Joy Morrissey
MP for Beaconsfield · Conservative · United Kingdom
“The Employment Rights Act, the minimum wage and national insurance contributions are all making it difficult for employers to keep taking on new employees, or even to keep them at all.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. How did we end up here again, in another debate in Westminster Hall, just like debates in the Chamber, that is full of warm words calling for action?”
“In recent times, we had a similar thing happen in Europe, in the Balkans: a 10-year slow creep of people turning against their neighbours, who they had lived with and been perfectly fine with for centuries. Then, all of a sudden, they developed feelings of hatred and division.”
“Although many would like to blame that on the current state of geopolitical affairs, it is difficult to do so when one need only look back at the history of the interwar period. I do not want to drag in my educational background, but that period plays a vital role in why we need to clamp down on antisemitism today.”
“Stopping antisemitism at university level is vital to protect the next generation from making the mistakes made in generations past. It is not a case of thinking, “Oh, well—we should probably be just a little more fair-minded.” No, every student deserves equality of access to education, and every student, when they go to university, deser…”
“The rise of antisemitism and the first ghettoisation of German Jews was a 10-year process; it was not a quick process, but a slow, incremental one that started on university campuses.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Joy Morrissey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 12.
“In the light of the Darren Grimes case, from which it seems it is now permissible for a man to be subject to police investigation for simply asking a question—Orwell come to life—will my right hon. Friend agree that we are endangering a free press by allowing and endorsing censorship disguised in the sugar-coating of social justice?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for his financial support for Wales and for the devolved Welsh Government. Does he agree that, if the Welsh Government want to trigger further restrictions and go beyond Government measures, which should ultimately be used as a last resort, they need to provide plans for how they will financially support the industries that will be hit as a result?”
“I know that the American situational understanding, because of their investment in information technology—certainly when I was serving—meant that they got a very quick and clear picture of events in these conflict situations. I can only assume that they have a more effective investigative system.”
“Q What is the military international framework that our military allies adhere to for overseas operations—specifically, France, the US and Poland—or in NATO operations? I ask that for my second question: why is their rate of prosecution against their servicemen and women so much lower than it is here? If we are all adhering to the same legal framework that you keep referring to, why is it that our servicemen and women are open to investigation while others who serve with us are not? Can you explain that for me? General Sir Nick Parker: I cannot answer for the Americans and the French, but I would revert to my original point: we might not be keeping effective records and investigating them as rapidly as some of those other countries are.”
“I do not think the comparison is relevant from the perspective of what we do about this particular issue, which badly needs to be dealt with.”
“Q Could you also assume that it may be an investigative system on the chain of command and the point you have alluded to? I appreciate that, but it could also be that they are not under the same international legal frameworks that other countries, or perhaps we, are under. That allows them to protect their servicemen and women more effectively. What is your opinion on that? General Sir Nick Parker: It comes back to the point that we need to conform to international norms so that we are seen to be legitimate, but the way we protect our people is by ensuring that they are properly commanded, that we keep accurate records and that we investigate any claim very quickly, so that we can ensure that our people are properly looked after.”
“Q But if we engage in joint military operations with allies, is it not more important that we are aligned with what our military allies view as the legal framework, rather than anything else? Is that not the most important component of how we protect our servicemen and women, by all operating in the same framework—for example, if we are on a joint NATO operation overseas—and that all the countries engaged in that military operation share in the same framework? General Sir Nick Parker: As I said, I believe that we need to be consistent with our coalition partners. All I would add is that you cannot predict who your coalition partner will be, because we do not know whom we will be fighting with in the future. Therefore, there has to be a certain consistency that is probably provided by international norms.”
“Q When you refer to the Human Rights Act, are you referring to upholding in the ECHR as opposed to the Court of Justice at the European Union? I find that interesting, given that the EU Court of Justice does not accede to the European Court of Human Rights or acknowledge all of its remit. The EU Court of Justice ruled that it had the right over rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, which is a separate entity. Did we then adopt the European Court of Human Rights ruling as sacrosanct and did we go on with that, prosecuting people in a specific way? Is that what we did? Hilary Meredith: I am not quite sure I understand the question.”
“I think you will have to ask a constitutional lawyer, but my concern is that if we are putting time limits on the Human Rights Act 1998, I am not sure if in the UK we have the power or authority to do that. A constitutional lawyer would be able to advise you better.”
