Conservative and Unionist Party MP for Sutton Coldfield since (elected).
Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions
Entries on this tracker
142
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 | Sutton Coldfield | – 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
In the discussions that the Foreign Secretary is holding with European countries, is he also emphasising the vital role that soft power and the international development budget play in promoting security? Does he realise that since this Government’s cuts in spending on international development, we now allocate less for Africa from the development budget than we allocate to UK postcodes from that same budget for first-year asylum seeker costs?
I want to draw the House’s attention to new clause 22, which I have tabled with the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), my parliamentary neighbour, whose absence from the Government Front Bench is a matter of regret to all of us on the Conservative Benches. I thank both the Lord Chancellor and the shadow Lord Chancellor for engaging with us on these issues. The new clause would restrict immunity from civil suits for police officers in relation to certain conduct in preparation for criminal court proceedings. I want to draw the House’s attention to a deeply troubling development in our law. Last year the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment that, in my view, risks placing police forces beyond proper accountability for serious wrongdoing committed during the preparation of criminal cases. If left unaddressed, this new legal principle could make it far harder for victims of police misconduct to obtain justice, even where the harm that they have suffered is severe and life-changing. The doctrine has been described as a form of police misconduct immunity. We all know that the rule of law depends on a simple principle: no one is above the law—not politicians, not public officials and not the police. New clause 22, which I have tabled with the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley, would restore accountability and make it clear that there cannot be one rule for the police and another for everyone else. The issue arises directly from the 2025 Court of Appeal case of the chief constable of Sussex police and the CPS<em> v.</em> XGY. I know that the hon. Lady will refer to the case of XGY if she catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The victim of the abuse had given her confidential refuge address to the Sussex police, and that address was later disclosed in court, exposing her location to the abuser and forcing her to flee. The Court of Appeal answered the question by extending what is known as core immunity. Historically, this immunity was narrow but existed to protect witnesses and advocates for what they say and do in court, allowing them to give evidence freely without fear of being sued, but the Court’s judgment went much further. It expanded that protection beyond the courtroom and into the wider process of criminal investigation and prosecution preparation. In practical terms, it means that certain police actions connected to a future prosecution may now be shielded from legal challenge, even where those actions caused significant harm. The Court’s ruling therefore raises serious concerns about whether victims will be able to seek redress when police misconduct, negligence, human rights breaches or serious errors occur. That is why the case of XGY matters far beyond the individual victim involved. I want to illustrate the practical consequences of the new doctrine, and the human cost, through another case with which I have been closely involved for some years: the case of Ali Kololo. Mr Kololo is a Kenyan forest dweller and woodcutter who was wrongfully convicted in 2013 in connection with the murder of a British tourist and the kidnapping of that tourist’s spouse, Judith Tebbutt. These were grave crimes. At the time, I was the Secretary of State for International Development and was engaged in the Government’s response to the kidnapping through COBRA, but we now know that Ali Kololo was innocent. A Kenyan court has since <span id="272" class="column-number" data-column-number="272"></span>overturned his conviction, with the evidence showing that he had become a scapegoat in a deeply flawed investigation. What makes this case particularly troubling is that the Metropolitan police played a significant role in supporting the investigation. The Independent Office for Police Conduct found that a senior Metropolitan police officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct. The investigation concluded that the evidence provided by the officer had the potential to mislead the court, because important forensic information had been omitted. The consequences for Mr Kololo were catastrophic. He spent 11 years in prison, he faced a death sentence, and he endured abuse, illness and separation from his family. He lost years of his life that can never be returned, and although his conviction was eventually quashed and he was released, he has yet to receive redress for the harm he suffered. Let me be clear: the original principle of witness immunity serves an important purpose—witnesses should be able to give evidence without fear of personal litigation, and our justice system depends on that protection—but extending immunity far beyond the courtroom and into the wider conduct of criminal investigations risks creating an accountability gap.
On the Prime Minister’s international agenda, should he not also focus on the appalling humanitarian situation in Darfur, Sudan, and avoid making policy on Israel, the timing of which enhances Netanyahu’s prospects of re-election? On Yemen, as well as defending Saudi Arabia from the outrageous Houthi attacks, should the Prime Minister not use Britain’s deep historical links and connections to Yemen to support constitutional negotiations and prevent the situation from getting any worse?
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this debate and on leading a galaxy of great speeches. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper); she and I have worked together on global health partnerships, and I agree with everything that has been said. I will pick up on a couple of points that have been made. There has been focus on Britain’s G20, and I am sure that is an important opportunity for Britain to provide some leadership on this issue. As we get older, we tend to look back at the past through rose-tinted spectacles, but I acknowledge at the outset that British development policy is at its best by far when it is conducted on an all-party basis. It is not a Labour, Conservative or Liberal policy; it is a British policy. That was one of its great glories in the past. The Government did well in their recent conference, where they brought together a lot of interested parties and helped to underline an appropriate agenda. Those of us who really care about this issue must also be careful, because in Britain we are still spending an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money, and it is doing a lot of good. Although it has been greatly and savagely diminished, a lot of the spending is very good, and I want to make that clear. I am also very pleased that the Government have stuck to the 2023 White Paper, which was effectively an all-party White Paper.
