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.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Coalfields Regeneration Trust · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on securing the debate, and echo the points that he is making. In my constituency of Easington in County Durham, the CRT works with 54 grassroots organisations, tackling health inequalities, and skills and employment challenges, in some of the most left-behind coalfield communities anywhere in the country. I echo the calls that have been made by my hon. Friend and other Labour colleagues to reinstate the national Government funding. I also point out respectfully to the Minister that there is huge support on the Labour Benches for that; almost 50 Labour MPs have signed early-day motion 965 in my name backing this modest but vital investment. I urge the Minister to recognise the depth of support for this proposal among coalfield Labour MPs.

• 2 Apr 2025 · School-based Nursery Capital Grants · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend and neighbour. I particularly welcome the fact that Yohden primary school in my constituency—one of the most deprived and disadvantaged communities not just in the county, but in the country—will benefit. That is tremendous news, but can my right hon. Friend outline the Government’s timetable and commit to expanding the scheme still further, so that parents across my constituency and others can look forward to an improvement in childcare provision?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Rail Services: East Durham Coastline · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered rail services on the east Durham coastline. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Some hon. Members might be expecting me to start with an April fool’s joke, but after hearing about the state of rail services in my constituency, they will agree that no joke or exaggeration could be more ridiculous than the reality that my constituents face every day. The service is characterised by delays, no-notice cancellations and dangerously overcrowded trains, particularly during peak periods, which all too often leave passengers stranded on the platform. In London, where the next service may arrive in a matter of minutes, that might not be an issue, but at Seaham and Horden, one cancelled service means at least an hour’s wait. Rail links should promote connectivity, providing opportunities to access education and employment. However, Northern’s failing services mean that my constituents cannot depend on transport links to maintain their employment.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Rail Services: East Durham Coastline · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I welcome the Government’s recent decision to publish train cancellation and delay data, including monthly figures on the worst-performing stations, via the Office of Rail and Road. Holding operators to account is essential if we want things to improve, but the data does not capture the passengers who are left on the platform. Whether it occurs through cancellation or through dangerous overcrowding, the outcome is the same: passengers scramble to find last-minute alternative means of travel. In the past 12 months, 6% of trains were cancelled at Seaham and Horden, including at least one train every day on average, and only two thirds have run to time. With one train per hour, the cancellations and delays have huge impacts. Northern’s performance is erratic. In September last year, there were 38 cancellations on the route. By October, the number had skyrocketed to 186, which is almost five times as many. By the end of 2024, the situation had further deteriorated, leaving residents with no reliable means of reaching work, school, health appointments or other vital appointments by train. Northern attributed that partially to staff sickness, with driver absences at 17.6% and conductor absences at 16.9%, but questions need to be asked about what is driving such high levels of sickness. I have met the chief exec and senior officers on several occasions. Their proposed solution of relying on rest-day working is simply not sustainable, and I fear that it will increase staff sickness over the long term. This is a safety-critical industry. We need to ensure that staff are safely rested, not under pressure to work at unsustainable levels. The industry should not be running on voluntary overtime; it must employ enough staff to ensure resilience in the system. A long-standing issue on the route is the lack of rolling stock. Until 2019, believe it or not, we were still served by the old Pacer trains from the 1970s. We now have second-hand ScotRail class 158s and 156s, which have been refurbished. In the north-east, we are more than willing to accept repurposed rolling stock, but only if the service is regular and reliable and if it meets our transport needs. Another long-standing point of contention is the fact that Northern runs only two carriages, instead of four, during peak periods. The lack of carriages is not just inconvenient; it is a health and safety concern. In previous debates, I have raised the case of a young boy who fell unconscious on an overcrowded train. I cannot imagine the terror of someone watching their child going limp, with their eyes rolling back, and then collapsing, with no escape from an overcrowded carriage. Overcrowding is still a concern. I happen to be a Sunderland supporter, but when Newcastle are playing, scores of people are left on the platform at Horden and Seaham because the once-an-hour two-carriage train is already crammed with people who got on at Stockton, Billingham and Hartlepool. My constituents are left feeling angry and frustrated. The issue has been raised repeatedly since I became an MP in 2010, but very little has changed. I therefore welcome the new Government’s commitment to the creation of Great British Railways, because we cannot promote economic