Dr Jeevun Sandher
MP for Loughborough · Labour · United Kingdom
“What does that mean for us at home? It means higher prices and less affordable lives, but more than all that, it means more anger and fury on our streets. As people become unable to afford decent lives, they get angry at the system and angrier at us in this place.”
“It is a day of sad farewells, and I will add to them by saying a very sad farewell from all of us across the House to Margaret and Godfrey in the Tea Room, who are leaving soon. I did not expect to be so emotional, but here we are. I want to say something very clear and simple about what the Iran war means for us.”
“First, I would like to thank the hon. Member for calling me an esteemed economist while the Whips are sitting on the Front Bench. He will appreciate that I am not going to annoy any Chancellor by putting forward any kind of tax rises today, but there is a clear commitment on the Labour Benches to fund the defence investment plan.”
“I have every confidence that we will prevent war by preparing for it, and that we are going to fund that, but beyond the funding, which is important, how do we ensure that we can achieve the scale-up that we need? How do we show that we can defend this country? The hon.”
“For us, there is clearly a path forward, with two sets of policies: first, make life affordable; secondly, defend our nation. In terms of making life affordable, there is an immediate challenge. We are seeing higher fossil fuel prices leading to higher energy costs at home, and food and fertiliser getting more expensive.”
“I think we have to explain it to the public, although they also saw the attack on Jaguar Land Rover and they understand the attack on sea cables. They are seeing it on the news more and more often. They understand that Russia is a threat, and they see the prices at the pump.”
The complete record
Every one of 290 lines we hold for Dr Jeevun Sandher, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“Finally, we see a nation that is far more divided and angry than ever before, partly because people cannot afford a decent life, but also because when they turn on their screens, they see war in the middle east, wildfires across the globe and a world that is far less secure and stable. They do not believe in us because they do not see a way for us to provide a decent future for them. That is on us to fix.”
“We are dependent on fossil fuels sold by dictators, including those in the most dangerous parts of the world, and that lack of security in energy abroad hits us here at home. The world is changing before our eyes. America’s eyes are no longer focused on Europe as much as they used to be; they are turning to Asia and the middle east. It is clear to us in European NATO, and it should be clear to us in this House, that we must take more steps to defend ourselves. We as individuals all have a responsibility to state very clearly that we must defend this nation. The only way we prevent war is by preparing for one. It is the only way that we keep this country and our constituents safe for this generation and generations to come.”
“What does that mean for us at home? It means higher prices and less affordable lives, but more than all that, it means more anger and fury on our streets. As people become unable to afford decent lives, they get angry at the system and angrier at us in this place. If we do not make their lives affordable, we cannot expect them to have a stake in, or defend, our nation. Only by ensuring that every single person has a reason to believe in this country and this place, and only by making lives affordable, can we ensure that we defend ourselves at home. We cannot ask people to risk or give up their life for a country that does not guarantee a decent life to them or their children. As for our security crisis, we see that the far more unstable and dangerous world that we face is one in which the economy and affordability get worse.”
“It is a day of sad farewells, and I will add to them by saying a very sad farewell from all of us across the House to Margaret and Godfrey in the Tea Room, who are leaving soon. I did not expect to be so emotional, but here we are. I want to say something very clear and simple about what the Iran war means for us. It shows us that our affordability and security crises are intertwined, and that they lean on each other. More than that, it shows us that while we deal with those crises through policy, we also need a political vision that can unite us as we face the most important and dangerous Parliament in almost a century. Since the Iran war started, we have seen oil and gas prices rise significantly. Oil prices are up by around 30%, and gas prices are up by 70%. The longer the strait remains closed, the worse that will get.”
“Short answer: yes. Longer answer: I think everyone across this House would give that condemnation as well. The latest conflagration, by our understanding, is that Iran struck a tanker, and that led to the end of the ceasefire. That is making us far poorer at home, but it is also making the region less secure and stable. I say this to every Member in the House: although we disagree strongly and deeply, a lot unites us at this moment. Members from across the House were able to unite to face challenges a century ago, and I hope that we can do exactly the same, as we should, now and in the future.”
