Mr Jonathan Brash
MP for Hartlepool · Labour · United Kingdom
“Freedom is not simply the absence of restraint; it is the presence of opportunity, but that is what deindustrialisation and globalisation robbed from communities like mine. It did not simply close factories; it took freedom away from working people.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Hartlepool is a town with a proud coastal and industrial heritage, but above all, it is a town of proud people.”
“Not every young person wants the same pathway, and vocational excellence is every bit as valuable as academic excellence. Through our partnerships with X-energy and Centrica, whereby the new nuclear that we are bringing to Hartlepool partners with our FE college, we are once again giving our young people the freedom to believe that their…”
“That is the balance we need: strong borders, faster removals, proper enforcement, serious government and politics that does not make innocent people pay the price for failures in the immigration system.”
“They are felt by children who hear abuse on their way to school. Words spoken in this place do not stay here. They travel into communities and workplaces and on to social media. That does not mean that we should avoid the issue—quite the opposite.”
“When politicians blur the line between voicing legitimate concern about illegal immigration and using language that encourages suspicion of people because of their background or their skin colour, it is people like Jasvir who pay the price. That is why the rhetoric we use matters.”
The complete record
Every one of 426 lines we hold for Mr Jonathan Brash, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“I just wish to seek some clarity from the hon. Gentleman. Is the Conservatives’ position that they would prefer British Steel in the hands of the Chinese than the British?”
“I have heard that the hon. Gentleman thinks energy prices should come down, and we do not disagree on that, but he still has not answered my question. Does he think British Steel should remain foreign-owned—yes or no?”
“If British taxpayer money is to be spent, then British industry must benefit. If we are building British warships, British steel should be used. If Britain is building offshore wind farms, then British steel should be used. If we are building new nuclear reactors, as we are in Hartlepool thanks to the deal that we struck last September, then British steel should be used. My biggest plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is that we radically reform procurement policy in this country. I welcome the steel tariffs being put in place and the assurances given by the Secretary of State that he will look carefully at the individual cases that have been mentioned, but we must put our country first. This Bill is critical to doing that and to protecting the working-class communities I represent.”
“Steel is not just another commodity—it is fundamental to our national sovereignty. It underpins our defence industry, infrastructure, energy sector and manufacturing base. A nation that cannot produce its own steel leaves itself vulnerable, dependent on the decisions, priorities and interests of others. We have moved into a different era, although if we listened to some of the contributions from Opposition Members, we could believe that we are still in the 1990s. Globalisation is dead and, to be honest, I welcome its death, because all it ever did was leave working-class communities such as mine behind, ripping out the heart of industrial communities like Hartlepool. The tragedy is that in this country we still import 68% of our steel needs. We must fix that tragedy.”
“I warmly welcome the Government’s decision to move towards the nationalisation of British Steel. It is the right decision for our economy, our industrial communities and Britain’s national security. I say that as somebody who believes in the value of enterprise, competition and a strong private sector, but there are clear cases where privatisation has failed the national interest and where Government have not only the right to intervene but the duty to do so, particularly where foundational industries are now foreign-owned. I was stunned that when the shadow Minister was asked a straight question about whether the Conservatives would prefer British steel to be in the hands of the Chinese or the British, he could not simply answer “the British”. He avoided the question. That shows a staggering disregard for our country’s national security.”
“I listened very carefully to the Minister’s explanation about what exactly we are doing, and I echo the comments from colleagues across the House about the failure to communicate this effectively in the last 24 hours. I have had very upset constituents getting in touch with me about this issue. One report—from Bloomberg—seems to indicate that there is briefing and counter-briefing across Government at the moment and that this move is a departure from our European colleagues. Can the Minister confirm whether we are in fact departing from our European colleagues on these sanctions?”
“Included in that list of achievements is the £12 billion deal signed last September to bring new nuclear to Hartlepool, making Hartlepool one of the biggest clean energy economies in this country. Does the Secretary of State agree that as we secure energy security, we must also secure economic security for those parts of the country that are left behind?”
“It means finally standing up for justice for our WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—and it means delivering a national care service, not eventually, not someday, but now. I do not want this country to fall prey to Trump-style populism, but the truth is that only we on the Labour Benches can prevent that. We have the parliamentary majority, we have the mandate, and we still have time, but if we do not use those things to deliver visible, meaningful change—if we do not give people hope that they can feel in their wages, their streets and their communities—then others will inevitably fill that vacuum. If that happens, the responsibility will lie with us.”
