Joe Robertson
MP for Isle of Wight East · Conservative · United Kingdom
“(3) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may have regard to any such measures or information that they consider appropriate, including— (a) an assessment of any variation in dementia services and outcomes between integrated care board areas, (b) information on workforce capacity, capability and trainin…”
“The clause fits into that and would require the collection of data on the provision of dementia services in health and social care. I do not propose to speak too long, but I do want to make a couple of remarks on the current situation, which sets these new clauses in context.”
“That will, of course, impact many more friends, families and carers who support those living with dementia. More than a third of people living with dementia in England do not have a formal diagnosis. Those who do receive a diagnosis live with the condition for an average of three and a half years before that diagnosis.”
“The data requested is imperative to ensuring that the Government can measure and monitor progress against relevant national targets, standards and guidance, including the new modern service framework on dementia, the forthcoming Care Quality Commission statutory guidance and outcome measures that may be set in future NHS operational plann…”
“I thank the Minister for pausing the MCA’s brutal decision about coastguard rescue officers, and for convening meetings on cross-Solent ferry transport to the Isle of Wight, which will start next month.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. These two new clauses, the latter of which is in my name, deal with the publication of an annual report detailing NHS and social care provision for dementia care and how the Government are performing against targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national guidance and…”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Joe Robertson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 13.
“Q So do the changes in the Bill reduce diversity in the criminal justice system? Dame Vera Baird: Not in the slightest. I assume you know that 73% of people who are entitled to a jury trial do not elect it and choose to stay in the magistrates court. That is men, women and black people. Black people and women disproportionately elect trial because they clearly feel that they will get a fairer trial with a diverse jury, but who says that is right? On the day, if you were a sex offender with some nasty allegations, for instance, you would have a better chance of acquittal in front of a judge than you ever would in front of a jury. It is just an opportunity to try to pick the best trial for yourself, but it is a punt in the dark. It is a go on the wheel of fortune. Sometimes it will work and sometimes it will not.”
“Q But we do agree that people with more diverse backgrounds elect jury trials and that option is being removed for them. Dame Vera Baird: Seventy-three per cent of people offered jury trials do not take the offer up. Are you sure that the term “elect” is correct? Is it not “demand”?”
“It goes on and on like that, because there is a right to demand—as, I am afraid, I would phrase it—a trial for relatively small offences. I do not make little of them, but those will be in the queue. If Charlotte’s case is coming up next Monday, all the cases that have elected for trial before hers will be in the queue in front of it.”
“Q May I ask for a clarification? Is Charlotte on her own in her views? Is she the only person who holds the views she has expressed? Dame Vera Baird : Of course not, and I did not intend to say that. I have been trying to think, since we discussed it, about how I would feel if my experience were being used for a political cause, and it had been a very nasty experience. I might feel the same sort of—I do not know whether it is resentment or disappointment, or whether it is that it was inappropriate. I can well understand that, but many other victims do not agree that this will not help. Women are waking up every morning, for three or four years, dreading the day when they will have to relive what happened to them in rape cases, or a man who has been very badly beaten up might wake every morning, worrying that he will have to relive it.”
“If the court is set up to look at the welfare of the child primarily, if there is not a history of abuse or domestic abuse in that setting, that will invariably be the outcome. This is to protect those cases where there is abuse within the context of the relationship, so it is not a case of one thing or another thing; it clears the path so a court can look objectively at whether or not there is a safeguarding issue there for the child without the burden of the presumption of contact. You start with the welfare of the child.”
“Q Thank you very much for sharing these very powerful experiences to help all of us here make better decisions. I would like to direct my questions not to the criminal court changes, but the family court changes. I should say that I was a practising family law solicitor and represented mothers who wanted to stop abusive fathers from seeing their children, and my wife is still a practising family law solicitor, registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society. I turn specifically to the removal of the presumption that a child should have involvement from both parents. What do you say to the overwhelming body of evidence that for most children—not all, but most—it is in their best interests to have some contact with both parents? Farah Nazeer: The point is about abusive relationships.”
