Gerald Jones
MP for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare · Labour · United Kingdom
“The Plaid Cymru Welsh Government marked their first 100 days in office last week with little fanfare—their achievements to date seem to be setting up Committees and commissioning reports, rather than focusing on the needs of the people of Wales.”
“Many of my constituents want tougher action against the criminals who hide behind businesses such as rogue barber shops, vape shops and mini-marts, which are a blight on many high streets in my constituency.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement and the work he is doing to bring this issue to a resolution. A growing number of my constituents are affected. The response from Capita has been appalling, and correspondence is taking weeks or indeed months to get through.”
“I very much welcome this defence investment plan and the confidence it shows in the workers on the Ajax programme at General Dynamics in Merthyr Tydfil. I thank Ministers for their engagement with me, with General Dynamics and with the workforce.”
“Illegal offroad bikes cause regular and unnecessary nuisance to residents across Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare, and other parts of the country. South Wales police are constantly trying to deal with residents’ concerns, but the situation persists and is widespread.”
“Even before the current conflict in the middle east, fuel suppliers in the Merthyr Tydfil part of my constituency were charging an average of 10p per litre more than those in other parts of my constituency and neighbouring towns.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,447 lines we hold for Gerald Jones, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 28 of 29.
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on securing this important debate. Work capability assessments are one of the issues most commonly raised with me, and I am sure with many other Members on both sides of the House. The system is flawed and discredited, and it has caused undue stress and hardship for too many claimants. Recent academic research estimates that for every 10,000 assessments carried out between 2010 and 2013 there have been six suicides, which is truly shocking. That alone requires the Government to undertake a complete review of the current system.”
“The Government have said that they are committed to protecting support for disabled people, so the clauses are deeply worrying. The cut will not incentivise people, as the Government say they want.”
“I visited the kidney dialysis patients support group in Merthyr Tydfil last weekend, and a number of people told me of their concerns about the work capability assessment and the lack of understanding of their condition. Dialysis patients often feel reasonably all right on certain days between dialysis, but on the day following treatment they can feel very low, which means that if they are receiving treatment three days a week, the number of days when they feel okay are few and far between. The Government need to address that lack of understanding. If the original clauses 13 and 14 of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill are reinserted, financial support for new claimants in the work-related activity group will be cut by around 25% from £102 to £73, which will have a drastic impact on disabled people.”
“My hon. Friend illustrates a valid point that is replicated across the country. I am sure that hon. Members are as concerned as I am when they hear that, according to the DWP’s own figures, around 50% of assessments are overturned on appeal. That surely calls into question the reliability of the initial assessments and raises the question why we are putting people through such unnecessary stress, which has undoubtedly had a negative impact on the mental health of many claimants. I am also concerned that the work capability assessments do not seem to take account of individuals who have a limiting long-term illness that means their condition often fluctuates, such as kidney dialysis patients or people with Parkinson’s.”
“Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley to the Minister to make public the performance of the contractor, which will improve awareness of the situation. The Government are trying to defend the indefensible. I hope that the Minister will signal today that she is willing to consider what action she and the Government can take to review this appalling situation and bring about some common sense and, above all, compassion.”
“It has lost credibility, and an overhaul is desperately needed. The views and experiences of ill and disabled people must be at the heart of the process. We need a compassionate and effective system that supports people, not one that causes such misery for so many ill and disabled people in our country. We in the Labour party feel that disabled people should be able to play a central role in monitoring the work capability assessment system and helping to ensure that it is managed with dignity and fairness. There have been concerns about the assessment over a long period, which has resulted in the DWP changing its contractor from Atos to Maximus, which I understand will be paid substantially more than Atos to carry out the contract. I fully support the calls from my hon.”
“I will try to address my hon. Friend’s points later in my contribution. I am concerned about the impact of the assessments on people with mental health problems. If the original clauses 13 and 14 are reinserted, the significant cut may mean that people with mental health problems become more unwell. They will be unable to spend money on support and activities that help them recover—things that the personal independence payment does not support—which will affect their ability to move closer to work. Rather than increasing the number of people in work, the change could hinder recovery and push people further away from work. The cut has been opposed in the other place, and I hope that the Government will listen and scrap the clauses. The current work capability assessment is not fit for purpose.”
“They appear throughout the Bill, but several legal experts have made the point that “necessity” has an array of different meanings in law. The unfortunate result of the necessity test would be that many more cases could end up in the Supreme Court to decide what “necessity” means. Clearly, that would slow down the Assembly’s work and would cost the taxpayer hugely. The reality would be the bizarre situation of the Supreme Court, rather than the elected National Assembly for Wales, deciding whether a law is necessary.”
