British Steel: Negotiations

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

Absolutely. That is why we are working so closely with the companies and the unions. I have met with the unions, most recently last week. Hopefully I am not divulging too much information, but they also claimed that they struggled to have good levels of communication with Jingye and British Steel, so it is not lost on all of us. We are very committed to the sector.

We have also been buying more British steel. In 2021-22, the Government procured £268 million of UK-produced steel for major projects, which was an increase of £160 million on the figure from the previous year—this is based on departmental reports. I have been the HS2 Minister, and I have always been concerned about why we could not procure more UK steel in our rail and road projects, and in all others, including those for shipping—I have also been maritime Minister. So there is even a greater future ahead. As I mentioned, the UK’s steel demand is going to rise by 20%; this is a good space to be in. We are just in a peculiar situation while we are having ongoing negotiations, and the decision was taken to have this meeting with the unions yesterday.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I know that the Minister is sympathetic, but Ministers across Government need to realise that this is a crucial time for steel companies, as they are making decisions about where to invest for the future worldwide. What discussions has she had with colleagues across Government about giving guarantees that far more than £300 million will be there for developing the steel technologies of the future, that there will be a proper Government procurement strategy for British steel and that there will be a fair deal on energy prices for the future?

[Ms Ghani]

I appreciate that this is a very tricky moment for the sector, as it is worldwide. We have spoken about this previously, and it is incredibly important for us to get it right. We have been focused on the present real-time negotiations. Let me put it on record that we are, as always, available to continue those discussions and we are hoping that they will continue regardless of the announcement of the discussions that took place yesterday. I cannot stress enough the long-term and strategic benefit of having a £1.5 billion fund in place to help us decarbonise—that is providing a huge amount of support.

We have spoken previously about procurement, and when I moved away from BEIS Committee after, I realised how life comes at you fast when you are a Minister and you cannot commit to the recommendations you made in your report. However, we are working hard on procurement, too. We want to make sure that there is more British steel in our defence projects. Let me put it on record that the Ministry of Defence purchased £4.3 million of UK-produced steel through its contracts in 2020-21, which is an increase of 42%, from £3 million in 2019-20. There is a huge market here, which is why we are so committed to ensuring not only that we negotiate well, because this is about British taxpayers’ money, but that we have the right resources and infrastructure in place for a long-term future for British steel.

Steel Industry: Contribution to the UK Economy

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The steel industry—or tin-plate industry, as we call it—is vital to my constituency of Llanelli, where we take the steel from Port Talbot and make it into a range of products that subsequently become tins for food or cans for aerosols. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on securing the debate, which comes at a crucial time for the steel industry.

In the interests of saving time, I will not repeat the excellent points that my hon. Friend made on the energy issue. Energy costs are not just an immediate challenge. Now is very much decision time for the future of the steel industry. The US Inflation Reduction Act and President Biden’s determination to tackle climate change have undoubtedly accelerated global interest in decarbonisation, which poses huge challenges for the steel industry. Our steelmaking capacity is ageing, and now is crunch time for steel manufacturers, which must decide where they will invest for the future—whether it will be the UK or elsewhere.

We know that blast furnaces cannot simply be replaced by electric arc furnaces. Yes, they have a role, and could clearly be run on electricity generated from renewable sources, but the real challenge is to decarbonise the blast furnace process of making steel from iron ore. That requires huge investment in research and innovation to develop the technologies of the future. The UK Government need to make the conditions right for companies to choose the UK. We need a clear vision from the UK Government, and determination to ensure that the UK gets ahead of the game and develops the technologies. We have to be prepared to take the risk in order to reap the gains. If the UK can lead the way, we will have not only a flourishing steel industry, but the opportunity to export our steel and our technologies.

We need a clear industrial strategy, from research and innovation through development to establishing production; as well as confidence that there will be a level playing field on issues such as energy costs and confidence, and a commitment to use UK-produced steel in public procurement. The only way we will attract companies to invest in the steel industry of the future is with a proper strategy. The alternative is the demise of our industry. If we are overtaken by countries producing cleaner, cheaper steel, we will be left behind. It is not just the steel industry that needs certainty; all the associated industries need to know whether to invest.

