Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Nia Griffith Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Let me pay a huge tribute to all those who have fought so hard for this day: the Hillsborough families, who fought and fought and fought for 36 years. I pay particular tribute to Margaret Aspinall for her feisty and determined campaigning. It is hard to believe it has taken this long; in fact, it is scandalous. I also pay tribute to all those who fought against cover-ups and lies to get to the truth: those hounded and even criminalised by the Post Office Horizon scandal, and those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal.

I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill, within just over a year of Labour taking office. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to seeing it on the statute book and will not allow it to be watered down in any way.

I remember finally getting the Conservative Government’s response to Bishop James Jones’s report back in December 2023—six years after its publication. I went to the briefing meeting, fully expecting the then Justice Secretary to say that the Government would be introducing a Hillsborough law, but I was bitterly disappointed to find Conservative Ministers talking about a voluntary charter. But my disappointment was nothing compared with the grief, anguish, frustration, anger, disbelief and despair that the Hillsborough families have been left feeling, time and again, at the cover-ups, the obfuscation and the procrastination.

In the cases of the contaminated blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, the cover-ups and the failure to listen to those experiencing the issues meant that there were new victims. In the Post Office Horizon scandal, people who need never have become victims—hard-working postmasters and postmistresses—were subjected to the appalling mental anguish of feeling that their beloved communities, and indeed members of their own families, did not believe them. We know how tragically that ended for some. With the infected blood scandal, there were people who need never, ever have been infected.

In brief, tragedies happen and mistakes are made, but a different culture, with a willingness to admit mistakes—a workplace environment that treats whistleblowers and those who speak up as constructive, critical friends, not troublemakers—and driven by an expectation of a duty of candour, could so often prevent further victims and suffering. Today we are finally welcoming a Bill that introduces a new duty of candour—a full Hillsborough law to force those in public office to co-operate fully with investigations, with tough penalties, including prison, for those who fail—and guarantees legal aid funding to enable those affected to challenge public institutions.

I was pleased that back in July, in keeping with another of our manifesto promises, the then Home Secretary announced the Orgreave inquiry. Can the Minister advise us whether this Hillsborough Bill will become law in time to be applicable to that inquiry? Further to that, amidst rumours of boxes of relevant police papers being destroyed, is there anything that she or her Cabinet colleagues can do, even before the Bill becomes law, to prevent potential evidence from being destroyed?

Colleagues have referenced that appalling front page of The Sun, headlined “The Truth”, which alleged that fans had stolen from the deceased and abused police officers, and put the blame for the disaster on the fans. The Sun knew perfectly well that what it said was anything but the truth; it was an outrageous attack on Liverpool fans and nothing short of a cover-up for the police. Although this Bill will introduce a duty of candour for our public sector workers—and I do not want to do anything to delay or confuse that in any way—we should nevertheless, sooner rather than later, address the fact that there is no duty of candour for the media.

For 36 years, The Sun has escaped all accountability for its contribution to the cover-up. Even today, there are no independently enforced standards for the press that would end the ability of parts of the media to conspire with the authorities to mislead the public. The fact is that the Independent Press Standards Organisation falls well short of Leveson part 1’s requirements for independent and robust press regulation. As a result, there is nothing to prevent a cover-up perpetrated by the press from happening again.

I congratulate the Prime Minister and my colleagues in Government on the Bill, but I urge them to heed the call made by Margaret Aspinall today: introduce further legislation to make good on Leveson 2, bring in tougher regulation of the press and stop certain elements of the press destroying innocent people’s lives. As we say in Welsh, “Nid da lle gellir gwell”: don’t be satisfied with the good if we can do better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anna McMorrin]

As I said, the Government want to strike that fair balance, and that is what they are doing. Our reforms mean that the majority of those claiming agricultural property relief will not be affected. That is a fair approach that balances fixing our public finances after the chaos of the Conservative party, and maintaining much needed support for families, farms and the wider rural agricultural community.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. Was she as shocked as I was last year that Plaid Cymru and Conservative Senedd Members voted against the £300 million funding for Welsh farmers? Will she join me in urging them to stop playing political games, put the people of Wales first, and work with the Welsh Government constructively to ensure that we do not have uncertainty for our farmers and our public sector, which we all depend on in Wales?