“The Secretary of State says that he wants the Bill to provide a clear and lasting settlement, but I am deeply concerned that it would take devolution backwards and not provide anything like the stable solution that he is seeking. In fact, I agree with the view that the Bill may be unworkable. We know that existing legislation sets out basic tests that the Assembly must meet before it can legislate—it must abide by EU law and the European convention on human rights. It is regrettable that the Bill increases the number of tests from nine to 13. It is clear to most people that that will make the work of the National Assembly more complicated and increase bureaucracy. There is much wrong with the Bill, but I shall focus on the necessity tests.”
“Last, but not least, Mr Hanson; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This is a double pleasure because, as is the case for many other Members, this is the first Welsh Grand Committee that I have attended. As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, the draft Bill does not have much support from academics, lawyers and even the Secretary of State’s party colleagues in the Welsh Assembly. Indeed, many of those who have given evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee have outlined concerns about the Bill, particularly regarding whether it takes us forward. As our party established the Welsh Assembly, Labour Members support the additional powers for Wales proposed in the Bill, but we have significant concerns about how the powers of the Assembly would be rolled back by its other provisions.”
“I am not sure where the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire was going with that. Clearly, we want a system that works and that provides a framework for moving the Assembly and devolution forward. The Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report on the draft Bill says: “The necessity tests have elicited considerable reaction amongst those who have provided us with evidence and it is fair to say that these tests have received very little support.” We should accept the principle that the Assembly should be able to legislate freely in the areas devolved to it without having to prove that its actions are necessary.”
“There are necessity tests throughout the Bill. Many existing Acts of the Assembly would not have been possible if the draft Bill had been in force. We should accept the principle that the Assembly should legislate freely in those areas that are devolved. The Bill would be much easier to implement if the necessity test was taken out of it—I ask the Secretary of State to consider that—but, unfortunately, I am not filled with much confidence that that will happen. However, to be fair, the Secretary of State has indicated that this is a draft Bill and that he is listening to comments during pre-legislative scrutiny. After listening to the deliberations of not only the Welsh Affairs Committee, but those in all aspects of Welsh life, as my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli mentioned, I hope that the Secretary of State will act accordingly.”
“It is surely time for the Government to propose measures to remedy that unfairness. The issue will not be resolved until the Government put it right by introducing a fair transition period to allow people to plan. I hope that the Minister will go some way towards that today by acknowledging the unfairness and by agreeing to discuss what options the Government will consider to bring about a fair transition.”
“The number of women across our country affected by the changes is also significant, with 3,180 in my constituency and many hundreds of thousands across the country. Most will not have company pensions, having been excluded from schemes for a variety of reasons. All Members will have heard cases similar to that of my constituent who at 58 is no longer able to retire at 60. She does a physically tough job and will now have to work until she is 66. She has had a relatively low income throughout her working life and now has to continue doing her tough job, totally unplanned, for a further six years. That just is not fair. The WASPI campaign’s argument is powerful and its members should be congratulated on their passion and perseverance. The women at the centre of the campaign have been treated unfairly.”
“I have received many emails and letters from my constituents and those are the overriding concerns. The other common factor in the cases that I have read about is that many of the women affected by the changes have had low, and in some cases unequal, pay. Some have had periods of time outside of work due to bringing up children and have therefore been unable to contribute to national insurance and work pension schemes. Against that background, the changes to pension arrangements mean that what they had planned on getting is now hugely different from what they will receive, which is damaging to their financial security and their retirement plans. Many women born in the 1950s will have started their employment when the gender pay gap was significant.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) on leading today’s debate. We are here to consider the petition organised by the WASPI campaign. I was going to say that it has been supported by 139,059 people, but I checked before the debate and the figure is now over 140,000 with some 1,200 people signing the petition today. The number of Members here and the number of people who have signed the petition highlight how important it is that we address the issue. For me and many others, today’s debate is about fairness. The transition to equality is an accepted principle; what is not acceptable is the lack of information and the lack of notice and time to prepare and plan for the transition.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Turner, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing this important debate. It is hard to justify why so many people live in poverty in a country as wealthy as the UK. I believe that one of the key explanations is that the welfare state, designed to protect us all against risks such as unemployment, illness and old age, simply fails to provide an adequate income for families and others when they are unable to support themselves fully. It is truly shocking that in 2016, in-work poverty is growing. In some areas, the number of working households in poverty is greater than the number of non-working households. Major factors appear to be low pay and part-time work, and zero-hours contracts are also a major contributory factor.”
