Liberal Democrats MP for Richmond Park since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
580
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 | Richmond Park | – 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
The Treasury Committee’s recent report on student loan repayments said that the Government have a “moral obligation” to reverse their decision to freeze the threshold at which student loans are repaid. Will the Chancellor set out his timeline for when he will end the repayment threshold freeze?
The news about Poundland will be deeply worrying for its 12,000 staff members and their families, for the 30,000 staff overall when we include the supply chain—as the Chair of the Select Committee has said—and for the communities in which its stores are located. As Poundland’s founder, Steve Smith, has said: “Once these jobs are lost, they are lost”. For many families, Poundland is one of the few affordable options left. People are already struggling with an unsustainably high cost of living, and they now face losing somewhere that they rely on to make their money go further. The fall of Poundland raises bigger questions about our high streets. Its troubles show how much pressure both shoppers and high street businesses are under. The Prime Minister has set out his ambition to revive the high street, but the collapse of one of the UK’s most well-known and affordable retailers highlights the extent to which our high streets are struggling. The business rates system puts our high street shops at an unfair disadvantage compared with online retail giants, and the national insurance hike imposed by this Government is unfair and counterproductive. With unemployment levels already alarmingly high, will the Minister now listen to the Liberal Democrats’ calls to properly overhaul the broken business rates system and scrap the unfair jobs tax—at the very least, for part-time workers?
I have constituents who are waiting on the five-year route to ILR, who have brought their spouses and children with them to this country and taken on high-skilled, high-paying roles. Their spouses will now have to apply separately and will be on a 10-year scheme. If their children reach adulthood before both spouses have achieved ILR, they will not be eligible to remain in this country, despite having been here since childhood. Can the Home Secretary give any reassurance to those families in my constituency who are deeply worried about their children being left without citizenship?
I welcome many elements of the Chancellor’s Budget, including his commitment to fiscal devolution, his promise to end rough sleeping and the additional assistance for people to pay their energy bills, but there were many significant omissions and missed opportunities. Instead of freezing fuel duty, he should have listened to Liberal Democrat calls to cut it. Instead of promising reform to carer’s <span id="509" class="column-number" data-column-number="509"></span>allowance in four years’ time, he should have delivered it now. Instead of flirting with the EU, he should have committed to beginning negotiations to rejoin the single market and a new UK-EU customs union. For our young people, the Chancellor has moved away from Labour’s manifesto commitment to equalise the minimum wage and living wage while failing to address the student loan bubble, which is at bursting point, or to scrap his predecessor’s damaging national insurance contributions rise that is keeping young people out of work. For working people, he failed to address wage compression by following Liberal Democrat calls to increase the personal allowance and to raise the higher rate income tax threshold. That reform is vital for the 110,000 Londoners being dragged into the higher tax bracket. While there are measures in the Budget that can be welcomed, there are many missed opportunities. The Liberal Democrats will push the Government to be more ambitious and to deliver on their promise of providing people with the help they need during the cost of living crisis and with the unaffordably high cost of doing business. Not enough is being done to support small businesses that are struggling, particularly with the cost of employment. In retail alone, employment costs have jumped by £6.5 billion since the 2024 Budget. Unemployment levels are alarmingly high, with 25% of young Londoners not in employment, education or training. The Government must start making it easier for businesses to provide opportunities, particularly to young people as they begin their working life. The move to decouple gas and electricity prices is a welcome step, and we welcome the short-term relief that many households will receive to ease energy costs this winter, but the Government have failed to address the issue facing many businesses: the cost of energy for our industrial sector. Our dependence on other countries for fuel makes us all vulnerable to international turmoil. Household energy bills remain a third higher than before the war in Ukraine and the average UK resident and small business is being hit by those rises. The ongoing war in Iran reminds us yet again of the importance of secure and reliable energy sources. The best way to cut energy bills is to invest in home-grown renewable power. Make UK sets out the “ruinous effect” that industrial electricity costs have on investment. It has highlighted the continuing lack of action to address those costs and the risks now associated with taking on workers. The manufacturing sector accounts for 2.6 million jobs and 42% of UK exports; the Government must listen to its calls to reduce energy bills much more urgently than the 10-year schedule set out in the Chancellor’s speech. The British Chambers of Commerce and the chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation have echoed those calls, highlighting that the energy support available to certain manufacturing sectors does not apply to food and drink businesses. It is time for the UK to lead within Europe again on security, working closely with our democratic European allies so that we can support Ukraine and our European partners during peace and war. Our trade relations must also be adjusted to reflect the geopolitical realities we face. The Government must remove their self-defeating red lines and be bolder by introducing a new EU-UK customs union. Ministers must take advantage of the upcoming UK-EU summit to maximise opportunities <span id="510" class="column-number" data-column-number="510"></span>for closer trading with the European Union and mitigate the risks and damage caused by schemes such as “Made in Europe”. The Liberal Democrats have always championed