Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice

Debate between Grahame Morris and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I associate myself completely with the remarks of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne). I had not originally intended to speak in this debate, but given the appalling slaughter and suffering in the middle east and the ongoing tragedy in Gaza, I have to do so. As the Member of Parliament who brought forward the motion to recognise the state of Palestine, which was approved in the House on 13 October 2014, I am often a target for those who do not believe in peace or a two-state solution.

In the context of the then Home Secretary’s sowing of division and hate, it is interesting that hon. Members have referred to Remembrance Sunday, when I was moved and overwhelmed by the words, some of which I would like to share, of the Roman Catholic priest Father Marc Lyden-Smith. He said that although Remembrance Sunday is a time when people wear red poppies—a well-established tradition—he had for the first time seen someone wearing both a red and a white poppy. When he asked why, their reply was, “Red is for remembrance and white is for peace.” I found that very thought-provoking. Our hope in remembrance is grounded in peace, a peace that so many have given their lives for. We must remember that peace looks forward to what we are trying to build: justice, harmony, wellbeing and the opportunity for all to flourish.

The most powerful part of Father Lyden-Smith’s sermon was towards the end, when he reminded us that

“Jesus said: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’. He did not say: ‘Blessed are those who won the war, those who had sufficient resources and advanced weaponry to crush their enemies’. He said: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’—those who work to build a world of peace. We can all be peacemakers.”

We can all work towards bringing about peace internationally. We should let today be a wake-up call for us all, on both sides of the House, to work for peace and, when we pray every morning before the session starts, to work for reconciliation, understanding and harmony. That begins in this House, in our communities, in our homes, in our families, in our friendship groups and especially in our hearts.

Today, I will vote for a ceasefire. I will vote for peace. I will vote for a state of Israel and a state of Palestine to live side by side in peaceful coexistence. The horrors, death and destruction that we witness daily on our TV screens are a breeding ground for hate; but if we are ever to secure peace, and a lasting peace, we cannot be driven by hate. I vote for a ceasefire and I call on all hon. Members, but particularly the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to use their platforms and positions of authority not only to secure humanitarian aid amid the horrors we see in Gaza and have witnessed in Israel, but to work every day towards a lasting peace and the safety and the security that all people in Israel and Palestine deserve.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will call the Front Benchers for the wind-ups no later than 6.40 pm.

Rail Strikes

Debate between Grahame Morris and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

The feeling is very strong. I believe the margin was 71%, which is well above the Government’s threshold. Indeed, the treatment of the RMT Union and its members seems to be part of a wider agenda to weaken employment rights. I was one of many Members, including my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and my hon. and right hon. Friends around me today, who were pressing the case for the Government to act on fire and rehire.

I was in the joint hearing of the Transport and the Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy Committees when we were taking testimony from the bad bosses of P&O Ferries who were boasting about their lack of consultation and their intention to drive down terms and conditions. We expect rather more from our own Government when it comes to the way in which the railway is being run. It is a huge and important national asset.

I want to put on record, so that there is no doubt, my solidarity with the RMT Union and with all the trade unions. Basic rights that govern pay and conditions at work were hard fought for and they were won through collective action; they were not handed out freely.

Let us not forget some of those appalling accidents at Ladbroke Grove, at Paddington and so on. One of the proposals that has been put forward is for 3,000 redundancies among people who maintain the tracks—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I call James Daly.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Debate between Grahame Morris and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I rise in support of the motion in the name of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

My constituency has minimal rail infrastructure. The reopening of Horden train station was a cause for celebration. It promised new opportunities for employment, education and leisure through making the major towns and cities in the north-east more accessible to people living in my constituency in east Durham.

We do not enjoy the embarrassment of riches in public transport that we see in London and, apparently, in some other constituencies, where missing a tube or a bus is not a major issue, with another service arriving just minutes later.

Seaham and Horden in my constituency are served by one train an hour, normally consisting of two carriages. For my constituents who are seeking to attend a hospital appointment, a university or college class, getting to work, or simply meeting friends, the reliability of the train has a considerable impact on employment prospects or educational success. To increase capacity and frequency, we are not talking about multi-billion pound schemes. If there were any truth in the levelling-up rhetoric, I would not be on my feet here tonight, pressing the Government for additional transport options, more resources and more frequent services.

