Joe Robertson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am a serving Isle of Wight councillor.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I was not suggesting that it is an obligation. Plainly, franchising is an option. My point is that it is an option that is unattractive to smaller local authorities, which cannot benefit from the economies of scale of franchising bus services. It is much more attractive for city areas. Of course I want rural bus services to be improved; my constituency is a rural area and we want better bus services. I see absolutely nothing in the franchising option that will deliver that, because I cannot see a local authority—in my own or other rural areas—looking at it and thinking, “This is helpful.” That is because it does not, as a right, bring money with it.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I rise to endorse the comments made by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham, and to draw further attention to an issue with new clause 22: placing duties on local authorities without money coming in. Central Government are very good, and have been for decades, at requiring things of local government, which naturally leads to increased costs on councils to deliver the relevant duties and comply with the law, but councils do not automatically—in fact, very rarely—get money to go towards complying. The duties set out in the new clause seem obvious. Subsection (1) says: “It is the general duty of any relevant authorities overseeing bus operations to promote bus services in their jurisdiction.” Subsection (2) has paragraphs (a) to (g). I will not read them all out, but paragraph (a) says that authorities may consider “the potential benefits of making bus services economically competitive with other transport options”. There is also a requirement to report every two years. That looks laudable. One would hope it would lead to better bus services, but it would place a cost burden on local government without money coming to every local authority. That is my concern: placing duties without accompanying finance in all cases. That is why I have difficulty with new clause 22, although I appreciate the intention and sentiment behind it.

• 24 Jun 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  All the comments I was going to make have already been made by the shadow Minister. He was so complete and comprehensive that he leaves no space for any additional comment. However, I will briefly give my slant on some of the points. When I rose at the beginning of this sitting, it was to talk about the costs that would be put on to local authorities by the general duties in new clause 22. That has been dealt with. This clause will put much more significant costs on to local authorities that choose to go down the franchising route—after all, franchising is a choice available to a transport authority. Those are costs incurred by transferring a risk from commercial operators to local authorities and the taxpayer if the business does not go in the way of the business plan. The shadow Minister has already spoken about the huge cost subsidy, effectively, to the services operated in London and Manchester, where there are huge economy of scale advantages. My view is that the franchising model, if it works at all, works for high population densities—cities, large local authorities and those that can swallow bad years—and offers nothing at all for smaller authorities other than the option to take a step into the unknown for no obvious benefit. I think of my local authority on the Isle of Wight—it is fanciful to think that that unitary authority could in any way take a step towards franchising. Even if we end up with a combined mayoral authority with Hampshire county council, which has a big budget deficit, it seems highly unattractive to Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight to go down the franchising route and take on all those risks. I have no direct experience of the Manchester model, but if Manchester really is the shining beacon, it is one that has cost a huge amount of money. However, that is a huge amount of money that the taxpayer in Manchester may be able to swallow. For a transport authority with a significant chunk of rurality—Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is an exception only in that it has an island attached to it, not in terms of how rural it is—I cannot see the figures adding up because no money goes with franchising. The Government may talk about money being available for bus services and the £3 fare cap. Those are welcome things, but they are not sums of money that naturally flow with an option to go down the franchising route. Although that does not go against having franchising as an option, I feel that it is going to be attractive only to a fairly small proportion of England—areas with high-density populations and those with metropolitan authorities. In this country, franchising is for the few; it is not a mass model that all local authorities will find attractive. It could lead to a more uneven quality of bus services across the country, and to a two-tier system.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls: Prosecution · Hansard source

  More

  Earlier this week, I was unsuccessful in trying to amend the Government’s proposed new spiking law to ensure that reckless spiking is an offence. Will the Solicitor General meet me to discuss the challenges of prosecuting violent crime towards women and girls if the Government are unpersuaded to ensure that reckless spiking becomes illegal?

