Joy Morrissey MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

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

  More

  And on national insurance. Forgive me for needing reassurance from the Dispatch Box that the Minister will not come back with some sort of 1984 doublespeak and expect us to enjoy that.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I will finish and allow others to speak. I want to hear from colleagues from across the House, because this is a very interesting debate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your time. I will really enjoy hearing from the Minister when they return from the summit on what exactly they have in mind for us and the EU.

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

  More

  As we have seen in Portugal and Spain, renewable energy can sometimes be unreliable. Given the dominant role that China plays in our renewable energy infrastructure, will the Minister set out for the House the full details of the deal that the Secretary of State signed in secret with the Chinese Government?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Child Rape Gangs · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister provide assurances from the Dispatch Box as to how the Government will compel councils—like Bradford, which has refused to participate in this inquiry or in a local inquiry—to take part? It may seem self-evident, but councils that are liable for child protection and that are found at fault are probably not going to want to participate in a local inquiry. That is why we are asking for a national inquiry. Will the Minister please set out what the Government are going to do to compel those councils to give evidence so that justice can be served for the victims?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  Angling is a very important sport that we should be protecting, including by making sure our waterways are clean. A key way to know if our waterways are clean is that the aquatic life comes back. Clubs in my constituency would really benefit from the changes and protections I have mentioned. I would like to see them introduced and I hope that the Secretary of State will change his mind and adopt something similar to my amendment. The Government can feel free to take credit and pretend it is their amendment or change, but I would really like to see those changes brought forward. Unfortunately, my two amendments were not accepted, but I will continue to press for them, Lib Dem style, at any opportunity I can possibly find, because I believe that they would be good for the UK and for our waterways. I hope the Government will look seriously again at protecting water sports. I would be delighted to work with them or any party to practically develop the legislative steps needed for that to happen.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  It is wonderful to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who is my parliamentary twin, as it were. Our names are so similar that we often get confusing correspondence. He must love that as much as I do. The sewage in our rivers is of great concern to my constituents in Beaconsfield, Marlow and the South Bucks villages, as well as to my parliamentary twin on the Government Benches. In my constituency, I have worked closely with local action groups in Little Marlow and Farnham Common to secure a planned sewage upgrade for the Little Marlow sewage treatment works, through persistent lobbying of former Conservative Ministers and current Labour Ministers. I have repeatedly called for criminal sanctions against water company executives for breaches of their duties, but I have always said that more needs to be done; in particular, I urge the Minister to look again at strengthening the protection for water sports. Earlier this year, I tabled two amendments to the Water (Special Measures) Bill: one to introduce criminal sanctions for water company bosses who fail to report discharges and another to extend protections for water sports to match those for swimming waters. These are serious, meaningful changes needed to further strengthen our oversight of water companies and our waterways. In my constituency, we are rich in water sports along the Thames. We have Marlow Rowing Club, Marlow Canoe Club and the Upper Thames Sailing Club, to name just three wonderful examples, and our local schools regularly use the river for water sports. My secondary schools are out on the Thames on a daily basis, including rowing and using the river, and it would be wonderful to have to protect aquatic sports in legislation.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I have been lobbying for these changes for many years, and now that I am in opposition I have been able to table my own amendments, Lib Dem style! I was happy that the Lib Dem spokesperson spoke in support of my amendment during the Bill Committee. I love that cross-party support and am learning from their wonderful example of taking amendments forward when not in power; that is fun and enjoyable for us all. I did not table as many as their 42 amendments, but I did put forward two so I am working my way there. I want to see the provisions I have mentioned move forward in any way possible, because they are so important for aquatic sports and for the rivers that we all benefit from and use. I want the same protections for water sports as those proposed for bathing waters, and I would like discharge from emergency overflows blocked within a 1-mile radius of areas used for aquatic sports, particularly by secondary schools and by children.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I’m right here!

