Centenary of the Armistice

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and so many eloquent speeches from the Front Benches of the Government, Her Majesty’s Opposition and the SNP. The SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), spoke about port communities and in some of my speech I wish to concentrate on those communities.

As has been said, the great war, world war one, impacted on every community in our country. Every town, village and city was affected. The seafaring communities were very badly affected. Like many others, the seafaring community that I am proud to represent had service personnel in the battlefields, but they also guarded our trade links, which carried people, goods and service personnel during the great war, and indeed in subsequent wars.

The greatest loss of life on the Irish sea during the great war was on 10 October 1918, when the RMS Leinster left Dún Laoghaire, then Kingstown, carrying His Royal Highness’s mail to Holyhead in my constituency and was sunk just a few yards from the port of Dún Laoghaire. Among those who perished were children, crew members and service personnel from the Commonwealth—from New Zealand, Australia and Canada—and from the United States of America.

That vessel was carrying out its normal duty of moving people and the royal mail across the Irish sea. Many of the 500 who died had been just carrying out their normal duties; they were seafarers. They were given an exemption from going to war because of the essential duties that they carried out, keeping our sea links open. The tragedy unites the Irish community, the British community and the Welsh community. I am proud today to wear poppies from Ireland and Wales. On 10 October, we had a special commemoration in Ireland and Wales for the loss of those 500 people, and I met their families. It is right that Members have spoken about survivors and the families of the survivors, because those communities and families have been scarred by the great war. It was a tragedy.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, communities in Coventry also made contributions in the great war. As he and the House will know, Coventry suffered in two world wars and was bombed in the second world war. The people of Coventry sympathise with his remarks about the sacrifice that was made.

[Albert Owen]

I know a lot about Coventry. My son-in-law comes from Coventry, as my hon. Friend knows; I think that he was his MP for some time. My speech is concentrating on the families of seafaring communities. I welcome the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) mentioning that many were lost at sea, so their bodies were never recovered and there were no proper funerals to honour them.

A lot of hon. Members have rightly spoken about the personal experiences of their own families. My grandmother was born in 1888. As a single parent who had lost her husband to disease, she became a nurse and worked in the convalescent home at the port of Holyhead during the great war. Many people came to her with severe shellshock, including her youngest brother, who did not recognise her for two years because of the trauma that he suffered on the battlefields. It is worth bearing it in mind that many mothers and other family members had such experiences.

The other stark memory that I am sure we all have after seeing first world war graves is the age of those who died. Many who suffered were young men and boys; I do not know the exact average age, but these men were in their 20s. Their parents will never have forgotten that throughout their lives. My grandmother’s son—my father—served in the second world war, and she always told me that every day that he was away was a dark day until he returned home safely.

One hundred years after the guns fell silent, the House of Commons is right to remember our communities, and those who sailed across the Irish sea and around the coastline. The RMS Leinster reminded me that vulnerable people were shot by U-boats. Going to sea—I speak as an ex-merchant seafarer who worked on that route—is dangerous enough. Crew members look after each other, but imagine being faced with the potential of being sunk by a U-boat, as cruelly happened to the RMS Leinster. The irony of that story is that the German submarine UB-123 was itself shot and blown up on the north coast of Britain as it went back to Bremerhaven.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) is right that we must also respect the bravery of our opponents because they carried out their duties. It is hugely appropriate—I give the Government credit for this—that the German President is attending ceremonies this year, because we want to look forward as a nation.

Our forefathers made the pledge in 1918 that we would remember those who died, and we are honouring that pledge today, as we have done over the years. As an ex-seafarer representing a proud seafaring community, I will be proud to stand up on 11 November and say to all those people and their families, “We will remember them; we will remember.”

