Business of the House

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Is it respectful to voters, when the campaign has been carried out on one basis, to change the terms of engagement without the other side of the contract having any say in the matter? I have always thought that we as Members of Parliament should not be afraid of recall as an issue. I think that our constituents are sensible and wise, and they would never use recall frivolously, but would use it sensibly for cases where they felt something had gone very wrong. Of course, Members also have the opportunity to decide these things for themselves, and I recall the behaviour of Douglas Carswell, the former hon. Friend of many of us.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

It is now over three years since the Prime Minister promised to ban the abhorrent practice of gay conversion therapy, so when will the Government act decisively and bring forward legislation to ban the practice and ensure that the legislation, like that recently passed in France and Canada, makes it crystal clear that there are no loopholes for so-called consent?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

A consultation has been taking place recently, so the hon. Lady can be reassured that the issue is at the forefront of the Government’s mind and, indeed, of the Government’s plans. Legislation is always subject to time and other events within the programme.

English Votes on English Laws

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has already shown his disdain for Welsh MPs by timetabling the debate on this matter for 15 July, when there will be a Welsh Grand Committee. Without simply saying that it will be up to the Speaker, will he tell us his view of what will happen to legislation on matters of economic or other importance to the whole of the UK that are geographically situated in England, such as Crossrail or a potential third runway at Heathrow? Would that legislation be subject to a veto by English MPs?

[Chris Grayling]

The test is that if a matter is devolved to the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is covered by these measures.

Devolution (Implications for England)

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, as my hon. Friend says, this can be unfair in both directions. He makes an important point about his constituents, and it is a further reason why we have to enhance the rights of English Members of Parliament on English matters in this House.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Instead of making allegations about our views, as the Leader of the House did in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), could he explain why he is introducing far-reaching proposals for this House without having any reform of the House of Lords to make it more geographically representative of the nations and regions of the UK?

[Mr Hague]

I am not making allegations about the Opposition’s policy; I am just wondering what it is, because there is nothing on it in the Command Paper. The point about the House of Lords is that for 103 years we have been debating in this House the reform and the further reform of the upper House without reaching a conclusion on the matter. Saying that these issues should be inextricably linked is a means for some Opposition Members to delay consideration of the implications of devolution for England and put it off for many years. The issues are not linked and must be treated on their merits.

Business of the House

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his case very well. I will ask my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice to respond directly to him. I am sure he will find further opportunities for a debate, perhaps on the Adjournment or elsewhere, in order to raise the issues properly. I hope he recognises that, through legislation and other action, the Government have sought continuously to put the interests of victims at the forefront of the criminal justice system.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

As secretary of the all-party group on steel and metal related industry, I have received a response from the Exchequer Secretary declining to meet us. Given that this week, in announcing the devastating loss of 400 jobs in south Wales, Karl Köhler, head of Tata Steel Europe, cited problems with Government policy, such as business rates and delays in getting help for energy intensive industries, will the Leader of the House prevail on his colleague to meet the all-party steel and metal related industry group?

[Mr Lansley]

I was aware, of course, of the very sad loss of jobs at Port Talbot and sympathise with the hon. Lady’s constituents. I will discuss the issue with my ministerial colleagues. There may be a question about where ministerial responsibility lies: given what the hon. Lady has said, it probably lies more with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills than directly with the Treasury.

Business of the House

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend has done important work on tackling those issues. He will be aware of the range of inquiries that have taken place, some of which, I hope, are approaching a conclusion. As the Prime Minister has said and recently reiterated to the House, we have not been persuaded of the case for an overarching inquiry; indeed, we feel that there is a significant risk that such an inquiry might impede and delay the resolution of some of the issues in the separate inquiries that are taking place. As the Prime Minister rightly said, however, he will continue actively to keep the question under review.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Government have allowed a situation to arise whereby Swansea prison now holds twice as many prisoners as it was designed for, which the chief inspector of prisons describes as a “political and policy failure”. Can we have a proper debate in Government time on prison policy?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think that there is a case for a debate, because I do not think that the case that the hon. Lady makes was sustained in the questioning that took place on an urgent question on the subject earlier this week. On the contrary, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice set out clearly the number of spare places across the prison estate; the reasons for the increase in the prison population; and the steps that we are taking to deal with any capacity issues that might arise, including plans for an additional 2,000 places to be made available over the next nine months. He set out the position clearly to the House, and that does not give rise to any further requirement for debate.