[Anna McMorrin]

I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her work in this role prior to my appointment. I completely agree: the Welsh Government published their outline draft budget earlier this month, and are working with Opposition parties to ensure that it has broad support. The question everyone in Wales wants the answer to is whether the Opposition parties will vote against billions of pounds for public services, including vital support for Welsh farmers, just like they did last year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

2. Whether she has had discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the potential merits of creating a new offence of domestic abuse to help tackle violence against women and girls in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)]

I know that this is a deeply personal matter for the hon. Member, and I commend him for his committed campaigning on this vital subject. This Labour Government agree that more must be done to tackle violence against women and girls, which is why we have introduced a pilot this week in Wales that will enable victims and their friends, families and support workers to apply for a domestic abuse protection order. We have commissioned David Gauke, a former Justice Secretary, to conduct an independent review to examine how sentencing guidelines can best address crimes of violence against women and girls in the future.

[Josh Babarinde]

I asked the Government via a written parliamentary question how many domestic abusers there are in prison in Wales, and what their reoffending rate is. The response was:

“It is not possible to robustly calculate the number of domestic abusers in prison or their reoffending rate…because these crimes are recorded under the specific offences for which they are prosecuted”.

There is no specific offence of domestic abuse in law, which means we are not recording this comprehensively, we are not rehabilitating comprehensively and we are not protecting victims comprehensively. If the Government do not create an offence, as I have proposed, what will they do to protect the victims and survivors and to better identify these abusers?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I understand that the hon. Member is bringing forward a private Member’s Bill on domestic abuse. We recognise that being able to identify domestic abuse offenders is critical, but the Government are not convinced that the Bill provides a solution to that challenge. However, the Ministry of Justice will continue to consider how it can make improvements to how we identify offenders.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

Tomorrow I will be visiting the new sexual violence support centre in Rothbury House in my constituency, along with Jane Hutt, the Welsh Government Minister for Social Justice. This great new facility will support many people in my constituency and the surrounding areas for years to come. Will the Minister join me in applauding the vital work of the staff—many of them volunteers—who provide lifesaving support to women in need?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I pay tribute to that support centre, and indeed to the many organisations the length and breadth of Wales that help women fleeing domestic violence. As my hon. Friend knows, we work very closely with the Welsh Government. Indeed, I spoke to Cabinet Secretary Jane Hutt only yesterday. As my hon. Friend will also know, the Welsh Government launched their own strategy for combating violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence back in 2022, and they are carefully monitoring progress on it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

The House will be as horrified as I was to learn from a shocking report in The Times that a Labour-led local authority apparently showed teenagers a PowerPoint in which they were urged to seek consent from their partner before choking them during sex. It is abhorrent to even attempt to normalise strangling in a loving relationship—indeed, in any relationship. It is important to note that the council in question did not categorically deny this at first, but did so after there was, rightly, a backlash. Does the Minister agree that even considering showing such appalling content to pupils in Welsh schools is totally unacceptable, and will she undertake to hold her colleagues to account on this part of the so-called Welsh curriculum?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

It is very distressing to hear what the hon. Member has said, but I would say to her that the independent pornography review was a wide-ranging and thorough piece of work that assessed the effectiveness of pornography legislation, regulation and enforcement. The review’s final report was published on 27 February, and its findings continue to be assessed by the Government. It is right that the Government take the time to understand this complex and deeply important topic, and a further update will be provided in due course. If I may, I would just stress the point that the review recommends making non-fatal strangulation pornography clearly and explicitly illegal to possess, distribute and publish.

[Mims Davies]

I think we can all agree that violence against women and girls is an all-too-frequent occurrence. The Office for National Statistics has published data revealing that, shockingly, 4.3% of women aged between 16 and 59 in England and Wales suffered a sexual assault in 2023-24, up from 3.4% in 2009-10.

Women and girls will only truly be safe if we rid society of the appalling rape gangs, and a Welsh rape gang survivor has publicly called for an inquiry into this. Has the Minister met the safeguarding Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—to reflect on this and to deliver for victims in Wales? If not, on behalf of the women and girls who want answers, who want to be heard and who want to see action in Wales and more widely, may I again ask if she will push the Welsh Government to use the Inquiries Act 2005 to ensure that Welsh victims gets justice?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

The previous Government sat on their hands and failed to deliver on the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, whereas this Government have already announced a comprehensive set of plans to implement all the recommendations to prevent the horror of child sexual abuse, including: the introduction of mandatory reporting; the creation of a new child protection authority; and the removal of the three-year statute of limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims of child sexual abuse. I will just stress that this is a reserved matter and that my Government colleagues have frequent discussions with colleagues in the Welsh Government.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the spring statement 2025 on family farms in Wales.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

6. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the spring statement 2025 on family farms in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)]

Just this morning I had the pleasure of visiting the Carmarthenshire Day exhibition in the Jubilee Room, which I strongly recommend as a real display of Welsh farming and food produce. The Government are steadfastly committed to the farming sector. We protected the farm budget at its current level and allocated £337 million to the Welsh Government at the autumn Budget. The Welsh Government, in their budget, have used that to maintain the basic payment scheme, providing much-needed support for farmers across Wales—a budget that, as the hon. Lady knows, Tory and Plaid Cymru Senedd Members tried to block.

