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 2 of 6.
“Like those in this House a century before us, we face deep challenges: like those in this House almost a century ago, we are seeing the far right on our streets because people cannot afford a decent living; like those a century before us, we face a military dictator in Europe who wishes to redraw borders by force; like those a century before us, we in this continent must ensure that we defend ourselves. It was almost a century ago in this House that a Conservative Prime Minister increased taxes on the wealthiest to pay to defend our nation. It was almost a century ago that we taxed the wealthiest to ensure that every single person in this country had a good job. It was almost a century ago that we built a welfare state to ensure that every single person could have a decent living and a stake in this nation.”
“To be clear, we have seen this happen in France, where that is exactly what happened. The incentive then was for payments to go back inside the company rather than being drawn out in dividends. In addition, owner-earners in this nation are currently able to reduce their tax liability by 13% by paying out in dividends. It is a form of income that is effectively earnings, but is not being reported as such. So yes, I would say that that is the case. Not only would I say that is the case, but I would say it is shown by international evidence. I take the theoretical point the hon. Gentleman raises, but in practice, we have seen that raising dividend taxes keeps the money in the company and leads to rising investment rates. This is the most important Parliament in a century.”
“It is a long-needed update to our taxation system. I am proud of a Government who do that, as I am sure we all are. With that, I will close.”
“I am not sure I quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s point there, to be perfectly honest. It is true that most people’s main savings investment will be through the pension funds they own, which will be their biggest savings vehicle; that would not be subject to dividend taxation in the same way because people will buy out at the end and ensure that they have a payment for their products. I am not sure I quite follow, but, to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, it is possible that I misunderstood his point. I can see there are lots of people trying to get in, Ms Nokes. [ Laughter. ] I will end my speech now to allow them to do so. It is a thrilling topic, as I am sure everyone across the Committee would agree. This is the right thing to do to balance taxation between earnings and payments from wealth.”
“Was my hon. Friend surprised that Opposition Members spoke about the complexity of implementing clause 4 when it is simply a measure changing the rates of dividend taxation and does not lead to any more burden when filing taxes?”
“I have no doubt that Conservative Members would also like to intervene after I have made my intervention! Does the Minister agree that we in this House prize the contribution of business people and that we are here to work productively to ensure that workers and businesses contribute to the prosperity of this nation? I am really proud of what business people do. I come from a family of business people who have invested, who have created a nation and who have created employment. On the other side, we must ensure that the benefits are paid both to them and to our wider economy.”
“My constituents, like those of many Members across the House, have been horrified by the wreckage we have seen in Gaza. While there has been a ceasefire, there is still violence, and aid is struggling to get in. I thank my constituents who have raised the issue with me, and I thank Members for raising this issue, too. Can the Leader of the House assure me that this Government will do everything we can to help rebuild Gaza and ensure that aid goes in?”
“We are clearly facing the most dangerous times in almost a century in this country and across our continent. Since 1945, our safety and security have been guaranteed by being part of the most powerful military alliance in the history of humankind and sacrosanct borders in Europe. Times are clearly changing. Can the Defence Secretary assure me and this House that we will fulfil the aims of the strategic defence review in full, and fully fund it to protect both ourselves and our continent?”
“Happy new year, Mr Speaker. We are facing an affordability crisis in this country, and indeed across high-income nations, because of our dependence on fossil fuels. That is why energy prices here have risen by 40% since 2021. Our constituents feel that this is damaging our country and, more importantly, it is damaging the faith that people across this nation have in our democracy to deliver for them. Can the Minister set out how our transition to fossil fuels will help to resolve the affordability crisis and restore faith in this place?”
“Can the Minister assure me and the House that the Government, in their defence economic strategy, will scale up the production of munitions today, but also, if it came to it, that they would be able to scale up that production, allocating labour as well as energy to produce the munitions, tanks and everything else we need to win a war against Putin in Europe?”
