Grahame Morris MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Oct 2025 · Child Risk Disclosure Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on making such a powerful and moving speech. I also want to pay a personal tribute to Gemma Chappell and her family for launching the Maya’s law campaign. We have already accepted that the right to know can prevent abuse and murder in domestic and sexual violence cases—that is, for adults. Surely it is now time for Parliament to extend the same protection and safeguards to children who cannot speak for themselves. Does my hon. Friend agree that the key aims of the Maya’s law campaign—a child risk disclosure scheme, mandatory multi-agency safeguarding protocols, and new powers for professionals to raise alerts and trigger family court interventions—would represent a vital step towards a genuinely progressive safeguarding approach?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Bill for many of the reasons already highlighted by the Justice Secretary and many Labour colleagues earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) made many of the points that I wished to make so, because of the shortage of time, I do not intend to repeat them, although I would like to reinforce them. The Bill is a bold step towards easing the pressure on our overcrowded prisons and repairing a criminal justice system so badly broken by the Conservative party’s agenda of economically illiterate austerity. However, concerns have been expressed to me by the trade unions—including Napo, which represents probation staff—especially on the extra workload that the Bill will mean for their members. I say respectfully to the Minister and to the Justice Secretary that I hope they will engage fully with the justice unions as the Bill progresses in order to address these legitimate concerns in good faith. Robust community sentences in the right circumstances —contrary to what many Opposition Members have been saying—can offer a better and more effective alternative to prison, provided that they are supported by new tagging technology, but only if that is done correctly. At Justice questions this morning, the Justice Secretary gave some excellent responses to concerns raised about the existing contract that the previous Government signed with Serco. Indeed, the Government’s own assessment suggests that change will be required, and the changes will require hundreds of additional probation officers in order to keep the public safe. Early release for good behaviour is supported by the unions, provided that prisoners show that they are turning their lives around and addressing the issues behind their offending. Again, early release comes at a cost, and at a cost to the Probation Service. Other measures in the Bill have been welcomed by people working in the sector. Probation staff have long complained that rehabilitation activity requirements and post-sentence supervision, which are leftovers from the previous Government’s failed privatisation experiment, are ineffective and time-consuming. Napo is therefore relieved to see the Bill abolish them for good. Although it is true that this will free up more staff time, the Bill still puts additional pressure on the Probation Service. Yes, the extra resources already announced by Ministers will help to bring more staff into the service, but what will make them stay? Attrition rates—the rates of skilled probation officers leaving the service—are appalling. That is unsurprising, given the unbearable workloads for staff on top of 15 years of real-terms pay cuts and a degradation in the service presided over by the previous Administration. I am also told that the Government still have not made a formal pay offer to probation staff this year, so I respectfully encourage Ministers to reflect on how best to hold on to these key workers, who perform such a vital and demanding role. The Bill would benefit from stronger safeguards around tagging and unpaid work, to ensure that the biggest beneficiaries are the public at large, not profit-hungry private corporations. We have heard many times in the House recently, including at Justice questions this morning, about Serco’s catalogue of contractual failures, especially with electronic monitoring. As we expand the use of tagging, we should try our hardest to reduce private sector involvement, partly because it has proved to be such a costly failure in the past and partly because this new form of punishment should be harnessed and used for the public good, not private profit. The Government have earmarked an extra £4 million a year at least for tagging expansion, but that money must not be used simply to line the pockets of rip-off failing privateers. In conclusion, if we want to turn our criminal justice system around, we must work harder to prioritise public good, not private profit. I know that this Labour Government share that ambition and I hope that they will work closely with their own frontline workers in the Probation Service to fully realise the benefits that the Bill could bring.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

  Last week in Brighton, the TUC unanimously backed the “Safe Inside” campaign promoted by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance calling for urgent action against record-high levels of prison violence and second-hand exposure to psychoactive substances. Does the Secretary of State agree that current conditions are quite intolerable for prison staff and that the Prison Service needs to be held directly accountable for the health and safety of everyone who works in prisons, all of whom deserve to be safe inside?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as a member of the RMT and Unite parliamentary groups, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the RMT for its support in scrutinising the Bill. With thousands of members working in the bus sector across England, it is uniquely placed to contribute its expertise. The context is stark. In 2024 there were 76 million fewer bus journeys in the north-east compared with 2010—a fall of more than a third. That decline is not just a statistic; it represents missed shifts, social isolation and communities cut off from opportunity. I place on record that I support the Bill, but I will speak to the four amendments that stand in my name—new clauses 25, 26, 27 and 35—and voice my support for new clause 45. New clause 27 would create a national bus forum with representatives from the Government, local transport authorities, operators and trade unions. Deregulation has left the sector fragmented, making it hard to tackle challenges, such as recruitment, retention, skills and safety, in a coherent way. The Transport Committee’s 2018 inquiry into the health of the bus market, undertaken when I was a member of the Committee, recommended that the Government’s strategy be “underpinned by a national forum” to share information on service improvement, workforce issues and safety. The National Audit Office echoed that, urging the Department for Transport to use the bus centre of excellence to collate and share best practice. A national forum would provide that structure and oversight. However, national oversight alone is not enough. New clause 25 would require all local transport authorities introducing franchising to establish a joint forum with unions and operators. The Government said that they expect LTAs to engage with unions, although expectation is not a guarantee. However, leaving this as an “expectation” will not guarantee meaningful engagement everywhere. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), there are inconsistencies, including in the Tees Valley. Some LTAs are experienced in working constructively with unions, but others are not. A statutory requirement would ensure consistent and meaningful engagement everywhere. New clauses 26 and 35 address enhanced partnerships. Many local transport authorities will opt for enhanced partnerships instead of franchising, and that is a matter for them. At present, stakeholder forums must include passengers, businesses and neighbouring authorities, but unions are not listed. I respectfully say to the Minister that if the aim of stakeholder forums is to involve those most directly affected, then surely the workforce cannot be excluded. New clauses 26 and 35 would remedy that by requiring trade union participation in every enhanced partnership forum. I support new clause 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), which would establish a legal duty on councils to provide a minimum level of night-time bus services to local employment centres, ensuring that workers such as nurses, hospitality staff and factory employees can get home safely. This is particularly important for women, given that more than one in four will experience some sort of sexual assault in their lifetime. Night-time buses are a matter not just of convenience, but of safety. Taken together, new clauses 25, 27, 26 and 35 form a coherent package—national oversight and best practice matched by consistent workforce engagement at local level. Alongside new clause 45, these new clauses demonstrate what this Bill should achieve: a bus system that is accountable, safe and responsive to the needs of both passengers and staff. If the Government cannot accept them, I urge the Minister to commit instead to addressing these matters through guidance or a code of practice, and to meet the trade unions and stakeholders to decide how that might be achieved. The Bill represents an opportunity to reshape bus services for the better, but that opportunity will be wasted if we repeat the mistakes of deregulation, fragmentation, inconsistency and sidelining the workforce. These new clauses are about making sure that this time we get it right.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment · Hansard source

  More

  It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to that exceptional and powerful speech from the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh); I am sure those in authority will have listened carefully to his remarks. I will be very brief. I want to pay tribute to Sir David Amess. An issue dear to his heart that he spoke about frequently was hepatitis patients, and that is what I want to speak about. I hope the House will agree that it is a timely and appropriate occasion, because next Monday, 28 July, is World Hepatitis Day. Sir David Amess was a most powerful advocate for hepatitis patients, and a member of the all-party parliamentary group on liver health. If it is not presumptuous, may I draw Members’ attention to early-day motion 1699, which I have tabled? I would like to say a few things about this condition. Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus that disproportionately affects disadvantaged and marginalised communities. It is preventable, treatable and curable. Indeed, the United Kingdom has already committed to achieving the World Health Organisation’s goal of eliminating hepatitis C as a public health concern by 2030. That would have a huge impact on health inequalities. It would be encouraging if the UK Government were to celebrate World Hepatitis Day on 28 July by reaffirming their commitment to meeting the WHO 2030 target, and if that were reinforced by a comprehensive hepatitis elimination action plan. Many people do not realise that they have hepatitis C, but if left untreated, it can cause fatal cirrhosis, and even liver cancer. The efforts of our NHS and harm reduction services have led to considerable success in finding, engaging, testing and treating people who are at risk. The UK is within reach of meeting the World Health Organisation’s target of hepatitis C elimination by 2030. That would be a tremendous public health achievement for a Government who are committed to addressing health inequalities and public health issues, but to sustain the success that we have had so far, we must overcome stigma, avoid complacency and support effective efforts and commitments to achieving positive public health outcomes.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Orgreave Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  As chair of the coalfields group of Labour MPs, and on behalf of the group, I welcome this statement. It is an historic moment, and I know that Orgreave Truth and Justice campaigners and many more Labour colleagues would have been present had they had a little more notice. The Minister will know that, even last year, organisations such as Northumbria police were destroying documents. Those actions could hinder this inquiry, and it is vital that individuals and organisations are held accountable, not just for what happened 40 years ago, but for any attempts to undermine justice by destroying evidence. Will the Minister confirm that the inquiry will have access to all information and evidence, and that no further documents will be destroyed or evidence withheld? Will the inquiry have the power to compel witness testimony? I hope that this inquiry will not only uncover the truth, but make recommendations to right the wrongs done to many miners, including some of my constituents, who were wrongly convicted under riot and unlawful assembly laws. Ray Patterson, now sadly no longer with us, is one of those miners. I thank the Minister and the Government for honouring the manifesto pledge.