Grahame Morris MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 1 Apr 2025 · Rail Services: East Durham Coastline · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered rail services on the east Durham coastline. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Some hon. Members might be expecting me to start with an April fool’s joke, but after hearing about the state of rail services in my constituency, they will agree that no joke or exaggeration could be more ridiculous than the reality that my constituents face every day. The service is characterised by delays, no-notice cancellations and dangerously overcrowded trains, particularly during peak periods, which all too often leave passengers stranded on the platform. In London, where the next service may arrive in a matter of minutes, that might not be an issue, but at Seaham and Horden, one cancelled service means at least an hour’s wait. Rail links should promote connectivity, providing opportunities to access education and employment. However, Northern’s failing services mean that my constituents cannot depend on transport links to maintain their employment.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Rail Services: East Durham Coastline · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Rail Services: East Durham Coastline · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for seriously addressing the issues that I raised, and I hope that he will address my other two principal suggestions. It is all very well talking about resilience, but people’s travel plans are formed by their experience. We are trying to grow the railway and the local economy, but when individuals go to the railway stations at Seaham or Horden with their families to go shopping in Newcastle or Middlesbrough and they cannot get on the train, that experience colours their judgment. The next time, instead of standing there in the rain for an hour, they will choose an alternative method; they will take the X10 or find some other means of getting there. We really need to up our game and provide frequent and regular services from these stations.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Rail Services: East Durham Coastline · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend’s point is well made. I completely agree: the problem affects not just my Easington constituency, but Hartlepool, Billingham and the Tees valley. Not only does it undermine local opportunities, but it damages our local economy and takes wages out of our community as people are forced to move closer to work or to areas with more dependable transport links. The community welcomed the reopening of Horden station in June 2020, after a prolonged battle to secure much-needed transport investment, but it was meant to unlock economic opportunities in Middlesbrough, Sunderland and Newcastle. Instead, its unreliability and the lack of additional services have only worsened the pre-existing problems further down the line at Seaham. As a frequent passenger myself, I experience the chaos caused by cancellations and insufficient capacity. My constituents and I simply cannot depend on Northern with its cancellations, delays and dangerous overcrowding, particularly when there are only two carriages at peak times.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Rail Services: East Durham Coastline · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I welcome the Government’s recent decision to publish train cancellation and delay data, including monthly figures on the worst-performing stations, via the Office of Rail and Road. Holding operators to account is essential if we want things to improve, but the data does not capture the passengers who are left on the platform. Whether it occurs through cancellation or through dangerous overcrowding, the outcome is the same: passengers scramble to find last-minute alternative means of travel. In the past 12 months, 6% of trains were cancelled at Seaham and Horden, including at least one train every day on average, and only two thirds have run to time. With one train per hour, the cancellations and delays have huge impacts. Northern’s performance is erratic. In September last year, there were 38 cancellations on the route. By October, the number had skyrocketed to 186, which is almost five times as many. By the end of 2024, the situation had further deteriorated, leaving residents with no reliable means of reaching work, school, health appointments or other vital appointments by train. Northern attributed that partially to staff sickness, with driver absences at 17.6% and conductor absences at 16.9%, but questions need to be asked about what is driving such high levels of sickness. I have met the chief exec and senior officers on several occasions. Their proposed solution of relying on rest-day working is simply not sustainable, and I fear that it will increase staff sickness over the long term. This is a safety-critical industry. We need to ensure that staff are safely rested, not under pressure to work at unsustainable levels. The industry should not be running on voluntary overtime; it must employ enough staff to ensure resilience in the system. A long-standing issue on the route is the lack of rolling stock. Until 2019, believe it or not, we were still served by the old Pacer trains from the 1970s. We now have second-hand ScotRail class 158s and 156s, which have been refurbished. In the north-east, we are more than willing to accept repurposed rolling stock, but only if the service is regular and reliable and if it meets our transport needs. Another long-standing point of contention is the fact that Northern runs only two carriages, instead of four, during peak periods. The lack of carriages is not just inconvenient; it is a health and safety concern. In previous debates, I have raised the case of a young boy who fell unconscious