Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Sarah Owen Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I am proudly a trade union member, as will be no surprise to anybody. I will save the Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, time and say that the donation to me three years ago was actually my final month’s salary from the GMB. I would rather have clean donations from trade unions any day over anything that the Conservative party receives from non-doms.

The attacks on the rights and freedoms of our constituents are only becoming more apparent. Lutonians have written to me concerned about the plans to restrict their right to strike not just for themselves, but for the services they rely on. We are all desperate for our public services to be stronger, faster, more effective and cost-efficient, but it is not the fault of the selfless and hard-working key workers in our health, rail and teaching sectors that public services are in the skeletal state they are or that nurses are having to use food banks. It is the fault of 13 years of Tory Governments.

As for many others in this Chamber, the prosperity of public services and their workforce is personal for me. I was care worker, I worked in the fire brigade and I was a healthcare assistant doing shifts in hospitals. I have also been a trade union member for nearly 20 years, and I have been a trade union officer working on pro-manufacturing campaigns, bereavement leave for foster carers, stopping the abuse of agency workers, training airport staff and ensuring survivors of domestic abuse are safe at work. I say this not because it is particularly extraordinary, but because this is all in a day’s work for trade unionists, and Conservative Members should bear that in mind while they denigrate the work of trade unions.

This is not just political; it is also personal. My partner works in education, while my father was a firefighter and my mother was a nurse. They took great pride in their work, and so they should. When we face crises personally or nationally, it is these workers we rely on to keep us safe, to heal us, and to protect our homes and our loved ones. Why then are this Government determined to punish those workers with real-terms pay cuts, job losses, worse terms and uncertain futures, yet still reward bankers with unlimited bonuses?

Not only are British public service workers seeing their pay declining or their jobs cut, they are now told that they cannot speak up about it. The message to public sector heroes from this Bill is: “Put up and shut up”. Unfortunately for this Government, that is not the spirit of this country or of the party of these Benches. Our constituents know the value of their work, and they know the dignity they deserve. When it comes to civil liberties, oh, the Conservatives talk a good game about freedom of speech, but on the basic rights to strike and to protest, this Government—one of the most extreme Tory Governments—are on the wrong side every time. They fight for the rights of holocaust deniers, climate change sceptics, and out-and-out misogynists to say whatever they like online, in an effort to appear anti-woke and pro-freedom of speech, yet when it comes to the freedoms of nurses, teachers, doctors, paramedics, firefighters, support staff and healthcare assistants, the Conservatives are not on their side, and they do not want them to have the same freedoms as everyone else.

Ordinary working people such as the ones Ministers are now trying to gag fought for our rights—the right to maternity leave and bank holidays, the right to be safe at work and have equal pay, and the right to remove our labour. The right for people to have their voices heard when those in power are not listening. Time and again, the Tories show that they are on the wrong side. All they have to do is listen and negotiate. They are the reason why people need strong trade unions and a Labour Government, because the Tories will never be on the side of working people. I will always be on the side of working people, and I will vote against the Bill today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I thank the Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate.

The clear objective of the Bill is to protect the lives and livelihoods of the public by enabling minimum service levels to be applied to our vital public services during strikes. It does not ban the right to strike. It finds the right balance, which was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra)—who made some important points about the needs of business—and my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for Southend West (Anna Firth) and for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti).

Let me turn to some of the other points raised today. Like others on both sides of the House, I pay tribute and express our gratitude to our public sector key workers. That point was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who have vast experience of working in the public sector. I have my own personal experience, as my mother worked in the public sector all her life—a life worked to rehabilitate offenders. I am aware of the contribution that public sector workers make to our society.

The deputy leader of the Opposition seeks to blame this Government alone for the challenging times we face, but she seems conveniently to forget that we are still not free from the after-effects of the covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I was very interested in a point she raised in her speech, when she said, “We would have resolved this dispute long ago.” At what figure? Would it have been 11% across the public sector? That would have cost the taxpayers of this country £28 billion. That is £1,000 per household per annum. Maybe the leader of the Opposition will reflect on that now that he is here, obviously having had a call from his union paymasters.