Taxation: Beer and Pubs

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Cunningham]

In the last Parliament, there was a Bill on this subject; I think that a Liberal Democrat introduced it. Certainly the landlords of Coventry’s pubs are voicing a lot of concern about this matter. There is a big effect on pubs—many are now closing—but also a big effect on high streets. Coventry has universities, and sometimes the students have jobs in the pubs, so they subsidise their—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Mike Wood.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Cunningham

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

The Bill has been described as “not fit for purpose”, and as a “monstrosity of a Bill”. I agree with both those descriptions, and that is one of the reasons why I will not support it on Second Reading. I believe that it undermines this sovereign Parliament—and, indeed, other Parliaments and devolved Assemblies in the United Kingdom.

I respect the result of the EU referendum. My constituency voted narrowly to leave—very narrowly, by some 700 votes—so I understand both sides of the argument. My constituency mirrored the UK and Wales in voting to leave. In the EU referendum campaign, I said that I would vote for article 50, and I did so, because I accepted and respected the referendum. In the general election campaign of 2017, I said I would support a “sensible Brexit”, and I will, but not by bypassing Parliament.

I told the electorate that I would respect the devolution settlement in our country, and I will. The Bill will be enacted to replace the European Communities Act 1972. A lot has happened since 1972, not least the setting up of devolved Administrations by referendums and by Acts of this sovereign Parliament. When we talk about the legislators taking back control, we mean just that—legislators, in the plural. The competence of those Assemblies and of Parliament needs to be protected, and the Bill does not do that. It talks about consultation and discussion, but it does not talk about respecting the devolved Administrations.

Although I am unhappy with the replies I have received from the Government about the Irish border issue and the Irish dimension, and how that will have an impact on Welsh ports, as well as about Euratom—I led a debate on it, and we will need an associate or alternative membership with our colleagues on it—it is not for those reasons that I will vote against the Bill tonight, but because the Bill undermines parliamentary democracy. I will take no lectures from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union or the Government on delays, a cliff edge or creating chaos, because as colleagues have said, they have already done that. They spent months—months—denying the referendum result, and trying through the courts to prevent this House from enacting article 50, which was a costly process. They spent months this year having a general election, which cost millions of pounds and delayed this process by many months. This PM went to the country and said she wanted to increase her majority to increase her mandate. She did not achieve that: she lost her mandate, and she lost the moral authority to carry on as normal.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Prime Minister, having been denied the mandate for the hard Brexit that she wanted, is using the Bill as another method of achieving that objective?

[Albert Owen]

Yes, I agree. As I have said, the Prime Minister just thinks it is business as usual, but she is now leading a minority in the House. In her words, she wanted to increase her majority to increase her mandate, but she does not have the moral authority or, indeed, the numbers in the House of Commons. It shows the Government’s arrogance that she now wants to rip up the result of the general election and ignore the will of the people who have taken away the Tory majority.

The other item I want to raise is the timetable—the programme motion—because I do not think that eight days are enough to debate the issues properly; when we have very complicated hybrid Bills in the House, we are given far longer to scrutinise them, so it is wrong. I think, tomorrow, the Government want actually to rig the Committees. Transferring powers from the European Union to the hands of those involved in delegated legislation is a very dangerous step for us to take: the Government are grabbing powers and putting them into the hands of Ministers. As I have said, they are not respecting the devolved Administrations, which were set up following referendums and have been given powers by the House of Commons.

The Opposition’s reasoned amendment is sensible. It amounts to what I would describe as a sensible Brexit. For instance, it respects the charter of fundamental rights, which we would put into UK law, and we would propose sensible transition arrangements. Again, the Government are now talking about a cliff edge and a timetable, but if we had sensible transition arrangements—this is mentioned in the reasoned amendment—that would be avoided. For those reasons, I will support the amendment tonight.

The will of the people in the 2017 election must be respected, and the will of the devolved Administrations must also be respected. It is time for this Government to go back to the drawing board. For those reasons, I will vote against the Second Reading. I do not think that the Bill can be amended to the satisfaction of many Government Members in Committee, and they know it. It is time for this House of Commons and this sovereign Parliament to stand up and be counted on behalf of the people who sent us here.

