Joy Morrissey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Jun 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to ask the Home Secretary about the historical sexual abuse and child sexual abuse of Sikh women and children. The Sikh community has said that when Sikh girls went to the local authority or the police, they were told—even by the media—that it was an “ethnic problem”, or that it was an “Asian problem”. I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary will be recording data, but what data will that be? Will Sikh girls who have been abused no longer just be told that it is an “Asian problem”?

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow such excellent contributions from Members from all parts of the House in this important debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this vital debate. I pay tribute to the parents, the carers, the schools and all those who have battled tirelessly to secure funding for SEND students. I was one of those SEND students who benefited from my parents tirelessly campaigning for me to have the disability support I needed in school. It has only taken me this long to finally say thank you. Such support plays a vital role in children’s long-term success. Members from all parts of the House have raised this issue today because they can see the merits in fighting for children’s chances, particularly in primary school, to increase their success overall. We know that finding the right provision can be difficult and bureaucratic for children with SEND and their families. Securing the right assessment of a child’s needs, getting their education, health and care plan, and finding the right provision takes huge effort and far too long. Many parents who have come to me have been absolutely choked and suffocated by the system. Too often, children with SEND face a postcode lottery, with suitable provision too far from their home or, in the worst cases, no suitable provision at all. According to the 2024 data, we now have 1.67 million children who have been identified as having SEND— 18.4% of all school pupils. We know that the number has grown significantly over the last few years, which is why the Conservatives opened 108 new specialist schools, committed to a further 92 and delivered over 60,000 new special needs school places. The growth in children with SEND is why getting the distribution of funding correct really does matter. We know that not enough of the funding is reaching schools and the children who need it the most. We know that as the number of children with SEND has increased, the deficit from the high-needs block has become financially unsustainable, as many Members have alluded to today. That is why we must confront the challenges facing local government when the statutory override ends in March 2026, and we would like to hear what assurances the Minister can give on how councils can address the deficit.

• 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.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the pressure that hospices take off the NHS. The wonderful work of the hospice the hon. Gentleman mentions is the reason the NHS can function in the way it does. The cost savings on palliative care—both in hospital and out-of-hospital care settings—are invaluable. The hospices in our constituencies are a model that already works, and they are trusted by the community. I think we should be funding that model, instead of allowing hospices to die on the vine because of a lack of funding and changes to the funding model. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I pay tribute to all the volunteers who organise the fun runs, and to volunteers in my constituency, such as Sharon Williams, who does the Thames hospice walk in Denham village every year. These are the people who support our local hospices, and we should all pay tribute to them. Hospices matter because each year they support 310,000 people and 92,000 family members. Hospices matter because they are vital holistic care services for people and their loved ones at the end of life. Hospices matter because they provide crucial end-of-life and overall healthcare, relieving the pressure on the NHS. They provide both community specialist and acute care. However, I suspect that the Minister and the Government already know this, and I am sure that they agree that hospices matter, so let me turn to why this debate matters. The hospice sector is under enormous pressure, and it faces an unprecedented challenge. The sector is caught in the triple squeeze of increased demand, increased cost and uncertain funding. Only the Government have the power to change that squeeze. Only the Government can eliminate the increased cost or create more certain funding. In this House, recent months have been consumed by a debate about assisted dying, while the real scandal of the lack of support for end-of-life care through hospices goes below the radar. It is estimated that the demand for palliative care in the UK will increase by 25% in the next 25 years, but as hospices face this increased demand, the Government have decided to saddle them with increased cost, and have failed to provide a long-term settlement. Let me speak about the excellent Thames hospice that supports many families in my constituency and the constituencies of my neighbours. I would not be here today were it not for Baroness May of Maidenhead. As a long-term champion of Thames hospice, she asked me to have a word with the hospice, as it was so concerned about its funding, which I did, and that led to this debate. Again, Members of Parliament from both Houses continue to champion this important cause. I recently met Dr Rachel de Caux, the chief executive officer of Thames Hospice. Like many other hospices, Thames hospice represents the very best of our communities: people who believe in providing quality of life at end of life, for everyone; passionate people who care, like the Thames hospice Denham support group, and the volunteers who make donations and support those who go into the hospice. Through their excellent work, they enable 80% of the people they support to receive dignified end-of-life care at home, and the rest to get specialised in-patient service. I visited the service recently, and when I visited the call centre, I was moved to see volunteers and staff working around the clock to help those who had just received a terminal diagnosis, or families who could not cope. They were going to people’s homes and working all hours of the day and night to ensure that people had the pain support and palliative care that they needed, at home or in the centre. Thames hospice, like many hospices, faces a critical moment. Less than one third of its income comes from the NHS. Like many hospices, it raises the rest through its charity shops, fundraising efforts and the generosity of private donors. The Chancellor’s Budget was like a hammer blow to its finances, and it faces a deficit of up to £1 million, largely as a result of the Government’s choices. The national insurance tax raid, from which this Government recently voted not to spare hospices, will add £300,000 to its costs for the next financial year, while changes to the national minimum wage will add another £200,000, both through the direct impact and the need to maintain pay differentials. Meeting the NHS pay settlement, which the hospice needs to do to keep clinical staff—but which, again, it needs to do without Government support—will add a further £100,000. Finally, Thames hospice’s suppliers face the same cost pressures, and are passing those on to the hospice through higher prices. I know the Minister will talk about the £1 million settlement of additional funding for hospices that was announced in December, but let us set out the detail of that money: it was for capital expenditure, and is welcomed, I am sure, by hospices, but it was not money for meeting operational cost pressures. It was also split across 170 hospices, so it became a drop in the ocean for individual hospices and their needs.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent point, because the same thing is true in London. We have seen London housing targets decline for the Mayor of London, who has not met any of his housing targets, and all those extra housing numbers have been forced on to the outer counties surrounding London. I am not sure that is fair or will produce the housing that people need.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We have given way to infrastructure, including HS2, motorways and data centres across the entire green belt with very little community consent, and now, with this new Bill, all community consent seems to be going out the window. How can we protect the vital green space in my constituency, which provides the lungs of London and which will be destroyed because everyone will want a piece of the small bits of green belt we still have left?

