Joy Morrissey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The policies are damaging; it is a hostile environment for businesses and entrepreneurs who make a difference and who grow the economy and our tax base. That is who this Government are hurting: the people who will make this country great and grow us out of any of the economic issues that we are having now. By hurting entrepreneurs and small businesses, we are cutting ourselves off from growth. Again, growth is not some mythical thing that the Chancellor refers to; it is something delivered by hard-working small family businesses in this country. Not only small businesses but all service-level jobs in our economy are affected. Care services, retail, hospitality, events—they are just a few of the sectors where businesses increasingly face the impossible choice of cutting jobs or shutting their businesses. Of course, it is not just through national insurance that the Government are raiding businesses or burdening them with over-regulation. Businesses already reeling from the national insurance raid are facing higher business rates, an Employment Rights Bill that is destined to lower employment and the destruction of family farms. Just yesterday, the British Chambers of Commerce described the stark reality of the “powder keg of costs” facing British businesses. In the avalanche of inconvenient facts for the Government that the British Chambers of Commerce unleashed, one stood out to me: 58% of businesses told the BCC that the costs will impact recruitment, meaning fewer jobs at a time when we need the economy to be growing. This is economic illiteracy on steroids. I will always stand up for our local family businesses in Beaconsfield, Marlow and the South Bucks villages. Their message to me has been crystal clear: this Government’s tax raid is damaging to them, to jobs and to growth for the future. I urge the Government to wake up to the disaster they are unleashing on businesses in my constituency and across this House.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The Conservatives have an excellent track record of putting in renewables. We were the first to bring in the coal-free plan to tackle energy, so that is an important way of moving forward. I would like to continue moving forward with cheaper energy bills to make sure that we protect our energy security while ensuring that costs are low for both the consumer and industry.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a wonderful point. Personally, I feel very strongly about this, and the glory of being in opposition is that I can hold the Government to account. I can have also a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate of my choosing about my own passion projects. Not to digress, but if the hon. Member looks at the Water (Special Measures) Bill, he will see my passion project flourishing. I do not want to detract from this wonderful debate, but what I am saying is that we can find a cross-party solution to many of these issues. We want to be positive about the UK and its future.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Member’s contribution. It is wonderful to hear his commitment to the climate change emergency. We need to move forward as a country to make sure that our energy costs remain low. We did not commit to a £300 reduction in energy prices, nor did we commit to scrapping the winter fuel payment for pensioners. We went into the election without making those promises. I am simply holding the Government to account right now.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western; you were a wonderful shadow Minister, and it is fantastic to see you here today. I praise the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate. Hon. Members will rarely hear me heap praise on another political party, but at the risk of sounding as if I am working cross-party, I commend her for her excellent points. I do not think any of us can argue with some of the points highlighting the exorbitant cost of electricity bills here in the UK, and I find the regressive levies on electricity bills quite shocking. I thought the hon. Member’s innovative and positive policy solutions for reducing the cost of electricity bills were a welcome breath of fresh air; I hope that we can have further debates to bring forward those important points. I am more on the side of scrapping the levy, but I think we could come to a compromise about how to move forward. Many Liberal Democrat Members brought up the importance of community-owned energy schemes, and I advocate for Marlow community energy. It is important that hon. Members on both sides of the House are advocating for community energy schemes; that theme ran through most hon. Members’ contributions and is an important aspect of energy to take forward. It was wonderful to hear contributions from the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) about the great Horsham energy scheme and from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) with his expertise in energy. It is always welcome when people bring their professional expertise to the House. We have also heard about the challenges in the highlands; I am sure that the Minister will be able to give further explanation about the plans and challenges for the highlands. Although they are producing renewable energy, and will probably produce even more, it will be interesting to see what capacity they will have. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not comment on the wonderful hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and everything that he contributes to this House—his wonderful contributions and his praise for Members across parties, not only in this debate, but in every single Adjournment debate. We are lucky to have such a wonderful and hard-working Member. The cost of energy affects every aspect of our economy; few things are more important for our economic success than the cost of energy. It affects the global competitiveness of our industries and therefore the number of jobs and our constituents’ energy bills. The new Labour Government promised to cut energy bills by £300 by 2030—we are still looking forward to that—to create 650,000 jobs from the £8 billion that they are taking off taxpayers for Great British Energy, and to launch the era of clean, cheap, home-grown power. After more than six months in Government, however, it is clear that they will make energy more expensive, with bills going up, not down, and that they risk shutting down swathes of British industry, with jobs lost to more polluting countries. In short, their energy plans will result in lower growth, fewer jobs, higher energy bills and more carbon in the atmosphere. We are constantly told by Ministers that renewables like wind and sun are the cheapest sources of energy, but that does not take account of the huge hidden costs of increased reliance on renewables. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Bath for bringing the important aspect of renewables to the forefront of the debate. Industry has already warned that trying to quickly produce a record amount of renewable capacity to meet the Government’s 2030 target will push up the price and cost to consumers. The cost also depends on the generating capacity that we need to have in the background to kick in to keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I ask that I be allowed to make progress in my speech, during which I will address many of the excellent points he raised. Let me go back to my earlier point about density and some renewables being more affordable than others. For example, acres of agricultural land need to be covered with solar panels to produce a fraction of the power that could be generated by gas power plants or small nuclear reactors. The time has come to have a much more sensible and serious conversation about the true cost of renewable-based systems, not just repeating again and again that renewables are the cheapest form of energy. That is why the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), asked the Department to produce a full-system cost of renewable-based systems. If we are intent on decarbonising the entire grid by 2030, as the Government want, we must have a detailed assessment of what it will cost, and what it will do to our constituents’ energy bills and our already high industrial energy prices. Since taking office, however, the current Secretary of State has scrapped that work. He is rushing headlong into renewable-based systems, without any idea of what it will cost the country and the economy. There is also the issue of trust—trust for consumers and for those in industry. Throughout the general election campaign, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State and around 50 Labour MPs promised across the country to cut energy bills by £300. As soon as they got into Government, they refused to commit to that promise. Even worse, they decided to take the same amount from millions of pensioners in poverty. It is difficult to think of a bigger betrayal committed by an incoming Government. Six months on, Labour voted against an amendment to make the Government accountable for that promise through Great British Energy—their energy company that is not going to generate a single watt of energy. The new chair of that company says that it is not even within its remit to cut bills by £300. Labour cannot spend weeks and months repeating such an explicit, clear and simple promise only to row back on it the second it gets into Government. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell constituents in Beaconsfield and across the country when they can expect to see £300 off their energy bills, and how much their bills will increase to in the meantime. It is not just households that are worried about the cost of energy, but industry too. The same energy-intensive industries that wrote to the Government to raise concerns about their plans to hike the carbon price to the highest rate in the world also share the despair at the UK having among the highest industrial electricity prices in the world. In fact, the Department’s data shows that we now have the highest industrial energy prices in the world, well above the International Energy Agency and EU average. More than anything, our heavy and manufacturing industries need cheap energy. They need stable and reliable energy, which does not rely on the whims of the weather. As with the shutting down of the UK oil and gas industry, seeing British industry move overseas will not change demand. It just means that domestic production—with all the tax revenue, British jobs and the investment that it brings—will be replaced by higher-carbon imports from abroad. Ministers say that decarbonisation cannot mean de-industrialisation, but if our industries, which are the hardest to decarbonise, cannot cope with the high cost of energy and therefore move abroad, that will be a disaster for our economy, devastating for our workers and their families, and will do nothing to reduce global emissions. Ministers say that they want us to be global leaders. They want us to convince other countries to decarbonise, which is a noble goal. Climate change is a global issue, and there is no sense in our going it alone to cut our emissions when we produce fewer than 1% of global emissions. That is exactly why the Government need to change tack and stop our industrial energy prices rising any further. Countries around the world, which care deeply about holding on to their industrial and manufacturing base, are looking to the UK and other western nations to see what happens next. If they look at us and see industries being gutted by a misguided energy policy and see our people suffering from higher and higher energy bills, they will not want to follow us down the path to decarbonisation. We will be a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world. Our ceramics, automotive, cement, steel, minerals, glass, aluminium and chemical industries need, above all else, cheap energy. I urge the Minister to talk to those businesses that are struggling with high energy costs and ask them what a carbon price of £147 per tonne of CO2 would do to their businesses. The Minister might not like the answer, but the Government need to face the consequences of their policies. The Government should be asking what arrangements will give us the cheapest, most reliable energy and how we get there. Instead, they are determined to decarbonise the grid by 2030 at any cost to meet a political target, even if that sends people’s bills through the roof, offshores our emissions to polluting countries and leaves us at the mercy of Chinese imports. When facing the electorate at the next election, they will not be able to say that they were not warned.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Cost of Energy · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Some renewables are cost-effective and some are not; and some are a lot less energy-dense than gas or nuclear.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Clean Power by 2030 · Hansard source

