Joy Morrissey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to start by congratulating the right hon. Lady. This is the third time I have had the pleasure of responding to her at business questions, and they have proved to be remarkably fruitful encounters. At our first encounter, I asked her to press the Chancellor to U-turn on winter fuel payments. The Leader of the House is clearly very influential, because the U-turn on that shameful attack on pensioners came just a few weeks later. At our second encounter, I asked the right hon. Lady to get the Government to U-turn on a national inquiry for the victims of the rape gangs, and this week the Prime Minister finally did the right thing and delivered a U-turn on that as well. The Prime Minister may be getting dizzy from all his U-turning, but I congratulate the right hon. Lady on listening to the Opposition, using her influence and securing those U-turns. Let me turn to one of the most important tasks of any Government: getting people into and keeping them in work. On the Conservative Benches, we know that economic growth comes from the success of businesses and risk-taking entrepreneurs. The Labour party has never understood that, and we are now seeing it have disastrous consequences for our country. Unemployment reached record lows under the Conservative Government. Labour Governments are always incredibly successful at driving unemployment higher. This Government seem determined to be the best ever at putting more and more people out of work. Last week, we saw the devastating impact of the Chancellor’s reckless national insurance tax raid, which businesses warned her would cost jobs. They were right: the UK unemployment rate is now at its highest level since the pandemic. Job vacancies have collapsed. Last month, there were 109,000 fewer employees on payroll. These are the direct results of a Chancellor and a Government who do not understand business. It is about to get a whole lot worse. Businesses are clear that the Employment Rights Bill will cost more jobs. The UK’s leading business groups have collectively told the Government that the Bill will damage economic growth and jobs. The Government are giving people rights in jobs that they simply will not have. The truth is that this Government are beholden to their union paymasters and cannot listen to businesses. They are a Government who have taken a time machine back to the employment nightmare of the 1970s, when union barons gave Labour Ministers their marching orders. While the Government and the unions try to refight the battles of the 1970s, the world of work is changing at a rapid rate because of artificial intelligence. AI brings many benefits, but it is also a clear and present risk to the stability of our labour markets and the livelihood of millions of people in this country. Despite their love of regulation in all other aspects of our life, this Labour Government have yet again delayed their Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill, so AI is developing unchecked and changing jobs in ways that will have a long-term impact. While businesses and workers grapple with the new reality of a 21st-century AI economy, the Government are determined to burden them with taxes and regulations from the last century, so will the Leader of the House use her considerable and proven influence to deliver a U-turn on the Employment Rights Bill before it is too late? If not, will she grant us a debate in Government time on the impact of their union-inspired tax and regulation policies on businesses? Will she bring her party back to the 21st century and grant us a debate in Government time on how we address the role of AI in the future of work? The story of this Labour Government and their economic policies is now clear. If it moves, they tax it; if it does not move, they still tax it. If they can find a way, they send unemployment higher. If businesses warn them that things will get worse, they do not listen. If the unions want something, they give it to them. This is a Government fighting the battles of the 1970s and behaving like they are still student politicians. It is a Government making the people of this country poorer as each day passes.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 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.

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to be responding to business questions as we march on to the recess. I know that the Leader of the House has had a challenging few weeks, but I want to start by thanking her for everything that she has done to advocate for Members in this House. This morning, we have learned that the Government have been prevented from signing their Chagos surrender deal by the High Court. When will the Prime Minister come to the House to explain this latest humiliation and masterclass in how not to negotiate in Britain’s interests? I know that Members across the House often say things in the Chamber and elsewhere that they regret. I know, too, that the Leader of the House has said that she regrets her words on rape gangs, but it is for the victims of those rape gangs to decide whether those regrets are enough. It is time for the Government finally to take action on this scandal. Will she grant a debate, in Government time, on the rape gang scandal, and commit the Government to the national inquiry that the victims deserve? At the previous business questions, I called on the Leader of the House to ask the Chancellor to U-turn on her disastrous economic policies. Since then, things have got even worse. This week, inflation, which stood at 2% when Labour took office, has surged to 3.5%. Today, public sector net borrowing hit £20.2 billion, the fourth highest figure for the month since records began. We have had a disastrous Budget followed by an emergency one, and it looks like the next one could be catastrophic. It seems that the Deputy Prime Minister has also had enough of the Chancellor’s economic policies. The difference is that we on the Conservative Benches want the tax raids on businesses and households to be reversed, but the Deputy Prime Minister wants more tax and more spend. Yesterday, the Prime Minister would not rule out more tax rises either. I think that we can all see what is coming: £40 billion of tax rises last autumn was never going to be enough for this Government—a Government who are tough with the vulnerable, but weak with the unions. The Deputy Prime Minister may be on leadership manoeuvres, but it is quite a shopping list of new taxes that she is after—although, curiously, further taxes on second homes were not included. It is the people who save hard for their retirement and build businesses who are next in the firing line for the tax-raid obsession of this Labour Government. To pensioners, farmers and business owners we can now add savers to the list of people whom this Government seem determined to make poor. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate, in Government time, on the Government’s economic plans, so that the Deputy Prime Minister can also come and set out her tax plans for the House. I would be very interested to see the tag-team operation there. If the Deputy Prime Minister is otherwise engaged, perhaps we could turn our attention to yesterday’s welcome U-turn from the Prime Minister. I understand that he has always been gifted with the most flexible of principles, but it was quite a sight yesterday to see him admitting to promising a U-turn on punishing pensioners without any date for that U-turn, or an explanation of whether it would benefit all or just some pensioners. Crucially, we did not hear an apology from him. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the winter fuel payment U-turn, so that the Chancellor, or the Prime Minister, can come to this House and apologise to pensioners and set out when they will give pensioners the certainty that they can heat their homes next winter? Let me conclude—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Ah, thank you. We are watching the Government in a slow-motion car crash, with no economic plan but to tax and spend as fast as they can. It is not the gingerbread man; it is tax, tax as fast as they can. We are watching a Prime Minister who is having to undo the decisions of his own Government in the space of just months but who cannot bring himself to apologise. The Government are already showing that they have failed to learn the lesson of all socialist Governments: they eventually run out of everyone else’s money. This Government seem determined to run out in record time, and the only losers will be the British people.

• 15 May 2025 · Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent point. May I suggest that he applies to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on that topic? There is such interest today that I am sure that a debate on floating solar would be welcomed by the House. Many people are affected by this issue. I pay tribute to Members on the Labour Benches for their bold willingness to stand up for their constituents. It is difficult to do that and I am very impressed that they have done so. The Government may struggle to understand that it is possible to be pro-solar energy while raising legitimate concerns about where and how that expansion affects communities, our countryside, farmers and food security.

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

  More

  In a moment—I want to make some progress. While none of that has been made clear, we have heard from quite a lot of Back-Bench Labour MPs that we will have a wonderful new trade deal and a great new visa system for young people, which gives me pause. Either we are not being told fully what is going to happen at this summit, or there is such anticipation for back-door EU realignment that the Labour party cannot contain itself, and its Members cannot help but tell us what they are planning on doing. My biggest concern in all this—forgive me for wanting reassurance from the Dispatch Box—is that the outcome of the summit might involve concessions of jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice, or the application of any of the principles of supremacy of EU law. I would like a guarantee from the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that that will not be the case. There can be no question of the European Court of Justice being brought back via the back door through dynamic realignment with EU law. I want to hear reassurances from the Minister that nothing will be discussed or renegotiated at this summit that would tear apart all the work we did, through the withdrawal agreement and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, to ensure that our laws have supremacy over EU law. That was the point. Many of us voted for Brexit because we wanted to see our sovereignty and our borders restored; we wanted to see our laws brought back under our sovereignty. We want to ensure that we honour the commitments that we made, with both the Retained EU Law Act and the withdrawal agreement, to move forward with the EU. I welcome trade deals all over the world; I want us to be as successful as we can be. Praise where praise is due: if the Labour party has achieved a trade deal, fine—I am happy to acknowledge that and to say “Well done”. We should be trying to get trade deals with any country that we can. The reason I am asking for assurances from the Dispatch Box is that I have seen the Labour party change its view on so many things: on Brexit, on Trump, on scrapping winter fuel payments, on energy bills—

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

  More

  It is wonderful to hear from the acclaimed globalists from both the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Labour Benches who cannot wait to bring us back into the EU. For the record, I am opposed to doing so not only because the British people voted the opposite way and we should honour the referendum, but because, as Labour Members seem to have forgotten, we actually negotiated a trade deal with Europe. What I am interested in is the evasive nature of what the Minister said from the Dispatch Box, which committed us to nothing other than resetting our relationship with the EU. I would like reassurances on what that means. What strategic partnership with the EU was he referring to? What concessions is he planning on making? Will some kind of new EU treaty renegotiation come out of this? What kind of active or passive role is the UK planning on taking at this summit? None of that has been made clear.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman should allow us to fulfil the deal to which we are committed. We have put in place a trade deal and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. Unless there are new negotiations to be had, what exactly is the purpose of the summit? I was going to end my speech, but the hon. Gentleman has inspired me to continue. The Government’s amendment relates to NATO, but NATO has nothing to do with the EU; it is a completely separate entity. Talk of dynamic realignment on defence came about after we left the EU. Ensuring an ever closer Union, through military, policing and social policy, has always been part of the plan of the European Union. That is welcome to internationalists, Liberal Democrats and Labour Members. I am sure that they would all love to have another way of binding us to the EU. NATO is separate; it has one document that has been agreed in the post-war period—

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

  I have deep concerns about this Orwellian Bill because of what it does not explicitly say and its ambiguity regarding EU dynamic realignment. The Henry VIII powers the Bill gives Ministers will have serious consequences for businesses, consumers and our ability to trade, but does so with little detail on how they intend to use such powers. Let me first turn to regulatory alignment. As you may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, I spent much time taking the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 through as a Whip, and I believe passionately that that Act was vital to take back control, for parliamentary sovereignty and in freeing businesses to compete by shedding unnecessary EU regulations, directives and red tape. So I will say plainly that this Bill will lead to regulatory alignment with the EU through the back door. I invite the Minister to confirm from the Dispatch Box that this Bill and the powers it gives Ministers will not be used by this Government for dynamic alignment with EU regulations. I doubt that any such categoric reassurance is likely to be forthcoming, but I await with bated breath and a hopeful heart that it be so.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, although the Office for Budget Responsibility contradicts what he is saying. The truth about this Government is that they talk a tough talk, but they are the masters of outsourcing every tough decision for others to make. We see that in the tough choices they have forced on small businesses across this country—whether to stop hiring, cut staff, raise prices, or close altogether in order to deal with this black hole that the Chancellor has created through her socialist spending spree—but we saw it first in stark terms in the way that the Government treated pensioners. The Chancellor chose—yes, chose—to make pensioners make the tough choice between eating and heating. She was not able to be tough with the train driver unions, and she was not able to be tough with the Energy Secretary to stop him wasting £8 billion on GB Energy or £11 billion on overseas climate aid, but she was able to be tough with the pensioners of this country. She is a Chancellor who can be tough with the weak, but melts before the unions and her Cabinet colleagues. This is a Government who have abandoned evidence-based policymaking, such as by attacking parents who send their children to independent schools, engaging in a tax raid despite the clear evidence that it will damage the life chances of young people in both the state and the private sector.

• 14 Mar 2025 · HS2 Mitigation Projects: Inflation · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentions the cost relating to infrastructure. One of the huge impacts that goes unrecognised is the impact on roads and road surfaces. Not only are many areas of Buckinghamshire on a flood plain, but our roads get a huge amount of use, which is compounded by the HS2 traffic. Does he agree that that is not compensated for by the HS2 fund in any way?

• 14 Mar 2025 · HS2 Mitigation Projects: Inflation · Hansard source

  More

  May I say, on behalf of two of the Buckinghamshire MPs, that we stand in solidarity in support for scrapping HS2 altogether? It is never too late for a real cost-saving Minister to scrap the whole thing.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Businesses across Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages are facing crippling costs from the Government’s national insurance tax raid and the Employment Rights Bill. Can the Secretary of State reassure or advise my businesses? Should they stop hiring, cut staff, increase prices, or all of the above?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Family Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to stand here today on behalf of businesses in Beaconsfield, Marlow and the South Bucks villages. These small family businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are the job creators, they play a vital role in helping our communities, and they deserve our support in this House. Yet it is now clear to businesses in my constituency that they find themselves with a Labour Government who simply do not understand business. This is a Government who seem to think that just by saying the word growth over and over again, it will magically happen. The truth is that businesses create growth, not hot air from the Chancellor. This Government are seriously damaging businesses with a national insurance tax raid that will destroy jobs and put at risk thousands of businesses. Time and again, business owners have warned of the consequences, but they have been met with a wall of silence from the Government. Why? Because this Labour Government simply do not understand business or the consequences of their actions. At the end of last year, I hosted a roundtable of local, family-run, multigenerational businesses. They have been at the heart of our local economy for decades, but now they are struggling not just with the national insurance threshold increase or the differences that the Employment Rights Bill will bring in, but with skills shortages and the economic uncertainty that that will cause. Now, thanks to this Government’s tax raid, they are being forced to make impossible choices: to cut back on hiring, reduce investment or close their doors altogether. Let me give the House just one example. I met the owner of a proud family business that has been serving Marlow for over 88 years. He told me plainly that this Government’s policies will make it harder for businesses such as his to survive. His story is one I have heard time and again. This Government do not seem to get that, in lowering the employment national insurance threshold so dramatically, they have made it almost impossible for businesses that employ lots of people to operate in the low-margin sectors.

• 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

  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.

• 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.