Joy Morrissey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I thank him for advocating for his residents. The failure to purchase land has forced residents into bankruptcy and caused relationship breakdowns. It has meant that they cannot move forward, for instance by selling or renting their properties, and that has caused a huge breakdown in community relations with HS2. When highways have been built, compensation has been offered and other gestures have been made that have allowed community relations to be restored. The problem with HS2 is the level of statutory ability it had, as an arm’s length body, to put these things into action, which meant that it did not have to follow through on the community relations side. I think that all of us, on both sides of the House, agree that if this project moves forward, there could be real benefit in the restoration of relations between communities, MPs and councils.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Over many years, the issue of HS2 has consumed many hours of debate in this House, and many hon. and right hon. Members have needed to highlight the unacceptable impact the project has had on thousands of constituents. Today I must do so again. HS2 has had a never-ending impact on communities across my constituency of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages, an impact compounded by perpetual incompetence and indifference from its management. That is why I have opposed HS2 since I was elected MP for the constituency in 2019. Roads in Buckinghamshire have been destroyed over the past few years by the weight of HS2 lorries, with local council taxpayers having to pick up the bill.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Communication can be very poor in certain regions, and they it may improve, but then it may become even worse. There will be isolated incidents when one constituent has been left out in the cold and is being forced into bankruptcy, and feels desperate. Until an MP gets involved, such people may feel that there is no hope, and that is a terrible feeling to have when we should be able to find a solution. This has also had a negative impact on green spaces and green corridors. In my patch, the Colne Valley Regional Park was opposed to the project because of the impact that the construction would have on wildlife, and on this sanctuary that constitutes a green corridor separating us from London.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for that excellent point. I know her seat very well, and she has fought for her constituents, including in Old Oak Common, for many years. It is fair that compensation be given continually for the disruption in Old Oak Common. It is a difficult area, because it involves not just Ealing, but Hammersmith, Fulham and several other areas that intersect. It creates a problem where no one takes leadership, and no one ensures that those residents are taken care of. The hon. Lady has long advocated for that compensation. We stand here in agreement that HS2 has not cared about our residents or the compensation. We have seen other infrastructure models that have given the compensation that residents need and want.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for saying that, but I also pay tribute to the first person who radicalised me on the importance of fighting HS2: the former MP for Chesham and Amersham, Cheryl Gillan. Before I even became a Member of Parliament, she made sure that I knew, as she did, the importance of fighting against HS2 and of the need—no matter who was supporting HS2—to stand up for our residents and put them first. Cheryl knew it would be a terrible blight on Buckinghamshire, and she was right. She was ahead of the curve there.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. A winding-up contingency plan for areas where HS2 is not continuing needs to be put in place. Seeing properties just sitting there, when everyone knows that they will not be used, is maddening for the entire community. It also depletes property values and causes wildlife and conservation issues. These are ongoing problems, so residents need some reassurance, and I think that across the House we agree on that. In Colne valley, for example, HS2 was building a 3.5 km concrete viaduct that will blight the natural beauty of my area and Hillingdon.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  It is incredibly frustrating that those funds are not open and available, particularly when as Members of Parliament we have come forward with good ideas for how they could be spent on road infrastructure, such as paving potholes on roads destroyed by the lorries that have passed through. It is very difficult to access that funding, but it would go a long way towards bridging the community relations that have broken down anywhere that HS2 has started. Another issue is that, in the old days, HS2 would take over a property without paying for it and then occupy it indefinitely.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that point. I think it has been a mistake not to work with local communities, because there would have been a point when most of us across the House would have worked with HS2 to find a solution that did not destroy our areas of natural beauty or our pre-existing infrastructure. However, there was no give and take; there was simply take, from our areas and our communities. I think the frustration that Members feel across the House is palpable. I have brought forward this debate because time is running out for HS2’s planning powers, which expire in February 2027. Those powers may expire, but the legacy of community destruction and environmental vandalism will continue long into the future. HS2’s failure to resolve specific issues with residents now faces a ticking clock, and that is why I urge the Minister to support my constituents and those of other Members across the House, and to get urgent resolution of the issues that HS2 has left unresolved for all of us.