Tag: Nia Griffith

  • Nia Griffith – 2023 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Nia Griffith – 2023 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Nia Griffith, the Labour MP for Llanelli, in the House of Commons on 7 November 2023.

    Even if we were not expecting a great deal, the King’s Speech is even more disappointing than we could have imagined. It is weak, empty and full of platitudes. To make matters worse, it builds on a very poor track record.

    The Government say that they want to create growth in the economy, but there is nothing in the King’s Speech to explain how. Their track record is abysmal. They have completely failed over 13 years to get any proper growth in the economy. Wages have stagnated while inflation has skyrocketed, leaving people struggling in a massive cost of living crisis.

    Creating growth in the economy really matters. It is about people having good jobs and wages that keep pace with inflation, and it is about our having the money to invest in improving our sorely overstretched public services. Labour would prioritise growth and invest in the green jobs of the future. That is why we need a change of Government, a Labour Government, and we need that change urgently.

    We saw just last week how big international companies are now making their investment decisions for the future. Although other countries are wooing companies for their investment in the green jobs of the future, this Conservative Government are letting down workers who worked hard, often in difficult circumstances, during covid and adapted rapidly to change.

    Take steel, which is a vital foundation industry. For years, this Conservative Government have been half-hearted in their support for the steel industry. They have failed to tackle the high energy prices that make our steel uncompetitive, and they have failed to invest in the future. Worse, there are 20-plus projects across Europe looking at how to decarbonise the blast furnace process, but there is not one project in the UK.

    The Conservative Government, in their so-called big announcement back in September, promised only £0.5 billion to invest in an electric arc furnace in Port Talbot, whereas Labour has recognised and committed £3 billion to decarbonise the steel industry. That is the sort of investment needed to get the necessary technologies to green the blast furnace process. Yes, we need electric arc furnaces to recycle more of the 800 million tonnes of steel that are currently exported for recycling, but we also need to develop the necessary technology to transform the blast furnace process for extracting iron from iron ore.

    Just yesterday, we heard the dreadful news that the Chinese-owned British Steel is closing down blast furnace steel production in Scunthorpe, replacing it with two electric arc furnaces. This comes hot on the heels of the devastating news in south-west Wales this past week that Tata Steel is planning to close down the blast furnaces at Port Talbot by the spring of next year, long before the electric arc furnace will be operational. This means a massive loss of income for thousands of workers and their families, and for the associated contractors, transport companies and businesses in the community. This affects not just Port Talbot but the whole of south-west Wales.

    Workers are fearful for the future of the Trostre tinplate works in my constituency. Trostre needs steel of a quality that can currently be produced only by the blast furnace process. We have assurances that, when the blast furnaces in Port Talbot close, Tata will import steel from abroad to feed Trostre. But it makes no sense to lose all those jobs here in the UK and then to import steel made in blast furnaces abroad, quite likely with much lower environmental standards than our own. That does nothing to cut emissions.

    Furthermore, if we lose the means to produce virgin steel in this country, we will be at the mercy of other countries for the price we have to pay. If there is a world shortage, we may even not be able to get the steel we need for our vital industries. The fear at Trostre is about the medium and long-term future. If we no longer have steel produced just down the railway track in Port Talbot, and if we have to import it from abroad, how economically viable will we be in comparison with competitor factories in the same company elsewhere?

    Tata’s timescale to close down the blast furnaces in Port Talbot by March next year has come as a massive shock for Port Talbot and for us in Trostre. The prospect of Port Talbot colleagues losing jobs and Trostre becoming dependent on imported steel is very worrying. We now need proper consultation between Tata and the unions, but I also urge the Government to do everything possible to ensure that we keep steel production in this country.

    We are at a turning point in our industrial history but, with this Government, we are in very real danger of being left behind. It is as if they are turning back to the horse and cart when everybody else is moving on to the steam train. I am sure many Members will remember the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony in which, alongside the celebration of our NHS, we saw a portrayal of the industrial revolution, for which the UK is globally renowned. Just as we took the lead on that industrial revolution, we should be leading the way now on the green industrial revolution. But with this Government we are not—we are being left behind.

    I have met representatives of international companies that have factories in the Llanelli constituency, and they are desperate to see cheaper energy and a proper industrial strategy from this Government. Car manufacturers and others are making crucial decisions about where to invest in new production lines and to build new factories. They recognise the loyalty of the workforce in Llanelli and other parts of the UK, who have adapted to many changes over the years, and they would be keen to invest. However, when companies have factories spread across the globe, and they see the USA offering incentives through its Inflation Reduction Act and the EU with similar programmes, and they compare the cheaper energy prices in competitor countries and the proper industrial strategies in other countries, but see nothing coming from the UK Government, will it be any surprise if they choose to invest elsewhere? We will be left just with the current production lines limping along until their products are no longer required, while the shiny new factories will go elsewhere.

