Carla Denyer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress, rather than having a long back and forth. We are paying through inflated bills, paying with our health, and now we may be paying with our public money, as the Government have said that they are ready to bail out Thames Water, which was privatised in 1989 with no debt. Since then, it has racked up £14.7 billion in debt and at the same time—note the similarity of these numbers—paid out £10.4 billion to its shareholders. If that is not a scam, I do not know what is. Privatisation was supposed to keep prices down, but it has done the opposite. More than one third of people’s bills is used to pay interest on debt, or to pay dividends to shareholders. The Government are taking some steps to improve the situation. I absolutely welcome those steps, as far as they go, but these issues are not likely to go away without our considering the option, or looking into the possibility, of bringing water companies back into public hands. That is why I was disappointed to learn that the Government’s supposedly independent commission on the water sector regulatory system is not being allowed—despite being independent—to consider public ownership as one of the options, though I note with interest the establishment of the people’s commission on the water sector, which will look into this option as part of its broader scope.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  One of the reasons why I support the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Norwich South is that it uses the tool of a citizens’ assembly to ask the public how they think the system should work, and to explore different options, rather than predetermining the exact model. For clarity, the Green party and I support public ownership of public services, but that does not necessarily mean nationalisation. Before the water companies were privatised, they were owned regionally, and I think that would be a sensible model this time. I also think that the citizens’ assembly could look into other forms of public ownership, such as co-operatives.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  One last time, though the hon. Member is pushing it.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Of course a current Government cannot bind a future Government on a decision like that indefinitely, and I was not suggesting that they could, but as I pointed out, as England is one of very few countries on the entire planet with a fully privatised water system, I suspect and hope that if we returned to a public system, it would be more likely to stay public, as both elected representatives and the public would see that the system performed better when the profit motive was removed.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If hon. Members of this House feel threatened by the setting up of a citizens’ assembly in order to gather views, that may be an indication of the weakness of the democracy that we have in this place. I really value the contribution that citizens’ assemblies can make. They have been used in other countries, notably Ireland. They are not a replacement for the House of Commons, but they can add valuable extra detail.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that hospital pass. I will make a note not to follow the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) again, if I can help it. I will just try to do a good job, and perhaps not to speak for quite as long. I am delighted to be here to discuss and support this Bill, and I thank the hon. Member for bringing it forward. It will be no surprise to anyone here that I am absolutely in favour of this Bill to fix the despicable situation of our waterways. To do that, we need to bring water back into public ownership. This issue is so important to me and my Green colleagues that we tabled the first early-day motion of this Parliament on the public ownership of water. We highlighted that sewage was “being discharged into English waterways for more than 3.6 million hours in 2023…that water companies in England have incurred debts of more than £64 billion and paid out £78 billion in dividends”— note the similarity of those numbers— “since they were privatised debt-free in 1989”. We pointed out that “water companies paid out £1.4 billion in dividends in 2022, even as 11 of them were fined in the same year for missing performance targets”. Privatisation is just not working. The experiment has failed. We are one of the only countries in the world with a fully privatised water system, which shows that it is a bad idea. Water is a natural monopoly. For example, people who live in the south-west, as I do, cannot choose to be supplied by Yorkshire Water. I am not sure that they would want to, but my point is that when their provider gives a poor service and charges extortionate sums, they cannot take their business elsewhere. There is no fair competition. You get what you get, and you cannot get upset about it—but we are upset about it, because sewage is being pumped into our water, and we are paying through the nose for the privilege, all while shareholders profit.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Member is so aware of the overwhelming public support for public ownership of water, as she just indicated from the level of concern in her constituency, I am confused about why she is so dogged in her pursuit of continued privatisation.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would also point to the citizens’ assembly set up by Bristol city council. Citizens’ assemblies are particularly strong at looking in depth at detailed, specific questions, rather than broad topics to do with how the entire country is run. I see citizens’ assemblies not as replacing the role of the House of Commons, but as supplementing it valuably.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The provision of water—