growth with failing public transport. We can get our broken railway system finally back on track by ending decades of waste and starting to restore public trust, but there is a lot more to be done. Northern Rail returned to public ownership in 2020, after the previous franchise had taken millions of pounds in dividends in return for substandard services. There may no longer be dividends rewarding failure, but the service remains substandard. I thank the Rail Minister for meeting me and other colleagues recently to discuss the Government’s plan, which is fantastic, to procure 450 new trains for Northern. That is a very welcome step, but will the Minister confirm how many of those trains will be allocated to the east Durham coastline? Given the isolation that my constituents feel because of unreliable transport, will he prioritise east Durham for the delivery of newly procured trains? The long-term investment in new rolling stock is essential and fantastic, but its impact will not be felt until at least 2030. Like many people, I believe that we need some interim solutions. In the time remaining, I will outline them, because I have been told time and again—not just by this Government, but by the previous one—to bring solutions as well as problems. First, Grand Central, the open access operator, has submitted two applications to the Office of Rail and Road. One application seeks to extend its track access agreement beyond 2027, but the other proposes more services, including a new stop at Seaham station, which the current Grand Central service runs through without stopping. That would not only provide additional capacity to Sunderland and Hartlepool, where services are severely overcrowded, but create the first direct link from my constituency to York and London. As the Grand Central service already passes through Seaham, adding a stop would extend the journey by only a few minutes. The benefits of that additional Seaham stop cannot be overstated. Grand Central is still awaiting a decision, so I ask the Minister kindly to provide an update from the ORR. I understand that the Government might be reluctant to expand contracts for open access operators, given the move towards public ownership and concerns about loss of revenue. To my constituents, however, Northern and Grand Central are not running in competition; they are simply providers of rail services that are desperately needed in my constituency. My second suggestion is that we increase Northern services from east Durham to Middlesbrough and Newcastle. I was pleased to receive a positive response to my written question on the matter. The ministerial response confirmed that the Rail North Partnership, on behalf of the Department for Transport and Transport for the North, is examining a business case for increasing services at Horden and Seaham by December 2025. It also said: “The analysis must balance the economic and social benefits of this enhancement with the performance of existing services and the financial impact on taxpayer subsidy.” I gently remind the Minister that the economic and social benefits of this enhancement to my constituents must not be underestimated. We have very low car ownership in east Durham. For those without access to cars, it is incredibly difficult to get to Newcastle, Sunderland or Middlesbrough without spending hours on buses. People turn down jobs and college places because they simply have no reliable way of getting to them. That is a major barrier to economic growth. A small but significant improvement would be to amend the timetable of the semi-fast Northern service between Middlesbrough and Newcastle. Since 2023, that two-hourly service, which is often a four-carriage train, has skipped Seaham and Horden despite high demand. The time saved by bypassing those two stations is between four to six minutes, but adding those stops would provide immediate relief to my constituents, with an additional train every two hours. All three of those solutions—Grand Central’s additional stop, increasing Northern services, and minor timetable adjustments—are needed while we await the arrival of new rolling stock beyond 2030. If we are serious about local growth in east Durham, people must be able to travel out of their towns and villages to work, study and access local amenities—pubs, restaurants, cafés, medical facilities and shops. I wrote to the Secretary of State in January and February outlining these issues, and I would welcome the opportunity to meet Ministers to discuss them further. The people of east Durham have waited far too long for a reliable rail service. They have endured overcrowding, cancellations and an outdated network that fails to meet their needs, and while I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to procuring new trains and increasing services, some short-term action is also required. Reliable transport is not a luxury; it is a necessity for jobs, education and economic growth. I urge the Minister to prioritise east Durham and to work with me and other colleagues to ensure that Seaham and Horden finally get the rail service they deserve.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope the Leader of the House is, that we are currently undergoing a digital refresh of computer equipment and laptops here in the House of Commons. I was rather disturbed to learn that the equipment that is handed in is crushed and sent to landfill. Digital poverty is a multifaceted issue that impacts all aspects of life: for younger children, educational platforms cannot be accessed; job opportunities are harder to access, because 90% of jobs are only advertised online; and for older people, healthcare services and supporting information are all severely restricted without digital access. Therefore, may we have a debate on what we can do—not just as a Government, but this House, too—to increase access to the internet and the digital services that are essential to lifting people out of poverty?