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  On the subject of the Act, it is wonderful to hear the Secretary of State say that he wants to take criminal action against water companies and water bosses, but I tabled an amendment to do just that that was rejected by the Government. Now that the Act has passed, it is interesting that the Government are so keen. Why did they not just accept my amendment, or a similar one? The Act does not mention criminal charges or what they will do, as my amendment did, but it passed without that measure being put in place. The Government are now saying from a point of retrospective gleefulness at the Dispatch Box that they would like to put that in. Is that actually going to happen?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  To clarify, the NHS and the staff within it are exempt from the changes. How is that part of the national statistical average, when everyone in healthcare who is under the NHS umbrella is exempt from the changes? All I am asking is for hospice care, which is out-of-hospital care provision and which technically falls within adult social care, to be incorporated into the exemptions already given to the NHS.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the pressure that hospices take off the NHS. The wonderful work of the hospice the hon. Gentleman mentions is the reason the NHS can function in the way it does. The cost savings on palliative care—both in hospital and out-of-hospital care settings—are invaluable. The hospices in our constituencies are a model that already works, and they are trusted by the community. I think we should be funding that model, instead of allowing hospices to die on the vine because of a lack of funding and changes to the funding model. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and I pay tribute to all the volunteers who organise the fun runs, and to volunteers in my constituency, such as Sharon Williams, who does the Thames hospice walk in Denham village every year. These are the people who support our local hospices, and we should all pay tribute to them. Hospices matter because each year they support 310,000 people and 92,000 family members. Hospices matter because they are vital holistic care services for people and their loved ones at the end of life. Hospices matter because they provide crucial end-of-life and overall healthcare, relieving the pressure on the NHS. They provide both community specialist and acute care. However, I suspect that the Minister and the Government already know this, and I am sure that they agree that hospices matter, so let me turn to why this debate matters. The hospice sector is under enormous pressure, and it faces an unprecedented challenge. The sector is caught in the triple squeeze of increased demand, increased cost and uncertain funding. Only the Government have the power to change that squeeze. Only the Government can eliminate the increased cost or create more certain funding. In this House, recent months have been consumed by a debate about assisted dying, while the real scandal of the lack of support for end-of-life care through hospices goes below the radar. It is estimated that the demand for palliative care in the UK will increase by 25% in the next 25 years, but as hospices face this increased demand, the Government have decided to saddle them with increased cost, and have failed to provide a long-term settlement. Let me speak about the excellent Thames hospice that supports many families in my constituency and the constituencies of my neighbours. I would not be here today were it not for Baroness May of Maidenhead. As a long-term champion of Thames hospice, she asked me to have a word with the hospice, as it was so concerned about its funding, which I did, and that led to this debate. Again, Members of Parliament from both Houses continue to champion this important cause. I recently met Dr Rachel de Caux, the chief executive officer of Thames Hospice. Like many other hospices, Thames hospice represents the very best of our communities: people who believe in providing quality of life at end of life, for everyone; passionate people who care, like the Thames hospice Denham support group, and the volunteers who make donations and support those who go into the hospice. Through their excellent work, they enable 80% of the people they support to receive dignified end-of-life care at home, and the rest to get specialised in-patient service. I visited the service recently, and when I visited the call centre, I was moved to see volunteers and staff working around the clock to help those who had just received a terminal diagnosis, or families who could not cope. They were going to people’s homes and working all hours of the day and night to ensure that people had the pain support and palliative care that they needed, at home or in the centre. Thames hospice, like many hospices, faces a critical moment. Less than one third of its income comes from the NHS. Like many hospices, it raises the rest through its charity shops, fundraising efforts and the generosity of private donors. The Chancellor’s Budget was like a hammer blow to its finances, and it faces a deficit of up to £1 million, largely as a result of the Government’s choices. The national insurance tax raid, from which this Government recently voted not to spare hospices, will add £300,000 to its costs for the next financial year, while changes to the national minimum wage will add another £200,000, both through the direct impact and the need to maintain pay differentials. Meeting the NHS pay settlement, which the hospice needs to do to keep clinical staff—but which, again, it needs to do without Government support—will add a further £100,000. Finally, Thames hospice’s suppliers face the same cost pressures, and are passing those on to the hospice through higher prices. I know the Minister will talk about the £1 million settlement of additional funding for hospices that was announced in December, but let us set out the detail of that money: it was for capital expenditure, and is welcomed, I am sure, by hospices, but it was not money for meeting operational cost pressures. It was also split across 170 hospices, so it became a drop in the ocean for individual hospices and their needs.