Access to Redress Schemes

Debate between Nia Griffith and Lord Beamish

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Recently, the Government have dithered and delayed on three high-profile redress schemes. I will turn first to the Windrush scandal, which revealed the huge injustices in our citizenship and nationality system. The scheme was set up in 2018, but a Home Affairs Committee report in 2021 pointed out that in early 2021, the average time from claim to payment was some 434 days. Even in February this year, the Home Office’s own data showed that some 14% of live claims were dragging on for more than six months.

As we have made clear in this House, Labour is determined to ensure that the Windrush generation and families get the compensation and justice that they are owed. If necessary, we would place the Windrush compensation scheme outside the Home Office if it continued to fail. Labour has plans to restart and improve community engagement and outreach work to encourage applications to the scheme and speed up compensation payments, to ensure that every victim gets every penny of the compensation that they deserve. As part of our commitment to the recommendations of the Wendy Williams review, Labour would establish a Windrush commissioner to monitor the compensation scheme and the re-establishment of the major change programme and the Windrush unit within the Home Office, and to be a voice for the families affected, to ensure that a scandal like Windrush can never happen again.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My heart drops at the idea of another commissioner. The point, which my hon. Friend made earlier, is that we need Ministers who will drive things forward. A good example is the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who on a number of occasions I have called a poacher turned gamekeeper. He did excellent work on the banking scandal, and he has driven things forward because he is a Minister who actually cares about the victims and is prepared to make tough decisions within Government.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed. Without political will, things cannot be driven forward. As my right hon. Friend says, ministerial intervention is crucial.

I turn to the infected blood scandal. The Opposition were disturbed to hear the news yesterday evening that the Government are yet again delaying the compensation scheme by trying to remove from the Victims and Prisoners Bill a requirement to set one up within three months of the Bill’s becoming law—yet another missed opportunity, yet another delay. In 2022, Sir Robert Francis KC produced his report “Compensation and Redress for the Victims of Infected Blood—Recommendations for a Framework”. In April last year—a whole year ago—Sir Brian Langstaff produced his second interim report of the infected blood inquiry. As the Minister knows, there is absolutely no reason why the Government cannot go ahead with setting up a scheme before the publication of the final report on 20 May.

Time is of the essence. Every week that passes without further Government action matters. Those who were infected with contaminated blood are dying at a rate of one every four days. The Labour party wants to ensure that justice and compensation for victims and their families are delivered as a matter of the utmost urgency, but we have still not heard the Government’s final decision on compensation. They tell us that they will not make public any final details until after the publication of the final report in May. I urge them yet again to speed up the process of delivering justice to victims and their families, including by getting on with the work needed to set up the structure of the compensation scheme, so that victims are compensated as soon as possible.

The Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill affords us the chance to make a huge stride in righting the wrongs of the past, and we on the Labour Benches are pleased to give it our full support.

This has been an interesting and informative debate. The Government should always try to learn from past experience and do their utmost to get redress schemes right, making them transparent and easily accessible to victims while protecting the public purse.

Defence Industry and Shipbuilding

Debate between Nia Griffith and Lord Beamish

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I congratulate him on his excellent report, which he presented on Monday. I note that in it he recommends that UK prosperity should be taken into account in all major procurement decisions. I welcome that statement.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) raises an interesting point, but the issue is not so much about the policy as about the implementation of it. That is what the Treasury and others have got to start doing.

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. When we speak to defence contractors, we find it is a sad fact that they are not being required to put those details into the bids they make. We very much hope to see that change. I hope that this is an urgent step on that way. The approach has been endorsed by the Defence Committee and has received the support of the trade body, ADS, as well as the defence trade unions such as Unite, GMB and Prospect.

The contract for the fleet solid support ships would bring immense value to this country if it were awarded to a UK bidder. Our carriers, frigates and destroyers will, of course, always be built in the UK, but with ships such as the fleet solid support vessels, the Government have a choice to make, and Labour Members believe that they are making the wrong one by choosing to put this order out to international competition. I know that some in the Conservative party like to blame everything on the European Union, but the fact is that the Government would be able to procure these ships in the UK under existing EU law, and there are compelling reasons for doing so. The GMB trade union has estimated that the ships would support 6,700 jobs if they were built in UK yards and up to £285 million of the £800 million potential UK spend would be returned to the Treasury through taxation.

The case for buying British is clear, and it would be a betrayal of our UK workers if this contract were allowed to go overseas, so we need to question what is really driving Ministers to put this out to overseas bidders. Perhaps it is the view that there will be a lower price tag for the MOD. We all want to get the best value for money, and we are aware of the difficulties that the MOD is having in balancing its budget, but this short-sighted, narrow, silo mentality about what might look good on the MOD’s balance sheet ignores both the benefits to the UK economy of building the ships in Britain and the costs of not doing so. We as taxpayers all want to see value for our money, and taxpayers up and down the country would far rather see that money spent on supporting skilled jobs for workers here in the UK than see it spent abroad, knowing that some 30% of the money spent on wages will come back directly to the Treasury as taxation, and that the spending power of those workers and their families will sustain local businesses in their communities.

