Graham Stringer
MP for Blackley and Middleton South · Labour · United Kingdom
“I strongly agree with the Government’s policy on devolution and better technical and scientific education, but all that will be for nought if we do not do something about the cost of energy. We cannot grow and compete as an economy when we have higher energy costs than our major industrial competitors.”
“I am fully supportive of Stephen Watson, the chief constable of Greater Manchester. It is the first time I can say that about a chief constable since the 1970s.”
“We cannot call ourselves a civilised society while Shabir Ahmed is walking the streets of this country. I agree with the thrust of the question by the hon.”
“Particle physics and astronomy have had a rough deal since the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—PPARC—was abolished about 19 years ago.”
“In the ’80s and ’90s in this country, many police officers carried out their duties in a prejudicial and racist way. I am proud of having worked alongside many others to eliminate that racism as much as we could.”
“I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and the Minister. I have received no information that such permission has been given. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.”
The complete record
Every one of 605 lines we hold for Graham Stringer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 13.
“Ten years later, we are here, and the Minister says, “We will crack on with it.” “Crack on”, if I may say, after 10 years of complete inactivity when it was a Government commitment, is a rum old phrase to use for Northern Powerhouse Rail, if the Minister does not mind me saying so. He has made a decent fist of a cackhanded decision by the Government on HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. At different times and for political reasons and for other reasons, people have counterpoised against each other the Crossrail of the north, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, or HS3, against HS2. That is a strange thing to do, because if we increase the capacity of the rail system with HS2, those passengers have to have somewhere to go. The same applies if we increase the capacity, as I hope we do, with Northern Powerhouse Rail.”
“I do not think I will detain the House long. I want to say two or three things. The first is that there is an element of unreality about this debate, as there has been about many debates on Northern Powerhouse Rail and HS2 phase 2b. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may remember this as a northern MP—I am sure the Minister will remember it, too—but almost exactly 10 years ago, on 23 June, George Osborne as Chancellor of the Exchequer went to the Science and Industry Museum in Manchester and announced Northern Powerhouse Rail. Since that time, the rail system across the north of England has had three names: it has been HS3, Crossrail of the north, and Northern Powerhouse Rail. How much work has been done on it? There has been no design work, no land purchased and no money dedicated to it.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very long intervention. He is obviously right. Cheryl Gillan did a fantastic job.She was opposed to HS2, and she increased the costs enormously by getting tunnels built under the hills in her constituency. Another way of looking at the economic nonsense we have had from this Government is that we do not have a high-speed route for the nation; we have an extension of the London underground. We have tunnels leading out of London to Birmingham. I do not know the train times, but my guess is that the times going to Birmingham, going through the tunnels out of London, will be shorter than using the Elizabeth line to travel across London. HS2 is just part of the underground system. It is a London scheme now, not a national scheme.”
“Indeed, but we are talking about major national infrastructure. I always hoped that HS2 would not just go to Manchester and Leeds but, for both political and transport reasons, would go to Scotland. As someone who believes in the Union between England and Scotland, I think that would help, and it would be very good transport policy, too.”
“The Conservative Members present say that they will remain opposed to HS2, and I remain supportive, because HS2 is good for the country, good for the environment and good for the economy of the north of England.”
“I cannot answer that question. It was a Government decision, and the Minister has indicated that he will answer. I respect those who oppose HS2. This House has supported HS2, which has been in all of our manifestos. I think it is outrageous that HS2 to Manchester has been cancelled by an insulting edict from the Prime Minister. The most important point in this debate was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who said that the elected Mayors of the west midlands and Greater Manchester have put together a plan to consider alternative methods of funding HS2. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that the Government will not follow a “burnt fields” policy of destroying it to make it more difficult for an incoming Labour Government to resurrect it.”
“T2. It is now exactly four months since the Avanti management were caught laughing at the Government —they are not on their own. They were laughing because they see the performance payments that the Government hand out to them as free money and a joke. When will the Secretary of State take the smile off the faces of the appalling Avanti management by finishing their contract?”
“Before I call Andrea Jenkyns, I have a note on the clocks. Most of them are either telling the wrong time or not working, so there will be no timing of the length of speeches. I do not think that there will be any pressure on time, because we do not have that many speakers. I am using the annunciator clock.”
“I understand that there is agreement by John Cryer and the Minister for another hon. Member to participate in the debate. However, as is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate.”