[Aphra Brandreth]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Not only is Labour’s family farm tax threatening the future of farming in Wales; it is also a direct attack on farmers right across the UK. In England, the sustainable farming incentive scheme was closed with no notice. Meanwhile, in Labour’s spring statement the Government brought forward: increases in national insurance, hitting all farmers once again; their tax on double cab pick-ups; plus changes to furnished holiday lets, penalising farmers who have actively diversified. Can the Minister explain to the Welsh agricultural sector why the Government are carrying out an all-out assault on its way of life?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Just picking up on the point about national insurance contributions, as the hon. Lady will know, many farmers employ one or two people, so they will come under the category of some of the smallest businesses. We have made sure that we protect them by doubling the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that over half of small and microbusinesses will pay less or no national insurance contributions at all. Her Senedd colleagues voted against the budget for Welsh farmers in the Senedd only a few weeks ago.

[John Lamont]

The Minister seems to have no grasp whatsoever of the constant struggle facing our family farms in Wales and across the United Kingdom, because of the lack of support in both Labour’s spring statement and Labour’s family farm tax. Farming families are not multimillionaires—they are striving to make a profit, with many earning less than the minimum wage. Will the Minister finally accept that farms are crucial to the UK’s food security, and that the Government should support them and scrap the vindictive family farm tax?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

We applaud the work that farmers do—they are vital to our food security. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are many ways in which we have supported farmers, including the £337 million given to them in the Budget this year and passed on by Welsh Government Ministers to our farmers in Wales. He brings up inheritance tax. I remind him that we are maintaining significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others and compared to the position before 1992. Where inheritance tax is due, those liable for a charge can pay any liability on relevant assets over 10 annual instalments, interest free.

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

The Welsh Government’s budget contained over £300 million to support Welsh farmers. Is it not the case that Plaid Cymru and the Tories put Welsh farmers’ livelihoods at risk by voting against the Welsh Government’s recent budget?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

4. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK’s departure from the EU on the economy in Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

8. What estimate she has made with Cabinet colleagues of the number of farms affected by changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)]

I have spoken to the farming unions in Wales, and I understand their strength of feeling. These changes are expected to affect around 500 claims across the whole UK, with very few in Wales. Meanwhile, most importantly, the Welsh Government and this Government have protected the farming budget at its current level, while the Welsh Conservatives tried to block that money from reaching farmers by voting against the Welsh Government’s budget last week.

[John Cooper]

The Scotland Office is conducting a series of agricultural roundtables, talking directly to farmers and putting together statistics to push back against the orthodoxy that only a tiny number of very wealthy estates will be affected, which is simply not the case. This increasingly looks like a war on farmers by the Treasury. What part is the Minister playing in fighting back against it?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

The Treasury is confident in its figures. Specific questions on the methodology are a matter for the Treasury, but I repeat that the changes to APR are expected to affect only 500 claims across the whole UK, with very few in Wales. As the hon. Member knows, we are committed to our farmers, through keeping the £337 million block grant, which the Welsh Government have passed on to farmers directly.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Farmers across the UK have already been rocked by the changes to APR and BPR, and yesterday we had shock news that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will take no new sustainable farming incentive applications in England. What reassurances can the Minister give farmers in Wales that the sustainable farming scheme will be delivered in full and on time on 1 January next year?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, my good friend the Deputy First Minister of Wales has spent a lot of time talking to farmers. We have absolutely protected the budget for farmers, as have the Welsh Government, so the full £337 million will go directly to farmers, despite his colleagues in the Senedd trying to block it last week.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)]

The Welsh Affairs Committee is launching its inquiry into farming in Wales this week, because we know that farming is a cornerstone of the Welsh economy. The Welsh Government budget contained over £300 million to support Welsh farmers. Does the Minister agree that it is a shame that the Opposition parties are playing fast and loose with farmers’ livelihoods by voting against the Welsh Government budget last week?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is an utter disgrace that Opposition parties decided to vote against the budget last week. They were effectively trying to block money going to farmers—what a disgrace.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

The Government have said that they are concerned, as we all are, about our future security, so why is food security expendable in Wales and beyond? That is the message from farmer Stella Owen of the National Farmers Union Cymru, who has said that the Government’s actions are “destructive” and

