Stephen Kinnock
MP for Aberafan Maesteg · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words and look forward to our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. I am ready to engage with her on getting the maximum benefits for the people of Wales.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady and look forward to working with her. My understanding is that there were challenges around the helicopter capability. Decisions were taken by Natural Resources Wales some time ago to change the way that the tendering for helicopter capability works. We certainly need to look at that.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Like him, I pay tribute to all those involved in the collective and heroic response to the wildfires.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. Many of the ideas coming forward for devolving power right across our United Kingdom, beyond Cardiff Bay and Holyrood, are very exciting, and I look forward to exploring them with her.”
“Just to be clear, this is not about staying out of the issue; it is about respecting the devolution settlement, but being prepared to work constructively where we can in partnership with the Welsh Government. The hon.”
“I know about and welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s strong connections to Wales. I recognise the connectivity benefits that WSMR’s proposal could deliver, particularly for passengers in Wales and the west midlands.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,341 lines we hold for Stephen Kinnock, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 55 of 107.
“I am going to make some progress. A range of proposals have been put forward, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), who has a record of huge commitment to addressing these matters. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) also have a long history of working diligently on these issues. The number of new clauses, including one of my own, that seek to build on and expand access to family reunion visas for refugees clearly reflects the high level of support for such schemes among Members on both sides of the House.”
“That means we will end up with situations where there are people who cannot be removed, because a court has ruled that doing so would pose unacceptable risks to their safety, but who also cannot lawfully remain in the UK because of the Government’s refusal to accept their claim for asylum. The law would effectively be saying that a person can neither leave nor remain in this country. If the Minister has an answer to the question of what then happens to a person in that situation, I would love to hear it.”
“The entire Bill is shot through with inconsistencies, unresolved questions and bizarre contortions of logic that can only have the effect of worsening the very problems the Government say they are trying to solve. Just one example of that is highlighted by amendment 41, which I tabled as a means of probing the Government’s thinking on a measure that simply does not appear to have been properly thought through. Clause 45 states that where an appeal against a removal notice is upheld, the duty to remove that person no longer applies—so far, so sensible. The problem is that nothing in the Bill says that any asylum claim made by a person in such a situation would then be considered: those claims would continue to be inadmissible.”
“My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point about the lack of an impact assessment for children, but there is a broader point about the lack of impact assessment full stop. It is completely and utterly unacceptable that we in this House should now be debating a Bill with no impact assessment having been published in advance. That shows a sort of disrespect to the House that really needs to be put on the record. I am having to limit my time to discussion of the Opposition Front Benchers’ amendments, so I will not be able to raise my many questions and concerns about some of the provisions on legal proceedings in clauses 37 to 49. Some clearly appear to pose a real threat to due process and to our respect as a country that upholds the rule of law.”
“They want solutions, not soundbites; they want the Labour party’s common sense, hard graft and quiet diplomacy, not government by gimmick; and when this Bill fails, they will know that only a Labour Government’s five-point plan for asylum will stop the dangerous crossings, fix our broken asylum system, and get our country back on track after 13 years of Tory failure.”
“Nevertheless, we hope that colleagues across the House will support our amendments and new clauses in the Division Lobby this evening, because let us be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker: Ministers know full well that this Bill is an entirely counterproductive piece of legislation, but they do not really care. In fact, they will be more than happy to see it failing, because then they can blame our civil servants, the EU, the lawyers, the judges, the Labour party, the football pundits, or whoever they can think of. Why are the Government doing this? Well, the answer is staring us in the face: they know that come the general election, they cannot stand on their record of 13 years of failure, so instead they will whip up division, stoke anxiety and fire up the culture wars. Our constituents know where the buck stops, though.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She points to a broader failing, and to a clear indication of the shambles and chaos that we have within the broader asylum system. The backlog in the system is out of control, there are massive safeguarding issues, and really it is just more grist to the mill for the people smugglers and the traffickers. That is why this issue has to be addressed. To sum up, this is a dog’s breakfast of a Bill, and this debate feels like something of a charade, because everyone knows that not only is the Bill unworkable, but it is not even intended to work.”