I do not really agree with that because, while the hon. Gentleman cites a number of areas where Britain makes a big contribution, there is a <span id="57WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="57WH"></span>big black hole where we have cut off our legs in respect to international development. I will say a word or two about that in a moment. The importance of turning from donor to investor is absolutely right; but if investors are investing in a poor country where there is not adequate health and education, that country’s workforce will not be able to attract suitable investment. We must be worried about that. We must always focus on the results agenda, showing that the British taxpayer is getting 100p of value for every £1 spent. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale about the importance of saving the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, but we have to accept that we will not get a major boost in public support unless it comes from the top. We had an era of huge support, led by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Theresa May. If there is not support at the top, public support cannot be won back and sustained—particularly if there is a Prime Minister who is foolish enough to say from the Dispatch Box that DFID is like an ATM in the sky, spewing out taxpayers’ money. Finally, the only point on which I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale is in respect of BII, which of course follows the Government’s lead. The Government are the 100% shareholder in BII and are therefore able to set out very clearly what its priorities should be, but they should then leave an organisation like BII to get on with following that mandate. I argue that there have been three great losses from the Johnson and Starmer premierships. Bear in mind that in the last year of the last Conservative Government—do not tell the Treasury this—we spent nearly 0.6%, so there was huge support. However, there are three areas where we have seriously lost out. The first loss is to Britain’s reputation, as a result of the cuts. As has been pointed out, the cuts in Britain are more savage, pro rata, than the cuts in America. The damage to Britain’s reputation is acute. I argue that, since the Suez crisis, international development has been the only area of indisputable British international leadership—and we have lost that. Secondly, we have lost out on British interests, particularly in respect of the rampant nationalism now being pursued at a time when we need international co-operation to tackle the great scourges mentioned in this debate. Above all, the poorest people in the world, who were reliant on British expertise, support and cash, have lost out. Now is a chance, with a new leader. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) was part of a Government who championed international development. He knows about that. Now is a chance to make some changes. I urge Labour Members to rise up now and say that the historical interest and support of the Labour party have been for international development. People might expect the beastly Tories to cut aid and development, but they do not expect the Labour party to do that. Now is a chance to have a real reset, which should include three things. First, the reset should include an acceptance that the vaporisation of DFID and the merger was an ocean-going disaster. Everyone who has had anything to do with it <span id="58WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="58WH"></span>knows that perfectly well. It has led to a huge loss of skill. I urge the Government to decide, if not to restore DFID, at least to set up an agency to take action on helping to restore our reputation and the huge agglomeration of expertise in London that resulted from DFID. Secondly, we should move back to 0.7%, as is the law of the land. We should do that, however, over a number of years. We cannot provide that amount of money overnight, but over five or six years we should try to move systematically back to it. Finally, we should understand what this Government do not understand: defence, diplomacy and development are linked very tightly indeed. The idea that taking development money and putting it into defence is the answer to the—admittedly absolute—requirement to spend more on defence is absurd. Development is the other side of the coin to defence. I hope that the new Administration, when they come in shortly, will take account of some of these matters.
As the hon. Lady has said, the House owes considerable gratitude to their noble Lordships Blunkett and Herbert, but surely the problem is very well rehearsed: a lack of consistent, high-quality leadership within the police. Will she explore further the benefits of having within the police the structure of a professional officer corps? That has been regularly advocated, and we know that in the military it delivers outstanding leadership and leadership structures. Will she therefore bear in mind that there are many brilliant, very senior officers in the British military who would bring undoubted leadership skills to bear at the most senior levels within the police, including in future for the role of Metropolitan Police Commissioner?
The hon. Gentleman, who is a diligent and sensible Minister, will understand the deep disappointment in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield that the Ramada hotel on Penns Lane was not included in the recent list of closures, not least because it was on the list before the general election. He was very generous with his time in seeing me and listening to why that location is totally inappropriate in Sutton Coldfield. Can he reassure me that the facility will now be closed as soon as possible?
On a point of order, Mrs Harris. This is no criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who introduces the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, but am I alone in feeling distinctly uneasy about this debate? Why is Israel singled out in this way? Why not Gulf countries, Iran, eastern Europe or the USA? The petition is being discussed at a time when the Jewish community are clearly under threat and are suffering numerous hideous attacks. I am not sure I trust the motivation of the petition organisers. I fear the whole thing smacks of an antisemitic conspiracy theory.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your wonderful words about Jo Cox and for the brilliant debate we had last Thursday as the main business of the House. Following acknowledgment by the Development Minister, the noble Baroness Chapman, that Labour’s horrific development and aid cuts undermine the response to the Ebola crisis, and that funding is only 5% of the help provided for the last Ebola emergency a decade <span id="702" class="column-number" data-column-number="702"></span>ago, will the Government make it clear that these pandemics cross borders and are a serious danger to all of us unless they are contained? Is that not the essence of the case for international development?
