Jonathan Brash MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why does the hon. Member think the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton called the general election when he did, when he was apparently so close to the Rwanda scheme working?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  It is really important that the right hon. Gentleman clarifies something to aid this debate. I have read his motion carefully, and the vast majority of it is about illegal migration. It repeatedly feels like illegal migration and legal migration are being conflated as the same issue, which does not help the debate. Could he clarify whether that is his intention?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way in a moment. The last Conservative Government put construction workers on their points-based immigration system. They wanted to import construction workers—the people we need to rebuild this country—while my further education college that trains local Hartlepudlians in construction skills had its funding cut by 10%. That is nothing short of economic vandalism—vandalism that for far too long threw my constituents on the scrap heap. That is the Conservatives’ legacy.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I think the right hon. Gentleman may have revealed something early on in his speech. He has told us that now is the time for “a serious, credible plan”. Is he therefore admitting that in the 14 years when his party was in government, there was not one serious or credible plan?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can address the point I made in my speech. Repeatedly, Conservative Members, including him, have said, “If we had only waited a little bit longer, Rwanda would have worked.” Why do you think the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) called the general election—

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  The reality is that before 2018 we had that agreement. We have had it before. This Prime Minister has shown time and again his ability to negotiate on the world stage, and I have total confidence that he will do that. Indeed, the only surrender that has taken place this week is the hon. Member for Clacton surrendering to his sun lounger. As a direct result of the failure of the Conservative party to get a returns agreement in its Brexit deal, we have seen the numbers explode. However, progress is being made. The asylum backlog is now down 32% from its record high under the last Government. In Hartlepool—a town unfairly targeted with disproportionate dispersal accommodation—we now have a freeze on any new asylum accommodation and a clear target set to reduce numbers. But let us be clear: the numbers are still too high. That is why the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is absolutely essential. It gives us the ability to use counter-terrorism powers to pursue and dismantle the criminal gangs that facilitate those crossings—powers that the Opposition parties voted against. We have to go further. We must tighten the use of article 8 of the European convention on human rights to ensure that it cannot be misused, so that it is this House, not the courts, that decides who stays and who is deported. I place on the record that any foreign criminal in this country should be deported. We must strike agreements with international partners, so that those people coming on boats can be swiftly returned, because that is the true deterrent. That will be achieved not with Tory gimmicks or by Reform slogans, but with detailed policy, focused diplomacy and the hard graft that this Labour Government have already begun. It is about time that Conservative Members stopped playing politics with this issue. That is what the people of Hartlepool expect and it is what the Government must do. As long as I am in this place, I will hold them to account to do that.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  It is possibly in order for me to correct the shadow Minister. I was very clear that I believe that the application of article 8 should be tightened so that courts in this country are not sovereign over this place regarding deportations. It should be this place that ensures deportations—not our courts.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman knows that I hold him in high regard, but he has mentioned the figures of 800,000 to 900,000 following his list of Governments. Will he confirm that those increases only ever happened under a Conservative Government?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I want to start by being very clear about what I believe and what I know my constituents in Hartlepool believe. Immigration, whether legal or illegal, is far too high. There is nothing right wing or indeed racist about being worried about immigration and its effect on our communities. We as a party and as a Government will absolutely be judged on our ability to solve this problem over the coming years. I know that the Minister agrees with this wholeheartedly, and we will stand by it. We will be judged on our ability to solve this problem. The Conservative motion before us feels rather like the arsonist turning up and complaining that we have not yet put out the fire. It is a motion that I am sure the Reform party will support, if any of its Members can be bothered to turn up, given its entirely vacuous nature and total absence of any policy solutions. I want to talk briefly about legal migration, because that hugely exercises me and many of my constituents.

• 20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. Many of us have been talking to special guardians in our constituencies—I certainly have in Hartlepool—and one of their huge concerns is that the cut to this fund will dissuade people from taking on these incredibly important roles in the future. Does the hon. Member agree that that will result in costs popping up elsewhere for the state, costing us more in the future?

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. In Hartlepool, to make a journey of just 2.8 miles from St Hild’s school to the Headland requires two buses and takes approximately 40 minutes. The Hartlepool transport users forum and residents across the town have had enough. Other parts of the country are putting buses back into public hands. Will the Minister mandate Tees Valley combined authority to do the same for Hartlepool?

