Infected Blood Compensation Scheme
Nia Griffith Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for his excellent work, and for securing another debate on this issue—an opportunity for us to speak up for our constituents and express our continued frustration at the pace and disparities of the roll-out of the compensation scheme. I pay a huge tribute to all those who have campaigned tirelessly for so many long years, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) for her sterling work.
Before I turn to concerns about the scheme, I want to take a moment to remind us of what an appalling scandal the infected blood scandal has been. It has absolutely ruined lives and destroyed families. It is appalling enough that people were infected in the first place, leaving them with lifelong health problems, and having a devastating impact on them and their families—but of course, that was compounded by the fact that they, and their families, were not told the truth; by the continued use of products after their risks had become known; by medical records going missing; by cover-ups, obfuscation and the deliberate withholding of information; by the stigma that surrounded HIV; by the limited treatments available; and by the endless delays in getting to where we are today. Hopes were raised, only to be dashed again. There was anticipation, expectation, and then disappointment. People have been waiting years and years for compensation. Many of the infected and affected have passed away before seeing any redress, but many are still waiting, wondering if they will get redress in their lifetime.
I turn to some specific issues and cases. I will mention three of my constituents, but we only get a tiny glimpse into their life; we can never know the anguish that they and their families have endured, the obstacles they have encountered, the continual battles they have had to fight just to live their life, or the injustice, anger and despair that they have felt. So often, we have felt inadequate as MPs; there was so little that we could do. Like them, we were waiting.
The mother of one of my constituents is 98 years old. She was only 52 when her son was infected; she has had to see him suffer, and she has cared for him. It has been 46 years, and she still has not received any redress or compensation. Let us remind ourselves of the trauma that mothers like her have lived through, seeing their children suffer and looking after them. I had understood that the older members of the affected community were to be prioritised, but just how old do you have to be? Is 98 not old enough to be a priority? Of course, any redress or compensation is totally inadequate in the light of what has happened, and can never make up for what the infected and their families have been through, but my constituent’s mother at least deserves recognition in her lifetime. They have still had no redress and no recognition, and the worry is that they may not even live to see it. I appreciate the arguments about getting the scheme right and learning the lessons from small numbers, but now really is the time to ramp up and speed up the roll-out of the compensation.
Another of my constituents was infected very young. Again, we can never know the anguish he and his family suffered, but because of his age, there was never any proper accounting for his earning potential—any recognition of what he would have achieved if his childhood had not been dominated and ruined by the very serious consequences of his infection. He quite rightly feels that it has all been too little, too late, and that the payments do not reflect what he has been through. Again, his family—his mother, his sister and his children—are still waiting, and no one is getting any younger. His case, as the person infected, is all documented, so surely it should not be difficult to deal with the family members who have been affected as a result of his being infected.
Then there is the family of Damian Lewis, who was infected with HIV in 1983 as the result of bone marrow treatment in a London hospital, and who subsequently developed AIDS and died in 1995, when he was just 19 years old. To compound matters, this was another case in which the parents, Brian and Joan, were not told straightaway what had really happened, and only found out the truth later. The impact of Damian’s infection on him and the family was devastating; his surviving twin brother tells how his parents never got over it. They had their lives destroyed by losing Damian. His mother Joan passed away in 2021—all those long years after Damian was infected—having seen only the first three years of the inquiry. She sacrificed her career as a nursing midwifery manager to look after him in his final years. Even after so many years, Damian’s family have never had redress or an apology. They never saw matters resolved, and as Joan passed away in 2021, her estate will never be eligible for any compensation, because claims can be made by estates only when the affected person dies between 20 May 2024 and 30 May 2031. That just seems so unfair, unjustifiable and morally wrong, particularly as there have been so many delays. Even now, the pace at which the affected are being dealt with is glacial.