“It means lower energy bills for those communities hosting the new nuclear, wind and solar that powers Britain, and while I absolutely support the Home Secretary and stand behind her reforms, if it is necessary, it means declaring a state of emergency at our borders and turning boats back. It means banning southern councils from discharging their homelessness duty by shifting the burden to communities like mine, simply because our housing is cheaper. It means taking defence spending out of the fiscal rules and spending what this dangerous world requires now. It means giving councils the power to simply seize empty shops, abandoned homes and derelict sites where absentee owners refuse to act.”
“It means radical welfare reform that is both compassionate and demanding—support for those who need help, but a clear demand that everyone who can work must work. It means bringing failed monopolies back into public ownership where markets have plainly failed, from water companies to the Royal Mail. It means cutting taxes on jobs and investment in deprived regions, so that opportunity finally reaches communities that have been left behind for decades. It means banning estate management companies altogether, and requiring every council to adopt every street. It means finding the £2 billion that the British Dental Association has said is needed to rescue NHS dentistry.”
“I do not say that with pleasure, but leadership is not only about knowing when to fight on; it is about knowing when your authority has ebbed, when trust has frayed, and when it is time to leave the stage. Some people will say that this is about personality. It is not; it is about policy, and whether we are prepared to meet the moment with the scale of change it demands. This Government have done so much in their first 22 months, and there is much to applaud in this King’s Speech, but caution will not save us now. Incrementalism will not save us now. We must be bolder. We need a programme of radical renewal that improves the lives of working people in Hartlepool and across Britain. That means abolishing the hated council tax and replacing it with a progressive system that no longer punishes poor communities simply for being poor.”
“They voted again for change under the Tories, with levelling up, and were let down once more. Now, that accumulated anger lands on our doorstep, alongside an understandable fear among many of my constituents that politics will once again let them down. The message last week was unmistakeable. People want a Government who act with urgency, courage and purpose against the crushing pressures of everyday life, and if they do not get it, they will once again roll the dice, even if it means taking a risk on a charlatan, because desperation drives risk, and people are desperate for hope. However difficult it may be for many Labour Members to admit, it is now clear to me that this Prime Minister can no longer provide that hope.”
“I am acutely aware that this debate on the King’s Speech is in the shadow of a political moment that is moving at extraordinary speed, a moment on which I have already made my views clear. While I respect the sincerely held opinions of many of my hon. Friends, there are truths that are now too obvious to ignore. Last Thursday’s local election results, in which many hard-working, dedicated and talented Labour councillors in Hartlepool and elsewhere lost their seats, were not a routine protest vote; they were a roar of unbridled anger. In towns like Hartlepool, that anger did not begin 22 months ago with the election of this Labour Government; it has been building for more than 20 years. People have repeatedly voted for change. When it came to Brexit, they voted for the change promised by members of Reform, and they were failed.”
“One of the things that I find most difficult to understand in this process is why, when this scandal erupted in September of last year, before the Prime Minister made statements in this place and elsewhere—statements that he must have known would have involved talking about the vetting—he did not simply order officials to share the vetting information with him. Why did he not do so, and does he regret it?”
“I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Swim England recently launched its report into the state of the nation’s swimming facilities. The report, “The Deep End”, clearly shows the crisis facing community swimming, largely due to issues with funding and infrastructure. While Hartlepool’s brilliant Labour council is delivering amazing new facilities in the form of the Highlight leisure centre opening in June, not every constituency is so lucky. What steps is the Secretary of State’s Department taking to improve access to swimming facilities where those facilities have been lost or are in danger of disappearing?”
“Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Denise for her remarkable service to the people of Hartlepool, and in wishing her a long and happy retirement?”
“Public service is about dedication, resilience and delivering for those who need it most, and as she prepares to retire next week, Denise McGuckin, the chief executive of Hartlepool borough council, has exemplified those qualities throughout an outstanding career. It has been my privilege to work with Denise for two decades, during which time she has shown unwavering commitment to the people of Hartlepool. From starting as a recycling officer 30 years ago to leading the council through the pandemic, securing over £160 million of investment, delivering outstanding children’s services and bringing the tall ships back to our town, her calm, compassionate and decisive leadership has left a lasting legacy.”