The horrors that have unfolded in Ukraine have reminded us just how important it is that we have our own steel industry—for our security of supply and to support a range of other industries, including defence. The situation has made us refocus on the importance of our own sovereign defence capability and the need to have the materials and the skilled workforce to be able to scale up production if necessary. There is strong cross-party support for sanctions against Putin’s Russia, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East explained, there are loopholes. I understand that the Government may have plans to close the loopholes, but I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed this and indicated when we can expect it to happen.

We need a level playing field when it comes to UK steel having to compete against imports. When there are distortions in the marketplace, with steel arriving at our ports from countries that give massive state subsidies to the steel industry, taking action should be well within World Trade Organisation rules, and is essential to protect our steel industry against unfair competition—all the more so given that both the US and EU protect their steel industries in this way. Without such protection, we risk losing production and workers facing redundancy, and ultimately a lack of future investment in the industry.

Despite that, in both summer 2021 and summer 2022, the UK Government made very last-minute decisions about the extension of the existing steel safeguards. This does nothing to reassure the industry. If we want future investment in the UK steel industry, companies need to know that there is strong political will to protect the industry, and that they can rely on the UK Government to protect them from being undermined by artificially cheap imports. I understand that the Department for International Trade is looking to reform the way the Trade Remedies Authority works. We need a system that really works for the industry—that can respond speedily, carry out investigations and act to protect our industry. The UK Government would do well to look at some of UK Steel’s suggestions to achieve this.

First, we need clear Government policy on how we deal with countries such as China and Russia. Secondly, given that in March 2022 we needed additional legislation to give the Secretary of State call-in powers, consideration needs to be given to how those powers could be part of the system so that the Secretary of State can use them in an initial investigation. Thirdly, reform of the way in which the economic interest test works is needed—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Tim Farron.

Future of Postal Services

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We in the Labour party made our fears clearly known back in 2010, when the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), the current leader of the Liberal Democrats, led the charge of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government to privatise Royal Mail.

We warned of the danger to the six-day universal service obligation, which is so important to our households and to businesses across the country, and the envy of many other countries. We warned against not having a major Government shareholding in Royal Mail and of the danger of asset stripping. Our fears are now being realised, with a threat to the universal service obligation.

We hear about the £400 million paid out in dividends and £167 million in share buy-backs, so it is no wonder that workers are utterly incredulous to find that jobs are being cut and they are being told that there is no money for reasonable pay rises. If we want a good service, we need a loyal, committed workforce, which is what Royal Mail has at present, but treating workers without respect and not having proper terms and conditions will soon mean losing that trust.

We need partnership working—management, workers and trade unions. That gives us a good service, which in turn benefits consumers. The workers stay; they create stability, knowledge and experience; and they know their routes, which can be covered in absences. If we do not have that, we will have greater staff turnover, an erosion of trust and, ultimately, the demise of the business.

Shale Gas Extraction

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I believe that this decision is completely consistent with the manifesto commitment on the safety of shale gas. The reason it has come to the fore now is the very high price increase in gas and the issue of energy security caused by Putin’s invasion of Russia. That has fundamentally changed, and so on the balance of arguments and practicalities, with a safe and well-proven technology, it is right now to extract shale gas as far as we can do so.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

As the 2022 Government security strategy acknowledges, onshore wind is one of the cheapest and easiest renewables to bring on stream. That same strategy is wishy-washy and lacks any drive for fast-tracking new wind generation. Will the Secretary of State now recognise the urgency of the current situation, revise the strategy, give onshore wind in England the boost that it needs, to complement the investment in wind that Welsh Labour has continued to promote in Wales, and therefore reduce our reliance on electricity produced from gas, which is currently at some 47% of the total?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

What we do with renewables is still going to leave us dependent, when the wind is not blowing and when there is a surge in demand, on gas. That is an important part of the strategy; we are building up our wind and nuclear supplies, and we have plans for more nuclear to come on, but for the transition we still need gas, which is what this announcement is about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

That is exactly what we are doing. We have committed £6.6 billion over the course of this Parliament. The local authority delivery scheme, £787 million; the home upgrade grants, £950 million; the social housing decarbonisation fund, over £800 million. These are real, big pieces of taxpayers’ money going into energy efficiency, and it is coming at a good time, when people need it most.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Government’s energy security strategy acknowledges that onshore wind is one of the cheapest forms of renewable power but, shockingly, proposes no wholesale changes to planning regulations for onshore wind in England. But we in Wales stand ready to help. What funding will the Minister provide for further research and development into producing greater efficiency in grid transmission, and will the Minister now commit to significant investment in the national grid in Wales?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Lady will have studied the evidence that I gave to the Welsh Affairs Committee a couple of months ago on the national grid in Wales. When it comes to ensuring that we are equipped in renewable energy, we have just announced the results of last week’s contract for difference auction. I remind her that when she was a supporter of the last Labour Government, only 7% of our electricity was generated from renewables. It is now 43%.

