Welsh Affairs

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Obviously we should commend the Welsh Government for doing that, and we should commend everyone who is lending their resources to the Welsh national effort. Wales is a generous nation, and its generosity is demonstrated by all the stories we are hearing in this debate.

North Wales potentially has a huge role to play in helping to secure the energy supply of this country. It is well placed to become an energy powerhouse, and not only in relation to what I would describe as the low-hanging fruit of wind energy. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) would wish me to draw attention to the potential of Anglesey as an energy island, which should be developed as a priority.

The Prime Minister has said it is his ambition to see a new nuclear power station started in this Parliament, and there could be no better location for it than Wylfa on the north Anglesey coast. I was once told by a senior nuclear engineer at Hitachi, which previously had an interest in Wylfa, that it is the best site he has seen anywhere in the world for a nuclear power station, and I strongly urge the Government to pursue the development of Wylfa with appropriate private sector partners as a priority. I am pleased that the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill will soon become law, as it will provide a financing model, the regulated asset base, that should prove more attractive to domestic investors.

Similarly, I suggest that Trawsfynydd should be considered for the location of a new fleet of small modular nuclear reactors. That proposal has the support of the local authority, it has significant local expertise and it has a lot of the necessary infrastructure. Siting an SMR in Trawsfynydd would present the prospect of a new north Wales-developed industry that could relatively quickly be rolled out across the country and, indeed, internationally, putting north Wales ahead of the game.

We should also look seriously at the concept of tidal lagoons. Sadly, as we know, the proposed Swansea lagoon did not proceed.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate the Labour-controlled city and county of Swansea on how they have turned around the Swansea tidal lagoon to make it a financially viable project that will provide energy at reasonable prices to over 800,000 homes in the Swansea area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) on securing this debate and thank him for the huge amount of work that he did in government as a Minister in the Wales Office, and also for his work in defence, in foreign affairs, on the constitution, on Scotland and so on. As we all know, he has brought many, many talents to the House and we wish him well for the future.

This year marks 100 years since Labour became the party of the majority of people of Wales, winning 18 out of 35 seats at the general election in 1922, with the Liberals taking 10 and the Conservatives six. For Labour politicians, being an elected representative is about trying to improve the lives of our constituents, strengthening the cohesion of our communities, making sure that we value each and every one, and looking after those who fall on hard times.

The Llanelli constituency has been represented continuously by Labour MPs since 1922. I am privileged to follow three distinguished parliamentarians: Dr J. H. Williams, Jim Griffiths and Denzil Davies. A party can only bring about radical universal change when it is actually in government—be that at UK level, Senedd level or council level.

I pay tribute to Jim Griffiths, who was described by James Callaghan as “one of Wales’s greatest sons”. If we look back at some of Griffiths’ achievements, we can see how relevant they are to some of the problems that we face today. In that radical Government of 1945, he brought in family allowances. They were to be paid to the mother, which is something that campaigners had been wanting for a very long time. He saw the poverty and malnutrition in his constituency and was determined to look after people who fell on hard times. He brought in the National Insurance Act 1946, which ensured unemployment benefit and sickness benefit, and the National Assistance Act 1948, which ensured that those who were unable to make the contributions necessary to be eligible for those benefits—people who had disabilities; people who had been unable to make enough contributions to cover their old age—were covered. He also brought in the Industrial Injuries Act 1946 to look after those who were injured at work, those who needed a disablement pension for life, and indeed money for the dependants of those who were killed at work.

We need to think hard about how we look after the poorest in our society today. It is 12 years since the Conservative Government came to power. In that first year, they broke the benefits link to inflation that had always been there. Even Margaret Thatcher did not break that link. We have seen 12 years of erosion in the value of benefits, plus, of course, the £20 cut that we saw earlier this year. It is all very well to say that that was additional, but we must bear in mind those 12 years of erosion. It was hardly a fair compensation for that, and that money did not even go to those people on legacy benefits. Then there were the cuts in tax credits. It is all very well to talk about the softening of the taper on tax credits, but that does not make up for the amount of cuts that there have been to them.

I fear now that, with rampant inflation, we will see malnutrition return. We are already talking about people having to choose between eating and heating. If that goes on for more than a few weeks, children will suffer—their development will suffer—and, sadly, we will risk returning to a pre-1945 state. I urge this Government to look again at how we treat the poorest in our society, particularly in respect of the cost of living crisis.

