Sojan Joseph MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to ask a question about foreign donations. The Bill seeks to ensure that any company making political donations must be able to demonstrate that it has a genuine connection to the UK. Do you believe that that will be sufficient to prevent foreign-linked entities from donating to political parties? Vijay Rangarajan: We think that it is a very useful change but that it does not go far enough. We see a range of threats—I must admit that this is drawn from our experience of looking at other elections in other countries and working with partner electoral commissions —and that includes online. In the financial space, there is a distinct attempt by people to channel money into other people’s politics. It would be perfectly possible, even with the provisions you mentioned, for people in other countries, or impermissible donors in general, to channel money through a company, even if it had that linkage. That is why some kind of a cap on how much a company can donate, based on profit, coupled with the other tests the Government have in the Bill—for example, on persons of significant control—would be really helpful. That will not completely eliminate the risk, and we look forward to what Philip Rycroft says about any other measures that may be needed, but we think it will help not only to reassure parties that they are at lower risk of accepting impermissible donations, which is a criminal act, but to reassure voters that the system is being kept under close review.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Illegal Waste: Organised Crime · Hansard source

  More

  It took four years before statutory bodies did anything about the waste dumping in Hoad’s Wood near my constituency after it was originally reported. Can the Minister tell us more about how she hopes to work with local authorities such as mine in Ashford to ensure that immediate actions are taken against people committing these appalling crimes?

