Autumn Budget as it Relates to Wales (Morning sitting)

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Christina Rees

Wednesday 7th February 2018 General Committees

[Christina Rees]

I consider myself chastised, Mr Owen, and I am sorry to have incurred the wrath of the Chair.

Since the last Welsh Grand we have a new Secretary of State for Wales—he is rapidly approaching becoming the longest serving Welsh Secretary over the past eight years. I teased the new Under-Secretary of State for Wales during Welsh questions, so I shall move swiftly on before Mr Owen gives me the evil eye again.

We are here today to discuss the autumn Budget of 22 November and its impact on Wales. A famous Welsh Labour politician once said that politics is the “language of priorities”. That sentiment is never better displayed than in the setting of a Budget. Considering what Wales got out of the autumn Budget, we would be forgiven for thinking that this might be a brief sitting. I want to describe how a transformative Government Budget could be created, in the right hands. A Budget can be progressive and social. It can articulate investment in vital public services, demonstrate support for key industries and ensure that money is spent to benefit the many, not the few.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment about the Tory Government’s lack of investment in communities? I am referring to the closure of local Department for Work and Pensions centres, including the proposed closure of the pension centre in Cwmbran. That is taking jobs out of communities.

[Christina Rees]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. It is happening not only in his constituency but throughout Wales.

The famous Labour politician I mentioned was of course Nye Bevan, who knew that politics, power and responsibility come down to one thing: priorities. It is in their Budgets that Governments reveal their priorities. The autumn Budget revealed that Wales is not one of the UK Tory Government’s priorities. In the right hands, a Budget for Wales could deliver investment and the greatest good for the greatest number: money for the NHS, local government, education, and skills; investment in projects to tackle youth homelessness and to improve air quality; support for small businesses and business rate relief; funding to promote our language, which is a cornerstone of our culture, and for a growth in the use of Welsh in schools and colleges across the country; and a 21st century schools capital investment programme, investing not only in facilities but in our children’s future. That is a Budget. That is what a Budget can achieve when power is put in the right hands for Wales.

Of course those are not just warm words or hopeful rhetoric. They are the commitments of a Welsh Labour Government budget published less than a fortnight ago—a radical, progressive budget for the many, not the few. However, the Welsh Labour Government are working with one hand tied behind their back. Why? Because the failing Tory UK Government continue to press on with their futile and unnecessary austerity measures, impose cuts on the Welsh Labour Government’s block grant, and let Wales down.

Welsh Labour called on the Chancellor to end austerity and fund the Welsh Labour Government properly, enabling them to invest further in Welsh public services. He failed to do that. We demanded that he provide new funding to lift the public sector pay cap in Wales, which is hitting public sector workers year after year. He failed to do that. The autumn Budget—the Chancellor’s first since the change of pattern—shows once again the contempt and disregard that the UK Tory Government have for Wales. It is a shameful catalogue of missed opportunities, shot through with a callous disregard for the communities and people in Wales most in need of support.

Universal Credit (Children)

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Christina Rees

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The hon. Member for North Devon wanted the broader context to be taken into account, so let us take into account the national living wage as well. A single parent who is already working full time on the national living wage of £7.20 an hour will have to work 46 extra days a year, which is more than two additional working months. How on earth can that be put forward as a reasonable proposition by anybody? It obviously is not reasonable.

The Government were warned about the problems they face today as a result of cuts to universal credit. The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission report released just before Christmas, on 17 December, said that the “immediate priority” had to be ensuring that the cuts to the work allowance planned for this April did not go ahead, but the Government simply did not listen. The problem that they are getting to is that their approach is starting to deny the very purposes that universal credit was set up for. The Resolution Foundation states:

“But it is also much changed as a result of the increasingly tight financial restraints placed on it over recent years. These have involved more than just a reduction in the money available under UC, they have also altered the very structure of the policy—changing the composition of winners and losers and fundamentally damaging its ability to deliver against its purported aims.”