“Q The EU Court of Justice has decided that it has jurisdiction over the European Court of Human Rights in terms of the Lisbon treaty and other national security elements. Why did we go backwards and adopt the European Court of Human Rights, and hold ourselves to that level? Is that where things went awry? Hilary Meredith: I think there are two issues. The Human Rights Act civil cases were brought for abuse and detention. When you look at the charge sheet, there are masses—hundreds—just as abuse and detention. The civil human rights were brought by the Iraqi civilians against the Ministry of Defence. That, then, culminated in human rights criminal activity against individual members of the armed forces. Which takes precedent?”
“Q What about the national security element of the person’s defence? Who was there to make that national security defence for the armed forces personnel that was being prosecuted? Many of the things they were asked to do were a result of a national security issue, so who was there to defend them in terms of the national security element? Hilary Meredith: Nobody.”
“Q So for a whole aspect of what they were being prosecuted on, there was no information and no knowledge being shared. Hilary Meredith: No, and I think one of the issues that the members of the armed forces have is that they have to step out of the military environment into civvy street and find a civilian lawyer or even know that they are allowed to find a civil lawyer, there was no information there for them. That is why I am suggesting there should be an independent civil advocate from the Bar Council or the Law Society with criminal knowledge to help them.”
“First, there are so many different laws now that affect you on the battlefield, so many different conventions, and then throw in human rights as well. It is a difficult, complex scenario.”
“Q I do not know what your feelings are, but the European Court of Human Rights also uses the primary method of judicial interpretation as a living instrument, as a current-day interpretation of events and modern-day facts, where you are not taking into consideration national security, armed forces personnel or procedure. You are not taking the wider NATO or other alliances that you are entering. They are just taking it on the modern-day interpretation. Would you say that that had an effect on how people in service have been or were prosecuted? Hilary Meredith: I do not know. I am not a criminal lawyer, but I think that many of those—imagine that you are completely innocent and you are accused.”
“Q What help are personnel given when they are accused? Hilary Meredith: There are two scenarios, depending on whether you are still in service or you are a veteran. If you are a veteran, there is nothing—there is no chain of command. A number of times, the MOD said to me that veterans can go and see the chain of command, and I say that they are retired and are veterans, so there is no chain of command, or their commanding officer has retired. Who do they contact? If you are in service and have a good commanding officer, you can go and seek help through them. I know that the Army legal services tried to help in some instances, but I think there is a conflict of interest with the Army legal services protecting the Ministry of Defence and trying also to protect individuals.”
“Q Hilary, do you agree that it is impossible to actually reach a fair verdict if you do not have the national security background or the military files on what was decided at the time? If that is restricted information—some of those documents may be classified for several years or decades—how is the service person supposed to defend themselves if they do not have that level of information? Hilary Meredith: I agree; it is extremely difficult. When I am putting forward an independent person, I am talking about somebody in civvy street, which would be even more difficult. Unless you sign up to the Official Secrets Act and there is a full cards-on-the-table procedure, it would be very hard to defend.”
“Q I have two questions on the point raised earlier about the territorial reach of the Human Rights Act. How would you limit that within the Bill? What would you suggest?”
“I would welcome feedback from each of the witnesses. How would you limit the territorial reach of the Human Rights Act within this legislation? You mentioned it as a point, and I wanted to hear how you would do that. Dr Morgan: The Human Rights Act would have to be amended to say that the Act itself did not apply extraterritorially. Parliament could do that; what Parliament cannot do is of itself reverse the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. The nearest thing to do is for the Government to derogate using the process in the European convention. Those powers are already there in the Human Rights Act.”
“That will not stop the Strasbourg Court from hearing claims against the UK. Parliament cannot unilaterally change the meaning of the European convention on human rights, but it can change the meaning of the Human Rights Act. Richard Ekins is more expert than I, so I would like him to answer.”
“It is purely a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which extended the extraterritorial reach of the convention in the Al-Skeini case. There are two things that one could do about it. One is to derogate in future conflicts, which the Government have said they will consider doing. Another thing is for the Government vigorously to fight cases, such as Hassan v . United Kingdom, where the Government rather successfully argued that the European convention should be interpreted in line with the law of armed conflict or international humanitarian law. Those are two things that one could do. A third thing, which would require fresh primary legislation, would be to amend the Human Rights Act so that domestic UK courts may only hear claims relating to things that happen within the territory of the UK.”
“Q My question in response to that would be, why are we confusing the two things? The European Court of Justice ruled that it had supremacy over the ruling of the ECHR, and we opted out of the Lisbon treaty in terms of the acceptance of certain aspects of the Home Office and Justice type of rules—we opted out of that. Within the EU structure, they sort of opted out of accepting the ECHR in terms of jurisdiction within their own court systems. I feel that there is a bit of muddying of the waters in terms of what exactly is the jurisdiction of what. Could there be a review of that? Dr Morgan: In my view, this is nothing to do with the European Union. This is purely a European convention matter, so Brexit, thankfully, is out of the picture on this particular issue.”