fiscal devolution, so I welcome that the Budget will legislate for the Mayor of London to set up a successor to the Elizabeth line business rates supplement. Anyone who has used London’s train network recently will acknowledge that it is in need of upgrades. Whether it be persistent cancellations on the District line or the discomfort of using the Central line, commuters in London deserve better. That said, the business rates supplement remains quite a limited way of raising funds and the Government have seemingly constrained it to apply only to the west London orbital and the Bakerloo line extension. So while I welcome the business rates supplement as a step in the right direction, I will continue to champion further fiscal devolution for the capital. I am concerned that the Home Office and the Department for Transport are set to face funding cuts. While taking into account the caveat that figures are adjusted due to lower employer pension contributions, the Home Office faces £1.2 billion in cuts next year and another £1.2 billion cut the following year while the DFT will lose out on £100 million over two years. Two of the most common issues I see in my inbox are concerns about policing and transport, so that is of huge concern to my constituents. Lastly, on an issue that the Prime Minister has declared is “a matter for London and Londoners”, I come to the question of Heathrow expansion, which is still yet to be answered. The Budget Red Book states that, on Heathrow, “The Transport Secretary will provide an update as soon as possible”. If the Prime Minister is true to his word, why does the decision on a third runway still seem to lie in the hands of the Government? It is a white elephant project that does not have the support of the majority of Londoners and must be scrapped.
I start by adding my voice to the tributes paid by the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) to the victims and survivors of the Grenfell disaster. I will not forget waking up that morning and seeing that appalling tragedy unfolding on our television screens; many people across London will have felt the same. I welcome the Government’s attempts to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again, but it is almost unbelievable that nine years later we are debating this particular bit of legislation in our collective effort to ensure that buildings can be made safe. Like the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the Building Safety Act 2022, the Bill is a step in the right direction, but—again—it does not go far enough. As the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who is no longer in her place, has raised repeatedly, the PAS 9980 regime, which allows a fire engineer chosen and paid for by the building owner to declare dangerous cladding tolerable and decide that no work is required, will remain in place. Would hon. Members in this House feel reassured if a fire engineer paid for by a building’s owner declared the cladding in their block of flats to be “tolerable”? The anger that followed the Grenfell disaster was directed towards those in power who repeated the sentiments that officials had known about the dangers posed by unsafe cladding but did not care enough to act. Much of the feeling was that the people in Grenfell and others who lived in council housing did not matter enough for serious action to be taken to prevent such a disaster. That speaks to a wider issue that we in the House all need to work to address: accessibility to safe and secure housing. New high-rise homes must be built with materials that do not burn. If combustible cladding is considered too dangerous for new high-rise homes, what reassurances does that provide to people living in “tolerable” levels of danger? That should not be our benchmark. All Londoners should be entitled to housing of a standard that is higher than tolerable.<span id="244" class="column-number" data-column-number="244"></span> In March 2026, the Government announced a new package of support for house building in London, which provided temporary relief from developer levies. However, BusinessLDN has highlighted that the costs associated with the community infrastructure levy relief included in the package would be offset in effect by the additional costs from the building safety levy in more than a third of cases. I welcome the Government’s intent to remediate building safety defects via the building safety levy, but the two policies seem to contradict each other. Just this morning, a headline in the <em>Financial Times</em><em> </em>read, “Labour's housebuilding target effectively dead’. We should not be deciding between building houses and building safe housing. If the Government’s assessment is that housing developments are being stalled in London due to costs, does more need to be done to incentivise developments following the introduction of the building safety levy? I would be grateful if in winding up the Minister could reflect on what the Bill’s measures on manufacturers and developers of construction products providing some of the costs towards remediating cladding mean for the building safety levy and the particular stress that is placing on house building in London.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Many thanks to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for such comprehensive opening remarks. Certainly for those of us who have been in Parliament for slightly less time, that was a very useful reminder of how we got to where we are today.<span id="482WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="482WH"></span> The Equitable Life scandal involved the near collapse of the UK’s oldest mutual insurer after it failed to honour guaranteed pension payouts. The debacle exposed regulatory failures and caused significant financial losses for nearly a million policyholders across the country, including many of my constituents in Richmond Park. Approximately 2,000 people in every single constituency across the country have lost pension savings because of mistakes by successive Governments and the regulators. The collapse of Equitable Life was one of the biggest scandals in UK financial services history. Over 1 million people lost a significant part of their retirement savings. Their retirement plans were blown apart, as we heard from many contributors today. Typical Equitable Life victims included retired nurses, teachers, civil servants, factory and shop workers and small business owners—people who had worked hard and saved diligently for decades. In 2008, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concluded that victims’ losses were directly attributable