• 18 Jun 2025 · HS2 Reset · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State set out the steps she is taking to ensure that infrastructure like the £100 million bat tunnel will not be included in future projects, such as East West Rail?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is speaking very clearly, and I agree with him on the potential for political interference. Does he also see within the clause any scope for market distortion because of the powers that the regulator has?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support my amendment 19, which seeks to amend clause 94, which brings in a new law to make spiking or administering a harmful substance an offence. I am grateful for the cross-party support I have received for this amendment from Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Green and Independent MPs. The intended law around spiking is a sound one, and it generally has cross-party support—indeed, it was a measure in the previous version of this Bill, brought in under the previous Government. My concern is that it has a defect and that there is a loophole. My amendment seeks to close that by ensuring that spiking by a reckless act is also an offence. Spiking is a hideous, heinous activity that destroys lives. It destroys people’s physical and mental health, and at worst, it kills people. The majority of victims of spiking—74%—are women, and the average age of those being spiked is just 26, but there is no typical spiking incident. The majority involve putting something in a drink, but needle spiking is also on the rise. The most likely place for spiking to happen is in a bar, pub or a club, but it can happen anywhere, including in a supermarket or on the street. Spiking is most commonly thought among members of the public to be motivated by sexual intent or to facilitate a theft, but in Committee we heard from Colin Mackie from Spike Aware UK about a very different type of spiking, which is what I think the new law fails to address. It is the rise in spiking that seems to have no particular intent behind it. It is sometimes referred to as prank spiking—spiking for, to quote the Government’s own guidance, seemingly “a bit of fun”. We heard from Colin Mackie about how his son Greg died through suspected spiking of that kind. The Bill criminalises spiking or administering a harmful substance with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy. I do not accept that every case of spiking fits into that definition. I will give an example of a scenario where recklessness would cover a case of spiking—by the way, I should say that recklessness is a well-trodden principle in criminal law, dating back over 200 years. It is an alternative to intent, so that if the prosecution fails to establish that someone meant to do something, it can alternatively establish that their actions were so reckless that they should be convicted. An example is assault causing actual bodily harm. The prosecution must establish the harm, but it can establish either that someone intended that harm or that they did an act so reckless that harm was bound to follow. It does not matter which it establishes to a jury; it will secure a conviction. It is the same with manslaughter: the prosecution can run a case that although somebody did not intend for someone else to die, their actions were so reckless that they should have known that someone might die, and it can secure a conviction. By the way, in the absence of law on spiking, those two offences are often used, but they are often defective, which is why the Government are bringing in their own spiking law. However, they have failed to replicate the principle of recklessness within it. I will give a hypothetical example. A group of friends go into a bar. Two of them have been taking illegal drugs—they have done it before—and they are enjoying themselves. They say to each other, “That friend in our circle—he needs to loosen up some more. He needs to stop his ridiculous opposition to having a bit of fun by taking these pills. I tell you what: we’ll do him a favour. Let’s not tell him, but let’s slip one of these pills we’ve been taking in his drink so he can loosen up and enjoy the evening like we are.” They go ahead and do that, and of course their friend, very likely, is harmed. He may not have done that drug before, or he may have been taking prescription drugs and the mixture is a cocktail. I am sure the House would intend that those two people had committed a crime, but when they are taken to trial I can see a scenario where their defence will say, “Members of the jury, my clients were foolish. They were silly. They shouldn’t have done it. But they didn’t intend to annoy their friend. They didn’t intend to injure their friend. What they intended to do was have a bit of fun and help him have a bit of fun. It was stupid, but they did not intend it.” How is a jury supposed to convict beyond reasonable doubt on that? Instead, if the prosecution could point to recklessness, it would be able to say, “Members of the jury, we do not care whether what these two people intended would be fun for that friend. It was so obviously reckless to any reasonable person that it must be a crime, and you must convict.” Clause 94 needs that much more wide-ranging, all-encompassing, tried and tested legal principle in it. My amendment would do just that. I thank Colin Mackie from Spike Aware UK for bringing that evidence to the Bill Committee, and Stamp Out Spiking, which has also done a huge amount, as well as Members no longer in this place who have been doing a lot of work behind the scenes.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Member, particularly for setting out the case of his constituent, who was here in Westminster yesterday; indeed, I also met her. Does he accept that it is those of us elected in this Chamber who make decisions, and that assurances from officials that cannot be articulated in this House—I am looking for that articulation—are not a good reason not to back my amendment?