• 15 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  This weekend, young Hartlepool sporting stars will compete on the national stage. The Oaksway under-14 netball squad has qualified for the England Netball national finals in Sheffield on 17 and 18 May. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing the team the very best of luck for the finals, and in thanking clean energy company Enviromena, whose generation donation, among others, has helped to make their participation possible?

• 14 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q4. Council tax is the most regressive and unfair tax in this country. It has become a tax on deprivation: the less affluent an area, the more you pay; the greater your need, the more you pay. A band D property in Westminster pays just £1,017 a year. In Hartlepool, it is £2,495 a year. For a band H property, the difference between the two areas is £3,000. It is hammering people in towns like Hartlepool. Does the Prime Minister agree that this unfairness cannot continue? Will he commit to addressing this inequality once and for all?

• 14 May 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Paymaster General for his statement and for his correspondence on this issue on behalf of my constituent Alex Robinson. Alex lost her father in 2006 to this scandal, having already lost her mother as a child. She was her father’s carer from the age of 13. She is concerned that when a deceased victim leaves no spouse or partner, the estate is not entitled to the same compensation, irrespective of the role any member of that estate may have played in the victim’s life. Does the Minister agree that there are exceptional and unique cases, such as Alex’s, and that they need to be looked at differently? Will he meet me to explore how we can ensure that that happens?

• 13 May 2025 · Defence Industries: North-East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Merlin Flex from my constituency. I had the pleasure of visiting Merlin Flex recently, and people there have talked in such positive terms about the growth and expansion that they are seeing. Does he agree that the unprecedented, record injection of cash that the Labour Government are putting into defence has the ability to transform regions such as ours? Does he also think that it is critical that we support the small and medium-sized enterprises that need help to access those funds?

• 12 May 2025 · Protection of Prison Staff · Hansard source

  More

  Prison should be a rehabilitative place for the vast majority of prisoners; that is good for society, for lowering crime and for our economy. But there is a small number of prisoners in our prison system for whom it should never be about that; instead, it should be about punishment. The Southport murderer should die in jail and if he cannot be in jail without threatening prison officers, he has forfeited his rights. Does the Minister agree?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. I welcome the Government’s view that nuclear power is essential to our clean power goals. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that new nuclear can be built wherever that is possible across the country, including in my constituency?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as a proud season ticket holder of Hartlepool United and—I am told—the first member of Hartlepool United Supporters Trust to be elected to represent our town as its MP. As we have heard today, football is not just a game; it is a vital part of our community and our identity—it is the thing that makes a town such as Hartlepool truly a place. The importance of this Bill, therefore, cannot be overstated. It is about putting fans back at the heart of our football clubs, where they rightfully belong, because for a town such as Hartlepool, our football club means everything. As Pools fans know, the establishment of an independent regulator to ensure that clubs operate with integrity and accountability really matters. The Bill will create a new owners and directors test, ensuring that those in charge of our clubs are suitable custodians of their history, their heritage and their place within our communities—Pools fans absolutely know that that matters. Owners come and go, but fans remain in our football clubs, and that is what we must protect. I believe that the new regulator has a chance to act on the campaigns and priorities of fans. As a proud supporter of a national league club who sincerely hopes that we leave that league—in the right direction—as soon as possible, I propose that the newly established regulator focuses on and champions the 3UP campaign, which is being led by the National League. That campaign calls for the promotion of three clubs from the national league to the football league, aligning it with the rest of the football pyramid. Finally, as the new regulator leads discussions with the Premier League regarding the redistribution of football income, it must ensure that the needs of the national league are not overlooked during that process. It must use its new powers to intervene if necessary in the distribution of revenue if it becomes clear that the national league is being ignored. Redistribution of the vast wealth that exists in football clubs to places like Hartlepool is critical not only for the clubs but for the communities they serve. We can foster growth in every part of our country if we get this right. Our football clubs, communities and fans are at the forefront of this legislation. If done right, it has the ability to return football to what it always has been and should be: for the fans, by the fans—once more, the people’s game.