“I could not agree more. Both the Welsh Government and local government have tried to mitigate those circumstances, but the major levers lie here at Westminster.”
“The Government appear reluctant to reconfigure the tax system so that the richest households pay more of the burden. Policy changes such as the changes to inheritance tax, the reduction in the 50p income tax rate to 45p, the retention of the bedroom tax and the changes to universal credit mean that poorer families will continue to pay more than their fair share of tax. To make a positive impact on tackling in-work poverty, the Government have to take action on the issues raised during this afternoon’s debate. Unfortunately, we are seeing very little evidence that they are serious about tackling in-work poverty. In fact, some of the Government’s proposals risk making matters worse. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to tackle urgently the unacceptable scale of in-work poverty facing people across our country?”
“It is not just a lack of income that causes hardship in poorer families. Evidence shows that they also pay higher prices than others for many essential goods and services. Low-income families are often unable to take advantage of the cheaper prices that are routinely offered to customers paying by methods such as direct debit. The situation has been exacerbated by rising utility bills. With fuel prices coming down, the Government should bring more pressure to bear on utility firms to ensure that they do more to pass savings on to customers. Finally, many people who are in work discover that their jobs are so low paid or insecure that they are unable to provide an income sufficient to lift themselves and their families out of poverty.”
“Limits on the number of hours worked and zero-hours contracts mean that many people might work full-time one week, part-time the next and have no work the following week. Even if they have reliable employment, many find it hard to work enough hours, given their caring commitments and other barriers to employment. Such situations can also compound problems with in-work benefit entitlements, such as housing benefit. The process for benefit assessment cannot be done efficiently, leaving households falling into rent arrears while things are readjusted and threatening the security of their tenure. Often, due to barriers to employment, people do not have the opportunity to increase their hours and therefore their income. As a result, many low-paid jobs are nothing more than poverty traps.”
“As a county councillor prior to being elected to this place last May, I was proud to be associated with the introduction of the living wage at Caerphilly county borough council, one of a growing number of Labour councils in Wales that pay the living wage. I am proud of the many former colleagues in local government across the UK who are championing the true living wage, as promoted by the Living Wage Foundation, not the gimmick national living wage that the Chancellor has announced. The low-paid sector is characterised by jobs that often do not provide steady employment. Moving in and out of work on a regular basis is common for lone parents and generates grave financial uncertainty for many families.”
“The current proposals to change universal credit will clearly make matters worse for millions of working families. In Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney alone, about 10,000 working families are likely to be adversely affected by the Government’s universal credit proposals by 2020. Jobs must be a clear and critical part of any programme to end poverty. Access to jobs, and the quality of those jobs, must be addressed if families are to be able to work their way out of poverty. Low pay is a major factor in in-work poverty and is unfortunately a routine feature of much of the work available to poorer families. The national minimum wage sets a floor for pay levels, but one report shows that a couple with two children would need to work 58 hours a week at the minimum wage to lift themselves out of poverty.”
“I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and the situation he describes is replicated in many areas across the UK. Can it be right in 21st-century Britain that many people are working hard and cannot afford to live above the poverty line? As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East outlined, 85% of people receiving support from the food bank in her constituency are working people. In my constituency, many working families rely on food banks to be able to put food on the table. That is clearly not acceptable. Years of below-inflation wage increases, particularly in the public sector, have taken their toll on people’s incomes. In-work benefits such as tax credits are meant to support families against the worst effects of in-work poverty.”
“The bedroom tax is the most unpopular tax since another Tory invention, the poll tax. Given the recent judgment, surely this is an opportunity for the Government to review their position. Why will they not take that opportunity and scrap the tax once and for all?”
“What lessons does the Minister think we can learn from the Welsh schools liaison programme, which sees drug education awareness being delivered in 97% of primary and secondary schools in Wales?”
“Despite the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ stating, in response to my question on 5 November, that she would be happy to discuss the future of the National Wildlife Crime Unit, and despite a number of emails chasing a response, the matter remains unresolved. Given that Members across the House showed support for the unit at an event last week, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the issue in the near future?”
“The House may be aware of the comments last week by the Conservative police and crime commissioner for Staffordshire that police forces are once again having their budgets cut, despite promises in the spending review. Will the Minister confirm that the message has got back to the Chancellor that his claim that police funding is being protected is incorrect?”
“We have seen announcements of billions being allocated to the most well-off by cutting inheritance tax and further support being handed to big businesses by cutting corporation tax.”
