Hate Crime Against the LGBT+ Community

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Nia Griffith

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely. I spoke earlier about intersectionality. When we look at wider violence against women and girls, or violence related to race or disability, there can be a double or triple whammy for people experiencing violence on the basis of who they are. It is simply unacceptable.

Given the shocking record and the shocking increases that we have seen in recent years, it is no wonder that many LGBT+ people—people we all represent—feel less safe and more afraid to walk down the road holding hands with their partner, to present themselves as they wish and to remain authentic, honest versions of themselves. But it does not have to be this way. We know that we are capable of providing vibrant, diverse, dynamic, beautiful and inclusive communities.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I apologise that I will not be able to stay until the end. We have heard from others how the current climate has been fostered by the very unprofessional and negative comments from some Cabinet members. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister what she will do to raise that with Cabinet members and ensure that they stop making things worse?

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with what my hon. Friend says. It is worth looking at the fact that in 2013 the UK was rated as the best place in Europe for LGBT+ equality. We had taken pride over many years in being a beacon of the furtherance of LGBT+ rights. Indeed, there was a broad political consensus around advancing those rights; let us not forget that it was a cross-party coalition of Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and other parties represented here that passed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. I was proud to serve on its Bill Committee.

However, today we see increasingly regressive forces in our politics, with sometimes explicit and sometimes more insidious attempts to divide and demonise our community; an increasingly hostile media and online environment; the influence of globally regressive forces, from Putin to the extreme religious right; and, across society more broadly, others vilifying our community and weaponising debates about our rights and, in many cases, even our existence. Shamefully for the Government, that means that since 2013, the UK has dropped to 14th place in the ILGA-Europe rainbow index, lagging behind the rest of western Europe.

Where once we had Prime Ministers who took pride in Britain being a leader on LGBT+ rights, we now see the plight of our community demeaned to cheap punchlines or political dog whistles. Where once we had consensus, compassion and kindness—and, indeed, legal action—now there is division, polarisation and a perpetuation of insidious culture wars. Quite frankly, we deserve better. Our constituents deserve much better.

I am proud that Labour has set out the need for a different approach—one that does not treat LGBT+ rights as a political football or an afterthought. It is a fact that hate crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and disability are not punished as severely as those based on other protected characteristics. I am proud that we have committed a Labour Government to fixing that injustice by equalising the law so that LGBT+ and, indeed, disability-related hate crimes are treated as aggravated offences. We will provide real accountability and assiduously pursue those who seek to harm an individual on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

One of the most concerning trends in recent statistics is the 11% increase in hate crimes committed against transgender people. Tragically, I would think that that would come as no surprise to any of us in this room. We have all seen the way in which the discussions around these issues have been conducted in recent years, with escalatory rhetoric increasingly poisoning and polarising our discourse. Of course there are valid, important and complex issues to be discussed, but the lives and experiences of an already small and vulnerable community are increasingly abstracted into a reductionist zero-sum game and, in many cases, people are dehumanised and targeted.

We see it with the rise of anti-trans rhetoric online, as well as in cheap shots politically. We also see it quantitatively in surveys of British public opinion. The latest British social attitudes research reports that the proportion of British people who describe themselves as being prejudiced against transgender people has increased from 18% to 36% since 2019. Most alarmingly, we see it in the sharp increase in anti-transgender hate crime, which is up 11% in one year. In the past six months alone, Galop, which does excellent work, has seen a 76% increase in trans people seeking support to deal with serious incidents.

In closing, I ask the Minister for clarity in a number of areas. First, will the Government end what the Law Commission calls a “hierarchy of protection” and bring about real parity between groups of all protected characteristics, or will it fall to a Labour Government to find the courage to take that step forward? LGBT+ people rightly feel that the current political set-up is weighted against them because the Government have failed to make achievable and critically necessary reforms such as introducing an inclusive ban on conversion therapy. How can the Government say that they are concerned with the plight of LGBT+ people while they continue to quietly acquiesce in that abhorrent practice? Lastly, given the shocking statistics, what specific support will the Minister give to the trans and non-binary community? Will she commit to stamping out the divisive and horrific rhetoric that comes from some parts of her own Government?