I want to highlight a particular case for the Minister, who is a good man, about what the consequences are when we have severe overcrowding, I will, if I may, read out a letter that I have received, relaying the experience of a constituent. It is from the mother of Harry, an 11-year-old boy. This is what she said:

“Harry, 11, was standing squashed with his Dad. He started to go pale and felt sick. He then suddenly collapsed, went limp, eyes rolled back and he passed out. We pulled the emergency stop button. After about a minute, he came round, but was weak, limp and only just responding. There was no space for him to lie down”—

the train was so crammed—

“no space for me to even get to him. No space for the conductor to get to him to see if he needed medical help. The windows were closed. It was hot, airless, and people were packed to absolute capacity. What does it take for the train companies to understand that packing trains full to above safe capacity is a fatality waiting to happen. The conductors were encouraging people to get on an already dangerously full train.”

I invite the Minister to understand our experience in east Durham with these overcrowded crushes, which are a clear risk to health and safety.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will move on to the wind-ups now, but Rachael Maskell would have been next. Tan, you can have a bit more time, but would you allow her to intervene on you? I know that this is an unusual request, but I hope that you will think kindly of her when she decides to intervene.

Catch-up Premium

Debate between Grahame Morris and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

For many children, especially in my constituency of Easington, home learning has been very difficult. I point out that 36.9% of children in my constituency were classed as living in poverty in 2019-20. The effects of the pandemic have not been felt evenly, with disadvantaged children in the poorest areas hit hardest.

Despite the existing inequalities and challenges, and our schools in many areas being at breaking point, Ministers seem to have found new ways to cut school funding, and that is something I take the opportunity to highlight. The north-east could lose up to £7 million due to administrative changes to how pupil premium funding is calculated and allocated, with the Government switching from using the January schools census to using the October census. What that means is that schools with children who became eligible for funding during the pandemic will not receive any additional funding for another year.

Using the October census date rather than the January date is significant, because many children were not at school then, so it was not such a priority for parents to register. In my constituency of Easington, 20 out of 28 primary schools will be affected. The average loss will be about £9,400. When we are talking about the additional sums—I heard the Minister’s opening statement—I believe it is about £6,000 for the average primary school. The average loss will be £9,400 in my constituency, but the worst-affected schools will lose nearly £30,000. The total loss to schools in my constituency is £180,000.

It is absolutely reprehensible to remove resources from schools at any time, but to do so after the biggest public health crisis for a generation, when more funding is urgently required, is unconscionable. Funding education is an investment in our children, and society will reap dividends today and in the future. The Government have had an opportunity to make a statement of intent by implementing the recommendations that Sir Kevan Collins, the Government-appointed education tsar, made. He gave them the evidence. That would have helped every child. I hope parents will reflect on the decision and think about the loss of funding for schools in areas such as mine when they hear Government Members talk about levelling up.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The reason I did not interrupt you, Grahame, is because we have had a few withdrawals and we are able to put the time limit to four minutes for every contribution at the moment.

[Grahame Morris]

Ah!

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Well, I didn’t stop you, Grahame. I call Ben Everitt.

Strength of the UK’s Armed Forces

Debate between Grahame Morris and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I rise to support the motion on the Order Paper, not least because I believe that Conservative promises made to protect our armed forces have sadly been lacking and ring hollow now that they are in government, as is the case with so many of their other promises. At the same time that Ministers want to cut the size of our conventional armed forces, they propose to increase by 40% the UK’s nuclear stockpile. I ask the Minister, what is the strategic reason for that decision? How much will it cost? How will the UK be safer with 260 nuclear weapons compared with 180?

Breaking international law and treaty obligations sacrifices our moral authority when we are dealing with regimes such as Iran’s that threaten our allies in the middle east. Indeed, in 2015 Ministers promised that the strength of the Army would not fall below 82,000. In truth, we will never meet that target, with the Army’s strength standing at 76,350 soldiers. Since 2010, the Conservatives have overseen a reduction in the strength of our armed forces of a quarter, with 40,000 fewer full-time troops now compared with 10 years ago. The Government will weaken the Army further, reducing numbers to 72,500 by 2025.