“Many of us smiled at that decision, because it showed the Court of Justice of the European Union was not particularly enthusiastic about being subject to the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg Court— [Inaudible.] —”
“Q It just gives me pause for thought about why we have decided to do it, when the Court of Justice held that the EU could not accept the ECHR under the draft agreement and held that the agreement was incompatible with the TEU article 6.2, for the reason that the draft agreement undermined the Court of Justice’s autonomy. It allowed for the dispute resolution mechanisms. I am just curious why we have gone down this road. Perhaps the witnesses can clarify. John Larkin: May I come in on that point? The Member is referring, I think, to decision 2/15 of the Court of Justice of the European Union— [Inaudible.] —incompatible with the European treaty.”
“In Beaconsfield, many of my constituents work in aviation or other sectors directly affected by covid-19. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that anyone who finds themselves unemployed due to businesses having to adapt or close because of covid-19 can find the education and qualifications they need for the future?”
“Can my right hon. Friend outline what steps are being taken to deliver the much-needed Whitehall reforms that he outlined in the Ditchley speech earlier this year to ensure that the Government can deliver effectively for all corners and communities of the UK? May I welcome his call for the civil service to return to Whitehall?”
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that a review of the parliamentary art collection should be an opportunity to celebrate Parliament’s rich and central role in our nation’s history and heritage, rather than a political exercise to edit, rewrite and impose woke contemporary interpretations of history on a place of such national importance?”
“As we recover from the economic effects of the coronavirus, it is vital that we build back greener. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that he is backing the innovators who are working on decarbonising our automobile industry—companies such as Gridserve Sustainable Energy—and who can get their cutting- edge ideas on to the market, supporting green jobs along the way?”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to Members’ concerns about small businesses and the self-employed, and for taking the time to engage with us and hear our concerns. In Beaconsfield, we have 4,000 people who have already benefited from the Government’s self-employment income support scheme, protecting their livelihoods. I therefore welcome today’s announcement that we will continue the support for the self-employed, through a further extension in the grant, and continue our unprecedented support for both the employed and the self-employed. May I invite him to Marlow to see all the good work that he has done through his schemes?”
“Following recent media reports, what more can my right hon. Friend say about the role that Defence Intelligence plays in assessing threats and our ability to counter them? Will he consider meeting me about an issue concerning a former MOD intelligence training site in Beaconsfield?”
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government’s Internal Market Bill will protect our United Kingdom, strengthen our mission to level up, and back our negotiators?”
“My right hon. Friend’s eat out to help out scheme was also hugely successful in Beaconsfield, where 88,000 discounted meals were enjoyed. I cannot say what percentage of those meals were enjoyed by me personally, but one can wager. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend give the House that he will continue to support the hospitality industry through reductions in VAT on food and attractions until next January?”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for local businesses in Beaconsfield and across the UK. What provision or safety net is he creating for local businesses that may be affected by lockdowns across the country?”
“I want to look at the clauses. On clause 28, it is proposed that “Scotland” be left out. On clause 29, amendment 29 would insert that following a legislative appeal from all the devolved powers, we would have a consultation before any changes. On clause 35, it is proposed that prior to publishing any information, the CMA must consult all Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Ministers and the devolved Administrations. All these amendments seem to have one thing in common: they are asking for all consultation on how we move our internal market forward to be done with the devolved powers in the United Kingdom. Many in the House have raised the issue of who will be holding the CMA to account. We here represent the entire United Kingdom. We are elected to represent all parts of the United Kingdom.”
“Members across the House have been saying and the points that you have been raising, and I am very sympathetic to your cries about a lack of democratic representation. That is why I voted to leave the EU: for the very reason of the lack of democratic representation by the European Commission, which oversees the single market.”
“Let me clarify it for you. An internal market is something that is brought together historically. When we look at successful internal markets of the past, where have they been successful? We can look at the single market within the EU and at the 13 original colonies in the United States. They were 13 separate entities that had no regulatory system and were bound together by an internal market that allowed for free trade and the movement of goods and services. This is not a political Bill—it is an economic Bill to enhance our competitiveness with the world. It is not to detract from the powers of Scotland—it is to make Scotland stronger through the power of free trade within the internal market. I have been listening very carefully to what hon.”
“Amendment 29 states: “Following legislative approval from all devolved administrations”. Are you asking for all the devolved Administrations to be represented at the federal level?”
