Jeevun Sandher MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Potholes are a blight across my constituency and cost us £500 each time they damage our cars, and the reason is that our roads have not been maintained by the Conservative-run county council. Does the Leader of the House believe that on 1 May my constituents should vote to fix our potholes and vote for all the brilliant Labour candidates across Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Ukraine Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Keeping ourselves, Europe and Ukraine safe means that we have to produce more fighting forces than Putin can, but traditionally this country has focused on producing exquisite and expensive platforms. Clearly that trade-off is changing, and we are seeing $1,000 drones in Ukraine destroying $9 million tanks. The production trade-off between expendable and exquisite platforms has to change across our allies and ourselves. Producing those drones takes months; it will take years even to upgrade our own Challenger tanks. Will the Secretary of State set out how that changing trade-off in production will be implemented and introduced in the strategic defence review and the defence industrial strategy to keep ourselves, Europe and Ukraine safe?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Reoffending: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Constituents across my community of Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages have been facing the scourge of offroad bikes, often ridden by young reoffenders. That causes havoc for residents, it is dangerous for pedestrians, and can be fatal for those who are on those bikes. Those young reoffenders often have little else to do, as there are few education, training or employment opportunities, so can the Minister please set out how this Government will end the scourge of offroad bikes and reoffending, and how they will once again be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Reoffending: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps her Department is taking to help reduce levels of reoffending among young people.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Green Book Review · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell) for securing the debate. The current design of the Green Book holds back communities such as mine in Loughborough, and by doing so holds back our country. Due to a flawed methodology, it overestimates the benefits of investment in London, and by doing so underestimates the benefits of investing elsewhere. It is one of the reasons why we have the most economically centralised nation in the OECD, and the reason why places that have been locked out of investment and growth are turning away from us in this place and away from democracy. I am so glad that the Chancellor is reviewing the Green Book at last to help spread investment across our nation, so that we can all reap the gains. I represent a constituency in the east midlands—a region that has been left behind because of the decline of our great industries and chronic under-investment. The fall in industrial employment was one of the most rapid anywhere in Europe. Suddenly community centres were gone, jobs were lost and people’s sense of purpose and dignity disappeared. On top of that, and contributing to it, my region has the lowest transport investment in the country. We need to end this cycle of decline, because it is holding back our nation. We need to invest in communities such as mine to make the country a better place and to help create good jobs. For too long, investment has been biased towards London and the south-east. Someone living in London gets £800 more infrastructure spending per year than the national average. That is because the cost-benefit analysis set out in the Green Book to evaluate projects has a hardwired London bias. First, the Green Book prices the benefits of projects in a way that benefits places with higher wages—namely, London. Secondly, it does not estimate the wider impact of investment on growth. To take the first issue, hourly wages are higher in London, and the benefits of transport projects are calculated in terms of commuting time saved. That commuting time is priced in wages, so according to the current methodology, one hour saved is worth more in London than elsewhere. The projected benefits of investing in London become larger, more projects are built here and the logic because self-fulfilling. To take the second issue, economies are dynamic—they respond to investment. Better transport allows businesses to attract more customers and workers. It gets economies growing and wages rising. But the Green Book does not account for those dynamic effects. Instead, it assumes that every single project is marginal to an area. It assumes that projects do not influence either growth or prices around the area in which they take place. The review is taking place precisely because the Government know that investing in our regions outside London will make us all better off. Getting the basics right—more investment outside London, and basic transport infrastructure—will do a lot more for growth than another infrastructure project in London. That is the change we need. To achieve all of that, we need to overcome the tyranny of the cost-benefit analysis. It has to be confronted and destroyed. This review must not be like reviews of the past. Warm words about regional inequalities are not enough. We need to change a flawed methodology and appreciate the dynamic benefits of investment. For non-graduates in communities such as mine, it is far more difficult to find a good job than it is here in the capital. The jobs available to my constituents are less secure and lower paid, because we do not get the public investment we need. Our future has been held back by a flawed methodology and a system that does not work for my community, my region or indeed the country. When people cannot see a good future, their anger grows. We can end that anger, and rebuild hope and a better future, by changing the Green Book so that investment takes place outside London—in my community and in communities across the nation. We can create good jobs, get wages rising and drive growth across the country.