Like so many others, Damian’s surviving twin is shocked at the disparity between the living infected and the infected who have passed away, who never received answers or redress. There are also disparities in the ways that the various family members are treated; there are substantial differences in the treatment of partners, parents, children and siblings, despite family members experiencing the same events and witnessing the same injury, suffering and injustice. He would like answers on these issues. Of course, while delays continue, those still waiting for payments see the worth of their entitlement eroded by inflation, and are missing out on the opportunity to earn interest on their money.
I turn to the current situation. We all appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Minister has worked hard on this issue, and has secured £11 billion in funding for the scheme. He is the latest in a long line of Ministers dealing with this, and many of the delays happened before he was appointed, but nevertheless, he is the one who now has the power to expedite matters. The cry from everyone is: can we please speed up the process of payments? Can we avoid all the duplication, going back over records, and imposing unnecessary work on clinical staff? Some of the dates set out by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority feel light years away. It is not just that those affected are missing out financially; there is the psychological trauma of yet more delays, and the fact that they still cannot get closure. The infected, too, do not want to be forever simply getting the payments under their current scheme. They want the option of a lump sum—but above all, they want closure.
The affected also want proper redress and recognition of all that they have been through. Sir Brian Langstaff repeatedly made it clear that the affected should be able to make an application themselves, and should not have to wait to be invited to do so. Many of those involved have the documentation ready, and so much time, effort and cost could be saved by allowing them to make an application. Haemophilia Wales has assessed that it would be far simpler, and would save the Cabinet Office a lot of work, if those wishing to claim could put in their forms and get the necessary evidence together with the help of their lawyers, many of whom have been involved for many years. Instead, I understand that very well-meaning caseworkers who are new to the issues are having to ask for additional copies of documents, and are giving clinicians additional work. They are duplicating what has already been done, when many of those who have been waiting for compensation for many, many years have all that information ready. Will the Minister look seriously at this suggestion?
I understand that the legislation will include a supplementary route for those affected, which will give a 50% uplift. That recognises the unique and lasting impact on children and siblings affected while under the age of 18, bereaved parents whose infected child died under the age of 18, and bereaved partners. Can the Minister give us a timescale for that?
To conclude, what will the Minister do to speed up the roll-out of the payments to all those infected and affected? None of us should rest until every person infected or affected receives their entitlement.
Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy
Nia Griffith Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Ms Butler. I thank all those who signed the petition, which speaks to a growing awareness and concern about the extent of Russian interference in our democracy. I note the particularly high number of signatories from Wales, doubtless because of disgust at the treachery of Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform in Wales, who was recently sentenced for accepting Russian bribes to speak up on behalf of Russia.
Our friends in eastern Europe have long been aware of the way the Russians use a whole range of tactics to achieve their aims. Before the 2014 invasion of Crimea, we saw the use of hybrid tactics by the Russian Federation in Ukraine to influence not only the different sections of the Ukrainian population and the Russian population back home, but western opinion. We should be under no illusion about the Russian interest in influencing opinion in western democracies and interfering with our very democracy.
I will not repeat the excellent points that my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and other colleagues made on finance and named individuals. I will focus specifically on internet warfare. There is nothing new about propaganda or information warfare, but technological advances and our increasing reliance on technology make it much easier, quicker and cheaper to customise messages ever more precisely, with ever more powerful algorithms to target audiences thousands of miles away.
We have become familiar with marketing databases and the eerily accurate profiles they generate of us, but the recent acceleration in the shift from cash to card or phone for all manner of transactions, constantly increasing exposure to social media, and ever greater connectivity to the internet mean ever more information about us can be harvested and used to target messages. No longer are we merely subject to a billboard slogan seen four times a day or to the same TV advert viewed a dozen times; every spare moment, as we idly thumb our phones, we are ready targets for bombardment with internet messages.
Moreover, that bombardment masquerades as our free choice, as we scroll and click, often oblivious to the subliminal messages that target us. Worryingly, security experts estimate that more than 10% of content across social media websites and 62% of all web traffic is generated by bots. As our former colleague Ian Lucas, the former Member for Wrexham, said in his book “Digital Gangsters”, which details some of the work carried out by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, far from protecting people’s data, big companies such as Facebook have long been sharing users’ and users’ friends’ data. Who knows where that ends up?