Jim Griffiths was also known for his work in developing what we now know as the Wales Office, a precursor to the whole idea of devolution. We have been able to do things differently in Wales with a Welsh Labour Government. Gradually, we have had more powers, and we have developed and implemented policies that reflect Welsh Labour principles. The Development Bank of Wales, for example, has supported many businesses and helped them grow, working to the priorities of the Welsh Government, including growing the missing middle—those medium-sized businesses that we are still short of in Wales.

The Welsh Government have been not only providing support for the foundation economy, which is home-grown local businesses feeding into the local economy, but using public procurement to support the local economy and promote ethical procurement—not using firms that blacklist or trash workers’ right. We also have a social partnership approach—a partnership between Welsh Government, businesses, industry and trade unions. Interestingly, because the Welsh Government gave out more money than usual during the pandemic, they were able to increase the number of firms that are involved in a partnership that has conditionality attached to it for having that money from the Welsh Government. That conditionality is about saying that there will be growth and job provision, about saying that there will be fair work and workers’ rights, about looking after the wellbeing of the workforce, including mental health, and about having a commitment to tackling climate change.

It is very noticeable that the National Audit Office gave the Welsh Government a clean bill of health on the way they had gone about procuring supplies during the pandemic, while the UK Government, sadly, wasted billions by giving contracts to cronies. Frankly, we are all very ashamed of that. It is also shameful because all of us paid for that.

Public transport is a real challenge for us in a very large country. It is vital to help people get better access to education, training and job opportunities. I know that the Welsh Government are committed to building on their work for Transport for Wales, by taking over the railway franchises and by ensuring that we have a better bus service that is more responsive to people’s needs and that looks at ways to make fares more accessible. I know people in rural areas of my constituency who are very dependent on buses with quite high fares to get any job opportunities, because the mining villages that once offered such opportunities now do not, so they have to travel to towns such as Carmarthen and Llanelli for work.

Of course, it is not just the infrastructure that we need to look after; we must also invest in our people. That is something the Welsh Government have taken seriously, with initiatives such as all-age apprenticeships, workplace learning and better digital inclusion. Levelling up is a huge challenge, and I do not pretend that the UK Government have an easy job to do. Working out how to spread power, wealth and opportunity is really difficult. It is not only about getting the appropriate structures in place, but about getting the appropriate ethos and the right relationship between one layer of government and another.

I must say, however, that the way the Conservatives are running the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund shows brazen disregard for the devolution settlement. The Tory UK Government are completely ignoring not only the Welsh Government, but the partnership work done between the Welsh Government and Welsh local government leaders on strategic priorities. Instead, we have an England-focused Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which has not dealt with Wales since pre-devolution days in 1999, and which has allowed previous Tory Ministers to give money to each other’s constituencies, to the detriment of more disadvantaged areas. Will the current Secretary of State be any better?

Again, that contrasts with the close working relationship that the Welsh Labour Government have with the leaders of the 22 Welsh unitary authorities, whatever their political colour, throughout the pandemic, recognising the vital role and burdens that councils have shouldered. We can contrast that with what we hear from council leaders in England about the lack of consultation with the Tory Government. In dealing with the covid pandemic, time after time there was no real consultation, nor even sometimes any communication from the UK Tory Government to the other nations of the UK. Perhaps that should not surprise us, given the poor communication even within the Tory Cabinet and the Prime Minister’s absence from Cobra meetings, but it has serious consequences. It is not only a poor way to run the UK; it also fans the flames of separatism.

It is important that we pin the blame clearly on the Conservative Government for the way they behave, rather than allowing the idea to take hold that it is the existence of a UK Government that is the problem. As we talk about a better balance of power, wealth and opportunity across the UK, we must also celebrate the huge benefit that comes with being part of the UK and being able to tackle big problems such as climate change together.

What is really needed is to put that relationship between the UK Government and devolved institutions across the UK, whatever form they take, on a firm statutory footing. The relationship between areas and different levels of Government should be one of mutual respect. As the Welsh Government have clearly set out, the UK Parliament should not normally seek to legislate for a territory in relation to matters within the competence of the devolved legislature of that territory without that legislature’s explicit consent.

Instead of pitting areas against each other, we should look at ways that different areas can complement each other, perhaps by developing different industrial specialities. That means developing effective funding mechanisms to get away from competitive bidding and ministerial interference—simply creating systems that work better than what we have at present.

The Welsh Government have not grabbed power to themselves; they are using their power to enable local authorities. What we have seen this year in the local government settlement is a very generous settlement to local councils across Wales: a 9.4% increase in core revenue, in recognition of the huge work that local councils have done throughout the pandemic.