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Nia Griffith

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith]

I think we are talking about two slightly different things. In the cases of Wrexham and Prestatyn, we are talking about particular reservist bases, and my worry is that if we do not draw reservists from across the country, we will miss out on talent. However, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the other issue.

If the beneficial impact of this Bill is to be fully felt, it is also vital that every effort is made to ensure that service personnel are made aware of the options it affords. We know that individuals are often reluctant to talk about difficult family circumstances for fear of that being seen as a sign of weakness, so it is vital that personnel know about the new options that the Bill introduces before they need to access them. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister outlined how service personnel will be made aware of the options open to them through the Bill.

A decision to take up the option of working on a part-time basis, with the consequent reduction in pay, is not something that anyone would undertake lightly, but it is a decision that may have to be taken at a time of particular stress or difficulty. The Ministry of Defence, as an employer, therefore has a duty of care to ensure that individuals are fully aware of the financial implications of any request and to point out to them that they may wish to take independent financial advice because, although everyone would want to calculate the immediate impact of going part time on their take-home pay, the effect on pensions is not so obvious. Even a limited period of lower contributions could have an effect later in life on what a person receives in every single year they draw their pension. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how the new framework established by the Bill will be made clear to personnel. What assurance can he give that the impact of any change in service arrangements will be highlighted appropriately?

Although we welcome the Bill, it is not a panacea for the very real challenges of recruitment and retention in our armed forces. Members on both sides of the House share my concern that numbers continue to fall in every single service. The trade-trained size of the Army is now well below the 82,000 target that the Conservative party promised to maintain in its manifesto, and intake rates are falling in each of the reserve forces, too. Indeed, a recent report by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), commissioned by the Government, found that recruitment to the armed forces is “running to stand still,” resulting in the “hollowing out” of the services.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. Has she had a chance to look at the figures that the Minister for the Armed Forces released to me earlier this year? They show that at Catterick, for example, not a single common infantry course this year was filled. In one month, April, only 14 of 96 places were filled. The course was not filled in any month this year. Does my hon. Friend think the Government have a grip on the recruitment crisis they are facing?

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I hope Ministers are listening to that major concern.

Veterans and Service Personnel

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Nia Griffith

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on securing today’s debate and all those Members from across the UK who have taken part.

My hon. Friend started by telling us about Pizza Pronto and its efforts down by Penarth pier. He also referred to the absolutely excellent work done by the Royal British Legion. Members on both sides of the House wish to thank the legion and the many charities who do so much for our armed forces and veterans.

My hon. Friend referred to those of many faiths who will be coming together this week to pay their respects. He also looked back at the role of women in the first world war, including the Canary girls in the munitions factories, one of whom was his grandmother—

[Stephen Doughty]

Great-grandmother.

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend is so young. He told us some very moving stories of veterans he has met who have suffered major trauma, both physical and mental.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), chair of the all-party group on the armed forces covenant, stressed how important it is for MPs to speak up for servicemen and women, as they cannot speak up for themselves. She spoke movingly of her own experiences, having seen the fine work done by many charities. She reminded us, too, of the current engagement of our armed forces, the stress caused by under-manning and the dreadful effect on morale of redundancies and base closures.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us poignantly of those who were killed or injured in Northern Ireland. He paid tribute to the work done by charities and talked of the high number of veterans who have taken or tried to take their own lives. He mentioned the problem of veterans who are under the radar and not known to the authorities or to charities.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) told us the wonderful tale of Johnny the Dambuster and paid tribute to the excellent work of the Royal British Legion. He mentioned his participation in the “22 for 22” challenge. I took the lazy way out: I just abseiled for Combat Stress, which is an awful lot easier than doing 22 press-ups. Many hon. Members have contributed to charities that are working hard for our veterans, and we appreciate the work being done.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) described the specific provision for veterans in Scotland and stressed the need to recognise the strengths and qualities of veterans and the contribution that they can make to society, rather than seeing only problems. He also discussed the importance of working outside traditional silos.