“In spite of known abuse, the court has granted unsafe contact, primarily to abusive fathers, and those children have died as a result. Last year we published a report called “Nineteen More Child Homicides”. Those child homicides were as a result of known perpetrators having unsafe child contact in spite of the court hearing about abuse by those fathers, predominantly—18 were fathers, one was a mother—who then murdered their children. The previous report some four years before also saw 19 children murdered in exactly the same set of circumstances. The report before that saw significantly more children murdered. What this does is set a very clear bar that you start with the welfare of the child. This is a response to the failure of that culture. That is why it is so important.”
“Q But the law is really clear. Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 says that “the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.” That is already there. Section 1(3)(e) says that the court must have regard to harm that a child “has suffered or is at risk of suffering”. Those two provisions will instantly knock out any presumption that it is in the child’s best interest to have some involvement—that does not even mean contact—of both parents. I am just trying to understand why you think this change is needed, given that those provisions are already in the law. Farah Nazeer: Primarily because those provisions have not saved the lives of the 63 children who have died since Women’s Aid has been working on this.”
“As you can hear, we are not in a situation where safeguarding is applied consistently or domestic abuse or sexual violence are understood consistently. That is where the mandatory training piece has to come in to accompany the change to the law.”
“Q My point is that bar is already there. The Children Act starts with it—it is in section 1(1). I do not need to say this, but absolutely every death, particularly where the state has been involved and a court decision has been made, is a tragedy, but presumably you will agree that those tragedies will continue even with this change in the law if other things are not done within the family courts to deal with what are primarily safeguarding issues, rather than broad presumptions over children’s interests. Farah Nazeer: Absolutely. The presumption is a really important first step because without the presumption, we will automatically default to the status quo. That is where the training and an understanding of domestic abuse and coercive control come in.”
“Q As a former family solicitor, I want to focus my questions on the proposal to remove the presumption that involvement by a parent in a child’s life is in the child’s best interest or good for the child’s welfare. Given that, in children’s proceedings, it is already the law that the child’s welfare shall be paramount, and given that, sometimes, children can be used as tokens between warring parents, I wonder, Samantha Hillas, whether you find it strange that we are going to hear evidence today only from parent groups, and not from groups representing children’s interests. Is that odd to you, as it is to me, given that we are dealing with changes to children’s proceedings, where a child’s welfare is paramount? Samantha Hillas: I have not made the arrangements for who is attending, so I do not find it odd.”
“You have to remember that when it came in, that coincided with basically the eradication of legal aid in family cases. Even though lawyers would advise that the welfare principle is paramount, if you are a litigant in person without the funds to afford legal fees, you might read that presumption and read a pro-contact culture into it, and might then be agreeing to situations that are not safe for a child. I have not answered your question, but—I am sorry that this is taking quite a long time—practitioners thought that it was a fairly redundant insertion, and it is sensible for it to be repealed.”
“Where there are circumstances in which it is not safe for a child to have a relationship with both parents, the child’s welfare is protected and is paramount under section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989. The insertion of section 1(2A) into that Act in 2014 came on the back of quite a lot of protest and demonstration by certain pressure groups for the amendment to be made, to try to promote a presumption of involvement that really is tacitly always there. For practitioners, it was probably something of an otiose insertion. The difficulty with it is that even though a review has demonstrated that it has not been the basis for judgments—the welfare principle has not been subordinate to it; the welfare principle has still been paramount—it has created a sort of pro-contact culture.”
“Q Given that there is no one here representing children, as a children’s lawyer, can you help the Committee understand what a presumption of a parent’s involvement in a child’s life is, as compared with the overriding concern for a child’s welfare that must be uppermost in the court’s mind? Can you help the Committee understand what that means? Samantha Hillas: I am not quite sure I understand the question, so I will answer it like this. From the practitioner perspective, we have always found the insertion of the presumption fairly odd, because it goes without saying that it is usually in children’s best interest to have a relationship with both parents.”