Perhaps that explains why the Government are so terrified of publishing an up-to-date impact assessment. Perhaps it explains why they are so terrified of telling us the figures as to what they expect will happen to child poverty over this Parliament.

[Christina Rees]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we also urgently need an analysis of the gender impact of the Government’s policy since 2010, because the design of universal credit, like that of other Government policies, does seem to have a disproportionate impact on women?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and we all know that the brunt of the cuts has fallen on women. That is precisely what the Government should be taking into account and they should carry out such an analysis. It is not as though it would be that difficult for the Government to come up with these figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) chairs the all-party group on health in all policies, whose excellent report, produced in February, made it absolutely clear that there is a danger of the progress on tackling child poverty made by the last Labour Government going into reverse as a result of what this Government are doing.

This is not, however, just about the Government’s lack of compassion on these things; it is also about their complete lack of competence. We should not forget how universal credit has been implemented. On 1 November 2011, the former Secretary of State told us in a press release that there would be no fewer than 1 million people claiming universal credit “by April 2014”, but by November 2015 the actual figure was 155,568, which, by my reckoning, is less than a fifth of the target he had set himself in 2011. The day on which the roll-out is to be completed seems to be forever going back. When I was younger, my great aunt and uncle used to own a pub, in which there was a brass plaque just above the bar saying, “Free beer tomorrow”. The problem being that every time people went in it still said, “Free beer tomorrow”. I am afraid that that is where we are getting to with universal credit: six years later, we are still waiting for it to be implemented.

This is not just about the speed of the implementation; it is also about the risks that the Government have identified. Let us also not forget the universal credit risk register, whose disclosure the Government, again, fought tooth and nail against. They were forced to disclose it; they love spending legal fees on defending the indefensible. It identified 65 open risks to the programme, including that of skilled staff resources not being in the right place at the risk time. The list of incompetence does not end there. The former Secretary of State made clear—this was the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham about people being broadly the same on universal credit as on tax credits—the following when answering departmental questions:

“Here is the key: I have already said that those who are on universal credit at the moment will be supported by their advisers through the flexible support fund, to ensure that their status does not change.” —[Official Report, 7 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 707.]

The idea being of course that the discretionary flexible support fund can make up the difference. I have with me the letter that the Department is sending out on this issue. I do not know whether the Minister has seen this, as the rumours are that since she declared for British exit she does not get to see all the documents in her Department—I am happy to show it to her if she has not. It sets out what the new amount of money is, but there is not one mention of the flexible support fund.

When we are talking about incompetence, it is almost as though some Department for Work and Pensions Ministers have been in competition with each other. We will have to give the top award to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), although I feel bad in doing so because he is only a part-timer in the Department. However, his answer on mitigating the effect of cuts was as follows:

“let us not forget, the fact that every time we fill up our tank with petrol there is a saving…because of the freezing of the fuel duty.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 342.]

If the answer in 2016 from the Tories to those who lose out is, “Go and fill up your car”, it shows how out of touch they are. I picked him out for the top spot in the incompetence league, but in recent months the Minister for Employment has become used to missing out on the top spot. [Interruption.] I will certainly carry on.

The problem is that naked politics is interfering with universal credit. Do not take my word for it; take the word of the former Secretary of State who, when interviewed on the Andrew Marr show on 20 March, said that

“it looks like we see benefits as a pot of money to cut because they don’t vote for us”.

Let us never forget that, because what it says to children in poverty is that we are only interested in their parents if they voted for us or are likely to vote for us at the next election.

What else did the former Secretary of State say about what was happening to the Government’s social security changes? He said this:

“There has been too much emphasis on money saving exercises and not enough awareness from the Treasury, in particular, that the government’s vision of a new welfare-to-work system could not repeatedly be salami-sliced.”

We heard even worse from him, including his damning criticism of the Treasury:

“I am unable to watch passively while certain policies are enacted in order to meet the fiscal self-imposed restraints that I believe are more and more perceived as distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest.”

