Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Debate between Nia Griffith and Geraint Davies

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith]

No, I will not give way. The hon. Member has had his say.

Matters are currently compounded by the fact that HS2 has been designated as an England and Wales project in spite of the fact that, according to the Government’s own analysis, rather than benefiting from the project, Wales will actually miss out. The designation means that Wales does not receive any Barnett consequentials, so I again ask the Government whether they will now follow the recommendations of the Welsh Affairs Committee and redesignate HS2 as an England-only project, and then accord Wales the appropriate funding in the form of Barnett consequentials.

Sadly, time and again, we have heard the Tory Government talk of lavish investment, but it is all talk that is not backed up in reality. Instead, we have had announcements that are reduced in scope, re-announced as if they were new, delayed, postponed or completely forgotten. All we know is that they are broken promises that are not delivered.

One such case is the electrification of the Great Western main line. In 2009, the former Labour Government announced a £1.1 billion project to electrify the line to Swansea. However, in 2010, the incoming Tory Government immediately axed the Cardiff to Swansea leg. After some considerable campaigning by local MPs, a promise was made in 2012 that the electrification would in fact continue to Swansea. However, in 2017, the Government again broke their promise and axed the Cardiff to Swansea leg. When this issue was raised recently, the Secretary of State for Wales responded glibly that there was no point in doing it because the nature of the track meant that speeds would not be significantly improved—what a pathetic answer. For the sake simply of combating climate change, electrification makes sense. Indeed, it is essential if we are to decarbonise our transport.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that as the Welsh Affairs Committee has recommended, Wales should get its fair share of Barnett consequentials for HS2, which would be £4.6 billion, to electrify, modernise and move towards net zero in the rail system?

[Nia Griffith]

Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on this matter.

After all the razzmatazz of COP26, I hope that the Government are going to get serious about tackling climate change. One obvious way to do this would be to electrify the railway, not just to Swansea, but all the way through to the strategic port of Milford Haven.

We desperately need upgrades to the north Wales main line, which goes through to Holyhead, which handles huge volumes of traffic with Ireland. We also need much better connectivity between north Wales and the north-west of England, as there is a huge volume of cross-border traffic. Indeed, Transport for Wales and Growth Track 360 have been developing plans for a north Wales metro, as well as improvements to the north Wales main line, speed and capacity upgrades between Wrexham, Bidston and Liverpool, and proper links to HS2.

Draft Wales Bill (Morning sitting)

Debate between Nia Griffith and Geraint Davies

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[Nia Griffith]

An awful lot more cases will go to the Supreme Court if we do not get this Bill correct. That is the problem. The Assembly has passed 14 Bills, parts of which various commentators are suggesting could not have been passed if this legislation had been in place. The fact that they are arguing over that is the reason why we would end up with people—not just the UK Government or the Welsh Government, but any individual—taking things to the Supreme Court, and thousands of pounds would be spent trying to sort that out. That is simply not the way we want to proceed.

[Geraint Davies]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the logic of English votes for English laws was that there would be Welsh votes for Welsh laws and that the direction of travel of this Bill is in fact English votes for Welsh laws? That will generate all sorts of confusion, some of which has just been alluded to.

Wales Bill

Debate between Nia Griffith and Geraint Davies

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith]

Perhaps the Minister will clarify that later.

In my long experience as a teacher, I always found that young people are ready to engage in discussion on a range of issues, and I have every confidence that 16 and 17-year-olds can be as well informed as other adults in respect of voting options. They have access to a far wider range of media and sources of information than back in 1969, when the voting age was last lowered. Indeed, when many of us were at school, our only access to current affairs came through being encouraged to read the daily papers in the school library.

Sixteen-year-olds can join the armed forces and, with parental consent, get married. Many of them are active in the world of work, whether full or part time, and are therefore subject to employment law and health and safety law, or the lack thereof. They are subject to the law on national insurance contributions and income tax. It is wholly appropriate that the Bill should allow the Welsh Government to state in a resolution to cause an income tax referendum whether the age for qualifying to vote in that referendum should be 18 or 16. We support the Lords amendments.