Fire and Rehire Tactics

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on his excellent exposé and on all the work that he has done on this extremely serious topic, which affects the whole of society.

Security at work is absolutely fundamental to workforce productivity, but it is also fundamental to stable communities. It enables people to plan ahead and work out what they can afford, and it offers the necessary security to take on the tenancy of a home, or to take out a loan to buy a car that they might need to get to work. It is absolutely vital for people’s mental health, because wondering every single second whether they will have a job next week does nothing at all to ease stress or help someone’s mental health. There are enough difficulties in life, particularly at the moment, without having to worry constantly about work insecurity.

The growth of fire and rehire is absolutely terrifying, especially when we see what were considered to be respectable and “safe” companies, such as British Airways and British Gas, go down the route of using such tactics. People now rightly feel that no job is safe anymore. Of course, there have always been exceptional circumstances in which, sadly, jobs were lost, but that is very different from the current situation in which companies are seemingly using fire and rehire tactics with very little pretext other than as a cost-cutting exercise, with employees suddenly faced with having to accept much worse pay and conditions with very little warning. Having pay and conditions cut is bad enough, but it can also affect someone’s security of tenure. A permanent contract can be replaced with a short-term contract, with no guarantee that the fire and rehire process will not be repeated a year or two later. Sadly, this situation is not confined to the private sector; it is now affecting workers in many parts of the public sector.

I remind Members of the effect of the casualisation of the workplace. A young man in my constituency worked from the age of 18 in factory after factory, job after job. He did not have a permanent job before he was 25. He was a good worker, but he could only get agency work—last in, first out. Companies and employers are getting a higher and higher percentage of their workforce as agency workers. The workers are paid less, but it costs the companies more because the agency takes a considerable cut.

That has an impact on a young person who is setting out in life. I am sure most of us in this room were able, when we first started working, to go into a job with a stable environment in which we hoped to stay for a number of years. That young man eventually set up as a landscape gardener on his own because it had become intolerable to be pushed from pillar to post. This is in an area where there are many manufacturing opportunities, but the culture has become increasingly difficult.

[David Linden]

Is that not precisely the problem? Because an employee has such poor rights, they might become self-employed, where they will probably not have the security of a pension, sick pay and holiday pay, and they will be pushed further into insecurity. We therefore need an employment Bill, and we need to ban fire and rehire. We all know that the world of work is changing, so there needs to be a comprehensive package from the Government that includes banning fire and rehire. We need legislation that reflects what is happening in 2022, because time has moved on.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Absolutely. As the hon. Member says, there are so many other costs—massive costs to society, the economy and the public purse—wrapped up in the culture of fire and rehire.

This causes constant worry, mental health concerns and disruption. It is okay when someone starts out as a single individual, but it becomes more complicated if they have a partner or children. It is complicated by how far they can travel to work and where the agency sends them. Deciding whether they can accept the gaps between work becomes even more of a nightmare, and of course they have responsibilities. It must be depressing for them to look at someone up the road who they thought had a very good job with British Airways, only to see that he, too, has been subject to fire and rehire and is being asked to sign a new contract. They may have thought that one day they would have a permanent job and security, and now they see older workers having to sign on the dotted line to take worse pay and conditions. That is nothing to look forward to, and it does nothing for the cohesion of society.

As the TUC has documented, 3 million workers in this country have been told to reapply for their jobs. We already have 3 million workers on zero-hours contracts or casual contracts and 5 million self-employed, some of whom are pseudo self-employed. As we know, that is a way for employers to get out of paying the full costs of employing them.

Not only is allowing employers to use fire and rehire bad for the workers, but it undermines good companies that want to play fair by their employees. The willy-nilly use of fire and rehire by unscrupulous employers to cut costs can catch decent employers unawares, undermine them and risk putting them out of work. That can spiral out of control and become a real race to the bottom—who can pay less and therefore cut costs and make more profit with less pay to the workers? This race to the bottom with lower wages leads to much greater reliance on benefits, at huge cost to the public purse.