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend. I was on the Bill Committee, where a similar amendment was tabled, so I can reference the Minister’s response at that time. I have also had a brief word with the Minister outside this place. The Government’s position seems to be that the type of activity I am describing is covered in the intent to annoy, but I hope that I have made it perfectly clear that all reckless acts are plainly not covered by an intention to annoy. I do not for one minute suggest that the Government wilfully do not want the law to work and to cover all scenarios, but I am left with the impression that they have not sufficiently addressed their mind to the gaping loophole that is staring them in the face. If they do not like my amendment, I urge them to draft an amendment of their own to deal with the issue. If just one person walks free following this law because they were able to convince a jury that their actions were not annoying—but they would have been deemed reckless—that will be a terrible failure of what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. I urge the Minister to think again, and I urge all across the House to vote for the amendment to force the Government’s hand.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Can the hon. Member explain what the process the football regulator should go through would look like? The amendment does not specify any standards for what acceptable oversight of the consultation process would be.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I rise to add my support to the amendment that the shadow Minister discussed very well and clearly. The point is that the list set out in clause 37(2)(a) to (f), which gives examples of things that would prevent a potential owner from having the requisite honesty and integrity to own a football club, is missing a provision about their being a member of a proscribed organisation such as a terrorist organisation. In football, which is the most international sport and which has very international ownership, it seems particularly sensible to have that provision. I do not think a terrorist offence is captured by someone being “convicted of a criminal offence”, because, as we know, the Terrorism Act 2000 was put in place to introduce various provisions relating to terrorism where it had not necessarily been identified that a perpetrator had committed a criminal offence. The provision in the amendment would therefore be a fair addition to that list. Of course, clause 37(2)(g) is a catch-all measure that refers to “such other matters”. Nevertheless, the point is that this matter is particularly important and we do not want to leave it to be swept up in a catch-all measure. Of course, if it is argued that it could be swept up in a catch-all measure such as clause 37(2)(g), why have the list in clause 37(2)(a) to (f) at all? I support the sensible and non-controversial amendment.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The chief executive of UKHospitality estimates that there will be an extra £1 billion of costs on employers for new workers—774,000 of them—coming in to the national insurance contributions regime, on top of £2.4 billion in other costs. If, by the next Budget, it turns out that the previous Budget is crushing the hospitality sector, will the Government consider tax reliefs in order to power our hospitality industry?

• 11 Jun 2025 · Defence Spending: Wales · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister sounds unexpectedly optimistic, given that so many question marks remain over promises and aspirations for defence spending. Can she confirm the impact of handing over the Chagos islands and billions of pounds to Mauritius? [Interruption.] Can she confirm the impact of that decision on Wales?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Once again, I have some sympathy with the aims of the new clause and I see where the hon. Member is trying to go with it. However, as it is currently drafted, it has a lot of breadth and contains vagaries that could throw up all sorts of issues. I will just deal with those issues briefly. By the way, I like the idea of identifying “material change” to the extent that someone who may once have been considered fit and proper is no longer considered fit and proper, because of something that has happened or something that has been identified. I have a problem with imposing a duty, particularly on some of the groups set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (2). For example, there would be a positive duty on “club employees”, which would include some very junior members of staff. In English law, imposing a duty on someone to do something is fairly exceptional. Although I could probably tolerate imposing a duty on “officers and board members”—if people have attained that level within an organisation, they should expect duties to come with it—I could not tolerate imposing a duty on all “club employees”. That is a difficulty I have. Also, that list is not exhaustive. Subsection (1) refers to: “ Individuals or organisations associated with a regulated club”. That could capture a lot more people than those listed in subsection (2). I am also slightly concerned that the duty for notification applies: “when they”— that is, the person— “have evidence or information that a material change in circumstances has occurred”. I suspect that that could open the floodgates and be misused as a means to try and potentially smear someone, or raise questions about whether they are fit and proper, based on some pretty spurious “evidence”. Such evidence could be pretty much anything—even a trivial matter. I would have hoped that there would be some sort of threshold, such as evidence that points to a strong or compelling case. “Evidence” on its own is a very, very low bar and could encourage all sorts of minor allegations that could make the job of the football regulator far bigger than it is intended to be. Otherwise, I broadly support what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the shadow Minister sets out his question very well. It sounds as though the situation could get very complicated, especially over time, as the regulator might impose certain conditions on certain clubs and severely distort the market. Does he have any comment on that?