    There is no time to waste. The rest of the world is forging ahead with the green industrial revolution and they are not going to wait for the UK Government when other countries are providing real incentives, as well as cheaper energy. It is all very well mentioning growth in the King’s Speech, but we absolutely need to see some flesh on the bones.

    This Conservative Government’s reference to energy in the King’s Speech beggars belief. While the rest of the world is going forward, making huge investment in green energies and technologies, we see the UK Government going backwards, promoting the issuing of more oil and gas licences, which, by the Government’s own admission, will not bring down energy bills for consumers. We have huge potential in the UK to produce cheap energy through renewables, slashing prices for households, businesses and industry, while also cutting our emissions to zero—this is a win-win situation. We have huge potential for wind energy, both onshore and offshore, and some of the highest tidal ranges in the world, with capacity around the UK to produce electricity 24/7, not to mention the potential for wave technologies, hydro and solar. By fast-tracking the development of renewables, we can both slash domestic energy bills and fuel a new green industrial revolution, with a massive roll-out of energy.

    That is precisely what we in the Labour party intend to do. We have a plan to supercharge investment in renewables, including with the creation of GB Energy. However, we are seeing an abject failure by this Conservative Government to develop renewables. What do we see on renewable energy in the King’s Speech? The Government are going to “seek to attract” investment in renewables. That went well in the Celtic sea offshore energy auction, didn’t it? Not a single bid was made because the Government failed to respond to the companies’ pointing out that inflation was driving up costs. The Republic of Ireland recognised the problem and got a successful auction; we got not one single bid, but it got a successful auction. The Government have to do better than just trying to attract investment.

    Of course, that comes on top of years of banning the development of onshore wind in England and a failure to lift that ban properly; stalling on solar; shilly-shallying and then cancelling the electrification of the south Wales mainline to Swansea; and long waits for connections to the grid. In contrast, Labour has a plan to supercharge investment in renewables. Time is of the essence, and I urge the Government to do much more to develop renewables, to develop an industrial strategy and to invest. That would give companies real incentives and the certainty that they need to invest in green jobs in the UK. Sadly, this Government’s record is abysmal, which is why we desperately need a change and the hope that a Labour Government could bring by investing in the jobs of the future, fast-tracking the development of renewables, improving our NHS, increasing opportunities for our young people and making our streets safer. That is why I urge the Prime Minister to think again about his King’s Speech and to put more in it to provide the investment that we need. If he cannot do that, we need change and we need an election as soon as possible.

  • Nia Griffith – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    Nia Griffith – 2023 Speech on the Budget

    The speech made by Dame Nia Griffith, the Labour MP for Llanelli, in the House of Commons on 20 March 2023.

    It is good to see you back, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Today, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate science report reminds us that we are not doing enough to tackle climate change. While we continue to have a clear moral obligation to prioritise reaching net zero, we are now at a critical time for companies to invest in the technologies for the future. If the UK Government do not provide the appropriate conditions and incentives for multinational companies to choose to site their new production lines in the UK, they will go elsewhere. There will be not just one factory closure, but multiple factory closures. We will lose critical mass and a whole generation of investment. That would be a tragedy, when we think back to our role in the industrial revolution and about the world-class research and development that takes place in the UK’s great universities and leading manufacturers.

    The US Inflation Reduction Act and the European Union green deal industrial plan pose real challenges for the UK. Sadly, this Chancellor’s Budget was an extremely disappointing response to what is going on elsewhere. It prompted the CEO of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to say of it:

    “There is little, however, that enables the UK to compete with the massive packages of support to power a green transition that are available elsewhere.”

    That is particularly galling as we do have the ideas to invest in innovation and research and development, and, at the same time, we have a desperate need for the Government to create growth. Just last week, the OECD report, “A Fragile Recovery”, repeated that Britain’s economy will have the worst performance of any advanced country this year. That is a disgrace this Tory Government should be ashamed of.

    The investment needs to be comprehensive. For example, the automotive transformation fund needs not just to support the development of batteries and electrical components, but to be available to companies such as those in my constituency investing in the development of lighter bodywork parts, which are essential for improved electric vehicles.

    That is why we need a bold investment programme, such as the one Labour proposes of some £28 billion a year, so we can lead the green revolution, and develop, manufacture and export goods from our proposed export hubs, rather than find ourselves left behind in the green technological race, with factory lines shutting down as the manufacture of current models is phased out and our manufacturing base disappearing, leaving us ever more dependent on imports and exposed to the vagaries of world markets.

