Joe Robertson MP: speeches

257 published records · newest first.

Speeches

27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Looking at the purpose of why someone might spike, the Bill includes the words “injure”, “aggrieve” and “annoy”. From your experience, might somebody seek to spike for any other purpose that is not captured by, say, “annoy”, which is probably the broadest term? Colin Mackie: Revenge, possibly. A girl could spike another girl because she is jealous, for example, about something that has already happened. An ex-boyfriend, in particular—or an ex-girlfriend, in some cases—could spike someone. To me, revenge is another possibility.
27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q I will take the panel back briefly to the powers around face coverings in protests. Given that protests are often political in nature, does anyone on the panel see challenges presented by having to exercise that power—challenges around perceptions or accusations of political bias? What are your reflections on the challenges that having to exercise that power will create? Chief Constable De Meyer: It is important to emphasise, first of all, that we will not have to exercise the power. It is a power that is available to us that we may use, and not one that we must necessarily use. That having been said, one accepts entirely the potential for people on one side of a debate to suggest that the power ought to have been used and that it has not been used on another side. I can only say that it is for commanders in each individual circumstance to ensure that they abide by the principle of policing without fear or favour, impartially. It is difficult for me to say much more than that, because there are so many circumstances in which it might come to pass, but I do recognise the difficulty. Tiff Lynch: It is down to interpretation. It is also relevant to communication and how the general public have an understanding of what police officers are out there doing. We are seeing actions of police officers at these protests being placed all over social media. It is a snippet of information, and as a result you get misinformation and disinformation, which then heightens society’s frustration. I think there is a role to be played by everyone, certainly within Government, to communicate those powers and actions to the public so that everyone has that clear understanding. Then it is important, again, to have the support, certainly for the officers we represent, out there on the frontline, in doing what they are doing.
27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Could there be something that might appear to have a more frivolous excuse—you talked about pranking—but that still needs to be captured by the Bill and may not be captured by the word “annoy”? Colin Mackie: Pranking is probably the one. That is what people will do—it is totally random, and there is no reason for a lot of what they do. They pick a victim out. I have spoken to police officers, and one of the things they say is that prank spiking is growing a bit because drugs have become so easily accessible and cheap. I spoke to a group from Australia who said spiking had dropped slightly because the police had done a blitz on drugs, so the price of drugs had gone up; when the price of drugs went up, spiking came down. There is always a chance that it happens just because people can easily access these drugs and they will use them.
27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q If I may say so, from the evidence we have heard today there appears to be a loophole on spiking, in that somebody has to intend to annoy, but we have heard there can be reckless activity around a prank. Will the Minister go away and consider whether gross negligence around pranking could be captured under the spiking law? Alex Davies-Jones: I heard that evidence, as did the officials, and we have clarified that under the current legislation, pranking would be covered; it is explicitly covered by this as well.
27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q May I take you back to fly-tipping? We heard earlier how it is a problem for local authorities, but they are clearly more resourced than private landowners, who often own the sites where rubbish is dumped. Is there any opportunity missed in the Bill to try to tackle fly-tipping, particularly for people who, through no fault of their own, have waste dumped on their private property? Sam Durham: The guidance to local authorities is key, and there are some really good examples of local authorities that are bringing all the agencies—the Environment Agency, the police and so on—together and having a co-ordinated approach to tipping. That means that members of the public know who to go to when they see an incident. There is not a general approach to that across the country, so if there is any way of legislating for that approach, or putting it in the local authority guidance, to make that happen, that would be key. For the victim—the landowner—it is about knowing where to report, so having a single reporting mechanism that gets to the right people. They cannot view a tip and say, “That’s hazardous waste; that’s the Environment Agency’s responsibility”, “That’s the local authority’s responsibility” or, “That’s just rubbish thrown out of the back of a car.” They cannot judge that. A single reporting system that allowed them to log it and then found the right person to deal with it is something we would be campaigning for.
27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
I invite the Minister just to look at and explore the wording. I am not convinced on the wording, but thank you.
