Miners and Mining Communities

Debate between Nia Griffith and Nigel Evans

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on the work that he did to secure the debate, and for his admirable opening speech.

According to the excellent report “The State of the Coalfields 2024”, commissioned by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, the former coalfields account for 8% of the population in England, 10% in Scotland and 25% in Wales. That gives us an idea of the scale in Wales —one in four people there live in a former coalfield area—and of the importance of today’s debate.

Mining has been a dominant part of Welsh life for generations. My grandfather was a miner, my uncle was a miner, and my father was a Bevin boy who was sent down the local pit during the second world war. There were mines across my constituency from the sea on one side to the sea on the other—Hendy, Llangennech, Bynea, Llwynhendy, Tumble, Cross Hands, Pontyberem, Ponthenri and Pontyates, and in Llanelli itself and Burry Port, with coal being exported from those two busy ports —and, of course, mining has shaped our politics.

My predecessor as MP for Llanelli, the great Jim Griffiths, spoke passionately from his own experience of the hardship that he saw in the mining communities in which he was brought up—the effects of unemployment, poverty, malnutrition, sickness and industrial injury—and took up the fight to bring about the reforms that were needed to help those who fell on hard times. He spoke and wrote about “The Price Wales Pays for Poverty”: maternal mortality, malnutrition, overcrowding, condemned housing, unemployment, silicosis, and the terrible affliction of tuberculosis. He also highlighted the wealth taken from Wales by coal owners, royalty owners and landlords, and demanded a proper response and resources to deal with the country's problems.

When serving in the 1945 Labour Government, Jim Griffiths introduced the Family Allowances Act 1945, under which money was paid directly to mothers. He subsequently introduced the National Insurance Act 1946 and an Act close to his heart, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, which was very much born out of the suffering and difficulties of injured miners that he had witnessed and which introduced extra benefits for people injured at work. That Act was universal, in that it covered the entire workforce. It provided injury benefit for six months, disability benefit for the permanently injured, and a death benefit for dependants. It also set up tribunals to assess cases, rather than claimants’ having to take on all the responsibility for pushing their own cases.

Now, some 80 years later and some 40 years on from the miners’ strike, as is documented in the report I mentioned earlier, we have shockingly not eliminated all the problems. There are still high levels of poverty, malnutrition, unemployment and sickness in former mining areas, and there is still much to be done to enable those areas to enjoy the same levels of wealth as others. We know of many of the problems that our former mining communities face, scattered as they are in south Wales up and down steep valleys. Many are in what are now pleasant rural locations, and some contain quite spacious council or former council-owned properties, but their location was clearly intended to be close to the mines where people worked. Now, investors, developers and young people all want to be near the main arteries or in the main towns, and it is so much more difficult to attract inward investment into the more remote mining communities. Furthermore, they are often spread out in different locations along the valley, making it very difficult to provide services, and often there is a considerable distance up or down the valley to get to the most basic of facilities, such as doctors’ surgeries or shops. Nowadays, there are more opportunities for people to work remotely and to set up businesses that use the internet, but some of our mining communities also suffer from inadequate broadband speeds and a poor mobile phone signal.

I want to highlight some specific problems, starting with my serious concerns about the drop in quality of former miners’ concessionary coal. I have met miners in my area who used to receive good-quality smokeless coal, but now receive very poor-quality coal, which is causing considerable problems and expense. The coal is blocking up chimneys, meaning that people have to get their chimneys swept more often and at additional expense, and the fumes and fine ash that it gives off pose serious health risks. In fact, the smell and the fumes that emerge from chimneys are so bad that they are causing neighbours down the street to complain about the smoke.

When I looked into this issue, I found that there was not an isolated batch of coal and that the problem is widespread. On contacting Wayne Thomas of the South Wales NUM, I learned that as stockpiles of anthracite had been run down, coal of an inferior quality was supplied by Russia. Because of the war in Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia, which I fully support, the supply was halted and an alternative source had to be found. I understand that the coal now comes from Peru and is supplied in a chimney- compressed duff, using molasses as a binding agent. The NUM says that such coal gives off a very fine ash, which causes respiratory problem—obviously not good for ex-miners, many of whom already have breathing problems.

