Joy Morrissey MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2025 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will ensure that Thames Water stands by its commitment to upgrade our sewage network in South Buckinghamshire? Specifically, will he ensure that the upgrade promised for the Little Marlow sewage treatment works in my constituency is delivered on time?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Violent Offenders: Early Release · Hansard source

  More

  The Victims’ Commissioner says that the early release of prisoners risks victim safety, so will the Lord Chancellor explain why she is putting violent offenders ahead of victims?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Violent Offenders: Early Release · Hansard source

  More

  7. What discussions she has had with victims’ groups on the early release of violent offenders.

• 2 Jun 2025 · UK Nuclear Deterrent · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Minister on his robust stance on the UK nuclear deterrent, which I welcome. From a Whip’s perspective, I am interested to know how he plans to bring his parliamentary party on side when so many have voted against the nuclear deterrent and Trident.

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to be responding to business questions as we march on to the recess. I know that the Leader of the House has had a challenging few weeks, but I want to start by thanking her for everything that she has done to advocate for Members in this House. This morning, we have learned that the Government have been prevented from signing their Chagos surrender deal by the High Court. When will the Prime Minister come to the House to explain this latest humiliation and masterclass in how not to negotiate in Britain’s interests? I know that Members across the House often say things in the Chamber and elsewhere that they regret. I know, too, that the Leader of the House has said that she regrets her words on rape gangs, but it is for the victims of those rape gangs to decide whether those regrets are enough. It is time for the Government finally to take action on this scandal. Will she grant a debate, in Government time, on the rape gang scandal, and commit the Government to the national inquiry that the victims deserve? At the previous business questions, I called on the Leader of the House to ask the Chancellor to U-turn on her disastrous economic policies. Since then, things have got even worse. This week, inflation, which stood at 2% when Labour took office, has surged to 3.5%. Today, public sector net borrowing hit £20.2 billion, the fourth highest figure for the month since records began. We have had a disastrous Budget followed by an emergency one, and it looks like the next one could be catastrophic. It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister has also had enough of the Chancellor’s economic policies. The difference is that we on the Conservative Benches want the tax raids on businesses and households to be reversed, but the Deputy Prime Minister wants more tax and more spend. Yesterday, the Prime Minister would not rule out more tax rises either. I think that we can all see what is coming: £40 billion of tax rises last autumn was never going to be enough for this Government—a Government who are tough with the vulnerable, but weak with the unions. The Deputy Prime Minister may be on leadership manoeuvres, but it is quite a shopping list of new taxes that she is after—although, curiously, further taxes on second homes were not included. It is the people who save hard for their retirement and build businesses who are next in the firing line for the tax-raid obsession of this Labour Government. To pensioners, farmers and business owners we can now add savers to the list of people whom this Government seem determined to make poor. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate, in Government time, on the Government’s economic plans, so that the Deputy Prime Minister can also come and set out her tax plans for the House. I would be very interested to see the tag-team operation there. If the Deputy Prime Minister is otherwise engaged, perhaps we could turn our attention to yesterday’s welcome U-turn from the Prime Minister. I understand that he has always been gifted with the most flexible of principles, but it was quite a sight yesterday to see him admitting to promising a U-turn on punishing pensioners without any date for that U-turn, or an explanation of whether it would benefit all or just some pensioners. Crucially, we did not hear an apology from him. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the winter fuel payment U-turn, so that the Chancellor, or the Prime Minister, can come to this House and apologise to pensioners and set out when they will give pensioners the certainty that they can heat their homes next winter? Let me conclude—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Ah, thank you. We are watching the Government in a slow-motion car crash, with no economic plan but to tax and spend as fast as they can. It is not the gingerbread man; it is tax, tax as fast as they can. We are watching a Prime Minister who is having to undo the decisions of his own Government in the space of just months but who cannot bring himself to apologise. The Government are already showing that they have failed to learn the lesson of all socialist Governments: they eventually run out of everyone else’s money. This Government seem determined to run out in record time, and the only losers will be the British people.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith , That the Question be now put. Question agreed to. Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)) , That the original words stand part of the Question.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  As the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs represents a constituency in Croydon, it is perhaps understandable that he may misinterpret the needs of rural communities. We need to continue to highlight the plight of rural communities and how such issues affect them, and we must allow for proper debate in the House about these important topics. I hold the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks), in high regard, and I hope that his response will recognise and encompass the concerns and issues that have been raised today. I know that his brief covers several Departments and that that brings challenges, but the Government need to address three key areas of concern: the loss of high-quality agricultural land, the clustering of development applications linked to solar farms and the importance of community consent. On the loss of high-quality agricultural land, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham eloquently set out why that matters to her constituents. It also matters to constituents in Mid Norfolk, where a 7,000 acre development is proposed.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that we can address this issue in the House again very soon, because there is much more to be said on this important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) was not able to make all of his remarks, and many Members were not able to raise their concerns. Finally, I will talk about community consent, which has been raised so many times already today. We need to ensure that we are listening to these communities, not ignoring them and bulldozing over our green spaces—our countryside and our agricultural land—for the sake of a relentless net zero target that will destroy our rural way of life. I mention again that agricultural land is being consumed by this Government at an alarming rate. Farming capacity is being lost as tenant farmers are evicted. Whole counties are being covered in clusters of solar farms. Local communities are being ignored and experts are being overridden. Those are the realities of a solar strategy driven by ideology ahead of evidence. I urge the Minister to heed the concerns that hon. and right hon. Members have raised so forcefully today and to change course urgently.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with what my hon. Friend said. There is a lack of compensation for rural communities and no offer of lower energy bills or a discount on offsetting the cost of energy. These local communities will sacrifice their green spaces, livelihoods and way of life for energy that will not give them a direct benefit. In Lincolnshire, this issue has a huge impact. We see solar applications in constituencies, particularly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, where they cover 7% of the overall available land. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) in Lincolnshire faces 5% of land in his constituency being consumed by solar. That is shocking. Across the country, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) faces 9% of land in his constituency being consumed by solar farms. Lincolnshire’s agricultural land is vital to our food security, but it is under threat. Developers see this land as the fastest and easiest pathway to solar farm development, enabled by a Government who seem to place no importance on our food security. The Countryside Alliance recently highlighted that tenant farmers face threats; I appreciate that that was raised by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and I appreciate his boldness in doing that. Those tenant farmers are being evicted to make way for solar farms. Tenant farmers are not landowners: they work the land, and they are being evicted so that solar farms can be put in place. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) and the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, pointed out, we are losing farmland and farmers and our food security in the reckless ideological pursuit of net zero. That is why His Majesty’s Opposition have tabled new clause 47 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which would limit where solar farms can be built on agricultural land. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of solar farm applications on the loss of agricultural land and tenant farmers in areas such as Lincolnshire and on our national food security? Will the Minister look at ways to incentivise the development of solar capacity away from agricultural land? As developers seek easy access to agricultural land, this leads to a clustering effect, which many Conservative Members mentioned. We heard mention of a 3,000-acre development in East Yorkshire, which, coupled with another 3,000-acre development, means that 6,000 acres of land in East Yorkshire are being consumed by solar farms. The need for these applications to cluster around substations for cost-effective grid connection is creating an overwhelming impact in areas such as Lincolnshire, Suffolk, Buckinghamshire, East Yorkshire, Norfolk and across our rural communities in England and the south of Scotland. I particularly want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend—