  More

  To achieve his clean power plan, can the Secretary of State say exactly what local communities need to do to convince him that solar farms on agricultural lands are not appropriate in their area?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Clean Power by 2030 · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State recently approved a 524-hectare solar farm in Lincolnshire—a farm linked to Dale Vince, a £5.4 million donor to the Labour party. The public have a right to be certain that this decision was carried out properly, so will the Secretary of State refer his conduct of this application to the independent adviser on ministerial standards? Yes or no?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the shocking amount of development that is happening, and it is not just about energy; he is also making an excellent point about the lack of local consent. It is shocking that the Government are not honouring the opinions of local people.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  The proposed energy developments will create a strain on our valuable farmland in Mid Buckinghamshire and across Buckinghamshire more widely. Many parts of the county are on a floodplain, which will already be under additional strain because of these different energy developments. Will the Minister look again at these proposals? We already have infrastructure demands because HS2 and housing, as well as energy development, are all going into a very constrained area in Mid Buckinghamshire.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that the House will join me in offering thoughts and prayers for victims and their families following the collision this morning when an American Airlines plane crashed into the Potomac following a collision; but I believe that the Leader of the House will join me in rejoicing at the return of more of the Israeli hostages today. It is an honour to respond to the right hon. Lady. Serving with her on the Modernisation Committee, I have observed the energy that she puts into bringing this House into the second quarter of the 21st century. We are lucky to have someone so persuasive in her position, someone who really listens to Members. [Hon. Members: “But—”] No buts, Madam Deputy Speaker. I approach this session of business questions in that spirit. One innovation that would be very welcome would be a commitment from the Leader of the House to providing our dates for Opposition day debates, which we have still not received. Another extremely welcome innovation would be the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero finding time to reply to numerous letters sent by Opposition Members; perhaps the Leader of the House could persuade him to do so, but perhaps she would have more luck with the Chancellor. As each week passes, our constituents face more and more negative consequences from the Chancellor’s disastrous Budget. Last week the Office for National Statistics revealed that there had been a staggering 47,000 drop in employment in December, the sharpest fall since the pandemic. Job vacancies have also collapsed. The day before the Chancellor’s Budget, in which she launched her attack on British businesses, there were 858,000 job vacancies in our economy; now the number has fallen to just 740,000, a drop of 14% in just two months. I know that she is proud of being the first female Chancellor, but would it not be even better for her to be known as the Chancellor who was brave enough to change course? Because of her Budget, business confidence has collapsed. Because of her Budget, growth has collapsed. Because of her Budget, employment is falling and unemployment is rising. Because of her Budget, UK gilt yields are at an eye-watering level. Because of her Budget, mortgage rates are now rising, despite her promise that she would bring them down. We have seen a glimmer of hope with the Chancellor’s U-turn on her non-doms policy, which has caused some of the UK’s biggest taxpayers to flee her socialist nightmare. It is a welcome U-turn, but I feel for the Leader of the House and for Labour Members. I cannot imagine that they ever thought they would be explaining why a Labour Government had U-turned on punishing non-doms, but not on punishing pensioners. Will the Leader of the House seek to persuade the Chancellor to be bold, change course again, and spare British pensioners, farmers, businesses, workers and households from more economic pain? May we have a debate in Government time to explore the many areas in which a Chancellor U-turn would indeed be welcome? If not, will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn on punishing pensioners, and reinstate their winter fuel payment? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn to spare family farms that have put food on our tables from her tax raid? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn to save businesses that create jobs, wealth and growth in this country from her catastrophic national insurance tax raid? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn on her 1970s-style tax and borrowing spree, to protect the households that now face rising mortgage costs because of her? That is a task that I hope the Leader of the House will agree is in the interests of the House, its Members, and the people of this country.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises an excellent point—the previous Government put in place monitoring for all waterways so that we can hold water companies to account. He mentioned the cross-border and cross-party efforts, but mainly those of the Conservative councils that worked together to hold Thames Water and other water companies to account. I was surprised that the Government did not readily accept amendment 3, as it is not party political. It is about necessary support for our vital aquatic sports clubs, and would further strengthen the protection of waterways used for aquatic sports across the country. That would include the Thames and other rivers across England, many in areas where young people access waterways and where there is storm overflow. I urge the Government to accept these reasonable and important amendments to strengthen the Bill.