to a decade of serial maladministration by Departments and their agencies. The state has accepted responsibility and accepts how much people lost, but the ombudsman’s recommendations have not been fully implemented. In recommending redress, the ombudsman called on the Government to establish and fund a compensation scheme “to put those people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.” In 2010, the Government accepted in full the ombudsman’s findings. The Government accepted that victims’ losses amounted to more than £4 billion. Although 37,000 with-profits annuitants are being fully compensated, 895,000 people have received only 22.5% of their acknowledged losses. When the Liberal Democrats were in government, we made good on our manifesto commitment to set up a proper compensation fund in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations. The initial compensation scheme was set up during the time of the financial crisis and sought to balance victims’ needs with the capacity of public finances. Many victims still have concerns about the allocation of that compensation and the methodology used to distribute it. Although I am personally not disappointed to welcome my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) back from their “sabbaticals”, I share their frustration that after all this time, this issue is still being discussed. Constituents of mine in Richmond Park, like many other constituents, have been affected by this situation. I have heard from one couple who, after having diligently worked and served as respected professionals for decades, have had their retirement burdened by this appalling miscarriage of justice. Along with many other long-suffering members and former members of Equitable Life, they saw their life pension savings decimated by Government malfeasance. According to the Equitable Members Action Group, as of 2025 more than £170 million of compensation already allocated and forecast to be paid to victims was set to be kept by the Treasury and not reach the people affected. The Government should release that money in full and immediately to affected policyholders, as it was always intended to be. In addition, the Government <span id="483WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="483WH"></span>should listen to the concerns of those affected by the collapse of Equitable Life and establish an independent commissioner to assess individuals’ claims. That would ensure that the victims of the Equitable Life scandal, such as my constituents, were finally treated fairly and properly compensated.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for her work in securing this debate and keeping the march in public and political discourse. The descendants of the marchers have a strong voice and champion in this place. The Jarrow crusade stands as a reminder of the devastating impact that chronic poverty and mass unemployment can have, as was experienced in Jarrow during the 1930s. Led by David Riley and former MP Ellen Wilkinson, the Jarrow crusade highlighted many of the challenges that Britain faced in the 1930s. The global depression had devastating repercussions for areas of heavy industry such as Jarrow. Many towns and cities that relied on industry passed through a period of intense industrial depression. Many towns, including Jarrow, saw the closure of shipyards and steelworks, which meant that thousands of jobs in critical sectors were lost. Thousands of jobs were lost across Jarrow. Of the 8,000 people previously employed, many of them skilled workers, only 100 remained in work, often in unreliable and unstable positions. In October 1936, 200 unemployed men set out from Jarrow on a 26-day journey to London to demand jobs and investment for their town, following the widespread unemployment after the closure of Palmer’s shipyard. The marchers aimed to arrive in Westminster at the opening of Parliament to present a petition signed by 12,000 residents of Jarrow. While there was no <span id="494WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="494WH"></span>immediate support provided, the publicity that accompanied the crusade helped to generate some renewal for the town, and the relationship between large businesses and the Government remained under scrutiny. On the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow march, we are confronted with an alarming unemployment crisis that is not restricted to just one sector and that extends far beyond the town of Jarrow. Within this concerning picture, the trajectory of youth unemployment has been even worse. The joblessness rate for 16 to 24-year-olds currently stands at an alarming 15%, but in London, that figure is 25%. That is the highest youth unemployment rate in more than a decade, and the first time on record that the UK’s youth unemployment rate has exceeded the EU average. The symbolism of the Jarrow march ending in the country’s capital is ironic because it no longer represents the hub of employment opportunities that it did a century ago. While London sends the Treasury a net £43.6 billion a year, unemployment in the capital is on the rise. Londoners are not seeing the same opportunities that were available even a decade ago, while businesses in London are struggling under increasing financial pressure. Average employment costs have increased by 11% since Labour took office, which disproportionately affects sectors that traditionally offer entry-level jobs. Policy decisions taken by this Government are making it impossibly hard for businesses to provide young people with a chance to get their foot on the career ladder. We must do everything we possibly can to bring young people into work. Let us cut national insurance contributions, fairly implement the secondary legislation from the Employment Rights Act 2025 and invest to create a skilled workforce by properly reforming the apprenticeship levy, which will benefit jobseekers and employers alike. The Liberal Democrats recognise the courage and determination of the marchers, and while we may not have a similar symbolic protest currently, the challenges facing our towns and cities need the same urgent attention as the town of Jarrow did 90 years ago. We believe that the Government need to listen to communities and take meaningful action to tackle poverty, boost industry and create good, well-paying jobs.