Joy Morrissey MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  With exports, we can apply any kind of regulation we want to maximise our market advantage from leaving the EU. We could apply a statutory framework for Japan, or any country we want, to ensure we can export our products. The point of leaving the EU was so that we could remain globally competitive, and so that we could choose to adopt any regulatory framework we wanted if that market enabled us to export our products, support our businesses and help to grow our economy. I would support that, but nothing of that is mentioned in the Bill. If it mentioned realignment with market values in relation to Japan, so we could export things to Japan or to other markets, I would be interested in looking at the Bill holistically, but not once is any country or trade grouping mentioned except the EU. That gives me pause, and it makes me wonder whether this is an attempt to achieve a backdoor realignment with EU regulatory frameworks without the scrutiny of Parliament.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I agree completely with the right hon. Gentleman. I will leave it there, because that is an excellent point. This is about free trade and expanding our global reach by making money, growing our economy and allowing everyone to benefit from a tax base that grows because our businesses can export freely. I am very supportive of that. If the Bill in any way addressed the concerns I have raised, I would be happy to support it, but it is vague and does not give us the insight we need into the kind of alignment that is intended. That vagueness presents a challenge that was mentioned repeatedly in the other place. In this House, we must address the Bill’s challenges with a similar rigour. It may look quite harmless on the outside, but under the surface it will deliver profound change and threaten our ability to scrutinise these regulatory changes. In the other place, the noble Lord Sandhurst described it as: “a Henry VIII Bill par excellence”. —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 20 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC44.] We would do well to heed those words. Where is the policy framework under which Ministers will decide to use these powers? On parliamentary sovereignty or Ministers’ decision to use the powers, there is no such framework.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill is a legislative blank sheet of paper for Ministers to fill with whatever legislation they feel like. The Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee stated that the Bill “signifies an exceptional shift in power from Parliament to the executive and entails the Government, in effect, asking Parliament to pass primary legislation which is so insubstantial that it leaves the real operation of the legislation to be decided by Ministers”. I say to Members right across this House: heed those words. If we do not stay alert to legislation that looks so harmless yet confers such powers on Ministers, we are failing in our role as legislators.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am not aware of any other legislation that has received the same recommendation three times. That represents a substantial warning. The Bill, either deliberately or unintentionally, will lead to realignment with the EU and once again leave our country beholden to others’ decisions on regulatory standards. It will hamper our businesses in this fast-changing world, making them less agile and less competitive and making us poorer as a nation. It gives Ministers too much power—a fact that in this House should always be pause for thought, no matter who governs. I urge the Government to think again.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Energy Consumer Support · Hansard source

  More

  Consumers are concerned about the rising energy price cap. What will the Secretary of State do to strengthen existing energy schemes and initiate new schemes? Will it include delivering the £300 reduction in energy bills that Labour promised during the general election?

• 14 Mar 2025 · Arm’s-Length Bodies (Review) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about arm’s length bodies and their accountability to Parliament, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to have a mechanism to bring them to Parliament to hold them to account, not just through their annual accounts? If there is gross negligence in a Department or an arm’s length body, particularly those that deal in medical or other delicate matters, or if there is some issue that needs to be brought to the fore, we could have a mechanism for them to come to Parliament so that there could be direct parliamentary accountability. Although it is said in theory that those bodies are accountable to us, there is no evidence to show that that is the case.

• 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

  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.

• 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?

• 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 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.

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

  More

  I will give way in a moment, but I must make a little progress first, because I have only five minutes if I am to allow time for the Minister. We on the Conservative Benches will keep calling these plans out for what they are: a dangerous experiment that will damage the British countryside, wreck the livelihoods of hard-working British people and drive up energy bills. Let us examine the progress of this experiment so far. During the election campaign, the Secretary of State got Labour candidates to claim that GB Energy would save £300 on energy bills, but that does not seem to be something that the Government are going to stand behind now. I would ask why that is, and what plans there are for the future in this regard. The Government have formed an energy company that will not generate a single watt of energy, and will not bring down a single energy bill. They have taken £8 billion of taxpayers’ money, and put a shiny brand on it called GB Energy. GB Energy is simply the Government subsidising high-risk projects for the private sector on one hand, while decimating our oil and gas industry with the other. They have set up a new company and claim that it will make profits in five years, with nothing but 14 pages of a hot-air founding statement—with no business plan, no financial forecast, and nothing else.

• 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.