“For us, there is clearly a path forward, with two sets of policies: first, make life affordable; secondly, defend our nation. In terms of making life affordable, there is an immediate challenge. We are seeing higher fossil fuel prices leading to higher energy costs at home, and food and fertiliser getting more expensive. There are ways we can get costs down, and some of them are a bit easier than others. We can invest in clean energy and we can do direct reductions in energy bills, but for other things, like food, it is more difficult for us. That is why we need the second policy. We must also create good jobs in every single part of this country, but especially in those post-industrial areas where there have not been enough good jobs for an incredibly long time.”
“I think we have to explain it to the public, although they also saw the attack on Jaguar Land Rover and they understand the attack on sea cables. They are seeing it on the news more and more often. They understand that Russia is a threat, and they see the prices at the pump. What is far more dangerous for us is that this slow-building crisis is much harder to deal with than a rapid one. The idea that we have war in Europe is now something we accept. Since 1945, we have not really had to take on board the idea that we can redraw borders by force, that military action can once again be here and that NATO can be tested. This is a new thing for us, so we have to tell the public both that war is on our doorstep and that resilience is now far more important.”
“How do we make a conflict unthinkable because people know that the British state would stand with our NATO allies to win it convincingly?”
“First, I would like to thank the hon. Member for calling me an esteemed economist while the Whips are sitting on the Front Bench. He will appreciate that I am not going to annoy any Chancellor by putting forward any kind of tax rises today, but there is a clear commitment on the Labour Benches to fund the defence investment plan. The hon. Member is right to say that, fundamentally, we need to fund defence in this country, because the only way we can prevent war, and live up to our promise to ourselves, is to ensure that we prepare for one. Part of that is about funding, which is important, but it is also about the defence economic strategy. It is not just about the munitions and drones we are producing today; it is about how we scale that up in the case of a conflict.”
“We on the Labour Benches know now what we have always known: that the only way we can meet this moment is together, that we are more than the sum of our parts and that can we achieve affordability and security through our common endeavour. Together we will, but divided we absolutely will not.”
“They want to see anger and division on one side and tax cuts for their billionaire mates on the other. Those are the people that all of us in the House today stand against, whether they are arguing with a bin or not. This is where we are. A House divided against itself cannot stand, and nor can our nation. The only way we can ensure that we meet the moment presented to us by this war in Iran, and indeed by all conflicts around the world, is by first making life affordable for every single person so that they have a stake in this nation, and also by securing our nation and making it safer, in order to get costs down here at home.”
“I have every confidence that we will prevent war by preparing for it, and that we are going to fund that, but beyond the funding, which is important, how do we ensure that we can achieve the scale-up that we need? How do we show that we can defend this country? The hon. Member and I may have a back and forth, but I think we agree that we need to help to defend this nation. There are Members of this House, however—they are obviously not in their seats today—who do not feel the same way. There are Members of this House who want to divide us, who are far too pally with Putin and who want to see us become weaker and more divided, because that is how they get what they want. They are part of an unholy alliance of ethnocrats and, as we are seeing now, cryptobillionaires.”
“We cannot expect people in this country to have a stake in it if we do not have a stake in them and do not show that we can make life affordable for them. Only then can we build a country, and by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we do alone.”
“At this time, when the Bank is worried about second-order effects, it is not right to borrow money to ensure those bills come down; it is right to ensure we raise the money from tax to lower bills and lower interest rates. In the longer term, when we invest in clean energy, we know that means lower energy bills and higher growth in the future. We know that works because, although natural gas used to set our price over 90% of the time, it now sets our price only 60% of the time. We know that we can break out of this trap because we are already doing so. Finally, I will close by saying that this is about more than just affordability or bills; it is about the way we cohere and live together as one.”
