Graham Stringer MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2025 · Transport Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth · Hansard source

  More

  I will call Emma Foody to move the motion and the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. There will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Nuclear Power: Investment · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the statement today, which is moving towards an energy mix that is less weather dependent. I also welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of investment in nuclear fusion. There is one constant about nuclear fusion, which is that, starting from the original ideas in the 1950s, it has always been 50 years in the future. The International Energy Agency is still predicting that the earliest that nuclear fusion will be providing energy on to the grid will be the second half of this century. Does the Secretary of State agree with that, and if not, why not?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When I was building the second runway at Manchester airport, I had similar rants to my hon. Friend’s. I came to hate great crested newts, which were getting in the way of building that second runway. Surely there has to be a solution with balance, one that does not cost a quarter of a billion pounds for looking at the land around the lower Thames crossing, but allows Government and local government to put things such as swift bricks into housing. There has to be balance.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Inheritance Tax: Family-owned Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being generous on this important issue. When she spoke about the contribution that family businesses make, she could have been talking about J. W. Lees, a brewery in my constituency that has a nearly 200-year history of making contributions to the local community and brewing very good beer, or to Joseph Holt, which is on the edge of my constituency. The Confederation of British Industry estimates that the proposed changes to business property relief will lose the Government nearly £1.9 billion. Does the hon. Lady agree that before the Government go through with the changes, they should have a consultation that looks at the impact on tax and local family businesses?

• 20 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. The European emissions trading scheme has a carbon price that is 50% higher than the UK’s. What assessment has the Chancellor made of the impact of joining the scheme on inflation in this country?

• 15 May 2025 · Aviation Sector · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will be as aware as I am that the air passenger duty, which was introduced by a Conservative Chancellor more than 30 years ago, has been studied intensively. Every study shows that the revenue generated by that tax is much less than the benefit of abolishing it. Will my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State try to talk some sense into the Chancellor of the Exchequer and her officials, to get rid of this tax and benefit both aviation and the economy?

• 14 May 2025 · Carer’s Leave · Hansard source

  More

  Minister, if you can, please leave time for the proposer to wind up. I have no idea if we are going to have a Division, but it might be wise if we can finish before 5.30 pm.

• 14 May 2025 · Carer’s Leave · Hansard source

  More

  I intend to call the Front Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm, so hon. Members can work out the timings for themselves.

• 14 May 2025 · Carer’s Leave · Hansard source

  More

  Order. I remind hon. Members that I am not part of the debate. Can we revert to normal parliamentary language? I do not like correcting people. We have just been through the previous debate and I did not, but I think it is necessary.

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  Order. We are running out of time, so I will reduce the time limit to four minutes.

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  We now move on to Front-Bench spokespeople, starting with Sarah Dyke for the Lib Dems.

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  Minister, will you try to leave a short time for the proposer to wind up the debate?

