Carla Denyer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister’s “island of strangers” speech sounded like something straight out of the Reform-Trump playbook. Rather than alienating and devaluing migrants, and recognising the need to increase the number of Brits who want to work in our health and care sectors, would the Home Secretary not prefer to support Unison’s campaign for a certificate of common sponsorship? Such a certificate would protect the working rights of migrant workers who are working in unacceptable situations of exploitation that border on slavery and who are at threat of deportation. As a Labour Member, would she not prefer to support that campaign?

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for her powerful speech. I briefly draw attention to some figures from the Public and Commercial Services Union about its members working in the Department for Work and Pensions, including in jobcentres. Almost 50% of PCS members working in the DWP claim the very benefits that they process. Many of them rely on PIP to work, which further underlines the point she is making about the folly of cutting the benefits that enable people working for the Government to deliver these policies—they will not be able to do so if those benefits are cut. Does she agree that these cuts will punish sick and disabled people, including those working for the Government in this policy area?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Climate Change: International Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister knows, global leadership is about adaptation and mitigation. Does she expect the Climate Change Committee’s report on adaptation, which is due out tomorrow, to say that the Government are doing enough in this regard? Furthermore, will she show real leadership by requiring local authorities and major infrastructure providers to carry out climate risk assessments, so that, statutorily, they will have to ensure that climate resilience and preparedness form a part of their plans?

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy, and I thank the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for securing this important debate ahead of the UK-EU summit next month. The summit comes in the throes of alarming uncertainty created by President Trump’s dangerous, chaotic and authoritarian approach to trade and international relations. The Trump turmoil makes building close relationships with our EU neighbours even more urgent. We need to fix those relationships because the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has caused profound damage to our relationship with our nearest and biggest trading partner. I will not repeat the stats that Members have already highlighted, but I want to highlight that smaller firms are seeing the biggest fall in trade. I know that Brexit has caused major problems for independent local businesses in my Bristol Central constituency.

• 24 Apr 2025 · EU Trading Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Jeremy. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) spoke about defence industry businesses that are largely outside my constituency, so I am not familiar with the details, but it is an interesting point. We need a bold and positive plan to get closer to the EU, rather than capitulation to an untrustworthy US President on vital trading standards and regulations. So far, the Government’s reset of the UK-EU relationship has had some good points, such as some useful moves on reducing border checks on agrifoods, mutual recognition of qualifications and addressing problems facing touring artists, but we must go further. In particular, there is huge mutual benefit to be gained from greater climate and energy co-operation to ensure improved energy security and the delivery of net zero at a lower cost, so I hope the Minister can assure us that that will be a central part of the UK-EU reset and the upcoming summit. The UK has been falling sharply behind EU chemical safety laws post Brexit, which is a point of particular concern. As well as supporting closer trade ties with the EU, alignment with EU chemical safety protections would be beneficial for the UK by minimising costs to industry, as well as maintaining high environmental, worker and public health and safety standards. Ministers will be aware that the Trades Union Congress, representing millions of workers across the UK, has recently said that a closer trading relationship with the EU is “more important than ever” in an increasingly fraught and volatile world, and I agree. The Green party is clear that the UK would be better off inside the EU. Like many others, we were frankly astonished to hear the now Prime Minister say, just days before the general election, that the UK would not rejoin the EU—not only during his premiership but in his entire lifetime. I think that was a remarkable thing to say. Recognising that the UK will not rejoin the EU imminently, the Greens and I still feel that it would be wise for the UK to rebuild trust and links, and to break down those barriers with a view to rejoining the EU when the domestic and international situation makes that more viable. In the meantime, joining the customs union as a first step towards full EU membership would be vital, and a way of resolving many of the worst problems resulting from Brexit, not least the harm done to our trading relationship with the EU.