“It means less spending, which means less growth, and it means higher prices and higher inflation, both of which mean a higher debt burden. Because our debt is linked to inflation, it also means high interest payments. There is a fundamental perverse economic link between fossil fuel prices and our economic prosperity, and that is what we are now breaking. We are breaking out of that trap by ensuring that we get lower energy prices now and in the future. In the first instance, we are providing immediate relief on bills, lowering energy prices with affordability payments, and funding that by windfall taxes. That means not only more spending, but lower inflation, and lower inflation means the Bank has more space to cut rates.”
“We have been trapped in a vicious economic circle for decades, and that vicious circle is underpinned by our dependence on fossil fuels, which means lower growth, higher inflation and a higher debt burden. More than that, lower growth and lower income mean more fear, more fury and more far-right agitation for our constituents, as we see on our screens and, increasingly and worryingly, on our streets. That is why we are setting out how we are breaking out of that trap and building a virtuous economic circle of higher growth, lower inflation and a lower debt burden. To set out how and why we are in this place is very simple. Fossil fuels are more expensive—50% more expensive even before the Iran crisis struck—than wind, solar and nuclear. What does that mean for us at home?”
“On energy, the Conservatives want to make us more dependent on fossil fuels supplied by dictators such as Putin and more dependent on the middle east. That would make us weaker. In the 14 years they had, with all the licences they granted, how many days of gas were there? There were 36 days. The North sea is operating on a declining basis; it will not give us security.”
“How could we possibly say to the people whose sons and daughters would go out to fight that today we will let them go hungry and that we would take money from them? I say to Opposition Members who spoke about this that we should remember that 60% of the children affected are from working families. Beyond that and more than that—no ifs, no buts, no exceptions—no child should be going hungry in this country. How can we expect them to have a stake in our nation if we do not have a stake in them? When we live in a nation where record numbers cannot afford a decent life, what does it lead to? It leads to fear, frustration and fury, but more than that, to division, and a divided nation cannot take and meet this moment.”
“I am going to start by doing something unusual in these debates: I am going to agree with the Opposition. I agree that we need to spend more on defence, I agree that we are in a once-in-a-century moment where the safety and security of our nation are fundamentally at risk, and I agree that the only way to prevent war is to prepare for one. Now, before my Whip has a heart attack, I will set out where I disagree with the Opposition. To take their point seriously, their plan to pay for what they set out in the motion would make this nation weaker and more divided. On top of that, it is very narrow, as if the only thing we have to do to prepare for war is to spend more money, without considering how we spend it or scale up. To put the two-child limit back in place and have children go hungry would make our nation weaker.”
“I am proud of this Government for ending the two-child limit, and I am proud of the previous Labour Government who halved child poverty in this country. If Opposition Members truly believed that putting back the two-child limit or ending expenditure on net zero would fund the military, why did they not do it in 14 years? They had 14 years to prepare. In 2022, it was clear where we would get to, and there was nothing from the Opposition side.”
“To be fair to the right hon. Member, it makes perfect sense to reduce expenditure after the cold war. I take that point, but let us be clear: the world also changed in 2022. The things we depended on for our safety—sacrosanct borders and our force in NATO—were not funded enough. If we truly were to prepare for war, that was the moment to start, and I agree that we have to do more.”
“I could criticise them all day—I have done it before and I will probably do it again—but we must have the courage to face this moment, and to look in the mirror and know where we stand, at a moment when we must prepare for war in order to prevent it. History will judge us for this moment, and we should always bear that in mind.”
“We should remind ourselves of it when we look in the mirror every single morning. Let me share a story. I have a friend who serves in the Army, and I saw him for dinner not too long ago. He said, “Jeevun, here is the thing. I have a 30-year-old Land Rover that was in the Gulf war, in Bosnia and in the Baltics. All I want is a Range Rover that can drive.” This Government will absolutely ensure that we overcome all past investment failures so that our forces have what they need to defend our country. That is what falls to us now. I say to Conservative Members that we must have the courage to face this moment and look forward.”