on an overcrowded train. I cannot imagine the terror of someone watching their child going limp, with their eyes rolling back, and then collapsing, with no escape from an overcrowded carriage. Overcrowding is still a concern. I happen to be a Sunderland supporter, but when Newcastle are playing, scores of people are left on the platform at Horden and Seaham because the once-an-hour two-carriage train is already crammed with people who got on at Stockton, Billingham and Hartlepool. My constituents are left feeling angry and frustrated. The issue has been raised repeatedly since I became an MP in 2010, but very little has changed. I therefore welcome the new Government’s commitment to the creation of Great British Railways, because we cannot promote economic growth with failing public transport. We can get our broken railway system finally back on track by ending decades of waste and starting to restore public trust, but there is a lot more to be done. Northern Rail returned to public ownership in 2020, after the previous franchise had taken millions of pounds in dividends in return for substandard services. There may no longer be dividends rewarding failure, but the service remains substandard. I thank the Rail Minister for meeting me and other colleagues recently to discuss the Government’s plan, which is fantastic, to procure 450 new trains for Northern. That is a very welcome step, but will the Minister confirm how many of those trains will be allocated to the east Durham coastline? Given the isolation that my constituents feel because of unreliable transport, will he prioritise east Durham for the delivery of newly procured trains? The long-term investment in new rolling stock is essential and fantastic, but its impact will not be felt until at least 2030. Like many people, I believe that we need some interim solutions. In the time remaining, I will outline them, because I have been told time and again—not just by this Government, but by the previous one—to bring solutions as well as problems. First, Grand Central, the open access operator, has submitted two applications to the Office of Rail and Road. One application seeks to extend its track access agreement beyond 2027, but the other proposes more services, including a new stop at Seaham station, which the current Grand Central service runs through without stopping. That would not only provide additional capacity to Sunderland and Hartlepool, where services are severely overcrowded, but create the first direct link from my constituency to York and London. As the Grand Central service already passes through Seaham, adding a stop would extend the journey by only a few minutes. The benefits of that additional Seaham stop cannot be overstated. Grand Central is still awaiting a decision, so I ask the Minister kindly to provide an update from the ORR. I understand that the Government might be reluctant to expand contracts for open access operators, given the move towards public ownership and concerns about loss of revenue. To my constituents, however, Northern and Grand Central are not running in competition; they are simply providers of rail services that are desperately needed in my constituency. My second suggestion is that we increase Northern services from east Durham to Middlesbrough and Newcastle. I was pleased to receive a positive response to my written question on the matter. The ministerial response confirmed that the Rail North Partnership, on behalf of the Department for Transport and Transport for the North, is examining a business case for increasing services at Horden and Seaham by December 2025. It also said: “The analysis must balance the economic and social benefits of this enhancement with the performance of existing services and the financial impact on taxpayer subsidy.” I gently remind the Minister that the economic and social benefits of this enhancement to my constituents must not be underestimated. We have very low car ownership in east Durham. For those without access to cars, it is incredibly difficult to get to Newcastle, Sunderland or Middlesbrough without spending hours on buses. People turn down jobs and college places because they simply have no reliable way of getting to them. That is a major barrier to economic growth. A small but significant improvement would be to amend the timetable of the semi-fast Northern service between Middlesbrough and Newcastle. Since 2023, that two-hourly service, which is often a four-carriage train, has skipped Seaham and Horden despite high demand. The time saved by bypassing those two stations is between four to six minutes, but adding those stops would provide immediate relief to my constituents, with an additional train every two hours. All three of those solutions—Grand Central’s additional stop, increasing Northern services, and minor timetable adjustments—are needed while we await the arrival of new rolling stock beyond 2030. If we are serious about local growth in east Durham, people must be able to travel out of their towns and villages to work, study and access local amenities—pubs, restaurants, cafés, medical facilities and shops. I wrote to the Secretary of State in January and February outlining these issues, and I would welcome the opportunity to meet Ministers to discuss them further. The people of east Durham have waited far too long for a reliable rail service. They have endured overcrowding, cancellations and an outdated network that fails to meet their needs, and while I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to procuring new trains and increasing services, some short-term action is also required. Reliable transport is not a luxury; it is a necessity for jobs, education and economic growth. I urge the Minister to prioritise east Durham and to work with me and other colleagues to ensure that Seaham and Horden finally get the rail service they deserve.

