Joy Morrissey MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

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

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  That is another reason why I am shocked that the mental health budget is decreasing. I am seeing an increase across my constituency—and I am sure it is the same in many others—of girls in secondary school presenting with severe mental health issues, suicidal tendencies and eating disorders, and they are desperately crying out for additional mental health support.

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Constituents have come to me about patients with schizophrenia, for example, who had been released before their psychosis had fully passed, with one such instance tragically ending in the death of another resident. All of these situations could have been prevented if the patient had been kept safely in a bed until they were at a proper level of medication and the psychosis had passed. Does the shadow Minister agree that that is something we need to take forward in this Bill? It is a win-win for all parties.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  May I take this rare opportunity to praise the Home Secretary for what she has done with Palestine Action, and for taking steps to preserve the ability of some to protest, while stopping hate speech and other actions from other protesters? Does she agree that there is a correlation between the rise of antisemitism and these protests? The Jewish community in London—but also, I am sure, across Manchester and the rest of the UK—are afraid to be comfortable in their religion. They feel afraid even to wear a yarmulke or to identify as Jewish. That is a national disgrace, and I hope that the Home Secretary will move forward to tackle it, with not just words but action.

• 13 Oct 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Given that digital ID will not stop illegal immigration and will further erode our civil liberties, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Prime Minister announced it only as a deterrent to those seeking to topple him at the Labour party conference? If not, what is the actual purpose of this policy?

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

  More

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

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Just to correct the record, on the economy, we had the highest and fastest growth in the G7 when we lost the election. We handed the Government that highest growth. I know it is hard for Back-Bench Labour MPs to grapple with that, but it is a fact none the less.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  On 3 December 2024, the Chancellor made a commitment. She told a conference of business leaders that she would not need to raise taxes. It was a foolish claim from a Chancellor out of her depth. She then taxed the engines of growth in her Budget—the businesses and entrepreneurs who create jobs. She sent high-earning taxpayers fleeing from our country in record numbers. She taxed jobs with her betrayal after saying she would not raise national insurance contributions, and that rise has brought charities, small businesses and entrepreneurs to their knees. She has destroyed the family farm with her family farm tax. She has taxed hard-working families with the VAT attack on independent schools. Having broken her promises and made false claims to businesses, the Chancellor is now coming for pensioners. She is coming for the people who have worked and saved, paid their tax and contributed to this country. She is the only Chancellor who claims to be an economist but does not understand the Laffer curve. It is time for the Prime Minister to realise what he has and to act. He has a weak, out-of-her-depth Chancellor who is sending our country down a one-way street to a 1970s-level economic failure.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  What the Labour party is saying very clearly—it is useful to have it clarified—is that those who scrimp and save, who decide to give money or homes to their children, who save their farm for their children, do not matter. They will be the ones who are punished under Labour—not those who scrounge on benefits, but those who have saved their money and made choices. Labour is saying that those are the people it will punish. I thank the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The Labour party has decided to tax hard-working families on their choice of education. It means that people can no longer send their child to a SEND special school. It means they no longer have the choice to use their money, because the Labour party wanted to take a little more tax from them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not a fair process and it is actually excluding people who want to protect their children for the future?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about growth and wealth creators being taxed out of this country. They are simply taking their money and leaving, as the Labour party continues to tax them.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about fairness; it is about hard-working families who are trying to take care of their two children, while watching someone who is on benefits having multiple children. It is about fairness, equity and welfare state dependency.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that this is actually about growth in the economy, low tax, the welfare state being there as a safety net—not as a path to dependency, in which our economy is stifled and lacks any growth—and children whose parents work hard being given the same privileges and fairness as anyone on welfare benefits?