We are also clocking up a pensions time bomb. The Minister may say that we have auto-enrolment, but there are thresholds for that and part-time workers, in particular, are likely to miss out. When we—the generation coming through now—get to pension age, what will we find? We will find that a far higher percentage have to rely on some form of state help because they have not been able to put money by. Why is that? Because it has gone into the pockets of companies that have not been playing fair.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) on the private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and his careful explanation of how it would work. Of course, we must not accept covid as an excuse—and it is nothing but an excuse. We all know that this is about increasing profit. There is also no truth in the statement “We cannot afford the current contracts.” We have labour shortages at the moment, so we have to afford it.

It is not just about fire and rehire, although that is the subject of today’s debate and is very important. We want much greater security from day one at work. I will not set out all of Labour’s manifesto commitments on this, but it is fundamental to our belief in a secure, cohesive and stable society that we should have security at work from day one.

The only solution to fire and rehire is an outright ban. That is not revolutionary; it is simply about respecting existing contracts and sticking to the law. A ban would be good for workers, productivity, community cohesion and the public purse. I therefore implore the Minister to take the issue seriously and introduce the necessary legislation without further delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I am going wider than workers’ rights and productivity. That is why we are rolling out the Help to Grow management scheme for smaller businesses, and other things. This is huge. We need better transport connections. That is part of the levelling-up agenda. There are lots of things within that, and I do not underestimate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Our employment landscape is very different from that in Germany. In Germany, they tend to ask permission—it is courts first there, whereas we tend to be tribunal led. There are big differences.

One of the key things I want to raise about productivity relates to what the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) said. She was absolutely right to say that job security leads to a better, more productive, happier and more loyal workforce. That allows workers and employees to plan and it results in better mental wellbeing. That is why, by setting statutory minimums in legislation, guidance and codes, we want employers to go further. Frankly, it makes business sense for employers to go further, rather than follow the egregious example of P&O. What is the point of taking people on and training them, which involves costs, time and resources, only to then cast them aside and have to do the same thing again?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Paul Scully]

I will give way, but I will then need to make progress so that I allow time for the hon. Member for Slough to respond to the debate.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

The Minister says that rational and good businesses would not do this, but the fact of the matter is that hundreds of businesses are being undermined because some businesses are using fire and rehire. It is being used repeatedly and in many different sectors. It is no good saying that it does not make logical sense; we need the legislation to back that up. That is what we want the Minister to bring forward.

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about parliamentary staff. Before becoming a Member, I worked in this place for a little while. I was an avuncular figure because I was about 20 years older than everybody else. People would come to my office in tears because former colleagues—they are not in this place any more—did not know how to employ people. The way in which they treated some of their staff was absolutely appalling. I have seen it at first hand.

The hon. Member for Llanelli rightly mentions the behaviour of some employers, and we have heard a number of examples today. Almost a year ago, The Independent reported that one employer was making a third of its workforce redundant and then taking on other people on less secure contracts. The Labour party claimed that by doing so it was putting itself on a firmer and fairer footing ahead of a general election, when it was telling people to use their own laptops, anti-virus software and firewalls, and to work from home. That is what I mean about outcomes and outputs. We can have great words, but if an organisation is not acting on them, that is no good to the employees who trust it. People want something that is flexible and that works to protect jobs but that also gets the best out of workers. It is really important that we work for that.

Let me leave the House in no doubt that this Government will continue to stand behind workers and stamp out unscrupulous practices where they occur. We will provide further updates regarding the consultation on the statutory code in due course, and we will inform the House and keep Members up to date on what we are doing on fire and rehire.

Fairness at Work and Power in Communities

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Fairness at work should be an absolute basic right. I am sorry if that offends the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax).

[Richard Drax]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman did not wish to give way to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), so I am afraid he will not get the opportunity to intervene now.

Everyone should have a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, but that is simply not happening in Britain today. Far too many people who are working hard, often taking on more than one job, still cannot make ends meet. They are constantly worrying about how they will provide for their family and pay the next bill, and they often have to go short on heating or eating. Furthermore, low wages are clearly linked to the scourge of insecurity at work. There is insecurity because of zero-hours contracts, with no guarantee of work each week and therefore no guarantee of income, and because of the growth of the fire and rehire culture, in which it seems that even long-standing contracts with loyal workers can be ripped up at a moment’s notice, as we saw in the appalling P&O scandal.