• 23 Apr 2025 · North Sea Oil and Gas Workers: Transitional Support · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) to debate transitional support for oil and gas workers, who are already bearing the brunt of the North sea’s disorderly decline as reserves have dwindled without a clear agreed plan. In my first ever job in the renewable energy sector in 2008—17 years ago now—I co-wrote a report on the huge potential of British North sea ports to move into the renewable energy industry as locations where offshore wind turbines and associated infrastructure are manufactured and then shipped. While some of that has been realised, a lot of opportunities were missed as jobs went overseas. The need for action is now urgent. We already know that new oil and gas projects are incompatible with averting the worst impacts of climate catastrophe. If the goal is also to provide North sea workers and communities with the long-term security that they deserve—and it must be—new oil and gas fields are still not the answer. Even with hundreds of new licences issued and new field approvals granted in the past decade, jobs supported by the UK oil and gas industry have more than halved already, and multiple sources predict a continued decline. We must protect those workers and provide security for that workforce, but in a declining basin that will not come from desperate attempts to double down on new drilling. Let us take the specific example of the Rosebank oil field. Setting aside the significant climate harm that Rosebank would cause, the claim that the project will create thousands of jobs is inflated. Equinor’s own estimate suggests that only 255 direct jobs would be created in the UK over its entire lifetime. Equinor has decided to construct the main offshore vessel for Rosebank in Dubai, and unions are rightly furious that the project has yet to create a single UK design or construction job. Meanwhile, analysis shows that properly investing in British clean energy supply chains could create over 20,000 jobs for workers in key areas such as Scotland’s oil and gas communities, many of whom, as Members have pointed out, have a lot of the transferable skills we need. Rather than bowing to the industry’s last-ditch calls for new drilling, will the Government do what is needed to protect workers? For too long, oil and gas companies have been in the driving seat of the North sea transition. Time and again, they choose to prioritise their own short-term interests over the long-term needs of workers and their communities. As the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) said, alarmingly, just seven of the 87 North sea operators plan to invest anything at all in UK renewables between now and 2030. Instead, these companies are on a sunset ride, maximising profits from oil and gas while they still can, regardless of what that means for the rest of us. That lack of investment has clear consequences for workers, who are demanding clear pathways out of high-carbon jobs and into the renewable energy industry, where they know they have a longer-term future. Oil and gas companies like to blame the windfall tax for preventing them from investing, but they had been failing to invest long before that levy was introduced. We have also seen companies choosing to make workers redundant while simultaneously banking excessive profits and issuing their shareholders huge payouts—more proof that they continue to prioritise their own private interests over the workforce. Does the Minister agree that it is time to stop betting on private oil and gas industry companies doing the right thing? How does he plan to ensure that the interests of workers and communities, rather than just those of oil and gas bosses, are served in the Government’s plan for the North sea? The need for the Government to step in and manage the transition in the public interest is now urgent, and the current approach, which is overwhelmingly focused on de-risking private investment, is wholly insufficient to achieve that aim. It risks recreating the inequalities and failures of our current energy system, where wealth and jobs flow overseas. The unjust closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery without plans to support workers is a damning indictment of that failed industry. To ensure good, secure jobs for workers and build wealth that lasts in communities that are already experiencing the sharp edge of the transition, we need an entirely new approach—one that plans ahead before private companies decide to abandon their workers. Alongside a clear, worker-led plan for the North sea, unions and climate groups are calling for the Government to commit to an emergency ringfenced funding package in the spending review. Will the Minister meet the Chancellor to ensure that those ringfenced funds are secured, and will he ensure that past mistakes are not repeated in the North sea transition?

• 22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source

  More

  Many people are feeling deeply worried about the Supreme Court judgment and what it means for their ability to live their lives in dignity and in privacy. Will the Minister make a commitment to uphold trans people’s fundamental rights, including the right to privacy, given that the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was created in part to do that? The Supreme Court ruling risks dismantling that by forcing trans people to out themselves multiple times a day whenever they visit the toilet, including in their workplace, in public buildings, or, indeed, in hospital.

• 2 Apr 2025 · Gaza: Israeli Military Operations · Hansard source

  More

  The Israeli Government’s brutal decision to expand their military operations in Gaza is not about security; it is about domination and erasure. It comes on top of 18 months of collective punishment, including, since 2 March, the longest aid blockade since the war began. I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the UK does not support the Israeli Government’s expanded military operation in Gaza. Will he now finally name what is happening as genocide and undertake a structural investigation into genocide and other crimes under international law committed in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories? To ensure that the UK is not complicit in Israel’s ongoing genocide, illegal occupation and system of apartheid, will the Minister immediately suspend the direct and indirect supply, sale or transfer—including transit and trans-shipment—to Israel of all weapons, munitions and other military and security equipment? Will he immediately suspend the provision of training and other military and security assistance and recognise that, otherwise, there is a clear risk of contributing to the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including crimes under international law? As the Minister mentioned, the UK is a significant provider of humanitarian aid to the region. What assessment has he made of the impact of today’s reports on the humanitarian crisis? Although he touched on this lightly, given the UK’s level of influence with Israeli authorities, will he confirm that he will use his position to actively oppose current and planned attempts by Israel to establish a permanent military presence in Gaza, and to oppose moves to alter Gaza’s borders and demographic make-up or to shrink its territory, including through any expanded buffer zones and construction of permanent checkpoints?