• 11 Jul 2025 · Colne Valley Regional Park: Protection · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to be here on one of the warmest Fridays of the year to enjoy and extend our time in the House for the final Adjournment debate of the week. I am delighted to discuss the Colne Valley regional park, which straddles London, Slough, Buckinghamshire, Windsor and Maidenhead —so many different constituencies. Its importance for infrastructure and as a strategic geographical location is second to none, which is why I secured this debate. The beautiful south Bucks villages of Denham, Fulmer, Richings Park, Iver Heath and the Ivers are all part of the Colne Valley regional park. Its national significance is mainly due to its geographical location: it is in proximity to Heathrow; High Speed 2 goes right through it; and we have all the motorways. It provides the lungs of London, and the vital break of green belt between London and the counties outside it. We get zero benefit from the ultra low emission zone—the Mayor’s restrictions on how we can go in and out of London—or from Transport for London. All we have is a bit of green space that gives us a buffer between London and Buckinghamshire. That is true for all the counties that straddle London along west London and the M25. Our issue is that that little bit of green belt—some of which, Madam Deputy Speaker, is as small a divide as the area between the two sides of the House—which is our last remaining bit of green belt, and which separates us from London, is under attack. It is under attack from overdevelopment, the expansion of Heathrow, HS2 and motorway expansion.

• 11 Jul 2025 · Colne Valley Regional Park: Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend, who has long been a champion of the Colne Valley regional park and the green belt in that area. It will impact us in such a negative way. I have fought to stop the third runway at Heathrow and to champion and protect our green belt. The problem is we have very little green belt there, and the expansion would increase the impact on that green belt, both with cars coming into Heathrow and planes taking off. The amount of green belt that would be consumed would be devastating to my area, as I am sure it would be to my hon. Friend’s. This is a time for the Government to do something incredible. They can preserve the green space of the Colne Valley regional park, which provides the vital lungs for London, while allowing their infrastructure to flourish around it. It is important that this green-belt land is preserved. That is what must happen now. There is no protection of this because it is an area whose ownership has passed between London, Buckinghamshire and Slough over the years. There are parts of it that have been owned by London councils and then by Buckinghamshire council, and vice versa. It has been going on for quite some time. Right now, there is no additional protection. It is not common land or an area of outstanding natural beauty; it is simply land that is green and that provides vital green corridors for wildlife and farmers and for wildlife conservation across the west London and Buckinghamshire areas. All that is under threat from overdevelopment. Today, I want to focus on the wonderful landscape and countryside diversity that is at risk. In the words of the Colne Valley regional park itself, our countryside is in crisis. The team at the park have set out a call for action, and in this debate I want to set out my unwavering support for that call. I am grateful for all the community support for the Colne Valley regional park I have seen across Denham, Iver, Iver Heath, Richings Park and all the south Bucks villages. Given its proximity to London, it is one of the most pressurised green-belt areas. It is the very epitome of the lungs of London, but it also epitomises why we must take action now. An avalanche of developments are being proposed across the park, which would divide it and cause the closing of the wildlife corridors. They would cause detrimental impacts for wildlife and for those who use and access the park. All that is happening while the park sits between two of Europe’s biggest infrastructure projects: HS2 and the expansion of Heathrow. All that development is happening while the Colne Valley regional park lacks any of the protections of an AONB. This is a cross-party issue, because the park crosses into London, Buckinghamshire, Windsor and Slough, and into Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative constituencies. It touches many political parties, because it impacts so many constituencies across the west London area. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) could not be here, but he wanted to show his support for the Colne Valley regional park, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), who is rightly in his place to support it today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who has long been a champion for this area. Many other MPs would have liked to be here today; they told me to pass on to the Minister that this issue matters across the parties. It is not a political issue, but it is an issue that many Members from across this House care about deeply. Without a plan, the development will happen around the park, and vital green corridors will be lost forever. The Colne Valley regional park has set out a five-point plan to influence local planning, restore the landscape, reform national planning, establish its status and protect nature. I will focus on two areas that explicitly matter to this House and the Government, and will touch briefly on funding. Since arriving in Parliament, I have been advocating for stronger protections for the Colne Valley regional park. There is a real and urgent need to look at extending the Chilterns AONB to include the park. If there is not an extension of the Chilterns AONB, a specific designation for the park itself needs to be progressed. Will the Minister work with me to explore that opportunity urgently? The Colne Valley regional park also represents an opportunity to show how we can plan for green spaces around the edges of cities. Any big infrastructure project will require the input of green space. Please will the Minister make sure that the green space that is required for any such infrastructure expansion is put into the Colne Valley regional park, so that we can work in tandem to provide what the residents and wildlife need, while the Government are still able to put in their infrastructure projects where they choose? At the moment, our approach to national planning does not address the strategic risks, opportunities and problems that face the Colne Valley regional park. We have a unique opportunity to address that. The Colne Valley regional park spans many local authorities, yet is of national importance for the reasons set out. We have to think beyond boundaries and integrate areas such as the park, which lack national park status or AONB protection, into our national strategic planning. Will the Minister explore using the Colne Valley regional park as a case study and test case to explore just how we might do that? We have an opportunity to plan strategically for our countryside in our national planning policy. For major developments around the Colne Valley regional park, and areas like it, the park should be an integral part of the planning process, not treated as something for side consideration. We can plan how green corridors for people and wildlife can sit alongside the major developments of infrastructure and housing that are planned around the London area. Will the Minister consider how the national planning framework can be developed urgently for just that purpose? Finally, I will touch briefly on funding. The Colne Valley regional park relies on local authorities, grants and the generosity of corporate donors to fund its operational costs. I hope that I have set out clearly how effectively those resources are used for the good of our landscape, biodiversity and communities, but given the strategic development challenges that the park faces to its very existence, it needs funding support to enable a plan and to develop a response. Will the Minister consider ways in which bodies such as the Colne Valley regional park can be better supported financially in the context of a dramatically changing planning landscape? Will the Minister speak to the Mayor of London to see whether some of the ULEZ contributions being made by drivers could be used for the park’s upkeep and protection? The park is very much impacted by infrastructure projects that are happening in London but receives no funding from London, so will the Minister speak to the mayor about some of those resources being reallocated to the park? There are many more points that time has not allowed me to cover, so will the Minister agree to meet me, the hon. Member for Slough, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and others from across the House to discuss the issue of Colne Valley regional park in depth? The Colne Valley regional park matters to me and my constituents. It has importance nationally, for our wildlife and as a case study for how green spaces can exist alongside our major cities. It means something that matters to us all. It is time now to listen and act before it is too late.

