Grahame Morris MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that being newly in post is difficult, but can I clarify something? The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), said that the changes were introduced in 1995—I believe under John Major—but the acceleration of the changes was in 2011-12, under the coalition Government. I think Steve Webb was the pensions Minister. My hon. Friend the Minister says that there was no financial loss, but there must be a financial loss for the women affected. We could argue whether that is justified. We certainly cannot argue that a majority in Parliament passed it. The women must have suffered a financial loss because of having to wait another six years before getting their pension.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for securing the debate, and thank his colleagues from the all-party group. Many of us believe that the treatment of the WASPI women is profoundly unjust. For over a decade I have stood with local campaigners in my constituency, at rallies and here in Parliament. The merits of their case remain undeniable, and their demand for justice is as compelling as ever. Does the Minister agree that, following the ombudsman’s recommendations, we must begin to address this injustice? When an injustice is identified, we surely have a duty to root it out and make it right. The Conservative party does not have a “get out of jail free” card on this issue. I was in this Chamber when 75 Members debated this issue—so many that some were sitting on the window ledges—and the DWP Minister, the then hon. Member for Hexham, suggested that women who could not make ends meet could take up apprenticeships and retrain. I do not know whether any Members here today were at that debate, but the Minister had to be escorted out of the Chamber by security and put in a service elevator for his own protection. Sadly, more than 300,000 WASPI women have died since the campaign began. Given that the ombudsman took the extremely rare step of instructing Parliament to act to ensure that the Government issue compensation and an apology, does the Minister not think it right to settle this injustice? Ministers in this place set the attitude and tone of public bodies. If it is acceptable for the Government to disregard ombudsman decisions on cost grounds, that sets a dangerous precedent. It tells other financially stretched public bodies to ignore any ombudsman recommendations with cost implications, irrespective of the merits and justice of the case.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. You can never have too many Morrises, Mr Speaker.To their credit, in their first Budget the Labour Government transferred the mineworkers’ pension scheme investment reserve fund, benefiting nearly 4,000 former miners and miners’ widows in my constituency. However, almost 700 British Coal staff superannuation scheme pensioners in my constituency were excluded. Will the Prime Minister correct that injustice and ensure that BCSSS beneficiaries—many of them are now elderly and in very poor health—are treated equally to their co-workers in the MPS?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Drones: High-security Prisons · Hansard source