• 14 May 2025 · Glass Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  We have approximately 39 minutes before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople, and eight Members who wish to speak, so I will impose a five-minute limit on speeches. Could hon. Members speak to the time, or slightly less? If there are interventions, I will have to reduce that limit.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I suspect that many in this Chamber will be surprised to hear that when I first supported Manchester United, “United will survive” was on the front of the match programme: the club were bankrupt, because the young men who were killed in the Munich air disaster were not insured, and it took a lot of effort to move on. My right hon. Friend is talking about directors and “right and proper” people. I think I speak for every Manchester United fan when I say that if the Bill does not enable the fans to get rid of the Glazers, who are sucking money out of Manchester United to support shopping centres in Florida, it is defective.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a victory over the Sentencing Council on the fundamental principle of equality before the law? The independence of the Sentencing Council does not entitle its members to go over its boundaries, into the area of policy and politics into which they have strayed. That is such a fundamental issue that having made those fundamental errors of judgment, those members of the Sentencing Council should no longer be able to carry on in the job, whether it is by their own decision or that of the Secretary of State.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I have been following the hon. Member’s arguments closely. It is certainly the case that, with or without wisdom, the House is capable of making poor decisions. I have voted for measures and against them on occasion, and the House has made poor decisions. However, it is much more likely that the House will get it right, rather than a delegated legislation Committee dealing with a statutory instrument where a Minister comes along and reads out a brief that she or he often does not understand, as is revealed under questioning—if, indeed, questioning takes place. The argument for the Bill is really to do with speed and capacity. We do not meet to vote on Thursdays, but we often do on Mondays. There is plenty of time for the House to do this.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  At the start of this debate, as a fellow scientist, I wondered what the difference was between mensuration and metrology. When I was an undergraduate, we did not use the word “metrology”—it seems to be a new word. Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten the Chamber.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am interested that my hon. Friend mentions AI. There are three major systems around the world being proposed for artificial intelligence regulation: those in China, the EU and the United States. If we have to make a choice for our own framework, which might be different from those, for the safety of people in industry, why should that not be done on the Floor of this House rather than through delegated regulation? It is one of the most important issues that will face us in the coming years.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to make two points. First, this House can do what it wants. It does not need this Bill to regulate anything. To say that is does simply is not true. Secondly, on the question of whether the Bill will lead to dynamic realignment with the EU, can the Secretary of State explain what clause 2(7)(a) is for? It seems to me that it could be used to dynamically realign with EU regulations.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Transport Connectivity: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is precisely right: the real case for High Speed 2, as I am afraid it will always be called, was capacity. We are not getting that extra capacity between Birmingham and Manchester without HS2. If that capacity were to happen—it should happen—it would lead to the necessity of extra investment in the rail system east, west and internally within Greater Manchester. It would lead to more investment, so we need to campaign for it. All we have at the moment is an extension to the London underground system, which will benefit London and Birmingham. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned the Metrolink going to Stockport, and I agree with her. For the first time for nearly a quarter of a century, we do not have viable plans that we know will happen, and we may have to carry on fighting Ministers and the Department for Transport for the next stage. Obviously, I would like trams to go to Middleton, as I represent part of it, but I agree that trams going to Stockport and other parts of the conurbation—perhaps Leigh as well—would mean transport and economic development. So I think we have to keep campaigning and making the case that bucks spent on transport in Greater Manchester will get us more than money spent in London and the south-east.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Transport Connectivity: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McVey. In the few minutes available to me, I would like to put transport in the north-west into perspective. I would not like anything I say to be taken as a criticism of the mayor or of Transport for Greater Manchester. The Bee network, which is an excellent scheme, has put Greater Manchester to the situation London has had for the last 45 years, which we see as progress. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has just said, investment in transport is vital for economic growth. However, when we look at the national objectives, and as we have seen forever—since the second world war—more money is going into London and the south-east than the north-west. For all of Transport for Greater Manchester’s successes, it has had to fight the Department for Transport to get extra investment for Metrolink and fight Labour and Conservative Ministers to get money for investment. There is great potential in the north-west. In fact, we would get more out of investment in transport links in the north-west than the south-east, because of what we are, in effect, doing when we invest in London and the south-east. All transport investment creates jobs and growth, but in London and the south-east we are then, in effect, subsidising congestion, because we get so much congestion that we need more investment afterwards. That is not the situation in Greater Manchester and the north-west. I am not against the Lower Thames crossing, but three quarters of a billion pounds has already been spent on assessing whether it will be any use whatever, and that money would benefit transport in Greater Manchester, and jobs and investment for the whole country, much more than it will the Lower Thames area. [Dr Andrew Murrison in the Chair ] We have suffered, in that we are not getting High Speed 2 at the moment. I think the campaign to get the rail link from Birmingham to Manchester and Manchester airport should continue. It is extraordinary to see the billions of pounds that have been spent on high-speed rail from London to Birmingham, mainly on tunnels.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Transport Connectivity: North-west England · Hansard source

  More

  In the context of the north-west, we are all friends on this matter. The hon. Member probably does not know, but a few years ago the Transport Committee did a study into north-west trains and found that train schedules in the north-west—not when the trains actually run—were slower when there was a Liberal Prime Minister. Even more surprisingly, it was not Campbell-Bannerman; it was Gladstone.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  Order. It is not up to me, in the Chair, to agree with you or not.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Regional Growth: England · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she has taken to increase regional growth in England.

• 4 Mar 2025 · Regional Growth: England · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry, Mr Speaker. I was nearly as shocked when you called me as I was when listening to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Radio 4 talking about economic growth. She said there had not been a new runway built in this country since 1945. Manchester airport would be very surprised to hear that, because its new runway has been operating for nearly 25 years. I was shocked by that but not really surprised, because I think many officials in the Treasury who advise her show a startling ignorance of the English regions, and that leads to a certain prejudice in the formula they use to calculate whether a scheme should go ahead. Can the Minister and the rest of the Treasury team provide coaches to send Treasury officials around the English regions to talk to people who know about growth? Secondly, will he look at the formulas that decide where economic growth happens, which are biased against the regions?