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have sympathy with the aims of the amendments, but I also have a few questions. I wonder whether the wording in the Bill about “requisite honesty and integrity” might cover the issue that the hon. Member for Cheltenham is trying to deal with in new clause 8. I note that amendment 75 would do more that protect against owners with a record of human rights abuses, because it would require them to promote human rights. I obviously have no problem with people promoting human rights, but the amendment would put a duty on an owner to do something positive to show that they are fit and proper. I wonder whether that is really the hon. Member’s intention.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Another reason to include the word “badge”, my hon. Friend would presumably agree, is not only that is it technically correct, but it is a word used in football. It is a word that fans use. It is always helpful if legal documents in a Bill can reflect both technical and everyday wording. If the two are the same, that seems like an obvious answer.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member is seeking to do, but I am slightly concerned that perhaps he rolled over before he even rose to his feet, and will not press his amendment to a Division.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a fundamental principle of lawmaking that, when interpreting the law, judges or anyone else do not go and look at what a Minister might have said in Hansard . I appreciate that she may have a long career, but the Minister will change at some point, and the law has to stand, potentially, for a very long time.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister has already set out in great but necessary detail the reasons why amendments 99 and 100 have been tabled and should be supported. The issue is that subsections (3)(c) and (5)(b) of clause 16 provide a catch-all that allows the regulator to include such other information and documentation as it may specify when a club applies for a provisional operating licence. I support these amendments because I think those two provisions open the floodgates unnecessarily, and clause 16 already sets out the things that the regulator wants to see football clubs submit. To have that completely open floodgate is a problem for the reasons given. If the Government were keen to have some flexibility here, they could have allowed the Secretary of State to specify any other such information in the future. At least there would then be some accountability via the Secretary of State’s being an elected person and ultimately accountable to Parliament. The particular issue here is that the regulator, once set up, does not have direct accountability, and therefore it would be easy for it to start stipulating all sorts of things. I support the amendments and I think that it should be tight, but the Government could have steered a halfway course here by retaining some powers for the Secretary of State, rather than the unelected regulator.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. The shadow Minister, as ever, is a strong advocate for the fans and has set out a compelling case for supporting the amendment. I will not rehash all the arguments, but it is about transparency and reporting—indeed, the clause that the amendment seeks to change is about reporting. Clearly, the Government believe that an annual report should be made or that would not be provided for in the Bill. The report must include a “summary of the activities” undertaken by the regulator, with reference to a financial year, and yet there is nothing about that report’s including the financial impact, which would be fairly usual in a report by any organisation compelled to do one year on year in the interests of transparency. We debated amendment 122 earlier, and that was more specifically about the impact of the regulator’s activity on match ticket prices. I recall that one of the Liberal Democrat Members did not support that on the basis that the cost of administering the regulator would, if divided up as on his fag packet between match tickets and clubs, add up to a small amount. Amendment 134 is much more compelling because it is about the cumulative impact of the costs of complying with the regulatory regime. It could be the case that the actual budget of the regulator remained reasonably contained, while the regulation that the regulator creates and its obligations on football clubs could balloon. In my view, that is why the regulator should be compelled each year to include in the report the financial impact of its regulation and the full range of its activities, in so far as they have an implication for football clubs. If it creates a regulatory burden and hence a cost burden on clubs, there will always be the worry that that will be passed on to fans. Whether an individual member of the Committee believes that the regulator is a good thing, or that the cost is bearable, and whatever their view on how much cost is bearable, at the very least the regulator should be reporting this each year, so that the public and Members in this place in the future can form their views. This is a basic argument about transparency, and no one should seek to assist the regulator in not being transparent in financial matters. For that reason, I will back the amendment.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that we have a situation where one of the Minister’s Back Benchers is seeking assurances in this Committee, but does she accept that is not the equivalent of having something written into the Bill? With the greatest respect, if it is not in the Bill, her assurances here on what she expects from the football regulator is only her expectation—it is nothing more certain.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose—