Nia Griffith MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the fact that Llanelli, along with the rest of Wales, will be in the pilot expansion of the victims’ right to review scheme. However, as the Minister will know, it is often very difficult for children who have suffered neglect and abuse, or adults who suffered it as children, to report such incidents. Will the Minister agree to meet me to look again at extending the six-month time limit for summary offences, which leaves survivors with no redress and allows abuse and neglect to go unpunished?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Ukraine: Non-recognition of Russian-occupied Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for all the work he is doing on Ukraine and for securing this important debate on the non-recognition of the Russian occupied territories, allowing me and other Members of Parliament to state on the record that we utterly condemn Putin’s invasion of parts of the sovereign territory of Ukraine. We must not allow aggressors to get away with the invasion and attempted annexation of another nation’s sovereign territory. That is essential if we are to uphold international law and the rules-based international order. Moreover, weakness, inaction and ceding to Putin will only embolden him, as indeed it already has. Not content with his invasion of Crimea in 2014, he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The United Nations has repeatedly reaffirmed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. Russia has absolutely no right to try to assimilate the territories it is occupying into its own administrative systems. Rather than repeat the excellent points made by colleagues about the legal framework, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) about the appalling kidnapping of Ukrainian children, I will mention some of the other aspects of the dreadful situation facing the citizens of Ukraine. On its last visit, the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine went to Vinnytsia, a city the size of Swansea in central Ukraine, which has welcomed, housed and supported 47,000 Ukrainians displaced from the temporarily occupied territories—47,000 individuals who have had to make agonising decisions about uprooting and leaving their homes, friends, family and work colleagues. Each of them will have their own story and will be worrying day in, day out about what is happening in their home towns, in the temporarily occupied territories, and about what the future holds. We also met extraordinary business people who had come to Vinnytsia and re-established their businesses. One entrepreneur had relocated his factory there and had had to recruit new workers, while a couple who had a patisserie business were not only setting up new kitchens but establishing a whole new customer base in local cafes. We then visited a displaced university that had moved lock, stock and barrel to Vinnytsia. That was in just one city, and it is replicated across Ukraine, at a time when those cities themselves are under attack from Putin, when their resources are having to be prioritised for the war effort, and when many of their citizens are serving on the frontline. The challenges and pressures are enormous. I mention those displaced populations to remind us of their individual human stories and to highlight the impact of the exodus of talent from their home towns. We have seen the devastation in the temporarily occupied territories. Buildings have been destroyed, and there has been a lack of water and power. Cities have had their physical infrastructure hollowed out, and have seen the loss of so many of their citizens, both on the frontline and by displacement to other areas of Ukraine and beyond. That has a significant impact on their resilience. More than that, Ukrainian citizens are subject to Russia’s relentless attack on their very identity, being declared by Russia as Russian citizens, with some 3.5 million Russian passports issued and 300,000 people forcibly conscripted into the Russian military forces. Some 664 cultural heritage sites have been damaged or destroyed, and Ukrainian children are being forced to follow the Russian curriculum, with its narrative and worldview. We heard from the Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science that it provides online materials, which families have to use clandestinely, to allow their children some access to Ukrainian education. Ukrainians in the temporarily occupied territories have been subject to the most appalling abuse by the Russian authorities, with over 15,000 detained. There is an horrendous list of arbitrary arrests, appalling detention conditions, torture, sexual violence, unfair trials and people being detained either in the many detention centres in the temporarily occupied territories or after being deported to Russia. There is specific targeting of those who uphold Ukrainian civic identity, of local officials who will not collaborate with the aggressors and even of those who are just distributing aid. The inhumane and illegal treatment of Ukrainians in the temporarily occupied territories receives little news coverage, and too often does not feature in talks about a ceasefire or peace. The Minister has taken a sustained interest in all these matters, so I would be grateful if he could tell us what the United Kingdom is doing, and what more we can do, to highlight and tackle these issues. First, we need to raise the plight of civilians and detainees in the temporarily occupied territories as widely as possible, particularly with appropriate international bodies and forums such as the United Nations and the G7. Secondly, we need to support international bodies such as the ICC in getting access and establishing accountability, and provide support for the Ukrainian authorities and NGOs trying to document this situation. Thirdly, we need to impose sanctions on those authorising and carrying out crimes against the civilian population. As extraordinarily challenging as it is, it is vital that we work persistently with Ukrainian and international allies in raising the plight of those living under occupation and the illegal acts against them, particularly those held in detention. We must stress the accountability of their captors, and seek the location and release of those who are in detention or who have disappeared. We need to look beyond the present to a time when the temporarily occupied territories come back under Ukrainian control, and prepare for the enormous task of reconstruction. That will not only be a physical task of rebuilding infrastructure, but will—crucially—require the rebuilding of communities.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. I thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for bringing us record investment, financial stability and repeated interest rate cuts, but does she share my astonishment that Reform is not only welcoming treacherous Tories who did so much to wreck our economy and public services, but actually entrusting them with economic policy?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The capping of ground rent at £250 will give certainty and relief to leaseholders in Llanelli, who face unpredictable and unjustifiable hikes in ground rent and for whom the reform simply cannot come soon enough. Will the Minister give us a bit more detail on the timetable for the Bill and assure us that he will do everything he possibly can to ensure that the cap is brought in as soon as possible?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  A constituent of mine disclosed full details of her change in circumstances to the Department, but although the Department admitted it was its mistake—it had received that information and had repeatedly failed to update its records—it still sent her a very threatening letter. Although I fully support the need to protect the public purse, would the appropriate Minister agree to meet me to discuss how the Department could improve its updating procedures, reduce the occurrence of overpayments, and treat claimants more considerately when they have received overpayments through no fault of their own?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on doing so much to bring housing back under control and to upgrade it, as well as on the roll-out of Valour centres—the Links charity in Llanelli has put in an excellent application. I also welcome the fact that the Bill will strengthen the armed forces covenant by ensuring that it covers all public services. There is good will across the country, in devolved Governments and in councils, but how will we ensure that, right across all public services, including those that are devolved in Wales, the covenant actually delivers for veterans? We want them to have the very best of services in all circumstances.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Cost of Living: Wales · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Cost of Living: Wales · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help reduce the cost of living in Wales.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her update and her acknowledgment of how important it is that the families who have suffered so much and campaigned so hard are satisfied by the final wording of the Bill. What assurances can she give us that the Government will provide the leadership, training and resources to change the culture of cover-up and minimalist responses, and ensure that people get the full truth the first time around?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  As the Foreign Secretary has alluded to, the 1951 agreement allows the US to construct and operate military bases across Greenland, house personnel, and control the movement of ships and aircraft. Will she do all she can to urge US counterparts to use that agreement to provide enhanced protection for NATO’s northern borders and to drop the outrageous threat of tariffs, which is causing very damaging uncertainty for our industry? If implemented, they would not only hit our industry but further fuel inflation for the US consumer.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ajax Programme · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be fully aware that an enormous amount of expertise, investment and effort has gone into the development of the Ajax vehicle, producing a vehicle of significant and unique capabilities. I absolutely understand that we want to ensure high-quality performance and safety, and there has been extensive testing of the vehicle over thousands of kilometres, with noise and vibration limits well within acceptable levels. I understand that the latest testing will be completed shortly, so my ask of the Minister is simple: once the latest testing results are available for ministerial consideration, we need Ministers to give absolute priority to the analysis and consideration of those results and to ensure that decisions on next steps are made without delay. Time is of the essence, and we need clarity on Ajax as soon as possible. It would be unforgivable if the latest tests vindicated the quality and viability of the Ajax project, but ministerial schedules and the machinery of government then caused delays, compounding the problems and losing us valuable opportunities. Uncertainty is a pervasive killer. Any delay will sow the seeds of doubt in the minds of potential customers. There has been huge investment in Ajax, and if it is to pay its way and justify the investment in such an advanced capability, we need to attract orders from abroad. There is an important opportunity to showcase Ajax in early February, and it would be crazy if that opportunity is lost through poor prioritisation of the Procurement Minister’s priorities. Then there is the workforce. For them, uncertainty—the fear of losing their job—is devastating. We have a very loyal workforce in Merthyr, who have gone above and beyond to deliver on Ajax. They not only want jobs now, but to see a future for young people, and that is dependent on securing orders for Ajax. There are also all those who work in the supply chain. Ministers may decide that further work is needed. If so, I again stress that it needs to be done as nimbly as it can be. Decisions on Ajax will have a ripple effect on wider industry. I support our industrial strategy and our determination to rebuild our industrial base to make sure we have the capabilities to develop the likes of Ajax. For too long, procurement procedures have looked only at headline price and failed to give due consideration to the huge benefits of securing jobs here in the UK—good jobs, tax revenue, social cohesion and, as brought home more vividly through covid and the Ukraine conflict, our resilience and security. When we look at the current Ajax situation, we can see why some might ask, “Why invest? Why bother with the risk? Wouldn’t it just be easier to buy off the peg and let another nation take the risk?” Apart from the fact that we may end up with a substandard product, with the problems emerging only after purchase, what happens when, as we saw in covid, other nations prioritise their own needs or supply routes are otherwise sabotaged? No one factory exists in isolation, and if we need further proof of our interdependence, the Jaguar Land Rover cyber-attack brought it home starkly. If the JLR crisis had led to one local company—for example, a supplier of a specific part for JLR—going bust, there would have been contagion, because that would have had an immediate effect on the other car companies it supplied. Conversely, if we implement our industrial strategy by supporting foundation industries such as steel and developing advanced technologies such as semiconductors, and we make the UK a vibrant hub of new high-tech industries, they will feed off each other. That creates an attractive environment for investment and aspirational workers. Ajax is an important part of this ecosystem. To sum up, I urge the Minister and his colleagues to ensure that the necessary analysis is undertaken as soon as they are provided with the testing information and data, and that they make their decision without delay. Any delay would undermine confidence among potential purchasers of Ajax, lead to us missing vital opportunities in the purchasing timetables of key potential customers, further demoralise the workforce and undermine broader investor confidence in our industrial strategy. A lot depends on how the Minister handles this issue.

• 14 Jan 2026 · Offshore Wind · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this huge offshore wind investment, which will bring good jobs and opportunities for businesses to south-west Wales, as well as reducing bills and increasing energy security. Will he liaise with appropriate colleagues to ensure that the necessary investment is made in the port of Port Talbot, and can he give any indication of the construction time in the Celtic sea and the proposed time for the delivery of electricity to the grid?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Horse and Rider Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all those who have written to me regarding this very important topic, particularly Sandra Downey at Talcarn Farm, who allowed me to have a ride in a horse-drawn carriage on a main road—believe me, that is really scary and it made me realise their vulnerability. Of course, we have the highway code and the guidance to pass wide and slow, but how do we get that message across more effectively? As our new road safety strategy says on horse rider safety, “despite an investment of £2.4m in paid advertising raising road users’ awareness of the changes to The Highway Code, it is clear from research by external road safety stakeholders that more work is needed to embed these changes.” Aspects of transport are devolved, and I am aware that the Welsh Government have taken action on this, including by incorporating key British Horse Society messages into the Pass Plus Cymru training for young drivers, but we all know that more is needed. Last week, on horse safety, the Minister said: “We will look at what more we can do to strengthen the advice and guidance, and ensure that people are aware of those issues in the highway code.” —[ Official Report , 8 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 478.] The question is: how aware are drivers of the dangers of rural roads? The speeds that we see drivers do are frightening, and drivers show no consideration for the lack of visibility on bends or at junctions where farm tracks come out on to roads. Could we put a greater emphasis on rural roads, and particularly horse rider safety, in driving tests? What other tools do we have? We can educate the willing and prosecute the transgressors, but that is likely to happen only when there has been a serious accident—when it is too late. We absolutely cannot be complacent about this issue. I ask the Minister to use all the means at her disposal to identify the most effective ways of getting the message across; to implement a concerted, specific strategy on horse and rider safety; and to work collaboratively with the Welsh Government on any devolved aspects of such a strategy.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Ukraine and Wider Operational Update · Hansard source

  More

  I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership and the signing of the declaration of intent, but the vicious attacks by Putin on Ukraine over Christmas suggest that peace is still a long way off. Will my right hon. Friend update us on the military aid and support we are providing to Ukraine? Can he reassure us that where there is depletion of stocks, that is being backfilled?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friends in DEFRA and the Treasury for listening to farming colleagues, including NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales, in making this welcome change to the proposals for agricultural property relief. It will mean that many more Welsh farms will not pay any additional inheritance tax. The Minister will know that the previous Conservative Government signed very detrimental trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand, which within 10 years will lead to limitless meat imports. Will he look carefully at what can be done now to help those Welsh family farms to maintain their farming tradition? At the moment, they will be open to severe competition, and we need to look at everything that can be done to help them.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Defence Spending: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  When Jodrell Bank celebrated its 80th anniversary, we heard lots about its contribution to science and its 150,000 visitors per year, so does the Secretary of State share my excitement about the job opportunities that may result from repurposing Cawdor barracks in Pembrokeshire as a deep space advanced radar capability? Will he meet me to discuss job opportunities for manufacturers in my constituency resulting from that project, from the project for a new development site for the Windracers drone, and from other defence projects?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Defence Spending: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  1. What steps he is taking through defence spending to help increase economic growth.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome that these regulations give credit to those companies that already operate a closed-loop system. I secured a Westminster Hall debate on this issue back in 2023 after it had been brought to my attention by Wiltshire Farm Foods, which has a facility that I have had the pleasure of visiting in Burry Port in my constituency. The business delivers ready-made meals to its customers, largely on a very regular basis, so it is in an excellent position to collect the empties when making the next delivery. That enables the business to recycle materials for use in future packaging, thus saving on using new materials. I am grateful to the then Minister—the former Member for Taunton Deane—and the current Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), and officials in the Department for listening to our concerns and carrying out the necessary work to bring forward this legislation to reward rather than penalise the operation of this closed-loop system. I also welcome the measure to enable the appointment of a producer responsibility organisation. To ensure the scheme works effectively, and to influence the scheme’s further development, it is vital that producers are fully involved. However, I reiterate my concerns about steel and glass, which are perversely affected because the current EPR fee methodology prioritises material weight, meaning that heavier materials such as steel and glass face higher fees even though they are very easily recyclable, while lighter, less recyclable plastics gain a competitive edge. This particularly affects companies in my constituency, including the famous Felinfoel brewery, Parsons Pickles and Tata Steel’s Trostre tinplate works, which produces materials used to make food cans. There has been talk of future adjustments, and I know from the response of the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East, in Westminster Hall a fortnight ago that she has met the steel and glass industries, but I stress again the urgent need to reform EPR fees to reward the genuine recyclability and circular value of steel and glass. Change needs to be implemented soon so that businesses are not left struggling. The worry for the steel industry is that its food-producing customers will turn away from tin cans to materials that attract a lower fee, and that the business will be lost forever. I have continuing concerns about dual use and double charging, but that is a discussion for another day. I appreciate the Minister’s response a fortnight ago outlining the complexity of the situation and the lack of consensus on the issues she has encountered. I know she is committed to getting this right, as is the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, so my plea is simply that they resolve the issues as soon as is practical. That would be very much appreciated.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for the enormous amount of work she is putting into developing this comprehensive child poverty strategy and determining which single measures will have the greatest impact. It is in that context that I very much welcome the removal of the two-child benefit cap. What assurance can she give that her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions are making available the necessary staffing levels and training so that the enhanced payments reach families without any delay or complications?