Business of the House

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend had an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, during Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions. If he did not, I will of course ask my hon. Friends at DEFRA to respond directly to him about the issues that he raises.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Back in the early spring, I wrote to the Home Secretary about the issue of putting the mother’s name on the marriage certificate and I had a negative reply. Since then, there has been a growing campaign, with many thousands of people signing a petition, yet there was nothing in the Queen’s Speech about this issue. Will the Leader of the House now ask his colleagues at the Home Office to look at it again and see whether a measure on it can be included in this Government’s legislative programme?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that we have announced a full programme for this Session in the Queen’s Speech and that there will be very limited opportunities for additional legislation beyond that which has been announced. I believe that the petition she refers to has received a Government response, but whether it has or has not I will ask Ministers to look further at the points she raises and respond to her.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones]

I rise to support the provisions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David). I wonder whether today we are living through a real-life episode of “The West Wing”, “Borgen” or a unique British combination of the two. We had a newly elected, husky-driven, Prime Minister coming into power saying that lobbying was the next big scandal waiting to happen. We thought about all the elements that involved—the fact that people were concerned about elements of cash for questions and about big corporate donors who had meetings with people we knew not who—but we then discovered that the real villains were the Salvation Army, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, small charities such as those represented by the Association of Voluntary Organisations in Wrexham county and, horror of horrors, the Royal British Legion.

What was fundamentally bad about part 2 of the Bill to start off with was the fact that no consultation took place with the voluntary sector over the summer. I am appalled that we are undertaking our deliberations without hearing from witnesses who know all about the situation—those in the charities and voluntary organisations who have in-depth knowledge of how the Bill might affect them. A system of hearing from those bodies worked well for the Bill that became the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012 and it has been a mistake not to have an equivalent—however procedurally that would have been managed—for this Bill.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the irony that although many of these organisations have contributed massively to many other areas of legislation, on the very piece of legislation that will affect their ability to do that, they have not been consulted?

[Susan Elan Jones]

My hon. Friend could well write the episode of the soap opera that I was describing.

As a co-chair of the all-party group on civil society and volunteering, along with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and Baroness Pitkeathley, I was delighted to see the voluntary sector speak up loudly on this issue—rightly so, given the attacks on civic society in this Bill. I know that many hon. Members have been deluged with e-mails, letters, telephone calls and requests for meetings about this. We know the NCVO’s serious concerns from its briefing, and it raised the specific point of how damaging it feels the legislation would be for expenditure thresholds and activities and how they relate to small charitable groups.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The reason I want some general principles set out is that I, like many others, am completely confused about where we are at—what the Government’s intentions are, and the implications of the Bill. I have spoken three times in the series of debates starting with Second Reading, so I do not want to repeat the arguments that I have advanced, but I think that people are genuinely confused. If we arrive in this place on 8 October without that full process, people will be equally confused, and either we shall be faced with a rush to pass bad legislation, or, if we have unfortunately failed to reach consensus, people outside this place will—let us put it this way—not hold us in the regard in which we should be held on something like this.

I make this plea to the Minister: at least get some clarity today before we move forward. It is fortuitous that we have the conference break; that gives us the opportunity to get that right and to be fully inclusive in the process from here on in.

[Nia Griffith]

I shall speak to amendments 62, 64 and 167 and new clause 9.

I feel that I am speaking in a bit of a vacuum. I can speak to what is already on paper, and I can speak to our amendments, but we have no idea what the Government will bring forward as an amendment, and it seems to me a very higgledy-piggledy way to deal with legislation.