Remembrance time is when we remember all those in our armed forces who have made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives in service to our country. Later this week, people from all walks of life—young and old—will turn out for events across the country to pay their respects. For many people, the image they have of veterans is one of elderly servicemen and women at the Cenotaph or the local war memorial—an image that has been reinforced in the past two years by the events that have, quite properly, been held to commemorate the first world war.

This week is an especially poignant time for families and friends who are still living with the loss of loved ones. I was very privileged last week to attend a special service to unveil and dedicate a new memorial in Llanelli in readiness for Remembrance Day. The memorial commemorates the 15 brave servicemen from Llanelli killed in eight conflicts since the end of the second world war, including those killed most recently: Lance Corporal Ryan Francis, killed in Iraq, and Lance Corporal David Dennis and Corporal Jamie Kirkpatrick, killed in Afghanistan. On behalf of us all, I would like to thank all those who have worked hard and given generously to ensure that we have a fitting and lasting memorial in Llanelli to those brave men.

I very much welcome the decision by the Royal British Legion to choose rethinking remembrance as its theme for this year’s Remembrance Day, reminding us that the poppy appeal is about not only commemorating those who died many years ago but remembering our modern-day veterans, showing our gratitude for their service and ensuring that the armed forces covenant really does deliver prompt access to the quality services they need.

It is important that our perceptions and priorities move with the times. In our parents’ generation, practically everyone personally knew a family member, friend or neighbour who had served in the armed forces. However, nowadays, not everyone knows serving members of the armed forces or veterans personally, so their perceptions may be more heavily influenced by what they see in the media. It is vital that, as we discuss the provision of the best possible services for our veterans, we do not let our focus on some of the problems lead to negative stereotyping. Many ex-servicemen and women adapt very well to civilian life: they use the skills they have acquired in the forces, or they develop new ones, and they settle well into workplaces and communities.

Regardless of whether veterans have any particular difficulties, all of them should have prompt access to appropriate services. The aim should be to provide a smooth transition and to deal with concerns before they develop into problems. When Labour was in government, we did much to pave the way for the introduction of the armed forces covenant. The first military covenant was published in 2000, and it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) who, as Health Secretary, ensured that veterans got priority treatment on the NHS. It is encouraging that there has been such enthusiastic recognition of the armed forces community covenant by many local authorities and local service boards, but application and outcomes are very variable.

In Labour’s 2015 manifesto, we recognised the need for the covenant to be strengthened. One action we proposed was to create a veterans’ register to make certain that our veterans receive proper support on leaving service. We therefore support the Royal British Legion’s “Count them in” campaign, as I understand Members on both sides of the House do, to have a question on the next census to identify veterans. That would be a simple way of acquiring an additional source of information, which would tell us about the veterans living in our communities and allow public services better to meet their needs.

Service leavers and older veterans could be given more encouragement to mention the fact that they are veterans. There may be many reasons why they do not self-identify: it simply does not occur to them, they do not wish to be pushy, or they feel there is some form of stigma attached. Therefore, identification needs to be done proactively, through a scripted question. One starting point highlighted in the best practice guide is the way that some local authorities have included a question about veterans on some of their forms to help them collate data on veterans. What consideration have the Government given to developing that into a standard format on a number of forms—for example, questions on GP registration forms or local authority forms?

It is simply not enough for the Government to say that the community covenant has been embraced by various public bodies. The will is there, but how effective is it in practice? It can be tempting sometimes just to visit those who are taking the lead and who are proud to show us what they are doing, whereas the focus needs to be on ensuring that there is effective practice everywhere.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend’s point about data—it is one that I made myself—is important, not least in the light of the comments from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about people who have fallen through the gaps, often with tragic consequences, in Northern Ireland, and what charities have told me about the difficulties they have in re-acquiring relationships with veterans because of that lack of information and data. Does she agree that we need to make a lot more effort to ensure that there is a consistent approach across the UK and across all services?

[Nia Griffith]

We do indeed need a much more consistent approach to the whole use of data, as the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) said. Consistency of services is absolutely critical.