Across the UK, the complaints are similar to those of former miners in my area, who complain that the smoke from chimneys smells funny and that the coal causes blockages. The NUM has twice met the head of the coal liabilities unit at the Department for Business and Trade to discuss this matter, but there has been no news of any improved source, and better sources must be found. I say to the Minister that miners have worked hard in a difficult and dangerous job, and that they are entitled to receive decent concessionary coal. It is shocking that former miners, many of whom are elderly, are now being given poisonous, poor-quality coal, which gives off fumes and ash that are bad for their health, and which clogs up their chimneys. As a matter of urgency, I beg him to do everything he can to source decent coal for our former miners. It is a Government responsibility.

Turning to the miners’ pensions, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) for their work. I hope the Minister is aware of the former BEIS Committee’s report on the mineworkers pension scheme and its recommendations—namely, that the 50/50 surplus sharing arrangements should be comprehensively reviewed to ensure that miners get their fair share, and that the £1.2 billion reserve fund should be given back to the pensioners immediately. It is now three years since that report, and former miners are not getting any younger, but there has still not been any action from the Government. I ask the Minister to look again at the scheme, and to ensure that miners get their fair share.

I turn now to the coal tip legacy. I was a very impressionable small child at the time of the Aberfan coal disaster on 21 October 1966. I was the same age as some of the children buried under the slag heap as it engulfed the school, and I will never forget the images on our black-and-white telly of fathers desperately trying to dig out their children. Following that, we saw the gradual remediation of the tips. Things began to look better and greener, but with the increased frequency of more violent weather events, it is now clear that the job is not done. As we saw all too vividly in the Rhondda a couple of years ago, there is still a lot more work to be done to ensure that the tips are safe.

This is a legacy from pre-devolution times. The slag heaps were produced as a result of mining coal to fuel the factories that filled the coffers of the UK Treasury, and the UK Government have a responsibility to ensure that every tip in Wales is made safe. We in Carmarthenshire are relatively lucky, with fewer and less risky tips than in the valleys further east, where urgent investment is needed. It was very disappointing that there was no mention of any funding in the spring Budget, and I ask the Minister to take this message back to the Chancellor.

I turn to Orgreave. On 18 June, we will mark 40 years since we saw the truly shocking scenes of police attacking miners at Orgreave, and we need a proper inquiry into what happened that day. It is very disappointing that the Government have not instigated such an inquiry, even after the revelations about South Yorkshire police in Bishop James Jones’s Hillsborough report. However, we need not only an inquiry into Orgreave, but a proper Hillsborough law. It is not enough for the Government’s belated response to the Hillsborough report in December last year to espouse the introduction of a voluntary charter, an independent public advocate and a code of ethical policing. Instead, we need a full Hillsborough law to force those in public office to co-operate fully with investigations, and to guarantee fairer funding to enable those affected by a major tragedy to challenge public institutions. I urge the Minister to set up an inquiry into Orgreave, and to adopt a full Hillsborough law.

I want to say a few words about a just transition to the industries of the future, which is the exact opposite of what we saw in the 1980s, when it was clear that the Thatcher Government wanted to destroy the coal industry. However, it was not just the coal industry that was decimated. We saw the closure of the big steel plant in my constituency and numerous other closures across the country, resulting in areas of mass unemployment, with communities feeling that they had been thrown on the scrapheap. The legacy remains till this day, as documented in the Coalfields Regeneration Trust report.

It does not have to be like this. Of course we want to make progress and to harness technology to our advantage —whether it is the spinning mills of the 18th century, motorised transport, robots on the production line, artificial intelligence, the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, or the change from blast furnace steel production to green primary steelmaking—but it should be a just transition, with training and jobs for workers, and investment in the new green industry of the future. That is why it is so disappointing to see the Government’s half-hearted approach to the future of the steel industry. We welcome investment in the electric arc furnace, but there is a refusal to think bigger and to invest in the green primary steelmaking of the future, leaving thousands of workers to lose their jobs. It is a devastating blow for Port Talbot and, yet again, the surrounding former coalfield communities.

We in the Labour party are determined to see a just transition to the industry of the future, with proper investment through our proposed national wealth fund, the upskilling of workers and the creation of quality jobs. Never again do we want to see workers thrown on the scrapheap and communities devastated.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. After Kevan Jones, we will have the Front-Bench contributions and then the wind-up from Grahame Morris.

Protecting Steel in the UK

Debate between Nia Griffith and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

It is both tragic and shocking that we are faced with the potential closure of the last blast furnace in Port Talbot before greener technologies for producing primary steel are developed and operational, and even before the proposed electric arc furnace is up and running. This Conservative UK Government must bear their share of the responsibility for this appalling situation. The Government boast about the grubby little deal they made with Tata in September, spending half a billion pounds to lose 2,800 jobs in Port Talbot and leave the UK as the only country in the G20 without its own steelmaking capacity, at the mercy of world markets with the risk of price hiking, not to mention the national security risk of losing our own primary steelmaking capacity.