Members ask why the Government are focusing on legislating and not resolving the disputes. The Government recognise the pressure of the cost of living on people. That is why we have committed to halving inflation and growing the economy, and why we have provided £26 billion to support individuals and businesses. We are investing billions more in schools, the NHS and social care. All that supports workers.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) is right to highlight the devastating impact of strikes on the economy—£6 billion, including £2.5 billion of lost income to the hospitality sector alone. That is why Ministers across Government have been meeting unions to resolve the disputes where it is possible to do so.

[Sarah Owen]

The Minister talks about the cost of strike action, but will he agree about the cost of the damage that the previous Prime Minister and the previous Chancellor did to our country and all the taxpayers and workers who we on the Opposition Benches are supporting today?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I would highlight the downward pressure already placed on inflation, the changes to the money markets following the action taken by our Chancellor and Prime Minister and the stability being delivered through their future plan.

Shale Gas Extraction

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Balderdash.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Fracking takes huge amounts of water. We have just seen record levels of drought across the entire country, with drier summers predicted for the future. In periods of drought, will Tory Ministers be prioritising precious water supplies to people in their homes or to big fracking companies?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The water for fracking is primarily recycled.

Fairness at Work and Power in Communities

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

On International Nurses Day, I want to thank all nurses in Stockport and across the world, but in particular the members of Stockport Unison health branch, with whom I have a very good relationship. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and in particular to my trade union membership.

I associate myself with the comments made from those on the Opposition Benches regarding the cost of living crisis. Energy bills have gone up significantly. People on low incomes are impacted disproportionately, and it is they who need most support. The Government are failing our communities. I was in Blackpool on Monday last week for the USDAW—Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—conference, the retail workers’ trade union. Before I cover the issues some of the retail workers mentioned to me—I am a former retail worker myself—I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for all the work he has done on the “Freedom from Fear” campaign that USDAW has been running to protect shopworkers from verbal abuse, physical assault and all the terrible things that happen to shopworkers. Retail workers tend to be some of the lowest-paid people in our economy. They tend to work long hours and are often employed on zero-hour contracts. I am grateful that USDAW represents them.

There are two key points from a survey of retail workers on the cost of living that USDAW has sent to Members of Parliament. Two recommendations the trade union is making are a reduction in VAT from 20% to 17.5%, and an urgent and fundamental overhaul of universal credit. Several Opposition Members have already raised issues with universal credit and how it is having a negative impact on several people. I hope the Minister and other Government Members will listen and do something about that issue.

On the cost of living, Sue Peck from Stockport Car Scheme wrote to me recently. In case Members are not familiar with local car schemes, Stockport Car Scheme in Heaton Moor in my constituency is a door-to-door transport service for people living in Stockport who struggle to access public transport. Community transport schemes such as Stockport Car Scheme are always for a social purpose and never for profit. They support people who have mobility issues, cognitive impairments, disabilities, long-term health conditions and sensory loss. They use volunteer drivers, who source their own cars, to take people to their destination.

Stockport Car Scheme is calling for an immediate review of the approved mileage rate that can be claimed by volunteer drivers. There has been a significant increase in fuel costs, coupled with inflation, and that is having a negative impact on volunteer recruitment and retention. The approved mileage allowance payment was last reviewed in 2012 at 45p a mile. However, the RAC Foundation says that the cost of motoring has increased by 25% since 2012, and that is before we take into account the increase in fuel costs because of the crisis in Ukraine caused by Russia’s invasion. The higher fuel prices are having an impact on Stockport Car Scheme and, I am sure, services across the country, as some drivers feel they are unable to continue volunteering due the extra cost burden on them. I therefore hope that the Government will review that.

The issues with waiting lists have also been raised and are significant. Several charities, including Cancer Research UK and Macmillan, do very important work to support cancer patients’ families and communities. Cancer service provision across the UK often can be a postcode lottery. If someone lives near a hospital that has had capital investment and, sadly, they have cancer, or their loved one has cancer, they will be treated with the latest medical equipment. However, if someone’s hospital is older, perhaps they will not be that lucky. We need to tackle that. Cancer Research UK conducted research recently and informed me that 65,000 people in England are left waiting to find out if they have cancer. That is simply not acceptable in one of the world’s richest economies.

