Grahame Morris MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces; Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I do not have a formal speech, but I want to make a couple of points about context and put a particular question to the Minister, if that is okay. First, I declare an interest: in a previous life, I was a member of the RMT; as a Member of Parliament, I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group, and of most of the trade union groups as well. In the last Parliament, I also served in Committee on the Seafarers’ Wages Bill and on the Transport Committee that we heard evidence from the chief executive of P&O Ferries, Peter Hebblethwaite—it might actually have been in this room. I remind the Opposition spokesman—the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is new to the House, so he may not be aware of this—that the chief exec of P&O Ferries admitted publicly, to a joint sitting of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, that he was fully aware that P&O Ferries were breaking the law in three areas, not just on consultation, and yet it went ahead with the issuing of redundancy notices to all 800 British-based seafarers. Some of them were sacked at a minute’s notice by video call. There was uproar in the House, including on the Government Benches at the time—that was in 2022. It happened on St Patrick’s Day, on 17 March, and there was a commitment that it must never be allowed to happen again. I have been involved in discussions, lobbying of Ministers, members of my party and shadow Ministers to ensure that the legislation affords a degree of protection to UK-based seafarers. I fully understand the Minister’s point about the difficulties that we face: the size of the British UK merchant fleet has declined quite dramatically—I think we now have about 8 million gross tonnes of UK or GB-flagged ships, which is quite a dramatic reduction—and the majority of UK-based seafarers work on ships flagged in other countries. We have to be able to offer them some measure of protection. I fully understand the difficulties and the complexities of international law, but that cannot be a get-out for P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries or any other commercial entity to simply walk away from their legal responsibilities in respect of employment protections. While I thank the Minister for her reassurances, I urge her to continue discussions with the RMT on how we can effectively provide these minimal protections to UK seafarers, in particular those who work on overseas-flagged ships.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces; Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement, but can I point out a practical problem in the context of seafarers? With the vast majority of the merchant fleet not flagged with GB owners, the problem—including on the ferries and so on that are working out of British ports for more than 120 days a year—is that there is a relatively small number of UK-based seafarers, perhaps fewer than 21, among the complement of a crew. The Government have set that arbitrary figure, and I can understand what the Minister is saying in relation to small businesses more generally on terra firma, but I think a bit of flexibility needs to be applied in the maritime setting. While I am on my feet—forgive me, Mr Stringer; I do not want to interrupt again—we are seeking assurances in relation to that threshold and the fines that were being applied. If the Minister is unable to give that assurance within the context of these statutory instruments, could we could press for a meeting with the Minister so that we can explore the options that might be available?

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I do not have a formal speech, but I want to make a couple of points about context and put a particular question to the Minister, if that is okay. First, I declare an interest: in a previous life, I was a member of the RMT; as a Member of Parliament, I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group, and of most of the trade union groups as well. In the last Parliament, I also served in Committee on the Seafarers’ Wages Bill and on the Transport Committee that we heard evidence from the chief executive of P&O Ferries, Peter Hebblethwaite—it might actually have been in this room. I remind the Opposition spokesman—the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is new to the House, so he may not be aware of this—that the chief exec of P&O Ferries admitted publicly, to a joint sitting of the Transport Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, that he was fully aware that P&O Ferries were breaking the law in three areas, not just on consultation, and yet it went ahead with the issuing of redundancy notices to all 800 British-based seafarers. Some of them were sacked at a minute’s notice by video call. There was uproar in the House, including on the Government Benches at the time—that was in 2022. It happened on St Patrick’s Day, on 17 March, and there was a commitment that it must never be allowed to happen again. I have been involved in discussions, lobbying of Ministers, members of my party and shadow Ministers to ensure that the legislation affords a degree of protection to UK-based seafarers. I fully understand the Minister’s point about the difficulties that we face: the size of the British UK merchant fleet has declined quite dramatically—I think we now have about 8 million gross tonnes of UK or GB-flagged ships, which is quite a dramatic reduction—and the majority of UK-based seafarers work on ships flagged in other countries. We have to be able to offer them some measure of protection. I fully understand the difficulties and the complexities of international law, but that cannot be a get-out for P&O Ferries, Irish Ferries or any other commercial entity to simply walk away from their legal responsibilities in respect of employment protections. While I thank the Minister for her reassurances, I urge her to continue discussions with the RMT on how we can effectively provide these minimal protections to UK seafarers, in particular those who work on overseas-flagged ships.