    Time and again, from way before the current energy crisis, we have raised the issue of uncompetitive energy costs in industry and business. If the UK had invested considerably more in renewables, we would have been much less reliant on imported gas and in a much better position to control our energy prices. Yet this Tory Government have wasted so many years, dragging their feet on investment in renewables, with their absurd ideological ban on onshore wind in England—a ban there was absolutely no need for. We have just had a begrudging, half-hearted reversal of that ban, with no real enthusiasm and no renewed drive to accelerate the roll-out of this, the cheapest and easiest form of renewable energy to produce. And what did we hear in the autumn? Measures to curtail solar panel expansion investment. What will the Government now do to give a real boost to the transition to renewables?

    We recently witnessed the fiasco where wind energy was being generated in Scotland, but because of lack of grid capacity, it could not be transmitted to England, where consumers needed it. So there is work to be done for the national grid just to catch up with the present, never mind prepare for the future.

    I know the Climate Change Minister in the Welsh Government, Julie James MS, is mindful of the likely quantities of energy that will be generated by offshore wind in the Celtic sea. She has raised with the UK Government the vital work that is needed to the national grid to ensure that energy can be transported from where it is generated to where it is needed. Yet when I have mentioned that here in this place, I have been met with looks of incredulity from some Members of the Government Front Bench. So I ask again: given the huge potential for increasing output from both onshore and offshore wind, please can the Minister responding to the debate set out in detail what talks Ministers have had with National Grid about ensuring grid capacity will be able to transmit power from where it is generated to where it is needed? How do the Government intend to accelerate the development of the national grid?

    I turn to the Horizon programme, the EU programme that UK universities have particularly benefited from in the past, as they have been seen as attractive partners for other European countries. There was an abject failure by this Government in their Brexit negotiations not to come to a cordial agreement with the EU whereby we could, albeit from outside the EU, have collaborated on Horizon or similar programmes. Investors are now coming to the end of current programmes and unable to plan for the future.

    The UK Government keep trying to blame the EU for the delays to the Horizon association, but they should be taking responsibility for their actions in breaking their manifesto promise to broker an association. In summing up, can the Minister update us on negotiations for the UK to have Horizon associate status, and ensure that our universities can benefit and compete with the best in the world?

  • Nia Griffith – 2023 Parliamentary Question on UK Government Funding for Wales

    Nia Griffith – 2023 Parliamentary Question on UK Government Funding for Wales

    The parliamentary question asked by Dame Nia Griffith, the Labour MP for Llanelli, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.

    Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)

    What assessment he has made of the adequacy of UK Government funding for Wales.

    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dr James Davies)

    Over the spending review period the UK Government are providing the Welsh Government with 20% more funding per person than equivalent UK Government spending in other parts of the UK. As a result of the autumn statement, Welsh Government funding is increasing by around £1.2 billion over the next two years, on top of the additional £2.5 billion-a-year average over the three-year spending review.

    Dame Nia Griffith

    The UK Government shared prosperity fund short-changes Wales by £1 billion over three years, even though the Secretary of State and his predecessors repeatedly promised that Wales would receive not a penny less when replacing EU funds. Those funds were used by the Welsh Government to deliver 5,000 apprenticeship year. Why is the Minister letting down young people in Wales in this way?

    Dr Davies

    The hon. Lady will know that the shared prosperity fund is extremely generous to Wales and replaces all the money that came from the European Union. There have been fantastic announcements in recent weeks about how the fund will progress. She will also know about an array of other funding schemes through UK Government, including the growth deal. I hope to be in her constituency in early February for the groundbreaking, milestone event for Pentre Awel, I hope she will join me at that.

    Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)

    Despite the Welsh Government receiving the largest devolution funding settlement, it has the worst performing Labour-run NHS. Instead of spending on what matters, they plan to spend £32 million on a 20 mile-an-hour blanket speed policy. Such a policy will cost the economy £4.5 billion. Does my hon. Friend agree with me and 94% of my surveyed constituents that that is another example of a Labour waste of money?

    Dr Davies

    My hon. Friend is quite right that the policy is not a good way to spend money, and is not deliverable either. As an NHS GP working in north-east Wales, I can tell her that the delivery of NHS services is shocking in many senses. We need the Welsh Government to improve their performance.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) has just reminded the House, the Secretary of State, the Minister and their predecessors repeatedly promised that Wales would receive “not a penny less” to replace EU structural funds to Wales. Not only have they failed to deliver on that promise, but the record inflation that their Government have presided over has resulted in a double whammy to the Welsh Government’s budget. Is the Minister aware that higher education has been shut out of his Government’s flagship levelling-up process and that hundreds of jobs are now at risk, possibly as many as 600? Why are his Government continually letting down people, including young people, across Wales?