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Alcohol and Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  A number of positive suggestions have been set out by my hon. Friends during the course of the debate and by some experts in the field, and that includes the suggestion that my hon. Friend made in her intervention. I hope the Minister is considering the benefits and potential of them all. Will the Minister meet me and treatment providers who support the all-party parliamentary group on the issue to discuss solutions? I gently remind her that she agreed back in March to meet the APPG about drugs policy, and we still have not been able to finalise the date for that meeting. In my region, the organisation Balance does exceptional work in reducing alcohol’s harm, and it is the UK’s only regional alcohol prevention programme. Alcohol abuse is a huge societal problem in the north-east, and it should be at the forefront of shaping policy to reduce alcohol harm. Balance joins many voices across the sector in calling for a new dedicated alcohol strategy that prioritises proven measures to reduce the affordability, availability and promotion of alcohol. There is a clear consensus among alcohol and cancer charities that that is urgently needed. The Government must introduce a comprehensive alcohol strategy without delay. The UK has not had a national alcohol strategy since 2012, and we must catch up with global leaders and show that the Government are serious about tackling alcohol harm. I urge the Minister to commit to a comprehensive alcohol strategy that tackles the crisis head on, protecting lives, reducing cancer risk and lifting the burden from our NHS and our communities.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Alcohol and Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) on securing it, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is always a mistake to start a speech with an apology, but I have a terrible cold and I can hardly hear, so please forgive me for my diction. I have a particular interest in this subject: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on drugs, alcohol and justice, so I was keen to support the application to the Backbench Business Committee. I would like to make a number of points to the Minister on behalf of the all-party group, but I will also reflect on the impact of alcohol in the north-east, and particularly in my Easington constituency, where alcohol is devastating lives and families. In my constituency, the rates of alcohol-related hospital admissions, deaths and traffic collisions are all worse than the national average. We often obsess over statistics, but behind them are real people, families and communities, who are suffering from largely preventable harms. That is the thing about both drug and alcohol deaths, and cancers related to drugs and alcohol: they are preventable. My argument, and that of the all-party group, is that we must take the risks of alcohol far more seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, alcohol is the No. 1 risk factor for ill health, death and disability among those aged 15 to 49. That is incredible—we are talking about the 15-to-49 age group. There is also a clear correlation with cancers; as my hon. Friend indicated the types, I am not going to repeat them. Although alcohol has always been a part of society, the rates of higher risk drinking soared during the pandemic. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned that. Perhaps that is understandable because circumstances had changed, many more people were working from home and consumption at home increased. However, we have seen little sign of returning to pre-pandemic levels of alcohol consumption. If those trends continue, experts predict an additional 18,785 cancer cases—a very precise prediction, I know—by 2035. The predicted rise is deeply concerning, given that the NHS is already struggling to deal with the UK’s current cancer burden. The hon. Member for Strangford and I have a particular interest in the all-party parliamentary groups on cancer, particularly the one on radiotherapy. We are aware that in April this year only 70.8% of cancer patients in my constituency were treated within the 62-day target, compared with the operational standard target of 85%. Once again behind the missed targets, people in my constituency, across the north-east and across the country are waiting anxiously for diagnosis and treatment. There is a clear correlation between deprivation and alcohol consumption. The two seem to go hand in hand. Researchers connect alcohol consumption to inequalities in life expectancy. People in poorer areas tend to live shorter lives than those in more affluent areas. There is also a link with violence, especially against women and girls, with a decline in social and emotional wellbeing, and with child development. The human cost is immeasurable, but the financial cost is also huge. It is possible to calculate it. Alcohol harm costs County Durham £277 million a year—over £530 per head. Across the north-east the total cost is estimated at £1.49 billion—almost £1.5 billion per year. The figures are stark, but not inevitable; all the costs are avoidable. Research by Cancer Research UK shows that around 2,700 cancer cases in England could be avoided by 2040 if just 10% of those drinking above the recommended levels reduce their intake by one intake category by 2030. There is no doubt about it—cutting down on alcohol can reduce our risk of cancer. How do we reduce alcohol harm? The Alcohol Health Alliance and the World Cancer Research Fund have both set out clear solutions: tackling affordability, promotion and availability. Although I acknowledge and welcome the Government’s 10-year health plan, which was released last week, it announced only limited measures on alcohol. Commitments on labelling are welcome, but they do not go far enough and are not proportionate to the scale of the crisis. I respectfully urge the Minister to consider further measures in advance of the national cancer plan, which is expected to be published in the autumn, and to work with harm reduction organisations, the experts in the field, and go further. Waythrough provides treatment and support to those suffering from the excesses of alcohol. It is also involved in the APPG that I chair. The chief exec, Paul Townsley, said: “Alcohol treatment and recovery support has a transformative impact on people, families and communities—we urgently need government to commit to a national Alcohol Strategy that increases investment in treatment and recovery, evidence based prevention, and addresses the root causes of alcohol harm that devastates our communities so unequally.” A little later today the all-party parliamentary group on drugs, alcohol and justice, which I chair, will launch a new “Action on Alcohol” document, which echoes the calls that have been made here and elsewhere for an alcohol strategy. In 2018, just next door in the Jubilee Room, I attended the launch of the “Alcohol Charter”, which made the very same demand. Let us not forget that, as the hon. Member for Strangford reminded us, the last alcohol strategy was issued in 2012, and since then the alcohol death rate has spiralled, so I would be grateful if the Minister outlined any plans she has to develop a cross-departmental alcohol strategy.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Alcohol and Cancer · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening intently, but I may have missed an important point, so I wonder whether it would bear repeating. The Minister indicated that a treatment framework will be published very shortly. Will that be informed by an alcohol strategy that the Government will also produce? We have not had one since 2012.