“The hon. Lady has made two significant points in a coherent speech. First, we will not be able to make use of natural resources in this country while our energy costs remain so high, and secondly, the planning regime that we operate in makes getting permission for the extraction of any minerals very difficult. Does she agree that deep in the Government, as the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) said, there is still a belief that we can rely on international trade to import critical minerals, whereas in actual fact China is behaving malevolently and trying to monopolise the trade?”
“One country that did follow the science, Sweden, made mistakes—it made the same mistake that we made by sending infected people back into care homes—but it did not lock down and it did not restrict people’s freedom, or it did so in only a moderate way. It came out as about the best of comparable countries in Europe in terms of deaths. Another consequence, which we see in every debate in this House, is that there is no money left. We spent £400 billion on covid, a lot of it wasted. We can read National Audit Office reports on the test and trace system, which was money almost totally wasted. There is also the money given to people who could quite easily have gone about their jobs. The businesses needed the money, given the decisions that the Government had taken, but the Government should not have taken those decisions.”
“At the same time, the Government were telling us that they were following the science. I have a scientific background—it is not in biology, but I have a degree in chemistry—and I believe in following the science and finding out exactly what is going on. The science was not followed, and not only because the response did not follow the natural profile of the disease. In their early statements, people from the NHS, and both Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, said that masks were a complete waste of time and that lockdowns were ineffective because there would be a peak six months later that would probably be worse than if we had not locked down. That advice changed very quickly, I believe under political pressure. Again, I think that was a mistake.”
“Those below 50 were relatively safe—some died, but not many. That was known at the beginning of the epidemic. This comes back to the point about politics, and the protection of Government politicians, being more important than looking at the science. A rational response to a disease with the profile of covid-19 would have been to put a cordon sanitaire around those people who were vulnerable because of their age or because they had other diseases, such as lung diseases, and to let the rest of us go about our business and take the risk, as we do every year with seasonal flu, but the Government did the opposite. They locked everybody up and sent untested people back from hospital into care homes, where they infected other people, which led to a spike in deaths.”
“There is often an attempt in a political debate to resolve matters that are only resolvable by looking at the evidence, doing more experiments and finding out the truth of the matter, which is not always possible in a debate where people feel very strongly about things. I want to talk about something we have not really talked about so far: the disease itself. People have different views about the damage done by covid. Some people think it is harmless and just another flu, whereas some treat it as though it were the plague. It is neither. It was a nasty disease for some people who got it, but its major characteristic was the profile of people who were killed or made ill by it. It affected older people much more severely. I think the median age of those who died was 82 for men and 84 for women, so it was a disease of the elderly.”
“It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who has done remarkably good work on vaccine-damaged people. I co-chair his all-party parliamentary group’s sister group, the APPG on pandemic response and recovery, which has allowed me to see that we have a whole body of expert opinion before us. Medics, lawyers, experts in childcare and a whole range of politicians have come to very different views on what the right response to covid was and, in some cases, on both the law and the science itself. Before I go any further, let me say that my experience of the APPG, and of climate change or global warming debates, is that science and politics make very uneasy bedfellows.”
“The inquiry is not even looking at that and it is not dealing with any of those things, but it is taking a long time. It has made it abundantly clear that it is going to look at the impact of the virus on social divisions and poverty. I am a member of the Labour party and I can tell the inquiry, because I know, that poor people come off worse from diseases. It can go back to look at the Black report from 1981, I believe it was, if it wants to see that, as it talks about both regional and class disparities. We do not need to look at this issue, as we know that poor people do badly when there are epidemics—that has been true for all time.”
“I do not know when the Hallett inquiry will report, but it may well last for years and cost half a billion pounds. It certainly will not provide us with any advice on what to do if there is a pandemic next year—I suspect that advice is what we all want. By the time it reports, there may have been another Government or two and it will be a historical document. Sweden is not a perfect society, but its inquiry has reported. The motion before us calls for the fourth part of the inquiry, which will be on vaccines, but is the inquiry really the technical body to do that? I do not think so. In the first stage, the inquiry has shown an extraordinary bias towards believing in lockdowns. I would want to know a number of things from an inquiry: did the lockdowns work? Did they save lives? Have they cost lives? Where did the virus come from?”