• 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?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Warm Home Discount · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement—what a delight it was to receive an update on the warm home discount on this, the warmest day of the year. I know that the Minister is a tireless champion for the people of Peckham and for the most vulnerable, and I thank her for all the work that she does behind the scenes for those causes. Exactly one year ago today, the Chancellor said: “Great British Energy, a publicly owned energy company, will cut energy bills by up to £300.” What has happened since? Bills have not fallen by £300, as was promised so many times by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Energy Secretary and Labour MPs. In fact, bills have gone up by almost £300—the opposite of what they all promised just a year ago. On top of that, this Government took the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners through a cold winter. This announcement will provide support for some, but it is nothing more than a sticking plaster—the fact is, this Government’s energy policy is making people colder and poorer. The Minister has not said a single word about how this expansion will be paid for. It is a £400 million commitment, but there was no detail in either the Government’s press release or the Minister’s statement about how it will be funded. Will the warm home discount still be funded by levies on everyone’s energy bills? If so, this policy means that energy bills will increase for the majority of bill payers, yet the Minister did not say so in her statement. Will she therefore inform the House whether she has asked her Department to calculate by how much levies on everyone’s bills will increase to pay for the £400 million of extra spending? If so, will she inform the House so that our constituents know how much their bills will increase by under this Labour Government? The Government’s press release said that the expansion of the scheme will be offset by efficiency savings across the energy system, but we have no detail about what those efficiencies are, or how much money will be saved. In fact, the system is becoming less efficient. The National Energy System Operator recently said that the cost of balancing the grid by paying wind farms to switch off when it is too windy increased by 10% to £2.7 billion a year, warning that this will triple to £8 billion a year by 2030 as this Government rush to build more wind farms and solar farms on agricultural land than ever before. That is what this Government are delivering: more subsidies, more levies, more payments for wind farms to switch off, more tech imported from China, and more costs added to everyone’s bills. Will the Minister share some proper detail with the House on exactly how much this will cost the British people? I suspect the answer will be a resounding no. This is a statement devoid of detail because it is designed simply to distract from the fact that this Government’s energy policy is in chaos and driving bills higher and higher. This is a Government driven by the ideology of net zero, not by making energy bills lower for families across Britain. It is a Government of broken promises.