27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q To the extent that it is relevant, 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 take the panel back to clause 45(2) and the duty to report. I note that the police and local authorities are treated as interchangeable in the provision about who a person must report to. I invite any thoughts about that idea that the police and local authorities are somehow interchangeable and have similar skillsets. Councillor Conway referred to the training that would be needed with local authorities, but clearly there are so many different ways you could report. Although the police are used to reporting of criminal activity, the council does not routinely receive reports in that way. I invite either of you to comment on that slightly unexpected and unusual interchangeability of police and local authorities. Councillor Conway: Again, we would be happy to write with more detail on that. Where that relationship works effectively, I understand the interchangeability. I think it probably needs looking at. There are effective systems on the ground that do enable that, but maybe it needs looking at more closely. We can send you more information. Councillor Garratt: If we are dealing with criminal behaviour, which I think we are in this circumstance, the obvious place to report it is the police. I do not know whether there is a provision for reporting to the council if someone is already involved with a social worker, for example; that might be deemed to be an adequate way to report it. But if the purpose of the provision is to make sure that these crimes are investigated and prosecuted, then the obvious place to report that to would be the police.
27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Just to clarify, I agree with you on that point. My problem is this idea that a summary-only offence is not really an offence at all so the police do not need to attend. I think we are all agreed on that: it is plainly an offence. My worry is that pushing things into the Crown court creates a whole load of other problems.
27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q I appreciate that this is not a debate between elected Members, but I am not entirely sure from that exchange with the Minister whether the witness got the idea that face coverings would be banned only if there was a suspicion of a crime. There is a defence here for using face coverings to protect someone’s health or for “religious observance”. Perhaps Ms Yeung is looking for another type of defence whereby if someone believes they are under political threat—perhaps from a Government or organisation abroad—that would be a fair defence for wanting to protect their identity. I wonder whether she might comment on that possibility. Venita Yeung: Um. Yes, I think—
27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Solving a set of issues in a given day depends on well-worded law that is targeted at the problem it is trying to solve. Can you share your views on backing that up with the appropriate resources, be it money or technology, for the police to be able to deliver on the law? Over the last decades, we have seen more and more criminal law come into being without necessarily the resource to back it up. Can you comment on the interplay between well-worded law and the resources for police to be able to act on it? Dr Newport: On the resources point, some of my ideas here have been around CCTV procurement and AI. I think those things would help to reduce police time and costs. It should also be ensured that the public can see the effects of these things—that they are transparent and we are able to check on them, which at the moment we do not seem to be able to do. The fact that I have to try to ask an MP to ask a question in Parliament about the Connect system and still cannot get a response—there is still no way of checking—is completely and utterly unacceptable. It is also the case that the British public, in survey after survey, put healthcare as the thing that they want to see the most funding to. Education and criminal justice are joint second and third. Government funding is nowhere near the public’s priorities on this. That is what I would point to on the funding question.
27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Can I reword that, to be helpful? In the Bill, there is a defence to allow people to wear a face covering. One of the examples is if it is for their health, so I imagine there might be a health reason why someone might need to wear a mask. Another example is that if someone has a face covering because of a religious belief, they should not have to remove it in a protest. If there was another defence—I am not advocating for it, but I am suggesting it—whereby someone could say that they are under threat from a foreign Government or organisation and they fear for their personal safety, would that satisfy your concern for people from Hong Kong, for example, but also other places? Venita Yeung: Yes. I think this is a very proportionate defence to add to the Bill. This would definitely safeguard communities against their fear of being spied on by their peers or state-aligned actors—for example, the state-aligned Chinese international students who violently attacked Hong Kong protesters in the Southampton protests in 2023.
27 Mar 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q This is directed at any one of you on the panel. To take you back, an area where I think you all share the same opinion is that, under clause 16, theft from a shop should be triable either way, regardless of the value of goods—so below £200. I think the suggestion is that the police do not seem to be as responsive or as interested if it is a summary-only offence. I suggest that that is a policing issue and that the unintended consequence of removing the threshold could be to put low-value offences into the Crown court system, which is more expensive and with a longer backlog, and you might find the system is gamed another way. I am just inviting an opinion on whether a police policy issue might be the problem in terms of where they respond. A summary-only offence is still a crime. Christopher Morris : This is not necessarily my speciality; I think Paul is more experienced in this area. Paul Gerrard : I have a couple of points. I understand the point you are making. Less than £200 is still a significant sum of product—as I said, you could get 20 bottles of wine or the entire meat section—so I would not underplay that. The second point is that there is something here about making it clear that walking into stores to take whatever you want is not acceptable. That is a message that this place should send. Helping the police to understand that is really important. In terms of how the criminal justice system then handles that, I take your point absolutely. But it is not okay for someone to walk in, make some threats, steal whatever they want and walk out again. At the minute, because the police do not, in general, look at things under £200, unless there are aggravating factors like violence, that is what happens.