• 4 Dec 2025 · War in Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on a fantastic speech, and on taking the initiative to get the Backbench Business Committee to agree to this debate. It is good to see the strong cross-party support continuing. I appreciate the support that the UK Government have given and continue to give to Ukraine, but we are now at an absolutely critical time for the country. It is vital that we continue and intensify our support for Ukraine, because Putin cannot be allowed to get away with his illegal invasions of Ukraine and his evil programme of seeking to eliminate Ukrainian identity altogether. A strong show of western solidarity and support for Ukraine is essential, not just to restore peace to Ukraine but to deter Putin from further aggression that would ultimately affect the security of the whole of western Europe, as hon. Members have said. It is not just the countries closest to Russia that are affected; we have already witnessed numerous Russian-provoked incidents across Europe, involving a range of hybrid warfare techniques. I applaud my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his efforts in setting up the coalition of the willing and encouraging support for Ukraine, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed some specific issues. First and foremost is the issue of finance, with external funding for Ukraine secured only from 1 March 2025. There is real concern about the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the EU’s ability to issue guarantees that are backed by frozen Russian assets—most of which are located in Belgium—making Ukraine’s military and political planning extremely difficult. Will the Minister enlighten us on the contingency measures being developed to mitigate a potential funding gap? How might the United Kingdom contribute more actively, particularly given the £25 billion in frozen Russian assets, as reported in the annual review by the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation? If the guarantees are not approved in time and the financial situation is not resolved, how does the Minister anticipate Ukraine’s strategy would need to evolve? In the meantime, while Ukraine is facing uncertainty about future funding, Russia, as many Members have referenced, continues to find ways around sanctions. As just one example, Ukraine’s military intelligence—the HUR—recently published a detailed breakdown of the industrial network behind Russia’s Iskander-M ballistic missiles, and noted that 13 of the 49 companies involved in the Iskander supply chain are not currently sanctioned, even though they are directly contributing to the production of weapons used against civilian targets in Ukraine. Once the components reach Russia, where do they go next? Ukraine’s intelligence service has highlighted that Moscow has already helped North Korea upgrade its KN-23 and KN-24 missile systems. I appreciate that the UK has already done a lot to strengthen sanctions, but in the light of such an example, as well as the use of the shadow fleet and third parties, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), will the Minister look at what more we can do to stop sanctions being flouted and to work with allies to make sanctions as effective as possible? Strengthening sanctions is a key way of helping Ukraine, especially as financial pressure remains a core pillar of Ukraine’s resilience strategy. Continuing on the issue of resources, it is very worrying that Italy has announced a temporary suspension of its participation in NATO’s PURL—prioritised Ukraine requirements list—programme for procuring US weapons for Ukraine. According to the Italian Foreign Minister, Antonio Tajani, this pause is linked to ongoing peace discussions and the premise that, in the event of a ceasefire, security guarantees, not weapons, will become the central requirement. However, this announcement creates yet more uncertainty for Ukraine, and obviously has serious implications for allied burden sharing within PURL. What assurances can the Minister give about UK support for the PURL programme to support Ukraine, and what contingency plans are there to make up any shortfall caused if the Italian withdrawal from the programme becomes permanent? On security guarantees, General Zaluzhnyi, the former commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces, wrote recently in The Telegraph : “We Ukrainians strive for a complete victory, but cannot reject the option of a long-term end to the war… But all this is impossible without effective security guarantees.” He went on: “Such security guarantees could include: Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the deployment of nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory or the deployment of a large allied military contingent”. Again, what is the current UK thinking about the scale of the security guarantees necessary to give Ukraine the security it would need in any form of peace? As we know, there are many aspects to the Ukrainians’ resilience, and we witnessed them on a recent visit to Ukraine. We have all heard about the appalling suffering on the frontline and the terrible plight of those living under Russian occupation, but the impact on the rest of the country is of course enormous. The Ukrainians are tackling so many challenges, such as the damage done by drone attacks night after night to both buildings and morale, and dealing with the internal displacement of people. We visited the town of Vinnytsia, a city the size of Swansea, which is welcoming 17,000 internally displaced Ukrainians. Vinnytsia is also welcoming the businesses and factories re-establishing themselves there and a university that has moved en bloc from the occupied area. There is also the challenge of getting online Ukrainian education through to children in the occupied areas. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, there are the challenges faced by seriously injured soldiers. They are picking up their lives again and showing huge resilience, as so many Ukrainians have done. There is the challenge of getting back the stolen children. There is the challenge of finding the ingenuity to develop drones, automated vehicles and anti-drone technology. There are the challenges of rehousing projects, attracting foreign investment and getting appropriate insurance. Again, what further help can the UK Government give? I would like the Minister to respond on these specific challenges. I think we all agree that we really must support Ukraine now, before it is far too late.