• 9 Sept 2026 · Draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces Draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement, but can I point out a practical problem in the context of seafarers? With the vast majority of the merchant fleet not flagged with GB owners, the problem—including on the ferries and so on that are working out of British ports for more than 120 days a year—is that there is a relatively small number of UK-based seafarers, perhaps fewer than 21, among the complement of a crew. The Government have set that arbitrary figure, and I can understand what the Minister is saying in relation to small businesses more generally on terra firma, but I think a bit of flexibility needs to be applied in the maritime setting. While I am on my feet—forgive me, Mr Stringer; I do not want to interrupt again—we are seeking assurances in relation to that threshold and the fines that were being applied. If the Minister is unable to give that assurance within the context of these statutory instruments, could we could press for a meeting with the Minister so that we can explore the options that might be available?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is a huge issue that should concern everyone. I believe there is cross-party consensus on the issue of health inequalities and huge variation in access depending on which part of the country people live in. That is an absolutely valid point. We know the international consensus is that around half of all cancer patients have an evidence-based indication for radiotherapy at some point in their treatment. We should be aware that here in the United Kingdom in 2021, the last date for which figures were available, only 35% of cancer patients received it as part of their primary treatment.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head—that is perfectly put. I believe there is cross-party consensus that this is the way forward. Over the last 16 years that I have been a Member, along with the hon. Gentleman, I have presented the case to a whole succession of Ministers from various parties, all of whom seemed to be in agreement. We definitely have an opportunity to restore what was once a world-class cancer service and get us back to where the international benchmarks say that we should be. As I am sure Members are aware, responsibility for commissioning radiotherapies was devolved to the integrated care boards. I can understand the logic of moving commissioning closer to local populations. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who tabled the new clause, and I do not seek to undo that. However, we wish to stress to the House that radiotherapy is not an ordinary local service, and it should not be considered as one. It is delivered from a very limited number of highly specialised centres dependent on capital equipment with long replacement cycles. It relies on a small, highly skilled workforce of about 6,000 people, all of whom take years to train, all the while relying on physical infrastructure that cannot be commissioned at short notice. Patients routinely cross integrated care board boundaries to reach these specialist centres. Many boards, entirely understandably, do not have dedicated radiotherapy expertise in house. In August 2023, 70% of integrated care boards had no named person responsible for ensuring sufficient radiotherapy treatment capacity at all. I am willing to work with Ministers to seek a resolution with the solutions that we propose.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Health Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am speaking today in support of new clauses 113 and 114, which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and to which I have added my name. I say at the outset that I am in full support of this Government’s ambitions on cancer. I welcome the recent investment in radiotherapy equipment, and I sincerely want the national cancer plan, which was published in February, to succeed. But I speak as someone who worked in the health service, who is a cancer survivor and who has taken a particular interest in this issue, not least as vice chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy. It is in that capacity, and as a supporter of what the Government are trying to achieve, that I respectfully ask Ministers to accept one or both of these new clauses. By way of brief explanation, new clause 113 requires the Secretary of State to publish and maintain a national framework of agreed metrics for radiotherapy, requires integrated care boards to report annually against those targets and requires a report to this House once a year. New clause 114 asks very straightforwardly for a single review of access to radiotherapy and radiotherapy waiting times to be laid before Parliament within six months.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the protection of prison officers, is it not correct that the last coalition Government got rid of almost 25% of prison officers? Every year I ask a question about how many prison officers have left the service, and each year the number increases. We have collectively lost 100,000 years of jailcraft through experienced prison officers leaving the service. This is a key issue that needs to be addressed if we are to tackle violence against prisoners and staff.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I agree with her analysis so far. The key point is that we must take some steps and have some initiatives to reduce prison violence. I am sure the Minister is aware that in the last Session I introduced a private Member’s Bill, the Prisons (Violence) Bill, to place a duty on all prison management to minimise violence against prisoners and staff. One way we could do that is with key performance indicators, with specific targets for reducing assaults. Prison governors would then have an incentive to take action, to reduce the number of assaults and to halt the loss of experienced prison staff. It is worthy of further consideration. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a potential solution?