High Speed 2: Impact on Communities

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Over many years, the issue of HS2 has consumed many hours of debate in this House, and many hon. and right hon. Members have needed to highlight the unacceptable impact the project has had on thousands of constituents. Today I must do so again. HS2 has had a never-ending impact on communities across my constituency of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages, an impact compounded by perpetual incompetence and indifference from its management. That is why I have opposed HS2 since I was elected MP for the constituency in 2019.

Roads in Buckinghamshire have been destroyed over the past few years by the weight of HS2 lorries, with local council taxpayers having to pick up the bill.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

On roads, the precedent was clearly set by East West Rail, which fully resurfaced 21 roads that its heavy goods vehicles had trashed. Does my hon. Friend agree that HS2 should follow that precedent and fix that which they have broken in our communities?

[Joy Morrissey]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. HS2 should follow that model; that would go a long way towards repairing community relations, because HS2 could not have cared less about the roads and communities it destroyed. Communities in Buckinghamshire and beyond have been blighted by the inconsiderate construction that has taken place, and HS2 just could not have cared less. Take Denham, for example. That community has borne the brunt of construction disruption: years of upheaval, constant noise, dust and heavy machinery that have transformed its once-peaceful neighbourhoods into an industrial corridor.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am also grateful to her for coming out to help us to campaign in the local elections—she helped Tommy Balaam to win his seat in Harefield. Does she recall, as I do, the ongoing strength of feeling among people in that village, which is right next to Denham, about the continued consequences of that construction work—the late-night noise and disruption and, in particular, very large and heavy vehicles occupying what are otherwise suburban transport routes, causing risk and concern to people on the school run or going about their normal business? This is not just about the damage that those vehicles do to the roads; it is also about the risk and disruption that they cause for other road users in our neighbourhood.

[Joy Morrissey]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Our constituencies border one another, and I remember visiting him in his constituency at Dogs Trust. I remember the vibration, noise and disruption from HS2. We could feel the vibrations when we were there. It is about not just the construction, but the noise pollution and disruption to residents in Hillingdon and Buckinghamshire. Our communities were completely disrupted because of HS2 construction. Until my hon. Friend’s council took HS2 to court—that was a great moment—little regard was given to the amount of countryside, land and green belt being destroyed by HS2.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Does she not agree that the United Kingdom has become so entangled in planning delays, legal challenges, environmental regulation and bureaucratic red tape that we are now struggling to build even the most basic strategic infrastructure in a reasonable timeframe? Lessons have to be learned UK-wide from that failure.

[Joy Morrissey]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for saying that, but I also pay tribute to the first person who radicalised me on the importance of fighting HS2: the former MP for Chesham and Amersham, Cheryl Gillan. Before I even became a Member of Parliament, she made sure that I knew, as she did, the importance of fighting against HS2 and of the need—no matter who was supporting HS2—to stand up for our residents and put them first. Cheryl knew it would be a terrible blight on Buckinghamshire, and she was right. She was ahead of the curve there.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

I also have fond memories of Cheryl Gillan, who I stood against in 2005. The hon. Lady knows my seat well, and the things she describes have a lot of resonance with Wells House Road, NW10, which I think is the most blighted road in England. An email from a resident there today said:

“We were told to expect six years of disruption. Now they are asking us to live with 16.”

They point out that while the cost of HS2 has tripled, the community funds have not. Buckinghamshire is a recipient, as is Euston, but Ealing and Old Oak Common are not at all. Does the hon. Lady not agree that that is a travesty?

[Joy Morrissey]

I thank the hon. Lady for that excellent point. I know her seat very well, and she has fought for her constituents, including in Old Oak Common, for many years. It is fair that compensation be given continually for the disruption in Old Oak Common. It is a difficult area, because it involves not just Ealing, but Hammersmith, Fulham and several other areas that intersect. It creates a problem where no one takes leadership, and no one ensures that those residents are taken care of. The hon. Lady has long advocated for that compensation.

We stand here in agreement that HS2 has not cared about our residents or the compensation. We have seen other infrastructure models that have given the compensation that residents need and want.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is being generous with her time, and I thank her for bringing this important debate to the House. She has expertly described the ongoing impacts in communities like ours. Residents in West Ruislip and Ickenham in my constituency live day in, day out with the consequences of HS2 works. As she rightly points out, residents often ask what compensation and support exists. It is frustrating in that regard that the community and environment fund and the business and local economy fund, which were allocated across the country, remain significantly unspent. Millions of pounds are still unspent, despite our communities being blighted. Does she agree that that is frustrating for our communities and local organisations, who could benefit from that money but are shut out of those funds? Does she also agree that the geographical remit needs to be widened slightly and that we need to do more nationally to ensure that those funds get to communities?