[Nia Griffith]

As I just outlined, it is extremely important that we take into account the way that the money can be brought back into the Treasury, and I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman’s message will be well understood by Government Front Benchers.

I will make a bit of progress. As taxpayers, we all want to see value for our money, but we recognise the consequences if we do not spend the money in the UK—the immediate impact on workers and their families, with workers unemployed or able only to find much lower-paid work, leaving them and their families much more reliant on social security payments and tax credits. All that is a cost to the taxpayer and, sadly, there are all too often the hidden costs of the increased risk of mental health problems and family break-up. While workers and their families will take the hardest hit, the wider consequences will be far-reaching and long term. Shipyards will close. We will lose a skilled workforce and a generation of apprentices.

If UK companies do not win these contracts, they will have less money to spend on research and development, and that bodes ill for the future. We have to stay ahead in this game to stay in the game. We know that UK-based companies are interested in putting in a bid, but they will be less inclined to if they think that this order will simply be handed overseas, as happened with the MARS—Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability—tankers. Bidding is a lengthy and expensive process, and companies understandably do not want to take that risk if there is no chance that they will succeed. Awarding this contract to an overseas manufacturer would be particularly galling when we note the subsidies, both direct and indirect, that benefit many foreign yards.

To those who argue that UK companies should simply compete on a level playing field with international bidders, I say that the point is that currently the field is simply not level. For example, the South Korean shipbuilding industry has been the subject of a great deal of criticism for the level of state aid it receives. Shipbuilding is a significant element of the country’s economy, and state-run lenders have injected billions of dollars into the industry. The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has found that German yards benefit from targeted research and development, from funds for redeveloping and upgrading yards and from regional development funding, while significant potential bidders in Italy, France and Spain are owned in whole or part by their respective Governments. Rather than allowing this valuable contract to disappear overseas, the Government should do the right thing and put UK yards and workers first.

Of course, in this global marketplace, I recognise that not every contract can or should be delivered in the UK, and where we buy from abroad or work in collaboration with allies to develop assets, we should prioritise work-share agreements to create jobs and boost growth in the UK.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have a poor track record in doing what she suggests? Under the P-8 and Apache contracts with Boeing, for example, there is very little work share and very few jobs coming back into the UK.

[Nia Griffith]

Yes, indeed; as my hon. Friend says, the Government have a poor track record. It is a great shame that so many opportunities have been wasted.

Armed Forces Pay

Debate between Nia Griffith and Lord Beamish

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith]

I agree that pay is not the only factor that makes it difficult to recruit and retain staff, but it is certainly a significant one when both AFCAS and the pay review body list it as such.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I find the comments of Conservative Members quite astonishing, because I remember as a Defence Minister being harangued by Conservative Members in opposition arguing that we did a bad deal for the armed forces, even though we accepted the pay review body’s recommendation. With regard to the X factor, in 2013 the pay review body chairman was sacked because the Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, did not want to recommend an increase in the X factor.

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend refers to an absolutely shocking situation. It is very disappointing that Conservative Members are starting this debate on such a negative note.

More and more personnel are choosing to leave the armed forces, and every one of the services is shrinking in size. A recent Government-commissioned report by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) found that recruitment to the services was “running to stand still”, leading to the “hollowing out” of our armed forces. Yet rather than getting to grips with this problem, the Conservatives’ record is a litany of missed targets and broken promises. Their 2015 manifesto pledged to keep the size of the Army above 82,000. That was hardly an ambitious target, considering it was well over 100,000 when Labour left government, but miss the target they did, and the trade-trained strength of the Army is now just 77,600.

The figure of 82,000 had mysteriously disappeared by the time of the Conservatives’ 2017 manifesto. That fateful document simply promised to

“maintain the overall size of the armed forces”.

We can add that pledge to the rubbish pile along with the rest of the Tory manifesto, because since June’s election we have seen a reduction in the size of the Army, a reduction in the size of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and a reduction in the size of the Royal Air Force. Now we are in the shameful position where the Defence Secretary cannot rule out cuts to our Royal Marines, or even promise that the Army will not shrink further.

The Government may be complacent about the diminishing size of our armed forces, but we are not. At a time of immense global uncertainty—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed, the number needs to go up, because costs are escalating. We have said clearly that we would match that increase, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that costs are escalating far higher than that figure will accommodate.

At this time of immense global uncertainty, we cannot allow numbers to continue to slide, month after month, while all we get from the Government is warm words and crippling complacency. The Government’s chosen recruitment partner, Capita, is completely unfit for the job at hand. We have had warning after warning that Capita has not fulfilled its basic obligations, but as the number of personnel recruited continues to fall, the amount paid to Capita has grown and grown.

We propose to take real action to begin to address that state of affairs, by lifting the public sector pay cap and giving our forces a fair pay rise. I recognise that that alone would not be a silver bullet for the crisis in recruitment and retention, but we know from personnel that pay is one of the main reasons why they choose to leave our armed forces. Satisfaction with basic rates of pay and pension benefits is at the lowest level ever recorded. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has found that there is an

“over-riding sense of uncertainty and an increasing view that the offer will only get worse”.