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Disclosure and Safeguarding: At-risk Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my good and hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) from the Petitions Committee for the way in which he introduced this important debate. I also pay tribute to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), my neighbour, for her work in leading this campaign. I wish to register my support for the creation of Maya’s law. I do not propose to repeat the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central made in his opening remarks, but we hope for a favourable response from the Minister on the four specific asks that he set out. Maya was living in my constituency. She was just two years old. She was living in Shotton Colliery when her life was cut short. Her death was not the result of a single unforeseeable act, but the consequence of sustained abuse. During that time there were warning signs. Concerns were raised by her father and by other family members. Questions were asked, but unfortunately the safeguarding systems that are meant to protect our most vulnerable children failed to act. Time and again, serious case reviews into child deaths tell the same story. Information exists, but it is not shared. Risks have been identified, but not escalated. Agencies are involved, but they do not always communicate or co-operate as they should. In fact, in over 50% of serious case reviews, communication failures are cited as a primary cause. As a result, children can and do fall through the gaps between the very services that are designed to keep them safe. Maya’s law seeks to close those gaps and to move us away from a system that too often is reactive to harm and towards one that works to prevent harm. That means ensuring that information about potential risks to children is not only gathered but shared promptly between the professionals who need it, and as was stated earlier, shared with family members who raise those concerns too, so that there is a positive feedback loop and they know that the concerns they have raised have been acted upon and are not being filed away. The proposed child risk disclosure scheme would build on existing frameworks, such as those that allow disclosures in cases of domestic abuse or known sexual offending, but it would go further. It would recognise that the danger to children does not always come from individuals who have previous convictions. Risks can arise in many forms and are often hidden in plain sight. By enabling professionals and, where appropriate, concerned family members to access and act on relevant information, Maya’s law would provide an additional layer of protection, one that is rooted in prevention and not simply in reaction. We must also address the issue of thresholds. Too often, intervention comes only when a risk has reached a critical or even catastrophic level. Maya’s law asks us to consider whether we are waiting too long and require too much certainty before we act to protect a child. I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised many of these challenges and that they are being addressed in legislation such as the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Such legislation will strengthen information sharing and hopefully improve multi-agency working. Those steps are important and welcome, but I believe that we must go further and be prepared to take every action necessary to better protect children. Maya’s law is not just a technical change; it represents a shift in approach and a recognition that safeguarding must be proactive, not reactive or passive. That responsibility must be shared, not siloed, and when concerns are raised about a child they must be taken seriously and acted upon, with clear legal duties for professionals to act on any sign of harm. Of course, we must strike the right balance. Sharing sensitive information is not something to be done lightly, but where there is a credible risk to a child’s safety, we should be clear that protecting that child must always come first and be the priority. Children like Maya cannot advocate for themselves in the way that adults can; they rely entirely on the oversight, judgment and co-operation of the adults and institutions around them. When that system fails, the consequences are devastating. Sadly, Maya’s story is not an isolated case, as other Members have identified. It reflects other tragedies that we have seen in recent years, each one raising the same question: could it have been prevented? Supporting Maya’s law means learning those lessons and, more importantly, acting on them. It means building a safeguarding system that is not only responsive but preventive. Above all, it means ensuring that when warning signs appear—as they often do, and as they did in this case—we act, so that we are never again left asking why more was not done. I will finish by paying tribute, as many Members have, to Maya’s family and in particular her great-aunts, Gemma Chappell and Rachael Walls; I am so sorry for mixing them up earlier. They are a formidable double act, and we all admire their determination in campaigning to ensure that no other family has to endure such a loss. I am certain that this campaign will continue until Maya’s law is secure. I urge the Minister to work with colleagues across this House—this is not a party political issue, because we all agree about what needs to be done—to ensure that a child risk disclosure scheme becomes a reality at the earliest opportunity.