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by wishing you a very happy Easter, Madam Deputy Speaker, and by thanking the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and the House staff who have drawn the short straw and have to be here for the Adjournment debate at the end of the day? I am pleased to have secured this debate on hospice funding, a topic that I know is of concern to Members from across this House. Even on the last day of term, the subject still gives pause to so many. A hospice provides a beacon of hope to so many people in their darkest times. It provides the comfort and knowledge needed at a very difficult time, and without hospice support, many would be lost. That is why, across the country, we see volunteers giving up their time and their finances to support local hospices—because, primarily, many of them are charities, although they receive some funding from the NHS. Members from across this House, from every party, believe that hospices matter.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for outlining what the Government are doing. Will he consider looking at the exemption to the national insurance increase for workers and at allocating more funding directly to hospices so that they can conduct the palliative care that is needed in the out-of-hospital care provision? Although the Government may want to give it to palliative care, there is no directive that does so at this time, aside from capital expenditure. Therefore, could more money be allocated to hospices for operational costs?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  That is an excellent point. We should be led by the evidence, and also by what the commission finds. I wish to highlight the hon. Lady’s long-term work championing out-of-hospital care provision—not just palliative care, but all adult social care. I can recall many a debate on this matter in which there were just one or two of us in the Chamber, and she was always one of them. She is a long-term champion of the vulnerable, of palliative care, and of those who desperately need better services. May I thank her for all that work? Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not often that you will see me reach across the House, but let us give credit where credit is due. There are Members from all parts of the House who have championed these causes over and over again, and it is only right and fair that I recognise them today. There is a very real prospect of the hospice sector collapsing under the weight of the national insurance changes, and that would be unimaginable. These are institutions that are trusted in our communities and that we need to protect. They need additional funding from the NHS. The Government must act. I urge them to please reconsider the national insurance changes. Exempting hospices from the NICs increase, or helping to fund their operating costs, would make a material difference to their ability to survive. Our hospices matter, and I hope the Minister will hear that message loud and clear, and show us that the Government understand how vital they are.

• 8 Apr 2025 · Hospice Funding · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That 300% cost benefit would be replicated across the country, in every hospice setting. A small amount of money given to hospices through the NHS funding model would be invaluable. We talk about palliative care and assisted dying, but why are we not having a debate about increasing hospice funding, and making that service part of the NHS? If hospice settings were part of the NHS, they would be exempt from the rise in national insurance contributions. That increase is devastating hospices right now. Many rely on volunteers or low-paid workers in charity shops. The money raised helps pay for the running of hospices. Although that is a wonderful model, hospices are not exempt from the NICs increase, as other NHS bodies are. Even changing the status of hospices to make them part of the NHS would go a very long way to making their financial model viable.

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

  More

  Let me make some progress, and then I will give way. The Government have always claimed that they would not return us to the single market and the customs union, and many believed them. I was always a healthy sceptic, but I am willing to be proven wrong. However, my fear is that this Bill will lead to back-door EU regulatory alignment, and whether that is deliberate or unintentional matters not. We had our democratic instructions from the British people, and we must honour them. I now want to talk about competition—

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

  More

  I now want to talk about competition—

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I will give way on a point about competition.

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

  More

  Well, I am now on competition. Would the hon. Member like to make a comment about that?

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

  More

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