Nia Griffith MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, it is an important principle on the PPF; if we are doing it for those pensioners for the companies that have gone bust, we really should be doing it for the successful companies, too.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will understand just how sceptical pensioners are because, quite frankly, they have seen their trustees try to make the companies do the right thing time and again. Will he agree to meet me and trustees from companies such as 3M and Hewlett Packard Enterprise to explain what mechanism he thinks will be available to them that will actually force the companies to give a decent, index-linked rise to their pensioners?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Patricia Kennedy, who has been incredibly hard-working and has really tried to put the facts and figures together. Let me give the House an example now that I had intended to quote later. The number of companies that have reneged on giving out index-linked pensions is extraordinary. Listen to this list, citing the number of years for which companies have not indexed pensions: Goldman Sachs—10 years; KPMG—15 years; Lloyd’s Register—nine years; Johnson & Johnson—11 years; NCR (Scotland)—11 years; Chevron—13 years, 3M—16 years; Pfizer—16 years; AIG—18 years; American Express—20 years, Atos/Sema—20 years; STMicroelectronics—21 years; Hewlett Packard Enterprise—22 years; and Wood Group—23 years. Given that, we can imagine the loss in value of those pensions now.

• 2 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the Minister appreciates the need for the EU and the UK to work very closely together in the face of global security threats and trade challenges. In his talks with EU colleagues, will he impress on them the damage that the proposed EU steel tariffs would do to not just our UK steel industry but manufacturing across the UK and the EU?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Packaging: Extended Producer Responsibility · Hansard source

  More

  It is a delight to take part in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on initiating it. I back everything she said about glass, which affects Felinfoel brewery in my constituency very badly, as well as Parsons Pickles, which produces shellfish and pickled vegetables. Because of the time limit, I may not have time to say much more about glass, because I also want to talk about steel. Steel is hugely important to me. I have the Tata Trostre packaging factory in my constituency. It is the only steel packaging factory in the UK, and it currently produces 400,000 tonnes of packaging steel each year, supports 5,000 jobs across the country in the supply chain and contributes £4 billion to the UK economy. It produces a whole range of different qualities of steel, which can be used to make the various parts of food and drink cans, with slightly different qualities and strengths for the base, body, ring pull and so on. Steel is one of the most recyclable materials we have; in fact, it is the most recycled packaging in Europe. In 2024, steel packaging achieved an 86.6% recycling rate, making it the UK’s most recycled packaging material. The recycling rate for plastic is only 53%, and for fibre-based cartons it is 29%. Of course, we can go on and on recycling steel—it can be recycled forever. The fees under the EPR scheme should reflect that quality; the ability for a material to be recycled over and over again is valuable. Currently, the EPR values metal the same as materials that can only be recycled once, and then into something less recyclable or even unrecyclable and of much lower value. Recycling steel can also save 70% of the energy that would be needed to produce new steel. Food cans are also very easy to sort. I was going to say that even a child can do it, but even an adult can easily understand in which bin, or which part of a segregated kerbside collection, a can should go. We all know that is not the case for alternative forms of packaging, which can be made of complex layers of different materials. Is it paper? Is it plastic? Is it foil? What is it? Likewise, mechanical sorting of steel is easy. Another quality of steel is that it is incredibly strong, so it can be four times thinner than competing containers. Unfortunately, that also makes it two times heavier, and that is where we get punished under the EPR fees. However, in her reply to me in June, the Minister mentioned that volume is also a factor—and think about the volume of some of the fancy doo-dah packaging all over the place. We need to come back to that, because some other forms of packaging do not do well on volume, and they certainly do not do well on recyclability, not to mention the worry about them being made abroad cheaply and brought over here. We have enough challenges in the steel industry as it is, as I am sure the Minister will be aware. We have a fantastic material in steel. Of course, it has been a very difficult time for steel in south Wales. Trostre has traditionally been supplied by Port Talbot, where the last blast furnace was closed before the electric arc furnace was built. We are very much looking forward to the opening of the electric arc furnace, which is a fantastic recycling asset, and a lot of work is being done to ensure that we will be able to use the EAF steel for the range of products produced at Trostre. In the meantime, though, that brings the added pressure of having to source steel elsewhere, as well as our usual challenges of a highly competitive market and energy costs. I very much welcome the Government’s announcement of some support on the way for energy intensive industries. The current EPR fee methodology does not recognise recyclability or material value. Instead, it prioritises material weight, meaning heavier but more sustainable materials such as steel and glass face higher fees, while lighter, less recyclable plastics gain a competitive edge. The issues that I want the Minister to focus on strongly are: action as soon as possible, or we are going to lose our industries; and a reform of EPR fees to reward genuine recyclability and circular value. The basic fees per tonne for steel need to be three times lower than for fibre composite or plastic alternatives. We absolutely must differentiate by end-of-life outcomes and the scrap value, which would, again, bring the UK model into line with some of the best EU practice, such as the Belgian system. If we are not careful, between the EPR and high excise duty, we could discourage investment in the UK because firms will want to set up plants elsewhere. We will deter the growth that we all want to see. There is a huge amount to do. I would like to know what engagement there has been with stakeholders since the letter of 7 June, what stage that engagement is now at, and whether any progress has been made. I will finish on that note.