Any arguments made today by the hon. Member for Gloucester that these cuts are about a reduction in our deficit were blown apart by what was said by the former Secretary of State. What he was saying is that it is all about the politics and career of the Chancellor.

In-work Poverty

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Christina Rees

Thursday 28th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Indeed, he would have been better off saying it quietly, because in November 2015, the actual figure was 155,568. He should be sanctioning himself, on the basis of such a performance. It shows an absolutely dreadful level of incompetence.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), who drew on his experience as a county borough councillor, and set out well the measures that Labour councils in Wales are implementing to try to deal with wage levels. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) spoke, as he always does, with great authority on the matter. His point about the availability of work, and his quote about there being one rule for the working rich and one for the working poor, really resonated in the context of the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on her speech, which was delivered with great passion.

Let us remind ourselves of what the Chancellor—his must be the longest leadership bid in recorded history—said on the “Today” programme on 8 October 2012:

“It is unfair that people listening to this programme going out to work see the neighbour next door with the blinds down because they are on benefits.”

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. The person behind the blinds could be disabled or vulnerable. Dare I say it, they might even have just worked a night shift, although that is something that seems to be lost on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor has been trying to draw a division between those who work and those who do not. He is not the only one who has a problem with the language that has been used in the debate. In September, the Secretary of State said, in answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), that

“the most important point is that we are looking to get that up to the level of normal, non-disabled people who are back in work.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 6.]

Normal, non-disabled people—what kind of language is that? What does that say to somebody who is disabled? I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity this afternoon to distance herself from such shocking remarks.

Even if we accepted that distinction between those who work and those who do not, the Secretary of State is now in such a mess that he is on the wrong side of his own dividing line. It is all very well to say that work is the route out of poverty, and of course we want to see more people in work, but the kind of poverty that we are talking about affects people who have jobs, and who go out to work. As the smoke lifts from the Chancellor’s U-turn on tax credit cuts, it has become clear that he is simply going to make the same £12 billion of cuts to universal credit. No one can tell me that when the Tories were going around during the election campaign and talking about their £12 billion of welfare cuts, people such as cleaners seriously thought that they would be affected.

Let me give another couple of examples. I gave the statistics for single parents to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East.

[Christina Rees]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that lone parents are already twice as likely as two-parent families to be in poverty? Single parents are worse hit in the combined reforms; as a share of income, they lose seven times more than two-parent families. By 2021, single parents will lose £1,300 a year, on average, even after taking into account wage increases and tax concessions.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Single parents could be forgiven for thinking that the Government have a tin ear, as far as their needs are concerned. Let me give the example of a couple who live and work together, one or both of whom have limited capacity to work, because they are disabled. Work allowance will be cut from £7,700 to £4,700 this April, which will mean a loss of income of £3,000 a year. Single individuals will essentially lose everything, with a reduction of £1,332 and a net loss to income of £865. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East has mentioned the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission; its latest report was published as part of the glut of data that the Government put out just before Christmas, on 17 December. I quote from the commission:

“The immediate priority must be taking action to ensure that the introduction of Universal Credit does not make families with children who ‘do the right thing’ (in terms of working as much as society expects them to) worse off than they would be under the current system. That means reversing the cuts to Universal Credit work allowances enacted through the Universal Credit (Work Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2015 before they are implemented in April 2016.”

The commission is asking the Government to do that, and it is precisely what they should do.

What is the Government’s answer to the claim that they are attacking working people? At least the Ministers in the team are not shy about coming forward with the odd suggestion of what people should do to help themselves. We have heard the one about working more hours. I am not entirely sure how single parents are meant to do that, but perhaps the Government will explain that to us in due course. My particular favourite was the suggestion made by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), in the House on 6 January 2016. When he was asked about mitigating the effects of the social security changes, he said that we should not forget

“the fact that every time we fill up our tank with petrol there is a saving of £10 because of the freezing of the fuel duty.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 342.]