“threaten the future of family farms”

across Wales. How many of those family farms is the Minister prepared to see go under before she and the Secretary of State step up and act in the interests of that key sector by helping the men and women who are livid, worried and fearing for their livelihoods?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

As I am sure the shadow Secretary of State has been reminded many times, difficult decisions had to be made to fund our public services, but the changes still leave a significant amount of relief in place. Farming parents will typically be able to pass on up to £3 million to their children without paying any inheritance tax at all, and above that amount inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Estates have up to 10 years to pay any tax due, and it will be interest-free. Those terms are not available to others. That fair and balanced approach maintains support for family farms while also fixing the public services on which we, including farmers, rely.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

4. Whether she has had recent discussions with the Welsh Government on the implementation of cancer strategies.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)]

I have regular discussions with my Welsh Government colleagues about health. I am pleased to see clear progress in cancer services in Wales. In December, performance against the 62-day cancer target was the best we have seen since August 2021, but no one should ever be complacent about cancer, which is why our two Governments are committed to working closely on cancer, sharing best practice and delivering better outcomes for patients across England and Wales.

[Clive Jones]

Since August 2020, not a single health board in Wales has met its cancer target, leaving patients waiting months for their referral to start treatment, and despite recommendations to implement screening programmes properly, the standard for uptake is not being achieved, leading to poorer health outcomes. As the Department of Health and Social Care embarks on developing a strategy for England, how will the Secretary of State for Wales ensure that those issues are not repeated there?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is now positive progress on waiting lists. Both Governments are working together in a spirit of genuine collaboration to cut NHS waiting lists and build an NHS fit for the future. The Welsh Government have committed more than £600 million in extra funding to health and social care in their budget for 2025-26. They are also setting up a national cancer leadership board to improve cancer care. Thanks to those investments, Welsh NHS services are improving, including for cancer, and waiting lists are falling.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend outline how she is working in partnership with the Welsh Government to improve cancer and health outcomes? Could she try to help me understand why on earth, in the Welsh budget vote last week, the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru voted against £600 million more for our Welsh NHS?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I really cannot explain why Conservative colleagues in the Senedd voted against that budget. Not only are the Welsh Government delivering £600 million; they are also delivering a specific package on cancer care. The initial phase, which is going to focus on breast, skin, gynaecological, lower gastrointestinal and neurological cancers, will improve productivity and efficiency in how health boards deliver care. This includes sending people straight to tests without an out-patient appointment. Alongside this, the Welsh Government are implementing a wider range of service improvements, from reducing smoking and tackling obesity to HPV vaccination and diagnostic and generic strategies.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

5. What discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on steps to support the Welsh tourism industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

7. What recent assessment she has made of the strength of the Union.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)]

Our United Kingdom is going from strength to strength and is underpinned by a transformed relationship between the UK and devolved Governments. In Wales, that means a partnership between our two Governments delivering on the issues that matter most to people: reforming the NHS and public services, and attracting investment and new jobs through freeports, investment zones and our industrial strategy.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Today the Senedd will vote on a motion to redesignate High Speed 2 as an England-only project. Previous calculations suggest that Wales missed out on around £4 billion from the project. Welsh Ministers have now claimed that the amount is £431 million—quite the difference. With the Welsh Government abandoning their ambitions and the UK Government refusing to budge on full consequential funding, is the Labour party now waving the white flag on Wales’s missing billions?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

The Government absolutely acknowledge that the previous Conservative Government short-changed Wales for years on rail investment, including because of HS2. One of our top priorities is to reverse those years of historic underfunding in Wales’s infrastructure. The Secretary of State met the Transport Secretary and the Welsh Government Transport Minister Ken Skates immediately before Christmas, when they agreed on a direction of travel that we hope will deliver new rail investment in Wales. The UK and Welsh Governments have agreed a prioritisation of rail improvement projects developed by the Wales Rail Board. That would inform our respective Departments’ work in the run-up to the spring spending review.

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Investment in Wales by the UK Government demonstrates the strength of the Union. I was therefore delighted to see the UK Labour Government announce their plan for neighbourhoods, which will see a £100 million investment in Welsh communities, with £20 million of that going into my constituency, straight into vital local resources such as high streets and youth clubs. Does the Minister that this Labour Government are committed to bringing growth to areas of Wales that were previously ignored by the Conservatives?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed. With the UK and Welsh Governments working together, we have secured more than £1.5 billion in investment and hundreds of jobs in Wales. Of course, we have established investment zones in Cardiff, Newport, Wrexham and Flintshire to provide a rocket-boost to sector strengths, such as advanced manufacturing.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