“It means, first, capital control to ensure that investment goes to the right place; secondly, rationing so that we have the investment that we need; and thirdly, ensuring that we can prepare to fight the war that we face. A defence economic strategy goes far beyond the amount we spend on defence. I would expect the Treasury, the Government and No. 10, who take the defence of this country seriously, to be preparing for that right now. Of course they take it seriously; it is the first and most fundamental duty of any Government. We stand here today a century on from people who failed on these Benches. In fact, we stand in a Chamber that is a testament to that failure. They did not prepare for war, we ended up in war in Europe, and this Chamber was bombed and had to be rebuilt. That failure should live with us and shock us.”
“It means having production lines available, and crucially a supply chain of drones, as the innovation cycle is moving so quickly. It means being able to secure crucial input such as steel and training welders and engineers should we need them. Most crucially, it means the ability to scale up, because if we are to prevent war, we have to show that we are prepared for it. It is not just about spending 3%, 4% or 5% of GDP, although I take the point; it is about showing Putin and any other adversary that we could get up to 10% to 20% and use that effectively. A defence economic strategy is a fundamentally different economic problem. It is not just about maximising production, as we do now, but about ensuring that we produce the most fighting forces possible. It is a type of economics that we are not used to.”
“My point is not where we stand in the defence standings; my point is about what we need to do to prepare for war to prevent it. Moving on to the things that we do agree on—and I think it is worth saying what we agree on, because we should not disagree across this House on this fundamental thing—the first and fundamental duty of this Government, of any Government, is to keep us safe at this moment in time. I want to talk a little about what that actually means, because we focus a lot on the percentage of GDP, but a defence economic strategy means far more than that. It is the fundamental question of how we produce more fighting forces, munitions, drones and soldiers. Clearly, that is changing, and at this moment, in a pre-war situation, we have to decide what that means.”
“My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about our region and the help it needs. Does he agree that for our region to do well, we need more devolution—including where I am in Leicestershire—as he has in his county? Is he pleased that the Government set out in the investment strategy that more money has to come to our region, which receives two and a half times less money for transport spending—or used to? Finally, does my hon. Friend agree that local leaders on the brilliant councils in my region, who are doing a great job, need even more powers to help to ensure that our region can grow, thrive and prosper?”
“Reform Members promised us that torching our relationship with Europe would make us richer and stronger. They were wrong on both counts. Higher import barriers have driven up costs by £200, and a continent with wider divisions makes us weaker. How the Government will show the courage needed to build our relationship with Europe, make us stronger and make life here more affordable?”
“I thank the Prime Minister for raising the spectre of Iraq. We on the Labour Benches remember how a bloody invasion can lead to a brutal civil war. We know that the aftershocks of now will last years, not days. We are also seeing energy prices spiking, with oil up by 10% and gas up by 50%. Can the Prime Minister assure me that he will act to restore peace in the region and to keep life affordable for our citizens?”
“The last Government cut bus services in my community by half, so I am glad that this Government are putting more money into my local community, but we do need more bus services, particularly in rural areas. Will the Minister set out how we are going to improve local bus services, particularly with franchising, in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages?”
“A solar farm is planned for my constituency, and the developer has engaged well with local residents. Yes, it will power 20,000 homes, and yes, it will get carbon emissions down, but most important of all, it will make our bills more affordable because solar is 50% cheaper than natural gas. Does the Minister agree that when it comes to renewable energy, Members in all parts of the House should say, as I say today, “Yes in my constituency, and yes in my back yard”?”
“Too many women come to my surgery with heartbreaking stories of violence and abuse, sometimes when they had left their partners. Too many people are falling through the cracks. I thank the Minister for her help with those cases, including before she came into office—it is a great comfort to me and to people across this country that she is sitting on the Front Bench—but there is a lot more that we need to do. Will the Minister please set out how this Government will help the women in my constituency in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages to be safer?”
“Most shamefully of all, child malnutrition has doubled over the past decade. That is the shameful legacy of the two-child limit and what it meant for child hunger in this country.”