“Q My questions cannot be answered because there is no one here representing children’s groups, but that part of the Children Act 1989 is not about presumption of contact, is it? It is about presumption in favour of involvement in a child’s life. Samantha Hillas: Yes. Well, there is a presumption that a child’s best interests would be served, as I said in the first place, by having a relationship with both parents. It is only where there would be a risk to that child that there would not be involvement.”
“What assessment has the Department made of the impact of rising operational costs, including employer national insurance increases and energy costs, on the financial sustainability of community pools? Finally, when will we see a joined-up strategy across DCMS, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care to guarantee access to swimming for every child?”
“This is a wider issue than only lidos. Every £1 invested in community sport and physical activity sees a return of £4.20, and swimming specifically generates £2.4 billion of social value each year. Those benefits can continue only if there is a genuine strategy for investment. I secured a similar debate on Government support for swimming facilities almost 300 days ago, yet we have had no plan or update since then. I endorse the questions put by the hon. Member for Peterborough to the Minister and I will also ask him some of my own. Will the Government commit to a long-term capital strategy for swimming pools and lidos, recognising the ageing condition of much of the current estate?”
“In the spirit of dishing out invites during this debate, I invite the Minister to visit the new sea pool—but he may wish to put my invitation to the bottom of the pile, because it has not been built yet. We must confront the reality, however, that these facilities are under threat. More than 25% of children leaving primary school are unable to swim 25 metres. The facilities they use are now at risk due to their age and increased costs. Looking at pools in general built since 1960, the average age of a pool at the time of closure is 39 years. More than 1,200 pools operating in England are more than 40 years of age and therefore approaching the end of their lifespan. In fact, the average age of a pool among Community Leisure UK members is 55 years, making them older than the average Member of this House.”
“In my constituency on the Isle of Wight, I am backing a campaign to get a new sea pool built in Sandown bay. That visionary, community-led initiative seeks to integrate an accessible, nature-based tidal pool directly into our coastal defences. By linking our traditional heritage of public baths with the natural blue health of the Solent, the project demonstrates how we can provide safe, year-round swimming that complements our UNESCO biosphere status. It will serve as a model for how coastal communities can reclaim their relationship with the water through sustainable, integrated solutions that offer health, tourism and regeneration all in one.”
“They are social and recreational spaces that act as a liquid town square, bringing together families and children in a controlled and safe environment. From a health perspective, lidos offer a unique form of blue health, supporting the prevention of ill health and, indeed, the Government’s own prevention agenda in health policy. The cold-water environment and the connection to the outdoors provide significant mental health benefits, while the low-impact nature of the exercise is particularly important for older generations and those with disabilities or musculoskeletal conditions. Beyond health, we must recognise the role of lidos in our tourism sector and visitor economy. A well-maintained lido is a destination in its own right, attracting visitors who support local cafés, shops, hotels and other businesses.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing this important debate. Across the United Kingdom, public baths and lidos play an essential role in encouraging people of all ages to keep fit and healthy, as well as teaching them a vital life skill: how to swim. Although we often, rightly, discuss the critical importance of our indoor leisure centres, which provide year-round access for our schools and competitive clubs, I want to take the opportunity to focus on the unique cultural and economic value of our lidos and public baths. Around 12.5 million adults go swimming each year, and more than 4 million people enjoy swimming outdoors, including in our historical lidos. These venues offer a communal experience that is hard to replicate elsewhere.”
“My hon. Friend is giving a characteristically well-informed speech. Might she reflect on the cost of moving around by car for the Prime Minister in his Holborn and St Pancras constituency and the necessity to move around by car for his constituents compared with mine in the Isle of Wight and hers in Gordon and Buchan?”