  More

  The Prison Officers’ Association has been saying for the past five years that the threat of drones destabilises our prisons and poses a massive security risk. Let me draw the Minister’s attention to the anti-drone system at HMP Guernsey, which very effectively prevents that threat. Can we expect this new system to be implemented in all prisons in England and Wales?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. From 7 November to 7 December, Northern Rail cancelled 460 services across the Tyne, Tees and Wear region. An average of 20 services a day were either cancelled or short-formed during this period.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I know. Will the Secretary of State facilitate a meeting with the Rail Minister to put in place an urgent action plan and address the issues of staff shortages?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of my constituents, I want to thank the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, the Parliamentary Private Secretaries and the whole team for the excellent work that has been carried out to deliver justice on the mineworkers’ pensions. Can I urge them to act with alacrity in relation to the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, and may I invite the Minister to look at some of the energy pilots that are making use of mine water from abandoned mine workings?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Homeless Families: Relocation outside London · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The whole purpose of this debate is to draw attention to the fact that the actions of some—not all—local authorities are illegal and should be subject to some sanction. I hope we will hear a bit more about that from the Minister. Is it right that a young mother and her child can be threatened with homelessness if she refuses to uproot her life and leave the community where she was born and raised, where she grew up and where she has lived all her life? There was no consideration of her needs, the welfare of her child, their health or their need to maintain family and support networks.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Homeless Families: Relocation outside London · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. This is not care; it is coercion. Homelessness is an ever-present spectre of our time. According to a survey by the Big Issue , two thirds of private renters are worried about paying their rent and the potential adverse consequences for their housing situation. At a time of desperate need, people should be able to trust their local authority to provide advice and support, but what do they find? They find a system in which some families are being threatened, intimidated and pressured into making potentially life-changing decisions in a moment of profound vulnerability.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Homeless Families: Relocation outside London · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not suggesting that it is a problem that affects only Easington or County Durham; I am trying to highlight that it is an illegal practice. I hope to persuade the Minister that there should be redress and some sanction against local authorities that are breaking the law. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) said that the practice is immoral. It is certainly questionable, but it is also unlawful. In 2015, a Supreme Court judgment made it absolutely clear that local authorities “have a statutory duty to provide accommodation in their own area ‘so far as reasonably practicable’…The accommodation must be suitable to the needs of the homeless person and each member of the household, and the location can be relevant to its suitability…The obligation to secure accommodation as close as possible to where the household had previously been living was strengthened by Supplementary Guidance on the homelessness changes in the Localism Act 2011 and on the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 (‘the Supplementary Guidance’), including the need to seek to retain established links with schools, doctors, social workers and other key services and support.” How is it possible to retain established links to key services and support when a family is relocated to an unfamiliar location over 250 miles away? Section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 requires that where someone is relocated out of the area, councils must notify the receiving local authority. However, that is not happening. In response to my representations, my local authority, Durham county council, said: “We are aware of some households moving into County Durham with financial assistance from London Boroughs, largely discharging their homelessness duties into private rented tenancies. Placements tend to be in selective licensing areas through a small number of managing agents—notably Reloc8 Lettings and Capital Letters. In accordance with homelessness guidance, councils who make a referral to another local authority area should notify the receiving authority, but this is generally not happening in these cases, and our referral numbers remain low.” The issue is not unique to Durham County Council. There has been nearly a decade’s worth of press articles documenting cases of London boroughs—some London boroughs—breaking the law and secretly relocating families. I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for writing to council chief executives to remind them of their legal obligations, but I must be candid about this. I contend that council chief executives know their legal responsibilities and are choosing to break the law. What we need is enforcement and accountability. I ask the Minister directly: what practical steps will she take to end these unlawful practices? What sanctions will be imposed on councils that continue to intimidate families, disregard their legal obligations and fail to notify the receiving authorities? The families affected by these actions deserve better, and so do the communities being asked to bear the burden of a broken system. County Durham, like many areas, faces its own housing challenges, which were overlooked and ignored by the previous Government. Our council budgets are overstretched; we have limited means to raise revenues, owing to a low council tax base; and service demand, especially for social services and SEND provision, is overwhelming. Our north-east mining communities are resilient, but we do not have the resources to absorb the fallout of the London housing crisis without additional support. Respectfully, I do not underestimate the task facing the Minister. The unlawful system of forcibly relocating vulnerable families through threats and intimidation was created by the previous Government. I am pleading tonight with the Minister not to allow it to persist under a Labour Government. Councils that knowingly break the law need to be held to account. I hope that she will explain how that is going to happen.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Homeless Families: Relocation outside London · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is being very generous. The point that I am trying to make is not about sanctions against the tenants; they are the victims in all this, often moved against their will, with coercive methods employed. I do not know whether the Minister has ever seen the film “I, Daniel Blake”, in which a young woman called Katie is put on a bus from London and lands in the north-east. That is the scenario that we are facing. Some of the London boroughs that I mentioned are knowingly breaking the law, and there is no sanction against them. They are not notifying the receiving authority; they are using managing agents and circumventing the rules.

