Joy Morrissey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Antisemitism: University Campuses · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. How did we end up here again, in another debate in Westminster Hall, just like debates in the Chamber, that is full of warm words calling for action? We have heard that the Union of Jewish Students has reported a shocking 400% increase in antisemitism incidents on campuses following the 7 October attacks, and about the rise of antisemitism in our universities and on our streets that our British Jewish students are experiencing on a daily basis, and we seem unable to tackle the issue. Half of Jewish students have heard chants glorifying Hamas and Hezbollah, with protests disturbing learning for 65% of them. The stories Jewish students and staff members share are harrowing, with physical attacks, antisemitism normalised in lecture theatres, and protests outside exam rooms. Although many would like to blame that on the current state of geopolitical affairs, it is difficult to do so when one need only look back at the history of the interwar period. I do not want to drag in my educational background, but that period plays a vital role in why we need to clamp down on antisemitism today. In the interwar period, there was no Israel; there was just the rise of antisemitism. We had the same kind of economic situation we have today, and we had people looking for someone to blame. Week after week on university campuses, we saw protests by many different movements. At that point, there was a large Jewish population in Germany. They were fully integrated: they were German of the messianic faith. They had fought in world war one and had received the Iron Cross for bravery. The protests began, and the antisemitism rose on university campuses first. Jewish students assumed that they could argue, debate and find a logical way through the situation to allow common sense, reason and decency to prevail. They had been German in the era of modernity —through the Romantic period—and they believed that they were German. They believed that, through rational argument and debate, they could quell the antisemitism on university campuses. That was not the case. The protests grew for weeks and weeks and then months and months, until violence finally erupted and Jewish students were killed. Then protests erupted throughout Germany, followed by the night of broken glass. The rise of antisemitism and the first ghettoisation of German Jews was a 10-year process; it was not a quick process, but a slow, incremental one that started on university campuses. The reason I am so adamant that we stop the rise of antisemitism in our universities is that they are where future leaders—the next generation of British men and women who will go on to lead in Parliament, business and commerce—are being trained. The United Kingdom has always exhibited fair play and decency to the rest of the world; when the rest of the world has lost its mind, the United Kingdom has held decency and morality at the heart of its judgment. I do not want our country to go down the route of rising nationalism, as Germany and even the US did in the interwar period. Stopping antisemitism at university level is vital to protect the next generation from making the mistakes made in generations past. It is not a case of thinking, “Oh, well—we should probably be just a little more fair-minded.” No, every student deserves equality of access to education, and every student, when they go to university, deserves to feel safe in their exams and when walking about. They should not be harassed, bullied, shouted at or attacked because they are wearing a Star of David or any kind of religious symbol. I would say the same for any ethnic minority. The reason I know about the interwar period and the rise of antisemitism is that I worked in Kosovo with Muslim Albanians who were attacked, so I studied the rise of nationalism and how it affected European countries. In recent times, we had a similar thing happen in Europe, in the Balkans: a 10-year slow creep of people turning against their neighbours, who they had lived with and been perfectly fine with for centuries. Then, all of a sudden, they developed feelings of hatred and division. I love this country—I came here as an immigrant and was welcomed—and I do not want us to lose the fabric of what makes our society great: tolerance and inclusivity. British Jewish students are being excluded and treated with a level of hatred because of a country many of them have no connection to and have never been to. Before these issues came to the forefront, most of the members of the London Jewish community I spoke to had very few views on Israel: they were not involved, they did not care and it did not concern them. They have been dragged into this, and they have been treated with racism and hatred because of something that does not involve them. They are British citizens and are a part of British culture, but they are being treated with hatred and disrespect because of a war that is happening in the middle east. I ask that politicians look at the gravity of this situation and take seriously the recommendations of Jewish university students. They have brought forward a number of very good proposals, and there are six recommendations that I think we should accept. Will the Government insist that universities adopt the Union of Jewish Students “Best Practice Guidance”, which sets out practical recommendations for universities to tackle antisemitism? I hope the Government will strongly take into consideration those recommendations and actually use them, because they are from the students and by the students, and are a very good solution. If we fail to act now, we fail the thousands of British Jews. We will set our country on a course to a future in which antisemitism is not just normalised, but is the norm. We will make our universities seats of hatred, not seats of learning. I hope we will come together in this debate and send a clear message to Jewish students and staff: we are with you, we see you and we will take the action needed.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  We are facing dangerous and uncertain times, in a world that has dramatically changed in just a couple of years. To set the record straight following the discussions across the House, it is worth pointing out that Europe is on a path of rearmament. In 2025 the European Union launched its rearmament plan, ReArm Europe, with the goal of upping spending across Europe by 2030. As many of my hon. and gallant Friends have pointed out, we are at the bottom of the pile now on rearmament. Even just a few years back, we were at the top of the pile for NATO spending and our defence capability. How have we fallen so dramatically in comparison with our European neighbours? Earlier this year Germany launched its modern-day comprehensive military concept—the first for a very long time—with the goal of building the strongest conventional army in Europe. Things have radically changed in but a few years. How have we gone from being at the top of the pile in terms of our NATO contributions to being at the bottom? It is because of political choices, dithering and delay from this Government—a Government who think nothing of spending £330 billion a year on welfare benefits but cannot muster the courage to face down their Back Benchers to put our brave armed servicemen and women first; a Government who think our veterans are fair game for their Islington-dining-set lawyer friends and not deserving of our enduring thanks and protection from relentless lawfare. To govern is to choose. This Government chose an extra £18 billion of welfare spending this year—an extra £18 billion on showing Britain that work does not pay. That is £18 billion that could have secured 250,000 extra soldiers, according to a recent report from the Centre for Social Justice. Instead, it went to “Benefits Street”. It could have been spent on 200 fighter jets, according to the CSJ report. Instead, it went to “Benefits Street”. It could have built 15 warships. Instead, it went to “Benefits Street”. When Labour Back Benchers want action on welfare, nothing stands in this Government’s way, but when our country needs to show our enemies we are investing to protect our country and our future, we get weakness and delay. We may have lost the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the Armed Forces Minister, but the same Government with no sense of putting our country first remains. I say to the Government: stop the lawfare on our veterans now. Make the tough decisions on welfare that we on the Opposition Benches will support. Put a defence investment plan forward now that will make our enemies think twice. We are saying goodbye to a Prime Minister without a backbone. He has left our country weaker, poorer and less safe. But the country cannot wait for Labour’s internal indulgence. It is time for the investment in our armed forces that the moment demands—investment that transcends party and puts our country first. It is about Britain and our role in an unsafe and dangerous world. It is time to act and give our armed forces the investment they need.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

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

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  Anti-Israel hatred creates a scourge of antisemitism against our Jewish community. They suffer for doing nothing other than being British Jews who happen to live in this country, and are caught in the middle of the conflict for no other reason than their ethnic and religious background. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is simply unfair and racist?

• 18 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be responding again to the Leader of the House. It is the day after England started their world cup campaign, and it is fair to say that they already have our hopes up; I am a bit cheered out. Today, many of our colleagues are pounding the pavement for the by-elections. I am sure that the Leader of the House is waiting with bated breath to see if the self-anointed king of the north is shortly to begin his long march south to save the Labour party from the Greens. Or maybe the Leader of the House is waiting more keenly for the next intervention from the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), bemoaning the Prime Minister’s “poor leadership, poor judgment and bad politics”. While the comedy of errors of this Labour Government is playing out, the serious issues facing our country go unaddressed: grooming gangs, the murder of Henry Nowak, the two-tier justice system, benefits Britain and, in particular, the irresponsible failure of the Prime Minister and this Labour Government to support our armed forces with a defence investment plan fit for the dangerous world we face. The Prime Minister and the Labour Government are prepared to see our veterans subjected to continuing persecution and relentless lawfare. It is a failure of leadership. It is a failure to put our country before party. It is a failure to put our brave servicemen and women before personal political survival. It is a failure to protect those who have fought to keep us safe and free. It is easy to say that the first duty of Government is to protect the country; it is much harder to make the choices needed to deliver on that duty. We know that the root cause of that failure is that Labour MPs put “Benefits Street” before anything or anyone else. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions kindly confirmed that when he told Peter Mandelson that the only question Labour MPs ask him is: who can they tax, in order to pay more benefits? The Prime Minister did not have the backbone to confront his Back Benchers and tackle the out-of-control welfare bill. There will be £333 billion of welfare spending this year—£18 billion higher than last year. As the Centre for Social Justice pointed out recently, that £18 billion could have been invested in our armed forces. It could have bought 200 fighter jets or 12 warships, or funded 250,000 extra soldiers. Labour is taking the wealth created by hard-working families, small businesses and millions of Britons, and making it clear that in Labour’s Britain, working just does not pay. In Labour’s Britain, “Benefits Street” comes first. That brings me back to Andy Burnham, a twice-failed Labour leadership candidate who has shown that he has exactly the same flexibility of principle as the current Labour leader. This is a twice-failed Labour leadership candidate who thinks that governing will be as simple as out-Greening the Greens—spend more, tax more, repeat. This Labour party can never and will never change. Our armed forces, hard-working families and the small business across Britain deserve better. It is time for this Government to keep their promise, or go.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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?

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  I feel that if one has received sanctions, it is a badge of honour. First, to honour the international scope of the debate, I would like to take this moment to think about the women of Afghanistan, who have suffered under the Taliban. The life of all human beings is intrinsically valuable and should always be remembered. Afghan women, whose rights have been systematically dismantled with 100 decrees to restrict their freedom of movement, education, work and expression, to visit a doctor or to have financial freedom. There is no protection there against violence, beatings and forced child marriage. May we remember them today and how quickly the rights we take for granted can disappear. Across the House and throughout our great country, women have shaped our communities, strengthened our institutions—throughout the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth—and led with courage, determination and resilience. Women are leaders in business, education, science, the armed forces, charities and voluntary organisations, and, of course, here in Parliament. We must also recognise the women who contribute but who are often not recognised: the carers who support their families every day, with no thanks and no recognition; the volunteers who hold our communities together; the mothers, daughters, sisters and friends who provide strength and stability in the times we need it most. I have often spoken in this House about the importance of service, both to our communities and to our country. That spirit of sacrifice and service is embodied by countless women across the United Kingdom who quietly make an extraordinary difference in the lives of others. May we recognise their contributions today.

• 12 Mar 2026 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I support the hon. Member in pursuing this wonderful statue for Madge and lend my full support to that campaign. It is fitting that the UN’s theme for this year’s International Women’s Day is “Rights. Justice. Action. For ALL Women and Girls”. Those are three important words—rights, justice, action—that matter to women and girls. It is fitting because there are many areas where rights, justice and the call to action have been pursued by inspirational women in the face of hostility not dissimilar to what Nancy Astor faced in her time. Many Members across the House have also faced similar challenges. No matter what party they are from, I must respect the courage of many women who have gone before me, blazing the trail by coming to this Chamber and fighting for our rights, including the right to be heard. It is thanks to their contributions and sacrifice that we are allowed to debate today. I would like to mention a Member of this House who has battled for safe spaces for women and sex-based rights, which is the foundation from which true protection for women and girls needs to start. None has fought that battle with more energy, resilience and determination than the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). She has fought tirelessly to protect children and women and girls, and deserves our thanks and respect for all she has done. In the other place, my noble Friends Baroness Jenkin of Kennington and Baroness Davies of Devonport led the way in protecting women and girls; they too faced much hostility, but were never deterred from doing what they believed to be right. A champion of women-only spaces and the defence of biological sex outside of this House is J. K. Rowling, a woman who has been nothing short of inspirational. She has faced down personal threats to her safety, determined to ensure that the rights of women are heard. The Leader of the Opposition has also firmly taken a stance to protect women and girls for years when very few joined her to stand up for those safe spaces. It is for that reason that we must also be clear that, as a society, we have failed many young girls for far too long.

