Grahame Morris MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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?

• 11 Nov 2025 · BBC Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  These are indeed uncertain times for the BBC and for the people who work in it. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that we remember that the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2025 found that the BBC remains the most trustworthy news brand in the UK, with 60% of respondents rating it highly for trust? Does she also agree that the BBC must respond to criticism in a considered and proportionate manner and carry out investigations with regard for due process, and that it should not be subject to political interference nor, for that matter, interference from commercial competitors?

• 30 Oct 2025 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for the content, clarification and tone of his statement. It is clearly an awful situation. I would like to speak up for my constituents in Easington and to seek some clarification regarding those people who contracted hepatitis C. Will the Minister confirm that all in the infected blood community, including those suffering with hepatitis C, will have access to the consultation, as recommended by Sir Brian Langstaff? I understand that the consultation closes in January, and he mentioned that there would be a 12-week period in which the Government would consider that.

• 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?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for that intervention, which I think is quite sensible, and I support the contention. I hope the Minister will respond appropriately when he has the opportunity. Does the Minister agree that HM Inspectorate of Probation should have the powers outlined in new clause 4? They are just the sort of safeguards we need in the Bill before more pressure is placed on the Probation Service. We are all aware that it is really overstretched, principally as a result of funding cuts implemented by the previous Government and some of the decisions taken before the present Government came into office. Finally, I am pleased to register my support for new clause 3, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is my good friend. I echo the concerns that he expressed at length on Second Reading about the potential for exploitation by private companies, such as when unpaid work in London was privatised in 2013. Indeed, that was criticised by the International Labour Organisation as an abuse. Does the Minister agree with the probation union, Napo, that unpaid work orders should always be about payback to the community, that they should be run for public good, not for private profit, and that this safeguard should be placed in the Bill?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to make my remarks fairly brief—not because I am against short sentences, but because I recognise that there are time pressures. I would like to record my support for three amendments to the Bill in the form of new clauses 2 to 4. I might say that I agreed with virtually everything that my good friend my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter) said.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 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?

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

  More

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

• 16 Sept 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 16 Sept 2025 · Prison Safety · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 22 Jul 2025 · Orgreave Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

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

• 8 Jul 2025 · Alcohol and Cancer · Hansard source

  More

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

• 8 Jul 2025 · Alcohol and Cancer · Hansard source

  More

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

• 8 Jul 2025 · Alcohol and Cancer · Hansard source

  More

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

• 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 · 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?