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  May I pause to pay tribute to those Back Benchers who were not able to contribute today? The passion about this issue is evidenced by the number of Conservative Members present. Two minutes was an inadequate amount of time in which to describe the distress that many of their constituents feel. I will try to encapsulate what I have heard them say, but it will not do justice to the amount of anguish that rural communities are feeling. In this solar farm debate we are talking about an attack on rural communities. It is an attack on farmers, on tenant farmers and on the English rural way of life. I did not hear people complaining about solar farms being built in industrial areas or on rooftops; I heard complaints about 3,000-acre solar farms destroying the countryside, destroying villages, and being built with no concern for the communities they will leave behind. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). By securing a debate on this important subject on the Floor of the House she has done the House a tremendous service. Moreover, my hon. Friend has done much more, and she deserves recognition for that. She has worked tirelessly on the issue over a number of years, fighting for her constituents. I can testify to that, as I was the designated Whip when we were in government; no Member, from any part of the House, bothered us more on the issue of the importance of protecting rural communities from solar farm expansion. She secured vital changes from the last Government to limit where solar farms could be built—changes that this Government have now undone. Solar has a role in our energy mix, including on rooftops and in south-facing industrial areas, but it carries significant costs and brings a dependency on China and forced labour supply chains that are questionable and should concern us all, despite what the Lib-Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), may say.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent point. May I suggest that he applies to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on that topic? There is such interest today that I am sure that a debate on floating solar would be welcomed by the House. Many people are affected by this issue. I pay tribute to Members on the Labour Benches for their bold willingness to stand up for their constituents. It is difficult to do that and I am very impressed that they have done so. The Government may struggle to understand that it is possible to be pro-solar energy while raising legitimate concerns about where and how that expansion affects communities, our countryside, farmers and food security.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman had a long time to speak, but I will give way once.