Energy Company Charges

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Cunningham

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

Yes, and that is why I support the motion, which deals with that very issue. A high percentage of people choose not to pay by direct debt—I will come to the question of choice later—but others have no choice, and they are the ones who feel most threatened.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a bit of a con to ask people to shop around for a lower tariff? It is about time we had a proper inquiry into the energy companies, particularly the way in which they operate as a cartel. Only a week or two ago, I watched a television programme in which the regulator admitted that it could only advise companies to lower prices and that it could not impose such a measure.

[Albert Owen]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right to refer to the regulator’s lack of teeth and its lack of willingness to use the powers it already has. That is an important point.

Some people say, “It’s a free market. Why should we over-regulate it?” They would also oppose the motion’s suggestion that the Government should consider introducing a cap, but it is important to realise that we have been here before. There is no doubt that the price of energy rose considerably between 2006 and 2008. Ofgem undertook an energy supply probe and agreed to place a licence condition on the energy companies to ensure that different segments of the customer base did not face undue price discrimination. This motion—I am certain that the hon. Member for Harlow will make this point more accurately than me, because he has done a lot of research on the issue—does not ask for very much, only to return to the position we were in previously. The licence condition that Ofgem introduced in 2008 after its energy supply probe lasted three years. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) has hit the nail on the head. We have been here before and Ofgem has the ability to address the issue.

My party has talked about having a new body to put consumer rights at the top of the bill. The opening line of Ofgem’s website states that it is there “to protect the interest” of the customer. In this case, I believe that it is failing, and falling short of what it should do on behalf of the consumer. I am very pleased that my party now considers that off-grid customers need the same protection as those on the mains gas grid, so that everybody in the United Kingdom is treated fairly in relation to energy and can have somebody to fight on their side.

Hon. Members have intervened about those who are hurt most by direct debit payments. I confess that I pay my utility bills by a mixture of direct debits and good old quarterly payments on paper—

Energy Price Freeze

Debate between Albert Owen and Jim Cunningham

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Albert Owen]

My hon. Friend will recall that I challenged the Centrica bosses. Indeed, I challenged the CEO of Centrica not to take his bonus this year, because his salary and bonus combined have gone up by 38% since 2008 while bills from his company have gone up by 36%. I am a customer of British Gas, although perhaps not for much longer. To be fair to the CEO, Sam Laidlaw, he has decided not to take his bonus this year. I hope that others will listen and follow suit, because it is immoral that these companies are saying, “We are making only a modest amount,” yet they are paying themselves more than a modest bonus out of their profit. They tell us that the internal market between generation and retail is working okay and that they are separate entities, but they pay their bonuses altogether as one company, and they take a huge amount in dividends for their shareholders.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Like my hon. Friend, I have raised this issue over a long period. I thought two or three years ago that we should have had a proper investigation into whether there is a cartel. When I was on holiday in Cornwall a couple of years ago, five tankers were lined up for a couple of weeks. If someone is telling me that something is not going on in that market, I do not know what to say.

[Albert Owen]

I used to work on oil tankers and gas tankers, and I know that they stay at anchor for some time waiting for the prices to vary before they empty their cargo and get the price for it. That is an important issue.

The energy market is flawed, as Government Members have actually agreed. The Secretary of State, who made an appalling speech and left quickly, did not tackle the issues at all and did not come up with any suggestions. He said that the Government were doing things for the consumer, but the reality is that the Select Committee and others have been lobbying hard for Ofgem, the regulator, to help the consumer. It is doing slightly more but not enough—and it is too late. It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State leaves so quickly after making so many interventions in this debate—he is not even prepared to sit there. The energy team has been reduced by half a Minister, as one of them is doing a job share with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, yet the Secretary of State cannot sit down there. Instead he has to get a Whip to sit on the Front Bench because the team has been depleted. Energy is at the top of people’s agenda, but it is way down at the bottom of this Government’s priorities.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) asked why, compared with Europe, we are paying less for our bills. One reason—I have told him this before and I hope he is listening—is that people in many other European countries pay VAT at 20% or more on their fuel and energy costs. I am sure that he is not suggesting that this country takes that approach so that we can make a comparison—