Carla Denyer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, every single person who just voted no on the statutory instrument wanted to vote yes on the proscription of the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement, but we were prevented from doing so by the cynical way in which the Government lumped together those two clearly terrorist organisations with Palestine Action, which we could not support. Can you please advise me and the other MPs who just voted no if there is any way that, in future, proscription orders for unrelated organisations could be voted on separately, so that each MP can apply their own critical assessment of whether each group has met the tests of proportionality and necessity that are required for a terrorism proscription?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery · Hansard source

  More

  I stand in solidarity with the workers in the oil industry who are facing such uncertainty and fear. This incident illustrates perfectly why a carefully managed worker-led transition away from oil and gas is so desperately needed to avoid a chaotic collapse in which workers pay the price. Will the Minister agree to implement my Energy and Employment Rights Bill, whose proposals include the publication of a plan for the redeployment and retraining of oil and gas workers, paid for by oil and gas companies across the industry rather than piece by piece and crisis by crisis?

• 23 Jun 2025 · UK Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the investment in skills announced today. What seems to be missing, though, is a commitment to give wraparound support to the 3 million workers in the UK currently in high-carbon industries, who will need reskilling and retraining in order to make the most of the green jobs boom. Can the Secretary of State give us any information on what is planned for those workers specifically, and does he agree that the fossil fuel giants should be the ones shouldering the cost of that support?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  This Refugee Week is an opportunity for the House to show solidarity with those fleeing war, persecution and oppression. Compassion and welcome are core British values, but for decades the Home Office has been undermining those values, as my new report “No Way Home” shows, by treating migration as a crime rather than making it work for our communities and for newcomers. Will the Deputy Prime Minister read the report and consider its recommendation to remove migration from the responsibilities of the failing Home Office?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Fossil Fuels · Hansard source

  More

  Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response on reducing the reliance on fossil fuels; no more backing for oil and gas is essential for protecting our children’s futures. However, that positive change requires a plan to future-proof British industries that works for everyone, particularly those who are currently working in those high-carbon sectors. Will the Minister and his colleagues commit to publishing an energy jobs plan for how those workers can be supported in that transition, particularly around being provided with retraining opportunities?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I find it remarkable that the Minister repeatedly accused the over 30 leading environmental groups, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has described the Bill as a “cash to trash” model, as making “spurious” remarks, given that he quoted the chief executive of the RSPB, Beccy Speight, to try to shore up his own argument. However, the quote that he took was from a much earlier comment made before the debate in Committee. More recently, she has said: “The evidence clearly shows nature isn’t a blocker to growth. The Government has identified the wrong obstacle to the problem it’s trying to overcome”. She went on to say that, with no possibility for improving the Bill through amendments, “the complete removal of Part 3 of the Bill is the only responsible option left.”

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Given the really important points that the hon. Lady is making about the environment and how it is so strongly connected to our economy and public health, does she agree with me—I appreciate that this is on a slight tangent, but she will see where it is going—that the planning rules for big digital billboards, which themselves can emit 11 homes-worth of energy, not to mention the light pollution that seriously affects nature and human health, are illogical and inconsistent? The rules say that planning applications can only be considered on highway safety and immunity grounds, and not on environmental impact or on the impact on human health. Would it not be better if local authorities could make decisions on those grounds as well?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Research undertaken by Women for Refugee Women has found that banning work for women seeking asylum leads many women, sadly, to stay in unwanted and abusive relationships. Will the Minister consider lifting the ban on asylum seekers working, and will she specifically include women seeking asylum in the Government’s upcoming strategy to tackle violence against women and girls?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I have to say that I am disgusted by the narrative coming from Conservative Members, who are continuing, even in opposition and in using this Opposition day debate, to scapegoat migrants for their own 14 years of failure to deliver proper public services, tackle inequality and tackle poverty in this country, which led to many of the problems the right hon. Member has listed. Now that he has moved on to tackling small boats, will he not acknowledge that, without providing safe and regulated routes for people to claim asylum, they are pushed into the hands of people smugglers, and that the most rational as well as the most compassionate thing to do would be to provide those safe and managed routes?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?