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to speak to amendments 2 and 3, tabled in my name. Amendment 2 would further strengthen the Bill by making it a criminal offence for water companies to fail to report discharge from emergency overflows. Amendment 3 would prohibit such discharge in river areas such as the Thames that are used for aquatic sports. I have the privilege of representing the towns and villages of Beaconsfield, Marlow, Bourne End and the south Bucks villages. Unfortunately, we are served by Thames Water, and we have some of the highest levels of fines in the country. We are blessed with a beautiful waterway setting throughout my constituency, including the River Thames. Our area is rich in watersport clubs—the Marlow rowing club, the Marlow canoe club and the Upper Thames sailing club to name but three. Young people from high schools and grammar schools use the Thames for their water sports as well. Amendment 3 would give water used for aquatic sports the same protection as that used for bathing. It would establish clear consequences for water companies and their chief executives where they fail to comply with a clear duty to protect the water in which people practise aquatic sports, particularly rowing. That is particularly true of Thames Water and of the Thames. I appreciate the cross-party support in Committee on these amendments. Aquatic sports are an important part of our sporting heritage in this country, but storm overflow discharge into our rivers has adversely affected the health of participants, creating an ongoing health risk to rowing, sailing, canoeing and other aquatic sports clubs along the Thames and across the country. Many clubs, particularly in places such as Marlow, take their duty of care very seriously, and are having to put in place their own monitoring systems to protect their members. Amendment 3 would ensure that water used for aquatic sports was put on the same statutory footing as bathing water. It is time for water companies to take responsibility for ensuring that those waters are safe to use, and to protect our young people for the future. The amendments set out a reasonable expectation that a water company must not discharge an emergency overflow within a 1-mile radius of an area used for aquatic sports. The definition of such an area is clearly outlined, and further discretion is provided for the Secretary of State to determine such areas where needed. The amendment would bring much-needed support to our vital aquatic sports.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Green Belt: Basildon and Billericay · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that the Mayor of London has been given subsidies for Transport for London and has wonderful transport infrastructure links, but that he has the devolved power for housing and has not met his housing targets consistently? He has been rewarded with a reduction in housing targets, which have spilled over to the home counties.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Education Provision: South Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for always making such excellent contributions to every Adjournment debate. He is a true champion for Back Benchers. The people who lost out in the school closure are the young people of Burnham and the surrounding areas. Moving forward, we want to see that problem rectified. Since 2019, the young people of Burnham who are not in selective education find themselves caught in excessively long journeys to schools in Maidenhead and other parts of Buckinghamshire and Slough, as my friend the hon. Member for Slough so eloquently pointed out. It is unfair for our residents, and it is having a significant effect on their mental health, physical wellbeing and finances. The situation is absurd and almost intolerable. We have a site that housed a secondary school up until 2019, and it is now hosting the occasional Netflix filming. Meanwhile, young people waste hours travelling to school. The situation needs to change. I was equally robust in challenging our previous Schools Minister, and I spent much time speaking to Nick Gibb in the Tea Room. I am sure that the hon. Member for Slough can follow in my footsteps and finding the current Minister in the Tea Room to continue to press the point, formally and informally. Will she consider meeting me and him jointly after the debate, so that we can take this issue forward? I pay tribute to the campaign group for Burnham secondary school. Since my election in December 2019, I have been pleased to work alongside the group and local families to try to right this wrong. They are at the epicentre of what makes community campaign groups so inspiring. They are totally dedicated to making their community better. I thank the local councillors, parish councillors and the hon. Member for working together to put the needs of our residents first. Let me set out why the case for a secondary school in Burnham is clear, compelling and urgent. We know that education is the single silver bullet that can determine the life chances of young people, but we are placing an enormous barrier in the way of the young people of Burnham and south Buckinghamshire. Long journeys are impacting their mental and physical health and placing them at higher risk of educational disengagement. We also know that south Buckinghamshire is significantly underserved in special educational needs and disabilities provision. Just before the election, I was delighted by the Department for Education’s announcement of a new SEND school for Buckinghamshire. I hope that the Minister will recommit to that school tonight and support my calls for it to be placed in south Buckinghamshire—it would be for the whole county, but I would love to see it in south Buckinghamshire. A reopened Burnham secondary school would represent a perfect opportunity to provide not only 11 to 16-year-olds with non-selective education, but increased SEND provision and a thriving sixth form.