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

  More

  In a moment—I want to make some progress. While none of that has been made clear, we have heard from quite a lot of Back-Bench Labour MPs that we will have a wonderful new trade deal and a great new visa system for young people, which gives me pause. Either we are not being told fully what is going to happen at this summit, or there is such anticipation for back-door EU realignment that the Labour party cannot contain itself, and its Members cannot help but tell us what they are planning on doing. My biggest concern in all this—forgive me for wanting reassurance from the Dispatch Box—is that the outcome of the summit might involve concessions of jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice, or the application of any of the principles of supremacy of EU law. I would like a guarantee from the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that that will not be the case. There can be no question of the European Court of Justice being brought back via the back door through dynamic realignment with EU law. I want to hear reassurances from the Minister that nothing will be discussed or renegotiated at this summit that would tear apart all the work we did, through the withdrawal agreement and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, to ensure that our laws have supremacy over EU law. That was the point. Many of us voted for Brexit because we wanted to see our sovereignty and our borders restored; we wanted to see our laws brought back under our sovereignty. We want to ensure that we honour the commitments that we made, with both the Retained EU Law Act and the withdrawal agreement, to move forward with the EU. I welcome trade deals all over the world; I want us to be as successful as we can be. Praise where praise is due: if the Labour party has achieved a trade deal, fine—I am happy to acknowledge that and to say “Well done”. We should be trying to get trade deals with any country that we can. The reason I am asking for assurances from the Dispatch Box is that I have seen the Labour party change its view on so many things: on Brexit, on Trump, on scrapping winter fuel payments, on energy bills—

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

  More

  It is wonderful to hear from the acclaimed globalists from both the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Labour Benches who cannot wait to bring us back into the EU. For the record, I am opposed to doing so not only because the British people voted the opposite way and we should honour the referendum, but because, as Labour Members seem to have forgotten, we actually negotiated a trade deal with Europe. What I am interested in is the evasive nature of what the Minister said from the Dispatch Box, which committed us to nothing other than resetting our relationship with the EU. I would like reassurances on what that means. What strategic partnership with the EU was he referring to? What concessions is he planning on making? Will some kind of new EU treaty renegotiation come out of this? What kind of active or passive role is the UK planning on taking at this summit? None of that has been made clear.

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

  More

  No, I will not. NATO gives us an alignment on military matters that needs to be protected and fostered. A Liberal Democrat Member mentioned our technical and military capability. That is not the issue; the issue is: who bears the cost of our military capacity, which we deploy in defence of Europe and the free world? NATO was created post war, during the cold war, when we needed that strategic protection in Europe. That still holds true. Why would we disrupt that, and muddy the waters with this motion, which brings in NATO, which is separate from the EU? Why would we talk about something related to the military in a debate on EU jurisdiction?

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman should allow us to fulfil the deal to which we are committed. We have put in place a trade deal and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Unless there are new negotiations to be had, what exactly is the purpose of the summit? I was going to end my speech, but the hon. Gentleman has inspired me to continue. The Government’s amendment relates to NATO, but NATO has nothing to do with the EU; it is a completely separate entity. Talk of dynamic realignment on defence came about after we left the EU. Ensuring an ever closer Union, through military, policing and social policy, has always been part of the plan of the European Union. That is welcome to internationalists, Liberal Democrats and Labour Members. I am sure that they would all love to have another way of binding us to the EU. NATO is separate; it has one document that has been agreed in the post-war period—

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

  More

  And on national insurance. Forgive me for needing reassurance from the Dispatch Box that the Minister will not come back with some sort of 1984 doublespeak and expect us to enjoy that.