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Prison Officers: Mandatory Body Armour · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to follow the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) on securing the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), I declare my membership of the justice unions parliamentary group, which hears quite regularly from the Prison Officers Association. My region, the north-east, has seven prisons, and I have regular contact with prison officers and their representatives. I have visited all seven prisons in recent years and have heard at first hand the problems, challenges and dangers that prison officers face daily while they protect the public. I place on record my admiration for the professionalism and bravery of prison officers and prison educators in the face of extreme adversity. I pay tribute to all prison staff, who have to deal with often violent and dangerous criminals so that we do not have to. The horrific attacks on prison officers in the high-security estate—including HMP Frankland, which is near my constituency and in which quite a number of my constituents work—were shocking. They were a wake-up call for the Government and the Prison Service to take action, as the Prison Officers Association has long called for. I acknowledge the Minister’s active involvement and willingness to engage on this and other issues, and I welcome the roll-out of stab-proof vests across the high-security estate, but I question why it took such an appalling security failure for the Government to listen to the union properly. I hope that Ministers will not make the same mistake again by ignoring calls from frontline workers. It is not just the high-security estate; frontline officers more widely say that they need body armour. Prisons have become much more violent over the past decade or so. We must try to understand why prisons have become so dangerous. There is a degree of consensus on the issue across the Chamber, but we must not forget that the austerity cuts saw a quarter of prison officers leave the service. That triggered a vicious circle of violence and collapsing experience. As prison officer experience goes down, violence goes up; as violence goes up, more officers leave and experience falls still further. It is a vicious circle. Prison officer experience really matters, as I am sure the Minister understands. I know it is a bit predictable, but every year I table a question about the current cumulative experience of frontline prison officers. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth, my good friend, referred to the latest figures for 2025, which show that more than 116,000 years of cumulative prison officer experience have been lost since 2010. That is an awful lot of prison officer experience. Jailcraft is not something that can be learned in a book or from a training video; it comes with the experience of years served in the Prison Service. It has drained away from our system because of the political choices of the previous Government. This is a complex problem, and there is no single solution. Body armour is part of it, but it is not just about safety equipment. The recent announcement of a 3.5% pay increase for prison officers, while MPs receive 5%, has caused some upset and has been derided by the Prison Officers Association in the face of the ongoing cost of living crisis that its members face. It will take serious investment—a full return of the many millions taken from the Prison Service as a result of austerity, and then more—to bring violence down to its previous level. Prison officers who bear the brunt of this violence must be properly protected. The bottom line is that if the Prison Officers Association says that its members need stab-proof vests in prisons, who are we to say that they do not? I understand that the union wants slash-proof utility vests, which the right hon. Member for Tatton mentioned, for officers in other prisons, such as open prisons and the female estate, so they do not need to carry such heavy equipment on their belts, which causes discomfort, health issues and even injuries, as we have heard. I urge the Minister to listen to frontline prison staff on this issue too. Proper personal protective equipment is not enough by itself; tackling prison violence will take a multitude of actions. We need a broad-spectrum antibiotic—there is no magic bullet. It is easy to criticise, but in the previous Parliament I introduced my Prisons (Violence) Bill, which sought to establish a duty on prison management, in public and privately run prisons, to take all reasonable steps to minimise violence in prisons. We do not have time to go into it now, but in brief, my Bill proposed setting targets for staffing levels, staff retention, experience and so on, as well as for reducing assaults against staff and prisoners, and then penalising bosses if the targets were not reached. The proceeds from any financial penalties would be used to fund extra therapies and treatments for staff assaulted at work, and targeted pay awards to encourage retention in failing prisons. Of course, it is no surprise that my Bill did not make any progress under the previous Government, but I hope that the Minister will consider some of the ideas I raised with an open mind and engage with the logic behind them. More importantly, I hope that the Minister will take seriously—I know he will—the concerns of his own frontline staff, and listen to his workers when they say they need better protection now. Prison officers protect us, the public, every day of their working lives. It is up to us, in Parliament, to make sure they are properly protected in return.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As Members across the House will be well aware from their own constituency caseloads, the performance of Capita in administering the civil service pension scheme has been disastrous. May we have a debate in Government time on the decision to award Capita the Synergy contract for shared services across Government Departments, which is worth up to £950 million—notwithstanding Labour’s manifesto commitment to bring about the biggest wave of insourcing for a generation? With respect, could I prevail on the Leader of the House to ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to meet urgently with the Public and Commercial Services Union, whose members are worried that they will face similar delays in receiving their own salaries and will find themselves unable to pay their rent, mortgages and other bills?