“People say that BBC reporters were told not to criticise and not to ask difficult questions, and political journalists—not specialist health journalists who might have asked more pertinent questions—were sent to the press conferences. It was a political question, but it was also a science and health question. We were really let down by the BBC primarily, and by other parts of the media. The hon. Member for Christchurch and other hon. Members have talked about the Hallett inquiry. I supported the inquiry but, having seen the way it has gone, I have given myself a good talking to. I do not think I will ever again support an inquiry. Do we really want to spend half a billion pounds on this inquiry? I attended the previous debate on recompense, and we heard how lawyers are getting fat on all these inquiries.”
“Surely the most important thing in a crisis is for our democratic institutions to function properly. We could not ask proper questions and there were no follow-ups. We kept our Select Committee going but, with the best will in the world, it was a pale imitation of what had gone before. There was a complete failure to insist on more accountability from the Government while the economy was shut down. Some of us, although we were not very many, came here to try to keep it going. Our democracy’s second important check and balance is the fourth estate. These publications are not normally my politics but, with the exception of The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator , and the Daily Mail to a certain extent, the rest of the media, led by the BBC, were quite uncritical of what was happening.”
“Once we knew the profile of the disease, we knew that we were damaging children. I go into schools and meet eight and nine-year-olds who were locked down when it was known that children were not at risk. A very small number of children died and, as far as I know, they all had comorbidities—I stand to be corrected—so covid was essentially safe for children. We have damaged both their mental health and their ability to learn. I go into schools from time to time, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, and teachers tell me that it is very difficult to catch up. I am still annoyed about the response, and I do not think it is hindsight. I went through the Lobby with a minority of colleagues. One of the two failures of our democracy’s normal checks and balances was that this place was not functioning, as the Easter holiday was extended.”
“I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a point. In March, when the first decisions were made, nobody knew what was going to happen. There was a panic to go into lockdown, which was understandable while people were seeing what was going on, but very soon after that people did know. What I think was, and is, indefensible was to carry on with policies that we knew were damaging the economy and were not protecting people. I therefore voted against my own party, which supported the Government and more on this issue. I went through the Lobby with a small number of colleagues from my party and the hon. Gentleman’s party to say that what was happening was wrong, and that the damage being done by the policies was probably worse than covid. It might be hindsight for March and April 2020, but not for the rest of the time and the second lockdown.”
“I had my doubts about these figures from the beginning. On a number of occasions, right from the start of covid, the Science and Technology Committee heard from statisticians. We had Sir Ian Diamond and Professor Spiegelhalter in to talk to us about the statistics. We heard from people from what is now the UK Health Security Agency but was then a named part of the NHS. We asked them whether they had the statistics on the difference between people who died from covid and those who died with it. If someone was dying of cancer and went into hospital, there was a fair chance that they would have got covid, because there was not perfect protection within hospitals. Such a person would then be registered as having been a covid death, but clearly they were going to die of cancer. From the very beginning, that obscured the statistics.”
“No, I am not surprised about that. Inquiries take a long time and their reports and recommendations often gather dust. I have never made this point before, and I hope I am not going off-piste too much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but every time there is an horrific murder of a child we get a report with 90-odd recommendations, and the question is: does that protect the next child? No, it does not. I do not believe that these inquiries do. We need serious cultural change in many of these organisations, rather than another report on something. That is an easy thing to say and a very difficult thing to achieve. Let me come on to the other part of the debate, which is about excess deaths and the number of deaths. It appears that just over 200,000 people were killed in this country by, or died of, covid.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I happen to know that in some local authorities, instructions went out to the people who were registering deaths essentially to say, “If there is a cough involved in this, we want it down as covid.” There was a different process because the health service was not working under normal— [ Interruption. ] If the hon. Gentleman wants to correct me, I am happy to allow him to do so.”
“I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that at that time, when it was difficult to examine people because there was a distance between clinicians and the people who had suffered death, there was a temptation and a view that covid should go on the death certificates. I suggest no conspiracy, though. I do not believe in conspiracies.”
“The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I do not believe in conspiracies. I do believe that, from time to time, one gets a view, both in professions and outside professions, that pushes judgments in one particular direction. I believe there is one point on which we can reach a consensus in the debate: Government Ministers said that the vaccines were 100% safe—it was particularly egregious when that was said about children— but no vaccine or treatment, as right hon. and hon. Members have said, is 100% safe. I think it was a mistake to say those things.”
“I am not familiar with that particular paper, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that nothing is ever 100% safe and vaccines have an overall benefit. I am vaccinated against covid, as I have been vaccinated against many things over my lifetime. Vaccines have made the health of this country, and countries around the world that can afford vaccines, much better over many years.”