Even when there is a clear international public consensus in condemning openly abhorrent material posted on the internet by extremists, we have seen how difficult and resource-intensive it is to remove it even from the big-name social media platforms, with little hope of preventing those who are determined to access it from finding it. We have been shocked to see what a powerful tool it has been in recruiting even well-educated, seemingly well-integrated young people in western countries to go to fight with Daesh abroad. Our counter-messaging skills clearly remain inadequate, so the potential for such computational propaganda to be used by state and non-state actors, both overtly and covertly, is enormous, and Russia has no qualms about using it. It can be used to stir up social unrest and racial hatred and to erode the will of a population to defend itself.
Our vulnerability is all the greater because we seem reluctant to recognise or to discuss the potential for manipulating our own populations. That is a challenge to our security, stability and prosperity. We in mature democracies are vulnerable because of the very values we hold. We value freedom of speech and freedom of belief. To us, censorship is unthinkable. We would not wish to challenge people’s right to access information from their sources of choice. We actually pride ourselves on giving all sides a fair hearing. Even in dealing with extremist views that all mainstream political parties abhor, we agonise about whether a no-platform stance plays into the martyr narrative—that the establishment will not give them a fair hearing. Even if we can achieve balance in a good TV discussion, there is no such balance on social media, where powerful algorithms are at work.
The nature of this form of hybrid warfare means it is difficult to attribute responsibility with certainty. State and non-state actors may choose to claim responsibility, to create deliberate ambiguity or to use technology to conceal their involvement completely, creating the impression of spontaneous indigenous action. Furthermore, targeting and manipulating public opinion, even if systematic and attributable, cannot be prosecuted under international humanitarian law, which focuses on physical harm. In some countries, such as Estonia, there are initiatives to build resilience—for example, by educating school students to recognise and deal with internet brainwashing techniques—but all too often, including in the UK, consideration of cyber-security focuses very much on infrastructure attack and personal exposure to fraud or sexual grooming, with limited discussion of mass psychological attack.
Before I finish, I would like to make specific mention of the way in which Russian interference weaponises LGBT+ issues. That is not by accident; it is a way of dividing societies and weakening our democracy. Research by the Kaleidoscope Trust and its international partners, alongside the UK Government, has shown that Russia systematically promotes anti-gender and anti-LGBT+ narratives, which are used to polarise electorates and mobilise nationalist and populist movements. Furthermore, it may discredit liberally aligned politicians or undermine trust in institutions such as NATO, the EU and the UN.
Protecting LGBT+ rights is not just a human rights issue; it is now becoming a national security priority. Attacks on LGBT+ communities and other minorities can often signal the beginning of the growth of authoritarianism and further erosion of democratic rights. We must remember that Russia does not just interfere directly in the UK, but can indirectly affect UK interests by interfering in countries currently friendly to us, such as Commonwealth countries. Of course, we have also seen the election battles in countries close to the EU or NATO, as other Members have mentioned. In terms of tactics, the Kaleidoscope Trust’s recent report “Legal Battlegrounds” has detailed disinformation and manipulation of the narrative, networks that amplify messages—such as influencers, proxy organisations and religious organisations—and political and electoral disruption.
Recognising the problem of Russian interference is only the first step. Far more challenging is what our strategy is for managing and combating the impact of internet warfare and how we build up our defences against it. We absolutely must take Russian interference in our politics and democracy as seriously as any physical threat and develop strategies to deal with it, so I very much welcome the Government’s activities to date. I appreciate that, for security reasons, the Minister may not be able to give a full account of everything that is being done, but I ask him to make tackling Russian interference an absolute priority, through both the upcoming elections Bill and much further action across the whole of Government.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nia Griffith Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
The Government are absolutely determined to lower the cost of living for families across Wales and the whole UK. That is why we are benefiting 69,000 children in Wales by scrapping the two-child limit. It is why we are slashing household energy bills by an average of £150 a year, and why we are again increasing the national minimum and living wage, building on the previous increase, which boosted the incomes of up to 160,000 workers in Wales.