• 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.

• 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.

• 17 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House may be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister has called in a planning application for the Marlow film studio, which had already been rejected by thousands of local residents, planning officers and the council. This is the wrong development in the wrong place, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on how the views of local people on planning can be retained before the Labour party concretes over the entire green belt?

• 26 Jul 2024 · Making Britain a Clean Energy Superpower · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the hon. Member is a strong advocate for her local community, and that is an important cross-party awareness; but we are in this position now, and I say to the Government, “You won, and we are here to hold you to account on your new endeavours. We wish you all the best, but it is our job to hold you to account.” If GB Energy were a private company, no investor would touch it with a bargepole, yet the Government get to play with the money of hard-working British taxpayers while simultaneously hitting them with higher taxes and higher bills in return for that privilege. The Secretary of State doubtless thinks that he is courageously saving the planet, but he is not quite courageous enough to go to Aberdeen, or to be here today, or to speak to those in the North sea who will lose their jobs. This is now serious. It is serious because the Government are writing cheques that the British people cannot afford and Ministers will never have to pay; it is serious because they are betraying the trust of local communities; it serious because they are putting at risk our energy and food security at a time when both have never been more vital; and it is serious because those who will suffer for their net zero purity are working people. These are not plans for a clean energy superpower. They are plans for a weaker, poorer Britain.

• 19 Jul 2024 · Planning, the Green Belt and Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on his maiden speech. It was wonderful to hear him champion so many local charities and causes, particularly for young people. It is great to hear that he cares about the mental health and wellbeing of young people. I also congratulate the new hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on his speech, and his drive-by of the entire constituency and the wonderful things that people can see and experience in his patch. What I loved about both speeches is that both hon. Members put their constituents first and talked about being a local champion. I will support anyone, whatever party or part of the House they are from, who wants to put their constituents first and be an advocate for them in this House. On that subject, I am here because the people of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages sent a clear message to me during the general election that they want me to stand up and defend the green belt. I made a promise to them back in 2019 and again in 2024 that I would stand up and defend the green belt. I will continue to do so. For my constituents, the green belt is not just special; it is vital. It acts as the lungs of London. It is vital because for my constituents it is the buffer between the sprawl of London and Slough; because green space provides much-needed mental health and wellbeing space for my constituents; and because it provides the biodiversity and nature conservation areas that we need between London and the home counties. It is essential that we protect nature, and I want to be a champion for that as well. Once our green belt is lost, it is lost forever and we cannot get it back. I want to be clear: I believe in the right housing, in the right place, with the right infrastructure. It is entirely a false prospectus to think that people who defend the green belt are somehow anti-growth and anti-housing. That is not true. Here is the truth: the Government seem determined to deny that the green belt is green space, but any attempt by the Government to use some Orwellian twisting of words to make it grey belt will fail in the sunlight of simple truth. In Marlow in my constituency, we fought together with local community groups to stop the Marlow film studios being built on green-belt space. We worked tirelessly to protect the green belt, so that future generations could enjoy that beautiful green area. We fought as a community, and the proposal was rightly rejected. If the Government try to bring it back, I and the residents will fight it every inch of the way. The Government established their intent in their first three days of existence: the Government know best and communities will be ignored. The Chancellor—not, funnily enough, the Deputy Prime Minister—announced that the Government were calling in an application, rejected by planners and the Planning Inspectorate, to build a data centre in the Ivers, right up against London. It was a blatant attack on local opinion and professional planning officers. Do Ministers really believe that there are no better sites for a data centre than directly on the only green belt that separates us from London? I say to the Government: you will soon discover that you are on the wrong side of this debate. Our green belt in south Bucks is not a political, ideological prize to be won. Residents will make their voices heard, and I will be right there by their side. It matters to my constituents and the generations to follow who will grow up and live in the beautiful area of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages. I urge the Government to think again. Leave our green belt alone.