It is no easy matter when dealing with the many varied ways in which our public services are organised, with different systems of local government, health trusts and clinical commissioning groups—and that is just in England, never mind in other parts of the UK. We should not forget, either, that many of these public bodies are also under considerable strain as they face cutbacks and increased demand. The Minister may point to the annual report and to the best practice guide, but these alone will not drive change and improve outcomes, so what strategies are the Government proposing to ensure that service providers—health boards, local authorities and so on—are implementing the armed forces covenant effectively? Are veterans being effectively identified and helped? Has the Minister developed ways to measure not only the experience of veterans and their families, but what is being done and whether it is effective? The challenge is to find how to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the covenant in ways that are effective but not too burdensome or bureaucratic.

There is a need to enable the Government to identify and rectify areas of weakness and to inform future policy. What progress is the Minister making in this respect? The forces charity, SSAFA, has reported that forces families are still facing real challenges when accessing housing or school places for their children. It is therefore clear that the Government need to do more to make councils aware of the local needs of forces communities. What consideration have the Government given to finding a consistent way of measuring and monitoring what is actually happening and the experience of veterans and their families?

Half the ex-service community has a long-term illness or disability, and it is therefore essential that the MOD ensures that all veterans get access to the healthcare they need—and likewise for mental health conditions. While most members of the forces community have good mental health, there is a higher prevalence of conditions such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in the forces, particularly among groups such as reservists and early service leavers. Under the armed forces covenant, the forces community should receive priority healthcare where their condition relates to their service, but as the health service in England becomes more fragmented and there is growing pressure on the NHS budget, what monitoring are the Government doing to ensure that our service members and veterans get the help they need?

Wales Bill

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Nia Griffith

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards]

The powers as envisaged do not involve the complete block grant. The block grant—the total money available to Wales—will not change on day one. The only issue of contention is the fiscal framework; I have been making that point. The devolution of the fiscal power itself is not an issue in terms of making Wales poorer on day one.

There is also a technical reason why we should be fully devolving income tax powers. It is far more difficult to create a fair fiscal framework to accompany the partial devolution of income tax as opposed to full devolution. The result of this would be to enable future Welsh Governments to continue to avoid responsibility for their mistakes. In the interests of transparency, accountability and—critically—incentivisation, I hope even at this late stage that the UK Government will accept my new clause 3.

A key element of ensuring that the devolution of income tax is devolved successfully is the empowerment of the National Assembly to set income tax thresholds. New clause 2 aims to achieve this objective and I will press it to a vote on the second day of Committee, with the Chair’s permission. If we have time, I would also like to press new clause 3. We will discuss these new clauses on Monday.

New clause 2 is of vital importance as we embark on the journey of devolving income tax powers. The setting of thresholds is a key component of being able to use those powers based on domestic considerations. The Welsh economy in comparison to other parts of the UK is, regrettably, currently a lower-wage economy, a concern raised by Labour colleagues. New clause 2 would enable the National Assembly ultimately to determine the number of income tax thresholds and the levels at which they are set, including, critically, the basic rate. That freedom would enable the Finance Minister of the Welsh Government, whoever he or she may be, to set innovative income tax structures aimed at maximising revenues for the Welsh Exchequer to invest in Welsh public services, but also to encourage wealth creation and encourage investment.

It has been a consistent policy of the current Chancellor to increase personal allowances—in other words to increase the rate at which people begin paying income tax. Brexit may lead to a radical reversal of this policy in the coming months and years by the next Chancellor as revenues reduce. However, the key point is that as long as the ability to set personal allowances is reserved to London and Wales has a low-wage economy, decisions by Chancellors here could have a significant impact on the revenue available to invest in Welsh public services.

It really is all or nothing when it comes to the devolution of income tax and, as someone who supports making the Welsh Government fiscally responsible, I very much hope that the UK Government decide to support the former. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

[Nia Griffith]

I shall speak to several amendments, in particular amendment 11, which provides that income tax powers may not be devolved to the Welsh Assembly until a fiscal framework has been approved by both Houses of Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

We have always said that a fiscal framework must ensure that Wales is not disadvantaged by taking on the devolution of some income tax powers. In the wake of the EU referendum result, it is all the more urgent that the Government develop a coherent and redistributory regional funding strategy not just for Wales, but for the whole of the UK.