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this Government are supporting people across Wales and the UK with the cost of living. In comparison with when we came into government, households that take out a new mortgage are saving around £1,400 a year on their mortgage repayments. We have also increased the state pension by 4.8%, which will take effect in April, benefiting 700,000 pensioners across Wales. We have also uprated the universal credit standard allowance by over 6%—the first ever permanent real-terms increase—benefiting 320,000 households in Wales.
Dame Nia Griffith
The cost of living is still a major concern for my constituents in Llanelli, so I very much welcome the decision by this Labour Government to give households £150 to help with their domestic energy bills, but can the Secretary of State explain exactly who is eligible and when and how they will receive the money?
Jo Stevens
Energy bills are a significant issue for people across the country. That is why, thanks to this Labour Government, from April this year all households will see an average £150 reduction in costs on their energy bills. Energy suppliers will pass on the savings automatically to households.
My hon. Friend will have seen today the launch of our warm homes plan, which is a £15 billion fund. In Wales, it will make grants available for households to replace gas boilers with heat pumps, and it will mean stronger standards for landlords who privately rent homes, so that they are safer, warmer and more affordable to run.
G20 and Ukraine
Nia Griffith Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member and give him my assurance that I am acutely aware of the need for this to be a lasting peace for Ukrainians. A large part of my discussion with President Zelensky is how we bring that about, but I am extremely mindful of the fact that this has to be just and lasting for the Ukrainians, who did not start this war, do not want this war, have suffered hugely under this war and need to be reassured that if there is a peace, it is going to last and they are not going to be subject to the same thing in just a few years’ time.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend’s efforts to engage our allies in support for Ukraine. Does he agree that resolve, unity and support from the west are vital to give Ukraine the guarantees it needs for a lasting peace? How optimistic is he about the resolve and commitment he will secure from the coalition of the willing later today?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very confident about the assurance from the coalition of the willing, because we have already agreed plans between the countries in the coalition of the willing that are as advanced now as they can be until we know the next stage of the process. Obviously, I want to ensure that that is forged or welded together with US guarantees alongside the coalition of the willing, which will then be the strongest possible guarantee.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nia Griffith Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kanishka Narayan
Let me be very clear: of course we will. We have already both engaged with Ofcom and commissioned further work on this question, and we will report on that at the earliest opportunity.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Liz Kendall)
The UK life sciences sector is one of our greatest national assets in not only saving lives, but driving jobs, growth and innovation. The sector has been projected to grow by £41 billion across the UK by 2030, employing an extra 100,000 people. Our life sciences sector plan will help us seize this potential and secure our ambition to be Europe’s leading life sciences economy by 2030 and the third most important globally by 2035.
Dame Nia Griffith
In Llanelli, we are eagerly watching the Swansea Bay city deal-funded Pentre Awel complex nearing completion, where it is planned that life sciences will be a central focus in partnership with universities such as Cardiff, Swansea and Trinity Saint David. What assurances can the Secretary of State give me that life sciences will be a top investment priority for this Government and help us to create the good, high-quality jobs that we want in the area?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend has my absolute assurance that backing our brilliant life sciences sector, universities and companies is a top priority for this Government. Alongside our support for the Swansea Bay city deal, which, as she says, includes life sciences and wellbeing, we have a £520 million life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, which is currently open for bids across all four nations. I know that she will be championing her brilliant businesses for part of that support.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Nia Griffith ExcerptsMonday 3rd November 2025
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
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.
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.
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)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
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?
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Oral Answers to Questions
Nia Griffith Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
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.
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.
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)
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)
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
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)
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Nia Griffith Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)
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)