• 26 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be doing business questions and responding to the right hon. Gentleman. He was a Chief Whip—a Whip, like me, but more grand—and he was much respected, revered and sometimes feared by Members of this House. I will be honest and say that even I was terrified of him, and we are not even in the same party. It is a pleasure to be here today. As we reach the fourth anniversary of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, it is important that we restate our unwavering support for the people of Ukraine. We must never abandon them. I know that it has been a challenging few weeks for Labour Members—we have all been there—who have come to realise what the British people have long understood, which is that we have a Prime Minister who has U-turned on every principle he held and every promise he made. He is a Prime Minister elected on a promise not to raise taxes on working people, and then he raised them. He is a Prime Minister who promised to be pro-business, and he has become the most anti-business Prime Minister of modern times. He is a Prime Minister who promised to raise standards in public life, but he is presiding over an ever-growing mountain of Government scandals. “The grown-ups are back in charge, no more sleaze”—how is that going for them? While the Prime Minister stumbles on, his Ministers are out of control and out of their depth, and the British people are paying the price. Let me start with the Justice Secretary. This week we saw that he intends to pursue his reckless plan to cut jury trials: a principle that has existed for over 800 years; a principle that he wants to wreck without proper debate in the House. Will the Leader of the House give me a categoric assurance that we will have time in the House to debate the changes that the Justice Secretary wants to make before we get to May? Let me turn to the Education Secretary, who is also the Equalities Minister. There can be no justification for the delay in providing guidance on single-sex spaces. The Supreme Court ruled a year ago that biological sex defines a woman—a fact that most people knew without needing a judge to tell them. I do not know whether the Education Secretary deep down still does not agree, but the inaction must end. Will the Leader of the House confirm when the guidance will be laid before the House, and grant a debate in Government time on the unacceptable delays and risk it has proved to women and girls? Let me turn to the Chancellor. This week the Chancellor’s entrepreneurship adviser shamefully said that Britain does “not need more restaurants”, laying bare what we already knew: that this Government are determined to tax our hospitality businesses into extinction. Will the Chancellor apologise for her adviser and sack her, or back her and agree with her anti-hospitality stance? Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on our pubs and hospitality, so that Members—at least, those on the Conservative Benches—can show their support for the hospitality sector? We want to ensure that the crippling tax burden is removed from the hospitality sector. It is now clear that we have a Prime Minister with an out-of-control Government buried deep in scandal after scandal, failure after failure and broken promise after broken promise; a Prime Minister without principle; a Prime Minister without purpose; and a Prime Minister without a future. The British people deserve better.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  We all welcome the peace in the middle east and I do not think there is a Member here who does not welcome a two-state solution, but there are concerns across this House about Hamas leading one of those states, when their fundamental goal is to drive the other state into the sea and have a total eradication of that race. That hatred has been translated to the streets of London and the UK. It is affecting our British Jews every single day, and they are afraid. What will the Prime Minister do to alleviate the level of antisemitism that is transferring to the streets of London and Manchester, and across the UK, because of a war that has happened in the middle east? Can we rise above this, and will the Prime Minister rise above this and find a way forward for British Jews here in the UK?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend made an excellent point earlier about the underlying socialism in this agreement. The initial agreement— [ Laughter. ] No, let me just clarify: the initial agreement from May very clearly says it is about apologising for the colonisation of Mauritius and that it is about the regrettable legacy. Everything is laid out: it is about apologising for our British history and heritage. It is not about being proud of protecting our sovereignty, protecting the realm and protecting our security. We should not be saying that we will apologise and pay out because we feel bad about everything that we have done. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the Labour party, and that is why we are taking such objection to this Bill.