It is a pleasure to speak opposite the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), with whom I have worked extensively over many years on international development, thereby demonstrating one of Jo’s core beliefs: more in common. The hon. Lady spoke so movingly about Jo and encapsulated perfectly the essence of who she was and what a politician should be: decent, principled, clear and determined. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), who secured this debate, in her place. She exhibits all of Jo’s brilliant qualities in fighting for the causes to which she is devoted, such as assisted dying, on which I am proud to work alongside her. The whole House recognises that on this very divisive issue, she showed incredible decency and probity in the way in which she pursued it. I cannot quite believe that we are commemorating a whole decade since Jo’s life was brutally cut short. Ten years on, it is just as painful to comprehend. Jo was both my colleague and my friend. We were different in our politics and backgrounds, but on the issues that we were both passionate about, we moved in lockstep. Like the Minister, I remember exactly where I was when the horrific event took place.<span id="479" class="column-number" data-column-number="479"></span> Our paths first crossed when Jo and I marched together against injustice in Darfur through the centre of London. Subsequently, I met her in Sudan, in Darfur, in 2006 on two separate visits, one of which included the then Leader of the Opposition, David Cameron. Jo was a huge presence all those years ago, and I remember her also for her trademark scarves. I marvelled at the way she discharged her role at Oxfam in Sudan, supporting women and children and helping to secure water for the thousands of refugees living in camps. I still wear the green wristband she gave me then, as a reminder of the desperate plight of people caught up in what President Bush rightly described as a genocide. And yet today, 20 years later, Sudan is still in crisis, with ethnic cleansing practised with impunity. Whereas 20 years ago the international community, through the United Nations and the African Union, put military forces on the ground to stop it, sadly today unbridled barbarism continues in plain sight, and the international community is doing nothing to stop it. I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for leading a debate on this issue in Westminster Hall later today. Shortly after her election in 2015, Jo asked me whether we could team up to run a new all-party group called friends of Syria. Without hesitation, I agreed. Syria was ablaze. She knew that I took a great interest in the Syrian refugee crisis from the Back Benches, watching with despair as the situation got worse and worse, as the Minister described so well. Jo was determined to use her experience and expertise to champion the dispossessed, and felt we might be well paired to campaign together. As she said in her maiden speech back in 2015, “we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”<span id="vol596_col675" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="675" data-volume-number="596">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]</span> We would do well to reflect on her words and especially her character—fearless determination, unintimidated by tribal political pressures, putting the greater good above personal ambition and placing policy above party. Jo and I worked closely together for a year until she was murdered. I loved every minute of it. We had a rather useful good cop, bad cop routine. Unusually for me, I found myself as the good cop. Needless to say, Jo relished the bad cop role, especially when confronting the villains of the piece, and believe me when I say that she took no prisoners. On one occasion, we were taking tea with the Russian ambassador to remonstrate about the appalling crimes committed in Aleppo in Syria. The ambassador had recently complained to the Foreign Office that in the House, I had compared Russia’s bombing of Aleppo to the Nazi bombing of Guernica during the Spanish civil war. During the meeting, Jo did most of the hard-ball talking, and at the end of it she had triumphantly reduced a seasoned diplomat to incoherence, laying bare his inability to defend the indefensible. I very much doubt he will ever forget that meeting. Today, we need more people like Jo. The climate 10 years after her murder is even more febrile and more divided. We have all seen the shocking examples of that recently, and we must not forget that in the end, Jo was a tragic victim of those divisions. Her murder sent shockwaves through us all, yet lessons have not been learned, and a few years later, the wonderful Sir David Amess paid the same price. We must also not forget the MPs who were murdered before: Airey Neave in 1979; <span id="480" class="column-number" data-column-number="480"></span>Robert Bradford in 1981; Anthony Berry in 1984; and my beloved friend and colleague Ian Gow, on Monday 30 July 1990, as he left his home at the Dog House in Hankham near Eastbourne to serve his constituents. All were murdered by terrorists while serving their constituents. Today we are witnessing more and more the consequences of polarisation, wrought by fear and cynical exploitation. Divisions are growing and principled politicians are declining, yet this debate underlines that in these dark days there is more that unites us, and so much of the work we do in this place is not characterised by division. Jo would have been appalled by Boris Johnson’s decision first to vaporise the Department for International Development, and secondly to slash the development budget. I suspect she would have been even more incandescent to learn that a Labour Government had gone even further, and I have no doubt in my mind that were she alive today, she would have fought tooth and nail to stop it from happening. Unfortunately, very few people have put their heads above the parapet, for reasons that we all understand—fear of missing out on promotions, of facing demotions, or of generally rocking the boat. Politics is a fragile business.