“I would argue that this is not an infringement of your rights or those devolved powers. This Bill is about enhancing all of our abilities to work in a single internal market to allow goods and services to flow freely. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) mentioned glasses being made in one part of the Union and then being put together in another part. We have this so that we can frictionlessly move goods and services through the United Kingdom without tariffs and restrictions. There has to be a system through which that federal system is united, in terms of the economic objectives that we are setting, making ourselves globally competitive.”
“I can understand how there would be concern, and perhaps something could be established to look at how that fund and the targets were set to help in disadvantaged and impoverished areas where the EU structural funds have helped to improve the livelihoods of people in the United Kingdom, and to look at how we move that forward. This is not a Bill to take any political power: it is to make us stronger economically. It is purely on the grounds of economics—”
“I will not give way—I will make some headway and then give way in a moment. When we talk about the internal market, we are talking not about a political objective, but about an economic objective—to remove regulatory obstacles from more goods and services in the UK so that we are able to trade freely among ourselves and make ourselves globally competitive. We are removing the technical, legal and bureaucratic barriers to allow its citizens to trade and do business freely, for its citizens to enjoy products from all over the UK. When SNP Members raise concerns about state aid, I would imagine that they are referring to the EU structural funds or the EU development funds, the criteria for which have, in the past, benefited certain deprived areas in regions in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.”
“I thank you for your point, but I wonder if you would find it respectful for the EU to threaten to put a tariff in the sea— [ Interruption. ] No, that is a completely valid point to raise. I find that to be disrespectful of our sovereignty and our ability to govern internally.”
“I will carry on. On that point, the EU’s threat to disrupt our food exports from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland as negotiating leverage fundamentally undermined our credibility and our sovereignty within the United Kingdom itself. The Bill will strengthen our ability to create—”
“You say it was mentioned by the SNP earlier about wanting to throw off the bureaucratic chains and wanting to have democratic representation, but that is exactly why I voted to leave the European Union, and that is why I will fight to make sure that we have a regulatory system that has less red tape and that has representation. We talk about democratic representation, but we are representing the will of the people who voted for Brexit in one referendum and we are delivering the result. Scotland also— [ Interruption. ]”
“I should probably make headway. I am trying to understand and sympathise with the amendments that have been tabled, but I do not feel that they are in any way needed to enhance what is in the Bill. I urge hon. Members to vote to keep the Bill the way it is.”
“I’m back. To clarify that point, it is actually the European Commission that oversees the single market, and it is that unelected body that oversees and creates the market framework— [ Interruption. ]”
“We are heading into an important 12 months for policy development to help disabled people with the Government’s new national disability strategy. Many charities in my constituency in Beaconsfield and across Bucks are very keen to give feedback to this strategy. Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that he is meeting stakeholders from a diverse range of backgrounds to ensure the development of a disability policy that is inclusive to everyone?”
“Today I want to speak on behalf of constituents in places such as Marlow, Beaconsfield, Flackwell Heath and Hedgerley who have worked for British Airways, some for 20 or 30 years, and who have been left with virtually nothing. As we move towards October, can we look at how businesses are going to respond when the furlough scheme ends, and at how we treat companies such as British Airways that hold valuable slots at Heathrow?”
“I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), on his new role—long may it continue—and I thank the Government for their £8.5 billion investment in the aviation sector, What has been shocking in this pandemic has been the way aviation companies have responded and treated their employees, and by far the most shocking of those has been British Airways, which is what I want to speak about today. This is about fairness and the lack of fairness displayed in companies such as British Airways, which I feel has been using the pandemic as an excuse to liquidate its assets and move its transnational base out of Britain and overseas.”
“I thank the hon. Member for raising the important issue of how we can hold companies such as British Airways to account. It is an issue of fairness. If BA is going to liquidate not only its assets but its British employees, we should look at which companies are retaining the highest percentage of British employees and think about how we can reallocate the slots to them. There should be a reward for fairness.”
“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, particularly as I believe British Airways pointed out to its shareholders that it planned to get back to levels of profitability and demand by 2023. It also plans, through its partner company IAG, to acquire Air Europa for an estimated €500 million off the back of the hard-working BA employees who have dedicated so much time to building up the assets the company as a whole is benefiting from. I hope we can look at landing slots, and how we can hold BA and other companies to account.”
“My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which she raised in the first debate. Indeed, BA employees said it was an excellent point, and that they would like to see that. They have had no representation and no way to appeal against the practice that BA has used against them. I hope we can move toward, a better approach to the aviation sector. I will fully support that. I fully support further tax cuts to aviation and further furloughing—anything to keep the sector going. However, we should not reward bad behaviour by giving in to companies that exploit British employees at the cost of transnational profits.”