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It might be worth clarifying that, as far as I can tell— Hansard will prove whether I am right—the majority of the mentions of nationalisation were from Members opposing this Bill, whereas those who support it were talking about other models, including mutualisation and co-operatives.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think my hon. Friend is about to chip in with an example.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has expressed concern about how public ownership would be paid for. Is he aware of the special administration regime for water companies? It was brought in last year and would substantially address these issues.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  We have a deeply unfair and unequal economic system, where vast numbers of people are struggling while billionaires are getting richer and richer. Does the Prime Minister really think that the way to tackle this situation is to put the onus on older people, children, and now sick and disabled people, rather than on the shoulders of the super-rich—those who can most easily afford to pay—with a wealth tax? If the Prime Minister uses the phrase “difficult choices” in his answer, will he specify “difficult choices” for whom?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in support of amendment 172, tabled by my party, and then I will say a few words to lend cross-party support to new clauses 8 and 3. I truly welcome the important steps taken in the Bill to strengthen the systems intended to keep children safe, yet the Bill fails to embed meaningful consideration of children’s views. This means that critical decisions may be made at local and regional levels without consideration of the views and experiences of the children they affect. It is concerning that the proposed requirement in the Bill is to seek the views of the child only where the local authority thinks that is appropriate. The NSPCC points out that this is weaker than the existing Children Act 1989 requirements to ascertain and give due weight to the wishes and feelings of the child, in line with their age and maturity. In short, while there are so many good things in the Bill, it inexplicably falls short of that gold standard. Our amendment 172 seeks to address that. Amendment 172 would ensure that local authorities offering and facilitating family group decision making must consistently seek to ascertain the child’s views and to properly support them to engage, where this is in their best interests. Importantly, the amendment also seeks to ensure that, where attendance at a family group decision making meeting may not be in the child’s interests—which must of course include giving due weight to their wishes and feelings and identifying safeguarding concerns—that is not the end of the story, because even if the child is not in attendance, the amendment requires the local authority to ensure that the child’s views are sought and, where relevant, independently represented. This could be, for example, through an independent advocate, recognising the incredible work they do to support even the youngest children to be heard and to participate where possible. So I hope the Minister will look seriously at that amendment. New clause 8 was tabled by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). I thank her for her years of work on this issue, and I want to reiterate that the Green party supports putting into law equal protection for children. The physical assault of children is never acceptable, and we need to follow Scotland and Wales by urgently updating our law. The Children’s Commissioner, the NSPCC, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and many others have been crystal clear, not least in the wake of the horrifying case of Sara Sharif, that children should be equally protected from assault. The Children’s Commissioner makes the important point that equal protection from physical assault is not a so-called smacking ban. That term trivialises this issue and is misleading about the types of behaviour that would come under scrutiny through such legislation, wrongly implying the creation of a new offence. Equal protection would instead remove the defence currently available to parents and carers who have been charged with assault, which by their nature are some of the most serious cases of child maltreatment. I will also say a few words in support of new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who chairs the Education Committee. There is strong cross-party support for a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a draft national care offer, to set minimum standards for local care offers. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) tabled a similar amendment in Committee—she is unfortunately unable to speak in today’s debate as she is on Environmental Audit Committee business. All local authorities, as we have heard, have to produce a local offer for care leavers, but the support they get is a postcode lottery. A great national offer would help support independent living into adulthood for all care leavers. Enhancing and improving support for all care leavers would involve an ambitious cross-Government programme of work, but it would mean that for the first time there could be a clear list of statutory entitlements that care leavers could access. Such entitlements should mirror the support that many young people receive from their parents, including support with rent deposits or free transport. With the number of children in care at a record high, we simply must do more to support those leaving care. There is both a financial and moral case for the Government to do that.