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for her excellent opening speech. I hope she will not mind my saying that I experienced a certain sense of déjà vu during it, because, although she put things excellently, as she always does, this is not something I have not heard before. I very much hope that the Minister was listening. The Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed a third runway at Heathrow because the case for expansion has never added up. With the proposed economic benefits declining by 90% in the past decade, an operational second runway at Gatwick in the pipeline, and the Climate Change Committee’s recent statement that a third runway would be incompatible with the UK’s net zero targets, there is simply no case to be made for expansion any more. Despite the former Chancellor’s framing a third runway as part of the UK’s growth agenda, the Treasury’s analysis puts the third runway’s net value to UK residents at between minus £23.4 billion and minus £62.5 billion over 60 years. Heathrow is already in over £17 billion-worth of debt. The headline cost of a third runway, which the Government assert will be completely privately funded, stands at £49 billion, but that does not take into account over £100 billion of carbon abatement costs, nor the billions of pounds required for investment in the surface access upgrades that are needed. I was also reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) about the impact of the third runway plans on the M25 and the huge economic impact that will have across a vast swathe of the south-east. If the additional passengers cannot even travel to Heathrow, that rather defeats the purpose of adding capacity. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made the point that we lack so many connections across the south-east that it is already incredibly difficult to travel to Heathrow. That is not just from Surrey; my constituency <span id="340WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="340WH"></span>does not have a direct link, despite Richmond being a mainline station in south-west London. The lack of access will not just affect passengers; it will also reduce access to employment, severely limiting some of the economic benefits that we have heard about. It simply will not be possible for people to access the airport to take up the jobs. That is not to mention that Heathrow will seek to recoup its investment by passing on the cost to passengers. That will, of course, increase the cost of flying, as we have heard from a number of contributors to the debate, which will dampen demand. The Government recently spent £3 million on a banker to advise on the strength of the economic case for Heathrow; those of us here in the Chamber could have saved them the bother. With the Government seeking to find savings in the upcoming Budget, we can also save them the effort: there is no viable financial case for expansion. The introduction of nearly 300,000 more flights a year will have unavoidable environmental and social consequences. The Government’s commissioned aviation night noise effects study identifies that residents exposed to higher levels of aircraft noise are twice as likely to experience severe sleep disturbance. Many of the MPs in this room will have heard about those impacts directly from their constituents. We had a good community meeting across Richmond borough—my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and I attended—and some of the stories we heard were particularly harrowing, especially from young people suffering from learning disabilities and additional needs such as autism. The impact of night flights and aircraft noise on those people is unendurable. Those indicators are widely accepted to correlate with an increased risk of hypertension and cardiovascular disease as well as poor mental wellbeing. People living in communities surrounding Heathrow have a 24% higher chance of stroke, a 21% higher chance of heart disease and a 14% higher chance of cardiovascular disease compared with people exposed to low levels of aircraft noise. The flightpaths for a third runway have not even been designed yet, so how can the Government produce a viable noise impact assessment and reassure residents who are not already exposed to aircraft noise that a third runway will not impact them? I did not plan to mention this, but I want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and his impactful description of what it means for not only the people whose homes are on the proposed site of the third runway, but for those whose homes surround it, and his powerful case about the effect it will have on their lives. On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding these additional flights to our skies will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change. The Government have previously used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from the expansion of Heathrow, although they seem to have scaled back that argument more recently. Heathrow is already the biggest single source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 to 9 megatonnes of CO<sub>2 </sub>into our environment every year. The Climate Change Committee’s recent conclusion that expansion is not compatible with the UK’s climate commitments <span id="341WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="341WH"></span>presents the Government with a clear choice: to pursue a third runway at Heathrow or to take the climate crisis facing us seriously. It seems an easy decision to me. Does the Minister agree with the Climate Change Committee’s verdict that the current plans for a third runway are not compatible with the UK’s climate change commitments? The Prime Minister’s recent comments that distanced the Government’s support from a third runway were a step in the right direction, but he needs to go further, back his own convictions and categorically oppose expansion. I anticipate that the Tory spokesman, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), will reflect his party’s recent conference commitment to expanding Heathrow. That shows not only its lack of interest in the wellbeing of London and Londoners but its susceptibility to big business lobbying in the face of hard economic facts. Will the Minister advise the Prime Minister that the third runway proposal is not fit for purpose and put an end to this white elephant once and for all?
Would the right hon. Gentleman like to say more about those economic benefits, given that the Treasury’s figures show that the likely economic impact of Heathrow expansion is between minus £25 billion and minus £63 billion over 60 years?
<Question HRSContentId="{CAB954E9-FAA0-42CE-810D-53B0B2EF5270}">3. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{0D71B2E3-703D-4534-A59E-C2194AA5F7AD}">What assessment his Department has made of the potential merits of increasing levels of defence co-operation with the EU. </QuestionText></Question>