Barely a third of service personnel are satisfied with their basic pay, and 42% have said that pay was a push factor for them in choosing to leave the forces. Is that any wonder, when our servicemen and women have had to shoulder real-terms pay cuts that have left them badly worse off? Between 2010 and 2016, the starting salary of a corporal fell by nearly £2,000 in real terms, whereas for a flight lieutenant that figure was £2,800.

At the same time as they have been hit by real-terms pay cuts, our servicemen and women have faced rising costs in forces housing because changes to charges for service family accommodation mean rent increases for nearly three quarters of occupants. The Government’s future accommodation model risks adding to that pressure because it fractures forces communities by forcing service families into the private rented sector, with all the additional costs that that brings to them and the taxpayer. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has warned of a “perfect storm” for personnel who face increases in rent and national insurance contributions, at the same time as their pay is cut in real terms.

Let us be in no doubt that the responsibility for the below-inflation rises lies firmly with the Government. Since the Government lost their majority at the general election, Ministers have made great play of the supposed independence of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. They would have us believe that the pay review body sets the rates and Ministers merely implement them, as if it were some coincidence that the body had not recommended an above-inflation rise since 2010. But that is little more than a cynical attempt by Ministers to shirk responsibility, because of course they instruct the pay review body to work within the context of the cap. Despite all the warm words from the Secretary of State and Ministers, the Treasury has said that it will not fund increases above and beyond the 1% cap; that is a fact.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is worse than that? The idea is that the pay review body should be independent and able to make recommendations for Ministers and the Government to look at, but in 2013 the then Prime Minister sacked Alasdair Smith, the chair of the pay review body, because he made recommendations that the Treasury and the Government did not like. Does she agree that that is outrageous?

[Nia Griffith]

As my hon. Friend says, that is absolutely outrageous, and it betrays an appalling attitude on the part of the Government.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Nia Griffith and Lord Beamish

Thursday 18th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to support the proposals in the names of my hon. Friends.

On the one hand, Government Members accuse Labour Members of always wanting to clobber the rich, but on the other they accuse us of not introducing the 50p rate early enough. We had a vibrant economy, but everything changed with the enormous banking crisis in 2008. In response, we had to introduce a deficit reduction plan, part of which was the perfectly logical introduction of the 50p tax rate.

I make no apology for Labour’s firm commitment to the redistribution of wealth through the taxation system. The majority of citizens in western European democracies share that view. The taxation system is not the only redistribution mechanism. Other mechanisms include the minimum wage, which the Labour Government introduced. I hope the Government retain the minimum wage and increase it year on year in line with inflation. It worries me that it is going up by only 1.9% this year, while inflation races ahead. It is important that we have such mechanisms, but taxation is an important mechanism in the redistribution of wealth. The vast majority of people in this country recognise the need for all to contribute to the many public services we enjoy, and the need for some redistribution through the taxation system.

The economic argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) advanced about money going back into local economies is extremely strong. People on the lowest incomes tend to spend money immediately, so it goes immediately back into the local economy and helps the local high street. Local businesses are going bust because people simply do not have the money to spend. They are struggling. They are turning to food banks—they are unable to buy food, never mind Christmas presents, clothes and the rest of it.

Local economies are struggling enormously. We have heard from many wise sources that the Chancellor needs to get his act together on stimulating the economy, and putting the money in the pockets of people who have the lowest incomes, who will then use it immediately in the local economy, is one way of doing so. That is not happening, which is why the Opposition are so angry about the cut in tax from 50% to 45% when there is an enormous squeeze on those on lower incomes.

One of the most insidious changes is the change to tax credits. They are difficult to explain because they have been designed to suit each individual household, which makes it more difficult to speak about them in a more general sense. Nevertheless, let us look at the changes. First, there has been an increase in the tax credit clawback. The whole point of tax credits is that they are an incentive for people to work if they can find it. Many who are on low incomes cannot get more hours, and the maximum amount that many can be paid for the hours they work in a full-time week still qualifies them for tax credit. Any reduction in that tax credit is therefore counter-productive—it does not help people at all.

The child care tax credit has also been reduced. That is another seemingly mad policy. The money is desperately needed to help people to work. The family element of tax credit has been abolished, as has the 50-plus element, and the working tax credit has been frozen. Given current inflation, the proposed cap of 1% on increases in working tax credit and child tax credit is effectively another cut—it is a cut in what lower-income families can buy with the money they have, with the catastrophic effect that all hon. Members see in our local economies and high streets.

In Wales alone, the tax credit measures will suck some £794 million—much-needed money for lower-income families—out of the economy. The whole point of tax credits was that they were calculated on what it was reasonable for a family to live on, which helped those whose earnings did not meet that rate to keep going.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

In communities such as mine and that of my hon. Friend, the poor spend money—they have no saving capability. Does she agree that the measures therefore have a double impact on local shops and economies?

[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.