9. What discussions she has had with the Welsh Government on school standards in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)]

The UK Government have delivered the biggest Budget settlement in the history of devolution, with £21 billion of new money for the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government are investing almost £200 million this year to support school standards across Wales, plus a further almost £170 million next year. The hon. Member’s Welsh Conservative colleagues tried to block that funding by voting against the Welsh Government Budget last week.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Children in Wales have the lowest PISA —programme for international student assessment— scores in the United Kingdom and are significantly below the OECD average. Does the Minister believe that that could be related to 26 years of Labour government in Wales?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I will take no lectures from the Conservatives. Their attacks ring hollow given the chronic underfunding of education and public services over the 14 years they were in power. Now, the UK and Welsh Governments are working together to ensure that every young person has the opportunity to succeed, by investing over £260 million extra in education and more than £260 million in local government, which sets school budgets in Wales. In spite of the shenanigans of Plaid and the Conservatives voting against the Welsh Government’s Budget, Labour is getting on and delivering certainty and support for teachers across Wales through increases to education and local authority budgets.

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend welcome, as I do, the additional £20 million announced by the Welsh Government last week to improve education standards, on top of the £262 million extra in total for education in Wales? Is she as perplexed as I am as to why the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru voted against extra money for education in the Welsh budget?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Like my hon. Friend, I am absolutely astounded by the way that Plaid Cymru and Conservative Senedd Members voted against the budget, but the important thing is that this year the Welsh Government will be investing an additional £1.1 million in literacy, numeracy and science support in schools. The Welsh Government have also announced a £10 million investment package for literacy and numeracy in the coming year, increasing local capacity to support schools, national support programmes and interventions to support budding learners.

The Prime Minister was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to ban conversion practices.

[The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)]

Conversion practices are abuse. They have no place in society and must be stopped. The Conservatives promised to ban conversion practices six years ago and failed to deliver. They then dropped it from their manifesto this summer. We are getting on with the job and working hard on legislation to deliver a trans-inclusive ban that offers protection from those harmful practices, while preserving the freedom of individuals to explore their identity and respecting the important roles of those supporting them. We will publish our draft Bill later this Session, as outlined in the King’s Speech.

[Dan Aldridge]

Conversion practices trade and prosper on fear, prejudice and intolerance. Charities in Weston-super-Mare and across this country do amazing work to bring communities together to promote tolerance and tackle prejudice. Will the Minister outline what support the Government are providing to help charities deliver that vital work in constituencies like mine?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend is right that civil society plays a unique role in challenging prejudice and enabling more people to access the opportunities they deserve. A good example is Galop, the UK’s leading LGBT+ anti-violence charity, which provides a number of Government-funded support services, including on conversion practices. Its helpline is confidential and available to anyone who is at risk of, is experiencing or has been through a conversion practice.

[Kate Osborne]

Last week, I held a meeting in Parliament with a panel of trans people talking about their experiences of so-called conversion therapy, and their evidence was harrowing. I thank the MPs and the Minister who attended that meeting to listen to them. I am leading on a report for the Council of Europe to ban those abhorrent practices across Europe, and I am pleased to hear from the Minister that we will soon be setting out the legislation. Will the legislation be fully inclusive, without any exceptions, so that we can refer to it as best practice for all countries to use?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work in this field, including on the Council of Europe. I can assure her that we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to bring forward a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices, protecting LGBT+ people from abuse. We are committed to listening to all viewpoints and concerns with respect, and to engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, organisations and all LGBT+ communities. I was very pleased to join her at the event she mentioned. We will engage further with parliamentarians and stakeholders in the new year.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

The previous Government committed to a parent-first approach to guidance. As part of the Government’s review of the statutory relationships, sex and health education guidance, will the Minister make it clear that parents should be involved in decisions that affect their children, including if their children are gender-questioning?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

As the hon. Lady will be well aware, we are looking at the consultation responses and will respond fully as is appropriate.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

In rolling out any legislation, will the Minister ensure that mature adults who, of their own volition, want to take part in discussions of gender issues in faith-based settings will not be restricted or inhibited from so doing?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking carefully at how to describe the sort of behaviour that would not be criminalised by the ban.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

5. What steps she is taking to help end discrimination against ethnic minority people.

Public Procurement

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Labour Members will not be opposing the regulations, which provide the detail needed for the Procurement Act to come into effect later this year. As Members across the House will recall, there was a need for a new procurement Act to reform the EU law-based procurement regime following the UK’s exit from the EU and to consolidate various procurement regulations into one place. For those reasons, we did not oppose the Procurement Bill on Second or Third Reading.