27 Mar 2025 · Supporting Economic Growth · Hansard source
More
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on improving everyday transport for UK residents, and her comments on Scottish ferries. Does she agree that my constituency, on the Isle of Wight, should not be left behind in the Government’s transport plans? Will she agree to intervene and look at all options in order to regulate private equity—currently, we are entirely reliant on it for our connectivity with the UK mainland, which is harming our local economy—and to look at the potential of empowering any future combined mayoral authority with some regulatory power over cross-Solent transport?
19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source
More
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to talk about means-testing— I did not expect to have that Government argument made by a Liberal Democrat Member, but so be it. There is some sympathy, from across the House, for the argument for means-testing the winter fuel payment, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that nobody on the Conservative Benches thinks that the means-testing cut-off point, if they believe in one, should be £13,500. That means that 10 million pensioners have lost out on the winter fuel payment. Unless the Government can make a fiscal argument for removing winter fuel payments from the very wealthy that actually delivers more funds to the Treasury, this decision should not have been taken at all, and should certainly not have been taken when it harms those on a fixed income of very little.
19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source
More
The flavour and mood of this debate have been somewhat strange. I expected to be in a debate facing Members on the Government Benches who were at least showing humility, and who at least, in the words they chose, showed that they regretted the decision, even though they reluctantly supported it. But that is not the mood we have faced at all. Government Members have been bullish. We have heard the word “proud”. They have been jovial and, at times, even upbeat in describing this very worst decision of this Government of bad decisions, and pensioners will have heard them. Labour Members may have impressed each other, and they may have impressed the trade unions of which they are members, by talking about and defending train drivers’ pay, but they will have deeply depressed, and depressed further, those pensioners who live in their constituencies, in my constituency and right across Britain. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State took us through the issues caused by withdrawing the winter fuel payment, and she made the central argument that has been repeated from these Benches: they are withdrawing the winter fuel payment not from the wealthy, but from those on as little as £13,500.
19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source
More
Will the Minister give way?
19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source
More
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to his own Government’s promise to increase the take-up of pension credit. After the past winter, there are still 750,000 pensioners who have not taken it up, so he should not speak with any pride or seek to deflect to previous Governments when his own Government have withdrawn the winter fuel payment and there are still 750,000 eligible pensioners who are not receiving pension credit.
19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source
More
The hon. Gentleman looks almost proud of the decision to withdraw winter fuel payments. He talks about taking tough decisions—can I offer him a really easy alternative? Scrap GB Energy, which does not produce any energy; do not give Mauritius money and sovereign British territory; and restore the winter fuel payment.
19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. Gentleman take my intervention?
19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source
More
Does the hon. Lady really think that going through Tony Blair’s greatest hits is any comfort to pensioners on £13,500 who lost their winter fuel payment in 2024?
19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source
More
There are Members across the House who would support the principle of means-testing, and I have invited the Government to come forward with the data that shows us where the bar would be set to bring money into the Treasury. However, I would reject any means-testing that takes money away from those paid £13,500.
19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source
More
It is heartwarming to hear someone make a speech based on his principles, and the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that it is his principles that will inform his vote on this topic. Can he articulate, very clearly, what principle tells him that someone on £13,500 is too rich to receive a winter fuel payment?
19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source
More
I thank the hon. Member for finally giving way. He has won his campaign to remove the winter fuel payment from Sir Richard Branson, but if I take him back a little earlier in his speech, he paints a picture of the sorry state that he claims this country was in when he took over. Just let us suppose that and run with his argument, which he must believe: why does he think now is the time to also take away the winter fuel payment?
19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source
More
I am sorry, but in the time remaining I cannot take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman. Without the winter fuel payment, over the winter we have seen a 5% increase in the number of people aged over 65 attending A&E, and of those who have attended A&E, there has been a 9% increase in hospital admission. The motion seeks a proper impact assessment and analysis by the Government of the effects of winter fuel payments being withdrawn. This was not a one-off winter, and it was a warmer winter than average. The same will happen next winter, the following winter and the winter after that, unless the Government bring back the fuel payment.
19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. Lady give way?

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →