Joy Morrissey MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Employment Costs: Impact on Recruitment · Hansard source

  More

  The Employment Rights Act, the minimum wage and national insurance contributions are all making it difficult for employers to keep taking on new employees, or even to keep them at all. What advice does the Minister have for small business owners in Beaconsfield and Marlow having to make the difficult decision to either cut jobs or close their businesses thanks to this Government?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Employment Costs: Impact on Recruitment · Hansard source

  More

  15. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of employment costs on levels of business recruitment.

• 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.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The increased PIP costs are expected to add an extra £5 billion to the welfare budget this year. As the TaxPayers’ Alliance has highlighted, the number of households earning over £100,000 and getting PIP has doubled to 200,000 claimants. Will the Minister make an assessment of the potential merits of means-testing PIP to ensure targeted support?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Windrush Day · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was so inspired by the speech of the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) that I thought I would say a few words. I just want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward this debate and to say a personal thank you to the Windrush generation and their grandchildren for making me feel British when I first came here. We talk about what we have in common and what divides us, and what is great about the Windrush generation is that they came here, they contributed, they were proud to be British and they have brought so much enrichment to being British. When I came here as an immigrant, it was my West Indian friends who taught me how to be British, and who showed pride in being British and pride in the flag. My first coronation party was a Jamaican-inspired coronation party, and that is the best kind of party to have. As the hon. Member mentioned, there were none of those transparent bags; it was classy and wonderful, and I had the best time. I think my being proud of being British came from the kindness shown to me when I first came here as an immigrant. I just want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for having this debate and the Windrush generation and their grandchildren for their incredible contribution to this country.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Puberty Blockers · Hansard source

  More

  That is an excellent point. When I heard about those other uses for the drug, I thought that I would be interested to see more clinical trials for conditions such as endometriosis and cancer to establish its long-term effects. However, that is for adults. When it comes to protecting children, I want to ensure that this trial involves as much safeguarding as possible. We do not fully understand the long-term risk. We come to the House again and again to discuss what constitutes a child and what constitutes protecting a child. We need to be clear about the fact that we must protect people under the age of 16, or 18—I do not care which age it is, but it should be an age on which we all agree—and that they must be subject to extra protection and safeguarding until they reach adulthood. That is why we are asking for so many safeguards—we need to ensure that the unintended consequence of trying to help a few young people does not lead to greater harm to many—and it is why we are here today. I do not feel that asking the Government to include the data linkage study is too much to ask. This trial is a trade-off: long-term health is being exchanged for short-term happiness. This trial, in my opinion, is not safe, and this trial will not protect children from harm.

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

  More

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

• 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.

• 19 May 2026 · High Speed 2: Impact on Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Across the House, we all want extra protection for Colne Valley Regional Park, and to mitigate the impact of HS2 and all other infrastructure projects. I want to share one poignant and difficult example to demonstrate why I have brought forward this debate. My constituent Luke Oldfield has been struggling in a dispute with HS2 for 12 years. Mr Oldfield has a home recording studio business that pre-dates the white elephant that is HS2. From the outset he raised concerns about the impact of construction and future rail noise on his business. Although he secured assurances that HS2 would address noise concerns, his view is that monitoring methods failed properly to capture the noise affecting his studio. HS2 later privately accepted that there would be an impact and the only viable solution identified has been to construct a new replacement studio. Despite years of design work and cost assessment, the Department for Transport has repeatedly delayed progress and pushed back on cost. What is clear is that Mr Oldfield—I am sure he is not alone in this—is the victim of a national infrastructure project that does not care and has not been subject to sufficient independent oversight. It will soon be too late, so the Government must act. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could confirm in her reply that the Government will: urgently take up with me the case of Mr Oldfield and secure a final and just resolution to the building of a new studio, so that he can carry on his business; and urgently set out a timeline for the final resolution of all disputes outstanding along the HS2 line, so that my constituents, and those of Members across the House, can finally put the nightmare of HS2 behind them. HS2 is a project that should never have been, but now we must act to bring the nightmare to an end for people such as Mr Oldfield. I urge the Minister to do just that.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Select Committees · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the words of the Leader of the House, and thank the Backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee for contributing to these motions, which are broadly very sensible.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who eloquently championed his local area and covered every point that we could possibly raise—I shall follow humbly on his coat-tails. Fuel duty is a war on the motorist. It is an attack on hard-working families who have scrimped and saved to drive their child to that special holiday or even to do the school run each day. This tax is regressive. It will hurt normal, hard-working families across Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages. It will also hurt small and medium-sized enterprises, care workers and all the key workers who have to drive from outside Buckinghamshire to work in the area. We have care workers who come from other counties to work in Bourne End, Wooburn and Marlow because the cost of living is so high. That extra driving, that extra cost on their transport, will be devastating to our local care-working community and to those who provide vital services, such as our firefighters and police officers, who often have to drive to the fire station or police station where they are based. That extra cost is the difference between a family making it each month and slightly going under. That is who we are speaking for today: the people who are paying their taxes, working hard and wanting to do the right thing but are being punished by this fuel duty increase. My constituency is also impacted by rises in off-grid heating oil prices. I myself have off-grid heating oil, and many of my constituents in Dorney, Wooburn, Bourne End, Flackwell Heath and Iver are impacted by price increases. Although we are near London, we are actually very rural. I have more pensioners per capita than pretty much anywhere else—you might be the No. 1 winner, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would come second. This extra cost will push my pensioners into poverty. They are barely making ends meet right now. They are humbly going about their business, but they all need transport as well. We have poor transport links so people need to use their cars, and my pensioners will be adversely affected by this fuel duty increase. It is incredibly unfair that the increase is coming in now given that world events are causing oil prices to increase anyway, so families, workers and the taxpayer will be further punished. It would be hard to have this debate without mentioning my right hon. Friend the former Member for Harlow, Robert Halfon, who led the charge on fuel duty. For years, he was the passionate voice making this point clear across the House: high fuel duty taxes are regressive because they affect working people the most. They are a brake on economic growth. We all saw the golden moment on Sunday morning when the harsh inconvenience of the facts hit the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero: that 38% of the cost of petrol is down to fuel duty, a tax entirely in the hands of the Government. This Secretary of State, who could power the entire country with hot air, seemed to get the message slowly but surely, and there is no problem to which the answer is not a faster and more ruinous race to net zero, putting ideology ahead of working families. To govern is to choose, and this Government always choose the most damaging economic pathway for families.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  It is a shocking burden and one that many people and hard-working families will not be able to bear. I am often told by the London elite that people need to switch to electric cars and do all these other things, but many people cannot afford an electric car or the cost of electricity, or even to put fuel in their petrol car. Families will be at breaking point, and they have no alternative to taking their child to school or the doctor. That extra burden can push a family completely over the edge. We need to make our economy competitive again. We need to look at ways to make energy and fuel affordable for everyone. Working people are being saddled with higher costs and taxes while more money is being pumped into benefits Britain because of the weakness of a Prime Minister without a backbone. It is time to put working people first. It is time for another Government U-turn.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  The national insurance tax rise and the upcoming implementation of the Employment Rights Act 2025 are just two of the reasons why businesses are on their knees. I welcome the Government’s youth guarantee, but how can the Government guarantee jobs when there will not be any businesses to offer those jobs?

• 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.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Digital ID: Public Consultation · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentioned that there is no set budget, so is this a blank cheque for Government spending? What will be the end point? Is this a white elephant, a black hole or just another project that will fall by the wayside? Why are the Government having a people’s panel when we have Parliament, and when people across the county are saying that they do not want digital ID?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Independent Faith Schools: VAT · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. This issue is very close to my heart, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing it to Westminster Hall. I see how the issue affects my constituents, and the Conservatives care very much about it because it goes to our fundamental values. Do we believe that people should have individual choice—parental choice—for where they send their child to school, or should the state control everything? This feels like a very vindictive tax, there to punish those who want choice in religion and in education, and have aspiration for where they send their child. This tax does not punish the wealthy; it punishes those who are working to barely get by. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, it punishes those who are saving up, not going on holidays, and sacrificing everything to send their child to the faith school that they choose. That may be because of their religious belief or because that school offers additional SEND provision that they cannot get in a mainstream school. I know parents who have sent their child to a school that is not of their faith because it is the only alternative to bullying or other challenges that their child is facing in school. These schools have been a lifeline for so many parents. Parents have come to me with tears in their eyes, saying that they can no longer send their child to the best school for them, because the state has said that they do not deserve to go to that school, as they do not have enough money to pay for the extra tax. It is a vindictive tax. We are the only European country that is taxing education. How can that be right? This limits choice. I believe in personal choice, competition, and letting people make their own decisions on where they send their child to school. This policy restricts that. It means that more children will flood into the state sector and compete for SEND places. Many children will be unable to find another school of the same denomination and practise their faith. I am glad that the Conservatives have pledged to reverse this policy, because I do not think we are a country that wants to limit personal religious freedom, personal choice and parental aspiration. The state does not always know best. If your child has autism, is being bullied, or is not getting the faith education that they need in the state sector, that is what independent faith schools exist for. If you wish to sacrifice your income and other comforts to send your child to that school, it should be your choice. As Conservatives, we believe that the policy should be scrapped, and we will continue to advocate for that. I know that Members have many fun and eventful things to do today, so I will conclude. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for bringing this debate to the House, because it is important that we do not forget the impact this policy will have in the next few years. Sacrifice is no longer enough for people who desperately want to educate their children in a way that we took for granted 20 years ago. We took for granted that our child could be raised in the Jewish faith, in Islam— [ Interruption. ] Is there a time limit, Sir Alec?

• 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.

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

  More

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

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  A farmer in my constituency who runs a shoot in Hedgerley has told me repeatedly that, if the legislation goes through, he will lose his family-run farm business. This proposal will put him, and many other farmers who run shoots that have kept them viable, out of business. Does the hon. Member agree that the legislation is not the way forward?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that all Members across the House care about youth unemployment, but the way it is tackled is very different depending on from which party a Member hails. We have rising youth unemployment, and the issue is taxation. Our businesses are facing an increased national insurance rate, and business rates on the high street are high. Hospitality and retail businesses are being taxed to the point where they cannot take on another employee, and usually that employee is a young person who is being given their first opportunity. The Government are making the job market so rigid and protecting workers’ rights to the point where there will be no jobs available by the time young people are looking to get into employment. The Government are making it so restrictive that businesses do not want to take on new employees. First, they are not able to afford to and, secondly, there is so much restriction when they go to hire a new employee that they just will not do it. That will not be dealt with, and youth unemployment will continue to rise. I have had a young person come to me who has just finished a degree in mathematics from Cambridge but cannot find a job. Someone else’s son did a law degree but cannot find a job. I have people from every sector coming to me with their concerns: businesses are saying that they cannot take on a new employee because they simply cannot afford it, and parents are desperate to get their child into any job. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, apprenticeships and zero-hours contracts were an opportunity for a young person to get their first job, for example in hospitality or retail. Working in those environments, with other people, teaches young people lessons that they can take forward in life to other jobs and opportunities. That is what young people need. I would like to provide some historical context to the Minister’s speech. In 2010, the Conservatives inherited from Labour youth unemployment at 20%, and nearly a million young people were out of work. Before the pandemic hit in 2020, the Conservatives had nearly halved it to just 12%. When we left office in 2024, despite the pandemic’s effects, the level was just 13%. That was the result of our fixing the economy, driving up education standards and making work pay.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. The crisis will continue to be a problem that this Government face—mark my words. Turning to my constituency of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the South Bucks villages, we have an incredible restaurant in Beaconsfield called The Greyhound. I strongly urge everyone to go to eat there. It has a wonderful apprenticeship programme that helps young people get their first job in hospitality, providing them with an incredible opportunity. I went to speak to them and they said, “This is great. I wasn’t enjoying school and I now have an opportunity for a career in hospitality. I am trained in every level of hospitality.” They gave me a tour of the wine cellar and everything in between. They love it and are passionate about it. The Greyhound tells me, however, that many businesses, and not just The Greyhound, cannot continue their apprenticeship programme because of the backdrop of the national insurance tax raid and an eye-watering hike in their business rates. They simply cannot continue the very successful programme that has changed young people’s lives. This is a Government who failed to listen to the urgent calls of businesses to stop their Employment Rights Act, which will destroy jobs while creating rights for jobs that will no longer exist. Young people need businesses to be able to create jobs for them and not be hamstrung by tax and employment policies that force employers to curtail opportunity. This is also a Government who sow utter chaos in our apprenticeship system at every turn. With Labour Governments, rising youth unemployment —indeed, all unemployment—becomes a sad inevitability. Yet different choices can change that course for our young people and create a better future. Lowering business taxes to enable businesses to create jobs will help tackle the problem, as will putting evidence before ideology in education so that standards rise and do not collapse, and scrapping business rates on the high street. We will see many people coming back, many businesses coming back and many young people being employed. It will be a tremendous win for this Government if they try that. The Government should also try reducing the tax burden for anybody under the age of 25. If they scrap the national insurance contribution for under-25s, this Government will see a tremendous rise in young people taking their first job with a business, because the risk is reduced for that business. Instead, we are forcing over-regulation on to businesses, crippling and closing them, and curtailing opportunities for young people. We should create an apprenticeship system built on aspiration that is about employment choice and stability, so that we continue to build on the great work that had already started and give young people an opportunity to get their first job and start their career. That is the future our young people deserve.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  This is a youth unemployment crisis of Labour’s own making. It is because of the national insurance tax hikes and the restrictions on business—

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  When will this Labour Government’s attack on the countryside come to an end? Will it be when there are no village pubs left to tax? Will it be when the last family farm has shut the barn doors? Will it be when they have banned all English country sports and traditions? Will it be when their left-wing lobby groups have finally had their student union fantasies fulfilled? Will it be when the English countryside is filled with solar farms and onshore wind? For months, the Government have put family farmers under intolerable stress over the tax proposals that everyone could see they had got wrong. There is not a country pub in my constituency, in Beaconsfield, Marlow and the South Bucks villages, that is not collapsing under the weight of the Government’s national insurance tax raid and business rate tax hikes.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a wonderful point that the Government are not just destroying the places where people go, but the pubs in the village where everyone comes together. They are destroying the local community, with no regard for something that we saved during covid and kept alive this entire time, only to die a death for what? I am not sure. Is it for ideological reasons? It is hard to say. The Government have gone for the economic livelihoods of our rural communities; now they are coming for their traditions and character. I am a passionate animal lover. I care deeply about animals and animal welfare standards. I can therefore say with total certainty that the proposed ban on trail hunting is not about animals or their welfare; it is about petty, vindictive ideology and this Government’s pathological dislike of rural communities. Now we find this Parliament in the absurd position of being asked to ban something that does not even involve hunting or killing animals. There has just been a debate in Ireland and they voted against a ban on hunting after a sensible debate, but not here. We have to come to the real question—the unanswered question—on animal welfare: what exactly do the Government think is going to happen to the 170 packs of hounds in England when they are no longer in use? What is going to happen to the 20,000 hounds and numerous horses if the trail hunting ban goes through? Let us be brutally honest: many of them will be destroyed. If you have a hound, have you ever tried to have it domesticated? Have you tried to have a harrier— [ Interruption. ] No, please, I insist on you trying to have a hound come to your home and stay with you for a week. It is impossible. Put the blood of those hounds and those horses on your heads because you want to stand in ideological purity—

• 17 Nov 2025 · Budget: Press Briefings · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Chancellor recognise that her trailing of a mansion tax for houses that are nothing of the sort has caused deep anxiety for thousands of people, including many pensioners in my constituency, who could not afford a potential doubling of their council tax?