Jeevun Sandher MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  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? 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. 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. 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.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 5 Mar 2026 · EU: Mutual Interests · Hansard source

  More

  3. What recent discussions he has had with EU counterparts on topics of mutual interest.

• 5 Mar 2026 · EU: Mutual Interests · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Large-scale Solar Projects: Community Engagement · Hansard source

  More

  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”?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  4. What recent progress her Department has made on implementing the violence against women and girls strategy.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  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—

• 21 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 January.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Offshore Wind · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Minister give way?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.