“When drought came to Somaliland—one of the poorest nations on earth—it meant failing harvests, dying livestock and rising hunger. I will never forget what that hunger looked like and what it felt like for a whole nation. I could understand what was happening in Somaliland, even if it was incredibly difficult, but I was shocked and appalled on returning to this country to see children going hungry here—in the fifth richest nation on earth. Those children went hungry after the introduction of the two-child limit. Poverty went up in the largest families, who were affected by the two-child limit, and child hunger went up. Food bank parcels were unknown in my childhood; there were a million handed out in 2017, and three million by the time the Conservatives left office.”
“Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak for the next hour, while there is no time limit. [ Laughter. ] Buckle in! I want to start today’s speech by first addressing what the Conservatives said and why we need state support to help end child poverty in the technological era we are in. I also want to make clear why we are ending the two-child limit. In the economic sense, yes, it is a pounds and pence issue—we save more money by feeding kids today—but far more importantly, morally no child in this country should be going hungry. Before I get to that, I would like to share with the House where I spent two years of my life between 2016 and 2018, when I was the economist working in Somaliland’s Ministry of Finance. I was there during what was then its worst drought in living memory.”
“Did the guidance change between 2016 and 2024? Could the hon. Lady explain to me from the Opposition Front Bench why the number of food bank parcels tripled from the introduction of the two-child limit to 2024? I will give way if so.”
“Then, in the 1980s, in this country and indeed across high-income nations, we saw deindustrialisation and automation, bringing the replacement of those mechanical jobs with machines. Like other high-income nations across the world, we have been left with those who can use computers effectively—high-paid graduate workers—and lots of low-paid jobs everywhere else. It is not just us confronting that problem, although it is worse here because of decisions made in the 1980s; we are seeing it across high-income nations. As a result, state support is needed to ensure that those on low pay can afford a decent life.”
“The rise happened before covid; it happened after the two-child limit was introduced. I agree with the hon. Lady on one point: she is not across the statistics. Opposition Members have advanced an argument that I think is fair. They ask why we do not just create lots of jobs, which is the way to get out of poverty. The way to get out of poverty is through work, right? I want to take that argument head-on. We are living in a different technological era. In the post-war era, we had the advance and expansion of mass-production manufacturing, which meant there were good jobs for people as they left school. They left school, went to the local factory and earned a decent wage, meaning that they could buy a house and support a family.”
“In a moment. This is not, by the way, the first time in history that we have confronted this problem. In the early part of the industrial revolution, between 1750 and 1850, we saw machines replace human beings. What did we see then? The economy grew by 60% per person, but people had less to eat. Men were shorter in 1850 than in 1750 because of the change of the technological era. I think my right hon. Friend would like to intervene.”
“The cost of ending the two-child limit is about £3.5 billion. It makes sense to invest today so that our children can eat and learn more, yet this is not just a matter of pounds and pence; as an economist, I often talk about that and I get it, but it is about so much more. This is about the moral argument. No child in this country should go hungry—no ifs, no buts and no exceptions. That is why I am so proud of this Bill, I am so proud to vote to end the two-child limit and I am so proud to be sat on the Labour Benches.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend. Conservative Members have often spoken about their employment record in office and how many jobs were created. Yet while that happened, child poverty and child hunger rose. Something is not right in their model of the world and there is something to review there. There is no law of economics that says that just because someone works hard and is a decent person, they will earn a wage that can support a family. That is not the technological era we live in today. That is why we are ending the two-child limit today and I am so proud that we are doing so. In an economic sense—in pounds and pence—as Labour Members realise and have stated, when we ensure that children have enough to eat, they learn more today and they earn more tomorrow. The cost of child poverty every single year is around £40 billion.”
“I like a pint as well, as it happens—sometimes more than one—but I think it is fair to say that parents across this country will not appreciate getting 5p off each pint they buy, knowing that it will make more children hungry. I am pretty shocked by the trade-off there. I agree with supporting our pubs, and I will do it every single weekend as part of our patriotic duty, but that is not fair. There is another, more damaging, side to this which says that if we just deport and attack enough people, it will make us richer. That is absolutely something that we on this side of the House should reject, and something that Members on the other side of the House sometimes reject as well.”