[Joy Morrissey]

It is incredibly frustrating that those funds are not open and available, particularly when as Members of Parliament we have come forward with good ideas for how they could be spent on road infrastructure, such as paving potholes on roads destroyed by the lorries that have passed through. It is very difficult to access that funding, but it would go a long way towards bridging the community relations that have broken down anywhere that HS2 has started.

Another issue is that, in the old days, HS2 would take over a property without paying for it and then occupy it indefinitely.

[David Simmonds]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a good example of how the money could be better used is to support the Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre, which sits directly on the border between our constituencies, and which our constituents have used for many years. As a result of Hillingdon council’s proactive work in granting planning permission, there is now the possibility of creating a new facility, but we need to ensure that funds are available to keep the centre running so that it can provide opportunities for young people in the future. Might the Government be able to give HS2 a steer and suggest that the money should be allocated for that purpose?

[Joy Morrissey]

That is an excellent example of an issue—in this case, the final payment and settlement for the relocation of the centre—that has been the subject of an ongoing dispute with HS2, and a different sort of leadership has taken control. There have been other instances in which it has been a problem to get the final payments over the line for community centres, roads and infrastructure, for individuals who still have not been paid compensation for what has happened to their homes.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

So far this has been a very southern-centric debate, so may I take the hon. Lady up to Staffordshire? In Newcastle-under-Lyme we continue to feel the very worst effects of the HS2 debacle. Does she share my outrage at the fact that my constituents Mr and Mrs Kettering, of Madeley, have been waiting years for the compensation due to them for the compulsory purchase of their land? They have been forced to declare bankruptcy because they have been waiting so long. The financial strain that they have been put under stinks, and the sooner HS2 is held to account, the better.

[Joy Morrissey]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I thank him for advocating for his residents.

The failure to purchase land has forced residents into bankruptcy and caused relationship breakdowns. It has meant that they cannot move forward, for instance by selling or renting their properties, and that has caused a huge breakdown in community relations with HS2. When highways have been built, compensation has been offered and other gestures have been made that have allowed community relations to be restored. The problem with HS2 is the level of statutory ability it had, as an arm’s length body, to put these things into action, which meant that it did not have to follow through on the community relations side. I think that all of us, on both sides of the House, agree that if this project moves forward, there could be real benefit in the restoration of relations between communities, MPs and councils.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

The communication element is certainly important. Villagers in Greatworth and Radstone in Northamptonshire have been massively isolated by the works that have been carried out, while the active travel route that Brackley residents wanted has not been possible because it is bypassed by HS2. Does my hon. Friend agree that communication and integration with the community is vital, and that HS2 must ensure that it happens?

[Joy Morrissey]

Communication can be very poor in certain regions, and they it may improve, but then it may become even worse. There will be isolated incidents when one constituent has been left out in the cold and is being forced into bankruptcy, and feels desperate. Until an MP gets involved, such people may feel that there is no hope, and that is a terrible feeling to have when we should be able to find a solution. This has also had a negative impact on green spaces and green corridors. In my patch, the Colne Valley Regional Park was opposed to the project because of the impact that the construction would have on wildlife, and on this sanctuary that constitutes a green corridor separating us from London.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous with her time. She talks about green spaces. My constituency is in a section of the route that has now been cancelled, and is in the process of being removed from the Bill. We still have planning safeguards in place, and uncapped boreholes from ground investigations. Our situation mirrors that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), in that we have void properties, as does the constituency of my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). Ours have been void for a long time, and HS2 is not letting them; it is just leaving them empty. Does the hon. Lady agree that there needs to be a proper winding-up plan for the sections of the route where construction has not started and will never start because it has been cancelled?

[Joy Morrissey]

Absolutely. A winding-up contingency plan for areas where HS2 is not continuing needs to be put in place. Seeing properties just sitting there, when everyone knows that they will not be used, is maddening for the entire community. It also depletes property values and causes wildlife and conservation issues. These are ongoing problems, so residents need some reassurance, and I think that across the House we agree on that.

In Colne valley, for example, HS2 was building a 3.5 km concrete viaduct that will blight the natural beauty of my area and Hillingdon.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is being very generous with her time, and I appreciate that. In south Staffordshire we have had massive problems with HS2, and particularly with the route that it has had to take. It is on a very wide arc around the city of Lichfield, but because of the speeds it has to go at, the corners cannot be too tight. So there is a really significant piece of engineering work, with a tunnel having to go under the A38, a railway and a canal—all at different heights. That was specifically because it could not be moved further away, so it had to go under two slip roads as well as the main carriageway. It has been an absolute nightmare. That recently led to the closure of the A38, with 70,000 vehicles a day pushed on to my local roads, which has been really difficult. That is specifically because of the speeds this thing was designed to go at, so mitigations could not be put in, and it had to go through areas of outstanding natural beauty. It could not avoid problems, and that has led to some of the cost overruns. Does she agree with me that the decision to try to make it the fastest railway in the world was a mistake when it was made, and that it was a mistake not to unwind that sooner?