“A century ago, Members across this House failed. They failed to prepare for war and they therefore failed to prevent one. What followed was the most destructive war in the history of humankind, with tens of millions dead and hundreds of millions more stories of unspeakable grief. Today, we once again face war in Europe, and it falls to us—this generation of politicians—to help prevent a war. To do so, and the only way to do so, is to prepare for one: to make it clear to Putin that any invasion would be so ruinous as to be unthinkable for him.”
“I remind Conservative Members that it was a Prime Minister from their Benches—perhaps this nation’s greatest Prime Minister—who spoke of the dangers of not preparing for war, of the years that the locust hath eaten, and of the things that his generation did not do. He spoke of those dangers, yet the most dramatic and destructive war in the history of humankind followed. I say politely and with good will to Conservative Members that perhaps those are the things they could have focused on today; perhaps that is what is important at this moment for our country.”
“It is about increasing social security payments for the poorest people in this country so that children do not go hungry. The second challenge is the climate. Of course that is about the investment we are making publicly and reducing emissions, but it is also about leadership. That does not just mean political leadership, with us saying to other nations, “Yes, we are doing our part to reduce emissions”; we can also sell our innovations around the world and help other countries reduce their emissions as well. Finally, and most importantly, given the news that we are hearing from across Europe, this nation must prepare for war in order to prevent it.”
“The choice in that budget was between feeding children and paying soldiers. I have seen hard budgets and Chancellors having to make difficult decisions. Now, as then, we are facing a difficult, existential and dramatic moment for our country. The point about this Budget, and about this Government, is to help us to meet those moments. How do we make life affordable? How do we stop the planet burning? How do we prepare for war so that we can prevent it? Those are the questions before us, and those are the questions the Chancellor addressed in this Budget. That is why we are here: to take each of those challenges in turn. The first challenge is affordability. Yes, that is about taking £150 off people’s energy bills, but it is also about creating good jobs across the country by building the homes that we need.”
“It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. This is clearly a serious moment for our country—perhaps the most serious moment in a hundred years. We are threatened by existential crises: the affordability crisis, with the far right on the march; the climate crisis, with a planet that is burning; and a military crisis in Europe. Any one of those crises would pose a massive danger. On top of that, we are a nation that is deeply divided. The question for this House is whether the Budget will help us to meet those challenges. That is why I am surprised that the Opposition’s motion focuses so much on process, rather than on the things that actually matter to the country. I have seen hard budgets before, in this country and elsewhere. When I lived and worked in Somaliland, it experienced the most serious drought in living memory.”
“Every person in our community and across the country deserves to feel safe, and that starts with giving the police more powers to tackle crime, getting more officers on the street to prevent antisocial behaviour, and working with the local community to stop bike theft for good.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of bike theft in Loughborough. Thank you for allowing me to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I raised the important issue of bike theft in the main Chamber a few weeks ago, when the Minister kindly provided me with an overview of what her Department is doing to address this incredibly important issue. I thank her and the House for allowing me the opportunity to speak and ask more about it today. Motorbike theft is a scourge of my constituency, threatening the basic sense of security that people should enjoy. People worry that one day they will wake up unable to get to work, and their concern and frustration is on the rise as criminals act with impunity.”
“Bike theft is not something that we can simply brush aside or ignore because it is convenient to do so. We must refuse to back down in the face of intimidation by investing in our police, working with the local community and tackling the scourge of bike theft in Loughborough.”
“In addition, we can do more work to help officers get the training they need to pursue motorbikes so that they can catch those responsible, unencumbered by rules and regulations that make it harder to stop criminals, rather than easier. I ask the Minister to set out the work that she and the Department are doing, not only on stopping crime in general but specifically on motorbike and bike theft in Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages and, of course, across the country. Every person deserves to feel safe in their community, but that is clearly not possible when they are seeing their property at risk of being stolen from their driveways in a threatening manner that undermines the very sense of safety that all of us should feel in this country.”