The purpose of the Procurement Act was to create a simpler, more flexible commercial system that better meets our country’s needs after having left the EU, while remaining compliant with our international obligations. However, as we have made clear in this House before, we are concerned that the Procurement Act was a wasted opportunity to reform procurement. In spite of our attempts to strengthen and improve the Bill with our amendments, the Procurement Act, when it comes into force in October, will unfortunately allow the same wasteful approach to emergency contracting rules that we saw during the pandemic, when friends of and donors to the Conservative party were given the first bite of the cherry while decent, skilled local businesses were denied the same opportunity. Billions of pounds of public money was wasted while excellent small and medium-sized businesses were overlooked. Nothing in the draft regulations will address that concern.

We also made it clear that we were very disappointed that the Act failed to mandate social value to secure investment in good British businesses, and I have to say that I was disappointed by the answer the Minister just gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar). The procurement policy of a Labour Government would be rooted in getting value for money for every pound spent. Our national procurement plan would reward businesses that create jobs and pay their taxes, slash red tape for disadvantaged SMEs and claw back money from contractors that fail to deliver.

The statutory instrument is required to implement the new public procurement regime established by the Procurement Act 2023. It specifies what information should be included in the notices that contracting authorities must publish as per the requirements of the Procurement Act, and where and how these should be published. Other regulations in the statutory instrument impose requirements as to how contracting authorities should obtain specified information from suppliers, and provide further detail about how certain organisations and contracts are to be regulated. It gives details about how the Act covers Welsh and Scottish procurement in relation to reserved matters, and clarifies the disapplication of the Act in relation to regulated healthcare procurement.

Turning to the specific measures in the regulations, there is clarification about the various notices that will be published on the central digital platform. The platform was set up by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and I hope it is progressing well. Notices that must be published there include planned procurement notices, tender notices, dynamic market notices and transparency notices. There is further specification of the information that should be included in the notices, with the purpose being to increase transparency and make the procurement regime more accessible to smaller businesses.

Measures that improve transparency and increase access to procurement opportunities, particularly to small and medium-sized businesses, are very much to be welcomed. The challenge will be in how to make these notices and the digital platform as user-friendly as possible, with all the relevant information easily accessible and searchable. As we move forward, it would be helpful if the Minister updated the House on progress in meeting the requirements of the regulations and on what impact they have on the number of small and medium-sized enterprises that bid for contracts. Goods purchased from small and medium-sized enterprises often mean providing local jobs, and local jobs mean that people can stay in their home towns and not have to move away for work, and importantly that they will spend their money in their local areas thus boosting the local economy.

The regulations also set out the details for supplier information requirements that will enable the creation of a supplier information system, the purpose of which will be to hold commonly used supplier information and allow it to be shared with contracting authorities, with the laudable aim of reducing the burden for suppliers, who have to provide the same information in relation to every procurement. Anyone who talks to businesses will say just how frustrating it is to have to supply the same information time and again. That is a particular burden for small and medium-sized businesses which simply do not have the capacity to deal with endless red tape. Measures that help to reduce that burden are very much to be welcomed, but again the challenge will be in the design and operation of the system. It should become a useful tool that saves repetition, rather than becoming a burden in itself, with businesses struggling to upload the necessary information.

The regulations also specify a list of services that may form the subject matter of what are called light-touch contracts, which would enjoy a less onerous regulatory regime, with the aim of encouraging organisations such as social enterprises and mutuals to bid for contracts for certain social, health and other person-orientated services. The key issues will be to maximise transparency and to ensure sufficient regulation to protect and get value for money for the public purse while at the same time encouraging a wider range of organisations to bid for contracts. The regulations specify that the Act does not apply to what is termed “regulated health procurement”, which is governed by other legislation.

The UK’s commitments under the World Trade Organisation agreement on Government procurement require us to have one financial threshold that applies to central Government authorities and another for the procurement of goods and services by local government and wider public sector bodies, as well as a specific threshold that applies to procurement for what are termed “works”—construction procurement that reflects the typically higher monetary values involved in procuring construction. The regulations therefore set out lists of which bodies are defined as central Government authorities and construction-related services that constitute “works”. These regulations set out further requirements in respect of what happens at the awarding of contracts and thereafter, with regulation 31 setting out what the assessment summary should contain, including an explanation as to why the particular scores were given against each criterion.

There are some innovative measures, and we welcome those that help to make the whole process more transparent. Regulation 37 sets out the information required in a procurement termination notice that is published when a contracting authority decides not to award a contract, and regulation 40 sets out the details to be included in a contract change notice, including the grounds on which modification will be made.