[Geraint Davies]

In general, for the reasons that we have just heard, I am in favour of reducing the voting age to 16, both because of the increased awareness of young people and because the focus of budgetary control and discussion in the parliamentary arena will shift more towards education and investment in our future. My concern about this move in isolation, with 16-year-olds being allowed to vote on the highly technical issue of marginal tax rates and thresholds, is that the turnout in the referendum will be low, and the turnout of 16 to 18-year-olds will be extremely low and may discredit some of the excellent arguments that have been made for reducing the voting age to 16. I wonder what efforts the Government will make to educate these prospective voters so that they have an informed view about this technical issue.

I was fortunate enough to study economics at university—obviously I understand all these issues—but a lot of people aged 16 to 18 will not have had that benefit. The issues are difficult. I support the move in general, but I am concerned that the turnout will be low, so I wonder what the Government will do about that.

UK Energy Infrastructure (Wales)

Debate between Nia Griffith and Geraint Davies

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point well that there needs to be a balance between the value of the electricity and the prospective value of the tourism. Aerial views show that England is relatively densely populated and Wales relatively sparsely, and that will be a key asset for our environmental tourism. We want to think strategically, therefore, about where our energy production is. With wind, there needs to be access up the Severn estuary to the grid at Hinkley Point or Port Talbot, but there is less of a case for pylons right into the centre of Wales. I respect the fact that some of these issues are devolved, but we need a balance because we are talking about a once-and-for-all change to our views and to the value of our tourism. Once the infrastructure goes up it will not be pulled down, so we need carefully to consider the pros and the cons.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes the point that Wales is not as densely populated as England, but it has a growing number of energy sources, from the energy island of Anglesey in the north right down to the south. There are large projects and smaller community ones, with a growing number of solar panels. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the grid infrastructure must be of sufficient capacity to cope with that, and to ensure not only that people can feed in the energy from their solar panels but that the energy, which will be generated in Wales, is fed in properly to the national grid system in the most efficient and cost-effective way?

[Geraint Davies]

Yes, I certainly agree. My understanding is that Wales produces about 27,300 GWh of energy, but that nets down to about 22,000 GWh because of inefficiencies in transmission. The issue of energy loss is very important. We need to run a sophisticated and effective network, which pays due regard to environmental impacts and therefore to the economic impacts on tourism. I am not putting to one side the important subjective impacts on people’s everyday quality of life, but there are also quantifiable economic impacts.

Coming back to the Swansea Lagoon, the Minister might want to comment on whether an evaluation of the impacts on tourism has been done. The construction phase would create discontinuity for retail and tourism. If the sea bed was dug up—which it would be—to provide some of the material for the wall, would that generate a lot of contamination from industrial waste brought up with it? Is the visual impact shown on the promotional literature accurate or slightly misleading?

Is the Minister comfortable with the fact that there is an opportunity now for local investors to put down a £800 stake and get £3,800 back if planning permission is granted? That means that local opinion makers, such as me, are under a lot of pressure from people who have put the £800 down. All the risks are taken by local people. There are fears that when the tide went down there would be an unsightly view which would block the iconic view from the town centre, Town Hill and the Uplands. In addition, given that in future years we want to pursue the idea of a Dylan Thomas festival on a scale more akin to that of Hay, there is a question as to whether the perimeter of the construction—its footprint is nearly as big as Cardiff—would impede future cruise-borne tourism in Swansea bay.

There are therefore several questions—I do not know whether the Minister has any preliminary answers—about the environmental and economic impact, and the trajectory of the short-term problems and of where we will end up if we want a more strategic development of the bay front and then have a lagoon. It may work out well, but those are important questions.

I also want to touch on the Atlantic Array, which, as hon. Members may know, is a bold and imaginative opportunity to have wind turbines offshore. They would be about 12 km offshore, but the National Trust has told me that the Germans normally want them 35 km offshore, so that is an issue. This may sound strange, but, importantly, the biggest harbour porpoise population in Britain is in that vicinity; one of a similar size is in Cardigan bay. Apart from not wanting to disturb that habitat, there is a question mark in relation to future environmental tourism over whether that habitat might be so disturbed by the erection of pylons that those breeding grounds move for ever. I want to make it clear that, in principle, I am in favour of such developments offshore.

