Conservative and Unionist Party MP for Bromley and Biggin Hill since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
168
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 | Bromley and Biggin Hill | – 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
It has just occurred to me that the cut-off date is 1 December. If firms miss that, will they have to wait a whole year to reapply, or is there some sort of mechanism to support them?
The hon. Member is right to point out the stress on residents. Those at Northpoint in Bromley are part of a residents’ management company, but RMCs have no assets, so they lean into the service charges in order to pay some of the company’s liabilities. Would he agree with me that people in RMCs need to be protected as well?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse—I think for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) on securing this debate to recognise the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow march. Her predecessor secured an Adjournment debate on the 75th anniversary; I am pleased that the hon. Lady went down the route of a Westminster Hall debate so that more colleagues had the opportunity to contribute. I note that some of the Members who contributed to the 75th anniversary debate are here today—I am, of course, referring to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I asked my team if they could find out whether he was there and they said, “He’s not that old!” I said, “I didn’t mean the march—I meant the debate.” He spoke with eloquence and integrity about the need to get young people back into work, which is something I recognise, as I have a 20-year-old and a 17-year-old. I confess to being very jealous that the new Prime Minister has had a hug with him and I have not.<span id="495WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="495WH"></span> I must ask the forgiveness of the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East, because Jarrow is over 300 miles from my Bromley and Biggin Hill constituency, so it is not a place that I am overly familiar with. However, as the former home of the Venerable Bede and the original home of one of the most important Bibles in the world, the Jarrow codex, the town is steeped in historical significance. In the early 19th century, a coal industry developed before the shipyard was established in 1852, becoming the first armour plate manufacturer in the world. Over the next 80 years, more than 1,000 ships were launched from Jarrow. Jarrow has had a lasting impact on the direction of our country, and the Jarrow marchers on that crusade undoubtedly played their part in that. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for bringing some of the families of the marchers to Downing Street this week alongside a copy of the original petition. I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister for receiving them at No. 10. It will surprise nobody that I rarely speak ill of Stanley Baldwin, but failing to receive the original marchers was wrong, so I am pleased that the current Prime Minister received their families. That rights a historic wrong, and I would like to hope that any Prime Minister of any party would have done the same. While it was an inherently political event, what makes the Jarrow march stand out in my eyes is how it avoided being too partisan. All the local political parties—Labour, Conservatives and Liberal—gave their support to the march, as did the town’s churches and business community. On top of that, during the journey down to London, the Jarrow marchers received sustenance and hospitality from local branches of all the main political parties. The Jarrow march was triggered by industrial jobs being lost following the collapse of Palmer’s shipbuilding and iron company and the closure of the shipyard. That is a lesson for today. When we look at the news of the recent 4,000 job losses at Britain’s biggest car manufacturer, the risk of losing our industrial base could not be clearer. Once those industries are gone, it will be incredibly difficult to get them back. This has been a good-natured and well-intentioned debate, so I say the following out of respect. I want the current Government to consider the chemical, automotive, steel and many other factories and plants that are shutting down because of crippling energy policies, £66 billion in tax rises and burdensome red tape, such as the Employment Rights Act. As a result of that, there are 176,000 fewer jobs available now than when the Government took office. Our industries need to be supported and currently many feel they are not. Opposition Members do not want to see communities go through what Jarrow experienced in the 1930s, but I fear that we risk seeing our country deindustrialising before our eyes. As we remember the Jarrow march today, I hope the Minister can set out how the Government plan to create the conditions in which countless businesses across the country can manufacturer competitively in Britain. Cornelius Whalen, who at his 2003 was the last survivor of those who marched the full distance, described the march as “a waste of time”. I respectfully disagree. His family and the families of all the marchers should be proud. History now remembers the march very differently; <span id="496WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="496WH"></span>the Jarrow marchers rightly have an immovable place in our country’s history. Their legacy is far-reaching and will continue to inspire people for years to come. I am proud to be here on behalf of the Opposition to recognise their important contribution to our national story and to hold the Government to account on delivering for British industry and manufacturing.
I recently visited the Demelza hospice, which cares for children with life-limiting conditions and supports families across Bromley and elsewhere. It is simply extraordinary. Some 84% of its funding comes from charitable donations and it has been hit particularly hard, as have other hospices, by the Government’s changes to national insurance contributions, which will lead to the loss of specialist nursing provision. May we have a debate in Government time on the taxation and funding of hospices?