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 28 Mar 2025 · Water Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on making an excellent speech and on advocating for public ownership of water and the opportunity to make things better. Does he agree that the mismanagement of the water companies under privatisation is a huge indictment of the whole principle? In my area, bills are way above inflation and huge dividends are being paid by borrowing money. At the very least, should our Government not be looking at stopping the payment of bonuses and share dividends while sewage pollution continues, and we have appalling mismanagement of the industry?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Prevention of Drug Deaths · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my good and honourable friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), on securing this really important debate. Not for the first time, I find myself agreeing with what he said. Drug deaths are at a record high. They are mainly from opioids, but deaths from cocaine have risen by almost a third. As the hon. Gentleman said, synthetic opioids such as Fentanyl and the nitazenes present an increasing and alarming threat, which has not been properly quantified. We have seen the growth in the number of deaths across the Atlantic, and I suspect the problem is much bigger here than we think. There is no doubt that this is a public health crisis. Sadly, the north-east of England has the highest rate of drug deaths in England—three times higher than London. In the latest stats, released in October 2024, the north-east recorded 174 deaths per million, compared with an England average of 90. Too often, in the communities I represent, I have seen people turn to drugs because of deprivation and despair. Once addiction takes hold, it often leads to crime. It is no coincidence that drug deaths are highest in the areas of greatest deprivation. The data is clear: communities struggling with poverty and inequality are those hit hardest by addiction. This is not a new problem—certainly, it is complex—but it is being exacerbated by disinvestment in harm reduction and drug treatment programmes. If we are serious about tackling this problem, we need to do something different. To some, a tougher crackdown may seem the obvious response, but we have more than 50 years of evidence showing that punitive drug policies do not work. The war on drugs has failed, not just in the UK but globally. We cannot simply arrest our way out of this crisis. That is why today I want to offer a different perspective, which moves beyond outdated, one-size-fits-all approaches. Abstinence-based recovery is one path, but it is not the only one. If we truly want to reduce drug deaths and support recovery, we must reduce harm, reduce stigma and invest in treatment provision, with protected, ringfenced and sustained long-term funding. That funding could support solutions such as opioid substitution treatment, which saves an estimated 1,000 lives annually; medically supervised overdose prevention centres, like the Thistle safer consumption facility in Glasgow; heroin-assisted treatment; and increased availability of drug testing. Those measures are crucial in addressing the current crisis and saving lives. As chair of the drugs, alcohol and justice all-party parliamentary group—supported by treatment providers Via, Waythrough and WithYou—I recently had the honour of chairing a meeting at which Professor Sir Michael Marmot, the leading expert in health inequalities, laid out the stark reality. He told us: “Social injustice is killing on a grand scale.” He made it clear that areas of the greatest deprivation suffered the deepest cuts during austerity, exacerbating addiction and its consequences. I encourage the Minister and all Ministers to consider how we as a nation can adopt the Marmot principles—principles that foster a fairer, more equitable society in which everyone is given the best possible start in life and we work to prevent “deaths of despair”. I am conscious of the time, but I want to mention a dear friend of mine who is no longer with us—the late Ron Hogg, who was the police and crime commissioner in Durham. He was a true pioneer of drug policy reform. He was bold, compassionate and unafraid to challenge the status quo. He introduced heroin-assisted treatment and diversion schemes at a time when they were far from popular, but popularity was not his goal. He was seeking to reduce harm, save lives and ease the burden on our criminal justice system. The evidence is clear: investment in treatment works; harm reduction saves lives; and tackling stigma is essential. We must stop seeing addiction solely as a criminal justice issue and instead treat it as a public health emergency.