• 20 May 2025 · Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories · Hansard source

  More

  The UN has warned that 14,000 babies could die in the next 48 hours. Concrete action against Netanyahu’s murderous Government is long overdue. We know that this Government are not prepared to make a determination on genocide, but they have told us that they are making ongoing assessments of the risk. Will they now finally release that risk assessment for this House and the public to see, to prove that this Government take their obligations under international law seriously and mean what they say about concrete action?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister raises the important issue of the cost of living. Given the dire economic impacts of Brexit, including food inflation being eight times higher than it would otherwise have been, and the costs of leaving the European Union amounting to £1 million an hour in 2022, according to data from the Office for National Statistics, does he agree with me that it makes total economic sense for the UK and the people in it to use next week’s summit to start discussions with the EU on what the process of rejoining might be, and the timings for that? [ Official Report , 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 6WC.] (Correction)

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s repeal of the vile and illegal Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and large parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 are welcome, but they must do more to repeal the underlying legal framework, which continues to undermine the UK’s ability to uphold the rule of law and human rights. The Illegal Migration Act simply does not belong on the statute book, and my preference would be to scrap the lot of it. My amendment 35 at least seeks to restore judicial oversight of decisions about detention. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association points out that without my amendment 35, a software engineer who overstayed her visa could be detained for longer than a suspected terrorist, and with far less judicial oversight. Turning to my new clause 38, I am disappointed that the Government have not used the Bill to repeal the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, when Labour rightly opposed that legislation in its entirety on its Second Reading. That Act marked the UK’s move away from upholding the 1951 refugee convention and instead denies the right to territorial asylum, yet this Labour Government have chosen to leave the Act on the statute book, untouched by this Bill. My new clause 38 focuses on undoing the provisions that penalise and criminalise people who make unsafe journeys to the UK to seek sanctuary. It scraps the parts that create an unfair two-tier asylum system with differential treatment for different groups of people—a proposal so unworkable that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) had to pause it when in government. Crucially, it scraps the law that criminalises people arriving in the UK without permission or the right paperwork with a penalty of up to four years in prison. This law is clearly contrary to article 31.1 of the 1951 refugee convention, which provides immunity from penalties in recognition of the fact that refugees are often compelled to arrive without appropriate documents in order to access their human rights under that convention. Lastly, my new clause 38 would scrap sections 30 to 38 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which sought to—I will put it charitably—poorly reinterpret the refugee convention. I wish to highlight the fact that the Government are leaving on the statute book measures that unjustly penalise and criminalise refugees for arriving irregularly when there are no safe and managed routes to travel here to claim asylum for the vast majority of people who might need and be eligible to do so. In the words of Warsan Shire: “no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land”. This Government are clearly focused on appearing tough on immigration, and to do so they have brought in some of the previous Government’s cruel policies and introduced some of their own—

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister’s “island of strangers” speech sounded like something straight out of the Reform-Trump playbook. Rather than alienating and devaluing migrants, and recognising the need to increase the number of Brits who want to work in our health and care sectors, would the Home Secretary not prefer to support Unison’s campaign for a certificate of common sponsorship? Such a certificate would protect the working rights of migrant workers who are working in unacceptable situations of exploitation that border on slavery and who are at threat of deportation. As a Labour Member, would she not prefer to support that campaign?

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for her powerful speech. I briefly draw attention to some figures from the Public and Commercial Services Union about its members working in the Department for Work and Pensions, including in jobcentres. Almost 50% of PCS members working in the DWP claim the very benefits that they process. Many of them rely on PIP to work, which further underlines the point she is making about the folly of cutting the benefits that enable people working for the Government to deliver these policies—they will not be able to do so if those benefits are cut. Does she agree that these cuts will punish sick and disabled people, including those working for the Government in this policy area?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Climate Change: International Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister knows, global leadership is about adaptation and mitigation. Does she expect the Climate Change Committee’s report on adaptation, which is due out tomorrow, to say that the Government are doing enough in this regard? Furthermore, will she show real leadership by requiring local authorities and major infrastructure providers to carry out climate risk assessments, so that, statutorily, they will have to ensure that climate resilience and preparedness form a part of their plans?