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that, but it is a matter of action and ensuring that it really happens. We are too used to regulators not having the powers they are supposed to have or not being effective in using them. We need some action, and hopefully the Minister will help us to see how it could be done. There is a bitter irony that the Pension Protection Fund is funded by a levy on the very same companies that are refusing to index-link their own pensioners’ pensions. We know from lots of evidence that the only way the companies will listen is through legislation. These companies are multinationals, and in countries where there is legislation, they pay up—so they do respond if there is a law. As I was saying, saying that the trustees have the powers is sadly very far removed from the reality. Trustees of various countries have asked repeatedly for indexation, and before handing over any surplus to the companies, they will be very wary because they do not trust them at all. They will want cast-iron guarantees on indexation. Let us look at the scale of the problem. Seventy-five per cent of UK defined-benefit schemes already provide pre-1997 indexation. The remaining 25% represents approximately 1.5 million members, including some 734,000 pensioners, with 80% of all pensioners concentrated within just 200 large schemes with strong employers. As we have seen, employer discretion has failed in practice, and many pensioners have had years of zero increases. New clause 22 would set the statutory principle that there should be indexation. The Government can then design proportionate safeguards—for example, phasing in, exemptions and triggers—in order to protect genuinely weak schemes and to ensure, as the Society of Pension Professionals says, that schemes are not pushed into having to be picked up by the Pension Protection Fund. We want action on this. We are talking about a small, manageable number of schemes, but we want the trustees really to be given the powers to force those companies to make that indexation. If the Minister is not minded to put this provision into the legislation, as we want, we want to see some concerted action and a genuine way forward. If that proves not to work, there needs to be an opportunity to come back and put this into secondary legislation instead.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to my new clause 22. There is a group of pensioners who have worked hard for very prestigious companies, and those companies have grown rich and successful on the back of the work that those pensioners have done. These are companies with good reputations. People think of them as being honourable and successful. Many of us will have a computer with “HP” on it. Companies such as Hewlett Packard Enterprise, 3M and a number of others that have already been mentioned have treated their pensioners very shabbily indeed, because they are refusing to index-link the pensions of former employees that were accrued before 1997. In other words, people who worked hard to help build up the success of those companies have had no increase for as long as 23 years. Just imagine how much less they can buy with that pension now compared with 23 years ago. The cost of living crisis over the past few years has exacerbated their problems, eroding their pensions at a frightening rate. What is absolutely terrifying for many of those pensioners is how on earth they are going to manage in the next few years. Through new clause 22, we are asking for the index-linking to take place from now on, not retrospectively for all the years when there have been no increases, nice though that would be. This is not about some form of compensation for the past. It is about going forward and trying to future-proof these pensions so that they at least they maintain the value they have now. It would not be a retrospective measure; it is about how we want the companies to behave from now on in respect of their pension funds, just as any other legislation would apply from now on. When the employees were recruited to these companies, they would have thought, “Oh, this is a good job. It’s a good company and it’s got a pension scheme.” They would have assumed that any pension scheme worth its salt, particularly from a reputable company, would be index-linked. Sadly, however, these companies have found a loophole in the Pensions Act 1995, because it refers to 1997 as the start date for its provisions. In other words, the companies have been able to say that, according to the letter of the law, they do not have to index-link pensions accrued pre-1997, even though it would be in the spirit of the Act to do so. New clause 22 would amend the Pensions Act 1995 by removing references to 6 April 1997 from section 51 of that Act, thereby requiring annual increases to pension payments in line with CPI and RPI to apply to pensionable service both before and after that date. Why do we need to legislate? We need to do so because efforts by trustees over many years have failed. We have had instances of unanimous votes by trustees for inflation-based rises being rejected by companies. We have had trustees appointed by companies. Essentially, the power structure is such that the company has the final word, no matter how healthy the pension funds are. A recent newsletter for 3M pensioners said, “Given that the Scheme’s financial position is very positive, and the funding level exceeds the regulatory expectations for solvency levels… we had hoped that the Company would permit some discretionary increases to affected members. Sadly, the Company did not agree to this and has not changed its position on the matter.” Time and again, pensioners have been given that type of answer to a very reasonable, rational request.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The problem is that many of the trustees are trying to get these increases, but the difficulty they are encountering is that the power structure is such that the company has the last word. Sometimes trustees are actually appointed by the company; sometimes it is a unanimous decision that is then rejected by the company, as I mentioned with the 3M trustees. We see time and again the efforts of trustees totally decimated. I was interested in what the Minister said in his opening speech about the new powers. What we really want from the Front Bench is some support to help these trustees to use the legislation to which the Minister refers—that is, part of this Bill—and to try to make it work.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed, the right hon. Member mentions yet another world-renowned, multinational, household name. Our Labour Government have just announced that we will change the law to enable the payment of inflation increases on the pre-1997 pensions to Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme members. That is an important principle. If we are doing it for pensioners whose companies have gone bust, we should ensure that successful multinationals like Hewlett Packard Enterprise and 3M pay up for former employees.