The EU uses specific criteria for designating the areas that should receive structural funds by comparing the income of an area with the EU average. Areas in Wales such as the valleys and west Wales have benefited because they have a GDP that is less than 75% of the EU average, as has Cornwall, and many other areas have benefited because their GDP is between 75% and 90% of the EU average, including south Yorkshire and Merseyside. It is, broadly speaking, a needs-based system. As Members across the House will remember, Holtham recommended that funding for Wales should be based on a needs-based formula. However, a sophisticated formula would take time to develop.

It is simply unacceptable for Wales to accept the devolution of income tax without an order in both Houses and the consent of the Welsh Assembly, because those measures would give elected Members the chance to discuss the funding and the fiscal framework so that we do not see a cut to our funding and then get told to make up the rest by increasing income tax.

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with the point about the potential trap for Wales. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and that of many of my constituents about the uncertainty that is being created for projects such as the south Wales metro, which was due to be funded by the EU? We are not clear where that £150 million of funding will come from. If we do not have clarity on Wales’s fiscal framework and on whether we will be better off or not, projects like that will be in doubt.

Severn Bridges (Tolls)

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Nia Griffith

Tuesday 21st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) on raising such an important subject in a timely manner. The beginning of a new Government and Parliament is the right time to look at what we can expect in the next couple of years.

Owens Transport is based in my constituency, but it has depots in Newport East and Aberavon, as well as in other parts of the country. It competes not only with companies that go to and from Wales, but with England-based companies that go to other parts of England or to the continent, and with companies that come over from the continent and take business in the UK. We are talking about an international, cut-throat business. If companies have to pay an additional cost to come back to their home base in Wales, they are at a distinct disadvantage, and £500,000 a year is no small amount of money.

Following the concession that has been given to vans, companies such as Owens Transport are disappointed that absolutely nothing has been done for hauliers. Several suggestions have been made over the years, such as off-peak concessions, but nothing has been done to help hauliers. The company is anxious to have a timetable for what will happen when the concession finally ends. If the Minister cannot give us this information today, we would like a timescale for when he will be able to tell us. When the concession ends, will he confirm that VAT will definitely come off? Can he confirm exactly what moneys are still “owed” to the Treasury? As the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) succinctly said, it is questionable whether anything is owing when the scheme has been a cash cow for the Treasury in past years. How do the Government intend to recoup the moneys? In other words, will there be a timescale during which the money would be paid back? We have heard various suggestions for how that might work, involving dates from 2017 to 2023. When will we be able to move to a maintenance-only tariff? We would like some form of consultation to take place. Now would be a good time for the Minister to try to set out a full timescale for exactly what will happen and when.

[Stephen Doughty]

I could not agree with my hon. Friend more about the importance of a timescale. Business requires investment certainty and clear timetables. That is true not only for existing businesses but for businesses that we are trying to attract to Wales. Given the news that we have heard during the past week about possible delays in the electrification of the south Wales main line, is it not crucial for the Government to set out a clear timetable for the road network and for electrification, so that businesses have the certainty they need to invest and grow?

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I would have made myself, about certainty for businesses, particularly those that have to plan a long way ahead. Many businesses that invest in south Wales involve the transport of heavy materials, so they use haulage companies.

We need as much detail as possible. If the Minister cannot give us that today, I would appreciate it if he told us when he can give us a timetable for all the different parts of the process: the consultation, the ending of the concession, what will happen then, how long it will happen for and what he intends to do about moving to a tariff that reflects only maintenance charges.

We are so determined to move to a maintenance-only charge because it already seems unfair to pay even for the maintenance of the crossings when we do not have a pay-as-you-go system for any other roads, with one or two small exceptions in the UK. To make one road into a pay-as-you-go system when none of the others is seems totally unfair. It would be absolutely monstrous for it to become a cash cow, because that would be a tax raised on one small group of people, which would be totally out of kilter with any other form of taxation.