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this important debate ahead of the UK-EU summit next month. The summit comes in the throes of alarming uncertainty created by President Trump’s dangerous, chaotic and authoritarian approach to trade and international relations. The Trump turmoil makes building close relationships with our EU neighbours even more urgent. We need to fix those relationships because the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has caused profound damage to our relationship with our nearest and biggest trading partner. I will not repeat the stats that Members have already highlighted, but I want to highlight that smaller firms are seeing the biggest fall in trade. I know that Brexit has caused major problems for independent local businesses in my Bristol Central constituency.

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Jeremy. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) spoke about defence industry businesses that are largely outside my constituency, so I am not familiar with the details, but it is an interesting point. We need a bold and positive plan to get closer to the EU, rather than capitulation to an untrustworthy US President on vital trading standards and regulations. So far, the Government’s reset of the UK-EU relationship has had some good points, such as some useful moves on reducing border checks on agrifoods, mutual recognition of qualifications and addressing problems facing touring artists, but we must go further. In particular, there is huge mutual benefit to be gained from greater climate and energy co-operation to ensure improved energy security and the delivery of net zero at a lower cost, so I hope the Minister can assure us that that will be a central part of the UK-EU reset and the upcoming summit. The UK has been falling sharply behind EU chemical safety laws post Brexit, which is a point of particular concern. As well as supporting closer trade ties with the EU, alignment with EU chemical safety protections would be beneficial for the UK by minimising costs to industry, as well as maintaining high environmental, worker and public health and safety standards. Ministers will be aware that the Trades Union Congress, representing millions of workers across the UK, has recently said that a closer trading relationship with the EU is “more important than ever” in an increasingly fraught and volatile world, and I agree. The Green party is clear that the UK would be better off inside the EU. Like many others, we were frankly astonished to hear the now Prime Minister say, just days before the general election, that the UK would not rejoin the EU—not only during his premiership but in his entire lifetime. I think that was a remarkable thing to say. Recognising that the UK will not rejoin the EU imminently, the Greens and I still feel that it would be wise for the UK to rebuild trust and links, and to break down those barriers with a view to rejoining the EU when the domestic and international situation makes that more viable. In the meantime, joining the customs union as a first step towards full EU membership would be vital, and a way of resolving many of the worst problems resulting from Brexit, not least the harm done to our trading relationship with the EU.

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) to debate transitional support for oil and gas workers, who are already bearing the brunt of the North sea’s disorderly decline as reserves have dwindled without a clear agreed plan. In my first ever job in the renewable energy sector in 2008—17 years ago now—I co-wrote a report on the huge potential of British North sea ports to move into the renewable energy industry as locations where offshore wind turbines and associated infrastructure are manufactured and then shipped. While some of that has been realised, a lot of opportunities were missed as jobs went overseas. The need for action is now urgent. We already know that new oil and gas projects are incompatible with averting the worst impacts of climate catastrophe. If the goal is also to provide North sea workers and communities with the long-term security that they deserve—and it must be—new oil and gas fields are still not the answer. Even with hundreds of new licences issued and new field approvals granted in the past decade, jobs supported by the UK oil and gas industry have more than halved already, and multiple sources predict a continued decline. We must protect those workers and provide security for that workforce, but in a declining basin that will not come from desperate attempts to double down on new drilling. Let us take the specific example of the Rosebank oil field. Setting aside the significant climate harm that Rosebank would cause, the claim that the project will create thousands of jobs is inflated. Equinor’s own estimate suggests that only 255 direct jobs would be created in the UK over its entire lifetime. Equinor has decided to construct the main offshore vessel for Rosebank in Dubai, and unions are rightly furious that the project has yet to create a single UK design or construction job. Meanwhile, analysis shows that properly investing in British clean energy supply chains could create over 20,000 jobs for workers in key areas such as Scotland’s oil and gas communities, many of whom, as Members have pointed out, have a lot of the transferable skills we need. Rather than bowing to the industry’s last-ditch calls for new drilling, will the Government do what is needed to protect workers? For too long, oil and gas companies have been in the driving seat of the North sea transition. Time and again, they choose to prioritise their own short-term interests over the long-term needs of workers and their communities. As the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) said, alarmingly, just seven of the 87 North sea operators plan to invest anything at all in UK renewables between now and 2030. Instead, these companies are on a sunset ride, maximising profits from oil and gas while they still can, regardless of what that means for the rest of us. That lack of investment has clear consequences for workers, who are demanding clear pathways out of high-carbon jobs and into the renewable energy industry, where they know they have a longer-term future. Oil and gas companies like to blame the windfall tax for preventing them from investing, but they had been failing to invest long before that levy was introduced. We have also seen companies choosing to make workers redundant while simultaneously banking excessive profits and issuing their shareholders huge payouts—more proof that they continue to prioritise their own private interests over the workforce. Does the Minister agree that it is time to stop betting on private oil and gas industry companies doing the right thing? How does he plan to ensure that the interests of workers and communities, rather than just those of oil and gas bosses, are served in the Government’s plan for the North sea? The need for the Government to step in and manage the transition in the public interest is now urgent, and the current approach, which is overwhelmingly focused on de-risking private investment, is wholly insufficient to achieve that aim. It risks recreating the inequalities and failures of our current energy system, where wealth and jobs flow overseas. The unjust closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery without plans to support workers is a damning indictment of that failed industry. To ensure good, secure jobs for workers and build wealth that lasts in communities that are already experiencing the sharp edge of the transition, we need an entirely new approach—one that plans ahead before private companies decide to abandon their workers. Alongside a clear, worker-led plan for the North sea, unions and climate groups are calling for the Government to commit to an emergency ringfenced funding package in the spending review. Will the Minister meet the Chancellor to ensure that those ringfenced funds are secured, and will he ensure that past mistakes are not repeated in the North sea transition?