“I met the Disability Poverty Campaign Group, which points to the fact that in recent years average support has fallen sharply and, as a result, job retention has dropped from 88% to 43%. That is fewer people in work as a result of the broken system the hon. Gentleman describes. That is counterintuitive when we want to strengthen our economy and ensure that people are in work.”
“I want to join Members across the House in commending the Minister for his steadfast commitment to this issue and, in particular, for the way in which he has consistently listened to members of the community and acted on what they have said. My constituent, Alex Robinson, lost her father to the scandal in 2006. I spoke to her just a few moments ago on the phone, and she remains concerned by the speed at which applications are being processed. Can the Minister outline what steps he is taking to speed up the process and deliver the justice that Alex and so many others deserve?”
“I welcome the 8% reduction in knife crime and the increase in neighbourhood policing, which has seen a named officer in every ward of Hartlepool, but the Minister is right to say—and my constituents would agree—that it is not enough. Frontline officers tell me that they are taken off the street for far too long because they have to travel to Middlesbrough owing to the closure of our custody suite by the Conservative party. Given that the funding formula is broken and unfairly punishes Cleveland, can the Minister commit herself to reviewing it so that we can receive the funding we need to reopen that custody suite for my town?”
“In just one week prior to Easter, Hillingdon council discharged its homelessness duty by issuing 22 section 208 notices and placing 77 individuals, including 35 children, in Hartlepool, with many concentrated in just one postcode. Does the Minister accept that this unfair practice places far too great a burden on towns like mine?”
“Is the issue not also about the way the economy is balanced? The truth is that some areas of the country, including Hartlepool, will struggle to bring people in with their tourism offer compared with others. A tax such as this actually drives money and investment away from areas that need it most. Is that not why such a holiday tax is bad for constituencies such as Hartlepool?”
“The records of our courts are part of the public record and they should be accessible as such. Of course there will be practical challenges, but those challenges should be addressed, not used as a reason to delay progress. With the right approach, including better use of technology, we can improve access while managing costs. Only where there are clear safety or national security concerns should access ever be restricted. Ultimately, this issue is about fairness and trust. It is about ensuring that no one is denied access to justice because of their financial circumstances. I urge the Government and the Minister to build on the progress already being made, to support the direction set out in the Lords amendment and to move towards a system where access to court and tribunal transcripts is guaranteed, not priced out of reach.”
“It is encouraging that the other place has already taken steps in this direction: Lords amendment 1 to the Victims and Courts Bill would create a statutory entitlement for victims of criminal offences to receive key transcripts free of charge, including the route to verdict and bail decisions, with a clear expectation that they are provided promptly. That development is significant and welcome, but still does not go far enough. The principle behind that change should not stop there. If access to transcripts is essential for fairness and transparency, it must apply more widely across our courts and tribunals. Open justice cannot be selective; it cannot apply in some cases but not others, or to some people but not others. The law belongs to us all.”
“and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman)—as an aside, my thoughts are with her and her constituents today. The commitment to making sentencing remarks available to victims free of charge is a positive and important step, showing that the Government recognise the need to reduce these barriers and improve transparency. However, there is a clear case to go further. The Government’s response to the petition suggests that expanding free access would place additional pressure on the system. As Members have already said, in an age of AI and technology, I wonder whether the basic credibility of that excuse stands up. This is not an optional extra. It goes to the heart of whether our justice system is truly accessible and accountable.”
“I thank the 479 constituents in Hartlepool who signed the petition. Their voices reflect a real and growing concern that what should be a basic feature of open justice cannot be placed behind a paywall. At present, courtroom tribunal transcripts can run into the hundreds and even the thousands of pounds. For many of my constituents, that is simply unaffordable. The result is that people are denied access to a full record of proceedings that may directly affect their lives. That has serious implications for victims, for those seeking to appeal decisions, and for public confidence in a justice system that is already under strain. I raised this issue of costs with Ministers just last week during Justice questions. I welcomed the response from the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, my hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening this debate in his characteristic way—highly detailed and bringing the voices of victims to the fore, something that is so important here. The petition before us speaks to the simple but fundamental principle that access to justice should never be denied according to a person’s ability to pay. If our role in this place is anything, surely it is to break down the barriers that our constituents face when trying to access that to which they are entitled. This is clearly one of those barriers. Given that it involves access to justice—that most fundamental of rights—I cannot think of a more significant barrier that needs to be knocked down.”
