Grahame Morris MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 24 Mar 2026 · Oil and Gas · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare an interest as vice-chair of the RMT parliamentary group. I am delighted in particular to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). I will make some similar points, which I hope the Minister will address either in his closing speech or perhaps in Committee. I am delighted that this Labour Government have placed the transformation of our railways, bringing track and train back together, at the forefront of their agenda for change. I will mention four points: workforce; rolling stock leasing companies; rail freight; and track capacity. On the workforce, as colleagues have said, our railway workers are the backbone of the industry. They drive the trains, maintain the tracks and keep the stations and carriages clean. Some 150,000 rail workers keep the network running smoothly and safely every single day. Will my hon. Friend the Minister provide greater clarity on the intended structure of GBR and shed some light on why the Bill makes no reference to the employment of rail staff? That is causing great uncertainty among the workforce. I refer to concerns raised by the Public and Commercial Services Union regarding 225 of its members at the Department for Transport, who are due to be transferred to the subsidiary company DFT Operator Ltd by 31 March 2026—coincidentally, the target date for departmental headcount reductions. In addition to the risk of job losses and the consequential loss of experience and expertise, which could hamper delivery of the rail reforms, those staff will lose their civil service status and may well face poorer terms and conditions. The funding arrangements for the new company are still unclear. The transfer appears to run counter to Labour’s commitment to the biggest wave of insourcing in a generation. Insourcing, ensuring that workers are kept in-house and cutting out private sector profiteering is a great aim, and the Bill is a step towards that. I would like to see the Government look more closely in the Bill at how we can entirely cut out profiteering from the railways and at how we can procure our own rolling stock, making changes to end excessive profiteering by ROSCOs. It would really be sensible for GBR to establish its own rolling stock company, ordering and owning its own rolling stock, taking advantage of low Government borrowing rates. That is what we should be striving for. In the short term, the RMT is calling for a profits levy on the ROSCOs. A 50% levy on pre-tax profits would raise £116 million a year in funds that could be used for much needed upgrades. I want to highlight the enormous opportunity in rail freight, which often gets overlooked, particularly in my constituency at the port of Seaham, which is ideally placed to seek efficient, reliable routes to move goods in and out of the region. We have only one freight train a week coming in to Seaham. I therefore welcome that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to set a target for rail freight growth and place duties on GBR, Ministers and the ORR to promote it. A single dedicated rail freight business unit operating within GBR and working with rail freight businesses would, however, be an even more effective driver of long-term growth, integrated with, rather than competing with, the passenger railway. I hope that the Secretary of State will examine the benefits of such an approach.

• 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?