Instead, the Government should have been negotiating a proper deal such as the multi-union plan to ensure a just transition. They should have been protecting jobs, keeping the blast furnace going until other production means are fully up and running, and recognising that the electric arc furnace can only be part of the solution. Yes, let us recycle more steel in the UK, but we must recognise that that is not suitable for all our needs. We should also be developing green technologies such as hydrogen and direct reduction of iron to do the primary production of steel, as Labour has proposed, committing £3 billion—not half a billion—to work with the industry to make that just transition a reality.

The tin plate industry is synonymous with Llanelli. It is a central part of our industrial history, and today’s Tata plant in Trostre makes a range of different materials that go on to be used in things like food cans and aerosols. Currently, we receive our steel from Port Talbot, just some 20 miles down the railway track, which makes good economic and environmental sense. Tata tells us that when it closes the blast furnace, we will be importing steel. That imported steel will be made in blast furnaces abroad, so there will be no saving in carbon emissions—quite the opposite. Processes abroad will be much dirtier, and then of course there are the costs and emissions from transporting the steel to Trostre. The challenge will be sourcing an appropriate quality of steel to satisfy Trostre’s needs, and as Trostre makes a number of products and serves a number of different customers, that means steel of the right quality to satisfy all those needs.

We will be very much more vulnerable to logistical difficulties and price fluctuations if we have to import steel. If there is a shortage of supply, foreign producers may well prioritise their home customers.

As for the recycled steel produced in the electric arc furnace, when it eventually comes into production, there is still a lot of work to be done to assess its suitability for the different products that Trostre produces and its acceptability to our customers. It may be that some products can use electric arc furnace steel, but that will depend on the quality of the feedstock that is put in, and there is a strong case for having two smaller electric arc furnaces to provide those different qualities. Then there is the challenge of sourcing the feedstock, and not just sourcing it, but sorting it and trialling it. All this takes time.

In the meantime, we need Tata to keep the blast furnace going. The electric arc furnace should be only part of the solution, the other part being the development of green primary steel-making. I pay tribute to the trade unions, and we now need Tata to work with the trade unions—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Could Members shave time off their speeches, otherwise not everybody will get in?

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Debate between Nia Griffith and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Coming in as I do at the tail end of the passage of this Bill, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for all her work on the Bill, and to say that I look forward to working constructively with the Minister.

Turning to the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 102B, we can all agree that forced organ harvesting—a practice involving the removal of organs from a living prisoner that results in their death or near death—is abhorrent. The debate on this Government motion is about whether there should be a specific clause in the Bill to make it clear that we do not want to see a single penny of taxpayers’ money go to any company linked to this practice, or whether that is adequately covered by the concept of professional misconduct that can be used against serious unethical behaviour.

We heard powerful speeches in the other place from Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who made compelling arguments for the inclusion in the Bill of the measure against forced organ harvesting and provided evidence of the practice taking place in China. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for all they have done to highlight the issue.

Furthermore, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that serious human rights violations have been committed in the Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous region:

“Allegations of…torture…including forced medical treatment…are credible”.

This is a very current issue, and we would like to see specific mention of it in the Bill.

First, including a specific reference to forced organ harvesting in the Bill will highlight the issue and send a message to potential supply companies to make specific checks that they are not inadvertently in any way associated with the abhorrent business of forced organ harvesting. Secondly, although the Minister has said that forced organ harvesting is already covered by the ground of professional misconduct, which includes serious unethical behaviour, specific mention of it in the Bill will highlight to those undertaking procurement to be particularly vigilant in respect of any potential association of supply companies with this appalling practice. Thirdly, making specific mention of forced organ harvesting helps to send a clear message to China and anywhere else it may occur that the practice will not be tolerated and that there will be economic consequences.

The Minister has objected to having specific mention of forced organ harvesting because it means additional paperwork, and we all want to cut down the amount of paperwork that companies have to deal with. However, I would suggest in this case that a small amount of additional work is well worth it if it sends a strong message of condemnation, strengthens awareness of the issue and hastens the end of this abhorrent practice. The Opposition support the position taken by the other place of including the measure on forced organ harvesting in the Bill, and will therefore vote against the Government’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendment.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Finance Bill

Debate between Nia Griffith and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is good enough for me.