The real issue, of course, is that there has not been any consultation. There has been no time for anyone to look at this in advance. I had the privilege yesterday of meeting a number of third-sector organisations in Cardiff—some Wales-only organisations, and some that also operate UK-wide but quite properly have offices in Cardiff or other parts of Wales, which facilitates their engagement with the National Assembly for Wales. It is extremely important to consult—even to speak today, I found it essential to consult, listen to and read a lot of the material that those groups have kindly produced in a very short time indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Healey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just the great and the good of the charity sector—groups of the type that she has been talking to—that would be affected? Has she, like me and many other Members, been contacted by a lot of constituents who see very clearly the dangers to the democratic process—constituents like Dr Kathryn Horridge from Rawmarsh, who said:

“I support greater transparency and accountability in the political process, and would like to see the influence of ‘Big Money’ over politics reduced. I’d support a new law which genuinely did this, rather than a law which gags campaign groups but leaves Rupert Murdoch and millionaire party donors untouched”?

[Nia Griffith]

My right hon. Friend made that point extremely well. Many people’s first political engagement may come about when they join a campaign on an issue that they feel strongly about, and to curtail that would discourage participation when we all recognise that the real challenge today is to get more participation and enable more people to have a voice in our society.

Another issue that will hit people very hard is the reduction of the financial limit in Wales. That will be £2,000, and there will be a requirement to declare many additional costs, such as staffing costs.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that, according to my reading of the Bill, the reduction in expenditure in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is greater in proportional terms than the reduction in expenditure in England? Would she share her thoughts? Why does she think that the UK Government have brought this iniquitous proposal forward?

[Nia Griffith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Of course, it makes it especially difficult when organisations are trying to influence policy both in the devolved Administrations and in the UK Government. So many areas overlap now. It can be big things such as climate change, which was mentioned earlier; it can be things like fuel poverty or it can be much smaller things, which are partly devolved, partly not. A lot of work is done by such groups in influencing both the devolved Administrations and more widely.

Many of these organisations also operate internationally and have international deadlines. I refer to the millennium development goals, the UN convention on the rights of the child and so on. Those organisations participate in worldwide activities whose timetable may fall within the wrong time in an election cycle and it may be more difficult for them to put forward their point of view. Some of them have even talked about making sure that some of their policies are dealt with in their overseas offices so that they are not caught by the Bill. There are a huge number of complications.

The other issue that particularly affects organisations operating in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland is that they are often in coalition with many other groups, some of which operate on a UK-wide basis and some of which operate only in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland. Accounting presents yet more complications, and they look with horror at the accounting detail that the Bill will require of them, which they will have to finance by paying someone to sort it out.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is setting out perfectly the complexities arising from the Bill’s provisions. It will create not just an accounting minefield for those charities; it is potentially a legal minefield for them as well. Those charities and third-party organisations are fearful that if they fall foul of those provisions, they will end up in court.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed, my hon. Friend makes a good point. Fear of legal action, doubt, not knowing and thinking that they could be involved in big legal costs are worrying those organisations and will effectively chill off any participation in a greater debate, which will be detrimental to our democracy in the long run. That is the key point about this part of the Bill. We would all like to see greater participation by people from all walks of life across the political spectrum.

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to make this intervention and I apologise for not hearing the beginning of her speech. Does she agree that one of the side effects of the Bill is that it seriously undermines the devolution settlement? We have witnessed over the past 14 years the growth of democratic civil society in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Organisations that I am associated with, such as the Down’s Syndrome Association and Carers UK, greatly value the relationship that they have built up with the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The worry is that the opportunity that those organisations have to feed into policy processes will be choked off. We have a good relationship, as my hon. Friend says, with many of those organisations, which contribute across the spectrum not only to the UK Government, the UK Parliament and some of our Select Committees, but to the devolved Administrations, and that will be choked off. People in our constituencies will become less engaged, as we heard.