“I mention that because in many cases, food bank support is provided more to people in work than to those out of work. Perhaps if the Minister and the Secretary of State took the time to visit food banks and talk to the many thousands of volunteers, they would get a better appreciation of the hardship that is being endured. The proposals to cut tax credits will make matters much worse for people and hit working families—people the Government say they want to help and are committed to helping. I say to Conservative Members that these measures will cause great hardship to many vulnerable families across our country, in all constituencies. The Tory Government have choices.”
“We have heard the example of a single mother of two, working full time on the minimum wage and claiming universal credit, whose net income next year will be £2,981 lower than that of someone in the same circumstances who is claiming tax credits. Meanwhile, a single parent of two on a salary of £18,000 a year will see their overall income fall by £2,601 next year if they are on universal credit. As my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State indicated, analysis shows that from April, cuts to the work allowance will also mean an annual reduction of £2,000 a year in support for disabled people in work, which is clearly a particular concern. My constituency will be hit hard by the proposals, with 2,000 families being affected in 2017, 5,000 in 2018, 8,000 in 2019 and 10,000 by 2020. Across our country, the need for food banks is increasing.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. I promise that I will try to be brief. In his autumn statement on 25 November, the Chancellor trumpeted that he was reversing the proposed cuts to tax credits in full, stating that he had abandoned plans to impose £4.4 billion of cuts from this April. It now appears that he is doing a U-turn on his U-turn, because in the short time since the autumn statement it has transpired that he has lined up similar cuts affecting many of the same working families, this time to universal credit. It seems that he is ushering in a new postcode lottery by pushing ahead with cuts to universal credit, which will leave some families up to £3,000 a year worse off than others in exactly the same circumstances.”
“That is one example of the wrong choices being made by the Government but there are others. They have given further support to big businesses by cutting corporation tax. They have chosen to continue the cut in the top rate of income tax from 50% to 45%, allowing someone earning £2 million a year to continue to pay £250,000 a year less in income tax. Those are clearly wrong choices, and they are made on the backs of ordinary working families. Against that background, the decision to penalise working families who are already struggling to make ends meet is wrong in so many ways. The changes will cause worry and undue stress to millions of families. I therefore urge Conservative Members to support the Labour motion today, and not to turn their backs on working families.”
“S4C had already had a 36% cut since 2010, even before the most recent cuts were announced. Will the Minister assure us that it will not face further cuts as part of the charter review process, and will he confirm that if the Government fail to keep their promise, they will be clearly breaking a Conservative party manifesto pledge?”
“The Electoral Commission states that 51% of 16 to 17-year-olds are registered, compared with 95% of those over 65. The Government have opposed votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the upcoming EU referendum, and they will not even ensure that young people have a voice. Why are they so indifferent to a whole generation?”
“The phrase “crazy as a painter” was coined centuries ago to express the awful effects that lead-packed paint had on people’s minds.”
“I have constituents who hunt and shoot, as do other Members—in particular those who represent rural areas—and I recognise that sport shooting is a tradition and part of people’s way of life. Done sustainably, it can make a real contribution to the local economy and to the countryside. It is right to consider the future of the sport. There is also another, quieter petition on the Parliament website in support of banning the use of lead ammunition in favour of non-toxic alternatives. Fewer people have signed it—about 3,000 to date—but that is the petition I commend to the Minister and to the House. The case for using non-toxic ammunition is clear. Non-toxic alternatives to lead are effective, affordable and safer for wildlife and people. We have known the dangers of lead poisoning for thousands of years.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered lead shot ammunition. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in my first Westminster Hall debate. An important petition is posted on the Parliament website and thousands of people from across the country have signed it, including eight in my constituency. The language is fiery and impassioned and the argument is clear: it points to an issue that concerns the House and has done for 100 years. I refer to the petition to keep all lead ammunition. About 20,000 people have signed the call to keep using lead in their guns: “Lead ammunition has been used for hunting and shooting since the first guns were manufactured over three centuries ago. Never has there been a recorded death through lead ingestion.” I take the matter seriously.”
“Scientists at the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust have estimated that 50,000 to 100,000 wildfowl die of lead poisoning every year in the UK, along with many more game birds and birds of prey. Members might ask, “Where are all these dead birds?” but lead is known as the “invisible killer” because the poisoning is slow and distributed.”
“I wholeheartedly agree. I hope to set out in the course of my contribution why that is such an important point. Some people have even explained the fall of the Roman empire as having been caused by the Romans’ use of lead in pipes and cosmetics. More recently, the World Health Organisation, the Food Standards Agency and the Oxford Lead Symposium have all highlighted the toxicity of lead. Its negative human health impacts are scientifically established, even at the lowest levels of exposure, and lead poisoning is also a big problem for wildlife. Much of the lead shot misses its target and builds up on the ground. It is then eaten by birds, which gobble up grit to grind up their food. The lead shot is dissolved in the digestive system and absorbed into the birds’ bloodstream.”