• 2 Apr 2025 · Gaza: Israeli Military Operations · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement about the Israeli Government’s announcement that they are expanding their military operations in Gaza.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful reminder about the analogy with the national health service. Public ownership is not just essential for social and environmental justice; it is also, in this situation, a pragmatic necessity. It just makes sense, which is why almost everyone else does things that way. With water back in public hands, the Government could invest in fixing the crumbling infrastructure and cleaning up our rivers, or preventing them from getting into such a state in the first place, without haemorrhaging money to shareholders and allowing it to spill over—sorry; I couldn’t resist—into fat cats’ salaries. People are struggling to put food on the table and heat their homes. We cannot allow water companies to contribute to that situation by hiking up the bills that everyone has to pay. Without real change, we will not stop sewage flowing into our rivers and profits flowing into the pockets of shareholders. There is an obvious answer that makes both people and the environment the winners: if they so choose, the Government could bring water companies back into public hands, to end the profiteering, drive down bills, protect our rivers, waterways and coastline, and catch up with the public who, as the hon. Member for Norwich South pointed out, are way ahead of the Labour Government on this issue and much else.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress, rather than having a long back and forth. We are paying through inflated bills, paying with our health, and now we may be paying with our public money, as the Government have said that they are ready to bail out Thames Water, which was privatised in 1989 with no debt. Since then, it has racked up £14.7 billion in debt and at the same time—note the similarity of these numbers—paid out £10.4 billion to its shareholders. If that is not a scam, I do not know what is. Privatisation was supposed to keep prices down, but it has done the opposite. More than one third of people’s bills is used to pay interest on debt, or to pay dividends to shareholders. The Government are taking some steps to improve the situation. I absolutely welcome those steps, as far as they go, but these issues are not likely to go away without our considering the option, or looking into the possibility, of bringing water companies back into public hands. That is why I was disappointed to learn that the Government’s supposedly independent commission on the water sector regulatory system is not being allowed—despite being independent—to consider public ownership as one of the options, though I note with interest the establishment of the people’s commission on the water sector, which will look into this option as part of its broader scope.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  One of the reasons why I support the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Norwich South is that it uses the tool of a citizens’ assembly to ask the public how they think the system should work, and to explore different options, rather than predetermining the exact model. For clarity, the Green party and I support public ownership of public services, but that does not necessarily mean nationalisation. Before the water companies were privatised, they were owned regionally, and I think that would be a sensible model this time. I also think that the citizens’ assembly could look into other forms of public ownership, such as co-operatives.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  One last time, though the hon. Member is pushing it.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Of course a current Government cannot bind a future Government on a decision like that indefinitely, and I was not suggesting that they could, but as I pointed out, as England is one of very few countries on the entire planet with a fully privatised water system, I suspect and hope that if we returned to a public system, it would be more likely to stay public, as both elected representatives and the public would see that the system performed better when the profit motive was removed.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If hon. Members of this House feel threatened by the setting up of a citizens’ assembly in order to gather views, that may be an indication of the weakness of the democracy that we have in this place. I really value the contribution that citizens’ assemblies can make. They have been used in other countries, notably Ireland. They are not a replacement for the House of Commons, but they can add valuable extra detail.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that hospital pass. I will make a note not to follow the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) again, if I can help it. I will just try to do a good job, and perhaps not to speak for quite as long. I am delighted to be here to discuss and support this Bill, and I thank the hon. Member for bringing it forward. It will be no surprise to anyone here that I am absolutely in favour of this Bill to fix the despicable situation of our waterways. To do that, we need to bring water back into public ownership. This issue is so important to me and my Green colleagues that we tabled the first early-day motion of this Parliament on the public ownership of water. We highlighted that sewage was “being discharged into English waterways for more than 3.6 million hours in 2023…that water companies in England have incurred debts of more than £64 billion and paid out £78 billion in dividends”— note the similarity of those numbers— “since they were privatised debt-free in 1989”. We pointed out that “water companies paid out £1.4 billion in dividends in 2022, even as 11 of them were fined in the same year for missing performance targets”. Privatisation is just not working. The experiment has failed. We are one of the only countries in the world with a fully privatised water system, which shows that it is a bad idea. Water is a natural monopoly. For example, people who live in the south-west, as I do, cannot choose to be supplied by Yorkshire Water. I am not sure that they would want to, but my point is that when their provider gives a poor service and charges extortionate sums, they cannot take their business elsewhere. There is no fair competition. You get what you get, and you cannot get upset about it—but we are upset about it, because sewage is being pumped into our water, and we are paying through the nose for the privilege, all while shareholders profit.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Member is so aware of the overwhelming public support for public ownership of water, as she just indicated from the level of concern in her constituency, I am confused about why she is so dogged in her pursuit of continued privatisation.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would also point to the citizens’ assembly set up by Bristol city council. Citizens’ assemblies are particularly strong at looking in depth at detailed, specific questions, rather than broad topics to do with how the entire country is run. I see citizens’ assemblies not as replacing the role of the House of Commons, but as supplementing it valuably.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The provision of water—

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It might be worth clarifying that, as far as I can tell— Hansard will prove whether I am right—the majority of the mentions of nationalisation were from Members opposing this Bill, whereas those who support it were talking about other models, including mutualisation and co-operatives.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think my hon. Friend is about to chip in with an example.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has expressed concern about how public ownership would be paid for. Is he aware of the special administration regime for water companies? It was brought in last year and would substantially address these issues.