UK City of Culture 2017

Debate between Nia Griffith and Geraint Davies

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

When people think of Swansea, naturally they think of Dylan Thomas, who was born there 100 years ago next year, when we celebrate the centenary. Of course, Dylan Thomas is the most translated poet of all time, second only to Shakespeare. I am putting forward this bid on behalf of Swansea bay city region, which includes Carmarthen and Neath Port Talbot.

There is a glistening array of stars from Swansea, both past and present. One only has to think of Sir Anthony Hopkins, Michael Sheen and Catherine Zeta-Jones—I am sure that Michael Douglas is applying for a visa as we speak—and many more.

The industrial revolution, in many senses, started in Swansea. Swansea was the first globally connected location for heavy industry, with the price of copper being set there. Indeed, Copperopolis is the latest idea: a museum of metallurgy in an environment, that will attract an international audience.

We have thriving universities, which are at the forefront of innovation, both in metallurgy—for instance, working with Tata Steel—and with modern connected creative works, such as 3D imagery, interactive, animation, etc. We are very much on the cusp of the future.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Copperopolis, the nickname we give to Swansea, is well supported in its cultural bid by Tinopolis, the name we give Llanelli, which has a tremendous tradition in south Carmarthenshire of cultural and industrial heritage? Its latest venture, the state-of-the-art Furnace theatre and associated venues, offers fantastic opportunities, from the more traditional male voice choirs and Llanelli proms, to avant-garde groups, such as Llanelli Youth Theatre, performing “Tomorrow I’ll Be Happy”. Does he agree that the support from that industrial base in Llanelli, with its bilingual cultural heritage, will add a great deal to Swansea’s bid for cultural city 2017.

[Geraint Davies]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s contribution. The tin, steel, copper and coal, the Welsh and English languages, the land and the sea, and the urban and the rural together provide diversity and a global reach. Choirs and the history of singing and music are also important for our bid, as is the setting of Swansea bay city region. We have some “pier” pressure from Southend, but Mumbles pier is a great pier and Joe’s ice cream is fantastic, and I confess that I would prefer it to the ice cream that can be found in Southend.

The brand of Swansea is now on the world map, thanks to Swansea football. We are an emerging sports city: the Ospreys rugby team is an example of that. We have just had the Olympic kit brought to Swansea bay for beach volleyball. I hope and expect that we will be a national venue for a national beach volleyball competition.

Swansea university is now the closest in the world to the sea, having previously been second only to California, as I understand it. We are a diverse and multicultural emerging city with a global reach. We hope that a lot of our celebrations—for example, the Dylan Thomas celebration next year—will be globally networked, including people from Bollywood as well as traditional literature. We need to build on the wider Dylan Thomas brand. Of course, Dylan Thomas enjoyed a couple of beers, as well as a quite exciting lifestyle. We hope, over time, to bring a sustainable festival, a bit like the Hay or Edinburgh festivals, alongside other assets, such as Copperopolis. We also have the National Waterfront museum for Wales, which, again, celebrates and builds on industrial heritage. Swansea market is the largest of its type in Wales, with a great heritage over hundreds of years.

Obviously, Swansea has borne the scars of its industrial past, plus the tragic three nights of the blitz that we suffered under the Luftwaffe, but we hope to move forward, with further development of the port, which, historically, was industrially geared for trade. There are new, emerging opportunities, from the cultural point of view, for ferries and for cruise-borne people to visit Swansea and Swansea bay city region.

The news, following our campaign, of electrification of the railways will increase the connectivity and the opportunity for people to see wonderful Swansea and Swansea bay and the Gower, with beautiful golden sands, where people can enjoy culture, the sun and environment, and the good food of Swansea. I hope, later this year, to have a Swansea food day in Parliament, to celebrate some of the great foods created across Swansea bay city region.

