Rural Roads

Debate between Stuart Anderson and Joy Morrissey

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.

Rural Communities

Debate between Stuart Anderson and Joy Morrissey

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

When will this Labour Government’s attack on the countryside come to an end? Will it be when there are no village pubs left to tax? Will it be when the last family farm has shut the barn doors? Will it be when they have banned all English country sports and traditions? Will it be when their left-wing lobby groups have finally had their student union fantasies fulfilled? Will it be when the English countryside is filled with solar farms and onshore wind?

For months, the Government have put family farmers under intolerable stress over the tax proposals that everyone could see they had got wrong. There is not a country pub in my constituency, in Beaconsfield, Marlow and the South Bucks villages, that is not collapsing under the weight of the Government’s national insurance tax raid and business rate tax hikes.

[Stuart Anderson]

Across South Shropshire, we will see pub after pub close with that rate revaluation. Does my hon. Friend agree that unless the Government look at the rate revaluation, there will be next to no pubs left?

[Joy Morrissey]

My hon. Friend makes a wonderful point that the Government are not just destroying the places where people go, but the pubs in the village where everyone comes together. They are destroying the local community, with no regard for something that we saved during covid and kept alive this entire time, only to die a death for what? I am not sure. Is it for ideological reasons? It is hard to say.

The Government have gone for the economic livelihoods of our rural communities; now they are coming for their traditions and character. I am a passionate animal lover. I care deeply about animals and animal welfare standards. I can therefore say with total certainty that the proposed ban on trail hunting is not about animals or their welfare; it is about petty, vindictive ideology and this Government’s pathological dislike of rural communities. Now we find this Parliament in the absurd position of being asked to ban something that does not even involve hunting or killing animals. There has just been a debate in Ireland and they voted against a ban on hunting after a sensible debate, but not here.

We have to come to the real question—the unanswered question—on animal welfare: what exactly do the Government think is going to happen to the 170 packs of hounds in England when they are no longer in use? What is going to happen to the 20,000 hounds and numerous horses if the trail hunting ban goes through? Let us be brutally honest: many of them will be destroyed. If you have a hound, have you ever tried to have it domesticated? Have you tried to have a harrier—[Interruption.] No, please, I insist on you trying to have a hound come to your home and stay with you for a week. It is impossible. Put the blood of those hounds and those horses on your heads because you want to stand in ideological purity—

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Debate between Stuart Anderson and Joy Morrissey

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being a tireless advocate for veterans and making this Bill possible. I also thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his loquacious advocacy for veterans throughout the Bill Committee. He raised questions about the participation of other Members, but I would wager that his words that poured forth throughout the Committee covered every aspect of anything we may have an interest in.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I was not in the Chamber when that was said earlier, but it is fair to say that I made over 40 interventions in the Back-Bench debate, so I certainly contributed to the Bill Committee in that regard, as did many other Members. It would therefore be unfair to say that there was no contribution from Conservative Members.

[Joy Morrissey]

It was indeed an honour to serve on the Committee, because I myself, although not serving in the military, had two brothers who were veterans, and I saw the way that war and conflict tore their lives and our family apart.

I have spoken to many veterans who have said that they were at the point of wanting to kill themselves—some attempted it—for the fear of being prosecuted through these kinds of claims. The Bill protects the men and women who have risked their lives and fought to keep us safe and free. It allows our brave servicemen and women to go overseas to fight and represent us, and then come back and safely carry on their lives. That is what the Bill was intended to do, and I believe that that is what it will do.

I appreciate the plethora of amendments presented by the right hon. Member for North Durham. I am grateful for his studious nature in making sure that we have covered every aspect of these clauses. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned, the investigative system is out of control. The Bill goes some way towards mitigating that, and we could perhaps have gone even further. The issue of derogation, which was raised at the start, was not further discussed, but we could have done so with a greater level of debate.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Stuart Anderson and Joy Morrissey

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 8th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Joy Morrissey]

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.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q General, it is good to see you. I was barely out of school when I came under your command in Dover, where you were the CO, the commanding officer. We were at very different ends of the spectrum of rank structure, but it is a pleasure to see you again.

A lot of what you discussed there is the chain of command. You talked about implementing different procedures within the chain of command. I would argue that that is an internal military adjustment, not for a Bill or other legislation, but I would then say, looking back, with your experience and what you know with hindsight—we always want to learn from the past to move forward—what would you have done differently, and what could be done differently by the chain of command, outside legislation, to protect our troops?

General Sir Nick Parker: The irony, then, is that I am now subordinate to you, an elected representative in the House, so congratulations, and—

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Stuart Anderson and Joy Morrissey

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Joy Morrissey]

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.

[Stuart Anderson]

Q Going back to when you said the time limit is a red herring, how do you think the serving personnel and veteran community will take it if we took your recommendation and removed the time limit from the Bill?

Hilary Meredith: The time limit, on the face of it, is welcomed by most veterans and military personnel, but the reading of it is a concern. For example, time limits will be introduced if military personnel serving overseas are killed or injured in service. Putting a time limit on that puts them in a worse position than civilians. That alone outweighs the prospect of a time limit on a criminal prosecution. Most criminal prosecutions were done in a timely manner. It was the process that caused them to be historical. Differentiating between the two and sorting out the process is more welcome than actually putting a time limit on an allegation.