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Our constituencies border one another, and I remember visiting him in his constituency at Dogs Trust. I remember the vibration, noise and disruption from HS2. We could feel the vibrations when we were there. It is about not just the construction, but the noise pollution and disruption to residents in Hillingdon and Buckinghamshire. Our communities were completely disrupted because of HS2 construction. Until my hon. Friend’s council took HS2 to court—that was a great moment—little regard was given to the amount of countryside, land and green belt being destroyed by HS2.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Across the House, we all want extra protection for Colne Valley Regional Park, and to mitigate the impact of HS2 and all other infrastructure projects. I want to share one poignant and difficult example to demonstrate why I have brought forward this debate. My constituent Luke Oldfield has been struggling in a dispute with HS2 for 12 years. Mr Oldfield has a home recording studio business that pre-dates the white elephant that is HS2. From the outset he raised concerns about the impact of construction and future rail noise on his business. Although he secured assurances that HS2 would address noise concerns, his view is that monitoring methods failed properly to capture the noise affecting his studio. HS2 later privately accepted that there would be an impact and the only viable solution identified has been to construct a new replacement studio. Despite years of design work and cost assessment, the Department for Transport has repeatedly delayed progress and pushed back on cost. What is clear is that Mr Oldfield—I am sure he is not alone in this—is the victim of a national infrastructure project that does not care and has not been subject to sufficient independent oversight. It will soon be too late, so the Government must act. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could confirm in her reply that the Government will: urgently take up with me the case of Mr Oldfield and secure a final and just resolution to the building of a new studio, so that he can carry on his business; and urgently set out a timeline for the final resolution of all disputes outstanding along the HS2 line, so that my constituents, and those of Members across the House, can finally put the nightmare of HS2 behind them. HS2 is a project that should never have been, but now we must act to bring the nightmare to an end for people such as Mr Oldfield. I urge the Minister to do just that.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the voices of MPs from across the House, particularly the hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), in asking why the Prime Minister does not refer himself to the Committee of Privileges. If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why is he whipping his MPs against a House motion? As you know full well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Committee of Privileges and the Committee on Standards are there to judge us and our conduct in this House. We sign a code of conduct when we become MPs, and those two Committees are the Select Committees that judge our conduct in the House. The Foreign Affairs Committee and others hold the Government to account, but those two Committees are the only ones that hold MPs to account. Why has the Prime Minister not taken the leadership that he has demanded of others time and again, and not referred himself to the Committee of Privileges? He has demanded that others resign for far more trivial matters. He has demanded that others be referred to the Committee of Privileges or the Committee on Standards, but why have the rules changed for him? We could spend another afternoon laboriously analysing who did what, and when—another week of the Prime Minister telling us what he did not know and was not responsible for, and that the buck stops anywhere but here. This is from a man who has made a career of standing on the moral high ground and damning others for behaviour that he is now demonstrating. He has demanded that others do the honourable thing—something that we now see he is clearly incapable of doing himself. Instead, he has chosen this painful spectacle and is clinging on until those sitting behind him or beside him inevitably dispense with his tarnished services, which we all know they will do soon. I note that many are absent from the Front Bench—on full-time leadership manoeuvres as we speak, perhaps. I do not wish to condemn the Prime Minister further, only to offer my genuine sympathy on a basic human level for the embarrassment and shame that he must be feeling underneath the veneer of virtue that he has spent decades cultivating and that is now crumbling to dust with his every word—his every defection, his every desperate excuse. What goes around, comes around. For the Prime Minister, it has come around, right here, right now. It is an intensely sad and embarrassing sight. For that, he does not deserve my condemnation—only pity.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Select Committees · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the words of the Leader of the House, and thank the Backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee for contributing to these motions, which are broadly very sensible.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  I am just a humble Member of this House, and it is our job to hold the Government to account. It was unclear from the Minister’s first response what the process will be, so could he clarify again whether, if the ISC members disagree with the Government, that matter will be brought back to the House for a decision? I do not believe it is right for the Government to judge and mark their own homework.