“The pharmaceutical companies have been given that information, but Ministers just give reassuring statements that there is no evidence that excess deaths are caused by the covid vaccinations—by the mRNA vaccinations. How do they know? They do not tell us that. We need to know, first, how they have come to that conclusion and, secondly, if that is a fair, reasoned and balanced conclusion. We also need a detailed look at the anonymised statistics, so that we can ask further questions about the problems that are worrying us—that certainly worry me—and so that we can make better decisions in future.”
“Of course. I want to move on to excess deaths over the last couple of years, since covid, and the figures during covid. One of the ways of measuring the impact of covid was looking at excess deaths during covid. They were measured against a five-year average—that was the gold standard; it is the way it has been done—and that gave quite large figures. That is interesting given what has happened when the excess 100,000 deaths per year over the past two years have been looked at. The Office for National Statistics has moved away from that basis and on to a different one, and the figures are coming down. We need an anonymised account of those excess deaths—this was part of a recent Westminster Hall debate—because that will help us to understand what is going on.”
“I do not think that any hon. or right hon. Member could disagree in general terms with the Minister’s reply. It would have been a more interesting reply if she had made an assessment of the reduction in investment since the cancellation of High Speed 2, because there is no doubt, as she said, that investment in rail infrastructure leads to business investment all along the route. We can see that in Birmingham and Manchester, and we can now see the lack of new investment because of the cancellation. Was it not a mistake to swap that investment, which would have led to many new high-technology jobs, for money to replace what has been taken from local government to fill potholes?”
“Q2. Last week, the Institute for Public Policy Research published a paper, “State of the North 2024”. That paper predicted that wealth inequalities, already too large between the north and the south-east, would increase to nearly £250,000 per head by the end of this decade. Does the Prime Minister accept that his levelling-up agenda has failed—or did he never want it to succeed?”
“Q15. The Prime Minister has been at it again. In a previous answer, he boasted about transferring investment from the north of England to the south. When he came to Manchester in the autumn to insult the people of the north of England and cancel HS2—proudly cancel it—was he aware then that, because the trains have to split without the HS2 lines and do not tilt, he would be slowing down services and reducing capacity? Did he not know that, or did he not care?”
“This House, the people of Rochdale and the people of Greater Manchester will greatly miss Tony’s contribution to our political life.”
“Greater Manchester has a reputation for the authorities working together, but that does not just happen on its own. Authorities are often jealous of each other, leaders of councils are jealous of Members of Parliament and they are certainly jealous of mayors, elected or not, and Tony used his skills to bring people together. Tony was calm, which does not mean he always toed the party line: on Iraq and Trident, for instance, I was pleased to walk through the Lobby with him. He did not agree with the current Labour party policy on the middle east, but again it was done in a calm and thoughtful way. And when the war memorial in Rochdale was desecrated with pro-Palestinian, anti-British Government writing and by people chanting racist, antisemitic slogans, Tony was the first person to call it out.”
“Although he loved representing Manchester United, he was always the political realist, and he could see that there was likely to be a much larger majority in Manchester Central than there was in Stretford, so he moved to Manchester Central. Again, he had a difficult ward in Cheetham, and he dedicated his time to improving relations in that ward. He never said this to me directly, but I think it was his experience of seeing the damage that poor policing could do that motivated him to become the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester. In some ways more importantly, Tony was the first non-elected mayor for Greater Manchester to use those skills of bringing communities together in bringing the 10 local authorities of Greater Manchester together.”
“When Tony became the MP for Stretford, which included Moss Side, I became leader of the council shortly afterwards, and we both had to deal with many of the problems that there were in Moss Side at that time. I think it would be fair to say that Tony worked tirelessly to improve the relationships between the different communities and the public services in Moss Side, because we were still in the aftermath of the 1981 riots in Moss Side. I think it is also fair to say—he took this into his job later as police and crime commissioner—that he was not a supporter of James Anderton’s rather brutal tactics in Moss Side, and he saw it as part of his job to improve relations between the communities, not to make them worse. Tony took a similar attitude when he moved to Manchester Central.”
“It meant that he represented Manchester United and Manchester City—both grounds were in that constituency—and Tony, who was fair with all his constituents all his life, was I suspect not completely even-handed between the Reds and the Blues at Manchester. He was delighted to go into the directors’ box at Old Trafford, and I think the last early-day motion he put down was a very good tribute to Bobby Charlton when he passed away recently. One of the sadnesses of Tony passing is that he campaigned against, and led a debate in Westminster Hall on, the Glazers’ parasitic ownership of Manchester United, and as the Glazers are on the way out, I think Tony would have been delighted to see their demise.”