Fairness at work is important not only for workers, but for responsible business owners and companies. No one benefits from a race to the bottom. Good firms and employers who are trying to do the right thing should not have to worry about being undercut by rogue companies that cut corners, depress wages and ride roughshod over health and safety. Good companies recognise that they benefit from fairness at work. A workforce that is treated properly and remunerated fairly and feels secure at work is more productive and loyal, which is good for recruitment and retention. As other hon. Members have highlighted, fairness at work also saves the public purse on healthcare bills and social security bills.

I am absolutely appalled that the Government have not included any form of employment Bill in the Queen’s Speech. We have had promises of an employment Bill time and again. The Prime Minister himself purports to condemn fire and rehire culture, yet even after the P&O fire and rehire scandal, which should have been a wake-up call, there is nothing in the Queen’s Speech that addresses the many issues with employment law.

Not only are the Government showing utter contempt for workers in this country, but they are out of step with employers who want to do the right thing. Businesses have come to Parliament to celebrate paying the real living wage: only a couple of weeks ago, Mary Portas was here with businesses that are part of the better business Act campaign, which were keen to say how implementing fairness at work means having a happy, loyal workforce. When the Welsh Labour Government give support to a business, they require it to demonstrate not only its prospects for growth, but its commitment to net zero, to workers’ rights and to workers’ mental health and wellbeing.

In opposition, it is sometimes difficult to visualise the things we propose, but the Welsh Labour Government are actually implementing our better deal for carers. It was a Welsh Labour party manifesto commitment in last year’s election to make sure that by the end of this Senedd term, all care workers would receive the real living wage, which from April this year is £9.90. It is absolutely right that carers be properly paid and that we value the people they look after, including people who are elderly, people who have particular difficulties, children and young people. What we pay care workers is a measure of how our society regards and treats the people they care for.

Such a policy cannot be implemented overnight. It has to be properly planned so that it can be budgeted for, which is not easy when the Welsh Labour Government have been hit year after year by cumulative real-terms budget cuts from this Tory Government. Nevertheless, the Welsh Labour Government set to work straightaway with stakeholders to work out how the policy could be brought about, and they have made the money available from last month. Some care workers are employed directly by the public sector, but where services are provided by private or third sector providers, the Welsh Government have flagged up the fact that those who commission them, namely local authorities and health boards, will need to build in an uplift accordingly.

I mention that policy to show what can be done when there is real will to do it. It is just one example of putting into practice something that makes people’s lives better and is the right thing to do. When it is carefully planned with the providers, when the additional costs to the public purse are recognised and when it is properly implemented, it can be done, and done well. There is a real contrast between the Welsh Labour Government, who are improving the wages of carers, and this Tory Government, who are not addressing fairness at work at all, and have made no mention of a Bill about it in the Queen’s Speech.

There has also been an appalling failure to do anything to help people with the cost of living crisis. As hon. Friends have pointed out, the Opposition have made many suggestions, including a windfall tax on the gas and oil companies to give immediate relief to our constituents with fuel bills. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers has shown that there can be workable solutions that give employers some flexibility without using zero-hours contracts; they have negotiated guaranteed minimum hours per week or per month with some employers so that at least workers know that they will get regular pay. These are all practical actions that we are taking even though we are not in government.

What we would like from the Government, of course, is improved workers’ rights, an end to fire and rehire, proper rights from day one at work so that everybody is treated properly and cannot just be thrown on the rubbish heap, family-friendly working hours, an improvement to the reforms made to date, stronger union rights and proper ways of negotiating pay and conditions with the workforce—and not only all that, but a complete change in attitudes to procurement. The Government have been failing miserably, with appalling losses to the public purse. Their dreadful audit report contrasts with the clean audit report on the Welsh Labour Government’s purchasing during the covid crisis.

We want to ensure not only that purchasing is done fairly and that we have an anti-corruption commissioner to oversee it, but that the procurement process looks at the value of our businesses and companies in this country and does more to make, buy and sell British. When we were in the European Union, it was absolutely possible—even if there had been restrictions under EU law, which there were not—for the social benefit clause to be invoked when giving out contracts to companies, so how much truer that is now! It is perfectly possible to take social value into account, which is exactly what we should be doing.