On waiting lists, I want to tackle the issue of NHS dentistry, because it has been deliberately underfunded by this Government, and that is pushing people into completing DIY remedies at home, often in a lot of pain. Yet again, it is a postcode lottery. In some areas of the country, people might be lucky enough to find a slot or two with their local dentist on an NHS placement, but otherwise, people have to pay an extremely large amount of money, and not everyone can afford to.

If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to read out a piece of casework that I received regarding dentistry. I will quote it word for word:

“I have gum disease to the point all my teeth are very loose I have tried and tried to get a nhs dentists as I don’t work due to mental health issues. I stayed in my bedroom for six years I just couldn’t get out. To go private they want 64 pounds for me just to be seen. Then so much for my teeth to be taken out and then dentures. I have just started to get out with the help of my sport dog. If I loose my teeth I will not go out again. I have phoned so many nhs dentists and got know where. I’m on a list at King’s Gate House but that could take years. I really appreciate the waiting list but I will not have any teeth by then. I would really appreciate your help. I have phoned all the people I can. And I just don’t know which way to turn. I hope you can help me.”

It is actually quite upsetting to read that and to speak to that person.

Dentistry is a very serious issue. It has an impact on people’s physical health and also their mental health. We need to see the Government come forward with a plan. The British Dental Association has done really good research on this issue. I urge the Minister and the Government to pay attention to this issue, and to tackle it properly.

The housing crisis has also been covered by several colleagues. The local housing allowance is simply not adequate enough for the current rates in Stockport. Stockport is a fantastic place to live, but if people cannot afford a mortgage—the house prices have significantly increased anyway—rents are extremely high as well, and the housing allowance from the Government is simply not enough. There were 33,000 fewer socially rented homes built last year than in 2010. There has been a huge increase in private renting, with households paying even higher rents, and rough sleeping is up by 141%. I go back to what I said earlier: the UK simply cannot afford a Conservative Government. These stats are terrible.

There is some positive news on housing. I have two local charities that do excellent work. Mr Jonathan Billings recently set up the charity EGG—Engage Grow Go. He is a long-standing campaigner and worker in the housing sector, and he is doing really good work on that, so I am really pleased to have his guidance and support. Also, the Wellspring, a local institution in Stockport, has been helping homeless people and supporting them for several decades.

There are so many cases that I could mention, but I will mention just one briefly—I know that other Members want to get in to speak. This is from a woman who, sadly, was recently bereaved—her partner passed away. She has lived in a one-bedroom apartment for 44 years. I will read out the casework:

“She and late partner live in 1 bed apartment since…1970s. Therefore it is a protected tenancy. She informed the Landlord of the death of partner and Landlord”—

immediately—

“tried to increase rent by 86%. The Landlord (son of original Landlord) did not realise that to increase rent in a protected tenancy he would have to apply to the ‘RENT OFFICE’ for consent and valuation.”

There is no progress on this case yet, but she has lived in that property for 44 years. Very little work or maintenance has been done to the property, and in her words, it is a “hovel”. She is very worried, as she is currently paying only £350 a month, and there is no way that she could afford the new rent, or even the rent on social housing. What are people like her supposed to do when they cannot afford the rent? There are more than 7,000 households on the waiting list for my local housing provider, Stockport Homes, so it will take several years for her to get anywhere. Where are these people supposed to go?

I usually have lots to say about buses, but I will try to keep myself from going down that rabbit hole. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers is running a campaign to protect transport workers and ticket officers because there have been attacks on them in several places. In his former role, the current Prime Minister closed down ticket offices on the Transport for London network. We need to protect these jobs to ensure that people who have mobility or health issues can seek help and support on the platform if they need it.