“I thank the Minister very much for giving way. He will recall that, at the beginning of the debate, I raised a point of order about the fact that he, on 19 December, said that when Labour left office in 2010, the asylum “backlog…was 450,000”—his words. I have received a letter from the UK Statistics Authority completely debunking that claim. It says that in fact the backlog was 19,000, and the backlog now is 166,000. As he is at the Dispatch Box, I thought it would be a perfect opportunity for him to apologise to the House and to correct the record, as per his duties under the ministerial code.”
“The right hon. Gentleman is making good points about local authority consultation. Will he therefore support new clause 27 tomorrow, which would make it a legal requirement for the Home Office to consult local authorities before deciding on hotels?”
“I am honoured to be the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for steel and metal related industries, and I thank the Secretary of State to agreeing to come and meet us—I am very much looking forward to that discussion. However, may I raise again the issue of her Sky interview in which she said, or certainly strongly implied, that it is not a given that we should have a steel industry in this country? Given the rise of authoritarian regimes around the world, the massive role that steel plays in providing good jobs that people can raise a family on and the vital role it plays in the transition to a decarbonised economy, may I invite the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and clarify her position—that steel is, in fact, a given in the United Kingdom?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous. He talks about the importance of jobs and energy-intensive industries. Is he aware that Labour has committed to a steel renewal fund, which will facilitate the transition from blast furnace technology to electric arc furnace technology, which is vital for the future of the Port Talbot steelworks in my constituency? Can he set out whether his Government have anything like that sort of plan? Is he aware of the fact that Tata Steel has said that if the Government do not make up their mind as to whether they will support our steel industry by July, it will close down one of the blast furnaces?”
“We need a single-minded commitment to investing for growth and a proper industrial strategy that will enable us to stand as a country more firmly on our own two feet, rather than being over-reliant on authoritarian regimes and dictators across the world. That is how Labour’s mission-driven Government will deliver. No more sticking-plaster solutions. Our steelworkers, who make the best steel that money can buy, are just asking for a level playing field. The Government need to step up to the plate and do the right thing.”
“If the Government continue to dither and delay, we could see the closing down of one of the blast furnaces, which would be truly a hammer blow for our Port Talbot steelworks. Labour’s message to Tata is clear: the cavalry is coming. A Labour Government will deliver on the clean steel fund. Perhaps there is not time to wait. Our message to the Conservative Government is also unambiguous: we need action now. They must not once again betray industrial communities such as the one in my constituency. They must step up to the mark, deliver for green steel and make up their mind. Do they believe that the UK should have a steel industry, or do they not? We need a growing economy that can deliver good jobs that people can raise a family on.”
“We know that if the Government continue to sit on their hands, tens of thousands of jobs could be lost and our country’s resilience will be in tatters. We on the Labour Benches recognise the scale of the challenge. Steel companies in Canada, Germany and Spain are receiving up to £1 billion per plant to decarbonise, yet the British Government’s offer to our steelmakers is a fraction of that. It is therefore unsurprising that Tata Steel, owners of the biggest steelworks in the UK in my constituency, has reportedly given the Government until July to approve its investment offer, due to growing concerns that competitors in mainland Europe are getting ahead of us in the drive towards green steel.”
“The Labour party knows that every leading economy has a strong and healthy steel industry, so it is deeply concerning that of the leading economies, only Britain has a declining steel industry. It is deeply troubling that there is nothing for steel in this Budget. We know that more steel will be required in the net zero economies of the future than there is today. That creates a huge market opportunity for British steelmakers across the globe. We know that UK steel companies employ 35,000 in good, well-paid jobs well above regional pay averages, and 45,000 more in our supply chains. We know that steel underpins our defence sector and our nation’s economic resilience, in an age of turbulence where authoritarian regimes are a threat to our supply chains and our democratic values.”
“The United Kingdom was the cradle of the first industrial revolution. The opportunity for us to be the cradle of the green industrial revolution is there for the taking. But there is absolutely nothing in this Budget that supports that goal. Labour’s game-changing green prosperity plan is the ultimate example of a policy that will deliver on that opportunity, and will pay for itself in the long term by driving growth and creating good jobs, thereby expanding the tax base. We will double onshore wind, triple solar power and quadruple offshore wind. We will launch Great British Energy, making Britain energy secure and creating as many as 1 million good jobs across the UK in the process. We will insulate 19 million homes and invest in a £3 billion transition for green steel.”