On test and trace, Wales used local councils with local knowledge and local people with a public service ethos to provide a service—we might joke that the Welsh are all very nosy, so we would know where so-and-so was on a Saturday night and who he or she might have been meeting. It is so much better to have that ethos than to have the billions wasted in England on contracting out to firms all over the country that did not even manage to train up or employ their people half the time. If we have that ethos and local knowledge, the service can be delivered so much better.

The financial settlement will help to put our local services on a firm financial footing—firmer than has been the case for a long time, as we have had to absorb the swingeing Tory cuts to the Welsh budget. The settlement is the result of months of constructive dialogue between Ministers, leaders and officials in local government and the Welsh Government. Councillor Andrew Morgan, the leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, commented:

“Investment in councils is more than figures on a spreadsheet. It’s about investing in our communities, our people and in our vital services that help improve and change lives, whilst continuing to respond to two global challenges: the pandemic and climate change.”

I hope we can all work towards those ends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Williams]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point given that I have just given him two hard figures. The latest schemes coming out of the United Kingdom Government show that this is not about words, but action—actual funding leaving the Treasury and the levelling-up unit and going into Wales. We have 23% from the community renewal fund going straight into schemes across Wales and 7% from the levelling-up fund—way above any Barnettised formula. The figures are there, so he need not ask for them. Now we need to work together.

The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who is not in his place, talked about an attack on devolution. With the objective 1 funding, we qualified once, we qualified twice, and we continued to qualify. That was not a great thing to continue doing, as countries in eastern Europe managed to use the funding programmes organised by the European Union to grow their GVA and so no longer qualify because their prosperity, skills and poverty indicators were all going the right way. In Wales, we are still under the Welsh European Funding Office. This is not just a political assertion from the Conservative Benches. The Audit Wales, Committees of this House and the European Union itself wanted to know time and again why the European funds that were going to Wales were not getting any better outcomes than countries in eastern Europe—the outcomes that our constituents wanted. I remember during the referendum, when we were on the same page, wondering why the response was so bad in the south Wales valleys.

[Nia Griffith]

Does the hon. Member accept that many of the financial levers are not in the control of the Senedd, including the whole taxation and benefits system, which affects the GVA of the population of Wales very significantly? Therefore, there are 12 years in which the Conservatives share responsibility for whatever deficit he is referring to in terms of where he thinks the development should have gone to? In addition, why is there this aversion to including the Welsh Government together with his Government and local government to talk about the priorities of the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund, instead of just ignoring them?

[Craig Williams]

I could make a 10-minute speech on the irony of that intervention, but I can see the Deputy Speaker looking at me funny so I will not. Most of those arguments could be made for most of the eastern European regions, as they have different constitutional settlements and local government as well. We could go back and forward on that, on an academic level, for a while.

Going back to the attack on devolution, I have seen the discussions around what mutual respect means for Labour Members. They do not mean mutual respect; they mean that they want the Welsh Government to control all decisions. It is not about putting things together; it is about having a veto over what this Government are doing. I find that completely frustrating, given what I have described as happening with former European programmes. The leader of Powys County Council has been unequivocal in welcoming the levelling-up fund and community renewal fund—schemes that, for the first time ever, provide real investment in mid-Wales. This is hugely significant.

I reflect on the exchange between the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes). Looking at the political map of this place, above the Brecon Beacons there is beginning to be a political discourse of two countries—or three with mid-Wales—where there is a palpable feeling of neglect coming from the south Wales Labour party, as we see it.

[Nia Griffith]

rose—

[Craig Williams]

Two speeches are enough.

I would push back heavily on the willingness of communities in north, mid, and, no doubt, south Wales to access funding directly from the UK Government to work with us on strategic issues. Mutual respect is always chucked around in this Chamber, but in the Union connectivity review, for the first time ever, the UK has looked at taking responsibility for connecting the United Kingdom. When the European Union did that through its trans-European network, there was not a single utterance in this place. In fact, there probably were some utterances from the Conservative Benches, for a very different reason. It was absolutely fine for Welsh Labour and the Welsh Government to have the European Union dictating where infrastructure spend should go in the United Kingdom in connecting the whole of Europe, but the second the United Kingdom Government say how to connect our great four nations together, there is outrage, saying it is an attack on devolution. [Interruption.] That intervention from Scottish Members will feature independence, I am sure.

Montgomeryshire has a strongly cross-border population. A good chunk of the workforce, if not the majority, cross the border to work every day. Our district general hospital is in Shrewsbury in England. Our sixth-form colleges are over the border. We are a community that certainly does not see, or want, the huge policy divide that is being asserted on the Opposition Benches.