There is a significant issue with the lack of disabled access and the lack of safety tiles at train stations. Network Rail says that 41 stations across the country will see a change, and there are a couple in my constituency that will have work done, but progress is not quick enough. Stockport constituency is in the north-west, where only 16% of train stations—the worst proportion in the UK—have accessible ticket machines. Similarly, only 18% of our ticket offices are accessible, compared with the national average of 21%, and only 8% of station toilets are national key toilets, compared with the national average of 18%. Those figures are simply shocking. The Government talk a lot about decarbonisation and levelling up, but when it comes to supporting people to get on the public transport network, they simply do not do enough.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Leagrave station in my constituency of Luton North is in exactly the same position: 1.8 million journeys a year were made from that station before the pandemic, but there is no lift access and no accessibility at all. It is about time that we saw the levelling up of our stations as well as our towns.

[Navendu Mishra]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need fewer public relations exercises from the Government and more investment in our communities.

I welcome the fact that Greater Manchester Combined Authority, led by Mayor Andy Burnham, is introducing bus franchising, which will mean lower fares and more reliable services. It will also mean that private bus operators cannot cherry-pick the most profitable routes and leave communities disconnected, so it is very good news.

I assure you that I will finish very shortly, Mr Deputy Speaker, but first I must get back to trains. Stockport station, the only mainline station in my constituency with trains to Manchester, Birmingham and London, is Victorian and is pretty much falling apart. When it rains heavily, the platforms flood. The lift is often broken, which makes life uncomfortable for passengers and gives the staff a difficult time. I hope that the Government will announce significant investment in northern train stations, in addition to those in Luton—north first, if that is okay.

I am proud to have three maintained nursery schools in Stockport constituency: Hollywood Park, Larkhill and Freshfield. They do a really important job and communities across our country benefit from our maintained nursery school system, but sadly National Education Union research reveals that there are only 389 such schools left in England, of which many are located in the most deprived areas in the country. I pay tribute to the hard work of our good friend the former Member for Birmingham, Erdington, who led the campaign to protect maintained nursery schools in Birmingham and across England. The solution is targeted support. The Government need to come forward with a funding formula that will support schools for the next decade, rather than with year-on-year solutions that create uncertainty and stress for the community.

I could say a lot more, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I do not want to disadvantage other speakers, so I will leave it there. Thank you for calling me.

Oil and Gas Producers: Windfall Tax

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Before I start, may I say gōng xı̌ fā cái—happy lunar new year—to everybody celebrating today? When we were kids, we used to cheekily add the phrase “âng-pao gia lái”, which means, “Where’s my packet of red money?”—and boy couldn’t ordinary people do with some pounds in their pocket after more than a decade of Conservative government.

That is why I am pleased to speak in this incredibly important debate about a windfall tax to help consumers with energy costs. We are here in the mother of all Parliaments discussing the issues that matter and, importantly, the solutions—solutions that Labour has put forward, which would save people money and help them with the problem of skyrocketing energy costs. This debate is so very important because it is the same discussion that people are having up and down the country—“Why are our energy bills going up so much, how are we going to afford them, and why aren’t this Government doing anything to help?”

A family in Luton North came to see me last week, absolutely terrified about the real impact of the cost of living crisis—and it is a real crisis. The cost of their rent, their energy bills and their food costs, all things that they were able to cope with not so long ago, are now becoming a struggle, to the extent that this wonderful family—who are working, before anyone wants to come at them on that point—are struggling so much that they came to their MP for help.

Throughout this entire energy crisis and the debates we have had about Labour’s plan to cut the cost of people’s energy bills, we have heard a lot of tone-deaf attacks from those on the Government Benches—particularly from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who sadly is not in his place. Shamefully, they even voted against out plans to cut VAT on energy bills to help people get through these difficult times. It is as if they do not know the value—the breathing space—that an extra two hundred quid would give a household who were struggling. They just do not get it at all.

During the pandemic, children told the charity the Food Foundation that their parents skipped a meal so that their child could eat. One child said:

“Mum is receiving those school meal vouchers because she tends not to eat so she has enough for me.”

Another kid confided that they were worried about their mum’s job, saying that

“she only eats a little.”