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this debate. As we have heard, oil and gas are likely to remain part of our energy mix for years to come, but recent global instability underscores a fundamental point: true energy security comes from reliable domestic and renewable sources, not from continued exposure to volatile international fossil fuel markets. Even if production were to increase, it would not shield the UK from global price fluctuations. Oil and gas extracted from the North sea is sold on international markets at global prices. While that may increase profits for fossil fuel companies—no doubt welcomed by the Opposition—it does little to reduce bills for our constituents. Moreover, new licences do not translate into immediate supply, and it can take many years, often well over a decade, from licensing to production. In reality, UK oil and gas production represents only a small share of the global market, and even a significant increase in output would not meaningfully influence global prices or reduce domestic energy bills. Private companies operating in the North sea are under no obligation to prioritise UK consumers—the Norwegian example is interesting—so I return to the central question of how additional North sea production will reduce bills today. The only way that could plausibly happen would be through significant market interventions, such as restricting exports or imposing below-market price caps on domestically produced energy. Some Labour Members may agree with that, but I am not sure Opposition Members would. Such measures would represent a profound shift in policy, so if that is what the Opposition are proposing, they should be clear about it. If not, they should be honest with the public: expanding North sea oil extraction is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on energy bills in the short, medium, or even long term. There is, however, an alternative that is not tied to global fossil fuel markets: renewable energy. I will take solar power as an example, but geothermal energy also has great potential. I recognise the criticism raised about the use of critical minerals, including in the remarks by the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), as well as concerns about reliance on the supply chain in China and labour standards in global supply chains. Those are legitimate issues, but there is also a significant opportunity for domestic innovation and manufacturing. In my constituency, Power Roll is pioneering the next generation of solar technology. Its lightweight, flexible solar films use microgroove structures, and it does not rely on rare earth minerals. It has the potential for low-cost, scalable production here in the United Kingdom. The Government have already engaged with this technology, but it is now time to go further and support commercialisation, scale up production and invest in the infrastructure needed to bring British-made solar to market at scale. By diversifying our energy mix and reducing reliance on volatile international fossil fuel markets, we can strengthen energy security and reduce exposure to external shocks. I say to the Government that this is the time to back British business, back innovation, and back domestic manufacturing, because that is how we will deliver energy security, economic growth, jobs—

• 16 Mar 2026 · Royal Fleet Auxiliary: Merchant Seafarers · Hansard source

  More

  20. What steps he is taking to improve recruitment and retention of merchant seafarers in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Royal Fleet Auxiliary: Merchant Seafarers · Hansard source

  More

  I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), but I acknowledge that the Government have made substantial progress in addressing the ingrained recruitment and retention crisis they inherited affecting the Royal Fleet Auxiliary—the Royal Navy support ships. However, having resolved the previous pay dispute, the RFA’s overworked and underpaid seafarers have had to wait seven months before receiving a formal pay offer from their employer. I appreciate that the Secretary of State and his Ministers share the RFA trade unions’ commitment to a positive future for the RFA’s civilian crews, which is encouraging, but what reassurances can the Minister provide to the seafarers whom we rely on?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Access to Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  I applaud the ambitions in the cancer plan, but my question was about improving access to advanced therapeutic radiotherapy. Almost half the cancer centres in more urban areas in England have experienced a staff recruitment freeze, and the figure rises to 60% in more rural and deprived areas such as mine in east Durham. What steps is the Minister taking to end such recruitment freezes and ensure that cancer patients, irrespective of where they live, have access to the lifesaving care that they require?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Access to Radiotherapy · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps his Department is taking to tackle inequalities in access to radiotherapy treatment services for cancer patients.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rail Transport and Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  My east Durham constituency has long suffered from poor rail connectivity, which limits access to job, education and training opportunities, yet published evidence from the Rail Delivery Group and Oxford Economics shows that increasing rail frequency and capacity can boost productivity and attract investment. I welcome the Government’s commitment to an integrated national transport strategy and to driving regional growth, but will Ministers please do all they can to encourage Northern to improve the frequency of rail services in my east Durham constituency?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rail Transport and Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps she is taking to help ensure that the rail transport system supports economic growth.