“This is about continuing to be vigilant, promoting prevention strategies and understanding what we can do to support one another and help to prevent crime. It is about making sure that bikes are locked, keeping them covered to make them harder to steal, and reporting thefts to the police so that we can fully understand the extent of the problem. The Government are supporting us nationally, and I thank them for that. The Crime and Policing Bill will give officers extra powers to seize and crush more bikes, and there will be stronger antisocial behaviour orders to clamp down on offenders who repeatedly terrorise communities. All of that is deeply welcome. On top of it all, of course, our aim is to increase police numbers to ensure that more officers are available on our streets.”
“I thank the officers for that and for the arrests that they have made, the 42 vehicles stopped, the 13 motorbikes seized and the four individuals cautioned for driving offences. Since the operation began, reports of stolen vehicles have dropped by 36% in targeted areas. That is a dramatic reduction in crime in such a short space of time. We have heard the police say that the operation has been “a great success”, and that they have “disrupted criminal activity…and taken vehicles off the road which are being used to commit crime. We are…making full use of the range of tactics available”. But there is more that we must do, and that I must do, to raise awareness of bike theft in our community.”
“It affects young apprentices travelling to work at 6 am, students commuting to lectures, teachers coming home from work and employees finishing late shifts in factories and other workplaces across the country, who depart after a long day only to find that they can no longer get home. We can tackle the scourge of bike theft only by working together—as members of a community with a stake in one another’s wellbeing. Leicestershire police, I am pleased to say, recently launched Operation Original to great success. It is joining local officers with the force’s drone team and road policing unit, with specially trained police on unmarked motorbikes going the extra mile to keep my community safe.”
“They were too scared to intervene because of how threatening the people looked. Another person told me about a would-be thief threatening to kill them when prevented from stealing their motorbike. Another constituent’s teenager saved for months for a moped to take them to college, only for it to be stolen from their drive in broad daylight. There is also evidence on social media of a network specifically set up to sell and source stolen bikes in Loughborough. Too often these criminals are getting away without being punished. They are acting without consequence, unafraid of being caught and laughing as they ride away with stolen property. For them, stealing bikes is low risk and high reward, but for my constituents, of course, it is not. Bike theft is not a trivial matter, and it is certainly not a victimless crime.”
“Let us imagine someone not being able to insure their car because it was at risk of getting stolen—this debate would be taking place in the main Chamber, not Westminster Hall—but this issue is still very serious for those who are affected. We know that motorcycle theft is driven mostly by organised gangs. Some opportunists steal mopeds and scooters for short-term use and recklessly abandon them by the wayside. Others target high-value vehicles for resale, export or dismantling. Many openly boast about their criminal activities on local community forums and social media, making a mockery of those who cannot stop them and those whose bikes and possessions are stolen from them. One constituent told me about their scooter being taken from the forecourt of a petrol station.”
“Criminals are acting brazenly, without care for the consequences. One in five bikers will have their vehicle stolen in their lifetime—that is 11 times more likely than for car owners. The culprits are also far less likely to be caught. It is not just in the case of motorbikes that the rise in theft statistics is worrying: a 30% rise in e-bike ownership means a new lucrative target for thieves who can cash in on vehicles that are hard to trace and quick to resell. When I raised this issue with my constituents and put it out on social media, the post received thousands of views; tens of constituents came back with cases of stolen bikes, and dozens more with stories of attempted thefts. Several people spoke about how motorbike thefts were becoming so common that it was almost impossible for them to insure their bikes.”
“It is fair to say that bike theft is a scourge across our nations and islands. I look forward to the Minister’s response. The issue of motorbike theft in Loughborough was brought to my attention during my campaign, and the full scale of the problem has become clearer through time. I will mention some constituents who came to me about this issue: Sarah Staples, whose husband was followed home in broad daylight by criminals whose sole intention was to steal his motorbike, and Stephen Hughes, who also raised bike theft with me. When I asked about the issue in my constituency, I heard story after story of bike theft and attempted bike theft. Across the country, an average of 59 motorbikes are stolen every single day. That is 21,000 motorbikes and mopeds this year alone—thefts from driveways, back gardens and even locked garages.”
