Joe Robertson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor. I want to speak to new clause 48 in my name and new clause 39 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). The two new clauses seek to do similar things. I thank Members across the House who have signed new clause 48, not only Opposition Members but those on the Government Benches, as well as from the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. It is my position that this support shows that new clause 48 is an objectively reasonable amendment to seek. It is about the principle of fairness: it ensures that the ferry services that connect communities all over this country of islands connect those islands, and the communities that live close to bodies of water, including rivers, under the same fare framework that trains and buses operate under. New clause 48 sits in the following context: for generations, for decades, there has been a political consensus that train operators, whether they be state providers or private businesses, operate under a framework of regulation and licensing, and that Government have a say in how train fares and timetables are structured. The same goes for bus services. Indeed, even trains and buses in the private sector have, to a greater or lesser extent, been subsidised by the public purse. Ferry providers in this country sit outside that consensus of regulation and licensing in public transport, so there is no comprehensive regulation that sets down how ferry operators may work. That has led to my constituents on the Isle of Wight relying on privatised, unregulated, unlicensed, foreign-owned, debt-laden companies for essential travel. Those companies are so profitable that they are regularly exchanged from private equity group to private equity group, including the Canadian pension fund. That is because private equity understands that it is a predictable form of income generation, as the service users—Isle of Wight residents—have no alternative but to use the ferry companies they control. There is no effective market, as the private sector operates properly only when there is competition. However, the bar to entry into the ferry services market is so high—a company would need to buy land and ferries, and ensure compliance with all maritime law—that there is no alternative to the existing providers. I use my constituency as an example. One provider, now called Wightlink, used to be part of British Rail, when British Rail was a public service; the provider was unfortunately sold off without any obligation on it, and it is private equity investment that has benefited from that.

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend understand why my Isle of Wight constituents reject the idea of a new mayor being imposed upon them under the name of “Hampshire and Solent”, with the Isle of Wight name disappearing? My constituents do not live in the Solent. Indeed, nobody lives in the Solent other than fish.

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is very kind to give way, perhaps with a little pressure from more senior Members sitting just in front of him. He poses the question of whether there is a combined area where all the unified communities link well together. Sadly, I can give an example of a forthcoming area where they do not: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The only link between the Isle of Wight and Hampshire is through the ferry companies which are entirely privatised, unregulated and controlled by private equity groups. This was the perfect opportunity for the Government to ensure that fare regulation was given to the mayor, so the mayor had that strategic transport authority across the whole area, but the Government have so far failed to do that, which is why I brought forward an amendment that I will speak to later. Does my hon. Friend have a view on this missed opportunity to bring ferry companies within the regulatory framework of, say, rail and buses, which is perfectly consensual among parties in this country?

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentioned two key words: democratic accountability. That is fundamentally what underpins this issue, and it is a principle that we expect to apply to all forms of public transport—except ferries. I urge the Government to use this opportunity to create regulation and devolve it down. That way, they will not have ongoing responsibility for administering this issue, and the decision making will be made as close as possible to the individuals affected by the decisions. I am speaking for my constituents, but I could also be speaking for those elsewhere in the country. This is also about the economic wellbeing of the area. My constituents are heavily reliant on tourism. Indeed, the benefits of tourism are felt by 38% of our economy, but to visit the Isle of Wight, tourists must pay the price of the ferry. That is on top of everything else that they might want to spend when they are on the island. Let us remember that the money paid to the ferry companies goes off to private equity investors, many of which are abroad, and some of which are foreign pension funds. Not only does that mean less money to spend in my area on businesses that employ local people, but it will put some people off travelling to the Isle of Wight at all. The Minister may want to see ferry prices as a large tax that people can avoid by simply visiting other places for their holidays. That is the tragedy of this situation. Indeed, tourist footfall has fallen on the Isle of Wight more than it has for anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Before I end, I will back up my argument with facts. Earlier this year, the highest price somebody paid to bring a car back and forth to the Isle of Wight was £400. That is £400 for a sea crossing of 5 miles. The timetables have diminished since private equity took control. Once there were half-hourly services, but it is now more than an hour between services. Ordinarily, a company would not get away with doing this, because the consumer—the passenger—would go elsewhere, but the only “elsewhere” option is another ferry company that is also controlled and owned by private equity. It is no wonder that one of those companies was sold last month from private equity to private equity. The website of the new controlling group does not talk about the uncompromising pursuit of passenger experience. It boasts about the uncompromising pursuit of capital investment. That is capital investment for people who want to invest in that holding company. I thank again all those who have supported this proposal. It was a particularly significant moment to hear the shadow Minister confirm that His Majesty’s official Opposition backs the regulation of ferry companies through my amendment.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Public Transport Integration: Isle of Wight East · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister accept—and, indeed, do the Government accept—that public transport will never be truly integrated for the Isle of Wight while it continues to rely on unregulated, unlicensed ferry services that are owned by private equity groups making bumper profits? He would not accept that for any other community in the UK; why should the Isle of Wight be left in a different situation?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Public Transport Integration: Isle of Wight East · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps she is taking to help improve the integration of public transport in the Isle of Wight East constituency.