The regulations also change the frequency of reporting on the prompt payment of invoices by Government bodies from one year to six months and spell out requirements in respect of the contract performance notice, including the details required when used to report poor performance or a breach of contract. The explanatory notes clarify that these regulations do not include a statutory review clause, as they do not regulate an activity carried out by a business for the purposes of the business, but rather that they place obligations on the public sector. However, feedback and monitoring are crucial to ensuring both that we are getting value for the public purse and that the regulations are working effectively for business, including reducing the burdens on business and encouraging a wider range of businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to bid for contracts.

I note that the approach to monitoring this legislation will be through feedback from contracting authorities, suppliers, industry representatives and professionals. As I noted earlier in my remarks, what is important is not just the content of the regulations but the way in which the requirements are implemented. The smooth operation of the supplier information system and the ease of access to the digital platform where the notices of procurement opportunities will be posted are crucial. I note that the Government have given the required six months’ notice of the coming into force of the Procurement Act on 28 October, when public bodies and businesses will be required to follow these regulations. It would be useful if the Minister kept the House updated about the implementation of the Act, and going forward, its impact, including, importantly, the impact on the uptake of procurement opportunities by small and medium-sized businesses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I totally disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. We dealt explicitly with this in both the integrated review and the integrated review refresh, which set out a co-ordinated approach and are clear about the threats we face from hostile states—Russia, North Korea, Iran and indeed China. We are very clear about the threats China poses to our economic security and our democratic institutions, and that is why we have taken a range of actions, including for the first time directly attributing attacks to China and imposing sanctions in respect of them.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

With local and national elections on the horizon, it is vital that voters can have full confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. With that in mind, what assessment has the Department made of the risks posed by deepfakes and misinformation in the upcoming elections?

[Oliver Dowden]

I have considerable concerns about deepfakes being used in the upcoming elections. We have seen hack and leak being used as a tactic by hostile states in previous elections, and we have to take into account deepfake capabilities, particularly enhanced by artificial intelligence. That is why we are developing our strategy through the Defending Democracy Taskforce and undertaking exercises right now to enhance our capabilities. It is, however, a challenge to all citizens not necessarily to take images to be true on first sight, because of adversaries’ enhanced capability.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on securing an urgent question on this vital issue. Nobody could fail to be moved by the scale of the horror and injustice of this scandal. The latest revelations about apparent experiments on children, to which the urgent question relates, are truly appalling and show yet again how badly the victims have been let down. I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned so hard on the issue.

As part of delivering the justice that is so long overdue, the Government must now deliver on the compensation scheme. Time is of the essence: every week that passes without further Government action matters. Those who were infected with contaminated blood are dying at a rate of one every four days. Ministers have repeatedly accepted the moral case for compensation, but victims understandably have little faith and want to see firm action. That is why Labour was very disturbed to hear that the Government have tabled an amendment to undo the cross-party changes to the Victims and Prisoners Bill passed by this House in December last year. The changes that the Government want would have the effect of removing a clear commitment to delivering on the compensation scheme within three months of the Bill’s passing—yet another missed opportunity; yet another delay.

I would be grateful if the Minister answered the following questions. Will the Government now consider accepting the cross-party consensus of establishing a clear three-month limit for the setting up of the scheme? Can the Minister confirm when victims can expect to receive final compensation payments following the publication of Sir Brian Langstaff’s review?

Access to Redress Schemes

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Members who secured this debate and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) who opened it and raised some very important issues in respect of delivering appropriate redress schemes in a timely manner.

Today, we have heard from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about vaccine damage and from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) about the Post Office and the constraints of non-disclosure agreements. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has brought his expertise and track record of campaigning to the Chamber to speak on the Post Office and the miners’ compensation schemes. And we heard from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on a saving scheme and the missed opportunities by the watchdog to prevent people from becoming victims of that scheme.

By definition, those who are eligible for redress schemes will already have suffered detriment, and many, as we have seen with the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, will have spent years battling for recognition and justice, and suffering avoidable hardship. We therefore owe it to them to ensure that we get the redress schemes right, and that they are set up as promptly as possible and operate as efficiently as possible, while ensuring that we protect the public purse from fraudulent claims. Learning from previous schemes, so that we are not constantly reinventing the wheel or repeating mistakes, and building up corporate expertise are therefore of vital importance. Each scheme will, however, have its own complexities and sensitivities, and it is important that they are fully recognised.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham highlighted, victims should be at the centre of designing redress schemes. The National Audit Office produced a briefing in 2008, building on the experience of some previous compensation schemes, such as the miners’ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vibration white finger schemes, which are all too familiar to my right hon. Friend, to me and to other colleagues who represent former coalmining areas. The NAO briefing stressed the importance of the right governance and project management, committing sufficient effort and appropriate skills to setting up schemes, considering the capacity needed, designing out the likely bottlenecks or delays, and being prepared to deal with external pressures. There may well be further lessons to learn since then. In January, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, asked the National Audit Office to

“conduct a thematic review of government compensation and financial redress schemes”,

and the National Audit Office agreed to do so. I look forward to reading that report.

