Grahame Morris MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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—

• 16 Mar 2026 · Royal Fleet Auxiliary: Merchant Seafarers · Hansard source

  More

  I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), but I acknowledge that the Government have made substantial progress in addressing the ingrained recruitment and retention crisis they inherited affecting the Royal Fleet Auxiliary—the Royal Navy support ships. However, having resolved the previous pay dispute, the RFA’s overworked and underpaid seafarers have had to wait seven months before receiving a formal pay offer from their employer. I appreciate that the Secretary of State and his Ministers share the RFA trade unions’ commitment to a positive future for the RFA’s civilian crews, which is encouraging, but what reassurances can the Minister provide to the seafarers whom we rely on?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rail Transport and Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  My east Durham constituency has long suffered from poor rail connectivity, which limits access to job, education and training opportunities, yet published evidence from the Rail Delivery Group and Oxford Economics shows that increasing rail frequency and capacity can boost productivity and attract investment. I welcome the Government’s commitment to an integrated national transport strategy and to driving regional growth, but will Ministers please do all they can to encourage Northern to improve the frequency of rail services in my east Durham constituency?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rail Transport and Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  7. What steps she is taking to help ensure that the rail transport system supports economic growth.

• 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.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) about the potential of the renewable energy sector. I want to give a shout-out to Power Roll in east Durham, and draw the House’s attention to how important it is that that business is supported to move into volume production, which could create many hundreds of jobs. I will start my speech proper by thanking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am going to confine my remarks to mineworkers’ pensions. For more than 30 years, successive Governments have profited from the miners’ pension funds, taking a staggering £8 billion in that time from funds built up by the hard work of miners, who powered this nation. Last year, at the first opportunity, the Chancellor honoured Labour’s manifesto commitment to transfer the £1.5 billion investment reserve fund of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. That decision delivered a 32% increase in the pensions of almost 4,000 former miners and widows in my constituency, money that has gone straight back into the local economy—into local businesses, shops and cafés. It was welcomed by all those who have campaigned for many years to secure pension justice for our retired miners. Over the past year, the Labour group of coalfield MPs, alongside the British Coal staff superannuation scheme campaigners, have been relentless in our campaign of lobbying Ministers to secure a just settlement for the BCSSS pensioners. I am proud to say that my Government —this Labour Government—and our Chancellor have not only listened to our concerns, but have heard our plea, and have used the Budget to act. The transfer of the BCSSS investment reserve fund announced in the Budget means that a Labour Government have returned almost £4 billion to retired miners through the MPS and BCSSS schemes—a Labour Government standing up for the rights of working people and righting an historic injustice. These are real Labour values in action, showing the difference that a Labour Government can make after decades of neglect by the Tories.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is characteristically generous, and I appreciate his warm words. Many MPs representing coalfield constituencies will have cause for celebration. As chair of the coalfields group, I thank my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for taking the time not only to listen but to understand the nature of this campaign over the past year. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald)—he is a good friend—and his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), for meeting coalfield MPs, trustees and dedicated campaigners over the past year and for understanding the strength of feeling on this issue. This Labour Government have gone above and beyond for coalfield communities, fulfilling their manifesto promise at their first Budget and, within a year, delivering justice for British Coal staff superannuation scheme pensioners. Our coalmining communities paid a heavy price—a legacy of shorter lives and industrial diseases. Ending this pensions injustice is a long overdue recognition of that service and sacrifice. It has been a long-fought battle to end one of the biggest occupational pension scandals in our country’s history, and let us be clear: it was only through this Labour Government that the change was delivered. Just as this Labour Government have gone above and beyond for former mining communities, we must now build on that progress by addressing the entrenched inequalities that are breaking our nation. I welcome the lifting of the two-child cap. The Chancellor has listened on the issue of mineworkers’ pensions; I hope she will also reflect on the contributions that Labour Members have made this evening and throughout this Budget debate as we continue to work towards building a fairer and more prosperous country for all.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As a lifelong political activist and trade unionist, I value free speech and the right to protest. Having lived through the miners’ strike, I know what it means when the state turns against working people and disregards their rights, so I am deeply concerned that the proposed amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill will allow police to prohibit marches, demonstrations and even picket lines simply because another such event has taken place in the same area. Can the Minister guarantee that this House will have sufficient time to debate and vote on those amendments?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Power Roll in my constituency has pioneered a world-beating, flexible, lightweight solar panel module. The next four weeks are a critical period for the company; a £5 million investment is needed to keep production and jobs in the north-east. Will my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench work with me to help secure this Great British innovation’s future in east Durham?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her comments. Despite previous reassurances from Reach plc, owner of the Mirror , Daily Record , Express and many regional papers, it has announced redundancies that put 600 journalists’ jobs under threat. Many Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the continued erosion of our media landscape, and particularly the loss of experienced and professional journalists, which risks driving people towards fake news and misinformation on social media. Will the Minister meet the National Union of Journalists and concerned MPs from the all-party group to discuss this pressing issue?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Pride in Place · Hansard source

  More

  Peterlee is the place to be. Interestingly, Peterlee is the only town in the country named after a trade union leader. There will be great celebration of the Labour Government’s £20 million investment from pride in place in Peterlee. I welcome this money, which is going to make a real difference to people in my constituency who were ignored by the previous Conservative Government. Does the Minister agree that it is important to note that this programme is not just new money, but gives new powers to local people to decide how it is spent?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.