• 18 Nov 2025 · UNESCO: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) on securing this debate. I am pleased to salute the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, an organisation born from a world in ruins after the second world war, yet built on the very best intentions of peace, co-operation and shared progress. The founding of UNESCO was a cross-party British achievement in London in 1945, led by Conservative Minister Rab Butler. The second world war had left its impact. As well as the horrific human sacrifices and loss of life, there had been the destruction of books, cultural heritage and education systems. This led to endeavours to foster a hopeful and forward-looking spirit of international co-operation. Eighty years later, that founding spirit still runs through UNESCO’s mission. It owes its durability to its ambition—196 nations united around a common purpose. As a country, the UK is rooted in cultural and artistic traditions. For centuries, we have led the world in creativity, scholarship and heritage protection. Today, the UK’s 60 UNESCO designations form a national network that covers more than 15% of our landmass, spans over 170 parliamentary constituencies and is home to roughly 9 million people. They are invaluable cultural, economic and diplomatic assets. Across that network, we have 35 world heritage sites, from Stonehenge to the Tower of London, 10 global geoparks, seven biospheres, from the Isle of Wight to the Isle of Man, 14 creative cities, and 10 learning cities. These designations are not ornaments; they are engines of local pride, international co-operation and economic activity. They showcase British leadership, soft power and the value of working together. It is important, therefore, that the Government play an active role in supporting state parties and encouraging international collaboration to safeguard our shared heritage. Economically, heritage has an enormous value. The annual visitor attraction survey showed that in 2023, seven of the 10 most visited paid attractions in England were heritage sites. A study by the UK National Commission for UNESCO found that UNESCO designations generate more than £151 million in additional revenue each year across 76 sites. They attract investment, boost tourism, support apprenticeships, strengthen volunteering and foster global partnerships. Yet the tourism sector remains fragile. Rural and independent operators in particular are already managing tight margins and cannot simply absorb additional costs. I am proud that the previous Government secured the UK’s ratification of the 2003 convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. On the Isle of Wight, we have pottery craft traditions, and across the UK we have stonemasonry, blacksmithing and thatching—skills that are cultural treasures, but that are also essential for repairing historic buildings. The Government must do more to support them and to leverage philanthropy effectively for cultural institutions. On the Isle of Wight, where my constituency is, we are home to one of the oldest carnivals, the Ryde carnival, and to a UNESCO biosphere reserve that extends across the Solent into Hampshire. Our biosphere is a model of how to address ecological decline, productivity stagnation and demographic inversions. Two opportunities sit within our biosphere: strong creative and cultural production through the Arts Council, and expertise in environmental science and emerging strengths in green finance. This combination offers opportunities for new economic activity, regeneration on our island and deeper collaboration with other biospheres across the world. However, there is currently a lack of meaningful Government engagement with UNESCO policy. Despite a UNESCO presence in more than 170 constituencies, these sites are not integrated into levelling-up missions or used as anchors for regional development. They are not part of any cross-departmental co-ordination and the Government have no strategy for utilising UNESCO designations as innovation infrastructure. These assets remain underused. Will the Government commit to taking a cross-departmental approach to UNESCO sites and recognise these designations as core national assets for innovation, regeneration and economic growth? The UK is also a signatory to UNESCO conventions on behalf of our overseas territories, yet it is unclear how the Government are supporting those territories in applying for intangible cultural heritage recognition, or navigating the process of achieving world heritage status. Several territories have no designations at all. In the spirit of co-operation, how are the Government sharing their expertise to assist countries and territories with no UNESCO sites? We have five UK assets on the tentative list for future UNESCO designation. What steps are the Government taking to ensure those applications remain active and properly supported? On the topic of UK expertise, three of Iraq’s four UNESCO world heritage sites are currently on the list of world heritage in danger. I would welcome an update from the Minister on how the Government are supporting the stewardship of endangered world heritage sites worldwide and how British expertise is being deployed, again in the spirit of co-operation. On a broader point, I would appreciate clarification on whether reductions in the development budget will affect UNESCO programmes. With public finances under pressure, how are Government ensuring that UK contributions to UNESCO deliver maximum value for taxpayers? Of course, UNESCO is not entirely without controversy. The UK and the United States have both withdrawn from it in the past and concerns have been raised about political manoeuvring within the organisation, including disproportionate attention on certain countries while overlooking others with significant human rights or cultural heritage issues. Between 2009 and 2017, UNESCO adopted 60 resolutions concerning Israel, but none concerning several states with far more severe cultural violations. In this respect, UNESCO occasionally mirrors the trajectory of the European Court of Human Rights, another institution in the creation of which a Conservative Government played a central role, but the remit of which has sometimes stretched beyond what its founders intended. As UNESCO enters its ninth decade, we must monitor its focus, ensure UK funding is used effectively and guard against the organisation unduly creeping into politics. If we do so, the UK can continue to lead by example, honouring our heritage, strengthening global co-operation and investing in the next generation’s cultural, ecological and educational future.