In 2012, the MOD partnered with private outsourcing contractor Capita to deliver a £1.3 billion recruitment project. I am glad that the contract was not for a new sight for the Army’s rifle, because the number recruited since Capita’s involvement has not hit the target in any year since the contract was awarded. We should be angry about that wastefulness. Every pound lost in profit squeezed out of a failing contract means fewer soldiers, poorer equipment and fewer opportunities for people to make a career in the services.

Technology is important, but having spent time with veterans as a trustee of the newly formed East Durham Veterans Trust, I must agree with the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Nicholas Houghton, who said:

“I would argue most strongly that it is our people that give the United Kingdom’s armed forces our qualitative edge”.

We have seen our military in action over the last year during covid, from reinforcing frontline services to building hospitals, delivering vital equipment and running test centres in my constituency. I know that there are Government Members who care passionately about the armed forces, and I ask that they work cross-party to ensure that our armed forces—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

Covid-19: Cultural and Entertainment Sectors

Debate between Grahame Morris and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). I want to cover three areas in this important debate on the eve of the Budget: the BBC; protecting the jobs of journalists, on behalf of the National Union of Journalists; and the charitable sector in my own constituency.

Those employed in the cultural and entertainment sector account for a large proportion of the 3 million still excluded from Government support. These sectors provide essential services. They include the charities distributing hot meals to those self-isolating. They also include investigative journalists uncovering the truth, which we really need to know, behind many of the stories about covid. Freelance journalists have been particularly badly impacted during the pandemic. In a time of national crisis, the value of the BBC has never been more important. It has been an outstanding and authoritative news source, providing information as well as educational programming to give parents home-schooling support. Indeed, the BBC is the heart of the UK’s creative economy, but what is not widely appreciated is that it generates £2 for the wider economy for every £1 spent, which sustains thousands of independent production companies and suppliers up and down the country.

Sadly, the Government failed to honour their manifesto promise to keep the free TV licence for the over-75s. Their decision instead to transfer responsibility to the BBC was, in my view, outrageous. Not only has that resulted in a direct attack on the entitlements of elderly people, but the £500 million annual hit to the BBC budget is resulting in programming cuts and more than 500 jobs being lost from BBC news production.

The National Union of Journalists has highlighted the damaging impact of axing investigative reporting such as the award-winning “Inside Out” programme. Will the Minister ensure that, in the next round of charter renewal negotiations, we have a transparent negotiation that ensures that the BBC has the resources it needs to invest in improving news and political coverage?

I also want to mention the charitable sector, and the excellent East Durham Trust in my constituency. Ministers still have not confirmed whether they will extend the deadline to give charities more time to use this much-needed funding. I am grateful for the support of the Chair of the Select Committee, but I would like the Minister to respond in a timely way to allow the charitable sector to plan accordingly. These things—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, but we have to leave it there.

NHS Funding

Debate between Grahame Morris and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

Probably not, in the very limited time available, but I can tell my hon. Friend that proton therapy is a form of advanced cancer treatment.

My argument is that the money the Department is proposing to spend on those incredibly expensive machines would be far better spent on advanced radiotherapy machines such as the stereotactic body radiation therapy machines that the hon. Member for Stevenage mentioned. There are other forms of therapy that are far more cost- effective. I might add that we in the northern region have no access to such therapies. Indeed, whole regions of the country do not.

The one remaining proton machine in Germany is at the university of Heidelberg, and it treats a maximum of 1,200 patients each year. The German Radio-oncology Society has said—[Interruption.] I hope that the Minister will listen to this. The society has said that

“for the vast majority of cancers there is no proof that proton therapy is more beneficial than other forms of innovative radiotherapy that are one hundred times less expensive”.

This proton debacle highlights the perversity with which the Government are running the NHS budget, and these questions lie at the very heart of whether we can trust Conservative promises on the NHS.

The Prime Minister tells the public that by April next year every cancer patient who needs innovative radiotherapy will get it, while at the same time the Secretary of State for Health starves dozens of hospitals and cancer networks of vital money needed to buy innovative radiotherapy equipment. We now know that money is being redirected into those two highly dubious projects. The Secretary of State needs to cancel those projects now and redirect the money into radiotherapy machines that will help tens of thousands of people in my constituency and across the country. This has the potential to be a monumental scandal and a waste of public money. I urge hon. Members who share my concern to sign early-day motion 773, to lobby the Health Secretary and ask him to reconsider his spending priorities in relation to cancer therapies, and to support the motion on the Order Paper.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Jim Shannon. I am not putting the clock on him, but he must resume his seat by 4.44 pm.