The Government also need an industrial strategy that ensures a supply chain working towards our strategic objectives. We need an energy policy that means building our own wind turbines, rather than having to rely on imports. We need to think ahead and have a strategy that works, that builds in the supply chains, and that buys British, so that we can provide more high-quality jobs. The combination of high-quality jobs in a secure economy with secure rights for workers in work, wherever they are in the private or public sector, is the way forward.

Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Labour’s plans would bring genuine help to millions of households across the country who are facing an unprecedented increase in their energy costs. They are fully funded plans that would give some support to all households and a more substantial package of support to the 9 million households who need it most.

The plans would not increase taxation on working people; they would raise the money by a windfall tax on the North sea oil and gas companies, which are raking in huge profits from the price increases. The plans anticipate the increases that people will see in their bills. Perhaps unusually, we have a clear view of those increases coming down the track, so there is time for the Government to act, and I beg Conservative Members to vote for our motion today in order to tackle the misery that people find themselves in.

This fuel bill crisis comes at a time when people are already being hit by other problems. There has been coverage in the press over the last 10 days of how the rising cost of food is hitting the least well-off the hardest, not just for the obvious reason that they spend a greater proportion of their income on food, but because the rate of inflation is much higher on basic items, with many basic lines having been withdrawn altogether by the supermarkets.

Of course, the least well-off often have the least control over their energy costs. Someone who is renting their home does not have any choice over the type of heating they have, and they will not necessarily have the most efficient cooker or boiler, or the best insulation. There are some shocking examples where lean-to parts of houses—former breakfast rooms or kitchens—become a flat on their own and the thin-skin roof provides no insulation whatever. The lack of sunshine between high blocks of terraced housing makes it almost impossible to heat those homes. There is evidence that housing associations are having to cut back on maintenance projects. Food banks are even reporting that people are saying that they do not want pasta because they cannot afford to cook it, and admitting that they only eat cold food out of tins.

High energy costs mean families cutting right back, living in cold, damp rooms with particular risks to the very old, those with disabilities or chronic illnesses and the very young, such as increased risk of respiratory disease. It is not just heating and cooking. How can people get their washing dry in a cold, damp flat? How can they afford to iron school uniforms for their children? If they get cut off, more complications will follow.

The warm homes discount is totally inadequately funded. The total amount allocated to the fund is barely enough to help half of the households eligible. Then there is the difficulty of applying. Claimants have to know about the scheme and know how to ask their energy provider, which is made all the more difficult for those who cannot go online, for economic reasons or lack of skills. Even if they get through, the main energy supplier in my area, for example, has no warm homes discount money left. It depends on whether people get in early, the demand on their particular energy company or where they live. The likelihood is, of course, that the most needy will miss out. Even if people do get it, £140 does not go anywhere near far enough, given the huge hike in energy prices.

The Welsh Government are trying to do their best with the winter fuel support scheme. It has given £100 to households on universal credit, income-based JSA, income-related ESA, income support or working tax credits and, in view of the frightening increases, today, the Minister for Social Justice has doubled that to £200. That is a Government with far fewer options in their economic decisions, and far fewer economic levers at their disposal, recognising the desperate need to help the least well-off to heat their homes. The cut in VAT would help everyone. Labour’s proposal today would offer additional help to 9 million households in the most precarious financial situations, with up to a further £400 of help for each household. Together with the VAT cut, that would leave households with bills that are marginally higher than last year’s.

Why are we facing such energy price rises, worse than in other countries? It is not just because world prices are rising or because the Conservative Government are taking no action whatever, either because they simply do not care that people are cold and miserable, or because they cannot get their act together to do anything—either they do not care or they cannot do. It is also because the Government dismantled gas storage facilities and, crucially, have been sending very mixed messages about investing in renewables.

The Government wasted precious time in the development of renewables with the nonsense of the moratorium they imposed on constructing onshore wind farms in England. That not only thwarted opportunities to increase the generation of renewable electricity, but sent a very negative message about the future commitment of the Government to renewables. We should be far further ahead now in our production of electricity through renewable means. The fact that we are not is an abject failure by the Government to stimulate the production of renewables. Luckily, we have devolved powers in Wales and we are able to continue the development of wind power.

We also had the reluctance of the Conservative Government to consider the Swansea tidal lagoon. Thanks to the initiative, imagination and hard work of the Labour-controlled city and county of Swansea, the project will go forward, providing power for thousands of local homes.