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Young people in my constituency, and indeed across the country, have had an incredibly difficult time growing up: austerity saw their further education budgets cut by 14%, then there was a pandemic and now war in Europe. Will the Chancellor please set out how her plans to get Britain building again will help my young constituents get the good, non-graduate jobs they need in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak about how the Bill will allow us to invest in our communities, benefiting every part of the country and not just London. I have spent my entire adult life in a no-growth economy where costs rose because we did not build enough. The rent we pay, our rail fares and our energy bills have all soared because we could not build the homes, rail or wind farms we need—higher costs caused by a planning system whose default answer is no. The Bill changes that answer to yes. The Bill targets constraints that have stopped us from growing. Prices are information. Where prices are high, we can see that we desperately need more supply. Rents as a share of income are up by 20% since 2020. Our transport costs are 26% higher than in peer nations. When Putin invaded Ukraine, we had the highest electricity bills in the G7. What do these prices tell us? Not enough homes, not enough rail, and not enough clean energy. Infrastructure is being held back by our broken planning system. Our infrastructure projects are among the most expensive and slow to build of high-income nations. The Bill lifts the constraints and helps get us building, but it can go further. The NIC states that the largest increase to planning timetables is at pre-application stage, adding over two years on average. It is delaying critical infrastructure. I hope that the Minister will address this in his remarks. We must also ensure that the benefits of the Bill are felt across our nation. My constituency is in the east midlands, where transport spending is the lowest in the country, private rents are rising faster than anywhere else, and productivity is the lowest in England. That is why it is harder to get a good job. For too long, investment has flowed to London and the south-east. That is because the benefit-cost ratio in the Green Book has a hardwired London bias. Wages are higher in London, so the estimated benefits of spending are also larger in the capital. With more projects built here in London, the logic becomes self-fulfilling. That London bias is why the gap between London and the rest of the UK is larger than the gap between west and east Germany. The Treasury, to its credit, does understand the problem, but the tyranny of the benefit-cost ratio is sadly still with us. We must end this bias and build prosperity in the places that need it most. The Opposition spoke about levelling up but did nothing to deliver it. The Leeds tram, upgrading the line from Cardiff to Swansea, electrifying the midland main line—all were rejected by the last Government, who put London first and everywhere else last. They spoke of levelling up, but as my dad likes to say, talk is cheap. Now is the time to stop talking and start building. That means fixing the planning system so that we can build the homes, wind farms and, yes, pylons that we need. If we change our approach to infrastructure projects, we can also build the roads and rail we need outside of London, making it easier to transport goods and for my constituents in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages to get around.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pretty well established introduction to the tax system to have both employee and employer NICs. The point about simplicity is about where the tax is levied. I will come to the specific point that the hon. Member raises later in my speech and hopefully provide some illumination. The revenue we are raising will be used to invest in our nation’s prosperity: insulating our homes, rebuilding our crumbling schools and hiring more nurses to care for our loved ones. It is about getting costs down and creating good jobs. It is about rebuilding this country after, frankly, more than a decade of despondency and despair. The amendments before us represent bad policy that puts that at risk. As I may have mentioned in this House once or twice before, I used to be an economist. I can tell the House that a good tax is one that raises revenue and does not introduce perverse incentives. A good tax ensures that resources go to activity because there are higher levels of productivity. A good tax system introduces three principles. The first is neutrality: it treats similar activities in similar ways. The second is simplicity: it is straightforward and easy to implement. The third is stability: it is predictable.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Member reverse this national insurance tax change? What spending would he cut to do so?