• 28 Apr 2025 · SEND Support · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent, Martyn Hodgson, has two adopted children. Both have suffered extensive trauma in their short lives, and the oldest son was diagnosed with autism and learning disabilities. They rely on the adoption and special guardianship support fund. He says: “This support means so much to families of looked-after and adopted children. As a children’s social worker and adoptive parent, I have seen at first hand the impact this funding can have on their lives.” For Martyn and so many others like him in Hartlepool and beyond, please will the Minister urgently reconsider the cuts to this fund?

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

  More

  Residents of the Throston ward in Hartlepool, in common with communities right across the borough, tell me that they are fed up with crime and antisocial behaviour following 14 years of Tory failure that destroyed neighbourhood policing. Does the Leader of the House agree that Labour’s pledge to put a named police officer in every community, as championed by our brilliant council candidate, Lyndsey Allen, is a game changer in tackling antisocial behaviour and crime in Throston, Hartlepool and the country as a whole?

• 22 Apr 2025 · British Steel · Hansard source

  More

  I add my thanks to the Minister and her colleagues for their sterling work in recent weeks. It is true to say that Labour is saving steel. Some 68% of the steel this country needs is imported. That is a disgraceful legacy from the last Conservative Government, but it presents an opportunity for this Labour Government. Does the Minister agree that the next step we need to take is to mount robust trade protections, including bringing the carbon border adjustment mechanism forward to 2026 and making it mandatory for public procurement to use British steel, so that as we rebuild this country, we do it with British steel made by British workers?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In November 2023, the Sentencing Council consulted on these guidelines, and said that a pre-sentence report may be “particularly important” if an offender belongs to an ethnic, cultural and/or faith minority community. Does the shadow Minister agree that it was particularly important? I do not. If he does not agree, why did he say nothing for two years?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this Bill and the swift action taken by the Lord Chancellor to correct a clear wrong. Had they been implemented, the Sentencing Council’s new guidelines would have introduced differential treatments before the law, which can never and should never be acceptable. The question is: how did we get to this point? Did these guidelines simply appear out of nowhere? Of course they did not. They were subject to extensive consultation under the previous Conservative Government, who welcomed them without reservation. The consultation published in November 2023 and closed in February 2024 indicated clearly that a pre-sentence report “may be particularly important” if the offender belonged to ethnic, cultural or faith minority communities. The then Conservative sentencing Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) wrote to the Sentencing Council, thanking it and welcoming the expanded guidance on the circumstances in which courts should seek pre-sentence reports. Let us be crystal clear: it was the last Conservative Government who endorsed the idea that it was “particularly important” to request pre-sentence reports for individuals from ethnic, cultural or faith minority backgrounds and therefore, by extension of basic logic, less important for other groups. The Sentencing Council had their answer: the then Conservative Government supported its changes. Given what we have heard today, there must surely have been a flurry of opposition in certain quarters. What did the now shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) say about it at the time? The answer is nothing. What did the Leader of the Opposition say? Nothing. Perhaps if they had bothered to stand up and do their job, as Labour has today, these guidelines would never have been issued in the first place. For all the failings of the last Conservative Government, many Members were appalled by the outright refusal of the Sentencing Council to amend the guidelines when requested to do so by the Justice Secretary. That refusal is the reason we find ourselves here today. Far too much of the British state now appears to operate beyond the reach of those democratically elected to lead it. There are too many quangos, too many faceless bureaucracies, too many levers of power seemingly detached from those whom the people have chosen to govern them. The British public do not understand how a court can block the deportation of a convicted criminal whom the Government wish to remove from the country. They do not understand how a Chancellor is constrained in his or her decision-making by the actions of an unelected Office for Budget Responsibility, and they do not understand how a Justice Secretary cannot simply prevent unequal treatment before the law. The Bill is the right response to this specific situation, but how long will it be before we find ourselves here again, in another stand-off with the Sentencing Council, over another issue on which unelected officials clash with democratically accountable politicians? I believe that in the fullness of time—and I welcome what the Lord Chancellor said today about her further review—we will have to go further; I believe that we should abolish the Sentencing Council altogether.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s point about parliamentary sovereignty and that fact that policy must be determined by this place. I think many Members from across the House will have been quite shocked by the response of the Sentencing Council to her letter when she asked it to consider the guidelines again. Does she agree that if this place continues to butt heads with the Sentencing Council over guidelines like these, maybe the best thing to do is abolish the Sentencing Council?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member is painting a terrifying picture of our justice system. In his work, has he managed to identify when these issues all started?