for our young British people. I made the case that our schools, university researchers and businesses all benefit when we work closely with our European partners. We now must act in the national interest. That means rebuilding trust with our European neighbours and reducing barriers to trade, whether that is via a customs union or access to the single market.<span id="19WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="19WH"></span> Bold Liberal Democrat policies have been announced: restoring opportunities for young people, maybe through a youth experience scheme, and strengthening research and innovation. That also means making a positive, evidence-based case for joining the EU again—the biggest trading bloc in the world here on our continent. We must be brave and bold, and we must give the British people the option, once the terms are known, to shape their future once again.
Stratford-upon-Avon is one of the country’s most important visitor destinations. It attracts millions of visitors each year, supporting local businesses, theatres, heritage attractions and jobs across my constituency. The all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism, of which I am a member, heard evidence that a 5% visitor levy could reduce tourism spending and employment. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that any future levy is subject to meaningful consultation with the sector and local residents, and to the transparent ringfencing of revenues for investment in our local area?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I speak today on behalf of not just my constituents but my rivers. The Avon, Alne, Arrow and Stour in my Stratford-on-Avon constituency are part of the ecosystem of the mighty Avon. They are all central to our communities, wellbeing, local environment and wildlife. However, the current privatised water system has failed the public and the environment. First, I want to thank the many citizen science projects in my constituency and the campaign groups across the country. Without their tireless work and water testing, much of this scandal would have remained hidden. That community effort is also matched by growing public anger about sewage discharge into rivers and seas, and about executives receiving large bonuses while customer bills rise and rise. A model of public ownership could be for the water companies to become mutually owned. That would mean greater accountability, with a focus on public benefit rather than shareholder profit; executive boards that include environmental experts and local citizens groups; and a greater investment in infrastructure, with any profits reinvested into the water system. Public ownership would make it much easier to manage water collectively, as a social good rather than a commodity. That would make solutions such as sustainable drainage systems, sponge cities and controlling pollution at source not only feasible but easier to implement. We in Stratford-on-Avon want clean, thriving waterways, and we will not stop campaigning until this mess is sorted out.