“When we have the sad duty to pay tribute to hon. or right hon. Members, it is often the case that the facts get gilded, in a sense, to help the family. There is absolutely no need to embellish the facts when it comes to Tony. Quite simply, Tony was a decent man, who dedicated his life to public service. Tony was first elected to Trafford Council on the same day that Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, which meant that his first 18 years as an elected representative were probably more difficult than most people’s first 18 years. He very soon, four years after he had been elected as a councillor, became the Member of Parliament for Stretford, and I want to mention two things about that.”
“This will not be the first, or I suspect the last, Government in history not to follow the evidence when it comes to difficult issues. When Governments make mistakes, protect themselves and do not look at the evidence, we as a democratic society should expect there to be an inquiry that establishes what happened, what should have happened and what should happen in the future. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the inquiry that we set up is failing to do that job, and is assuming that lockdown was right from the beginning?”
“Order. This has been a good and important debate, but I must remind hon. Members that interventions should be short. I did not want to intervene previously, but I also remind Members that I am not involved in the debate—you should not refer to other Members as “you”.”
“There is a deep democratic point in all of this. The Secretary of State was elected at the last general election with the expectation given by the then leader of the Conservative party that HS2 would be built. Partly because of the Government’s financial incompetence, they are now cancelling it. A Prime Minister—not the Secretary of State—whose own party did not support him, and who has certainly never put himself before the electorate as Prime Minister, is cancelling it. The current Secretary of State is following a scorched earth policy whereby it will be impossible for either the elected Mayors who are looking for alternative funding for carrying on the second phase or an incoming Labour Government, to build out the full scheme, with all the benefits it would have. That is fundamentally anti-democratic.”
“Will the Minister give an unambiguous answer to this question: is this Government still committed to building HS2 to Manchester from Euston? People in the north need to know whether they are being abandoned, because it looks like that to me from press reports, which have not been made up by journalists. Is it not the case that the Minister is fronting a Government who will not dare tell the electorate that they are abandoning the north?”
“Does the Minister agree that this country’s performance on productivity has been pitiful over the last 10 years? There has been virtually no improvement in productivity, and one reason for that is our lack of investment in national infrastructure. Slowing down HS2 is a bad move when it comes to improving our infrastructure, and it is years since we agreed to a third runway at Heathrow. Does the Minister agree that if we are to improve our productivity, we have to invest in infrastructure?”
“There has been a consensus in this debate that resources need to be directed at trying to prevent pandemics and get rid of as many diseases as we can. One of the proposals to be considered at the high-level talks is transferring some decision making—the declaration of pandemics, for instance—from nation states to the World Health Organisation. I think that that would be a huge loss of sovereignty and a mistake, particularly as the World Health Organisation is dominated by China and has a huge amount of funding from Bill Gates. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that transferring sovereignty to the World Health Organisation would be a mistake?”
“Before I call the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) to open the debate, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that a petition being debated today indirectly relates to a case about the expansion of the ultra low emission zone; the case is ongoing, and therefore sub judice. Mr Speaker has agreed to exercise the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow reference to the case, given the issues of national importance that it raises.”
“I ask hon. Members who wish to be called in the debate to stand. This is a three-hour debate, so I do not think there is any necessity for a time limit.”
“Order. We are not under any real time pressure, but can I remind right hon. and hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point? They are gradually getting longer and longer.”
“We need either a statement on the Floor of the House or a debate so that we can question any terms of reference of the investigation and what was not answered by the Prime Minister: the involvement of those hon. Members of this House who have a financial relationship with people involved with Teesworks, and whether they have influenced their decision.”
“In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) about the murky dealings at Teesworks, the Leader of the House read out a list of Government spending agreements to the north-east. I am sure that those spending agreements are welcome to those living in the north-east, but that is not the point. The point is that we need a proper investigation into what has been going on in Teesworks with public money. Yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions, at column 281 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said that the Levelling Up Secretary had “already announced an investigation”. No such investigation has been announced to the House, either in a written or verbal statement.”
“That has happened—grounds are being cleared, a car park is under construction and a new mental health unit is being built on that site—but the final clearance for what was a half-billion pound scheme has not been given. The trust has told me in correspondence that it cannot get clearance. Will he give the final go-ahead now, and will he return to north Manchester and visit the hospital? I know that he has been before.”