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Education Provision: South Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. That example is the gold standard of what we would like to do to ensure that there is SEND provision and comprehensive school provision in our area as we move forward. Finding dual use for those facilities really is the way forward. With volunteers, we are trying to look at every option, working across parties and across local authorities to ensure that we find a solution that works for all of our residents, hopefully following in the footsteps of Hillingdon. One of the frustrations that I and the campaign group have faced is the loop of accountability avoidance. We are on the border of many local authorities and we border London. The provision for our students is different from London, but because we are just outside London, that endless accountability loop is often difficult to close. The Department says that it is for local authorities to make the case, but oftentimes it seems that they are not working together for the collective demand because of their individual legal accountabilities. That is despite the practical reality that Slough and Burnham—and all of Buckinghamshire—border each other, and the two local primary schools are in close proximity to the site. At Burnham grammar school, this is proven by the fact that half the pupils are from Slough. Our campaign group received a reply from a freedom of information request, which said: “Any projects to try to evidence demand to reopen a new school on the Burnham site should not include pupils attending in Slough (regardless of how close the schools may be to Buckinghamshire).” That is bureaucracy triumphing over common sense. The campaign group and I have taken it upon ourselves to look at the data and make the case, because it seems that no one else will. I thank the hon. Member for Slough for joining us in that and trying to work together proactively to bring forth evidence from both local authorities of the demand and need of pupils for the secondary school. Even before I turn to housing expansion, they can make the case for a minimum of five forms of entry from the local primary school. We also know that Beeches learning and development trust, which delivers Burnham grammar school, could take on a Burnham secondary school within its umbrella trust. We have a site for a school, we have demand across both local authority boundaries and we have a trust able to take on the school; all we lack is the will of the educational establishment. In south Buckinghamshire we now have significant housing targets on our way. As a separate point, if something is to be built on the green belt, be in no doubt that I will oppose it tooth and nail, but I support the case for more housing in the right location and with the right infrastructure. Burnham and the surrounding areas are growing, as is Slough. Many people want to move to both areas because of their excellent transport links and the ability to come into London. Our area’s population is growing, and the housing demand means that the population will continue to increase. Buckinghamshire has one of the highest housing demands put on it—more so than any other local authority—so, to make the case, we will need more provision of places for students, because central Government demands mean that we will be building more houses in the county. That simply strengthens our argument for increased educational provision—we will not have the infrastructure in place to support the new housing that central Government will ask us to build. We also have the Elizabeth line, which is attracting commuter families to the area. We face more housing coming, but without the infrastructure of a new school to support the area. It is time to make sure that the secondary schools are there and ready to support demand from our residents. It is time for the education system to come together to solve this problem. In the same way that the hon. Member for Slough and I have put aside party political differences in order to work together for the good of our communities, so the education system needs to put aside artificial boundaries and work together. It needs leadership from Ministers and the Department for Education to bring local authorities together to support the proper analysis of data across local authority boundaries. I urge the Minister to join me, the hon. Member for Slough and the local community to help make a new secondary school for Burnham, south Buckinghamshire and Slough a reality.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Education Provision: South Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  The way that the hon. Member and I have been working cross-party is an example of how to move forward past council boundaries. I just point out to the Minister that Burnham is a large town that historically was its own entity, but uniquely is now part of two local authorities. The numbers are often looked at through the lens of one local authority or the other, but we need to combine those two, work together and submit a joint local authority bid to the Department for Education. That is the way to demonstrate the numbers and get the secondary school provision we need.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Education Provision: South Buckinghamshire · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have secured this debate on this important topic for my constituents, and to the Minister for her attendance. I am also delighted to see the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) in his place. As constituency neighbours, albeit from different parties, we have come together to work closely on this issue for the good of our constituents. I want to talk about the lack of secondary school educational provision available to my constituents in south Buckinghamshire, particularly in the beautiful village of Burnham and the surrounding area. Burnham is a growing and thriving village that is part of both Buckinghamshire and Slough. It is a unique place, which is why the debate will focus on this topic. Burnham is a place where families like to settle for its beauty, community and wonderful transport links. It is also place where children must travel long distances, at huge cost to their families, to attend a comprehensive secondary school. Burnham is the only community in Buckinghamshire that lacks a nearby secondary school alongside its grammar school. That situation is becoming increasingly intolerable, and I hope the Minister will join me and the hon. Member for Slough in our joint efforts to bring about change. Let me start with a short history of the lack of school provision. In 2019, before I became the Member of Parliament for Beaconsfield, the Department for Education closed the Burnham E-Act Academy, a co-educational non-selective school for 11 to 18-year-olds. That followed several changes and challenging Ofsted reports. At one time, the school had served more than 600 pupils. As the school was failing, parents were forced to find alternatives for the sake of their children, and roll numbers began to fall, making the school potentially unviable. Instead of serious efforts being made to turn the school around, it was allowed to fail. That closure was a serious mistake.

