Grahame Morris MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 May 2025 · Adoption and Kinship Placements · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate. I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise concerns on behalf of my constituents in County Durham. Kinship carers play a crucial role in our communities. They step up to care for children when their parents are no longer able to do so, often under challenging circumstances. Their care allows children to remain within their families and support networks, which we know leads to better outcomes in adulthood. Yet, despite their vital contribution, Government support remains unequal. A two-tier system persists, where access to help is based not on a child’s needs, but on how they entered kinship care. That must change. For example, only kinship children who have previously been looked after the local authority can access pupil premium plus, priority school admissions, support from the designated teacher and the adoption and special guardianship support fund. That should not be the case—it is simply unfair. That is one reason why I support the Kinship charity’s #ValueOurLove campaign, which calls for the Government to join up the fragmented system and guarantee access to support, no matter which route is followed into kinship care. Emotional and behavioural challenges are the main reasons kinship carers fear they cannot continue to care for their loved ones. These children, often shaped by trauma and loss, need early, high-quality therapeutic support to heal—support that must be protected, not cut. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a £40 million kinship allowance trial in 10 local authorities, but we urgently need clarity. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm when decisions will be made, and whether County Durham will be included, since I understand that 317 local authorities are vying to be a pilot authority. In east Durham alone there are 340 kinship families, some of whom are known to me, who face ongoing financial uncertainty and reduced access to support. The limited pilot risks leaving many behind. The comprehensive spending review is the ideal opportunity to accelerate plans for kinship carers. I urge the Minister and the Government to commit to a non-means-tested allowance, at least equal to the national minimum fostering rate, and to ending the current two-tier system. Carers save the state £4.3 billion annually. Every child matters and deserves the same chance to thrive, no matter their circumstances.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  I also congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the UQ and thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her response. I will ask a question on behalf of the 340 kinship families in east Durham who are living in a constant state of anxiety. They are worried each month about how they will make ends meet, worried about whether their local authority would be among the 10 included in the pilot scheme and, until the Minister’s announcement, they were worried about losing access to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which provides vital funding for therapeutic services to many families. The Minister has ended uncertainty with the announcement, but will she ensure that all kinship families receive stable, long-term financial and emotional support that is tailored to their unique needs, regardless of their kinship arrangement?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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?

• 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.

• 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

  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.”

• 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.