Last week, when I raised the issue that women were 36% more likely to struggle with housing costs or be in arrears, it was met with utter disdain. But this is the very real and very horrible reality that thousands of people are living day in, day out under this Government: having to choose between eating, heating and keeping a roof over their heads.

There is another way. Labour’s fully costed package to help keep energy bills low would scrap VAT on home energy bills for a whole year, alongside focused and targeted support through increasing and expanding the warm home discount to 9.3 million people. That would not only help the average household with around £200 off bills; it would also deliver targeted and focused support to those who need it most, including low earners and pensioners.

That targeted help for pensioners cannot come soon enough. Rising inflation is already hitting pensioners hard. That, combined with increased food costs and this Government’s retrograde decision to scrap free TV licences for all over-75s, means that the unprecedented hike in wholesale energy prices will be totally unmanageable for those living on low fixed incomes. Age UK has reported that the latest Government figures show that around 1 million pensioners—8%—said they could not afford an unexpected bill of £200. The charity also warns that if nothing is done to tackle rocketing energy costs, that 1 million older households that will be struggling with their costs will be added to the 150,000 households who already fell into fuel poverty this winter, yet the Government are still taking a hands-off approach, saying that they cannot do anything to help. That is simply not good enough. There is plenty that can be done to help; they just need the political will to do it.

So why are the Government still on the side of big businesses instead of consumers, despite clear evidence that oil and gas producers are reported to have near-record incomes for this past year? The Government have still so far ruled out that windfall tax—why? Because they lack the political will and backbone to do it, and the understanding of why it is so necessary. A simple, straightforward solution is staring the Government in the face today; one that is carefully costed and clearly laid out. But they will reject it again, and the British public, and the ordinary people who play by the rules, will be all the worse off for it.

Misuse of Fireworks Bill

Sarah Owen Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am grateful to present my Bill for Second Reading. I appreciate fireworks’ beauty, as we all do—how they can light up the sky and add magic and awe to our special occasions. I am here not to spoil the fun of fireworks, but to bring forward some common sense solutions that I hope the Government will take on board.

There is a harmful side to fireworks that must be addressed and challenged. We have spoken before in the House about the fire safety hazards, their use as weapons, and the extreme nuisance that the noise can create, but the Government are yet to bring in any meaningful regulations. We have a debate almost every year about the nuisance of fireworks, yet regulations have not followed.

In the Bill, I call on the Government to show compassion to the communities affected by the relentless use of noisy fireworks by committing to limit the volume of fireworks, increase the minimum fine for the misuse of fireworks, review the laws around the licensing of sellers, and consult with relevant charities to ensure that their reforms are informed and effective. Last year, more than 300,000 of our constituents signed a petition calling for Government restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks. One of my residents in Luton North started a petition to make fireworks silent, while more than 13,000 people signed a similar petition on the Government website to call for quieter fireworks. That is where I will start.

The current decibel limit for fireworks is 120 dB. I am not sure that many people could say exactly how loud that is, so to put it into perspective, the legal sound limit for a rock concert is 107 dB. I am painfully aware how old it makes me sound to say “rock concert”, but that is how it is described. A Formula 1 race typically reaches 140 dB. One of the loudest ever recorded sounds is a volcanic explosion that reached 172 dB. The pain threshold for humans is breached by anything above 130 dB, yet our limit for legal firework noise sits between that and a rock concert. That simply does not make sense.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Whips Office colleague for bringing forward a brilliant private Member’s Bill, which will be hugely appreciated by many residents of Newport East and by my local Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. On the issue of noise, does she agree that we need to do something about illegally imported fireworks, which are so much noisier and more powerful, that are sold online?

[Sarah Owen]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, one that I hope to come on to later in my speech, specifically in relation to licensing and tightening up licensing laws.