The gas price hike should be a wake-up call to the Government to make up for lost time and accelerate the development of renewables. We must reduce our reliance on gas, both to reduce our carbon emissions and to increase our resilience. If we want to have a hope of making the transition to electric vehicles and decarbonising the heat in people’s homes, not to mention meeting the needs of business and industry, the development of renewables must be a priority for Government.

Labour would also implement an up-to-date energy and industrial strategy, drawn up with businesses, and invest—as my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor announced at conference in the autumn—the sort of sums of money needed to make a green transformation: some £28 billion a year to ensure that we have industries fit for the future that provide good jobs. But of course an immediate crisis faces energy-intensive industries such as the steel industry. If that is not resolved as a matter of urgency, we could see steel production go elsewhere. Labour would also use money from the windfall tax on North sea oil and gas production to help our struggling energy-intensive steel-producing firms and protect our world-class industries for the future.

Misuse of Fireworks Bill

Nia Griffith Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen]

I wholeheartedly agree. This is not just about the noise of the fireworks, but also the unplanned and unexpected nature of them, which really impacts communities.

The testimony I read out has stuck with me. As a mum of a toddler, I know that disturbing a child’s sleep—or, for that matter, a parent’s—is no joke. The fireworks around us in Luton are sometimes so loud that my daughter’s baby monitor lights up red. That is with double glazing and all windows and doors shut. Many of us will know that the next day with a young child who has not had a full night’s sleep is absolutely no fun at all—it is not a fate I would wish on even my strongest opponents here.

Many colleagues will also be pet owners. Luckily, my dog Herman is a fairly chilled out chap when it comes to fireworks, but I have had reports from pet owners in Luton where the impact of the fireworks on their pets has turned their household upside down. Their beloved animals are scared, fearful and shaken, even after the noises have stopped.

A 2021 report by Cats Protection found that 63% of cats in the UK are negatively affected by fireworks. Cats can presume themselves to be in danger from sudden bursts of light and loud noise. In response to a threat to their safety, cats often bolt out of the house and put themselves in danger of traffic or get lost beyond their owner’s reach. That is of course devastating for the owner, but if a cat thinks its life is in danger, nothing can get in its way.

For dogs too, continuous fireworks can cause long-term stress, as we have heard, which can lead to behavioural problems and heartbreaking health consequences. As I said earlier, constituents have reported their pets shaking, crying and even having seizures long after the bangs have stopped.

Lowering the legal decibel level for fireworks does not solve that problem alone. What I am proposing today is a positive start for legislative change. Our domestic and wild animals need tighter laws around when fireworks can be licensed to be displayed and sold. If restricted to only be sold around permitted celebrations, such as fireworks night, new year’s eve, Diwali, Eid and the lunar new year, people with mental health issues, parents and pet owners can at least make preparations to minimise the impact of fireworks.

There must also be a review into who is permitted a licence to sell fireworks. Currently, retailers do not need a licence to sell around the celebration days I have mentioned. A review must also look into who is permitted to set off fireworks. Some stakeholders such as the Dogs Trust urge the Government to limit fireworks licensing to organised public displays only, with local authority approval. Currently, there is no legal requirement to have a licence for setting off consumer fireworks in the UK. Literally anyone can set off some rockets and a Catherine wheel in their garden with no training and no safety requirements. Surely that cannot be right.

Unfortunately, there are also people who deliberately misuse fireworks to cause harm and distress to others, which is completely unacceptable. That is why I have called for tougher minimum fines in my Bill. We know that the toughest sentences for misusing fireworks are very rarely used. A fixed penalty charge notice just does not cut it as a deterrent or a punishment when fireworks can often cost many hundreds of pounds, and it does not reflect the negative impact on our communities.

There is another group who have spoken to us who are severely impacted by noisy and reckless fireworks: veterans. I have no idea what traumas they have lived through, although some Members of this House will know. Their service to our country in volatile war zones can leave them with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression or a combination of mental health problems. Servicemen and women can experience heightened stress at times of the year when fireworks intensify, such as on bonfire night. The sudden flashes and bangs of fireworks can bring back memories of the horrors of war. After all they have enduring in their courageous work, that is simply not another terror they should or need to experience.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) found discarded boxes of fireworks during a campaign session. They had names such as “Rain of Terror”, “Big Bomb” and “All Out War”, which shows that many fireworks are not marketed as something beautiful, but as something loud, and something to be scared of.