“My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are only two Labour Members of Parliament sitting on the Government Benches for this debate on the increase in fuel duty. Does he think that the other 400 Labour MPs are right now in a huddle, in a darkened room with the Chancellor, lobbying her to reduce that tax and to freeze fuel duties, or does he think that they might have gone home?”
“When it comes to this Government and the Chancellor freezing the threshold, for some reason those on the Government Benches think that is okay. We have heard from Government Members who said that they joined the Labour party to fight for a better deal. We heard from the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), who said that she is here to fight for her generation—generation Z. Is she not bitterly disappointed at the limp response from her Government now that they have power and can do something about intergenerational justice as she sees it? Instead, Labour Members come into this House to defend their Government increasing debt for students and freezing the earnings threshold at which those young people have to start repaying.”
“Labour is failing young people. Youth unemployment is up since Labour took office—it is now higher than in the eurozone. There are more people not in education, employment or training since Labour took office—now nearly 1 million. There is a midlife crisis in our economy, too. More than 2 million people aged between 50 and 64 are on out-of-work benefits. The deal for young people is bad, and it has been made worse by this Chancellor. Too many young people are coming out of university with excessive debt, and they do not know what the future terms of their borrowing will be. If a private provider were to provide loans in this way, where someone did not know when they signed up what the interest rates, repayment deal or income threshold would be, that provider would be unable to enforce it—it would be unlawful.”
“Clearly there is a benefit for society in having an educated and graduate workforce to take up jobs as teachers and doctors, for instance, but there is also a great benefit for those who take up those jobs, because of the higher earnings involved. That is a principle I supported. It is a principle most people supported, and I still support it. However, we have plainly reached a tipping point for too many students. The personal debt is so high that they have no real prospect of ever paying it back. Some have degrees that give them no real opportunity ever to earn more than they would have earned had they been in a good apprenticeship—a good apprenticeship that the last Government gave them the opportunity to enter into.”
“I hope that our party, by the time of the next election, will be able to offer more, but we have already announced that we would abolish stamp duty, helping young people. We have already announced that we would scrap bad courses that offer no real additional employment prospects for people who do them, other than leaving them saddled with debt. It would seem that most Labour Members have history degrees, given the amount of time they have spent speaking about the last decade, but we are talking about the system that exists now. When I went to university, I accepted the principle that young people who went to university did not contribute enough to the education that they received. Under the Blair Government, undergraduates were asked to contribute more.”
“Let me ask the hon. Member a question, because his party is in government, he has power and he can change things. Does he think the system is fair? No, he does not, because he has already told this House that it is not. Is he not bitterly disappointed that his own Government have not got a plan to change it? If he does not like the system that existed before July 2024, why are his Government not changing it? The Opposition have brought forward a plan, which we are debating today. It would mean that those on plan 2 student loans will not end up paying more and more above RPI, so the Government will not be making money out of them having a loan. That is a meaningful change. The Government can go further because they are in power.”
“There is no groundbreaking idea behind saying that certain courses are not of degree quality, and that the public should not be subsidising those courses. Governments already make decisions about that. It is the Conservative party that is proposing—for some reason the Labour Government do not want to do it—that young people who are sold a future that simply does not exist should not be saddled with debt, and the taxpayer should not subsidise them.”
“I am sure that the hon. Lady’s son’s degree is an excellent degree and that, hopefully, he will gain an excellent job, but that is not the case for every student. Too many students in this country are saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. They do not know their repayment terms because they change, and some of them have degrees that will give them no additional prospect of a job to allow them to repay their debt. I hope that most of us can agree on that principle. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to ask this question: should we be putting an end to some of these institutions and courses when they are doing nothing for the young people involved? This is not a deregulated market. In order to be able to offer a degree, an institution has to be licensed.”