“My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said earlier that this was a Budget for growth and that it would deliver more economic prosperity, but the reality is that the OBR said that we will not see a rise in living standards for another decade. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have had their chance?”
“Will she tell us where she expects to detain the tens of thousands of asylum seekers forecast to arrive this year, where she expects to remove them to, when Rwanda clearly has no intention of taking more than a very small proportion of those who she expects to arrive this year, and when this Government will get out of the way, so that Labour can deliver its five-point plan to stop the boat crossings?”
“The Government’s new asylum legislation is a sham that is set to worsen the backlog, because they do not have the facilities to detain tens of thousands of asylum seekers, or a returns agreement in place with the EU to send back those deemed inadmissible. For all her taxpayer funded photo ops this weekend, the Home Secretary has seemingly failed to bung the Rwandan Government enough money for them to increase the number of asylum seekers they are ready to take this year. For a deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible, yet these plans are just empty threats.”
“Building on the question asked by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), does the Foreign Secretary agree that we need an in-depth strategic audit of every aspect of our country’s relationship with China, from defence to diplomacy, technology, education and cyber-security? Will he assure the House that there will be no return to the utterly failed “golden era” strategy?”
“The Minister said that SVB UK was a subsidiary of the American bank, but in this country a separate banking licence was given to SVB UK. May I therefore push him on the risk assessment around liquidity? When the banking licence was given, what risk assessment was conducted, particularly given the concentration of a small number of corporates in the deposits to SVB UK?”
“They watch as Conservative Ministers blame everyone else for their own failures: they blame the civil servants; they blame the lawyers; they blame the European Union and the ECHR; and they even blame the football pundits. But our constituents know exactly where the buck stops. They know that the day is approaching when they will be able to vote for a Labour Government who will tackle the small boats crisis and deal with the myriad other challenges and crises that our country is facing after 13 years of Tory failure, and they know that that day cannot come soon enough.”
“Three years ago, many people who had never voted Tory before put their trust in this Government because they wanted secure borders, controlled migration and competent governance, but absolutely none of those things has been delivered. So it is little wonder that the country has had enough of a Government who cynically bring forward Bills that are far more about scapegoating and slogans than they are about solutions, and it is little wonder that it has had enough of a Government who know that they cannot stand on their record and who are instead planning to fight the general election on a platform that is all about stoking anxiety, fear and division. The good news is that the British people are not stupid.”
“We wish him well, but the reality is that it is going to take a Labour Government to pick up the pieces and succeed where this Government have so badly failed. Thirdly, we will introduce long overdue measures to get a grip on the decision-making process for asylum claims. We will clear the backlog once and for all by establishing an effective triage system and by reversing the absurd and incomprehensible decision to downgrade the seniority of key Home Office officials. Fourthly, while the Government do little more than pay lip service to the idea of safe and legal routes, we will act to fix the current resettlement programmes, including the broken Afghanistan pathways. It is time to let the grown-ups back into the room.”
“First, we will scrap the unaffordable, unworkable and unethical Rwanda scheme, and redirect all that wasted taxpayer money into resourcing a 100-strong elite cross- border police unit to relentlessly pursue the real enemy—the ruthless criminal gangs and traffickers—and ensure that we tackle this upstream, working with the French and across Europe to defeat the gangs. Secondly, we will negotiate a returns agreement with the EU as a matter of urgency. Successive Conservative Governments since 2016 have focused on trashing relations with our European partners and allies, so the Prime Minister has a mountain to climb in rebuilding the trust that will be required as the basis of securing a returns deal.”
“Let me therefore encourage Ministers to drop their obsession with chasing tabloid headlines, and to focus instead on prioritising measures which will actually work. That brings me to the final myth that needs busting: the idea that we on these Benches have somehow not been putting forward our own proposals. Every single time the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Home Secretary and I have come to this Dispatch Box, we have set out exactly how Labour in government will tackle the small boat crossings and fix an asylum system that has been utterly broken by 13 years of Tory incompetence and indifference, but it appears Conservative Members have not been paying attention, so let me remind them of our plan.”