In the 1980s, the unemployed were told to get on their bikes, but in 2016 the advice is to fill your car. If that is the best that the Government can offer the working people of this country, it shows the position they have reached.

The Government are in the worst of all worlds. Universal credit is the Secretary of State’s passion. The policy is his baby. He allegedly fights the Chancellor around the Cabinet table so that he can keep it going, although we might draw the conclusion that he is not doing so very effectively. We will have to wait until, I think, 2021 to see the full effects. The Secretary of State seems to be going for some kind of record for how long it takes to implement change at the DWP. The Government are in the worst of all worlds, because they lack both compassion and confidence.

Barnett Floor (Wales)

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Christina Rees

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered a Barnett floor for Wales.

It is a privilege to have secured my first Westminster Hall debate, which is on an important topic affecting funding for Wales in general and my constituents in particular. We all know how difficult the funding settlements have been in recent years. The Welsh Government have faced great funding challenges, and local councils, including my own Torfaen County Borough Council, are struggling to make ends meet and doing their best to protect front-line services when less and less money is coming from Westminster.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the losses that local authorities have experienced and will continue to experience. In 2014-15, Neath Port Talbot’s budget was cut by £17 million. It has been predicted that, from April 2016, Neath Port Talbot will lose £18 million or possibly more, depending on the autumn statement. Public services have already been cut severely—

[Christina Rees]

I am simply making the point that we should not suffer from the Barnett formula.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Neath Port Talbot example further illustrates and reinforces the point that I made about Torfaen.

The debate deals with an aspect of Westminster funding, the so-called Barnett floor. As Members are aware, Joel—later Lord—Barnett introduced the Barnett formula in 1978, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the context of the devolution debate of that era. He did not originally intend that it should become a permanent feature, yet here, some 37 years later, it still governs the Wales-Westminster fiscal relationship.

More recently, in 2009, the interim report of the Holtham commission, “Funding devolved government in Wales: Barnett and beyond”, was published. It suggested that Wales was underfunded.

Off-patent Drugs Bill

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Christina Rees

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I do not accept that that is a risk of the Bill. As the hon. Lady knows, the drugs are available for pennies a day. Under the Bill, the Government would step in to address a market failure. The Bill will not have the impact that she believes it will have. She makes a reasonable point, but it is not one that will arise under the apparatus and structure proposed by the Bill.

The alternative to the Bill—I firmly believe that if this Government do not do this, a future Government will have to legislate—is to continue to encourage more off-label prescribing. Even if that were desirable, very little has happened. In a letter dated 2 November, the Royal College of Physicians states:

“As there has been no meaningful progress on a non-legislative solution to this issue, we believe that your Bill is an important first step towards expanding access to these vital drugs.”

The proposal was debated a year ago and we have had a year to see whether there is a non-legislative solution to the problem.

The Bill has incredibly wide support across the professional spheres. I apologise in advance for not naming every charity that supports it.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

The Bill has the support of a huge number of medical research charities, which lead the way in research on the use of repurposed drugs. Currently, there is no route to market for off-patent drugs in new indications. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will fix that anomaly?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Twelve medical research charities back the Bill; the NHS clinical commissioners in England back the Bill; and the British Medical Association backs the Bill. More than 10,000 members of the public have written to their MP in support of it. That is in addition to the 20,000 who wrote last year to the former Member for Cardiff North. Four of the medical royal colleges support the Bill. Forty eminent clinicians wrote in recent weeks to The Daily Telegraph to support the Bill. It has incredibly wide support across parties and among the professions.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Christina Rees

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a proud member of the Unite union, and I draw attention to my relevant declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I am a member of the trade union and Unite groups for Members of Parliament.

A fundamental principle is at stake in this Bill, which is the ability of working people to combine in the trade union movement for their collective benefit—a combining together that has brought higher wages, better working conditions and enhanced rights at work. The Secretary of State made a number of historical references in his opening speech. He quoted two Labour Prime Ministers—Harold Wilson and Clement Attlee—but he was somewhat selective in the history that he put before the House.