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

  More

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

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for making that excellent point. Many Members have raised this issue, and perhaps we can have another debate in Government time on how SEND funding can follow the student, rather than just having it allocated. The needs of a SEND student will change over time, which is why parents often change educational providers. Children may go into independent school settings and then come back to state settings, and parents are constantly battling the system. It is worth looking at whether we can have a model in which the funding follows the student. Many parents have come to me, and I am sure to other Members, to ask for VAT not to be charged on independent school fees, because over 100,000 pupils with SEND who were being supported in that educational setting now have to go back into the state sector, which cannot cope with rising costs and the number of students entering the system. I ask the Government to urgently look at that and to U-turn on the policy of charging VAT on school fees, because SEND children are falling through the cracks as a result. For SEND students in primary school, it is very important that they have educational support through teachers. Primary school teachers are some of the most important teachers. They changed my life and helped me cope with my disability, and I would not be here today if I had not had them. The Government claimed that they would recruit 6,500 more teachers, but we have now heard that they will not do so. The truth is that there are now 400 fewer teachers than there were a year ago. Promises have been made, but this promise seems to have been broken. However, it is even worse than that. When it comes to SEND, primary schools play a vital role, but this Government have had to quietly drop primary school teachers from their promise to recruit 6,500 teachers, and I honestly want to know why that is. Primary schools are where children with hidden SEND will first present. If there is early intervention, the journey to provide them with the right support is much easier. Having that support yields high levels of return, but if it is not put in place in time, we see high levels of exclusion and ultimately see children disengage from education and learning.

• 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.

• 12 Jun 2025 · SEND Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a wonderful point about the fact that early intervention is underfunded, but such funding actually reaps huge benefits for students. I should declare that I worked at the Centre for Social Justice, where we looked at early intervention as one of the most important ways of turning around the lives of children. Especially for children with special educational needs, early diagnosis and early intervention can make all the difference in their not falling behind when they enter main education. It is rare that I support additional funding, but I do for early intervention because it is life-changing. The years during which we can change a child’s life are those from four to seven. It is such a small window during which we can erase trauma and help with any disability, but that will help them for the rest of their lives, so early intervention makes all the difference for such children in the long term. I ask the Government to listen: to listen to the children, families and schools telling them that SEND funding is not making it to the children who need it; to listen to the local authorities that need clarity urgently on the future of high-needs blocks and the statutory override; to listen to the parents of children at independent schools who are being ripped from settings that work for them because of an Education Secretary who will not listen to the evidence that those schools are the right place for those students at this time; and to listen to the primary schools that are now short of teachers, but are trying to provide SEND support for these children at the most vital stage of their education. It is time for the Government to listen and to make the changes our children with SEND so desperately need.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Grid Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. We need to ensure that the technology that we import to increase grid capacity is secure. US officials recently found kill switches in Chinese-made components for solar farms. The Conservatives have been clear about the security risks that China poses in our energy supply chain, so will the Secretary of State confirm whether he discussed that issue in his recent meeting with Chinese officials? If not, why not?