“The Government can label channel crossers “inadmissible” or “illegal” all they want, and they can promise that they will be detained and swiftly removed until the cows come home, but the fact is that Ministers are completely unable to answer two obvious and vitally important questions: “Detained where?” and “Removed to where?” Rwanda is a non-starter because the Rwandan Government can only take 200—and how on earth are the Government planning to send asylum seekers back across the channel unless we have a formal returns agreement with the EU to replace the Dublin convention? Ministers tried all this last year: under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, they made 18,000 people inadmissible, and how many did they remove or return? Twenty-one.”
“Another bit of nonsense being peddled on the Conservative Benches is that this Bill will stop the boats. Everyone agrees that the small boat crossings must be stopped. Thousands of people are risking life and limb, and it is utterly appalling that the people smugglers are making millions from this trade in human misery. The fundamental question is whether the measures in the Bill can reasonably be expected to solve the problem, and the answer to that question is a clear and resounding no. In fact, if the Bill were passed, it would actively make matters worse by adding further to the enormous asylum backlog, and by piling further cost on to the staggering £7 million-a-day hotel bill that is currently being picked up by the British taxpayer.”
“706.] Fast-forward two years, and scroll your way through a few more Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries, and here we are again having to listen to the same old reheated rhetoric and empty promises. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The Conservative party likes to claim that it stands for secure borders, but when the last Labour Government left office in 2010, fewer than 10,000 people were waiting for a decision for a claim for asylum. The number now stands at more than 160,000, the highest since records began. Conservative Members will also recognise that the number of failed asylum seekers being returned has decreased by an astonishing 80% since 2010. The reality is that, since 2010, successive Conservative Governments have lost control of our borders, and the people smugglers are laughing all the way to the bank.”
“Because this has been such an incredibly well-subscribed debate, in the time available to me I will not be able to thank all my hon. Friends individually for their excellent contributions, so I hope they will forgive me for thanking them all collectively. I also want to thank some Conservative Members for their excellent and insightful contributions, particularly, of course, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I am old enough to remember a Conservative Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), standing at that Dispatch Box and promising the House that her new Nationality and Borders Bill would “deter illegal entry to the UK…break the business model of the smuggling gangs and protect the lives of those whom they are endangering.” —[ Official Report , 19 July 2021; Vol. 699, c.”
“On that basis, I look forward to hearing from the Minister in more detail about how the Government will ensure that rates of detection and prosecution of such crimes will be improved.”
“Can he tell the House when he expects the relevant secondary legislation to be introduced? It would be remiss of me not to raise the issue of enforcement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) said on Second Reading: “The Bill, if introduced, would be a formidable starting point, but there are no two ways about it: the underfunding and under-resourcing of our police forces have undermined their capabilities for more than a decade.” —[ Official Report , 2 December 2022; Vol. 723, c. 1093.] As is so often the case, the legislation will be only as effective as the level of prioritisation and resourcing for law enforcement and implementation is adequate.”
“In particular, tradespeople across the UK are facing serious problems as a result of tool theft, especially those who store their equipment in vans. According to data from surveys carried out by the Direct Line Group, more than half of roofers, electricians, plumbers and carpenters have been victims of such crimes. In Committee, the Minister said: “my starting position is that if we are going to bring forward statutory instruments under the Bill to deal with ATVs, why not do the other tools at the same time?” –– [ Official Report, Equipment Theft (Prevention) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2023; c. 10.] That sounds like a sensible position, so can the Minister provide some further detail on the progress of the work to address any technical challenges that such regulations might face?”
“These are particularly pernicious crimes, because they attack the very basis on which farmers and tradespeople earn a living for themselves and their families. Although these are clearly long-standing problems, the need for action has perhaps become more pressing in these precarious economic times. The Bill focuses primarily on the theft of vehicles, specifically all-terrain vehicles and quad bikes, which will be subject to new requirements for immobilisers and forensic markings to be fitted before they can be sold. Despite that relatively narrow focus, debates on Second Reading and in Committee reflected a widespread consensus among hon. Members that the scope of the changes should be expanded under the secondary legislation that the Bill enables.”