Quickly.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the renationalisation of the railways is not working. <em>[</em><em>Laughter.</em><em>]</em> The Drayson partitions exist to ensure that costs which the UK must meet and cannot change, such as international subscriptions that give us access to scientific facilities, are treated separately to costs that we have control over, such as grants funding. With the Science and Technology Facilities Council given a flat cash settlement, but with international subscriptions rising with inflation, the STFC now has less money to spend on actual research, leading to world-leading scientific research being dropped and to the closure of facilities such as Jodrell Bank. Can I ask the Secretary of State who made the decision to disregard the Drayson partitions?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. The Conservatives opposed the Employment Rights Act at every stage of its legislative journey and remain steadfastly opposed to that Act, elements of which this code serves to implement. The Employment Rights Act 2025 burdens employers with 330 pages of red tape: the single largest increase in employment regulation in a generation. As a direct result, we have seen reduced hiring, job cuts and huge costs to businesses. Even the Government’s own assessment of the Act admits that it will cost business billions. We are not opposed to the Employment Rights Act because we want to see workers stripped of their rights. We are opposed because of the damage it will do to businesses up and down the country. The code of practice is one piece of a much larger picture but an important one. Before turning to that, I will touch on the consultation that the Minister mentioned. <span id="5" class="column-number" data-column-number="5"></span>Over 920 responses were received to the Government’s consultation, with over 80% of those coming from employers and their representative organisations. On the proposals to increase the frequency of access meetings from once every 10 working days to once every five, 98% of the respondents disagreed. Some 97% of respondents disagreed with the proposal to increase the minimum meeting duration from 30 minutes to 45 minutes. When asked if the code adequately reflects digital communication in the workplace, 94% said no. On the question of whether the code adequately explains the role of the CAC, 96% said no. When asked if section D of the code provides sufficient guidance on access arrangements, 97% said no. Finally, some 96% said that the code’s unfair practices guidance was insufficient. The consultation on the code of practice is damning. On virtually every substantive question put to the consultation respondents, the overwhelming majority of them expressed concern or disagreement, or called for a significant revision. The Minister has said that the Government listened and made amendments. I will be fair and acknowledge that some clarifications have been made, particularly on digital access. That is welcome, but on the issues that matter most to small and medium-sized businesses, the Government have noted the near-unanimous concerns of the consultation responses and chosen to disregard those concerns and force the code through against that advice. On the duration and frequency of access meetings, I would appreciate if the Minister would outline why the overwhelming view of the consultation respondents has been ignored. Will the Minister also outline if any assessment has been made of the extra costs that employers will incur in facilitating the increased frequency of access meetings? The consultation response makes clear that the majority of respondents—57%—were from relatively small organisations of between 10 and 49 staff. Those are not large corporations with dedicated human resources and legal teams. For many businesses the code will put serious demands on time and limited resources. On unfair practice complaints, the code makes significant shifts. The CAC will now be able to uphold unfair practice complaints without the need to show that the practice actually affected the outcome of the ballot. We recognise that the old test may have been difficult to satisfy in the time allowed, and that did lead to some genuine complaints falling, but does the Minister not think that removing the need to prove an impact on the result of the ballot risks opening the door to vexatious claims to disrupt the process? Will the Minister outline if any safeguards are in place to prevent that? Another significant issue is that it is still unclear to many employers what constitutes unfair practice. In the consultation, employers consistently raised their concerns about the lack of clear examples and case studies of what constitutes an unfair practice and about the uncertainty that lack creates. The Government’s response stated that it was not appropriate to include examples in the code because it is the CAC’s role to make judgments on a case-by-case basis. Surely some basic examples could be provided to employers. Will the Minister outline now what an unfair practice is? The Conservative party will continue to make the case for balanced employment rights that protect workers without unduly punishing the businesses that employ <span id="6" class="column-number" data-column-number="6"></span>them. The code of practice fails to do that. It creates even more uncertainty for businesses and makes employing people even harder than the Employment Rights Act already made it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions, but I am afraid that we cannot support this code of practice.
It has been 43 days since the Prime Minister received a letter signed by all Opposition parties expressing support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project, which seeks funding to fight the insidious disease that is lobular breast cancer. Sadly, no response has been received. When the Prime Minister was the Mayor of Greater Manchester, he committed to supporting the Lobular Moon Shot Project. Will he reaffirm that commitment from the Dispatch Box?
You cannot tax your way to prosperity—that is something that I, as a Conservative, believe. Not only do I believe it, but it has been demonstrated time and again in countries across the globe. When this Government first entered office, under the previous Prime Minister, we were told that one of their central focuses would be to go for growth. We all know that Governments cannot conjure growth out of thin air. It is the Government’s job to create the right environment for businesses big and small to drive growth, but this Government spent their first period in office piling cost after cost on to British businesses, including through the national insurance increase and the Employment Rights Act 2025, delivering a regulatory burden that keeps growing. Take pubs, for example, which have been some of the businesses hardest hit by this Government. Since 2023, we have seen nearly 700 pubs close. In my own constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill, we have been lucky to retain the number of pubs that we have—that is through no inconsiderable effort by myself.
Labour Members are proving once again that they are desperate to talk about the past because they have no plan for the future. Talking about the pubs in my constituency, we have seen a significant decrease in the number of people employed by them. The British Beer & Pub Association estimates that in Bromley and Biggin Hill, we have gone from around 1,150 people employed in pubs in 2023 to around 800 now. That reduction seems to have hit young people the hardest, with the number of 16 to 24-year-olds employed in the industry down by 200—half the figure in 2023. Nationally, we have seen total gross value added from pubs and breweries fall from £47 billion in 2023 to £30.8 billion, and the Government’s tax take fall from £17 billion to £3.2 billion. Higher taxation and regulation are strangling an industry and leaving the Government with less money in the end.