“With respect, that does not pass the most basic credibility test. Who gets it in the neck at the end of the day? Our posties on the doorstep. This is profoundly unfair. Royal Mail is failing the public and its workforce. It is a pattern: privatise a public service and it fails the public. So I urge the Minister, who I know is deeply committed, to take on the Royal Mail, and if it does not improve, take it back.”
“The privatisation of Royal Mail has gone the same way as rail and water: a public service turned into a private asset, focused no longer on delivery—quite literally in this case—but on what can be extracted. Profit first, service second, and the public and our hard-working posties left to pick up the pieces. The consequences for my constituents are not abstract but real and serious. Bills arrive late triggering penalties, appointments are missed, and important correspondence simply does not turn up on time or at all. Financial penalties, missed healthcare and the real anxiety caused by a service that is not functioning are not minor inconveniences. Yet these issues are raised with Royal Mail, we are told that they are not long-term problems, but just down to short-term staff absences.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. My constituents in Hartlepool report letters arriving late, entire streets going days without deliveries and, in some cases, post turning up only once every 13 days—this is not once or twice, but a pattern lasting for months. Let me be absolutely clear, as other Members have been, that this is not the fault of our posties. I have met them and they are hard-working, committed and deeply proud of the job they do. They are just as frustrated as anyone else because they know the service is not what it should be. The failure lies not with the workforce but with the system. The Royal Mail as an organisation is simply not delivering the service that the public are entitled to expect. We should be honest about why.”
“My hon. Friend hits the nail precisely on the head. We are debating a possible fuel duty increase seven months ahead of it happening. The reality is that the Opposition have been caught championing an illegal war in the middle east that the public of this country do not support, and they are trying to divert it with this nonsensical argument.”
“Given that plan 2 tuition fees were introduced by the Conservatives in 2012, that they froze the repayment thresholds in 2016 and that they abolished the maintenance grants, was that fair then?”
“One of my constituents has raised this issue with me; she is owed nearly £6,000. She says: “What makes me most mad is if he paid, I wouldn’t need UC to top up my wages. The government is paying twice, once for chasing him and once for covering him.” Is the system not completely broken?”
“Ministers will be aware of the campaign to make all court and tribunal transcripts available for free. Fees can run into the thousands, effectively acting as a paywall to justice. Do Ministers agree that access to the law cannot be based on wealth alone, and what will they do about it?”
“My dad was a GP in Hartlepool for 33 years. He worked through the improvements brought in by the last Labour Government and, until his retirement, through the destruction that the last Conservative Government oversaw—most notably the inability to get a same-day urgent appointment, which saw far too many patients ending up at the door of their local hospital. Does the Minister agree that ensuring that people can access same-day urgent appointments gets treatment out of hospitals and back into communities, where it belongs?”
“As this is Colleges Week, will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the incredible college staff in Hartlepool and across the country for the work that they do? Does she agree that we must end the misguided prejudice that the academic route is always best, and champion vocational qualifications, which will give us the workforce we need to rebuild our country?”
“My hon. Friend makes my point for me, which is that the devastating thing was ripping the experience out of our police force and then dressing up new recruits as somehow a replacement. That led to higher crime in my constituency and, I know, in his.”
“My hon. Friend talks about a new funding formula needing to be based on need and the challenges that the precept creates. We are never going to get fairness if the council tax system is the method of doing this. Is she ruling out getting rid of the police precept as a method of raising funding?”
“I am sure the hon. Member did not mean to inadvertently mislead the House, but as I was a councillor in Hartlepool in 2010, I can tell him with absolute surety that it was the Conservatives who cancelled the building schools for the future programme. I think he should take the opportunity to correct the record. You cancelled it; we initiated it.”
“In Hartlepool, 70% of every penny the council spends is on social care, and my constituents pay, as a proportion of their property value and as a proportion of their income, far, far more than the more affluent areas of the country. As my hon. Friend has said, they do not receive the services that they need. Is it not time to abolish the council tax system?”