• 12 Nov 2025 · SEND Provision: Kent · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I am regularly contacted by parents or guardians of children to express their concerns about the provision of SEND education in our area, so I am grateful to my constituency neighbour, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for securing this important debate, and I congratulate him on his excellent speech. At the end of the summer and the start of the autumn, I organised a series of meetings for constituents with direct experience of the SEND system in Kent. I am grateful to the primary and secondary school headteachers and staff, as well as the representatives of local charity Differences Not Disabilities, who gave up their time to meet me. I especially thank the parents and carers who spoke so powerfully about the difficulties they have faced and, in many cases, continue to face with Kent county council in securing a suitable education for their children. I also appreciate the constructive and thoughtful way in which all attendees approached our discussions. As the Government look to bring forward their proposals for reform of the SEND system across England, my constituents urge Ministers to ensure that abrupt change is not made to those areas that are working well. Otherwise, there is a risk that the successful parts of the system could be lost. My constituents would also like reassurances regarding education, health and care plans. They do not want to see them scrapped and would like to see a personalised plan like EHCPs remain in the reformed system. There was strong feeling among my constituents about the need to strengthen early support for children and families and ensure that early intervention is not a one-off, but consistent. The headteachers and parents at my meetings were firmly of the view that when it comes to early intervention, a “little and often” approach will bring far greater benefits than waiting until a child falls behind or ends up needing specialist provision later on. My constituents want to see a national training programme introduced for EHCPs. If they were well written from the start, there would be no need for the constant reviews that currently take place. We also heard that in Kent, delays in the issuing of EHCPs are the norm, with too many being issued well beyond the statutory deadlines. My constituents were clear that when EHCPs are eventually issued, they are not well written, and key provisions are being left out—often those that involve money. There was also strong feeling among my constituents that the Reform administration at Kent county council does not properly take into account the views of parents when writing or amending EHCPs, nor give them the full information they are entitled to. That is also reflected when I make representations to the council on behalf of my constituents about the education of their children. I have to wait too long for responses and, when they do come through, often they are inadequate and cannot help my constituents. In one case, I wrote to the council in February and again in March on behalf of a constituent regarding their daughter. The family had moved to Kent in December, and the daughter, who has an EHCP, was not in school at that time. Although I received an acknowledgment from the council in March, I did not receive a full response until last month—some seven months after first writing to the council. My constituent’s daughter only secured a placement at a special school at the start of the new academic year in September. In another example, I wrote to the council in mid-July on behalf of a constituent who had expressed concern to me that her child was not in school. The council acknowledged my letter in August, but four months later, I am still waiting for a full response. The final example also dates from July, when I wrote to the council on behalf of a constituent to ask whether it intended to comply with a court order against it. I have recently received a reply asking if I could provide assistance by arranging and facilitating an effective and meaningful method of alternative dispute resolution. As with most issues, funding for SEND and how it is allocated is critical. I warmly welcome that, thanks to the Labour Government, Kent county council has received an increase of £15 million in funding for SEND provision. It is important that my constituents now start to see the difference from this increase in resources. In our discussions, my constituents expressed a strong belief that SEND funding for mainstream schools must be ringfenced. If money is allocated for a child’s support, it must be spent on that child’s needs, and not diverted elsewhere. Parents and teachers were clear that, instead of relying on new independent schools being built, Kent county council should be assisting local state schools in our area to adapt their facilities. With the right investment, my constituents expressed the hope that we could see more specialist hubs created in existing schools across Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages. Too many children at the moment have to travel long distances to receive their education. More specialist hubs in existing schools would allow more children to be educated closer to where they live. It was clear from my discussions that we also need to reform the tribunal system. I have evidence from casework of how adversarial it has become, with solicitors and representatives on both sides—that message came across loud and clear in my meetings about SEND provision. Parents told me how most cases now end up at tribunal, and the majority find in favour of the child. The high number of cases that end up in tribunal and the fact that so many are successful are a clear indication of parents’ dissatisfaction with how the system is operating in Kent and that it is not working properly. The headteachers I have met believe that effective reform of the way that tribunals work would mean that the money that is currently spent on unnecessarily taking some cases to tribunal could instead be allocated to state schools. I have written to the Secretary of State in more detail on some of the wider points that might be helpful as the Government bring forward their proposals, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to what Members and I have said in this debate about the situation in Kent.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to speak in support of new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft). On Second Reading, I warmly welcomed the changes that this legislation will introduce regarding autistic people or those who have a learning disability. As a result, it will no longer be possible for someone to be detained in a mental health hospital indefinitely simply because they have autism or a learning disability. In the current system, autistic people and those with a learning disability have experienced inappropriate care, over-medication and extended periods of detention because of a lack of facilities in the NHS and social care, so this change is welcome and long overdue. The Government have confirmed that the changes will be implemented once the necessary community provision is in place. Establishing strong support in the community is essential for not only enabling safe discharge from hospital settings but preventing unnecessary admissions in the first place. I recognise that the Government are working on setting out what strong community services look like and what resources they require to implement them. From serving with the Minister in Committee, I have no doubt about his commitment to ensuring that this community provision is introduced in a timely manner, but I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock that there should be a road map in the legislation that will provide a clear framework outlining how those services will be introduced. After all, ending inappropriate detention requires robust community-based alternatives to ensure that people with autism or a learning disability who would have previously been detained do not fall through gaps in the system. Having a road map developed in conjunction with autistic people, people with learning disabilities, their carers and healthcare professionals will help to identify and address any gaps in service provision and workforce capacity. I also believe that it will help to reduce the risk of people with autism or a learning disability needing police intervention or emergency hospital care because the support is inadequate. By putting in place a road map, new clause 37 would help to ensure that we end all the sooner the injustice of people with autism or a learning disability being detained.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Suicide Prevention · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend that not all suicides are linked solely to mental health. I was about to say that various social issues need to be tackled as well. It is it is important that we do not see suicide prevention solely through the prism of mental health. Indeed, many of those who die by suicide have either had no contact with mental health services or shown no signs of mental ill health. It is also important to point out that not everyone who dies by suicide has a diagnosed mental illness. For those at risk of suicide, a complex range of individual, relationship, community or societal factors can be at play. As the suicide prevention strategy makes clear, common risk factors that are linked to suicide include physical illness, financial difficulty and economic adversity, gambling, alcohol and drug misuse, social isolation and loneliness, and domestic abuse. Although addressing suicide prevention can include mental health, the strategy emphasises that it also goes well beyond these issues. If we see suicide prevention just as a mental health issue, those people in our communities who may not meet the criteria for a mental health diagnosis but are still in acute distress can end up being forgotten. Perceiving suicide just as a mental health issue also puts the responsibility mainly on mental health services, when in reality local authorities, employers, schools, the criminal justice system and wider society all have roles to play. When we talk about suicide prevention, we should therefore also talk about early intervention in schools, universities, places of work and community groups. It is worth mentioning the great work done by charities—many names have already been mentioned. I congratulate the recently opened Ashford Safe Haven, which is based at William Harvey hospital. It offers a walk-in service every evening for people who are in crisis or feel they are heading towards crisis. A few months ago, I visited the safe haven and met some of the staff to hear about the support they provide and how they help to create staying well and crisis plans, as well as supporting people to access other services and organisations that may be useful to them. It is a great resource for people in our community and I hope that the East Kent hospitals trust is successful in its bid for funding for a round-the-clock walk-in service. Working with suicide prevention charities can complement the services offered by the NHS and bridge gaps in provision. We should also ensure that the health system becomes more effective in signposting the services that are offered by suicide prevention charities. While I will always lobby for meaningful change in the mental health system, I also know that talking about suicide prevention just as another issue for our mental health services risks narrowing the conversation and excluding others who might need help. I hope that today’s debate has helped to make it easier for those watching who might need help now or in the future to get the right help at the right time.