I would be interested if the Minister gave any indication of whether the Government intend to keep the matter as a UK Government responsibility, or whether he intends to open the discussion about whether it might be devolved. We really want to open a dialogue with the Minister and get as many answers as possible. We want a very clear timetable to be set out so that we all know where we are, and so that our businesses and industry know where they are and can make the necessary investment decisions. That investment would come to Wales much more readily than it will if businesses see no end to the “continual taxation” on the bridges.

UK Steel Industry

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Nia Griffith

Wednesday 3rd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree. My hon. Friend mentions the Community union, which has many members in my constituency and those of other Members present. It provided a helpful briefing for this debate and continues to speak out with a strong voice on these issues. Community estimates that the energy prices faced by UK steel producers can be 50% higher than those faced by our main European competitors, such as Germany. The Minister might not be aware of this, but green levies in the UK are two to three times higher than those faced by European competitors.

I firmly believe that we need a responsible and supported transition to a low-carbon economy, but it would be absurd if ill-fitting policies for this and other energy-intensive industries resulted in carbon leakage that leads to higher global carbon emissions. The Celsa plant in my constituency uses recycled steel in a carbon-efficient process, and it would be a tragedy if some of that production was lost to China, where the same carbon emissions standards and local environment standards would not be followed.

Earlier this year, the Chancellor said that manufacturing continues to play a key role in the UK’s economic recovery, but that the cost of energy acutely impacts on the international competitiveness of the sector, particularly for energy-intensive industries. I agree, as I am sure do many of my colleagues and the French and German Governments, but actions speak louder than words. Where the UK Government has failed to act robustly and urgently to level the playing field, others around the world have been taking action, including Germany and France. Unfortunately, that is leaving the UK at a disadvantage. As a close observer of what happens on the continent, the Minister might know that the French Senate recently debated finding a mechanism to fix the electricity cost for energy-intensive users at a maximum of €30 per megawatt-hour, compared with the €73.50 per megawatt-hour in the UK. That is a stark contrast.

The Minister might be aware that there has been extensive correspondence between the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and me and other Members on these issues. The announcements in the Budget earlier this year on an energy-intensive industries compensation package were welcome, but many of the measures will have no immediate impact, which presents a serious risk.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned this issue. I was deeply disappointed by the Chancellor’s answer today. I simply asked whether he was content with the decision—I had been told that the Minister for Business and Enterprise, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), would be responding to the debate, and I am disappointed that he is not here—that he and that Minister made not to bring forward that package. That decision is deeply disappointing to many of the steel producers in this country.

I am sure that the Minister has received many bulging red boxes full of cautious and bureaucratic advice from officials on the issue, but it is ultimately a political decision for Ministers to interpret European guidelines and decide whether there is a possibility of retrospective exemption and renewable sources support compensation. The bottom line for our steel producers is that in practical terms many of them are paying more taxes than they paid three years ago. They are finding themselves at a growing competitive disadvantage. The Minister’s cautious approach stands in stark contrast to the proactive and decisive one taken by Ministers in other EU member states. I am sincerely asking whether he and his ministerial colleagues will take another look at this crucial issue.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was the unilateral imposition of the carbon floor price at a particular rate that has caused the problems? The steel industry is not asking for charity; it is simply asking for a level playing field. We want the situation put right as soon as possible.

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend’s points.

On another issue, the Minister here today will know that business rates are one of the few taxes that are non-cyclical and fixed at a level irrespective of economic or market conditions. As such, business rates are treated by industry as a fixed cost, which is given much greater prominence when making investment decisions. According to the industry, the fact that business rates are five to 10 times higher in the UK than in EU counterparts represents a significant comparative distortion that undermines the UK as a destination for investment.

Will the Minister say whether any consideration has been given to removing plant and machinery from the business rates valuations? What about alternative approaches for large-scale manufacturers, with a view to adopting a simplified model based on capital values rather than hypothetical rental values?

I come to foreign dumping, responsible sourcing and supply-chain access, huge issues for UK-based steel producers—and the environment is changing all the time. We have been shown some shocking statistics. I mentioned the reinforcing bar produced by Celsa in my constituency. Hopefully, the Minister has seen the data that show that imports from China now account for more than a third of overall UK market share, which is a dramatic increase in recent years; the figures for this year show an even greater increase. We also see problems with imports from Turkey.