• 27 Mar 2025 · Prevention of Drug Deaths · Hansard source

  More

  That is the status quo, but should we not be challenging that and looking at the evidence from, for example, prisons? One might assume that someone who is incarcerated due to crimes resulting from drug addiction would receive treatment in prison and rehabilitated, but in practice they are actually worse when they come out, and Buvidal, a long-lasting drug that could be very effective, is not readily available. Does the shadow Minister have any views on that?

• 27 Mar 2025 · Prevention of Drug Deaths · Hansard source

  More

  I am very pleased with the Minister’s response. I appreciate that she has an awful lot on her plate, with cancer services and piloting a Bill through the House of Commons yesterday, but, given that we are looking at evaluating the evidence on what works best, will she agree to meet me and a small group of representatives from the treatment providers, so that they can explain in person what they think is the most effective way to tackle this issue?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Council Tax Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Reforming council tax is an enormous problem and I do not underestimate the scale of the task, but does the Minister recognise that council tax is even more regressive than the poll tax it replaced? The system particularly affects my constituency, Hartlepool and the north-east, and other regions as well, where people are paying a premium for living in the poorest communities with the fewest services and facilities. Does he accept that council tax is widening inequalities in our country?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Council Tax Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend and neighbour makes some excellent points about the unfairness of the council tax system. My view is that it cannot be tinkered with and it is fundamentally flawed. For my constituents and my hon. Friend’s, it is nothing less than a regressive property tax. In Blackhall in my constituency, someone living in a modest band A home worth £35,000 pays almost the same in council tax as a band H property in Belgravia worth many millions of pounds. That is indefensible. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are serious about tackling growth and improving living standards in constituencies such as mine and his, we need radical reform?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Open Access Railway Services · Hansard source

  More

  Open access operator Grand Central already runs five services daily from Sunderland to London King’s Cross through my constituency, but unfortunately they currently do not stop. My constituents have endured years of poor rail services from Northern Rail, with just one overcrowded two-carriage train an hour, which is often cancelled or delayed. While I welcome this Government’s investment in 450 new trains for Northern Rail, we need some immediate solutions. Will the Minister urge the ORR to approve the application from Grand Central to allow these trains to stop at stations in my Easington constituency?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is kind and generous, and I thank him for that, but this is not about me; it is about the communities we represent. We have to give credit that, at the recent Budget, the Chancellor righted the wrong on miners’ pensions and the MPS and delivered on Labour’s manifesto commitment on the mineworkers pension scheme surplus. The decision to transfer the MPS investment reserve fund was a moral obligation, and it resulted in an economic boost. In my constituency, the decision is injecting £5.6 million into the local economy every year through increased pension payments to the 3,755 MPS members—retired miners and widows—in east Durham. That money is now being spent in our high streets, local shops, cafés and pubs, boosting the economy, creating jobs and supporting growth. However, this pension justice issue is only partially settled. There is a similar issue with the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, which has 40,000 beneficiaries who are former British Coal staff and their widows. Since 1994, the Government have taken out £3.1 billion from that scheme, without contributing a penny. I say with all respect to the Minister, and specifically to the Treasury, that it is time to release the £2.3 billion BCSSS investment reserve, so that all former mining staff can receive a pension uplift. Time is of the essence. Thousands of retired miners have already died, with 2,000 in the BCSSS passing away each year, including many women who were among the lowest-paid workers in the coal industry, having worked in pit canteens like my mother, or in administration and auxiliary roles. When we say numbers, they are meaningless, perhaps, to civil servants and ministerial advisers, but I know these men and women. They are men like Eamon Kavanagh, now in his 80s, who was an absolute stalwart, not just of Murton colliery, but the Seaham collieries; Bill Waites, who was a good friend of my late father; and my dear mother, who is 88. Time is of the essence to settle this issue. It is about fairness, pension justice and putting money back into communities that powered an industrial revolution that made Britain great, fuelled economic growth, and were the foundations on which our nation’s wealth was built. On a positive note, we are moving from coal to clean energy. We can lead the green industrial revolution. The closure of the coalmines marked the end of an era, but just as we powered the last industrial revolution, it is now time for our communities to lead the next one, as we transition to a clean and green economy. Indeed, in east Durham, we have already been laying the foundations for this future. Mine water heat, an innovative low- carbon energy solution, is being developed in Seaham and Horden. If properly supported, it could provide sufficient heat for all properties in the UK’s coalfield areas, offering a sustainable and affordable alternative to traditional energy. Then there is Power Roll, a start-up based on the Jade enterprise park in Murton that is pioneering lightweight, flexible solar technology that does not rely on rare earth metals. This is British innovation at its finest, ready for reinvestment to scale up production in a gigafactory. With the right support, we can create new green-collar jobs. We have heard about white collar and blue collar; let us have green-collar jobs and position the UK as a global leader in renewable technology.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this important debate on coalfield communities. It is very oversubscribed, and I wish we had more time. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, the Industrial Communities Alliance, Coalfields Regeneration Trust, and the House of Commons Library for the useful briefing paper it produced. I also thank my fellow coalfield MPs for their sterling work on behalf of their constituents. Our mining communities not only have a proud past, but with the right leadership and investment we have an exciting future. After 14 years of Conservative Government, coalfield communities have been left grappling with relentless austerity and a rigged levelling-up agenda, which in practice meant that resources never reached the places in my community that needed them most. Today, I want to talk not only about the challenges that our communities face, but the potential within them to drive economic growth, attract investment and create jobs that can transform lives and revitalise local economies. Some 30 years after the pit closures, the talent, resilience and ambition of our coalfield communities remains undiminished. It is not just about righting the wrongs of the past, but harnessing the energy in the community to build a stronger, greener and more prosperous economy. I must say something about the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. To their credit, my Government—this Labour Government—have already demonstrated their commitment to coalfield communities. For too long, successive Governments have denied pension justice to retired miners and their widows. Money that should have been providing security in retirement was instead filling the Treasury’s coffers.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I must take issue with that. I served a number of years on Easington district council, and we were twinned with a similar mining area in North Rhine- Westphalia in Germany. When the Carl Alexander mine near Baesweiler closed, the local authority and the miners were given two years’ notice, grants were made available through the federal, local and national Government to retain the miners, and new industrial estates were built. It is interesting to compare that with what happened when our pits closed in Easington, Murton, South Hetton, Horden and Blackhall—we found out on the Friday that the pit was closing on the Monday, and thousands of men lost their jobs.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Coalfield Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on the BCSSS. Before he moves off the issue of funding for growth, a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart), raised the issues of fair funding and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust’s model for community wealth building. It is seeking a relatively modest £500 million in capital investment spread over five years, which it believes could create half a million square feet of new industrial space. Is the Minister minded to look at that proposal favourably?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope the Leader of the House is, that we are currently undergoing a digital refresh of computer equipment and laptops here in the House of Commons. I was rather disturbed to learn that the equipment that is handed in is crushed and sent to landfill. Digital poverty is a multifaceted issue that impacts all aspects of life: for younger children, educational platforms cannot be accessed; job opportunities are harder to access, because 90% of jobs are only advertised online; and for older people, healthcare services and supporting information are all severely restricted without digital access. Therefore, may we have a debate on what we can do—not just as a Government, but this House, too—to increase access to the internet and the digital services that are essential to lifting people out of poverty?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Gambling Harms · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. One death is one too many. However, 22.5 million people in this country gamble and enjoy betting safely without any problems, and there are 42,000 employed in betting shops on our hard-pressed high streets. Is it not important that we have regulation that is proportionate in the impact it has on this industry, which is so important to the United Kingdom?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source