[Lady Hermon]

An important point was made in an earlier intervention, to which the Deputy Leader of the House should pay attention. I am not saying that he has not paid entire attention to every remark made this afternoon; I am sure he has. I refer to the fear that charities have about criminal offences being committed. They will not know about being in breach of the legislation until after the event. It is imperative that the Government write into the Bill that any new criminal offences created by it, particularly in parts 1 and 2, will not have retrospective effect. That is essential, otherwise the Secretary of State could not sign the section 19 notice stating that it is compliant with the European convention on human rights.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. The hon. Lady makes a very good point on that issue, as did the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). The key thing now is to move forward and get things right. I hope that, whatever the Government intend to bring forward for the next stage of the Bill, a proper consultation will take place. We would much rather see the whole thing scrapped so that we could start again, but if we are not going to get that, let us have the whole provision rewritten, with time for people to consider it, consult and come back with comments so that we can achieve a measure that is workable. As it stands, the proposal would be a disaster if it went through because it would curtail the very thing that we want to happen—greater engagement in our democracy.

[John Cryer]

I will start by welcoming back my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—this is the first time I have been able to take part in a debate with him since his return. He is one of the most dogged, tenacious and conscientious MPs I have ever met. I am sure that Comrades Cameron and Clegg will have cracked open the bubbly in Downing street when they realised he had returned.

It is worth reminding the Committee that constitutional Bills have previously always been taken without any kind of timetabling or guillotining. The Bill is clearly constitutional, yet it has been very tightly timetabled. Indeed, some might say that it is being rammed through extremely quickly. There are certain specific questions that I would like the Deputy Leader of the House to respond to when he gets to his feet, to do with how the Bill will affect charities and campaigning organisations.

Hope not Hate, for example—I assume that most of us are familiar with it—campaigns with politicians of all democratic parties across England, Scotland and Wales. What if 12 months before a general election it issued a leaflet or organised a campaign that happened to mention that a certain candidate was or had been a member of the British National party? Would that be caught by the legislation, or will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us that that will be open to interpretation by the courts and judges? Would that count when it comes to the measures in the Bill that control expenditure of a political nature?

What if Hope not Hate had a campaign against the English Defence League? It could be argued that the EDL is not a properly constituted political party, but it has a political wing, the Freedom party, which could take Hope not Hate to court. It could say that such a campaign counted towards election expenditure because it could affect a parliamentary election result achieved by the Freedom party as the political wing of the EDL.

What about local hospital campaigns? The recent Save Lewisham Hospital campaign has caught the public imagination and at least three hon. Friends have been involved. What if the campaign took place within 12 months of a general election? It could easily be argued that that could materially influence an election outcome, perhaps in the borough where the hospital is situated or further afield in south or east London. The campaign to save King George hospital ran through a number of Parliaments, so it ran through a number of 12-month periods before general elections. It could be argued that it influenced the electoral outcome in certain parliamentary constituencies.

The Defend Council Housing group campaigns in various areas, and against both major parties. When the Labour party was in government, the group engaged in a number of campaigns that were very critical of the Government, and since the general election the same thing has happened with the coalition. Again, it could be argued that that might be caught by the legislation.

Business of the House

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. When we came to office, we set out to curb the profligate use of taxpayers’ money through such expenditure. We must think about how much individuals pay in tax and about how cavalierly that money has been spent, not least under the last Labour Government, through the use of procurement cards. The private office of a single Secretary of State spent hundreds of pounds on dinner in restaurants and on hotels. We have curbed all that. It is important, in so many ways, that we do not go back to the days of the last Labour Government.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister walked out of the cross-party talks on a press charter, there was nothing in the Queen’s Speech on lobbying and, although we all understand the need for international action on aggressive tax avoidance, there has been no legislative proposal in the UK. In contrast, the French Government have taken action this week to insist that companies that make money in France have to pay tax there. In the interests of a fairer and more transparent society, will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government will bring forward proper measures to tackle those three important areas?

[Mr Lansley]

I am slightly staggered that the hon. Lady says all those things. I think I am in a different world. She should pay attention to what is happening. The Government have taken unprecedented action to secure international action on tax avoidance and are bringing forward legislation on general anti-avoidance measures. I have announced that we will bring forward legislation to tackle third-party influence on the political system, which will include a statutory register on lobbying. The hon. Lady has to catch up with what is going on.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

My comments are not intended to be judgmental about the many Members of the other place who do such good work; instead they are directed at how those Members are selected. The current method of selection is not appropriate for the 21st century. Labour reduced the number of hereditary peers by 90% back in 1999, but we need to go further: we need to abolish appointed peers and have a properly democratic and elected second Chamber.