• 18 Dec 2024 · Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister set out how he expects local authorities such as mine in Buckinghamshire to absorb with such little notice multi-million pound impacts from significant changes to the social care funding formula, and the effects of the NICs rises on commissioned services and suppliers, particularly charities such as Mind, which will be greatly affected by the changes?

• 17 Dec 2024 · New Energy Infrastructure: Community Benefit Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Community engagement and funding are important. With large-scale solar farms planned for agricultural land, does the Secretary of State think that there are any circumstances in which local communities might know better than him?

• 16 Dec 2024 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this Government’s continuation of the previous Government’s monitoring plans, and the fines that we had asked to be imposed upon water companies. I am the MP for Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages, which is a beautiful area along the Thames. We are also on a floodplain, and I have spent years working with the Farnham sewage action group, the Little Marlow sewage treatment works, the community and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that we are monitoring our storm overflow discharge. I welcome the Government’s commitment to increase the capital spend on sewage treatment works. That is a wonderful and welcome sign, particularly when two of my sewage treatment works were approved only in July, when Labour took over. That is great news, which I am very happy to see. The Farnham and Little Marlow treatment works are due to be completed in 2026 and 2028. It is a wonderful opportunity for the Government to put their money where their mouth is, and invest in the future of the Thames in Marlow and Farnham. Will the Minister confirm that that investment will be maintained and hold Thames Water to account on delivery to that timescale? I have heard Ministers speak from the Dispatch Box of the Government’s eagerness to commit to this, and I am presenting two wonderful examples that we can monitor in the months to come. My constituency is home to not only beautiful Marlow but aquatic sports along the Thames, which many young people enjoy. We have the Marlow rowing club and the Borlase rowing club, as well as the Little Marlow treatment centre, which is one of the most heavily fined sewage overflow and treatment centres in the country. Aquatic sports are practised in that area. I would welcome the Minister’s consideration of an amendment that I will table in Committee and on Report to ensure that the statutory requirements for areas where aquatic sports are practised are the same as the requirements for bathing areas, so that when young people, particularly secondary school children, row along the Thames they can rest assured of the water quality. I hope that this will be at the centre of cross-party support for ensuring that places such as the Thames, Marlow, Beaconsfield, Farnham and Burnham are looked at in a holistic way, and that the capital spend needed to invest and upgrade our sewage system will be committed to from the Dispatch Box today. I would welcome any further information from the Minister.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Puberty-suppressing Hormones · Hansard source

  More

  May I thank the Secretary of State for a very nuanced, well thought out and genuinely moving statement? He will very rarely hear me praise those on the Labour Front Bench, so he should enjoy it. I thank him for taking what is a very difficult stance. What I saw is that the Secretary of State has put young people first and has protected young people today. I am very grateful for that, and I would like to offer him my thanks. I also thank him for his nuanced approach in helping trans people in their transition in adulthood, because this is complicated and it needs a nuanced approach. I thank him for understanding that, and for his boldness today.

• 12 Nov 2024 · Climate Change: International Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  When I asked the Secretary of State about the appointment of Rachel Kyte as his international climate envoy during our last questions session, he failed to say whether Quadrature Capital’s £4 million donation to the Labour party had been declared to the Department before her appointment, and I have still not received a reply to my letter of 17 October. Will the Minister tell me whether the Secretary of State declared those interests to the Department before Rachel Kyte’s appointment, and whether Ministers have ever met directors of Quadrature Capital or Quadrature Climate Foundation?