  More

  I am interested in the hon. Member’s contention about value for money. Does he actually believe that the prison maintenance contract delivers value for money for the taxpayer?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I wish the Minister, Members and staff kung hei fat choi—happy Chinese new year. I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) on securing this important debate on outsourcing, and also on the excellent and unseen work he has done in the background for many years. Outsourcing has become deeply embedded in our public sector, yet it remains an inefficient and flawed model. Trade unions and MPs have repeatedly warned that it prioritises private profit over fair pay, secure jobs and quality services. My good and hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) gave some excellent examples of that in prison maintenance contracts. I encourage Members of Parliament to visit the prisons serving their areas, speak to the governors and look at the eye-watering sums that are being charged by private contractors for really quite simple jobs. It is not value for money by any measure. Colleagues have raised various concerns. In the two minutes I have got, I want to focus on two issues: the creation of a two-tier workforce and the failure to deliver value for money for taxpayers. From prisons to railways and Government Departments, outsourcing has become the norm, but for many workers this means low pay, insecure contracts and poor conditions, while private firms reap significant financial rewards at public expense. This cannot continue. In the case of the civil service, every worker deserves dignity, respect and fair treatment, yet this is far from the reality for outsourced staff. Despite working alongside Ministers and civil servants, they are denied company or departmental sick pay, decent pensions and access to civil service pay scales. These exploitative employment practices exist at the heart of Government, and I respectfully remind the Minister that, in her own Department, outsourced workers are being denied sick pay from day one. Beyond that, we need a complete overhaul of outsourcing in Government. At the very least, Government Departments must require private sector contractors to engage meaningfully with trade unions to ensure fair pay and conditions for all. Outsourcing companies are exploiting both the Government and the taxpayer. They inflate costs by charging excessive fees for contracts and extra services, while driving down wages and basic employment conditions to line the pockets of shareholders. It is a broken system. Finally, will the Minister provide a clear update on her plans to deliver the Government’s insourcing commitment? In the interim, will she intervene in the ongoing disputes within Government Departments, including her own, to ensure that all workers receive basic rights from day one? If we truly want to build a high-wage economy and drive real growth, we need to start by guaranteeing that Government workers have fair pay, decent conditions and job security. That means ending wasteful outsourcing and cutting out the worst offending firms, which undermine workers and taxpayers alike.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. My hon. Friend reinforces previous comments and interventions. He is absolutely correct. That arbitrary threshold is worse for individuals who live in relatively low wage economies such as my constituency and others. Within regions there are areas of low wages, too, as has been highlighted by other hon. Friends. The emotional toll of the policy on parents and children is immense, with long-term impacts on mental health and wellbeing. We must recognise the policy’s human cost. Families like Lindsay’s deserve better. Everyone has the right to a family life, whether they live in London or Easington in County Durham. It is unacceptable that regional and gender disparities in pay continue to determine whether families can live together. The policy was conceived as a desperate attempt by the previous Conservative Government to reduce immigration. However, experts and campaigners consistently argue that raising the threshold has had a minimal impact on net migration figures. What it does succeed in doing is tearing families apart and inflicting unnecessary suffering. When the MAC review is published, I urge the Minister to give full weight to the evidence of disproportionate harm caused by this policy, and to consider the voices of campaigners, charities and affected families, who have called for a compassionate approach to immigration policy. I politely remind her that this is a Tory legacy policy that can be reversed if there is the political will, so let us ensure that no family is left behind, and that our policies reflect fairness and respect the right to family life.