The fear of working people collecting together led to trade unions being illegal in this country for so long and to the Combination Acts, and only in 1871 was a limited right to picket peacefully introduced. The Conservative party’s history is to attack that right to collect together. The Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and tried to present the concept of having to opt in to the political levy as an act of modernisation. The Conservatives have tried that before. That is precisely what was in the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act 1927, and it was regarded as a highly vindictive act after the general strike, which led—or at least contributed to—their election defeat in 1929.

Interestingly, when he quoted Clement Attlee the Secretary of State did not mention that it was Attlee’s Labour Government in 1946 that reversed that necessity to opt in to the political levy, because that was regarded as taking away power and balancing it too far from workers in the workplace. Let us not present something that has been a previous historical failure as an act of modernisation in 2015. This Bill is based on two fundamental flaws.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that local government and public services are completely devolved to Wales, and that therefore the measures in the Bill and the check-off could not possible apply in Wales?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government have failed to take into account the views and positions of the devolved parts of the United Kingdom—and that is not all that they have failed to take into account.

Striking is not a first resort, it is a last resort, but unfortunately the Bill is based on that misconception. My father was on strike when I was born, in the steel strike of 1980. Conservative Members have no idea about the hardship caused to the families of strikers when they go out on strike. That is why it is always a last resort.

The Bill is also based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the law as it stands. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in clause 9, which is the new set of requirements in relation to picketing. Conservative Members really must have little faith in the police and their ability to identify people on a picket line, given the number of requirements to be introduced. At the moment, only six people can picket at a time, but apparently not only will the picket supervisor’s name be required, but they must have a letter to show to a police constable or

“any other person who reasonably asks to see it.”

I am not sure who that would be. Hopefully it will be the Secretary of State, because if he attended a picket line, he might be a bit better informed about this part of the Bill. In addition, the picket supervisor must be readily contactable at short notice and, worst of all,

“wear a badge, armband or other item that readily identifies the picket supervisor as such.”

What an absolute shame. It is a badge of shame that the Tory party is trying to attach to the trade union movement.

The Bill, the employment tribunal fees and the attack on the Human Rights Act are a combined attack on working people by a Government who have given up the mantle of one nation.

Jobcentre Plus

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Christina Rees

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this important debate.

Job seeking is often a stressful, unpredictable journey that is usually travelled alone. Losing a job is difficult, not only for the individual, but often for their families as well. The search for work—perhaps following redundancy, or however a job is lost—is never easy, and although for most people it is over within six months, many are left to endure cycles of short-term work and long periods of unemployment.

Jobcentre Plus has remained the single biggest gateway into the world of work for generations, with jobseekers culturally bound to the process of examining the jobs board at their local job centre, or dole office as it used to be known. However, research shows that although 75% of people claiming jobseekers allowance gain employment within six months, only about half of claimants leaving JSA are still in work eight months later.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Williams. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing this important debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) sets out powerfully the statistical case relating to Jobcentre Plus. Does she agree that there has been a problem with the Government’s rhetoric, which is exacerbating the position of the unemployed, because rather than accepting that unemployment is a difficult time in a person’s life, people have been stigmatised as shirkers? That has made the atmosphere around Jobcentre Plus far more difficult than it needs to be.

[Christina Rees]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I agree. The rhetoric often binds people in cultural divisions.

The process simply is not working. The world has changed since the inception of the jobcentre and, indeed, Jobcentre Plus. To be fair, the Department for Work and Pensions has implemented changes that take account of the increasingly digital way in which people access services and information. Its aim of “digital by default” ways to sign on is a clear move to base its services in the computer-centric world where many people exist.