At key times of celebration, veterans can make plans to avoid fireworks displays to protect their mental or physical health. However, in places where fireworks are a regular occurrence all year round, they can find themselves in a constant state of anxiety. Combat Stress told me:

“We see a higher rate of distress in veterans accessing our services in November.

Not only is it challenging because of the grief surrounding Armistice, but the sound and sudden unexpected bangs of fireworks can be reminders of frontline combat where they were exposed to the horrors of war in service to this country.

Firework displays bring people together and create a lot of joy for spectators. We don’t want to ruin anyone’s fun but we urge the public to understand how distressing noisy fireworks can be for military veterans.”

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I really applaud my hon. Friend for choosing misuse of fireworks as the subject of her Bill. The measures that she wishes to bring in would be absolutely fantastic, so I hope that she will have Government support. Does she agree with me that, together with those measures, an education campaign is needed to put the word out about how dreadfully people can be affected?

[Sarah Owen]

I wholeheartedly agree. I think that people do not fully understand the impact of fireworks, the changes that have been made to them and how loud they have become. If many people understood what a particular decibel level was and the impact that it would have on the wider radius of their neighbourhood or community, they would perhaps think twice about using them.

I hope that none of us will make a judgment that the veterans charity Combat Stress—or any other organisation that has expressed concerns about fireworks in support of our brave and struggling members of the forces—is trying to ruin anyone’s fun. As I have said, the measures that I suggest in this Bill are common-sense reforms that also show compassion to veterans who have already been through unimaginable trauma.

Of course, it is not only ex-servicemen and women who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Mental health problems are experienced by people from all backgrounds; as a society, we are gradually beginning to recognise how we can adapt to their needs and show sensitivity. I just want to share one example. During the recent lockdowns, in Northwell in Luton North we had some community clear-up days. Neighbours went door to door to involve people in those clear-up days, and there was one house with a garden that was terribly overgrown. They had never seen the person living there come out of the house. Deniece Dobson, who was running that community clear-up and has been an absolute stalwart and leading light of it, knocked on the door—it was somebody who lives four or five doors away from her—and it was the home of a veteran who was suffering from PTSD. She could not go out; she said how distressing the fireworks had been. I am so grateful to Deniece and all the people around her and in that community who took the time and made the effort to clear up and to get to know their neighbour. But to hear that fireworks were having such an impact on someone who served our country was truly worrying.

Reducing Costs for Businesses

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

We in the Labour party recognise just how important business and industry are to our country, generating wealth and creating good jobs. We also recognise that Government have a vital role to play in providing the best possible conditions for our business and industry to flourish. It is about constructive partnership with business, with Government listening carefully to business, seeking to resolve the obstacles facing it and creating the best sorts of conditions for it to flourish, whether that is developing and updating a proper industrial strategy, training and education, work-force supply, modern infrastructure and connectivity, or developing cheap and reliable energy supplies.

It is not just households that face massive energy costs—industry does too, and in particular energy-intensive industries such as steel. Sadly, that is nothing new. Even before the current energy-cost crisis, UK steel manufacturers were facing a much higher energy cost than their continental competitors. In spite of the UK Government being told time and again about the comparative cost of energy and the devastating impact of those costs on UK steel production, they have done absolutely nothing to alleviate them.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) explained, Labour has a plan for a windfall tax on North sea oil and gas production. Labour would use £600 million of that as a contingency fund to support struggling firms, including energy-intensive industries. But there is much more to do.

The question is, why are we facing a worse energy price rise than other countries? It is simply because the Government have failed to produce the renewable energy that we should be generating by now. They have not got on with it fast enough. Basically, the Government have been caught napping. The gas price hike should be a wake-up call to make up for lost time and to accelerate the development of renewables.

Lastly, I turn to procurement. During the pandemic, when supplies were hard to come by, as the whole world tried to stock up, firms across the UK stepped up to the mark and changed production lines to meet our needs. UK companies were encouraged to think that they would get ongoing business if they helped out during the personal protective equipment shortages. Many companies committed in good faith and invested in UK production to future-proof British PPE supply resilience.

For example, a local SME in my constituency switched from producing a camping gas fuel to producing hand sanitiser. It invested more than £700,000 to automate its hand sanitiser production, but now most Departments have gone back to their original foreign suppliers. What happened to “build back better”? The Government need to do much more to buy British, whether steel or PPE. That would be good for security of supply, good for jobs and good for the planet—as our production is often greener than cheap imports. It is high time that the Government decided to back British, not just wave the flag.