[Joy Morrissey]

I thank the hon. Member for that point. I think it has been a mistake not to work with local communities, because there would have been a point when most of us across the House would have worked with HS2 to find a solution that did not destroy our areas of natural beauty or our pre-existing infrastructure. However, there was no give and take; there was simply take, from our areas and our communities. I think the frustration that Members feel across the House is palpable.

I have brought forward this debate because time is running out for HS2’s planning powers, which expire in February 2027. Those powers may expire, but the legacy of community destruction and environmental vandalism will continue long into the future. HS2’s failure to resolve specific issues with residents now faces a ticking clock, and that is why I urge the Minister to support my constituents and those of other Members across the House, and to get urgent resolution of the issues that HS2 has left unresolved for all of us.

[Greg Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is patently absurd that the Secretary of State casually said at the Dispatch Box earlier that the overall bill for phase 1 will breach £100 billion—I predicted that years ago—yet even though the taxpayer will keep bailing out phase 1, there is no money to fund the mitigation projects that were actually promised to our communities, such as fixing our roads. It seems that the taxpayer will bail out everything else, but not the community impact.

[Joy Morrissey]

I think the community impact and the mitigation are key to the project moving forward successfully, because that is how trust can be restored. Community faith in this project and a trustworthy relationship have broken down, and that is the best way to restore them. If hundreds of lorries are passing over our roads, we must ensure that we can have the potholes filled and our roads fixed. We must also ensure that there is compensation for communities in the areas blighted by HS2, whether that is parks and green spaces, or extra funding for infrastructure. I think that is a fair and reasonable request, so that everyone can benefit, not just all of us who have had this forced on our constituencies with absolutely zero benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. Does she agree that there is a positive that could come out of this process, and from her trenchant efforts to secure an upgrade to the status of Colne Valley Regional Park? Granting the park a higher degree of planning protection would be a significant win for our constituents and others. Perhaps the Minister might consider putting a little pressure on Government colleagues to secure that positive benefit for future generations to enjoy.

[Joy Morrissey]

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.

Rural Roads

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank the hon. Member for raising an important point. Between us, we are starting to see that we can deal with this issue in multiple ways, and I really hope the Minister will take them on board.

I launched my rural road safety campaign back in August 2024. I urged key partners to get involved in road safety issues and to take them really seriously. I even met the Morville speed group with the police and crime commissioner John Campion. It was impactful to see the issues that the speeding on the road was causing for everybody in Morville.

I have called for the Government’s new road safety strategy to prioritise rural areas more than it does. The previous Government’s safer roads fund provided over £185 million to improve safety on the country’s most dangerous A-roads. When I raised the matter previously, the Minister was unable to clarify whether the fund will be reinstated. The work must be undertaken by the Government. While the road safety strategy published in January identifies that rural roads are the least safe in terms of fatalities, it did not give any tangible results. It identified the problem but not the solution.

I have done my homework and provided a few solutions. Let us have a look at them. We have raised the issue of potholes and damage to vehicles, and to human life. As a few people have mentioned, councils are reportedly spending more money on fixing roads and potholes than they are getting from central Government. That is unsustainable. At the same time, the Government have watered down the formula to remove “remoteness” from rural areas. The removal of that one word has such a significant impact in South Shropshire, a 700-square-mile constituency. Remoteness is a key issue. We have also lost the rural services delivery grant. Those two decisions have taken millions of pounds out of South Shropshire, which has had a massive impact.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Not only have we lost all that funding for rural roads in places such as Beaconsfield, Marlow and south Buckinghamshire villages, but places such as Denham and Iver back up on to London and the ultra low emission zone. Transport for London gets a disproportionate amount of money for road paving, and all the London local authorities receive extra funding to get their roads paved. However, despite having rural roads directly outside the M25, we have basically no funding for the amount of road space we have to pave. That is disproportionate and should be equalised, to provide better funding to all rural counties.

[Stuart Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that excellent point. We have to look at rural counties, which are not being given the fair consideration that they need. The Government are currently holding back almost £46 million, I believe, from Lib Dem-run Shropshire council, because it has not met their stringent criteria. The council has an amber rating at the moment, and we are not getting the money that we need. Long-term certainty is required to ensure a more proactive approach to road measures, rather than just short-term solutions.

A report published just today by the Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance survey states that the backlog of repairs in England and Wales is worth more than £18 billion. The Government need to provide longer-term highways maintenance funding for councils through to 2032, as the previous Government planned to do. That would provide councils with the certainty they need to effectively plan and undertake repairs to roads. The decisions made by this Labour Government have taken millions of pounds out of South Shropshire.

The second issue is that the Lib Dem-run council now fixes only about half the potholes that were fixed previously. As per its press release last week, the figure was 25,000 over the last year, but if we go back one, two or three years, then we were averaging 38,000 to 41,000.

Horse and Rider Road Safety

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Too often when we talk about rural activities, too many dismiss them as relics of a bygone age. Those of us who represent rural constituencies know that nothing could be further from the truth. Horse riding remains a vital living part of rural life, deeply embedded in the culture, economy and daily rhythms of our communities. That reality makes it all the more important that we take seriously the safety of the horses and riders on our roads.

My constituency is overwhelmingly rural—home to many stud farms, riding schools and equestrian centres that rely on local road networks as part of their everyday operation. Riders frequently use narrow country lanes, often with no pavements, limited passing places and little room for error. Such roads were not designed for modern traffic speeds or volumes, yet they are shared by horses, cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. For less experienced riders, these interactions can be especially intimidating. Horses can be easily startled by sudden movement or noise, and situations can escalate quickly if drivers approach at speed or pass too closely.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In Buckinghamshire there are many single-lane country roads, which is where many of the accidents occur. It would be wonderful to highlight that and how to address that moving forward.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. She is absolutely right and I wish her a speedy recovery from her own horse-related incident. What might seem a minor lapse in judgment from behind the wheel has serious and sometimes devastating consequences for riders and horses, given that the rider has limited ability to control a frightened horse.

A further recurring challenge in rural areas is poor visibility. Constituents have contacted me about near misses on lanes with high grass verges and dense hedgerows, especially during the spring and summer. Such conditions can severely restrict sight lines, meaning that horses and vehicles may appear suddenly, giving drivers little opportunity to reduce speed or pass with the care that safety demands. I was pleased to see that Buckinghamshire council, a council I know the Government are keen to learn from, has worked constructively with the British Horse Society to introduce simple and effective measures in partnership.

Horse riding is far from a niche pursuit. The British Equestrian Trade Association estimates that more than 1.8 million people ride regularly, with around 3 million participating overall. For many rural communities, riding is a source of wellbeing, fitness, employment and social connection. Yet all that is undermined when riders and their horses feel unsafe simply travelling on the road. One death is always one too many, and although departmental data records a relatively small number of fatalities in recent years, there remain far too many serious incidents. The British Horse Society’s “Horse i” app recorded that 58 horses were killed in equine road-related incidents, with more than 3,100 incidents in 2024 alone. Many of those involved drivers passing too closely, with devastating consequences.

It has been said in this debate that changes to the highway code under the previous Government significantly strengthened protections for horses and riders. The introduction of the hierarchy of road users was important, but the reforms went further, including clearer guidance on passing distances and how drivers should behave when encountering horses at junctions. Although the current Government have published their road safety strategy, it is difficult to see horse riding as a clear priority within it. Despite describing the strategy as being “for everyone”, horses receive only limited mention and there were no references at all in the consultation to proposed changes to motoring-offence penalties. That raises fair questions about how the Government intend to strengthen protections for riders in practice. I would welcome greater clarity from the Minister on that point, as well as an explanation about why the THINK! road safety campaign budget was cut by £1.2 million last year.

Could the Minister set out what specific campaigns the Government intend to introduce to make sure that drivers are aware of their responsibilities when encountering horses—particularly in rural areas, where these interactions are most common? Ultimately, rules are meaningful only if they are understood and enforced. Dangerous driving that intimidates or endangers horses and riders must be taken seriously, and penalties should properly reflect the risk posed by such behaviour.

Budget: Press Briefings

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Budget is next week, on Wednesday 26 November. I can also reassure him that businesses are welcoming the Chancellor’s iron-clad commitment to her fiscal rules.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

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?

[James Murray]

As I made clear earlier, the level of noise and speculation ahead of the Budget is regrettable, but I will not engage in further speculation on these measures today.

Taxes

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Grady]

I will make some progress if I may.

Our debt to GDP ratio is almost 100%, and we inherited that from the previous Government. Conservative Members object to tax rises while wanting tax cuts and increases in public spending and objecting to spending cuts. That is not realistic. We know from the disastrous Budget of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng that we must manage finances carefully. Some Opposition Members suggest that we should get rid of the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Conservatives shunned the OBR when Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng put forward their Budget and we know what happened then. I find it quite surprising therefore that we still have Conservative Members who want to get rid of it.

The Conservative approach to the economy simply does not grapple with the serious state of the public finances; it inhabits a world of wishful thinking—a world of higher inflation, higher Government borrowing costs and higher interest rates.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[John Grady]

No, I will make some progress.

The huge inflation unleashed by the previous Government caused immense misery to my constituents. The interest rate rises made life a misery for hard-working families who had bought their homes in Glasgow East. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right to focus on appropriate management of the economy and not wishful thinking. The real question is this: what has the Conservative party come to. Will it ever return to seeing things as they are, rather than proposing policies that bear no relationship to reality? Its proposals, as I understand them, are a form of magical realism, which is why the electorate have cast them into 100 years of solitude.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it is important to talk about debt. I was disappointed that the shadow Chancellor failed to acknowledge that the inheritance in 2024 was total national debt of close to 100% of GDP, which was up from 60% in 2010. The annual debt payments that the Government are having to make—as others have said, they are close to £100 billion, thanks to the Government’s economic inheritance—are 8.3% of total public spending. Imagine what we could do if we spent that money on the NHS, our schools, or fixing the housing crisis.

This goes much deeper than debt. The truth is that we inherited a sick economy, affecting living standards, wages and public services, and there was no plan for growth. The Conservatives left Britain with rising debt and flatlining growth, yet they oppose the very measures that the Government have taken to fix their mess.

[Joy Morrissey]

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.

[Joe Powell]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Of course, the Conservatives tanked the economy, and when there is such a dramatic decline in growth, increasing it from a very low level to a slightly higher one is relatively straightforward. The economic growth figures for the first quarter of this year, as we know, are the highest in the G7.

The Government are trying to fix the mess, including through measures worth over £20 billion a year—measures aimed at repairing our public finances by addressing the black hole and investing in public services that were wrecked by austerity, poor management and wishful thinking. The Conservatives have a nerve to pretend that they would do things differently now. My constituents tell me the same. Indeed, a local resident, George, has been vociferous about the lack of a credible economic plan from the Conservative party, and will not stop sharing his views on the airwaves. Yes, even the former Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the Conservatives have no answers to the fiscal challenges that the country faces. There is plenty that George Osborne and I disagree on, but he is absolutely right on that.

At every turn, the Conservative party is backing the blockers and preventing a plan for economic growth, whether it is the Leader of the Opposition blocking new energy infrastructure in her own backyard or the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), signing letters to delay vital transport infrastructure. It is no wonder that our economy has been held back for so long.

The other parties, too, have nothing to offer. Reform wants Liz Truss’s reckless economics all over again—the same failed experiment of unfunded tax cuts that crashed our economy and left our constituents paying the price. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats promise all the benefits of tough decisions with no way to pay for them. It is pure fantasy economics. I am glad that the Government have committed to not repeating those mistakes. It will fall on the Labour party to fix this mess, rebuild our economy and deliver the secure growth that Britain needs.

Nowhere is the cost of failure clearer than in the broken housing system. London boroughs now spend £4 million every single day on temporary accommodation —a massive waste of taxpayers’ money. The Conservatives also locked us into paying billions for over-inflated asylum hotel contracts. That is another egregious waste of taxpayer money that we inherited from them. That is the direct result of not planning for investment or for the long term; it is the price of short-termism and a failure to plan for the future.

Let us look at housing—one part of our plan. We have ambitious planning reforms to deliver the greatest impact on growth at no fiscal cost. We have the biggest investment in social and genuinely affordable homes in a generation. We have leasehold reform, protection for renters and a new decent homes standard, which are all opposed by the Conservative party.

This Government are making tough choices to raise revenue. The Conservatives talk about businesses; I meet businesses all the time, and I understand the pressures that they are under. They tell me that it is vital that NHS waiting lists fall, so that their employees can access the treatment that they need; that we have modern infrastructure in Britain, including transport and energy; that their staff can afford housing options; and that we agree an EU youth mobility scheme to support our hospitality industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

The motion is simply asking the Government to commit to what they put in their manifesto. It seems that we are hearing every sort of speech other than speeches that address that point.

Let us first take the national insurance rise. It is extraordinary to ask us to believe that businesses in Labour Members’ constituencies are delighted that their taxes have gone up because that will help public services. I am sure that they are all keen to see their taxes go up again to satisfy the new 30% pay rise that resident doctors want. We were told that that would not happen, and that that was why the Government had to put up taxes the last time. A bit of reality has to come to this conversation, given that local businesses are either cutting people’s hours, on a recruitment freeze, making redundancies or going into liquidation.

Let us think about companies that go into liquidation. After 30 years of trading, a company in my constituency went into liquidation last month, simply because it could no longer cope with the NI rise. That was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Twelve people were made redundant immediately, meaning there would be no more taxes—no more income tax or purchasing tax—from that business, and on top of that, benefits would have to be paid.

We are on a downward spiral of tax and spend in this country. Indeed, it is quite incredible to listen to the speeches from Labour Members. It is as if nobody has left the country, no money has been withdrawn from the City, and no person has taken their assets elsewhere. Those are literally the headlines on the economy, day after day, in the Financial Times and other newspapers, yet we get a lot of harking back to the past, rather than recognition that Labour has been in power for more than a year.

[Joy Morrissey]

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.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend sums things up perfectly. What terrifies me is that the Government do not seem to be taking any notice of that. When they talk about bringing in more taxes, such as a wealth tax, Labour Members all cheer. When my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor—I think it was him—said that Labour Members do not care, and would like to see more people who have wealth go, someone on the Government Benches shouted “Good!” It is absolutely incredible to say that the people who generate the wealth in this country are the enemy.

Let us just think about my constituency of Wetherby and Easingwold, which does exactly what it says on the tin: Wetherby and Easingwold are the two main market towns in the constituency. Market towns are part of the big ecosystem of the economy that is linked around farming, and the farming tax has created a huge problem in the farming community. People are scared to invest in capital equipment. That is the first thing. “How are we going to pay these bills? Is it even worth passing the farms on? So let’s pause our investment.”

That ecosystem in my constituency is not just about the farmers and what gets sold at the farmers’ market. It is about the businesses that service farm equipment. It is about the businesses that supply mechanical support. It is about the businesses that are involved in every aspect of the supply chain around farming in my constituency, and the worry and concern that is being felt throughout the communities means that they do not spend any money. That means that the Government are now losing out on VAT and on other taxes. So, what is their answer? Let us bring in a wealth tax; let us tax more—it is quite frankly frightening. In terms of taxation, I am terrified of where this country is heading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey]

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?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. I am just wrapping up, but I will tell you this, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am a comprehensive schoolboy, and I am not going to take any lessons off the private schoolboy on the Front Bench who tells me that it is unfair that we are not taxing people who are trying to do the best for their children—talk about pull up the ladder, I’m all right, Jack.

Overall, the economy is being destroyed under this Government. We will have a political kickabout this afternoon, but I am terrified of where we are going. The 1970s is back good and proper—public sector strikes, ridiculous pay demands constantly bringing the Government down, 240% debt to GDP ratio predicted on this path, more and more taxes to come, and more and more wealthy people leaving. We saw what happened by 1977 when we went off to the IMF. The situation was so bad that the IMF said no! We are on that path, and it terrifies me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

I will make some progress given the time limits that will be put in place on other Members.

That finally put us on a strong footing to move on from the irresponsible and reckless chaos of Liz Truss’s mini-Budget and the litany of unfunded spending commitments left behind by the previous Administration, who had no intention of implementing them.

I must remind the House of what Labour inherited from the last Government when the Chancellor walked through the doors of No. 11 just over a year ago: a national debt at nearly 100% of GDP—the highest since the 1960s; living standards falling for the first time since the 1950s; anaemic growth that left us second to last in the G7; and the UK as the only G7 country where the employment rate had still not recovered to pre-covid levels by the first quarter of 2024. That was the Conservative legacy—a legacy of economic mismanagement and a tax system weighed down by loopholes, complexity and underenforcement, so I will take no lectures on fiscal responsibility from the architects of that wreckage.

We on the Labour Benches will not indulge the fantasy that the path to prosperity lies in slashing public services, making unfunded promises and claiming that we can borrow endlessly without consequences. Our constituents deserve better. This Government, led by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, are getting on with what Labour always provides: a Government of service.

First, let me address the abolition of the outdated non-dom regime. For too long, our tax code allowed the very wealthiest to live in this country and enjoy our services, infrastructure and rule of law but contribute only a token amount to the national purse. That ended, quite rightly, with this Government. The new residency-based regime is a matter of principle: “If you live here, you pay here.”

Secondly, we have increased the rate of capital gains tax on share sales—not to punish wealth but to deliver fairness. Many of my constituents contact me to say that they see no reason why wealth—assets, and stocks and shares—should be taxed less than work. There is more to be done on that, but I welcome the measures that the Government have taken so far.

[Joy Morrissey]

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.

[Phil Brickell]

The hon. Member would do well to listen to what I have to say, and I will come to wealth taxation shortly, but I would appreciate it if she did not take that very condescending tone with me—I spent more than a decade working in the financial services industry myself.

These measures have been taken because it is simply the right thing to do. When a nurse in Bolton hospital is paying a higher effective tax rate than someone making millions on property or shares, the system is not just broken; it is unfair.

Thirdly, the Government have cracked down on tax-dodging, with more funding for HMRC to go after tax evaders and bring down the stubbornly high tax gap. That gap—the difference between what the Government are owed and what they actually collect—currently stands at almost £50 billion. That figure—50,000 times £1 million—is almost the size of the entire defence budget in 2023-24. Unlike the dearth of policy proposals from the Conservative party, I constructively implore the Government to continue tackling the enablers of dodgy tax schemes. Firms that promote aggressive tax avoidance schemes will now be held to account with fines of up to £1 million. I welcome that measure in particular.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

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.

Family Businesses

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is a privilege to stand here today on behalf of businesses in Beaconsfield, Marlow and the South Bucks villages. These small family businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are the job creators, they play a vital role in helping our communities, and they deserve our support in this House. Yet it is now clear to businesses in my constituency that they find themselves with a Labour Government who simply do not understand business. This is a Government who seem to think that just by saying the word growth over and over again, it will magically happen. The truth is that businesses create growth, not hot air from the Chancellor. This Government are seriously damaging businesses with a national insurance tax raid that will destroy jobs and put at risk thousands of businesses. Time and again, business owners have warned of the consequences, but they have been met with a wall of silence from the Government. Why? Because this Labour Government simply do not understand business or the consequences of their actions.

At the end of last year, I hosted a roundtable of local, family-run, multigenerational businesses. They have been at the heart of our local economy for decades, but now they are struggling not just with the national insurance threshold increase or the differences that the Employment Rights Bill will bring in, but with skills shortages and the economic uncertainty that that will cause. Now, thanks to this Government’s tax raid, they are being forced to make impossible choices: to cut back on hiring, reduce investment or close their doors altogether.

Let me give the House just one example. I met the owner of a proud family business that has been serving Marlow for over 88 years. He told me plainly that this Government’s policies will make it harder for businesses such as his to survive. His story is one I have heard time and again. This Government do not seem to get that, in lowering the employment national insurance threshold so dramatically, they have made it almost impossible for businesses that employ lots of people to operate in the low-margin sectors.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s policies have created a hostile environment for family businesses to continue to invest in hiring people and equipment? The damage is that that reduces growth in our economy.

[Joy Morrissey]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point. The policies are damaging; it is a hostile environment for businesses and entrepreneurs who make a difference and who grow the economy and our tax base. That is who this Government are hurting: the people who will make this country great and grow us out of any of the economic issues that we are having now. By hurting entrepreneurs and small businesses, we are cutting ourselves off from growth. Again, growth is not some mythical thing that the Chancellor refers to; it is something delivered by hard-working small family businesses in this country.

Not only small businesses but all service-level jobs in our economy are affected. Care services, retail, hospitality, events—they are just a few of the sectors where businesses increasingly face the impossible choice of cutting jobs or shutting their businesses. Of course, it is not just through national insurance that the Government are raiding businesses or burdening them with over-regulation. Businesses already reeling from the national insurance raid are facing higher business rates, an Employment Rights Bill that is destined to lower employment and the destruction of family farms.

Just yesterday, the British Chambers of Commerce described the stark reality of the “powder keg of costs” facing British businesses. In the avalanche of inconvenient facts for the Government that the British Chambers of Commerce unleashed, one stood out to me: 58% of businesses told the BCC that the costs will impact recruitment, meaning fewer jobs at a time when we need the economy to be growing. This is economic illiteracy on steroids.

I will always stand up for our local family businesses in Beaconsfield, Marlow and the South Bucks villages. Their message to me has been crystal clear: this Government’s tax raid is damaging to them, to jobs and to growth for the future. I urge the Government to wake up to the disaster they are unleashing on businesses in my constituency and across this House.

Draft Pensions (Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge etc) (No. 3) Regulations 2024

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 General Committees

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. The Opposition support the draft regulations. I am happy that they address the technical changes needed to complete the work of abolishing the lifetime allowance.

During the pandemic, a significant number of workers aged 50 or over left the labour force. In response to that challenge, the previous Government introduced the ambitious Back to Work plan, supported by £2.5 billion in funding, alongside initiatives such as the midlife MOT and returnerships. We also abolished the lifetime allowance from April 2024. This reform is essential to ensuring that highly skilled professionals such as NHS clinicians are not disincentivised from remaining in the workforce. No one should be punished or pushed out of work for tax reasons.

We welcome the Government’s decision to continue with the previous Government’s plan for the lifetime allowance. It simplifies our tax system and incentivises experienced and productive workers to stay in the workforce for longer. I would, however, like to take a moment to reflect on the Government’s somewhat changing position on lifetime allowances. Some Members may recall that the day after the previous Government announced our plans to abolish the lifetime allowance, the then shadow Chancellor pledged:

“Labour will reverse the changes to tax-free pension allowances.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 1005.]

I am happy to see that there has been a roll-back of that decision and that we are going with the previous Government’s plans. The Opposition support that, of course, and are happy to wave it through.

VAT: Independent Schools

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as ever, makes important points. I too am disappointed that the Education Secretary is not with us for this important debate. I will make progress, Mr Speaker, because I do not want to go on longer than I should.

To be clear, we want to talk first and foremost not about revenue, but about education, schools and children—all children. [Interruption.] No, I have been talking about schools and children throughout. If the Government insist on ploughing on with this divisive policy, they must at least exempt certain groups of children for whom it would be especially unjust or counterproductive to impose this tax. Surely, schools that charge the same as, or even less than, the average cost of a school place were not in the Government’s sights when they devised this scheme. There are small religious groups that have no state sector provision for their denomination. Why should they be disadvantaged? The continuity of education allowance exists expressly to support families who are serving our nation in the armed forces. Surely they should be protected.