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Migration: Settlement Pathway · Hansard source

  More

  I have a constituent, born and bred in Llanelli, who is unable to bring in his foreign spouse because of the current earnings limit of £29,000. The Home Secretary will be aware that the Government’s family financial requirements review notes that a threshold in the region of £23,000 to £25,000 would allow most British workers in full-time minimum wage jobs to qualify. When will she consider this review and look again at the fairness of the current earnings thresholds?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Passenger Rail: Performance Improvements · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she is taking to improve passenger rail performance.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Passenger Rail: Performance Improvements · Hansard source

  More

  I declare my interest in rail travel, as I travel by train weekly between London and my constituency of Llanelli. Far too often, Great Western Railway trains between Paddington and south Wales are delayed or cancelled at short notice, causing significant inconvenience and distress to passengers, including those from my constituency. The cause is often cited to be problems in the London-to-Reading area. What more can the Minister do to ensure that GWR and Network Rail make a lot more effort to significantly reduce delays and avoid cancellations?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Ukraine: Forcible Removal of Children · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on her excellent work on the stolen Ukrainian children, whom we all want returned as soon as possible. Does the Minister agree that only greater resolve, unity and support from the west can drive back Russia’s outrageous demands for Ukrainian territory, and pave the way for a peace that represents Ukraine’s interests? What more can he do to encourage greater support for Ukraine among our allies?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Life Sciences: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  5. What recent assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of the life sciences sector on economic growth.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Life Sciences: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Workers at Tata’s Trostre site in my constituency have been hard hit by the five-week annual stoppage, leaving them short of money over Christmas. Despite reassurances from Tata, the Minister will understand that they are worried that this is a sign of worse to come. What is he doing to bring down energy prices, negotiate preferential treatment for our products to access the EU, and ensure that we strengthen our protections against cheap imports—all vital to the future of our steel industry?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Independent Lifeboats: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris, not least because you will be very familiar with many of the places I will mention. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for securing this important debate on Government support for independent lifeboats. I have the great privilege of serving as the MP for the constituency of Llanelli, which is surrounded by water on three sides. There is the Loughor estuary and the Burry inlet, which goes past Burry Port harbour to the stretches of Pembrey sands and reaches up to the estuary of the three rivers: the Gwendraeth, the Towy and the Taf. We enjoy spectacular views, including of the Gower peninsula--we have the best views of it, although my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) often disputes that. The peninsula is indeed spectacular, with its iconic Worms Head, which has itself been the scene of several lifeboat rescues this year alone. However, it is important to note that that spectacular scenery hides the very treacherous waters beneath, which a huge tidal range, strong currents, shifting sands and mudbanks. There is also a lot of activity—notably the local cocklers and fishermen—as well as the usual range of leisure activities. The area is served by three lifeboat stations. First, there is the independent Ferryside station. Although it came into my constituency only at the July 2024 general election—I visited it last year—it has served the area for almost 200 years. Just a few weeks ago, the station dealt with a very complex rescue involving three small fishing boats. Secondly, there is the independent Loughor lifeboat, which, although stationed on the Gower side of the Loughor, serves the whole area. Thirdly, there is the RNLI lifeboat in Burry Port, which is well supported by the local community there. I pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of lifeboat crews. Their experience and knowledge of their local area is absolutely invaluable. They are willing to go out in all weather to rescue people who have got into difficulty. They are hugely professional, meaning that they can dovetail with the coastguard and the other statutory emergency services. Crews put in many hours of vital training to be ready for call-outs. There is a significant amount of work and responsibility involved in maintaining a lifeboat station. Hours of work are put in by the crew and supporters to maintain buildings and equipment and to undertake training. That is, of course, in addition to the call-outs. Then there is the cost. For example, running the Ferryside lifeboat costs around £20,000 each year. It costs £289 per year to buy and maintain a crew member’s drysuit, lifejacket, locator beacon and flare. The cost of a crew member’s helmet, which is absolutely essential for their protection, is £110. Those helmets have to be replaced every five years, and the helmets at Ferryside are shortly due for renewal. A can of petrol costs £16 and will power the Ferryside vessel in the water for about 30 minutes. Those are just some examples of the costs involved. Our local communities are amazing in their fundraising efforts, whether that is the children of Ysgol Glanyfferi, the White Lion in Ferryside staging events for the Ferryside lifeboat, Llanelli Rotary club raising funds for the Loughor lifeboat, or the Burry Port community supporting the RNLI lifeboat there. Then there is the valuable support from business, whether that is local businesses making donations in money or in kind, or specialist equipment companies providing supplies that are heavily discounted or provided for free. As the Ferryside lifeboat crew have said, “It takes a team of people and industries to keep a lifeboat afloat. Beyond the volunteers are companies that support us with their generosity…such as Tohatsu Marine and Navisafe” which supplied the crew with “reliable navigation lights that can endure the elements”. I pay tribute to the National Independent Lifeboat Association for the work it does on advocacy, advice and co-ordinating training. In total, NILA estimates that its members saved the taxpayer some £2.6 million in 2024. Of course, costs continue to escalate, whether it is insurance, repairs or equipment. As the Minister will know, the previous Conservative Government closed the rescue boat grant fund back in 2020. In spite of the entreaties from the chair of NILA and the warm words from Lord Davies of Gower, there was no commitment to reinstate it. The fund was not huge—£5 million over the previous five years—but the Ferryside lifeboat had a grant of some £7,000, and the Loughor lifeboat some £10,000. Again, those are not huge amounts, but it takes a lot of plant sales or pub gigs to raise that sort of money. We all appreciate that financial times are difficult, but my plea this afternoon is for the Minister to look at whether there is any way additional support could be made available for lifeboats, to complement the valiant fundraising efforts of local communities and pay a real tribute to the dedicated and dangerous work of our lifeboat crews. We know that these small organisations manage funds very carefully and are good at making a small amount go a long way, so even a modest amount could make a significant difference. We also know that the public are very supportive of our lifeboat crews and would think that this was money well spent. So my plea to the Minister is, please look at this.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Farmers: Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  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?