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Secretary’s asylum plans still have a gaping hole in the middle of them in that she does not know what to do with failed asylum seekers who cannot be returned home. Her statement says that she is exploring possibilities with third countries. Can I suggest that she swallows her pride, and speaks to a third country that we know is willing: Rwanda?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House consider setting aside Government time for a debate on regenerating coastal communities, so that we can properly consider issues facing towns like Sandown on the Isle of Wight, including transport connectivity, pressure on tourism, derelict buildings and declining high streets?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that this is the end of a debate and the Minister is trying to be funny, but a lot of constituents I speak to do not find this period particularly funny, and would like the Minister to confirm that his Government will stick to their manifesto pledge. Please can the Minister not respond with the word “bingo”? This is a really serious matter.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The reason I have not identified any doctors, teachers or police is the fact that there are none to identify. The savings of £47 billion have been listed by the shadow Chancellor. They include cuts to the civil service in Whitehall—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman’s Government may be dragged kicking and screaming to cut it, in some way at some point, by us—and they also include £23 billion of cuts in the welfare bill. It is the right thing to do to incentivise work and lift people from welfare into work, something in which the hon. Gentleman’s party used to believe. One way of doing that is making employers want to employ people, but the Chancellor, in her last Budget, disincentivised work, because she taxed work by raising national insurance contributions. As we stand today, there are 180,000 fewer people on the payroll than there were when this Government came in, and it is no surprise that the economy is grinding to a halt. In fact, the Government are doing worse through the Department for Business and Trade, by introducing an Employment Rights Bill that will further disincentivise work. It has disincentivised people, young people in my constituency, from finding a seasonal summer job, because it has lowered the hourly threshold at which national insurance contributions come in, so it is less beneficial to employ people for fewer hours and, indeed, younger people, who used to be cheaper to employ while they were between education and full-time work. As was explained so eloquently earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), it is the unintended consequences that have really damaged the economy and made it harder to employ people—although she was, I think, generous in describing them as unintended consequences, given that the Chancellor, the Treasury and the Government should know the consequences of their policy decisions. It makes me wonder whether they were in fact reckless, and were quite happy for businesses to soak up the additional cost and come back to the taxpayer for more money. I urge those on the Government Benches—very few of whom are present today—to maximise all possible pressure on their Chancellor to do the right thing by their constituents and the British people.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I confess that I am struggling to understand the relevance of this. If it is so important to Budget setting, has the hon. Member given his mother’s note to the Chancellor for her to read?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  When we are just two weeks away from a Budget where the Chancellor is preparing all sorts of unpleasantness for families and businesses, is the hon. Member not just a little concerned that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) is quizzing him about a Budget from three years ago? Does he not think the British people are more interested in what is about to happen in two weeks’ time?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Too many of my constituents know 26 November 2025 already. Usually, Budgets come and go without making a huge impact on the public consciousness of people living their daily lives, but this year is different. It is different because businesses and families are terrified about what the Chancellor is cooking up for them. What the Chancellor and the Prime Minister could have done a couple of weeks ago—indeed, a couple of months ago—is to put their fears at rest, confirm the Labour manifesto and confirm the promise not to increase tax on income, national insurance or VAT. The Prime Minister was prepared to do so in the summer; he did not revert to this absolute nonsense that he is not going to write the Budget. No one is asking him to write the Budget, and no one is asking the Minister to write the Budget from the Dispatch Box today. What we are asking for is confirmation of a manifesto promise that he and others got elected on less than 18 months ago. The Prime Minister committed to that promise in July, but failed to do so two weeks ago. Either he and his Government are indifferent to the worries of my constituents and the British people, or they are cooking up plans to tear up their manifesto and increase taxes they said they would not. I suspect that it can only be the latter.