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

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We need to protect our Brexit freedoms and make sure that we hold the Labour party to account. We heard a lot from the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) about all the wonderful things he has planned for our free trade deal. However, I am concerned that we are going to rewrite history; that we are going to ignore the British people again and allow for dynamic back-door realignment with the EU without giving Parliament or the British people a say.

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

  More

  I will finish and allow others to speak. I want to hear from colleagues from across the House, because this is a very interesting debate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your time. I will really enjoy hearing from the Minister when they return from the summit on what exactly they have in mind for us and the EU.

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

  More

  As we have seen in Portugal and Spain, renewable energy can sometimes be unreliable. Given the dominant role that China plays in our renewable energy infrastructure, will the Minister set out for the House the full details of the deal that the Secretary of State signed in secret with the Chinese Government?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Child Rape Gangs · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister provide assurances from the Dispatch Box as to how the Government will compel councils—like Bradford, which has refused to participate in this inquiry or in a local inquiry—to take part? It may seem self-evident, but councils that are liable for child protection and that are found at fault are probably not going to want to participate in a local inquiry. That is why we are asking for a national inquiry. Will the Minister please set out what the Government are going to do to compel those councils to give evidence so that justice can be served for the victims?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  Angling is a very important sport that we should be protecting, including by making sure our waterways are clean. A key way to know if our waterways are clean is that the aquatic life comes back. Clubs in my constituency would really benefit from the changes and protections I have mentioned. I would like to see them introduced and I hope that the Secretary of State will change his mind and adopt something similar to my amendment. The Government can feel free to take credit and pretend it is their amendment or change, but I would really like to see those changes brought forward. Unfortunately, my two amendments were not accepted, but I will continue to press for them, Lib Dem style, at any opportunity I can possibly find, because I believe that they would be good for the UK and for our waterways. I hope the Government will look seriously again at protecting water sports. I would be delighted to work with them or any party to practically develop the legislative steps needed for that to happen.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  It is wonderful to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who is my parliamentary twin, as it were. Our names are so similar that we often get confusing correspondence. He must love that as much as I do. The sewage in our rivers is of great concern to my constituents in Beaconsfield, Marlow and the South Bucks villages, as well as to my parliamentary twin on the Government Benches. In my constituency, I have worked closely with local action groups in Little Marlow and Farnham Common to secure a planned sewage upgrade for the Little Marlow sewage treatment works, through persistent lobbying of former Conservative Ministers and current Labour Ministers. I have repeatedly called for criminal sanctions against water company executives for breaches of their duties, but I have always said that more needs to be done; in particular, I urge the Minister to look again at strengthening the protection for water sports. Earlier this year, I tabled two amendments to the Water (Special Measures) Bill: one to introduce criminal sanctions for water company bosses who fail to report discharges and another to extend protections for water sports to match those for swimming waters. These are serious, meaningful changes needed to further strengthen our oversight of water companies and our waterways. In my constituency, we are rich in water sports along the Thames. We have Marlow Rowing Club, Marlow Canoe Club and the Upper Thames Sailing Club, to name just three wonderful examples, and our local schools regularly use the river for water sports. My secondary schools are out on the Thames on a daily basis, including rowing and using the river, and it would be wonderful to have to protect aquatic sports in legislation.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I have been lobbying for these changes for many years, and now that I am in opposition I have been able to table my own amendments, Lib Dem style! I was happy that the Lib Dem spokesperson spoke in support of my amendment during the Bill Committee. I love that cross-party support and am learning from their wonderful example of taking amendments forward when not in power; that is fun and enjoyable for us all. I did not table as many as their 42 amendments, but I did put forward two so I am working my way there. I want to see the provisions I have mentioned move forward in any way possible, because they are so important for aquatic sports and for the rivers that we all benefit from and use. I want the same protections for water sports as those proposed for bathing waters, and I would like discharge from emergency overflows blocked within a 1-mile radius of areas used for aquatic sports, particularly by secondary schools and by children.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I’m right here!