The Government acknowledge the role of centres of advanced training and performing arts schools that come under the music and dance scheme, because, again, there is no equivalent specialist schooling available in the state sector. Then there are the many children who receive special educational needs support, including those with an education, health and care plan, whether or not they are at the school named in the plan, and those children who are applying for a plan.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me, as I must make progress.

As for children whose parents are priced out of a school, or face its closure, disruption to learning can be difficult at any time, but it is even more problematic when pupils have started a public examination course. Their next school might not even offer the subjects that they were taking, or the exams might not be marked by the same exam board. We need to think about those children. The tax levy should be postponed until pupils who are now in years 10 or 11, or in the lower and upper sixth form, have finished their exams—until 2025 or 2026.

The widest impact of all will be felt by state schools. Ministers have said repeatedly that there is no problem because there are plenty of spaces in state schools. We have repeatedly pointed out that that is of no help at all if those places are in the wrong places or the wrong year groups. They need to be where and for whom they are required.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Joy Morrissey]

In Buckinghamshire, we do not have the places. We have a lot of children in special education needs and disabilities schools, faith schools and other private schools. We cannot cope with the capacity loss. We have parents who are sacrificing everything to send their child to a SEND school. There is no provision in the county for them. The policy will result in a crisis of transportation and places, and children will suffer as a result.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for their interventions. Indeed, there are many places, particularly at secondary school level, where there are insufficient spaces available to accommodate a significant minority being displaced from independent schools—places such as Bristol and Bedford, Salford and Richmond, Worcester and Wycombe, and Bury North and Bolton North East.

Let us be clear: local authorities have a duty to find spaces for children. They take that duty very seriously, and a number of them are considerably worried about what may happen. In-year admissions can be especially complicated in any case: they can involve not only governors but the fair access protocol panel and, ultimately, a Secretary of State direction, all of which can add up to months out of school. Creating additional physical space in schools obviously takes time, and building new schools takes longer still. Time is needed to adjust, which is why our motion further calls on the Government to

“postpone imposition of the VAT charge for schools in areas where state schools in the relevant key stage are already on average”

almost full.

This Government barely have their feet under the table, and already they are a Government in chaos. That chaos is exemplified by this destructive, disruptive and divisive education tax that will interrupt learning; create place demand where it cannot be accommodated; put further strain on the SEND system; hit specific groups that we ought to be trying to protect; likely generate much lower revenue than anticipated; and quite possibly even end up as a net cost to the public purse. In their headlong rush to make a political statement, the Government appear simply to not have thought through the consequences. We call on them now to announce immediately that they are abandoning the unrealistic January implementation date, to publish a proper impact assessment, and then to entirely rethink this entirely counterproductive tax.

Winter Fuel Payment

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I find it slightly ironic that we are debating this policy today. This is about political choice. A policy that was brought in under Gordon Brown—a social democratic policy of inclusivity under which everyone buys into the state—is being scrapped in favour of a neoliberal means-tested policy, one that I think most actual Labour socialists would be ashamed of.

I declare an interest: I am a member of Care Campaign for the Vulnerable, which helps elderly residents who have medical issues or are in care. One of the issues for those elderly people is heating. These are the elderly who fought for the reconstruction of Britain in post-war London and across the UK, had rationing for years and years and paid their taxes. We have built this country on the back of their hard work and sacrifice, only to turn around and say, “No. We did not scrap this policy under 14 years of a Conservative Government, but we are scrapping it as the first thing we do as a Labour Government.”

I am not even blaming the Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray). I knew the Minister and his parents when they were councillors with me in Ealing—true socialists, for the many, not the few. I am not sure that applies here. This is a political choice to give Labour’s union paymasters a pay rise over vulnerable pensioners. This is about paying £8 billion or £9 billion for an energy company that will not generate a single watt of energy. This is about political choice and political will. If we, the Conservatives, could keep a Labour policy for our entire time in government, it is shocking and disheartening that the Labour party is making this choice now.

Conduct of the Right Hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip

Joy Morrissey Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Any member of the public who has the misfortune to stumble across the debate will be appalled that, at the time of a pandemic, a migrant crisis, endless illegal crossings of the channel and numerous other real concerns that are filling up my inbox, SNP Members are indulging themselves with this non-issue in a transparent attempt to generate a few cheap headlines. I am interested in how they alighted on the sum of £41,567. Is that so that the British Prime Minister would make less money than the leader of the SNP in Scotland? I am not sure because in general the job of the Prime Minister, the most responsible role in the country, is already remunerated annually for less than that of countless public sector bureaucrats and managers, many of whom earn twice or even three times the Prime Minister's salary for a fraction of the responsibility. As they are so interested in fairness, SNP Members will presumably be demanding a debate on that anomaly as well—or perhaps not.

The only person who is not justifying his salary is the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who, instead of serving his constituents and allowing the rest of us to do the same, prefers to waste all our time on this infantile debate. That says far more about him than it does about our Prime Minister.