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend was seeking an intervention—from the Opposition Benches, I think, but I thank him for taking one from me. Is not the tragedy that we are stuck for the rest of this decade with this Government? They are clearly not going to hold a general election while they are bombing in the polls. The country is in their hands for the rest of the decade, but all they want to do is talk about previous decades. What must our constituents and their constituents be thinking when they hear this sort of stuff?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend, whose constituency is just across the water from mine, is far more experienced in this place than I am. I admit to a certain naivety in not imagining that Machiavellian intention within the Government to set up such a strawman, but the point remains the same. If they are doing so, they are indifferent to the economic worries of my constituents and others, particularly hard-working families and businesses. The question that we as the Opposition have raised today is what the Chancellor is going to do with the situation that she has created. Having sat through this debate, it is surprising to have heard so much deflection from Government Members—so much determination, in November 2025, to talk about previous Budgets under previous Governments. It is an obvious deflection technique, but in so doing, they speak against their own Chancellor. In November last year, she was very proud of herself in saying that her previous Budget had dealt with the black hole—a mystery black hole that she had identified, but let us take her at her word—and she wanted credit for having closed it off and wiped the slate clean. Her actual words to Sky News were “It’s now on us”, meaning that from that date, any problems in the economy and in future Budgets would be hers to deal with, and would have been caused by her decisions. Last year, the Chancellor blamed the Conservatives for a £22 billion black hole. On a political level, one can understand that—why would she not? She had just come into government; she felt she could get away with it. This year’s black hole is bigger. It is £30 billion, and it is on her. That is why she is faced with the choice of raising money from hard-working families. What she could do is seek savings from the ballooning disability welfare bill, which, according to the OBR’s figures, is set to reach £100 billion by the end of the decade. She tried to do that earlier this summer, but her Back Benchers were not having any of it, so she and the Prime Minister had to shelve those plans. We learn today that not only have the Prime Minister and the Chancellor lost the confidence of many of their Back Benchers, they have also lost their grip on No. 10, with its staffers briefing out against the Health Secretary. Today, the Prime Minister has had to admit to this place that he did not authorise any of that. In so doing, he has demonstrated that he has lost control of No. 10, his own operation. He is now having to suck up to the Health Secretary, the man who wants his job, in order to try to hold his operation together. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor could try to make savings—the shadow Chancellor has very kindly identified £47 billion of savings for them.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Why is the hon. Member going on about spending decisions of previous Governments, when his Chancellor said last year that her Budget had wiped the slate clean? She said, “It’s on us now”. If she accepts responsibility for where she is today, why does he not?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister seems to be telling us that we can expect debt cutting measures in the Budget. Will he also confirm from the Dispatch Box that there will not be measures to increase national insurance, taxes on hard working people, or VAT?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Ferry Services (Integration and Regulation) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the integration of ferry services with other transport services; to make provision about the regulation of ferry services; and for connected purposes. Our great nation, the United Kingdom, is a nation of islands. This country also invented the railways. Rail, road and ferries together ensure that in every corner of our country there is a place that somebody calls home. There is also a political consensus in this country, stretching back decades, that those who provide public transport do so with certain conditions imposed upon them. That political consensus has existed regardless of who is in government and which party holds power. That means that train operators—whether they are soon to be part of the state or private companies—must provide services for a fair price that the Government have a say over, and provide timetabling that allows people to move about, regardless of whether that individual train journey is profitable on its own. There are laws to ensure that those operators must publish performance data, and similar rules apply to bus service providers. However, there is no national provision that applies to those who operate the ferry services that communities all over the country—whether island communities or communities that live along riverways—rely on for accessing essential services, employment, seeing friends and family, and all the things we do in our daily lives. That has meant that constituents such as mine on the Isle of Wight—they are just an example—are faced with huge costs to take a car back and forth to the mainland, and that who wish to visit the Isle of Wight sometimes have to pay up to £400 just to take a car back and forth on