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I extend my thanks to the petitioners, those who have organised the petition, Reunite Families UK and the Petitions Committee for facilitating this very important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for opening it. I congratulate her on setting out the arguments and issues in a most comprehensive and understandable fashion. I want to highlight a particular case that affects my constituent, but first I want to say a few general words to supplement and complement the existing contributions, which have all been absolutely excellent. The sharp increase in the minimum income requirement for family visas is not an ill-judged policy; it is a cruel and discriminatory policy. It makes it painfully difficult for many British citizens to live and work in the UK with their foreign-born spouses, causing completely unnecessary emotional suffering and economic strain on families. Since the policy was last debated, a plethora of evidence has highlighted its disproportionate impact on women, single mothers and those working in relatively low-wage regional economies outside London. When the previous shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), raised concerns about the lack of justification for the dramatic minimum income requirement increase from £18,600 to £29,000, it became clear that the decision was not grounded in evidence, but seemed to be, in the words of my hon. Friend, “plucked out of thin air”. —[ Official Report, 23 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 237WH.]

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; he is absolutely correct. Although I am pleased and delighted that the Government have commissioned a Migration Advisory Committee review, which represents a step forward towards evidence-based policy making, the harm caused in the meantime cannot be ignored. The review is due in June, but in the interim thousands of families are still separated. The policy disproportionately affects many groups, including, as I have said, women and single parents—often mothers with caring responsibilities, particularly those outside London and the south-east, which is a particular concern. It affects regions where wages are low, such as in Wales and Scotland. In regions such as the north-east, where median annual earnings are £15,000 lower than those in London, many hard-working families simply cannot meet the £29,000 per annum threshold. These regional disparities exacerbate existing inequalities and penalise those who simply do not earn as much. The Migration Observatory’s 2023 research shows that 16% of British men working as employees do not earn enough to sponsor a spouse visa, but for women the figure skyrockets to 35%. That means that over a third of British women are currently ineligible to apply for a spousal visa should they need to do so. I have permission to share the story of my constituent Lindsay Thompson, who contacted me last year. She has been married to her husband Orlando for six years. He still lives in Jamaica owing to the Home Office policy. He did not meet their son until the little boy was two years old because of the pandemic and travel bans, compounded by their inability to meet the mandatory visa threshold. Lindsay is a dedicated mother. She works tirelessly to provide for her son. She has applied for and secured multiple promotions at work and now only just earns £29,000 a year. She must sustain that income for six months before being eligible to apply for a visa. She lives in constant fear that the Government will raise the threshold even further to the £38,700 proposed by the Conservative party.