    Dr Davies

    I joined the Secretary of State on a visit to Bangor University last week and it is important that we ensure there are funding mechanisms for higher education. There is an array of schemes through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and it is important that the hon. Gentleman and the Government work on ensuring that the university sector is supported in Wales.

  • Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nia Griffith on 2015-11-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, for what reasons the draft Wales Bill would seek to change the criteria on which the Assembly could legislate outside its normal competence, as set out in section 108(5) of the Government of Wales Act 2006.

    Stephen Crabb

    The purpose of the reserved powers model in the draft Wales Bill is to define clearly the legislative competence reserved to the UK Parliament. At the same time, it enables the Assembly to modify the law in areas that would otherwise be reserved to enforce, or otherwise give effect to, its legislation.

    It is right that this freedom should be balanced by a test to be applied when the Assembly seeks to modify the law in areas that are not devolved. For that reason the draft Bill defines the circumstances in which it can do so and the test to be applied – the test of necessity. This gives the Assembly flexibility to modify the law in areas outside devolved competence in order to enforce its legislation effectively, whilst ensuring the effect on these areas goes no further than necessary.

  • Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nia Griffith on 2015-12-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of the apprenticeship levy on employers operating in Wales whose headquarters are in England.

    Nick Boles

    The apprenticeship levy will apply to employers across the UK. An allowance of £15,000 means only those with a paybill exceeding £3million will have to pay it. The Government is working with the Welsh Government and other devolved administrations to ensure fair and transparent funding and, as far as possible, to develop a system for administering the levy which complements the skills and apprenticeship policies of each of the devolved administrations. We are committed to doing all we can to make the system work for employers wherever they are in the UK.

  • Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nia Griffith on 2015-11-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, with reference to the draft Wales Bill, for what reason it is his policy to remove the wording of the Government of Wales Act 2006 which states that an Act of the Assembly may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament.

    Stephen Crabb

    The current conferred powers model of Welsh devolution sets out what an Assembly Act can do. In contrast, a reserved powers model need only set out what an Assembly Act cannot do. Under the draft Wales Bill an Assembly Act would be able to include any provision that is not outside the Assembly’s legislative competence. The wording is not therefore needed.

  • Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nia Griffith on 2015-12-07.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the revenue that is likely to accrue from Welsh employers as a result of the apprenticeship levy in each of the next five years.

    Greg Hands

    The apprenticeship levy will apply across the UK and will be collected from employers on a UK wide basis. An allowance of £15,000 means only those with a paybill exceeding £3million will have to pay it.

    We are already working with the Welsh Government and the other devolved administrations to ensure they can get their fair share of the revenue and, as far as possible, to develop a system for administering the levy which complements the skills and apprenticeship policies of each of the devolved administrations.

    We are committed to doing all we can to make the system work for employers wherever they are in the UK.

  • Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nia Griffith on 2015-11-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, with reference to the Written Statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, HCWS282 whether he plans to bring forward proposals to amend the draft Wales Bill to include a requirement that the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government should not be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Wales.

    Stephen Crabb

    Clause 1 of the draft Wales Bill reflected the equivalent clause in the Scotland Bill on the date of publication. The Government will consider carefully whether any changes to the wording of the Scotland Bill clause should be reflected for Wales in the Wales Bill

  • Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nia Griffith on 2015-12-07.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what discussions he has had with (a) his ministerial colleagues and (b) his counterpart in the Welsh Government on the operation of the apprenticeship levy in Wales.

    Stephen Crabb

    We are currently discussing the operation of the apprenticeship levy with the Welsh Government, and other devolved administrations, to ensure they can get their fair share of the revenue and, as far as possible, develop a system for administering the levy which complements the skills and apprenticeship policies of each of the devolved administrations.

    We are committed to doing all we can to make the system work for employers wherever they are in the UK.

  • Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    Nia Griffith – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Wales Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Nia Griffith on 2015-11-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how much his Department spent on (a) temporary agency staff, (b) consultants, (c) non-payroll staff, (d) administration and (e) marketing and advertising (i) in 2014-15 prices and (ii) as a proportion of his Department’s expenditure in each year since 2010-11.

    Alun Cairns

    The Wales Office spend on (a) temporary staff, (b) consultants, (c) non-payroll staff, (d) administration and (e) marketing and advertising as a proportion of Wales Office expenditure in each year since 2010-11 is shown in the table attached.

    The numbers shown are actual spend as published in the Wales Office Departmental Annual Report and Accounts.