• 25 Nov 2024 · Homeless Families: Relocation outside London · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise a very important issue that reflects not just a housing crisis, but a crisis of fairness, compassion and accountability, involving the relocation of homeless families outside London. At first glance, it may seem unusual for someone like me—a Member of Parliament for County Durham, some 250 miles away from London—to seek this debate, but the unlawful actions of some London borough councils have transformed homelessness in London into a national crisis that has reached directly into my constituency. In recent months, I have been made aware of multiple cases of vulnerable families being pressured into relocating to my constituency by London borough councils such as those in Redbridge, Hillingdon and Enfield. The families are being forced to choose between homelessness in London and moving hundreds of miles away, isolated from their communities and support networks. A recent case involved a young mother being threatened and coerced by Hillingdon Borough Council to move to County Durham. In an email to her housing officer, she wrote: “Now I am scared. I feel anxious and completely pushed into a corner…that if I don’t take this accommodation, I will be discharged from your books and made homeless. I don’t understand why you are doing this to me and my son. All I wanted was your help in finding a place, as you have put me in temporary accommodation in Slough and then you rang me today offering me a place in County Durham miles away from anyone and everything I know. You said I have to give you decision tomorrow or I must get out of the place I am in, be discharged from the Council’s books, sleep on a friend’s sofa and look after myself, how is this fair, like I said I am scared.”

• 13 Nov 2024 · Kinship Carers · Hansard source

  More

  I compliment my hon. Friend on securing this debate and being a champion for kinship carers, not just in this Parliament but previously. Does he recognise that the situation for kinship families is urgent and that the inaction that we saw from the previous Government means that many kinship carers are unable to continue? If they could not continue, it would push more children back into an already overstretched care system. Does he agree that though the 10 pilots are welcome, the best way to support families would be a non-means-tested mandatory allowance for all kinship families?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Kinship Carers · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the Government’s emphasis and focus on kinship carers. We are all desperately awaiting the announcement of the 10 pilot areas, but does the Minister recognise that the trial alone offers little reassurance to people such as my constituent Elaine Duffy, who was working full time but had to go part time and withdraw her pension savings to adapt her home so that she could care for her three grandchildren? She still receives no state financial support, and she is looking for some reassurance from the new Government. Can the Minister offer any?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) in respect of the ONS report released yesterday, which showed that 5,448 deaths related to drug poisoning had been registered in England and Wales? Once again, the areas of greatest deprivation have been disproportionately affected. The north-east region, including my constituency, is the hardest hit. Every one of those preventable tragedies has an impact on families, friends and colleagues. As chair of the drugs, alcohol and justice all-party parliamentary group, may I draw the House’s attention to this public health crisis, on which I have tabled early-day motion 302? [That this House notes with alarm data released by the Office for National Statistics on 23 October 2024 showing that a record 5,448 deaths related to drug poisoning were registered in England and Wales in 2023; further notes that the highest death rates are again in areas suffering greatest deprivation; recognises that the influx of highly potent synthetic opioids such as Nitazenes risks a rapid rise in drug deaths; and calls on the Government to tackle the crisis by committing to long-term sustainable funding for drug treatment in the autumn budget and future spring spending review, continuing to implement the recommendations of Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs, and accelerating the availability of naloxone, the lifesaving antidote to opioid overdose.] Will the Leader of the House urge Ministers to meet officers of the APPG and treatment providers? Can we have a debate in Government time on this very important issue?