However, the Welsh Government’s “National Survey for Wales 2013-14” confirmed that 21% of the Welsh adult population aged 18 or over does not regularly use the internet. In the local authority area of Neath Port Talbot, where my constituency is situated, that figure is almost 41%. Although 82% of people use the internet for email and 74% for general browsing, only 17% used it to look for work. Youth unemployment in Neath Port Talbot in May 2013 was 9.7%, compared with 9.0% in Wales and 7.8% for the UK as a whole, and 2% of young people had been out of work for more than six months. As those statistics suggest, there is a great need for good quality job search, support and advice in Neath, and other constituencies like it.

I wish to highlight two examples of how community-based organisations have improved the job prospects and quality of life for people in my constituency of Neath. One is in a community suburb of Neath town centre, called Neath East, and the other is in a small village called Banwen, at the top of the Dulais valley. The people of Neath East came together to try to regenerate their area, first establishing the Melincryddan Community Conference, known as MCC, and later joining forces to create the Neath East Communities First partnership. This partnership has sought, and continues to seek, the views and participation of community members in deciding on actions to regenerate the area.

One of the first needs identified was provision of advice to be available locally, which led directly to the provision of Melin advice centre. Initial consultations revealed that many claimants were being turned away from Neath Jobcentre Plus, as they lacked the necessary IT skills and/or access to fulfil the three basic criteria of day one conditionality—compiling a CV and having an email address and a Universal Jobmatch registration—and the staff at the jobcentre did not have the time to assist them.

The MCC/Communities First partnership put staff in the jobcentre to provide a two-phase approach, with funding secured in 2014 from the Jobcentre Plus flexible support grant. First, it helped claimants with the immediate task of meeting their conditionality requirements, ensuring that they navigated the systems properly and were armed with the requisite documents. Secondly, it directed claimants to its own advice centre for more tailored, in-depth advice that aimed to secure them better long-term employment prospects.

The Melin centre offers a range of services and facilities, including adult learning classes, welfare rights advice, and employment search and support. It also delivers a range of health and wellbeing activities, employing more than 15 members of staff. It is now working with between 50 and 130 people each month, all seeking support to meet the day one conditionality criteria.

MCC has succeeded in helping people in Neath East to gain employment opportunities by helping them to navigate the systems properly. That has vastly improved the services being offered by Jobcentre Plus and is therefore improving the quality of life for those in the community.

The Dove Workshop in Banwen was formed during the 1984-85 miners’ strike as a response to the need for the community to come together and share skills and solidarity. Led by women, for women, the organisation began as a way of offering adult education and skills training, so that local women were better equipped to find work during the year-long strike that saw their partners and fathers out of work and on the picket line. Although the strike came to an end, Dove Workshop did not. Instead, it grew in strength, scale and scope, working not only with women, but with all parts of the community, providing education and a range of services and projects. It has acted as a union for the community during times when not everyone worked, and it recognises that those who are working work in disparate sectors, industries and places.

Dove now employs 30 people in a community where jobs are rare. It continually supports its staff to undertake training and further education, providing a number of services associated with learning, offering opportunities for volunteering, work experience, IT drop-in services, employment support, CV writing, and much more. One project delivered by Dove is “Building Livelihoods and Strengthening Communities”, funded by the Big Lottery Fund in partnership with Oxfam Cymru. This project, together with Dove’s own advice service, works to support local people in their pursuit of good quality, sustainable employment.

As with MCC, for many years Jobcentre Plus in Neath has sent many jobseekers to Dove because Jobcentre Plus staff were unable to assist them directly, as they lacked the time and resources to do so. Dove also applied for the Jobcentre Plus flexible support grant, but was unfortunately denied funding. However, Dove has never turned away someone seeking help, and it continues to provide advice today. To me, Jobcentre Plus is a conveyor belt whose purpose seems to be to offer unemployed people the prospect of six months’ work. However, MCC and Dove cater to an individual’s needs, ambitions and quality of life, so that they can fulfil their potential and make a meaningful contribution to the community.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Christina Rees

Monday 6th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)]

9. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on the potential effect on victims of domestic abuse of repealing the Human Rights Act 1998.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

15. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Justice on the potential effect on victims of domestic abuse of repealing the Human Rights Act 1998.