“Many game birds sold for human consumption have lead concentrations far exceeding European Union maximum levels for meat from cows, sheep, pigs and poultry. No maximum levels have been set for game. Simply removing lead shot from the meat does not solve the problem, because particles of lead too small to be seen often break off or dissolve and are left in the meat.”
“I could blame the shooters for looking after their own interests to the detriment of wildlife and the general public. People are rarely vocal about long-term environmental consequences, or about widespread public benefits. By contrast, it is easy to portray the proposal to ban lead as an attack on country life, prompting a rush to oppose any change—but this is no attack on the countryside. The irony is that it is surely rural communities who would benefit most from a change in the law to phase out the use of lead ammunition. Some people will point out that most of the lead that the public consume comes from vegetables. That is true, but people who eat game meat are far more exposed. It is not only the shooters themselves; we must also consider their families and the increasing number of people who eat game.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which illustrates how the existing arrangements are unsatisfactory and in some cases ineffective, which is why they need to be updated. Birds die gradually from lead poisoning, but die they do. The WWT found that one in four migratory swans seen at post mortem had died of lead poisoning. Other leading conservation organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Wildlife Trusts have also highlighted lead poisoning as a major issue for UK wildlife. Yet we continue to spray about 5,000 tonnes of lead out over the countryside each year. Why have more people signed the petition to keep lead? I could argue that it is a classic case of small interest groups rallying around to defend their privileges.”
“During the remainder of my contribution I hope to address the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Simply removing lead shot, as I said, does not solve the problem, because traces of lead can be left in the meat. In the UK, as many as 12,500 children under eight eat game once a week in the shooting community alone. In children, less than one meal of wild-shot game a week could result in blood lead levels associated with a decrease in IQ.”
“Non-toxic alternatives are better for the image of the shoot, the economy of the countryside and the health of the shooters themselves.”
“It is not a case of the vast majority of members of the public speaking out on an issue such as this, but the studies are out there. I have outlined some in my contribution and will outline more. The Food Standards Agency has also highlighted the risks to pregnant women. Of course, no one has died of lead poisoning from eating game, but nor would any serious scientist dispute that lead is a poisonous metal. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set up a new Great British Food unit and game is increasingly being sold as a healthy, local option. What better way to improve that brand than to ensure that the meat we eat is safe and lead-free? Progressive countryside organisations such as the Sustainable Food Trust are backing the call to phase out lead as part of a modern countryside economy.”
“The Government have evidence from the Lead Ammunition Group and power in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, so I hope that, in the public interest, the Minister will show that the Government have the sense to act on the science and commit to phase out lead shot ammunition.”
“Back in 1983, Willie Hamilton MP summed it up in a debate on lead in petrol: “Whatever the technical arguments may be and however much it is said that lead can be produced in the body by other means, that is no reason for saying that we should leave everything alone and not tackle the problem. We must tackle this problem and it can be solved and eliminated”. —[ Official Report , 21 January 1983; Vol. 35, c. 632.] The same is true today. We can quibble over exact numbers and fuss about the precise costs of steel shot, but the basic message is clear. We have banned lead from pipes, petrol and paint, but it still ends up on our plates. We have tried to protect wildlife by restricting the use of lead over wetlands, but the rules are too partial and too easily ignored.”
“Its results were definitive: “regulations restricting the use of lead shot in wetlands and for shooting wildfowl are apparently not achieving their aim and are insufficient for dealing with the wider risks.” The science and the politics are clear and the time for reflection is over. Thirty years ago, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution advised the Government that they should legislate to ban any further use of lead shot where it is irretrievably dispersed in the environment. The question of lead ammunition is not a debate that could or should be decided by petition. It is a question for the House, DEFRA and the Department of Health.”
“Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) mentioned, three quarters of ducks sampled in 2013 had been killed with lead shot. What is more, we know that the problem is not restricted to wetlands. Many vulnerable species feed on lead all across the countryside. Quite simply, the law as it stands is insufficient and ineffective, so the Government must take sensible steps. The UK is party to the convention on the conservation of migratory species, which last year agreed guidelines calling for the replacement of lead with non-toxic alternatives in countries where migratory species are at risk from poisoning. Back in 2010, DEFRA set up the Lead Ammunition Group to identify risks and solutions. Its chair, John Swift, submitted the group’s work and his report to DEFRA on 3 June 2015.”