• 24 Oct 2024 · Horseracing · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much, Sir Edward—it is very kind of you to call me so early in the debate. I declare an interest as the vice-chairman of the APPG on racing and bloodstock. It is a pleasure to serve with you, the Father of the House, as custodian of the time limits and procedures. I appreciate your advice, and I will stick to the required five-minute maximum. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this important and timely debate. I have always been a firm supporter of the horseracing industry. It may be the sport of kings, but it is loved by many thousands, if not millions, of working-class people. It is a vital part of not only our rich cultural heritage but our economic engine, especially for more rural communities and towns in areas such as mine. We have 59 racecourses across England, Scotland and Wales, and as was mentioned a little earlier, the industry draws almost 5 million spectators each year—I was actually surprised by the numbers. World-renowned events such as Royal Ascot, the Cheltenham festival, the grand national at Aintree—represented by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden)—and the Ebor meeting at York attract people from all walks of life, who appreciate the opportunity to visit in person. However, smaller, less famous racecourses are of equal, or perhaps more, importance to local communities. The hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) mentioned his racecourse in Ludlow—I am not familiar with it, but perhaps I will visit at some point in the future. We are blessed with many such racecourses in my region, with Hexham in the north and Sedgefield—the racecourse nearest my constituency—in County Durham, and they all play a crucial role in supporting the regional economy. Of course, I must mention Newcastle racecourse, the home of the Pitmen’s Derby—the Northumberland Plate—and, soon, the Fighting Fifth. As we have heard, horseracing contributes a not insubstantial £4.1 billion annually to the UK and supports more than 85,000 jobs—it is actually the second largest spectator sport after football. It plays a significant role in rural areas, offering employment, boosting tourism and sustaining industries, including not just those directly involved in horse breeding and horseracing, but catering, transport and hospitality. However, as we are all aware, the industry faces economic challenges, many of which stem from previous policy decisions, as recognised in the 2023 gambling White Paper. As a result, it is accepted that reforms are necessary to ensure the sustainable future of this crucial sector. One of the most pressing issues—I am sure the Minister is fully aware of this—is the need to reform the horserace betting levy, which is absolutely crucial for funding not just prize money to attract the best entrants, but equine welfare and veterinary science. Although the levy was due for review this year, the process was delayed because of the general election. In May the British Horseracing Authority and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport reached an agreement to reform the levy, including by increasing the rate to 11.5%—I am sure the Minister will say a bit more about that. That would create a growth fund to promote racing domestically and internationally, and I gently encourage her to continue engaging constructively with the British Horseracing Authority and to build on those important earlier discussions. I understand that the British Horseracing Authority is eager to return to negotiations as soon as possible to secure a sustainable future and a sustainable funding model. I completely agree with the argument we heard earlier that the levy should apply to all racing globally that is bet on by British punters. There is an international precedent for that, so I am not quite sure why it has not yet happened—it might be the technology, but advances in technology make it possible now. That would bring us in line with other leading nations, particularly Ireland, and would help to ensure the sport’s long-term viability. Horseracing is a vital part of Britain’s economy and culture. It provides jobs, supports rural employment and attracts global attention and publicity. As I and other colleagues have said, it faces serious challenges, but those can be resolved through horserace betting levy reforms. I am confident that our new Labour Government and our new Minister and ministerial team will work with the industry to make the necessary changes and ensure that this sport continues to thrive for years to come.