We have been the forge for generating steel and various sorts of metallurgy and now I hope that the basic resilience and creativity of the community will help hurtle us forward to the celebration next year and onwards to 2017, so that we have a sustainable cultural legacy that will underpin our position as the true cultural centre of south Wales.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Nia Griffith and Geraint Davies

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That is the iniquity of the cut from 50% to 45%. Effectively, a cut in one place unfortunately means that people suffer in other places. Those on the highest incomes can afford to cushion themselves and do not need to spend money straight away. Even someone who earns just £10,000 above the £150,000 mark will benefit significantly. Instead of paying £5,000 in tax, they will pay £4,500. They will have a gain after tax of £500. Most people do not see anything like that increase in their income—incomes are frozen. If someone earning £50,000 has even a 1% increase, they will not get that £500 because it would be taxed. With all the different changes that are being imposed on them, families are losing far more—they are losing, on average, £895 per year.

[Geraint Davies]

My hon. Friend will know that the Government’s alleged strategy is that the private sector will move in and generate growth as the public sector is pulled back. In Wales, there is a higher proportion of public sector employment and, as she has said, £790 million will be taken out of demand, and savings rates among people in work are increasing because of insecurity. The whole concoction is pushing Wales and similar regions into negative growth. Does she agree that we should stimulate growth by giving more money to people who are poor, because they spend it?

[Nia Griffith]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We should get more stimulus into the economy and get more people into work doing useful things, such as through infrastructure projects, which he has championed in our local area. It certainly does not help to have more people thrown out of work. It will obviously lower their incomes immediately, but it will also have a direct effect on the local economy.

Ford UK (Duty of Care to Visteon Pensioners)

Debate between Nia Griffith and Geraint Davies

Tuesday 4th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith]

I am coming to that point. In fact, it was the Ford actuarial team that decided the amount of the transfer. The initial £49 million deficit in Visteon’s pension funding was clearly determined by Ford.

Can anyone imagine that there were not already thoughts, in some big boardroom in Ford, about how it could get rid of its liabilities—that nobody had in mind the thought that its biggest problem was the pension deficit and how to fund it for the future, and wondered what it could do to get rid of that? Can anyone tell me that they really believe that Ford had not already thought of hiving off the bits in the supply chain for which it could get cheaper prices, thinking that it could use its 90% purchasing power over Visteon UK to force down prices, before it embarked on the separation plan? It seems clear to me that Ford was determined to drive down prices even further than what it had agreed in the separation plan.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there was a very determined plan from the beginning. To me, it seems that there was a cunning plan: Ford wanted to maximise profits and to drive down costs on the backs of the workers in Visteon UK plants. Once it had managed to hive off certain sectors and to form Visteon, we heard that Ford was starting to drive down prices to ones that were significantly lower than those in the original separation agreement.

We also found that Ford tried to source components elsewhere. There were the dreaded confidentiality agreements: “Don’t tell Visteon that you’re making the bits that we get from them now, and that you’ll stockpile them so that we have them ready for when we get rid of Visteon altogether.” Do not tell me that somebody was not already thinking about that right back before 2000. If we look at the whole thing from beginning to end, there was a distinct plan of maximising profits for Ford and trying to get rid of the parts of the company providing components that it could find more cheaply elsewhere.

For Ford to do that on the backs of workers who worked loyally for it for 20 or 30 years is absolutely despicable and totally morally reprehensible. I fully concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who said that people have to make ethical choices about from whom they buy products. People need to know how Ford has treated the Visteon workers.

[Geraint Davies]

People should also know that the lot of Visteon workers in the UK is far worse than those in Germany or the United States. That suggests that there has been a carefully choreographed judgment about where Ford can get away with ripping off workers. The view was that it could do it in the UK—covertly lining up alternative suppliers, and telling them not to tell Visteon that that was done to knock Visteon out—and the whole thing really stinks.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With Visteon workers elsewhere not being treated in the same way, we must question what went on. It seems to me that there was a massive cover-up and a real attempt to drive down prices in a way that, as I have said, was completely morally reprehensible.