As time is short, I shall confine my comments to two issues. The first concerns the bishops, who are not representative of all Christians in the UK, never mind those of different faiths or no faith at all. The Church of England is not the established Church of the United Kingdom. The Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920, in Northern Ireland there has not been an established Church since 1871 and the Church of Scotland Act 1921 acknowledged that the Kirk had never been the established Church of Scotland and so could not be disestablished. Many countries specifically separate Church and state, even countries with a clearly dominant religion, such as Italy or Spain.

Equality legislation in this country outlaws discrimination between men and women, yet for this reformed 21st century second Chamber, the Bill proposes to include bishops from the Church of England, which has fudged on equal rights. After years and years, yet again this week the Church is fudging on women bishops, and we have had nothing but exceptions and excuses, and a ridiculous amendment—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but hon. Members should calm down. Those who have just spoken—and it is great that they have—should extend the courtesy of a decent hearing to the person who is now speaking.

[Nia Griffith]

We have had nothing but excuses and a ridiculous amendment that would allow parishes that do not accept women bishops to request a male bishop. This would not be allowed in other workplaces and would be a disgrace even within a non-established Church or religion, but it is utterly deplorable that a so-called established Church chooses to flout the spirit of the law of the land. It is totally unacceptable to give 12 places with voting rights in a reformed 21st century second Chamber to bishops in an organisation that still does not give equal rights to women to allow them to become bishops and which has actually contemplated an amendment that would undermine their authority.

I oppose reserving the 12 places for bishops of the Church of England in the second Chamber because it is not the established Church of the whole UK, because the appointment of bishops does not conform to the spirit of equality legislation and because it is high time that we separated Church and state. If this is really a reform for the future, it is a good opportunity not to include bishops. I ask the Government seriously to consider that issue.

I also have considerable concerns about the proposal in the Bill to appoint, rather than elect, 20% of the Members of the reformed second Chamber. What system of appointing Members could command the confidence of the public? Whoever does the appointing and whatever the procedures, it would be difficult to eliminate all trace of suspicion. We are also told that appointing Members brings in expertise, but what sort of expertise and for how long? Someone who is an expert today might not be a leader in their field in 15 years. There are other ways in which Parliament could bring in experts to advise when necessary, so what is the point of appointing 20% of Members?

Another odd argument is that not electing part of the new second Chamber would preserve the primacy of this House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, there are many ways of defining powers and processes that would ensure the primacy of this House. I would far prefer a 100% elected second Chamber, but this at least is a start, and even though there might be flaws in the current proposals, I shall be voting for Second Reading.

Business of the House

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 15th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

As my hon. Friend says, we are seeking to rebalance the economy so that there is less cost in the public sector, which is being downsized, with that being compensated for by growth in the private sector. The figures he has mentioned outline the progress we are making in that regard. He also underlines a point that was made in earlier exchanges about having a well-educated work force. The investment we are making in apprenticeships is part of the process of giving people the skills they need to find work in the private sector as it grows.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Given the very belated statement we had last week on Remploy factory closures and the point-blank refusal of the disability Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), to take up the offer of the Welsh Government to take over responsibility for Remploy factories in Wales and put in expertise to improve their viability, may we have an urgent debate on the Floor of the House about strategies for making Remploy factories viable?

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend the disability Minister made a statement to the House on this last week, and then answered questions. I point out that the party of the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) closed 28 Remploy factories, and that there is a change in the way we are helping disabled people. There is more and more emphasis on finding work in mainstream employment for those with a disability, and less reliance on places of employment such as Remploy, which is sometimes referred to as being segregated. The money saved by the closure of Remploy factories is being diverted into giving more personal help to people with a disability to find work in mainstream employment. We are not saving any money at all; indeed, we are putting £15 million more into the access to employment scheme within that budget. I would welcome a debate on the future of Remploy, but I honestly believe that the policy on which we are embarked is in the best long-term interests of those with a disability, and it has been supported by most disability organisations.