“May I start with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), who did not give way when I asked him to? I will happily give way in a moment should he wish to correct the record, but he said that the 2024 Labour manifesto on which we stood promised to freeze council tax. No such promise exists in that manifesto, and I invite him now to correct the record.”
“Official forecasts put our population at under 94,000, yet the Office for National Statistics data shows that it is already closer to 100,000—growth that is driven in large part by other councils discharging their homelessness duties into my constituency. Hartlepool is not asking for special treatment; we are asking for support to deal with a problem that is not of our making.”
“A 1% increase in council tax in Hartlepool raises a fraction of what it raises in wealthier areas, yet our residents already pay far more, both in real terms and as a share of their income, than those living almost anywhere else in the country. The settlement simply does not change that reality. Governments of all stripes talk about core spending power, but half of that core spending power is achieved by raising council tax. That hammers the poorest communities the most, and it is a regressive tax. That is not fairness; it is entrenched inequality. To make matters worse, changes to deprivation measures and population assumptions mean that Hartlepool’s needs are being systematically underestimated.”
“After weeks of discussions and representations, the final settlement for Hartlepool has remained unchanged, yet down the road—this sticks in the craw for me—Reform-led Durham county council has received an additional £3.7 million this year, which means that it is reducing the amount by which it is increasing council tax. The increase in Durham’s final settlement is more than our entire increase this year. I cannot describe that as fair funding. As we have heard from many Members from across the House, the unfairness is compounded by a broken council tax system. Hartlepool has one of the weakest tax bases in the country, with a high proportion of homes in band A.”
“It undermines prevention, which means that we are likely to see more children in care, more long-term costs, and worse outcomes. That is why I see this settlement as self-defeating. Ministers will rightly point to percentage increases in funding, but those percentages mean far less in Hartlepool than they do almost anywhere else, because our baseline is already so low. The cost of a child in care is exactly the same in Hartlepool as it is anywhere else. When we look at it in cash terms, the reality is stark. The increase in the Government grant for Hartlepool this year is just £3 million, which is equivalent to funding around six children in care.”
“My brilliant Labour council has already taken decisive action, halving that projected deficit in-year and establishing a robust, credible plan to eliminate it entirely. That plan is exactly what the Government say they want to see: it means fewer children coming into care, more early intervention, stronger families and better outcomes. It includes strengthened early help and family support, a dedicated edge-of-care team, a refreshed in-house foster care model, safe reunification pathways, wholesale SEND reform, enhanced support for care leavers, and better workforce planning. This is a serious, preventive change, not a sticking plaster solution. But here is the problem: these reforms require short-term stability to succeed. The settlement does not recognise the sheer number of children in care in my constituency.”
“I would say that if we want there to be trust in politics, we need to be accurate in what we say in this place, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s correcting the record. The Minister understands exactly what I am going to say. I know how sympathetic and supportive she is in this respect, and I hope that in the coming days we will be able to deal with the issue that I am going to raise. I thank her for her support in recent weeks. I want to be clear about what Hartlepool is facing, and about why I cannot regard the current settlement to be fair and also believe it to be self-defeating. Hartlepool now has the third highest number of children in care in England. That pressure has been made worse by other local authorities placing families in my town, leaving us with a £6 million overspend in children’s social care alone.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his comments, and I endorse them wholeheartedly. I have heard stories of London boroughs and Birmingham city council putting families in taxis with the threat, “Get in the taxi, or you’re homeless.” They do not know where they will get out at the other end, and they discover that they are in Hartlepool only when they arrive. It is left for our council to deal with the pressure and the additional SEND needs, and for our council to deal with the children, who sometimes end up in care. It is a disgraceful practice that should rightly be cracked down on. I know that the Minister is alive to this problem, and it needs to be dealt with.”
“I absolutely agree. Just this week, there have been stories in my local press about a family with children who have been moved to a place where they have no connections, no familial links and no understanding of the local community. The Minister is absolutely right: those children are suffering as a result of the behaviour of councils.”
“I absolutely endorse all that; part of that work needs to be taking a very close look at the funding settlement. We need to look at whether councils that may have done very well out of the settlement are still moving people out of their areas, even when they have extra finances from this Government.”