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I think I have set out, the question is not about carving out an exemption for this establishment or that establishment; it is about how we create a tax system overall that is simple and efficient. It is about ensuring that businesses and other organisations are operating more efficiently. I say this to the hon. Member: when the Conservatives were in government, they did not propose abolishing national insurance for all hospices. They should follow their arguments to the end of the line. I will move on, as I am conscious of the time. The amendments would also reduce simplicity in the tax system. We are not exempting specific sectors or, indeed, specific establishments from this tax. Overall, Lords amendments 1 to 19 would complicate the tax system and reduce stability. Raising rates is accepted policy; introducing special rates for specific sectors or establishments is not. It would make for a less efficient tax system that is complicated to govern, expensive to enforce and more prone to fraud. This is not a predictable way of making tax policy. It is not neutral, it is not simple, and it is not stable. It is bad policy that all of us in the House should oppose. All this may sound dry, but it matters to our constituents. Bad taxes do not just harm economic growth, but bring in less revenue. That means fewer appointments in the NHS, it means fewer new teachers, and it means less insulation in our homes. We are elected to this place as legislators. We have a duty to make policy that works, and that involves distinguishing the whole from its parts, ensuring we do not introduce loopholes and carve-outs that weaken our tax system, and governing responsibly.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First, there is more funding going into the early years, but I will deal with the tax side as I speak to the specific amendments. Each amendment seeks to carve out an exemption for something, and I am sure that Members across the House identify with and, indeed, support some of those individual exemptions. However, if we were to pass the amendments, they would give specified sectors advantages not enjoyed by others.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to rise to speak to Lords amendments 1 to 19. I want to speak about what makes a good tax system and, in particular, optimal tax theory, which is a topic that is as thrilling to me as it is no doubt to the entire Chamber. A good tax system is defined by neutrality, simplicity and stability, as set out in the Mirrlees review. A tax system designed along those three principles will raise the maximum revenue with the minimum economic impact. Each of the amendments in isolation might seem reasonable, but together they introduce individual exemptions that make our tax system less neutral, less simple and less stable. The amendments would make our tax system worse. Today, we are discussing raising national insurance contributions from the largest employers to fix our broken public services and invest in our prosperity. Three quarters of that £23 billion of investment is from the richest 2% of businesses, while we are reducing contributions from the 250,000 smallest businesses.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not, because that would introduce exemptions and perverse incentives and make the tax system less clear. It would make the tax system as a whole less efficient. I will come to the specific ways shortly. Let us start with non-neutrality. Lords amendments 7, 12 and 16 would create non-neutrality between small charities and non-charities. That would incentivise more social enterprises to be charities instead of businesses. Lords amendments 8, 10 and 14 would create an additional NICs band for small businesses, thereby disincentivising them from growing. Under those amendments, if a business saw its revenue go over £1 million or it employed more than 25 people, all of a sudden it would incur a NICs charge. That is a cliff edge. It would introduce a perverse incentive and reduce productivity and economic growth.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What a speech to follow. I cannot quite claim to be Peggy Mitchell, but I will try to live up to that brilliant remark. I rise as a proud member of the GMB. I happily refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will speak to new clauses 37 and 38, which relate to part 3 of the Bill. They will strengthen the bargaining power of social workers and, by doing so, create a stronger working relationship between employees and employers that both sides will invest more in. That means higher wages for those who look after our parents, more training and a healthier social care workforce. Both sides will invest more; both sides will benefit more. Pro-worker, pro-business, pro-growth—that is what these amendments and this Bill will achieve. Before entering this place, I was a trade union rep, and I worked with my colleagues to help stop a 33% pay cut in my workplace. Workers speaking with one voice meant a happier and more productive workplace—one voice to set out what it means to increase productivity. That is why this is a pro-growth Bill. Social care workers are among the lowest paid in our economy. One in six are legally paid less than the minimum wage. Little proper certification, reward or recognition for skills means that there is little training. Poor conditions mean that almost half suffer from work-related stress. Low pay, little progression and poor conditions are the reasons why a third of social care workers leave the sector each year. That is what this Bill and these new clauses will fix. The Adult Social Care Negotiating Body will mean more social care workers speaking as one voice, gaining higher wages, better conditions and more