a five-mile journey. Private equity groups have taken control of Wightlink and Red Funnel, which operate across the Solent, and in an entirely unregulated market they can do what they like. There is no fair competition because the barrier to entering that market for a new provider is simply too high. It also means that what were once half-hourly services are now hourly. When I arrived in Southampton last week, a minute late for Red Funnel’s Red Jet service to Cowes, I had to wait an hour and 10 minutes for the next ferry. Had one of my predecessors, Andrew Turner—who is sitting in the Gallery today—done that 10 years ago, he would have had to wait only half an hour. In too many places in this country, ferry services are getting worse. There is no mandatory reporting requirement on those companies either, so we have no objective way of telling whether they are providing a good service, other than the anecdotal evidence that people like me present. I am not looking in this Bill to put an undue burden on ferry operators—quite the opposite. I am looking to end the carve-out that they have enjoyed for too long, a carve-out that no other public transport provider benefits from. If I had the owners of Wightlink and Red Funnel in front of me now, this is what I would say to them: “We are tired of your methods, tired of your rip-off prices, and tired of funding your huge ballooning bank debt interest. You have not done us a favour, and you are not doing us a favour. You should be providing a lifeline transport service, which the taxpayer gave you money for so that you could stay profitable during covid.” If those ferry companies, not just on the Isle of Wight but across the UK, truly believed in a quality service for their passengers, they would embrace regulation, just as other providers do in other modes of public transport. Too often, when my neighbour the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) or I make the argument about expensive ferry prices, Wightlink in particular comes back and says, “Well, you can cross the Solent with us in a car for £31.” But it fails to admit that that is only if a person pays nearly £2,000 in advance and purchases 60 individual tickets. There are not many people living in my constituency who can afford to give the company nearly £2,000 in advance and who necessarily need to travel 60 times in a year. Ferry companies must be straight and not seek to mislead or hoodwink decision makers in this place when other Members and I talk about how expensive ferry services are. It is not just my constituents; I have had exchanges with the leader of the council of the Isles of Scilly, and we both share the view that our constituents are entirely reliant on ferry services for some educational opportunities and essential medical services and for accessing employment opportunities—things that people on the mainland of the United Kingdom take for granted. There is no reason why we should be beholden to private profits over and above everyone else. I present this Bill at a time when the Government are already moving in this direction in how they deal with rail and buses. While I do not necessarily agree with nationalisation, and I do not agree in the case of the railways, I agree with the sentiment and the reasons why they are presenting those Bills. The Secretary of State has said that she wants to ensure better value for money for passengers, to better integrate different modes of transport and to stop profit being a priority over passenger experience and connectivity. I invite her to transfer all that good sentiment she feels about trains and buses to ferries, too, and ensure that communities that I and others in this place serve are not left behind. I thank the Minister with responsibility for maritime, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather), for meeting me, and I know that he has met my neighbour the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West. I urge the Minister to continue to work with us to look at solutions for my constituents. I would also like the Government to bring in their own regulation for us and to devolve those powers to a forthcoming mayor, if they think it appropriate. This Bill is about more than just my constituents; it is about ensuring a fair and level playing field across the whole United Kingdom. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Joe Robertson, Mr Richard Quigley, Dame Caroline Dinenage, John Cooper, Rebecca Smith, Darren Paffey, Neil Duncan-Jordan, Jess Brown-Fuller, Andrew George, Siân Berry and Jim Shannon present the Bill. Joe Robertson accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November 2025, and to be printed (Bill 324 ).

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  The British Retail Consortium has warned that £7 billion of costs have been put on to businesses because of national insurance contributions levied by this Government, and the Chancellor’s attitude was to say, “Well, the NHS is working.” Does she really think that the hospital budget should rest on the entrepreneurs in our constituencies?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about pubs. Does she agree that one of the best ways to support pubs is to give them a fair excise regime, and that that falls on the Government?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Business Impact · Hansard source

  More

  16. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions on levels of employment.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Business Impact · Hansard source

  More

  According to the British Retail Consortium, the Chancellor’s last Budget caused a £7 billion cost to retail, leading to shop closures, declining high streets and job losses. If the Chancellor will not acknowledge the damage she has caused, how will she go about rectifying it? Can I recommend that she starts with the 100% business rate relief put forward by the shadow Chancellor?