“We face an affordability crisis in this country. In the short term, our dependence on fossil fuels has led to a rise in energy bills, and in the longer term, the aftershocks of Thatcher mean that there are not enough good, non-graduate jobs. That is why today’s warm homes plan is such good news: batteries, solar, home insulation; getting bills down and wages rising; making life affordable. But we must go further, so can I ask the Prime Minister to do even more to make sure that life is affordable for my constituents—”
“Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Affordability is the biggest issue facing our country and climate change is the biggest issue facing our planet. That is why today’s announcement is such, such good news: wind power 40% cheaper than natural gas. Bizarrely, Reform called that lunacy. The shadow Secretary of State used to agree with us and she used to support the Climate Change Act 2008, but now she agrees with Reform. Does the Secretary of State believe that the shadow Secretary of State may be planning to join the best and the brightest of her former colleagues and become defector No. 21?”
“While the amount of wealth as a proportion of GDP has doubled, the income tax from that wealth has increased by only 30%. The income taxes in this nation are being levied on earners, not those who get their income from wealth. That is why it is entirely right that, through this Budget and this clause, we tax dividends at a greater rate. I will set out how this measure will improve growth and ensure that we hit the richest, and will show that it is easily implementable. We know that it improves growth because, as we have seen in France, dividend taxation stops payments going out of companies, instead ensuring that money stays in and is invested. We know that it hits the wealthiest, because one fifth of those who gain dividends are in the top 1%.”
“Meanwhile, we have also seen the wealth in this nation grow dramatically. We have seen wealth as a proportion of GDP double since the 1980s, the amount of dividends paid out more than doubling since 2010, and owner-managers able to reduce their tax liability by not drawing their income from earnings. That is why it is right that we rebalance the tax burden between earnings and income earned from elsewhere, and especially income earned from dividends. Our taxation system has not kept up with how our economy has changed; wealth has become far more important in this nation, but it has not been taxed commensurately. While income tax and national insurance have increased as a share of GDP, the same has not happened for taxes on profits.”
“As a nation, we are deeply divided between those who can afford decent lives and those who cannot; because of that, we are unable to stand united as one nation to meet this moment and those challenges. That is why today I speak in favour of clause 4. Yes, it is a tax that hits the wealthiest, but it also ensures that we can help grow the economy, and it is easily implementable. I will cover why that is. People in this country are deeply frustrated and angry about where this nation is. Record numbers of people cannot afford a decent standard of living; just one third feel comfortable with how much they can afford. That is lower than in the financial crisis, and lower than during austerity—it is the lowest rate in our lifetime. That is why we see such anger on our streets and screens. We constituency MPs feel it viscerally.”
“Before I speak, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to speak in this packed Chamber, and to the millions of people no doubt watching at home. I will speak to clause 4, but first I wish to thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). I seem to recall making a slight mistake last year in a debate on the Finance Act 2025 by not speaking to a specific clause. He very graciously saved me, callow youth that I was, and I thank him very much. I certainly remember that today. Britain faces an affordability crisis, with record numbers unable to afford a decent living standard. On top of that, we face a military crisis; we have to defend our nation as we have not had to for almost a century.”
“I believe it will lead to more investment in this country. I will say this as well: the reason why people across the world invest in this nation and create great companies is because they want the return after tax. If an economy is growing and has more investment, that means more sales and more money in people’s pockets. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s proposition that raising this taxation rate somehow means less entrepreneurship and less investment in our economy.”
“For our nation to meet this moment, we have to be united; to be united, every single person has to have a stake in this country; to have a stake in this country, people have to see and believe that democracy can deliver for them and that they can earn a decent living. That is why, by taxing the wealthiest on dividends—taxing those who gain their payments from wealth instead of earnings from pay-as-you-earn—clause 4 will help to ensure that we raise the revenue we need to get investment and growth going in a way that is easily implementable.”