“Drinks producers warn that, because of the UK Government’s decision to allow Wales to include glass in a deposit return scheme, there is the threat of up to 90% of products being removed from shelves. Why have the Government taken the decision to allow a United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 exclusion that threatens jobs and consumer choice, and that will require unique Welsh labelling—all at a time when Wales already recycles 92% of glass at the kerbside?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. As we mark the fourth anniversary of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, we salute the fortitude and bravery of the Ukrainian people. As we see conflicts open up elsewhere in the world, particularly the current situation in the middle east, how do we ensure that Ukraine continues to receive all the support it needs to determine its own future, and that the future of the Ukrainian people does not slip down the agenda, leading to another frozen conflict?”
“Secondly, what mechanisms does the Department have in place to ensure that small and medium-sized charities can engage meaningfully in tenders, grant applications and policy consultations, and that the administrative burden of doing so does not exclude them? Finally, will the Minister establish a £585 million evidence fund, as recommended by the CSJ, paid for through one year of unclaimed gift aid, enabling small charities to demonstrate impact and to compete more effectively for contracts and grants?”
“The CSJ aims to bring together more than 1,000 small charities to give voice to and inform the work that they are doing. I now address the Minister directly. Last year, the Government announced the creation of the Office for the Impact Economy, intended to help Whitehall to identify, source and build partnerships to scale the social impact of public investment and expand opportunities across the country. Since that announcement, however, there has been no public update on how that initiative is being implemented, or how the associated funding is being used. I ask the Minister this: first, to what extent does she recognise match funding as a core tool for leveraging public funds, and what steps are being taken to expand its use across Government?”
“Smaller charities are often so absorbed in day-to-day delivery that they lack the capacity to analyse evidence and present impact in the way that funders increasingly expect, which leaves them at a disadvantage when bidding for support. Smaller charities can also lack meaningful avenues to feed their experience into national policy, with few mechanisms in place for Government to learn from their frontline insight. Their limited national influence, stemming from the absence of large public affairs teams, stands in stark contrast to the growing professionalisation of major charities—which in itself is of course a good thing. I am pleased to have been appointed as a commissioner to the Centre for Social Justice’s midlife mission, looking at how to support people approaching midlife and beyond to thrive in the labour market.”
“Charities often focus on meeting immediate needs, allowing them to respond quickly to people in their local communities, yet many corporate donors feel it is harder to justify supporting smaller charities, partly because they have fewer resources to showcase their work. Some national charity brands are, of course, used by local charities, such as Age UK Isle of Wight—and Age UK is in many constituencies and areas across the country. There is often a misunderstanding that they benefit from central donations, but very often they are in fact small, local charities, entirely reliant on local fundraising—notwithstanding the benefit of that brand association with an excellent national charity such as Age UK.”
“More recently, it has opened accommodation in Ryde for women who would otherwise face being homeless. We also have the award-winning Tidal Family Support centre and PATCH—the People’s Approach to Cancer Help—which helps people with the costs of accessing health appointments across the Solent on the mainland. Community Action Isle of Wight and the Bay Youth Project do important youth intervention work in Sandown, Lake and Shanklin. Such smaller charities are often more agile in responding to the needs of their communities, typically spending a lower proportion of their income on fundraising and lobbying so it can go directly to delivering on their charitable objectives. Many funders value that closeness, preferring to support organisations that have deep, long-standing relationships with the people they serve.”
“Meanwhile, 88% of charitable income in England and Wales goes to just 5% of registered charities, leaving the remaining 95%—the small charities that form the backbone of the sector—far more vulnerable to declines in public giving. Without a shift in Government focus towards these organisations and the vital role they play in their communities, that gap will only continue to widen. Small and medium-sized charities are often better placed than large national charities to know their communities and to deliver lasting change in people’s lives. A number of charities on the Isle of Wight do just that. For example, Aspire is a community hub that runs food pantries, suicide prevention programmes and the award-winning “Living Well and Early Help” service.”