“It is not every day that we get the chance to debate an issue that commands such a high degree of consensus among Members of the House. I am glad to say that the Opposition continue to support the passage of the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and we of course welcome the Government’s support for it. I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham on getting the Bill to this stage. A little bird tells me that it is apparently his birthday today, so I add my congratulations on that as well. I do not pretend to be an expert in this area—there are not many thefts of tractors or combine harvesters in my constituency. None the less, it is absolutely clear that the theft of vehicles and tools blights our rural communities.”
“All too often in the past, loopholes and weaknesses in our firearms laws were not addressed until it was too late. If there is one thing that Members of all political persuasions can agree on, it is that gun violence must be eradicated. I look forward to hearing more detail on the Government’s plans to achieve that objective.”
“What changes, if any, do the Government plan to make to the licensing process at national level? Will changes be made to the application fees for firearms certifications, which are currently £70 and £80, in order to more accurately reflect the actual cost of processing the applications, which can exceed £500? What steps will be taken to address the apparent surge in the number of temporary permits, which, according to recent reports, is a direct consequence of backlogs in the system, in order to fully ensure that weapons do not get into the wrong hands? Finally, how will wider policy challenges, such as the urgent need for more effective action to tackle online radicalisation, be addressed in the weeks ahead? Will the Minister consider changes to the Online Safety Bill to strengthen the law in that area?”
“It is important to note that the new offence envisaged by clause 2 would require evidence of an intent to use components to manufacture ammunition. What can the Minister, or any hon. Member who supports the changes, tell us about the standard of proof that will apply when determining intent? How might attempts to evade detection be addressed as part of efforts to tackle such offences? Finally, we should give consideration to the many important issues the Bill does not address. Do the Government plan to establish a new independent regulator for firearms licensing? Can we have an update on progress towards implementing the Government’s commitment to a national accredited training scheme for firearms enquiry officers? When will the new curriculum be introduced?”
“Clause 2 would introduce a new offence of possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture. That is an important step that reflects the widespread recognition that the law as it stands has not kept pace with changes in technology over recent years. Again, the changes do not appear to have gone as far as they could have. For instance, the offence created by clause 2 would apply to ownership of four primary components: bullets, cartridge cases, primers and propellants. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he is confident that even with those changes, the law would adequately reflect the application of recent technological developments such as 3D printing and other evolving technologies that make access to deadlier weapons significantly easier for those who seek them.”
“The Bill’s intent is to, “Make provision about the regulation of certain rifle ranges and shooting galleries; to make provision for an offence in relation to the possession of component parts of ammunition; and for connected purposes.” I will take each point in turn. Clause 1 would make limited changes to the scope of provisions in the Firearms Act on the use of weapons at shooting ranges and galleries. It is not clear that the changes go far enough. For instance, the Government’s response to a consultation published last July announced plans to introduce a new requirement for operators of miniature rifle ranges to be issued with a firearms certificate. The response noted that that would require changes to primary legislation, but did not give a timescale. Perhaps the Minister could update the House on that point.”
“Despite the importance of the 1968 Act, it took the unspeakable tragedies of mass shootings in Hungerford and Dunblane to prompt further action to tighten up our laws in the 1980s and 1990s. Today, the memories of five people—Maxine Davison, Stephen Washington, Kate Shepherd, Lee Martyn and Lee’s three-year-old daughter Sophie, who were shot dead in Plymouth in August 2021—cast a long shadow over this debate. We must not wait for another equally horrific event before we take the steps needed to bring the law up to date. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for his passionate advocacy of measures to further restrict the ownership of dangerous weapons and to counter online radicalisation, and to the hon. Member for West Bromwich West for promoting the Bill.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) on this important Bill and thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) for presenting it and speaking on his behalf so eloquently. It is frequently said that the UK has one of the toughest systems in the world for regulating the ownership of firearms. Members on both sides of the House will undoubtedly be thankful that that is the case but will also share the belief that we must never lose sight of the need to ensure that our laws and regulations remain fit for purpose. The licensing system currently in force dates back more than 50 years, having been established by the landmark Firearms Act 1968. While that groundbreaking law was a vital first step, we must never allow ourselves to fall into the trap of complacency.”
“The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and some very good points about floating offshore wind. On ensuring that we capture the benefits in Wales, does he agree that a very hard line should be taken with the Crown Estate to ensure that when leasing the seabed, there are clear conditions on the developer to ensure that the manufacturing, the supply chain, the jobs and the skills stay in Wales? We must not make the tremendous and awful mistakes of the past, when we allowed all the supply chains to go overseas.”