training. Those benefits do not just appear on payslips; they mean less time spent worrying about paying the bills, and more time with our families and reading to our children. They make workers more productive and benefit employers—they make life worth living. Those on the Opposition Benches say that life cannot improve. They have talked a lot of fear instead of hope and the change we can achieve. They will likely vote against our amendments and against the Bill. In doing so, they would deny their constituents better wages and, indeed, a better life. We cannot simply sit back and hope that wages rise, that training will magically appear, or that conditions will get better on their own. We have to act to make it so. The Bill and the amendments do exactly that by giving social care workers the power to speak with one voice to negotiate higher wages, better training and better conditions, benefiting employee and employer—pro-worker, pro-business and pro-growth. That is what the Bill stands for. That is what I stand for. That is what we stand for.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The defence sector contributes £3.2 billion to the Scottish economy, and Scotland’s contribution keeps us all safe. The Prime Minister has announced increased spending in our country, which also means more investment in Scotland, higher industrial production and higher incomes. Does the Secretary of State agree that this shows the difference a Labour Government make—both south and north of the border?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  6. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on supporting economic growth in Scotland.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I put on the record my thanks to the Prime Minister. I know that the entire House thanks him for the leadership that he showed over the weekend. In his statement, he talked about stepping up the economic pressure on Russia. As things stand, we know that Russia is circumventing the oil price cap. Its oil is being sold above $60, and around $190 billion flowed to Putin from oil sales last year. We in this country are in a unique position to enforce the cap because the insurance that the tankers depend on is written in London. Will the Prime Minister assure us that he will strengthen the oil price cap as much as possible, and may I request a meeting with a Minister to discuss in more detail how we might strengthen it?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The housing formula has rightly been changed to where the need is greatest. In my constituency, for example, planning permission has not been approved to replace derelict factories on brownfield sites with new homes. I have seen too few homes being built and too many things being rejected. I am proud of this Government’s aim to build new homes, and I have full faith in the formula. We need more homes everywhere, including in both of our constituencies.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Economic growth is the ability to produce more with less. It is the foundation of all human progress. It is why we are not all scratching around in the dirt, desperately hoping something will grow. However, there is no economic law that says that when the economy grows, all must share in it. In decades past, it has not been shared. Growth has gone to high earners over everyone else, to the old rather than the young, to capital over labour and to London over everywhere else. This is tearing our democracy apart, and it is tearing other democracies apart. That is why I am so proud to speak in favour of this Finance Bill, which will help to ensure that economic growth is shared among all people and all places. I worked as an economist before entering this place. As Members may know, my PhD was on the causes and consequences of inequality and particularly why, since the 1980s, people and places have not shared equally in growth. In my adult life, I have never known a growing economy, and now my beard is turning grey— [ Interruption. ] I will soon look like Gandalf. I want to see the dotted line on the GDP chart finally go up, but that is not enough. We have to ask whether all are sharing in that growth. Growth for where, and growth for whom? The only way to ensure that all share in growth is for this Government to act. When people do not share in growth, when their incomes do not rise and when life becomes worse, hope turns to cynicism, happiness turns to anger and peace turns to riots. There are four ways in which growth has not been shared by all, and we are fixing all four in this Budget. First, across high-income nations, top earners have seen their pay rise far faster than the rest. Technological change destroyed manufacturing jobs and led to a divided labour market of high-paid and low-paid jobs. High-paid workers benefited from new technology—computers, Excel and PowerPoint—and they saw their wages increase 50% faster than the average. We are fixing that in this Budget by investing in the skills of non-graduates, with more money for further education colleges and apprenticeships. Secondly, older generations have benefited from cheaper homes, while younger renters cannot buy a home because we have failed to build enough houses in this country. Twenty years ago, house prices were three times the average wage. Today, they are more than eight times the average wage.