• 22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source

  More

  Many people are feeling deeply worried about the Supreme Court judgment and what it means for their ability to live their lives in dignity and in privacy. Will the Minister make a commitment to uphold trans people’s fundamental rights, including the right to privacy, given that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was created in part to do that? The Supreme Court ruling risks dismantling that by forcing trans people to out themselves multiple times a day whenever they visit the toilet, including in their workplace, in public buildings, or, indeed, in hospital.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Gaza: Israeli Military Operations · Hansard source

  More

  The Israeli Government’s brutal decision to expand their military operations in Gaza is not about security; it is about domination and erasure. It comes on top of 18 months of collective punishment, including, since 2 March, the longest aid blockade since the war began. I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the UK does not support the Israeli Government’s expanded military operation in Gaza. Will he now finally name what is happening as genocide and undertake a structural investigation into genocide and other crimes under international law committed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories? To ensure that the UK is not complicit in Israel’s ongoing genocide, illegal occupation and system of apartheid, will the Minister immediately suspend the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer—including transit and trans-shipment—to Israel of all weapons, munitions and other military and security equipment? Will he immediately suspend the provision of training and other military and security assistance and recognise that, otherwise, there is a clear risk of contributing to the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including crimes under international law? As the Minister mentioned, the UK is a significant provider of humanitarian aid to the region. What assessment has he made of the impact of today’s reports on the humanitarian crisis? Although he touched on this lightly, given the UK’s level of influence with Israeli authorities, will he confirm that he will use his position to actively oppose current and planned attempts by Israel to establish a permanent military presence in Gaza, and to oppose moves to alter Gaza’s borders and demographic make-up or to shrink its territory, including through any expanded buffer zones and construction of permanent checkpoints?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Gaza: Israeli Military Operations · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement about the Israeli Government’s announcement that they are expanding their military operations in Gaza.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful reminder about the analogy with the national health service. Public ownership is not just essential for social and environmental justice; it is also, in this situation, a pragmatic necessity. It just makes sense, which is why almost everyone else does things that way. With water back in public hands, the Government could invest in fixing the crumbling infrastructure and cleaning up our rivers, or preventing them from getting into such a state in the first place, without haemorrhaging money to shareholders and allowing it to spill over—sorry; I couldn’t resist—into fat cats’ salaries. People are struggling to put food on the table and heat their homes. We cannot allow water companies to contribute to that situation by hiking up the bills that everyone has to pay. Without real change, we will not stop sewage flowing into our rivers and profits flowing into the pockets of shareholders. There is an obvious answer that makes both people and the environment the winners: if they so choose, the Government could bring water companies back into public hands, to end the profiteering, drive down bills, protect our rivers, waterways and coastline, and catch up with the public who, as the hon. Member for Norwich South pointed out, are way ahead of the Labour Government on this issue and much else.