[Nia Griffith]

I am delighted to be given this opportunity to speak, perhaps a little sooner than anticipated. I shall speak to new clause 10 and I specifically remind Members that it is about having an assessment of the impact of the VAT rate on UK economic growth. That is the area on which I shall focus; it is what we need to talk about if we want to get this country back on its feet.

We are not asking for a knee-jerk reaction. We recognise that there is a complex relationship between the various different fiscal measures that can be taken—between VAT and all the other types of fiscal measures. We also recognise the importance of a changing environment, as events elsewhere might affect our ability to export, for example, and economic events in different countries will impact on our economy in all sorts of ways.

Let us look at what has happened recently. We have massive inflation and businesses are having real difficulty. They are being badly squeezed. They are experiencing rising costs, rising costs and more rising costs, and they are having to make difficult judgments about how many of those costs they can pass on to consumers before they begin losing sales. Their difficulties have been compounded by the fact that they have had to contend with a higher VAT rate since January. They are making calculations daily. The costs of their raw materials are changing constantly. They must keep asking themselves, “What must we do in order to keep afloat?”, but the problem is, of course, that many of them are going under.

Postal Services Bill

Debate between Nia Griffith and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

A Welshman getting it wrong! I do apologise.

[Nia Griffith]

Thank you.

Today we have been debating a Bill that will lead to the sale of Royal Mail. Many Members have mentioned the fact that the Royal Mail letter service has faced increasing competition from e-mail and text in recent years, and the decline in letter volumes has continued even between the publication of Lord Hooper’s original report in 2008 and the update published last month. Many Members have spoken today, and I hope I will be forgiven if I do not mention every one of them by name, but I do want to pick up a few of the points that have been made.

The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) serves on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and he obviously recognises the need for change. He also made the point that good management is vital, and asked the Minister to make clear how he proposes to secure the quality management that is needed. We all want to hear the answer to that question.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) wanted to find ways of taking modernisation forward. He pinpointed what we all need to know: how to provide more business for the post office network. The Bill does not provide an answer to that.

The hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) wanted more information about mutualisation, and I recognise that she and her party have long supported mutualisation. Like many of us, she cannot see exactly how these proposals will work for the post office network.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) highlighted a problem to do with sorting offices, as did other Members with sorting offices in their constituencies. They are concerned about the consequences of the Bill for sorting offices. We also had a brief interlude from the hon. Member for Woking (Jonathan Lord), who made an enlightening and enjoyable maiden speech. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), speaking for the Scottish nationalists, stressed concerns about the pressures on a privatised service to reduce the extent of the universal service, and highlighted the particular needs of rural areas, as did many of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) raised concerns about the future viability of the post office network and stressed the idea that local government and communities need to decide exactly what they want a post office network to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) has a long tradition of work with the co-operative movement, and he expressed a fundamental philosophical objection to privatisation: the problem of how to square the inevitable drive to make profits and satisfy shareholders with the provision of a service for the public.

The hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) emphasised the problems of the current regulatory regime, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) emphasised the importance of the post office network for pensioners and the local economy.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) spoke in support of the proposed employee share scheme, although he was disappointed that only 10% of the stake will be going to such a scheme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) explained that if the taxpayer has taken on the burden of the pension deficit, the taxpayer should share in the upside of the transformation of the Royal Mail. He made a compelling case for keeping the majority stake in Royal Mail in public ownership.

My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) wondered what would happen if a privatised Royal Mail got into financial difficulty, and my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) expressed concerns about job losses, and workers’ pay and conditions in the private sector.

We heard speeches in favour of the Bill from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—who did, however, request a specific list of several actions to be taken—and the hon. Members for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry).

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) was very concerned about how post offices can be made viable with the loss of Royal Mail business, and I now wish to discuss that particular problem. The Bill, as it stands, provides no guarantee of a continuation of a daily delivery of letters six days a week to every home in the United Kingdom. The Bill, which puts Royal Mail entirely into private hands, provides no guarantee that a wholly privatised Royal Mail would continue to use the post office network to provide its counter services. The Bill breaks the historic link between Royal Mail and the post office. In fact, Royal Mail could use a high street chain whose branches are largely confined to town centres. The Bill even proposes the surreal spectre of a post office network without any Post Office services. With the loss of the one third of its income that comes from Royal Mail business, the post office network could see a closure programme on an unprecedented scale.

Perhaps we were supposed to be taken in by this and lured into some false sense of security, but today the Secretary of State announced new investment.