“Beyond the economics—which are very important—is our political vision, which says that every single person in this country deserves a decent life. More than that, it says that we are stronger when we stand together. It says that when each and every one of us does well, we all do well—that we are stronger together and weaker apart. To those who say that we only need to attack others, we say that that does not live up to the best traditions of this nation, and it does not meet the moment we are in. It is on us to meet that moment. I am so proud to be in this Chamber with all of you, and so proud of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase. It is up to all of us in this place to create a country in which every single person—including every single man—can afford to live a decent life.”
“If you just attack them with enough vigour—if you are violent enough—your life will be better.” We know where that leads; we saw where it lead a century ago, and sadly we are seeing it across our nation again today. Violence only begets violence. Anger only begets anger. In this moment, it is for us in this country and in this Chamber to realise that and step to it. We in government have that gift within us. Good jobs will not appear magically across this country; they will not come with economic growth alone. It is for Government to help create them, both directly by building the homes we need, through home insulation and clean energy, and indirectly by working with the private sector through our industrial strategy.”
“That leads to anger and despair, but —tragically—more than that, it leads to death. The number of middle-aged men dying from alcohol, suicide and drug overdoses has doubled in this nation over the past 30 years, the result of despair caused by deindustrialisation. The scars of Thatcherism have not left this nation or stayed with one generation alone; they have passed from father to son. That is the country we are living in today, and stepping into the void caused by that despair, anger and frustration are those on the radical right who say, “The cause of your poverty, your penury and your difficulties is those who look different.”
“In the 1980s, about 10% of non-graduate men were not working; today, the figure is 25%. That is over 2 million men in total, with 1.3 million off long-term sick. That is not through any fault of their own—it is because of the way the economy has changed, both in this country and across high-income nations. Manufacturing has declined; there is no longer a factory in those men’s local town or city. They can no longer leave school, get a good job, get a good home and support a family. That has all ended, and now what we see across this country and across nations like ours is a small number of good jobs in major cities, and not enough elsewhere. We see young men doing the right thing, getting a good education, and then finding that they can no longer afford a decent life.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) not only for securing this debate, but for his incredibly courageous and powerful contribution, which is no doubt making waves across this country—I thank him so, so much for that. Today men are finding life unaffordable in a way that their fathers did not, which is leading to anger, to despair and even to death. It is on us, and it is within our gift in this Government to ensure that every single man—indeed, every single person—in this country can find life affordable, with decent jobs everywhere. The second part of my PhD focused on the topic of why non-graduate men cannot find decent jobs. While I cannot force hon. Members to read my PhD, I can force them to listen today. Chapter 1— [Laughter.] Men, particularly non-graduate men, have gone through a huge crisis.”
“I welcome today’s reforms. Across Loughborough, motorbikes have been stolen for years and years; it is a huge scourge. I am really glad that a recent police operation helped to seize some of those bikes, and I really glad that we are getting more police and more powers, but there is clearly a lot more to do. Will the Minister set out how today’s strengthened governance will make my constituents safer and stop their motorbikes being stolen?”
“What will we invest in then? We will be dependent on natural gas over and over again. That is exactly why we invest in the future. Moreover, the North sea gas bill is twice as expensive as those in the middle east, so it does not even make economic sense.”
“That would not make our energy cheaper, and perhaps more importantly, it would not make us more secure. The Conservatives talk about a cheap power plan. They were in power for 14 years. We had the most expensive energy bills in the G7, with the highest inflation, because they left us dependent on natural gas—and what do we see today? Exactly the same plan all over again. Natural gas is setting our energy price for 98% of the time. It drove 80% of the increase in the wholesale cost, with 50% of the wholesale cost driving the increase in energy prices. How on earth can the Opposition today want us to relive and repeat those mistakes over and over again? Let us talk about North sea oil and gas in particular. Taking all of it out, as the Opposition are proposing, would leave five years-worth of supply—and then what will we do?”