“These organisations remain consistently underfunded and frequently overlooked, and the current funding model is proving unsustainable for too many. Small and medium-sized charities with incomes under £1 million account for 97% of all charity closures in the past decade. Financially, the current system works against small charities, favouring large, well-established organisations with the capacity to navigate complex processes and absorb financial shocks. Too many smaller charities are excluded from the core unrestricted and multi-year funding that would give them the stability and ability to plan ahead. Instead, they are often trapped in cycles of short-term grants, burdensome applications and reporting requirements that, for them, are often disproportionate to some of the modest sums available.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this important debate. Few others—indeed, perhaps no one else in this place—have done more over the last 20 years to champion the causes of social justice, a field in which many of our small charities operate. Over the last five years, the charity sector has faced unprecedented pressure, with donations falling and volunteer numbers still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Rising costs driven by the autumn Budget, increased national insurance contributions and post-pandemic expenditure outstripping income have placed a strain on small charities, limiting their ability to support local communities.”
“The hon. Member talks about the legitimacy of the voting system and the votes nationally not being proportionately represented here. Is the example that he is using the current Government, which got 34% of the vote but has 63% of the seats in this House?”
“It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about her version of support for youth services, but that is of little consolation to young people who cannot get a job because youth unemployment is up under this Government. Will she relay that message to the Chancellor?”
“The England Beach Soccer association has an agreement with the Football Association, as its delivery partner into FIFA. However, beach soccer is not recognised as a stand-alone sport by Sport England, which means that it cannot benefit from funding, and it does not receive anything from the FA either. It is a growing sport, with 30 years of history behind it, and it is crucial, particularly in coastal areas where no facilities are required other than a beach. Will the Government consider setting aside time for a debate about the importance of open-air sport and about beach soccer finally getting the recognition from Sport England that I think—I am sure other Members agree—it rightfully deserves?”
“The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has compared GPs’ salaries to that of the Prime Minister. I can understand why he is taking a keen interest in how much a Prime Minister is paid, but can the Government assure the House that the GP contract will include an increase in GP funding over and above inflationary pressures? [ Interruption. ] They are on the frontline of ensuring that national wellbeing indicators in this country improve.”
“Hard-working men and women in the coastguard, such as Bembridge resident Martin Groom, do vital work securing our borders, including, in some cases, intercepting small boats. The coastguard treats them as volunteers, but the Court of Appeal has disagreed and said that they are workers. Will the Government do the right thing and afford them all the rights, protections and fair payment that their worker status entails? The security of our nation relies on them.”
“The Government are giving a 50% reduction to the emissions trading scheme levy on ferries crossing between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in an apparent effort not to negatively impact the economy there. Scottish islands are getting a 100% reduction, yet the Isle of Wight is getting no reduction. What economic assessment has been done to arrive at those figures, or are they simply plucked out of thin air?”
“This question is possibly better directed at the Minister, but does my hon. Friend think that the clause might be so restrictive because, in truth, the Government do not really want open access, despite what they say?”
“I note the Minister’s assertion that there is no intention to squeeze out other operators, but given the way in which the Bill and the clause are drafted, that surely is an inevitability regardless of whether he intends for that to happen. It is the outcome that matters. If it will not enable open access and competition, that is in itself a problem, notwithstanding he might not intend that to be the case.”
“However, nobody would suggest that that leads to an incoherent society or to incoherent contracts, family law, employment law, decision making or anything else. For some reason, Great British Railways has this special carve-out, such that it can be challenged only through judicial review, because of some notion of incoherence. It seems to me that the entire purpose of that restriction is to prop up Great British Railways and allow it to act in a way that is not really comparable to anything else in the way we deliver public transport in this country. It gives me considerable concern.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I have a short point to make. The Minister seems to be saying that it is important to restrict an appeals process to the judicial review principles, which is a more restrictive set of criteria by which a body or company can appeal. Otherwise, that might lead to “incoherent decision making”—I think those were his words. That sentiment and assertion undermines the entire court system of the United Kingdom—save for judicial review applications—which is based on disputes being had in, for example, the county court or the High Court, or another court making a decision, and the possibility of an appeal going upwards all the way to the Supreme Court, depending on the issue.”