“That brings me on to a topic that the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) mentioned: floating offshore wind. FLOW will be hugely important in allowing our country to stand more firmly on our own two feet. It will also be essential in helping us reach net zero. Port Talbot, along with the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, has the potential to be at the heart of this 21st-century green industrial revolution. Our deep-sea harbour, our land for development, our excellent transport links, our world-class steelworks and our existing manufacturing supply chains and skills base make us well placed to deliver 24 GW of FLOW in the Celtic sea, a quarter of the UK’s total target.”
“On behalf of my Aberavon constituents, I urge the UK Government to step up and help them and others across the country by closing the loopholes and bringing in a proper one-off windfall tax on energy giants. The money raised could be spent on a package of support for energy bills, passing savings on to households immediately, and stopping the energy price cap going up in April. An end must be put to the scandalous penalties imposed on prepayment meter customers, who should not be paying more than those who pay by direct debit. There also needs to be a three-month moratorium on the forced installation of prepayment meters. Learning the lessons of the energy crisis is essential to prevent it from happening again. If our country is to better protect itself, we must become more resilient and less exposed to fluctuating global energy prices.”
“Despite having fewer economic levers at their disposal compared with the UK Government, the Welsh Government have stepped up to the plate by providing a £51 million household support fund targeted at those who need it most. They have doubled the winter fuel support payment to £200 to help those on low incomes with their energy bills, and have provided £1.1 million to support food banks, community food partnerships and community hubs. The Welsh Labour Government are doing their level best to shield Wales from the worst of the crisis, but the reality is that energy bills will go up by £900 in April. Hard-working families are feeling the pinch, while oil and gas giants are celebrating record profits and laughing all the way to the bank.”
“Incomes are simply not keeping pace with rising costs, and they no longer cover the essentials. Many talk of a cost of existing crisis rather than a cost of living crisis. Constituents are not putting the heating on or are cutting back on essential groceries. They are worried sick about whether they can pay their energy bills or afford their rent or mortgage payments. The numbers of people turning up to food banks is up, up, up. In December, more than 33,000 people in Wales experienced financial hardship to the extent of accessing £2.36 million from the Welsh Government’s discretionary assistance fund. The Welsh Government have since pledged £18.8 million to the fund to protect people who are facing financial hardship.”
“It was a great pleasure to be part of the hamper packing process, which also enabled us to hang out with some of our heroes from the Ospreys, the Aberavon Wizards and the Swans—even though I say that as a Bluebird. That achievement was possible only thanks to the generosity of businesses and individuals across Aberavon and the whole area covered by the Everyone Deserves campaign, whose donations helped pay for the hampers. It also reflects the fact that many of my constituents, and I am sure those of all of our colleagues assembled here, are struggling with the rocketing cost of living. Record energy prices, soaring costs of household essentials, falling wages and the highest interest rates for 40 years are really biting. Real wages in Aberavon have plummeted since 2010, leaving my constituents £1,123 per year worse off on average.”
“I wish everyone a belated happy St David’s day if I did not wish it to them yesterday. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) not only on her wonderful, poetic opening speech, but on the Everyone Deserves a Christmas, Summer and Easter campaign. It seems to be an all-year-round campaign this year. I have had the pleasure of taking part in that initiative, which does a huge amount to tackle holiday hunger by providing hampers to families who are struggling at Christmas. I am proud to say that those hampers provided 447 children and their families across Neath Port Talbot with a lovely Christmas dinner with all the trimmings, plus lots of other treats.”
“It has been doing wonderful work on creating buildings that store and release heat and electricity from solar energy, but no replacement funds offer the parity of support that is needed for that research and innovation work. More than 60 projects across Wales, including SPECIFIC, now face a very uncertain future. Approximately 1,000 jobs are at risk. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment today to speak with colleagues about bridging funding to enable these important projects to continue, to prevent Wales from losing this talent and to avoid the cliff edge that exists under the shared prosperity fund? My Aberavon constituents and the people of Wales need something better. They need a UK Labour Government working in tandem with a Welsh Labour Government to deliver for Wales and deliver for our entire United Kingdom.”