“Clearly, this country faces an affordability crisis. People cannot afford their energy bills or their housing bills, and that means more than just not being able to pay the bills—it means that they are losing faith in us in this place, because democracy is no longer delivering for them. We Labour Members want cleaner and cheaper energy, to ensure that people can afford their bills and do have faith in us, but there is another reason. The decisions we make now in this place will live on for decades—for generation after generation. The carbon we emit between now and 2050 will live, not just with us, but with our great-grandchildren and their grandchildren. It is so important that we get this right at this moment. The motion tabled by the Conservative party backs expanding North sea oil and gas.”
“The gasfields that the hon. Lady is talking about are geologically unstable, and it is not even clear whether we can get them out. Only 20% of the reserves of the gasfields that we knew of in 1997 are left—and when we get to 2050, what will we do then? That is precisely why this Government are investing in clean, home-grown energy that is cheaper and more secure for the future, and we know that is the case because the Conservatives used to believe it too. You used to believe in net zero. You used to believe in the Climate Change Act. Look at how much you have changed. It is a deep shame.”
“I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Our plan, which used to be shared across the House, is precisely to invest in cleaner, cheaper energy for all, because we know that wind and solar are 60% cheaper than natural gas. We know that because, after the capital costs, wind and solar are free. As for the network costs, we need to balance them in any case, and renew our grid. That too was an approach that we shared across the House, and it is a shame to see where we are. Beyond investing in clean energy, which is cheaper, we are also investing in home insulation so that people use less energy at home and bills are lower for families, and they do have faith in us in this place. On top of that, we are redistributing the costs through the warm home discount and the standing charge.”
“Either we, in this place and across the country, will make these innovations and live up to our duty to this generation and those in the future—either we will stop emitting carbon, which will mean cheaper and cleaner energy, and our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be thankful to us—or we will not. This is the moment for us to rise to. This is why we are investing in that cheaper, cleaner energy—yes, so that it gets bills down for good, but also to ensure that we live up to the promise we make to the generations to come.”
“The House will be shocked to hear that I do agree. This is about getting bills down for families, which is so important. When homes are insulated, that reduces energy demand as well, which means that our transition is easier and cheaper. When we build and insulate homes, that is not just good for bills, it is not just good for people, but it is good for jobs as well—good non-graduate jobs, of which there are too few in our move to a post-industrial economy. Most important of all, however, is getting carbon down for good. The decisions that we make now, and the carbon that we emit, will live with us for ever.”
“We know that to live a decent life, a working family is this country needs to include two parents earning about £35,000 each, yet in 80% of this country the average wage is less than that. About 40% of full-time jobs pay less than £35,000. Going beyond that— [ Interruption. ] Would someone on the Opposition Benches like to intervene?”
“What was the cruelty that they put forward? They were measures that saw someone sanctioned because they went to their wife’s funeral, or that saw someone get punished because they went to a job interview—sanction after sanction, cruelty after cruelty. It is the same with the Conservatives’ cuts—cuts that led to 3 million foodbank parcels being handed out. I did not know what a food bank was when I was growing up, yet every one of us in the Chamber knows what they are today. We see the growing destitution and homelessness before us, but what we did not see was any improvement in our country. There was no economic growth, and no extra good jobs. Cruelty and futility—that was the record of the Conservative party. Think about where we are today. What do we need to do to ensure that people have decent jobs?”
“Today’s motion represents the same failed punitive and cruel social security system that the Conservative party had for 14 years—a system that did not help people into good jobs or get social security spending down, and that led only to destitution. By contrast, our approach is to create good jobs, get good training in place, and help people into those jobs. Let’s talk about the record of the Conservative party. Let’s talk about the rise in employment. The rise in employment was not among those who they punished. Non-graduate employment fell from about 73% when we were last in office, to 68% when the Conservatives left office. The rise in jobs was not among the non-graduates who they were punishing or those who they drove into destitution; the people who took those jobs were the increasing number of graduates.”