Points of Order

Debate between Grahame Morris and Nigel Evans

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It is unusual for one Member to raise a point of order on behalf of another and I do not wish to encourage the practice. There is nothing to inhibit Front-Bench Members from the official Opposition in making their own points of order. That said, questions for written answer on a named day should receive some kind of answer, preferably a substantive one, on the day that is named, and a full answer should be provided in a reasonable time. If the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) cannot get satisfaction by raising the matter with the Minister concerned, she should inform the Procedure Committee of her problems.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is the first opportunity that I have had to apologise to you and the House for any suggestion or perception that I breached parliamentary procedures by failing to make reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I participated in a study tour of Venezuela, before I asked a topical question of the Foreign Secretary during Foreign Office questions on 4 September. I have made no secret of my visit. In fact, I have written to newspapers and blogged about it extensively. If I breached procedures, it was unintentional and I place on the record my apology.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The House will have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is worth putting it on the record, however, that the resolution of the House of 12 June 1975, which was last amended on 9 February 2009, excluded supplementary oral questions from the requirement for declaration. It appears to me that a topical question is a supplementary question. It is up to Members to judge whether an interest is of a nature to justify a declaration at such times, but the House’s rules do not require it. The hon. Gentleman has now made such a declaration.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether I might seek your advice in relation to a declaration of interest. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) has made two interventions on the private patient cap and has made a declaration of interest. He is a director of Circle, a private health care company. Is it your ruling that every Member must make such a declaration if they speak during the course of this debate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It is up to each individual Member to make whichever declaration of interest they wish during a debate, but ultimately it is up then to the Member and the Commissioner if the Member wished to take that further.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 4th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend: that is a good point well made. There are a number of levels where the Government now have an opportunity to stop, reflect and listen to representations—to steal a phrase from the Health Secretary—about the impact of the policy on the economy. I am sure that that impact was never intended, but it should certainly be taken into account if people now have a perverse incentive not to engage actively in earning a living and making a contribution to society.

Child benefit is a key part of the welfare state, and one that applies the principle of universality to all families in recognition of society’s duty to support not just families, but future generations. I had always assumed that that was a cross-party commitment, irrespective of party political allegiance. However, by taking away £1,000 in child benefit and child tax credits from families earning just over £40,000, the coalition Government are damaging our system of welfare for the future. We know—or at least we suspect—that the measure is more to do with trying to undermine the strong support of middle England and the middle classes for the welfare state. We on the Opposition Benches suspect that the purpose of the measure is to move British politics in a new direction. My concern is that an Americanised system of low taxation with a basic safety net to catch those at the very bottom would be a move in the wrong direction.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is becoming more of a general debate about the welfare state, which is clearly not what is dealt with in clause 35, which is actually quite specific. I have given a lot of latitude up to now, but we must now focus on clause 35.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Thank you, Mr Evans. I shall try to ensure that we focus on the clause.

Let me quote some figures from the House of Commons Library that give some detail on the implications of the clause. The Library has calculated that some families will be £1,700 a year worse off owing to the Government’s proposed tax and benefit changes. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has warned of the

“considerable increase in the effective tax burden of those on incomes in the £40,000 to 50,000 bracket”,

which the clause deals with. The Chartered Institute of Taxation also said that

“increasing the tax burden on middle-income households while withdrawing tax credits and child benefit from them will result in their being squeezed proportionately more than those on higher incomes”.

In addition to families on more than £40,000 a year losing benefits, as set out in the clause, families will lose £450 a year on average because of the VAT increase. Added to that, child benefit has been frozen for three years, which equates to a real-terms cut of more than £75 this year for a family with three children, and the baby element of the child tax credit, which is worth £545 a year, has been scrapped. Added together, that all amounts to a quite astonishing attack.