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Allied Health Professionals · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government placed a written ministerial statement on today’s Order Paper to update the House on the much-troubled Ajax armoured fighting vehicle programme. However, the media have reported within the last two hours that, according to urgent briefing from the Ministry of Defence, the statement will now be delayed until later next week due to the need to seek further interdepartmental approval across Whitehall. Given that the strategic defence review was published months late, the defence investment plan, including vital new equipment programmes, is still unpublished nine months on, and now the MOD is putting out WMSs on the Order Paper and then refusing to publish them, the Department is clearly in a state of chaos. Can you advise me on how we can force the MOD to clarify this utterly confusing situation later today, or on Monday at the very latest?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Those in the other place have asked us to reconsider Lords amendments 439E and 439F, which compel the Home Secretary to review the proscription of groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, including the IRGC. There can be absolutely no doubt about the threat that Iran and its proxies pose to this country and our national security. In 2015, terrorists linked to Iran were caught stockpiling explosives on the outskirts of London. In 2020, amid protests in Iran, the IRGC sought to assassinate two journalists on British soil. Just last year, the IRGC was linked to an attempted attack on the Israeli embassy in Kensington, which was foiled by counter-terrorism police. The organisation has been linked to at least 20 credible threats in the UK. Even beyond the direct risk posed by IRGC terrorism, the organisation is responsible for funding and supporting other extreme groups in this country, and has worked closely with criminal gangs to undermine our national security. We will be able to combat that threat only if we are willing to tackle it head-on, using every power available to us to do so. To that end, the very least we can do is make it harder for Islamist extremist groups to operate legally in this country. By proscribing the IRGC and other groups linked to the Iranian armed forces, Ministers would be able to protect not only those being attacked—actually, it is our Jewish community that we are really thinking about at this difficult time. These Lords amendments can only be a good thing. They would help to strengthen those protections. When Labour Members were on the Opposition Benches, many of them agreed. In April 2024, the now Foreign Secretary called for exactly this policy. Yet now, they are refusing even to review the proscription of groups such as the IRGC, which fuel the Islamist cause and are directly linked to the Iranian armed forces. I urge the Minister and her colleagues on the Government Benches to change their minds and accept the Lords amendments. The threat is far too grave to be ignored. By burying their heads in the sand, they will not make the problem go away; they will only put our country and its people more at risk.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Antisemitic Attacks · Hansard source

  More

  In Germany in the inter-war period, university students protested for months before violence erupted against the Jewish community. Why are we allowing these patterns here, and modern-day pogroms on the streets of London, and why are we then surprised when violence erupts? History tells us what the outcome will be if this is not stopped. Will the Government commit to taking swift action? Why will they not ban the IRGC?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The Times reported last week that the Prime Minister repeatedly sought assurances from the FCDO that Peter Mandelson had passed security vetting. Is this correct, and when did he seek those assurances?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister speak to Sadiq Khan and ask him to get a grip on the knife crime epidemic that is plaguing London? Can we increase the stop-and-search powers of the Met police so that they can actually do their job and provide the enforcement that people across London are asking for? My husband was attacked by someone with a knife while he was caring for his mother-in-law, and one of our wonderful members of staff in the Tea Room was attacked in Brixton by someone with a knife just last week. This is a problem across London. My residents want to feel safe. Will the Minister do something to stop the knife crime epidemic that is plaguing London?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office be consulted, and will the British Chagossians be brought into the discussion prior to the mission on 22 April? Will a British Chagossian be accepted on to the actual delegation, so that they will be represented? Will the Government be speaking to the Chagossians who have just come on the boat? Its seems to be the only small boat the Government are interested in stopping. Will they actually be helping, rather than hindering?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Southport Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  A young person who is at risk of harming others will often become known to a teacher, a social worker or a health worker before any other agency is aware of that risk, but statutory requirements make it very difficult to report on a young person who is below a certain age. Will the Home Secretary work on the introduction of multi-agency, multi-departmental changes to establish, above all else, a statutory requirement for teachers, health workers, councils and others to bring forth young people who are under age if they pose a risk? Currently, many agencies are afraid to come forward because they believe that there is a statutory requirement to protect the child, rather than to report a potential risk to others.