There are also questions about traceability in the supply chain and the fact that the classification of such products often does not meet British standards. In the extreme, that has potentially serious implications for the future structural integrity of buildings or infrastructure projects in which non-compliant rebar or other steel products have been used.

The UK Certification Authority for Reinforcing Steels has been too slow and ineffective in its response to date. Quite frankly, the Government’s response has also been disappointingly slow, given that I understand that misclassification was raised at the steel contact group in October 2013 and again in June 2014.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for those well made points; I wholeheartedly agree with them. On traceability and the quality of products used, the Government could do something right away: ensure that all Government or Government-backed projects have a robust, responsible sourcing requirement.

As I have said before, although the Government’s sector- by-sector approach is welcome, it must be dramatically accelerated. That would, without doubt, serve to stem some of the questions about safety and sustainability rightly coming from concerned people inside and outside the industry. Reports that Chinese rebar has been failing British standards tests coupled with the news that one third of rebar used on UK sites is Chinese should have red lights flashing on ministerial dashboards, not only in BIS but in other Departments.

[Nia Griffith]

Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that Ministers, in their reply to the steel group, rather brushed aside any option to intervene in what CARES is doing? Will he reiterate to this Minister the need for them to look at that thoroughly?

Universal Credit (Wales)

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Nia Griffith

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty]

Absolutely, and I will come on to that point in due course.

It is not only those whom I have spoken to who have sincere worries about universal credit. As we have several times seen in the press, one Cabinet Minister has reportedly said in private:

“The information technology for the new system is nowhere near ready. It’s a disaster waiting to happen.”

Who knows whether such rumours are to be believed, but I understand that a number of Cabinet Ministers share that view, which is perhaps one reason for the delays.

What is the specific impact on Wales? Based on an analysis of the December impact assessment and some rough calculations, we estimate that a staggering 140,000 people across Wales might lose £1,600 a year. That is based on an estimate of the Welsh population that will be affected. I would be grateful if the Minister shared the Government’s figures and estimates about how many will be affected in Wales and how much they will lose. Will he provide a breakdown by local authority to help local authorities prepare for the impact of the changes?

Aside from the raw figures, which are shocking in themselves, I want to share the key fears that people have raised with me about the implementation of universal credit in Wales. First, there is the challenge of budgeting for many families; secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned, there is the digital divide; thirdly, there are power relationships within the home; and, finally, there are the risks posed to local authorities, housing associations and other registered social landlords.

First, on budgeting, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions frequently appears to suggest that those of us who raise the issue are patronising our constituents. Rather than taking so entirely complacent an approach, I commend the work that organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux, the Cardiff and Vale credit union, housing associations—for example, Cadwyn in my constituency—are doing to support tenants by helping them to set up bank accounts, jam jar accounts and similar facilities in credit unions. I also commend the Welsh Government’s work to support those efforts.

Levels of financial literacy––let alone access to a bank account––are not, unlike this measure, universal, and we need to be realistic about the impact of the changes on many people. Rather than making huge assumptions, perhaps the Minister would tell us what risks he sees in relation to the problems in the area and what his Department is doing to assist. I can certainly tell him that many of the organisations that I have mentioned, let alone individual constituents, have experienced varying or little support from his Department, and that relates only to those who are aware of such support.

I want to touch on direct payments and the data from the direct payment pilots that the Department has conducted. A couple of days ago, “Inside Housing” published an article entitled, “Direct payment pilots report increased arrears”, by the journalist Carl Brown, which states:

“Landlords testing direct payment of benefit failed to collect 8 per cent of rent on average in the first four months of the six pilot projects.”

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend also ask the Minister what assessment has been made of the effect on local councils of all those arrears, because they will have major cash-flow problems?

[Stephen Doughty]

Indeed, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point, which I will move on to later.

Mr Brown also stated:

“Data released today by the Department for Work and Pensions showed 6,220 tenants across the UK were paid directly in the first four months of the projects. Of these, 92 per cent of rent was collected on average overall, meaning arrears were around double the normal figure. A total of 316 tenants have been switched back to payment of benefit to the landlord.”