Sadly, as we have seen in instances such as Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, long before getting to any form of redress scheme, actually getting to the truth in the first place can be an uphill struggle, with victims vilified, shamed, shunned, imprisoned and financially ruined. On 6 December last year, when the Government published their response to the Hillsborough report, the Opposition, along with the victims’ families, were bitterly disappointed that the Government stopped short of proposing a Hillsborough law, which is why I raised it at Prime Minister’s questions that day. This week, we marked the 35th anniversary of Hillsborough tragedy. As hon. Members will have heard, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the proposed law again with the Prime Minister yesterday, but we still received no positive response.

The purpose of a Hillsborough law would be to prevent such a hideous cover-up by the authorities, which was an appalling affront to the survivors and the devastated families of those who died, and left them having to struggle for far longer to get justice. The purpose of the proposed Hillsborough law would be to put a legal responsibility on public officials to tell the truth in any form of formal inquiry or proceeding, and to ensure that individuals would face criminal sanctions if they breached that law. To be honest, it is extraordinary that that is not already the case. Importantly, the proposed Hillsborough law would also provide victims with parity of legal funding in inquests. That would avoid the sort of David and Goliath situation where victims simply cannot afford to challenge the authorities.

All public bodies need to be open-minded and even-handed when considering complaints or hearing from whistleblowers, and not rush to cover up and silence concerns, and hound whistleblowers out of organisations. Those in charge of public bodies need to contemplate the thought that mistakes may have been made, systems may be at fault, and there may be individuals who do not hold to the ideals of public service, or inappropriate cultures within an organisation. Often, early recognition and acknowledgment of a problem could help to bring justice sooner to victims, prevent further victims and ultimately save the public purse. Instead, it seems to take years of struggle, heartbreak, investigative journalism and even TV dramas before the victims’ voices are heard and believed, and justice is delivered. In terms of whistleblowers, I think of the senior paediatrician in the Letby case who raised concerns. Even though he was a senior paediatrician, his concerns were dismissed, and Letby went on to murder again—all the more tragic, because it could have been avoided.

To return to the redress schemes, it is all very well looking at best practice and trying to build on previous experience to streamline matters and avoid reinventing the wheel. Skilled civil servants can have the very best guidelines in the world, but without political will from the Government to prioritise, victims will continue to wait, and sadly some may never live to receive their compensation.

[Mrs Hodgson]

On whether people survive to get justice, I draw attention to Baroness Cumberlege’s “First Do No Harm” report on the harm caused by mesh, sodium valproate and Primodos. A lot of those victims are already dying. My mam is one of the victims of mesh. She will be 80 in January, and I hope that she lives to see some compensation and redress. Does my hon. Friend agree that these things really have to be sped up, because it is not fair? When people have been harmed, in this case by the state through medical interventions, redress should be forthcoming quickly.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

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

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

[Mr Kevan Jones]

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

[Dame Nia Griffith]

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Nia Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

4. What steps the Government is taking to regulate AI.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

6. What steps the Government is taking to regulate AI.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to regulate artificial intelligence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Donelan]

We want to garnish the opportunities of AI for the British public, which include the comple- mentary aspect that it can pose for jobs, especially in teaching and medicine, by taking away some of the admin and bureaucracy. We are also very realistic that technology always changes labour market needs. In 1940, 60% of the jobs we now have did not exist. That is why we have undergone a revolution in our skills system, including the launch of the lifelong learning entitlement next year.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

It is all very well the Government saying that they will take their time over this response, but the point is that the Federation of Small Businesses is saying that a regulatory framework is urgent, and Dr Rogoyski of the University of Surrey is pointing out that delay could mean the UK probably having no choice but to follow the approach of the US and Europe on AI regulation. Can the Secretary of State set out exactly what the timeframe will be for regulation?

[Michelle Donelan]

The hon. Member is getting confused between regulation and legislation. We already have a plethora of regulation and world-leading regulators that we are supporting. We were clear in our White Paper response that we will legislate—as will every nation around the world—but we want to get that legislation right. She commented on the US’s approach. We are working hand in glove with the US, and I signed the world’s first memorandum of understanding on AI institutes just a few weeks ago.