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little more progress. It is the landlords who own hundreds of properties putting up the rent every few months, out of all proportion to incomes, so that people pay more and more of their wage packet each month. It is the big developers prioritising profit by building luxury developments rather than the affordable homes that we need. It is years and years of deliberate underfunding by Governments that have brought our public services to their knees. None of this is inevitable. If the Government choose, they could raise the minimum wage so that it is genuinely enough to live on. They could take action on spiralling bills, put an end to rip-off rents and build the affordable housing we so desperately need. But some rich and powerful people have an interest in keeping rents high, or allowing public services to be sold off to the highest bidder, or letting the rich get richer while the rest of us struggle. Rather than answering difficult questions about why this economy has been designed in a way that benefits them, it is easier for them to point the finger at migrants. It is not always easy to stand up and tell the truth when we are swimming against the tide of what people across the country are being told day in, day out by public figures, newspaper headlines and posts on X. It is not easy to challenge the perceptions that have become the mainstream, but we have to, because as long as we chase false solutions to our problems and ignore the real sources of those problems, the things we care about—how much money we have in our pocket, whether we have a safe, warm, secure home, a roof over our head, and public services—will not improve. I am going to have to turn to the negative for a moment. There is a serious problem of racism in this country, and especially in debates around immigration. That is not to say that everyone who has concerns about immigration is racist, though I fully expect that I may have my speech characterised as such. But we need to be honest about the fact that racism is thriving in this country. Like a hideous parasite, it feeds off people’s fear and suffering and is nurtured by politicians and media outlets that benefit from finding someone else to blame. Last summer in Southport, we saw a horrific attack against children that scared us all. Such horrors make us angry, and rightfully so. But just as unacceptable and scary is what happened next and how that anger was deliberately misdirected towards totally innocent people: towards black and brown families minding their own business, who are no more responsible for the behaviour of one young man who happens to be the son of immigrants than I am responsible for the behaviour of all other left-handers. The despicable scenes we saw in the riots are a chilling snapshot and reminder of what is happening in this country and of what I am here to speak against: a spiral of misdirected blame, anger and fear that fixes nothing, helps nobody and harms many. When the Minister responds, I ask him not to focus only on the perhaps easier, but not entirely honest, answer of being tough on migration, but to meet the petitioners with sincerity about the challenges we face and how we can really tackle them. To quote the petitioners one last time: “We believe we can’t even look after the people we have here at the moment.” They are right. Successive Governments have failed the people in this country. They have failed to provide jobs with fair wages, affordable housing, affordable energy, access to healthcare—I could go on. Rather than solutions, millionaire politicians and millionaire media moguls have inundated our phones, TVs and newspapers with images and messages depicting immigrants as the source of all our problems. People are struggling. They are worried about not being able to pay their bills, about not getting paid enough and about their safety. An overwhelming tide of loud voices is telling them who to blame. That does not ease their worry or stop their struggling; it capitalises on their anger for political gain at the expense of some of the most hard-working and, sometimes, vulnerable people in this country. It is a story as old as time to blame the stranger, the newcomer, the one who looks different. No one ever beat that story by accepting the narrative or overcame it by validating it. People’s feelings about being let down are valid, but the direction in which they are being pointed is not. It is the responsibility of all of us in this House, and especially of the Government, to be truthful, confront the real issues and not let people’s pain be channelled into hatred.