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his help and assistance. The aim is not only to improve pensioner incomes. On one side there is the tax change, and on the other side, the triple lock will ensure that the amount going to those pensioners increases by £400 from April. As Members on both sides of the House would agree, the triple lock has helped pensioners immeasurably. It is right that I now draw my speech to a close. I thank all hon. Members for their help, and I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Government will consider these measures in the round, but more broadly, of course, it is about building many more homes. Some 40% of 18 to 34-year-olds are living with mum and dad, and we are starting to fix that in this Budget, including by providing a 20% increase in the affordable homes programme, which is a stepping stone to building 1.5 million new homes.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This Budget is investing in the future, and indeed changing this country. This is a Budget that is moving forward, but I want to cover the bits covered in the Finance Bill. It is a Budget, a Finance Bill, that is investing in labour-intensive sectors such as early years childcare and the warm homes plan.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. Perhaps we should all take a trip to see the great work being done in Reading, because we have to build a lot more homes. My generation is increasingly finding that working hard and getting a good job is no guarantee of owning a home in the end. That is what this Government are fixing with this Budget. It is not only the young who are not sharing in growth. Growth has gone to capital over labour, and technological change means that machines can do tasks far more cheaply than humans. More payments to capital mean less for workers. The labour share of GDP has fallen by a sixth since deindustrialisation. Today, across the Atlantic, we see the dangers of Bidenomics—

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Keeping our nation safe and preserving Ukraine for the future means showing Putin that we and our European allies have the resolve and the resources to defeat him. Showing him that we would win any war is the best way to prevent a wider conflict. Winning wars is a matter of resources being converted to fighting forces. We lost the first battles of world war two, but we won by converting our greater resources; Lincoln did the same during the American civil war. So it is now; we must reduce Russian resources and prepare ourselves. Russia’s economy is straining at the seams. Putin’s demand for war matériel is outstripping the ability of his economy to supply it; the official inflation rate stands at 10%, and we may possibly be talking about double that; three quarters of Russian firms face staff shortages; Putin is losing tanks three times more quickly than he can replace them; and his national wealth fund has been halved. However, Russia is still out-producing us in shells and fighting forces, and its armed forces will reach 1.5 million personnel. Russia can rebuild, and Putin will rebuild and come back, so we can and must do more to reduce Russia’s resources. First, we must seize central bank assets, rather than allowing Putin to use them to rebuild his fighting forces. Secondly, we must strengthen the oil price cap by making London insurance for foreign ports dependent on the proper verification of attestation documents. Thirdly, we need stronger export controls to stop western goods ending up in Russian tanks. That is what we can do right now. Deterring Putin and defeating Putin are one and the same. Our economic power is greater: NATO’s GDP in Europe is 12 times greater than Putin’s in Russia. Converting that economic power into fighting forces is what we must do next. Prosperity means nothing if we do not have the forces to defend it, so, yes, this is about the percentage that we spend on defence, but for Europe as a whole it is also about so much more than that: long-term orders to build production capacity, securing strategic inputs such as steel, and the ability to scale rapidly if we must. If we do face war, we must be prepared for it. Fighting a total war—converting an entire nation’s production to maximise fighting forces—is a problem that none of us has ever known, but that could be the economic problem before us: maximising the production of war, guns, tanks, drones. The rough outline of the answer is this: we must figure out national income, decide the maximum portion that can be allocated to war matériel production, and use taxes from those who can most afford them to transfer what is needed to the Government. If demand runs ahead of supply, it will lead to inflation. That means rationing consumption for more investment. Investment will have to go towards war matériel, so capital controls must be in place. We need import controls, and quotas to ensure that inputs such as steel are going towards war matériel. We must prepare for a financial world without lend-lease. Those are the preparations that the Treasury should be making. We could not foresee the financial crisis or the pandemic, but we can foresee a greater war in Europe. These are the times in which we live. In the darkest days of our struggle against fascism, John Maynard Keynes wrote: “A reluctance to face the full magnitude of our task and overcome it is a coward’s part. Yet the nation is not in this mood and only asks to be told what is necessary.” That is where the British people are—a nation that remembers its finest hour—but where are we in this House? Are we preparing for the worst, so that we can prevent it? Are we showing that we will convert our far greater resources in order to protect Europe and ourselves? Are we ready to do what we must? Those are the questions before us.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Loughborough Rotary Club does brilliant work in my constituency, as I know the Rotary Club does across this country. In my community it has provided more than 200 warm coats and 500 boxes to families being rehomed. Will the Minister please put on record her thanks to the Loughborough Rotary Club in my constituency and Rotary Clubs across the nation?