• 23 Mar 2026 · Puberty Blockers Clinical Trial · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The truth is that this clinical trial is flawed, and we should not be experimenting on children. We should be protecting children from many harms, such as alcohol and nicotine. We have things such as the age of consent for sexual intercourse and for marriage, to protect children. It is important to remember that a child’s prefrontal cortex does not fully develop until their mid-20s, so even their ability to grasp the long-term effects of any decision is limited. Although a diagnosis is necessary for participation in the trial, it is not sufficient in determining whether medical intervention should take place. Cass directly makes this point: “Although a diagnosis of gender dysphoria has been seen as necessary for initiating medical treatment, it is not reliably predictive of whether that young person will have longstanding gender incongruence in the future, or whether medical intervention will be the best option for them.” The PATHWAYS trial uses the ICD-11—the 11th edition of the “International Classification of Diseases”—diagnosis of gender incongruence, which simply requires a desire to transition. The diagnosis is subjective, based on how the child feels. Can the long-term risk of medical intervention be justified by such a vague diagnosis? If the core diagnostic tool cannot predict outcomes with confidence, the trial would expose children to harm without a sound basis for believing that medical intervention is in their best interest. The trial has been framed as a pathway to clarity, yet it is flawed before it has even begun. Proceeding is not neutrality but a decision with consequences. The trial would see harmful, long-term and irreversible damage to children, and should be cancelled.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who eloquently championed his local area and covered every point that we could possibly raise—I shall follow humbly on his coat-tails. Fuel duty is a war on the motorist. It is an attack on hard-working families who have scrimped and saved to drive their child to that special holiday or even to do the school run each day. This tax is regressive. It will hurt normal, hard-working families across Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages. It will also hurt small and medium-sized enterprises, care workers and all the key workers who have to drive from outside Buckinghamshire to work in the area. We have care workers who come from other counties to work in Bourne End, Wooburn and Marlow because the cost of living is so high. That extra driving, that extra cost on their transport, will be devastating to our local care-working community and to those who provide vital services, such as our firefighters and police officers, who often have to drive to the fire station or police station where they are based. That extra cost is the difference between a family making it each month and slightly going under. That is who we are speaking for today: the people who are paying their taxes, working hard and wanting to do the right thing but are being punished by this fuel duty increase. My constituency is also impacted by rises in off-grid heating oil prices. I myself have off-grid heating oil, and many of my constituents in Dorney, Wooburn, Bourne End, Flackwell Heath and Iver are impacted by price increases. Although we are near London, we are actually very rural. I have more pensioners per capita than pretty much anywhere else—you might be the No. 1 winner, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would come second. This extra cost will push my pensioners into poverty. They are barely making ends meet right now. They are humbly going about their business, but they all need transport as well. We have poor transport links so people need to use their cars, and my pensioners will be adversely affected by this fuel duty increase. It is incredibly unfair that the increase is coming in now given that world events are causing oil prices to increase anyway, so families, workers and the taxpayer will be further punished. It would be hard to have this debate without mentioning my right hon. Friend the former Member for Harlow, Robert Halfon, who led the charge on fuel duty. For years, he was the passionate voice making this point clear across the House: high fuel duty taxes are regressive because they affect working people the most. They are a brake on economic growth. We all saw the golden moment on Sunday morning when the harsh inconvenience of the facts hit the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero: that 38% of the cost of petrol is down to fuel duty, a tax entirely in the hands of the Government. This Secretary of State, who could power the entire country with hot air, seemed to get the message slowly but surely, and there is no problem to which the answer is not a faster and more ruinous race to net zero, putting ideology ahead of working families. To govern is to choose, and this Government always choose the most damaging economic pathway for families.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  It is a shocking burden and one that many people and hard-working families will not be able to bear. I am often told by the London elite that people need to switch to electric cars and do all these other things, but many people cannot afford an electric car or the cost of electricity, or even to put fuel in their petrol car. Families will be at breaking point, and they have no alternative to taking their child to school or the doctor. That extra burden can push a family completely over the edge. We need to make our economy competitive again. We need to look at ways to make energy and fuel affordable for everyone. Working people are being saddled with higher costs and taxes while more money is being pumped into benefits Britain because of the weakness of a Prime Minister without a backbone. It is time to put working people first. It is time for another Government U-turn.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Rural Roads · Hansard source

  More

  Not only have we lost all that funding for rural roads in places such as Beaconsfield, Marlow and south Buckinghamshire villages, but places such as Denham and Iver back up on to London and the ultra low emission zone. Transport for London gets a disproportionate amount of money for road paving, and all the London local authorities receive extra funding to get their roads paved. However, despite having rural roads directly outside the M25, we have basically no funding for the amount of road space we have to pave. That is disproportionate and should be equalised, to provide better funding to all rural counties.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for being so brave in introducing this debate; many of us have dealt with this issue on a daily basis. There is an issue of fairness in the allocation of the rules. I had one father who tried to kill himself because he felt that there was no allocation of fairness in what he was trying to do for his family. The rules do not seem to be clear cut, and there does not seem to be a way through for families who want to work together. The system seems to disproportionately favour the spouse who is willing to lie and say things about the other, and that has to change. It is just not sustainable.