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I usually say how pleased I am to speak in a debate, but I have to admit that I am conflicted about being here today because I could not disagree more strongly with the petition’s demands. And yet, the thousands who have signed it have rightly identified that we face deep challenges in this country, and that people are being badly let down and are struggling. Those who have signed the petition want answers. They want politicians like us to take bold, decisive action that will genuinely change people’s lives for the better. Let me be very clear: stopping migration is not the answer to that problem—in fact, it is the opposite. But we do nobody any favours by pretending that the problems are not there. The petition captures a view of migration that I fundamentally disagree with, but the view is clearly widespread, so I want to directly address the many people who have signed the petition and all those who feel frustrated, left behind and ignored. I want to give another view of the problems that we face as a country and give people another way forward—one that is determined to change things for the better, that is positive in the face of negativity, and that resolutely stands up to those spreading misinformation and prejudice from wherever it comes. I will start with the positive. I am proud to represent Bristol Central, which is apparently the most pro-immigration constituency in the country. I know that that feeling is not universal across the UK, so I want to explain why I and so many of my constituents feel that way. The truth is that migration is good for this country. People come from across the world because they want to be part of our communities. They do vital work, as has been discussed, in our hospitals, schools and GP surgeries. They care for our children and our grandparents. They start businesses and create jobs. They pay tax and give to charity. If we look at Spain, we see that, last year, its economy grew by five times the eurozone average and more than the US. Why? Because by welcoming immigration, its Government boosted demand in the economy and filled their labour shortages. Economic growth is not the best measure of the benefit to citizens, and I will come to that in a moment, but to pretend that migration is a problem and not an opportunity does a disservice to people who have grown up here and people who have chosen to make the UK their home. The Government’s economics watchdog tells us that higher migration leads to lower Government deficits and debt. Instead of grasping the huge opportunity presented by people moving here to be part of our communities and contribute to our economy, the Government are subjecting immigrants to harsh arbitrary visa restrictions, forcing many to leave their families behind—one man’s economic dependence is another man’s children—and pushing many into jobs, such as in the care sector, where they are at risk of very poor treatment because they are under threat of deportation at any time. A lot of people feel very protective of this country, and so do I. We should want to protect this country, our home, and a place where so many incredible things have been invented and created. We have such a strong culture, with inventions from the electric motor and penicillin to the first ever website—although arguably that has had some cons as well as pros. The UK is a wonderfully creative culture and economy. It has the most beautiful countryside and the most talented people. We should be proud and protective of this country, and I want to be, but who are we protecting this country against? Who does it need protecting from? I agree with the petitioners when they say that “we can’t even look after the people we have here at the moment”, but why is that? It is absolutely true that people and powers in this country are making life harder for a lot of Brits—they are making it harder for families to feed their children, pay the bills, get a doctor’s appointment, get on the housing ladder, or even get a council house. But that is not the people who have moved to the UK from elsewhere; it is big corporations paying poverty wages and then taking their profits out of the country. It is energy companies hiking their bills time and again while polluting our environment, and water companies making us pay for the privilege of having sewage pumped into our waterways.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Legal and Illegal Migration: Suspension · Hansard source

  More

  It was funded very well as well.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. In response to the minimum energy efficiency standards consultation for privately rented homes, landlord groups are saying that they would pass the cost of energy efficiency works on to tenants, despite that being the cost of bringing their properties up to basic minimum standards. Relying on council guidance that that should not happen is too weak. What additional measures will the Minister take to enforce that and ensure that it is private tenants—who are already at the greatest risk of fuel poverty—who will benefit, and not landlords?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her commitment to the inquiry’s recommendations and her commitment to systemic change. Picking up the thread from two Government Members on an oversight mechanism for state-related deaths, I was shocked to discover that it is nobody’s job to track recommendations from prevention of future deaths reports and make sure they are enacted. Those have relevance for victims of huge tragedies such as this, but just as much for individual tragedies, such as that of one of my constituents. I have a private Member’s Bill on that proposal. Will the Deputy Prime Minister meet me to talk about this idea in detail and how it can be enacted?