• 24 Oct 2024 · Special Educational Needs and Disabilities · Hansard source

  More

  I am in no doubt that the Labour Government have a terrible inheritance on SEND provision, but children in my constituency of Easington who rely on services provided by the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust face unreasonably long waiting times. Incredibly, they have to wait up to five years for assessments for autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other related conditions. What steps is the Minister taking to reduce those unacceptably long waiting lists, and support both children and their families during these lengthy waits for assessments?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for calling me, Mr Pritchard. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing this important debate. There is no doubt about it: his constituency is blessed with some of the most stunning natural beauty in the world, never mind the country, from the fells and woodlands to the Lake district, a UNESCO world heritage site. The illegal sewage dumping at Windermere by United Utilities does not just shame our nation; it should be considered an ecological crime, and those responsible must be held accountable and face the full force of the law. Although the Lake district is world renowned, I am equally proud to represent a hidden gem: the Durham heritage coast—or, to be precise, the east Durham heritage coast. Our magnificent magnesian limestone cliffs offer spectacular views of the North sea and in the summer the coastal grasslands are alive with rare wildflowers, creating a habitat for the Durham brown argus butterfly and other wildlife. That coastline, once scarred by industrial waste from coal, has been reclaimed by nature, yet now it faces a new threat: sewage. Sewage overflows, far from being a rare event, have become routine in the water industry. In 2023, Northumbrian Water discharged raw sewage for over 280,000 hours in 46,492 incidents, including into the bathing waters off Seaham and Crimdon in my constituency. The environmental disaster is compounded by the economic abuse by water companies. Since privatisation in 1989, companies such as Northumbrian Water have neglected infrastructure while accumulating staggering debts to pay out dividends.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Water Companies: Regulation and Financial Stability · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed, Northumbrian Water is not alone. Across the industry, financial mismanagement has gone hand in hand with environmental failure. Northumbrian Water alone has built up £3.5 billion in debt while paying out £4.1 billion in dividends to shareholders. That means that 19% of consumers’ bills in my region go towards servicing debt. I welcome the Government’s Water (Special Measures) Bill. Its provisions to block bonus payments for executives, require annual pollution reduction plans, and improve transparency on sewage discharges are crucial. The tougher penalties, including the threat of imprisonment for those impeding investigations, are a necessary step. But while we are moving in the right direction, I fear that will not be enough to address the scale of the problem. Yes, the Bill strengthens regulation, and it is certainly more robust than anything proposed by the Opposition now or when they were in government, but will it solve the underlying issues? I suspect that the answer to that one is no. We cannot ignore the fact that the public are already paying the price for this industry’s failure. We pay through higher bills, polluted waters and an industry debt that now exceeds £60 billion. When the sector finally collapses under the weight of its own excesses, it will be the taxpayer who is left to pick up the pieces. I support the public ownership proposals. I think the costs are vastly exaggerated in the context of the scale of the challenge and the liability. We must take steps now to fix the debt, pollution and infrastructure crises in the water industry, so we need to go further than is being proposed. Blocking executive bonuses is not enough. Without determined measures, the consequences will be higher bills for consumers, more money lost to debt repayment, and an industry that continues to prioritise profit over public good.

• 9 Sept 2024 · Transport · Hansard source

  More

  I will not detain the House too long— [ Interruption. ] Hooray! I just want to make a couple of points. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), indicated, we both served on the Transport Committee in the last Parliament, and the Committee did quite a detailed inquiry on the sustainability of fuels in all sectors. We made several recommendations, and I do not believe that there is a cigarette paper—perhaps that is a non-PC term—between the two sides of the House on the issue, but I want to ask a couple of questions. This subject is really complicated and is plagued with acronyms—HEFA, SAF, ATF, eSAF, HPBM, Jet Zero. I will not be tempted into aviation puns, but there are some important stats. As the Minister stated, estimates suggest that the sustainable aviation fuel industry could create up to 60,000 jobs by 2050—the shadow Minister said that there would perhaps be 10,000 new jobs, but that is in a longer timeframe. The shadow Minister also said that the SAF industry could contribute as much as £1 billion to the UK economy, but by 2050, it could contribute as much as £10 billion, so it is clearly a very important sector. I am concerned about ensuring that sustainable aviation fuels under this mandate be required to meet the strictest sustainability standards. We must ensure that they are green fuels, and that there is a staged progression towards jet zero—we have heard what that is: 2% from 2025, 10% by 2030 and 22% by 2040—and we really must ensure that the greener fuels are responsibly sourced from the most sustainable locations, preferably in the United Kingdom. We had a debate last week about the launch of GB Energy and the importance of not exporting the jobs created through our efforts on decarbonisation. Will GB Energy play a role in some of these new technologies? We may well develop a hydrogen fuel cell that can produce green hydrogen much more cheaply, but in the meantime, to plug the gap, we must ensure that efforts are made to onshore as many of the jobs and benefits of this exciting opportunity as possible.

• 9 Sept 2024 · Post Office Horizon: Redress · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for this statement. I also have constituents who are affected and I am grateful for the information about the appeals system. What steps are Ministers in the Department taking to secure the future of the Post Office network, and to reassure people who are considering becoming postmasters that they will not face the same unacceptable culture pervading Post Office senior management that was highlighted by the Business and Trade Select Committee, and that led to the Horizon scandal happening in the first place?