“That is the difference between us and the Conservative party. It is a difference in values. We believe that every single person should be able to afford to live a decent life, that we should create good jobs for them to move into, and that the job of the Government is to work with the private sector to create those jobs directly, so that people can work and earn a decent wage. We are not about being punitive or cruel, and our measures will not lead to more destitution. That is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives. I am proud to be on these Benches; I do not know how they feel today.”
“I could not agree more. When we go forward and think about how to create a good life for people, we first need to create good jobs, but we also need to ensure that people have the training and support they need to get there. That is exactly what this Government are doing. We are creating good jobs by working with the private sector through our industrial strategy, and ensuring that the private sector gets the support it needs to work with businesses and—yes, of course—with trade unions. We are ensuring that there are good jobs for people to get into in the green economy and healthcare. We are creating the good jobs that people need and, more than that, the training they need. Through our work on the social security system, we are making sure that people can try work without the fear of losing their social security payments.”
“They meant that people across this country who worked hard and did the right thing could not afford a decent life. Today, the Conservative party are once again suggesting £23 billion of cuts to social security. That is £23 billion out of the pockets of families, including working families. It is shocking; it should mean something to them—it should mean something to all of us. Our nation does better when every single one of us can afford a decent life. People who work hard should be able to have a decent life, yet those cuts would mean the opposite.”
“Technological change has resulted in a divide between high-paid and low-paid jobs, so that some jobs—mostly done by graduates—pay enough to live on, but a lot more do not. For a two-parent household with two kids to afford just the basics, each parent needs to earn £35,000 a year. Some 40% of full-time workers earn less than that. So that people can afford to live, we have used the social security system to top up wages. That is what we did with working tax credits, and it is what the Conservatives did when they reformed that system to become universal credit. However, they built a huge amount of cuts into the system. What did those cuts mean? They meant food banks in our nation, which we had never known previously. They meant kids going hungry. They meant parents unable to afford the basics.”
“It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on stamp duty, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think there is a lot of agreement on both sides of the House that, if we could just abolish stamp duty, we would. The question is not about abolishing stamp duty, but about how that would be paid for, and what we have seen from the Conservatives’ so-called costing is £23 billion of cuts to social security. That is £23 billion that they could not deliver while they were in office. Those cuts would lead to rising destitution, and not just for those who are out of work or for children, but for those who are in work as we speak. It is worth thinking about how the social security system has changed over time and what has happened in our economy, and indeed in high-income nations across the world.”
“That is not at all the argument I am making. My argument is: how can we ensure that people live a decent life through £23 billion of social security cuts, given the huge amounts of destitution and increased unaffordability for families? I say this to the Conservatives as well: I worked in the Treasury under George Osborne, and even he would not have come up with something like this. When he tried something similar, he did not get it past this House.”
“The truth is, I think the Conservatives feel ashamed. When they talk about things like cultural coherence, we can hear the dog whistle—across this country, we hear it. I will tell you why, Madam Deputy Speaker: it is because British citizenship is not just about the colour of our skin or the way we look; it is about our values, the way we act, and the way we cohere together—different communities across this nation who speak in different ways. It is a deep, deep shame—dog-whistle away.”
“People in this country who have the right to remain and the right to work, and who have earned social security contributions, can make claims. The hon. Member will know that many people in this country have no recourse to public funds at all. That meant that during the pandemic, for example, despite paying into the system, they could not claim back out. It is a shame to see where the Conservative party has got to on this stuff, to be honest. There was a time when the Conservatives condemned Enoch Powell, and a time when they joined us, across this House, in believing that every single person, regardless of the colour of their skin, when given the legal status to remain, has rights and responsibilities, like a British citizen. It is such a shame to see where the Conservative party has got to.”