To give a figure that is specific to Wales, in relation to Bron Afon Community Housing and Charter Housing in Torfaen, 535 tenants were involved in the first payments and there have been 59 switchbacks so far, which is about 11%. Those figures are obviously of deep concern and they raise wider issues: there are deep worries about how universal credit will work in practice and about the support provided to people, and there are also major implications for organisations, whether they are local authorities or housing associations, that are supporting those tenants.

Secondly, on the digital divide, my colleague the Welsh Minister for Finance, Jane Hutt, has repeatedly warned that people with few or no IT skills might have difficulty applying for universal credit. In 2010, figures suggested that about a third of adults in Wales did not use the internet regularly, and recent figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that about 20% have never used it.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Stephen Doughty and Nia Griffith

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I object to the Government’s proposals to limit to 1% for the next three years any rise in income-maintenance benefits to low-income households, over 68% of which go to households in work, not households out of work. It is grossly unfair, hits the poorest hardest and will cause genuine hardship; it makes no economic sense whatsoever. Making real-terms cuts to low-income families will have a disastrous effect on local economies. People on low incomes and families who are struggling to make ends meet immediately, through necessity, spend what money they have and any increase they receive on basic essentials, putting that money back into the local economy. They have no choice about that. Low-income families have already been disproportionately badly hit because of rising food and fuel prices. Implementing these real-terms cuts will suck money out of the local economy, leading to more difficulties for local businesses, more shops on our high streets closing, and more job losses. This will particularly affect economically depressed areas where it is already hard to find another job, and more people unemployed means more people needing to claim benefits.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about jobs. The benefits bill is rising because of this Government’s failure on the economy and jobs. Does she agree that the Welsh Labour Government are showing the way with their Jobs Growth Wales fund, which is already ahead of target, in stark contrast to the failure of the Work programme, which has seen only two in 100 people put into work?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. What the Welsh Government are doing is absolute proof that we mean business in our motion and in saying that we need to create opportunities and make sure that people get back to work. The great thing about the Welsh Government’s programme is that they have been targeting private sector jobs having previously concentrated on public sector jobs. That is making a huge difference to the people who are able to take part.

The Bill will suck more money out of the economy. For example, House of Commons Library figures show that over the next three years the Government’s economic decisions will mean cuts in welfare benefits taking some £3.6 billion out of Wales. If we also add in the £2.4 billion in extra VAT that people will be paying, that amounts to a massive £7 billion coming out of the Welsh economy during this Government’s term of office. That is no way to foster economic growth.

It is a complete myth that people receive massive, generous amounts. Comparisons with actual living costs have consistently shown that what people receive is not generous to start with, but over the years there has at least been a recognition by Governments of all colours that allowances should be regularly upgraded to reflect inflation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) said, a decision to limit increases in the rate of income-maintenance benefits to below inflation for a sustained period is historically unprecedented. At a time when benefit allowances are down as a percentage of full-time earnings and prices of essential items are rising, this will lead to increased hardship and increased child poverty. House of Commons Library research shows that, as a result of these proposals, the real value of benefits and their value as a percentage of average full-time earnings will fall.

Much has been made by the Lib Dems of the raising of the personal tax threshold, but in reality this is a regressive measure. An analysis by Citizens Advice and the Resolution Foundation shows that the impact of capping benefits and tax credits will wipe out any gains from the increase in the personal tax allowance for those on low incomes—precisely the people it is meant to help.

I received a distressing letter recently from a woman who has been diagnosed with cancer that will require extensive surgery and follow-up treatment. She has been alarmed to discover the amount that she is expected to live on as statutory sick pay. She has worked all her life and made contributions. She has enough to cope with without having to worry about money. This Government’s Bill will make matters far worse for people such as her. To make a real-terms cut to statutory sick pay for one year, never mind three years, is an absolute disgrace.

This Bill will not help people on low incomes—in fact, it will make life extremely difficult for them—and neither will it help to get the economy going. What we really need is real growth strategy to get the economy going, and then we can talk about paying back the deficit.