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government deserve credit for swiftly scrapping the disgusting, immoral and illegal Rwanda plan, but we need to scrap the attitudes that underpinned it too. The demonising of vulnerable people and of anyone who is different—pandering to the nasty, dog-whistling of Reform and the Tories—is divisive and dangerous. It is shocking, then, to witness the Government trying to mimic the Tories and Reform with migrant raid videos and adverts boasting about deportations. Do they not understand that that just serves to reinforce Reform’s scapegoating rhetoric? Let us not forget that last summer we saw mobs, driven by hate, trying to burn refugees alive in hotels. The Government should be challenging those narratives head-on and helping communities to heal from divisions, not publishing videos that risk encouraging further animosity towards migrants and anyone perceived as being one. Let me turn to the Bill. I share the Refugee Council’s concerns about the potential for clauses 13 to 16 and 18 to lead to the unintentional criminalisation of refugees who are forced to make decisions under coercion when their survival is at stake—by being forced to steer a small boat under threat of death, for example. Although I am pleased to see the repeal of child detention powers, 1,300 children were wrongly assessed to be adults over an 18-month period, so how do the Government plan to address that? I welcome the repeal of much of the Illegal Migration Act 2024, but I am concerned that some aspects that should have been scrapped will remain, including, for example, the automatic inadmissibility of asylum and human rights claims from certain countries, which is particularly dangerous for LGBTQ+ asylum seekers. Let me come to my central point. Focusing solely on enforcement simply is not saving lives. The number of deaths in the channel remains horrifying. Enforcement against criminal gangs is of course needed, but that is not going to work on its own when refugees have no other choice. Instead, if people have a choice not to go with gangs, not to put their children in a deathly dinghy and not to risk their lives, the gangs lose their power. I hope that Ministers have seen the report on safe routes published by the APPG on refugees, of which I am a member. It contains three recommendations, all of which are already tried and tested in other countries and should, in my view, be totally uncontroversial. First, we must urgently fix family reunion. Refugee children are being intentionally kept apart from their parents by the UK’s asylum laws. That is unconscionably cruel. We must move in line with the majority of European nations by bringing parents and children together, which would likely reduce the number of parents making dangerous journeys across the channel to be reunited with their children. Secondly, Ministers must improve the UK resettlement scheme, which has a lot of potential but has consistently failed to help enough people—only 435 people were resettled last year. My inbox—like those of many Members, I am sure—is full of heartbreaking pleas from people caught up in delays and huge backlogs, and that step could help to fix the system. Thirdly, I would like the Government to pilot a humanitarian visa, to provide a safe option for refugees with strong asylum claims to travel here and make their claim. It is based on successful schemes in the US and Switzerland that have helped to reduce people smuggling. In conclusion, bits of the Bill are important and hugely welcome, but let us be clear: scrapping something illegal, immoral and unworkable is the bare minimum, and now we need Ministers to build something better that helps this country to rise above the far-right narrative that demonises all migrants. Before I end my remarks, I invite everyone in the Chamber to join me in a very short thought experiment. “The political environment in your home country has become extremely dangerous for anyone with your political views. People in your movement have been murdered. Last month, your children got followed home by an unmarked car, and you have received threatening calls. You have a family member in the UK who successfully claimed asylum a few years ago and is very worried about you. He implores you to join him. Your options are to stay in your home country, risk being murdered and leaving your children orphaned, or to flee to the UK.” Who among us could say with 100% certainty that we would stay? I will abstain on Second Reading, because although I support the scrapping of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act and the Illegal Migration Act, if the Government truly want to modernise the asylum system, they must be honest about the need for safe routes and respect for human rights.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  If the Minister will not comment on Rosebank or Jackdaw because of the threat of legal appeals, will he at least confirm that his Government will put a stop to extraction from a reported 13 new oil and gas fields that received licences from the previous Government but are still awaiting their final consents? I believe that they are not subject to the restrictions that cause him not to want to comment on Rosebank and Jackdaw.

• 10 Feb 2025 · Biomass Generation · Hansard source

  More

  Drax is a clean energy scam that has been handed £6 billion by successive Conservative Ministers since 2012, when that money should have been spent on getting energy bills down. The Minister rightly cites past excess profits and I believe he said specifically that the new contract will allow Government to claw them back. Will the contract allow clawback of previous excess profits and remedy the past misspending of public money? Or will the clawback apply only as we go forward into the future, in which case that is still throwing good money after bad, just slightly less of it?