• 2 Feb 2026 · High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in what I believe is a really important debate. I am delighted to support the Government’s motions, as we continue to invest in and transform our rail network after decades of hollow promises and mismanagement under the Conservatives. The Bill will allow the Government the powers necessary to deliver on Northern Powerhouse Rail, therefore supporting our economy, creating better jobs, delivering new and much-needed opportunities right across the north-west of England. As a frequent user of rail services in the north of England, it is important to me and my constituents that the Government continue to focus on building capacity, reliability and resilience on one of the busiest rail corridors in the country. The importance of our rail network and infrastructure cannot be overstated. Indeed, its success will have a direct impact on economic growth and productivity. I take the point about the need for or desirability of cross-party consensus, particularly when looking at such large infrastructure projects. On 14 January, the Government announced that Northern Powerhouse Rail represented the biggest investment in rail connectivity in the north for a generation—some £45 billion. More generally, I am pleased that the Government are looking at the three-phase approach. Its sequencing will ensure that our communities benefit as soon as possible. I note that in phase 1—beyond the scope of the Committee—in my own region in the north-east, work on the business case for the Leamside line is to be taken forward. This is a vital project for connectivity, creating new transport links and promoting wider access to the wider regional and national rail network. I also welcome the proposed upgrades to the lines east of the Pennines, focusing on electrification, an issue that was of great interest and importance during my time as a member of the Transport Committee. I am pleased by the Government’s overall scale of ambition and real focus on regional rail services. The Bill represents an opportunity for new rail investment and infrastructure, delivering new stations and routes as well as major regeneration projects, leveraging private sector investment and creating better links across the north-west—not only north-south, but east-west. After many years of raised hopes, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State assure the House that the Bill is the most effective means of delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail without any unnecessary delay? This is just a thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have been here a little while now and I have served on a number of Joint Committees, mostly pre-legislative Committees, with Members of the House of Lords. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised valid concerns about representations from the National Farmers Union and others in respect of the route. However, my experience, having served for a number of years on the previous Bill Committee, is that a hybrid Bill Committee, which this Parliament has adopted not just for HS2 but previously, is a very, very onerous and time-consuming method. It makes vast fortunes for the bureaucracy, the lawyers and the lobbyists. Then the whole process has to be repeated in the House of Lords. I just wonder—it is beyond my pay grade, Madam Deputy Speaker—whether someone further up the tree might give that some thought. A couple of years ago, Members of the Transport Committee had the opportunity to go to Japan for five days. We saw the Shinkansen, the high-speed bullet train. The Bill for that was passed in the Japanese Parliament, the National Diet, in 1959, and was constructed by 1964, in time for the Tokyo Olympics. We cannot say that Japan is not a democracy, or that the country does not have problems of topography, earthquakes and so on, because it is and it does. There is a method that does not take 10 or 15 years. We are approaching a period of transformational change in public transport, on the railways in particular. Increased capacity and an improved role for freight in taking heavy goods vehicles off our road network is really important. I fully support today’s motions to carry the Bill beyond the end of this parliamentary Session and to establish the Bill’s Select Committee, so we can get Northern Powerhouse Rail charging full steam ahead.