FAQsTermsPrivacyContact
State Logo
StateConstituenciesRepresentative
Back to Solihull West and Shirley
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

Conservative MP for Solihull West and Shirley

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst is the Conservative MP for Solihull West and Shirley, and has been an MP continually since 4 July 2024.

Share
Website

Seat status

Relatively safe

Percentage of votes

9.86%

Recent swing

-26.2% Conservative

Party

Conservative

Top donors:

Coalition for Global Prosperity (CGP) (£2,694)

Eleanor Shanks (£2,000)

THE NORTON MOTORCYCLE CO. LIMITED (£899)

Share donors

Explore what Neil is advocating for

Filter by topic

Courts and Prisons

Home Department: Topical Questions

“I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), but the reality is that every day shopkeepers are facing abuse and threats and being stolen from. A direct consequence of the presumption in the Sentencing Act 2026 that those with a sentence of 12 months or less will not face prison is that there is no deterrent. Can the Minister genuinely say that our streets are safer as a result?”

Spoke in 26 debatesAsked 13 questions

National Defence

Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

“I refer Members to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my participation in a parliamentary delegation to Ukraine in February with the UK friends of the armed forces. I want to build on some of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). As I sat here listening to this thoughtful and valuable debate, the issue that really struck me above anything else was that, in many ways, we are preaching to the converted in this Chamber. Those of us who are here recognise the seriousness of the moment—we understand that defence is not an optional extra and that it cannot wait for a more convenient fiscal moment—but our responsibility goes much further than this Chamber, of course. Our responsibility is to the British public, and that means telling them the truth. As we have heard repeatedly during the course of today, the truth is that the world has changed and the threats are very real. For far too long, we have risked treating defence as something done by someone else—something done by sailors under the waves, soldiers on distant deployments and pilots in the skies. However, modern deterrence asks us to do much more individually. It also requires government to be honest, and the public to understand what is really at stake. As we have heard, the Government have clearly set out that Russia could be in a position to attack a NATO ally by as early as the end of this decade. The Chief of the Defence Staff has warned that we are not as ready as we need to be, and the noble Lord Robertson, a distinguished former Secretary-General of NATO, has gone even further; he has been really blunt in his assessment that we are simply not ready. Those are the judgments of people who have spent their entire lives defending our country. We must not treat the British public like children. They do not need comforting slogans; they need searing honesty from people in public office. We cannot set out a case in which we say to them that Russia is probing our waters and hostile states are targeting our energy networks, satellites and cyber-systems, and then suggest that the answer to those dangers is promises that begin in the next decade. Quite simply, we cannot describe a 2030 threat and offer a 2035 solution. I believe that is the weakness at the heart of the Government’s approach to date. Readiness is not simply about owning equipment. It is about having the people trained to use it, having the stockpiles behind it, and having reservists who are able to mobilise. It is about factories that can surge, ports that can receive and energy systems that can endure. A nation is not ready simply because a Minister declares that it is ready. A nation is ready when the whole system is ready to row in behind it, and the reality is that national security requires choices, discipline and—we have to be blunt—sacrifices. For the past 30 years or so, we enjoyed a peace dividend, and too often we behaved as though that would never end, but we forgot the simple truth that freedom is never free; there is always a cost to be paid. It is a different cost depending on the generation, and each has to deal with it in different ways. Our duty is to ensure that this generation pays in preparedness so that the next generation does not pay in blood. The British people will understand that if we level with them, which is why the arguments for spending 3% of GDP on defence in this Parliament are not an extravagant ambition, but the bare minimum response to what is a deteriorating world. Britain is not a weak nation. We possess one of the most extraordinary armed forces in the world; we have outstanding intelligence services, world-class scientists and engineers, and above all, a people who have never failed this country when they have been told the truth. Therefore, if we want to defend the peace that we so cherish, we cannot have a resilience that starts after the crisis has begun. It is perhaps worth ending by remembering that the cost of preparedness will always be far less than the cost of war itself.”

Spoke in 18 debatesAsked 18 questions
Share advocacy

Latest from Neil

Recent posts pulled from their website

Local Issues Survey

Blog · 21 Jan 2026

Key Parliamentary Votes

See where your MP stands on these issues

VOTED NO4 Sep 2025

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

✓ Passed — 336 For, 77 Against

VOTED NO9 Mar 2026

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

✓ Passed — 307 For, 173 Against

VOTED NO10 Mar 2026

Courts and Tribunals Bill

✓ Passed — 304 For, 203 Against

Where Neil fits into things

Sir Keir Starmer

Sir Keir Starmer

Prime Minister

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

Conservative MP for Solihull West and Shirley

Surgeries

Monthly in-person, occasional online

Examples of successful citizen influence

  • Coordinated constituent emails leading to parliamentary questions
  • Local campaign prompting a public statement

Pressure that tends to influence

  • High volume constituent contact
  • Media attention on local issues
  • Cross-party committee pressure