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

  More

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

• 3 Sept 2024 · Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. If ever there was a charge of political dogma to be made, it must be about the fact that, under the terms of the privatisation, the British taxpayer and the British Government are not allowed to own a stake in our own railway. For too long, private companies have provided a substandard service while making substantial profits. Over the last seven years, the remaining private train operating companies—I apologise for misleading the Committee, but I misspoke earlier when I said that there were 14 of them; there are 14 franchises in total, four of which are operated by the state through the operator of last resort—have paid out an average of £130 million annually to their shareholders. Those companies are often owned by foreign Governments —in Germany, Italy, France and across Europe and the world. Meanwhile, passengers’ day-to-day experiences have been of overcrowded carriages, delays, service failure and, worst of all, some of the highest fares in Europe. It is worth thinking about the costs, and the profits that some private train operators have been able to generate for shareholders. Figures released just this week show that Govia Thameslink Railway paid out a staggering £82.4 million in dividends, with £62.3 million of that being for the 2023-24 financial year. That represents a 268% increase from the previous year. In return for those princely profits, Govia consistently failed to meet two thirds of its customer service quality targets, as reported in the Financial Times . The situation was encouraged to persist under the last Conservative Government. I welcome the fact that Labour is making this a priority from day one, as that is fundamental to fixing the foundations and delivering the economic growth promised by the Prime Minister. I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) and the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) about the rolling stock companies—the so-called ROSCOs. Many commentators see a problem with the newly formed Great British Railways having to continue to lease rolling stock from ROSCOs, as that would allow those companies to profit from taxpayers’ money. My view is that ROSCOs are an unnecessary link in the chain. I frequently raised the issue with experts and industry leaders on the Transport Committee, and I believe that we would benefit from meeting our rolling stock needs by placing orders directly with UK-based manufacturers such as Alstom and Hitachi, rather than enriching the ROSCOs. Despite being in post for a relatively short time, the Secretary of State has made a strong start with the Bill. However, I urge her to consider the points raised by me and Members on both sides of the Committee about how we continue to procure rolling stock as we move forward. On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), said that purchasing existing rolling stock would not be a responsible use of taxpayers money. I understand that, but will the Minister, in responding, clarify whether in the future, under GBR, there will be an option to purchase new rolling stock directly, instead of having to continue to lease through the ROSCOs? As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North said, the UK needs to upgrade to 4,000 units of rolling stock over the coming decades, with Network Rail estimating costs in the tens of billions of pounds, so this is an ideal opportunity to explore a new financing model for rolling stock. I am not naive—I understand the financial situation that we have inherited from the last Government—but I ask the Government to explore not-for-profit financiers if rolling stock cannot be nationalised under GBR. May I point out respectfully that Eurofima, a supranational not-for-profit financier, has stated that, for every £1 billion of financing on UK railways, it could save the taxpayer £350 million over 30 years due to its lower financing costs? That is compared to using the existing ROSCOs. Will the Secretary of State update us on the possibility of using not-for-profit financiers for rolling stock in preference to the ROSCOs? I will take up the point made by the shadow Secretary of State about the pay review bodies. May I point out that they are not universally welcomed? I have been looking at responses to pay review bodies in the health service, and the last Government had a less than wonderful record when it comes to implementing the recommendations of pay review bodies, not least those relating to junior doctors. The Royal College of Nursing has said of pay review bodies that there is “nothing independent about them.” The chairs and members of pay review bodies are hand-picked by the Prime Minister and Government Ministers, and the terms of reference are decided by the Government. There is some scepticism about how independent they truly are, and about whether, when they make recommendations, the Government are obliged to implement them in full. I ask the Minister if it is possible to provide a timetable for the next steps. When will future Bills be introduced to the House, and when is Great British Railways expected to be fully established? I acknowledge and express my appreciation for the engagement of the Front-Bench team. I stress that I support the Bill because I believe that it represents a critical step in fixing the long-standing issues in our rail system. The current privatised framework is giving a fragmented railway, and has failed to deliver value for money, an efficient service or customer satisfaction. I am pleased that we are moving towards a model that prioritises the needs of passengers over the profits of shareholders. Rethinking our approach to rail management and financing is a crucial first step towards fixing the foundations and putting Great British Railways at the service of the travelling public.