The Chancellor’s answer to cutting the deficit has been to shrink growth and cut support for families and the most vulnerable. In my constituency, take-home pay is almost 20% lower than the national average. Young men and women have struggled to raise families in my area, which has been blighted by unemployment for more than three decades. The previous Government not only provided greater financial support for those struggling families; they also invested in schools and communities, and tried to revitalise and diversify the economy and create new jobs. The programme offered by this Government, and particularly the provisions in clause 35, will turn the clock back to the 1980s, not only for Easington and large parts of County Durham and the north-east but for many of the great cities in the north and for many people who aspire to raise themselves up and to progress.

My contention is that the clause breaks with the principle of universality and that that is likely to be followed up with tax cuts as a pre-election sweetener. In that way, the Government are beginning the process of undermining our welfare state, which they appear to have opposed in one form or another since its foundation 60 years ago. The last Labour Government significantly increased income-related support for families through tax credits, and they also systematically increased child benefit and maintained their commitment to progressive universalism. The Chancellor has frozen child benefit for three years, ditched progressive universalism and hiked up VAT—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going much wider than clause 35. Does he wish to resume?

[Grahame M. Morris]

Yes, I will try to bring my remarks back to the clause.

I am fully aware that the amendment that was tabled in the name of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench was not selected—[Interruption.] We shall not be able to talk about it in the debate. Getting back to clause 35, we would require the Government to look at how their policies of tax and spend are affecting families right across Britain—

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for his advice, which I am not going to take. We are talking very narrowly about clause 35.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am sure you will be pleased to hear, Mr Evans, that I shall conclude my remarks in a few moments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am glad that my right hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to place that excellent point on the record.

I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to take a breath and reflect further on clause 35 rather than digging into the position announced last October, as the provisions will not be implemented until two years from now. Why does the Chancellor not agree to look again at the effect of his taxation policies? He has an opportunity to do so before 2013. He needs to reflect on the impact of the removal of child care tax relief, child benefit and child tax credits, which, taken together, mark an attack not just on families but on the welfare state as a whole.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the Budget report and the UK’s convergence programme. The Ayes were 249 and the Noes were 139, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I wonder about the specific impact of clause 35 on bankruptcy and personal insolvency, given the loss of tax credits for middle-income families who will be faced with quite considerable personal burdens. That is part of the transfer of debt from the state to the individuals in low-income families, as highlighted by my hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). The Insolvency Practitioners Association highlights the rapid increase in the number of personal insolvencies and bankruptcies, and perhaps the increasing cost of child care will be a factor—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Interventions must, by definition, be short. That was wide of the mark and does not need a response.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that those who write to me in my constituency are asking me to scrap the ID legislation as quickly as possible, purely on the grounds of civil liberties. I find it astonishing that there can be any debate about this for much longer. Indeed, a number of people have suggested that we should wind up the debate immediately, although obviously a good many Members want to continue it. I have not received a single letter asking me—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The hon. Lady’s intervention is far too wide of what we are discussing at the moment.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I do not think that the Government’s arguments have been effective. Aspects of the scheme deserve to be retained, and they are embodied in the new clauses and amendments. Clause 2 states:

“All ID cards that are valid immediately before that day are to be treated as cancelled by the Secretary of State at the end of the period of one month beginning with that day.”

In Committee, the Minister stated proudly that this was the Government’s first Bill. I am astonished that he can be pleased with himself, given that this first Bill from the new Government breaks a contract that was established between citizen and state. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), people put their faith in the Government and bought ID cards. They entered into that contract on a voluntary basis—there was no element of compulsion—and I believe that they have been let down sorely and spitefully by the Bill and the Government. The Government’s behaviour is illogical, unfair and frankly unnecessary.

Hon. Members have suggested various reasons why people may have decided to invest in ID cards. The need to protect their identities must have been a major concern, as identity theft is a huge problem that costs the economy billions of pounds and causes individuals untold stress and suffering. They may simply have wanted a more versatile method of identification—Labour Members have given some excellent examples of that—or even a proof of age. Whatever their reasons, they entered into a contract, and that contract should be honoured, but the coalition Government are tearing it up, and people who acted in good faith can justifiably feel let down.

Members on the Government Benches have argued that it might have been reasonable for people to expect ID cards to be scrapped if the Tories won power. That applies to the Liberal Democrats as well, as it was in their manifesto. But should we really be sending the public the message that they should not take too much notice of what the current Government say, because the next Government may say something different? That is a dangerous message to send.