The Royal National Institute for Deaf People states that even a short exposure to sounds of 110 decibels to 120 decibels can cause harm to hearing. Noise-induced hearing loss damages the delicate inner ear. The effects may appear immediately or emerge over time, but either way the damage is not reversible.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing forward the Bill and on highlighting the importance of improving the regulation of fireworks. As a veterinary surgeon, I have had the sad misfortune to have had to prescribe on numerous occasions sedation for dogs around the time of bonfire night, because of the dreadful effects fireworks have on them. I have also, sadly, witnessed the fear, flight and fright response of large animals: farm animal livestock and horses that stampede, panic, run through fences, damage themselves and run on to roads because of fireworks. I am grateful to the hon. Member for speaking about the effects on human health, but does she agree that firework regulation should take into consideration the effects on animals, too?

[Sarah Owen]

Absolutely. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for the experience and expertise he brings to this place in raising that point.

As a bare minimum, we must change the maximum limit to 90 decibels. I am aware that that measure alone does not tackle all the issues, such as the one the hon. Gentleman has just raised, but it will make a strong start in addressing the impact of fireworks.

For my constituents, fireworks are not just a disturbance on bonfire night or new year, they are a constant year-round and sometimes weekly nightmare. When I have posted on social media about the frequency and intensity of fireworks in Luton, I have been flooded with streams of distressing stories from constituents. One Luton resident wrote that she had become so accustomed to the intrusive noise of fireworks that, shockingly, when someone was shot outside her home, she did not call the police or an ambulance because she did not register the sound as unusual. The person, thankfully, survived, but my constituent was no less shaken.

[Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the big problems with fireworks is the way they have evolved? I am probably a little bit older than she is, but my first experience with fireworks was a rocket in a bottle in the backyard and the rocket struggling to get above the house. The fireworks that can now be bought are such powerful beasts. The issue is not just about animals or people: as the son of a fireman, I know there are other implications as well.

[Sarah Owen]

From the son of a fireman to the daughter of a firefighter: I wholeheartedly agree. Legislation has not been able to catch up with the speed of development of fireworks.

When I spoke in a debate on this issue in November, a local Luton parent wrote to me about her experience, which sums up the distress that fireworks cause. She wrote:

“We can hear fireworks every single night. Without exaggeration, I counted, they can go off every 10 minutes between 6 pm and midnight. Sometimes at 1 am. The stress caused by them is enormous and growing. My child is terrified. To a point where she screams and begs me to stop them. We have to put on a white noise sound on a tablet in her room in order to reduce the sound of the bangs. If she wakes up, she cries, shivers and goes back to sleep with earmuffs on. Before bedtime she begs me for no fireworks. Mental health in our family is in pieces. I am genuinely worried about the wellbeing of my daughter. We can’t live like this.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 10-11WH.]

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. Her constituent relates a very sad story. Does she agree that fireworks being set off for days or in some cases weeks either side of festivals and outside of the normal regulated permitted time makes it even more difficult for people to shield, whether young people or pets, from the distress caused by noisy fireworks?

[Sarah Owen]

I wholeheartedly agree. This is not just about the noise of the fireworks, but also the unplanned and unexpected nature of them, which really impacts communities.

The testimony I read out has stuck with me. As a mum of a toddler, I know that disturbing a child’s sleep—or, for that matter, a parent’s—is no joke. The fireworks around us in Luton are sometimes so loud that my daughter’s baby monitor lights up red. That is with double glazing and all windows and doors shut. Many of us will know that the next day with a young child who has not had a full night’s sleep is absolutely no fun at all—it is not a fate I would wish on even my strongest opponents here.

Many colleagues will also be pet owners. Luckily, my dog Herman is a fairly chilled out chap when it comes to fireworks, but I have had reports from pet owners in Luton where the impact of the fireworks on their pets has turned their household upside down. Their beloved animals are scared, fearful and shaken, even after the noises have stopped.

A 2021 report by Cats Protection found that 63% of cats in the UK are negatively affected by fireworks. Cats can presume themselves to be in danger from sudden bursts of light and loud noise. In response to a threat to their safety, cats often bolt out of the house and put themselves in danger of traffic or get lost beyond their owner’s reach. That is of course devastating for the owner, but if a cat thinks its life is in danger, nothing can get in its way.

For dogs too, continuous fireworks can cause long-term stress, as we have heard, which can lead to behavioural problems and heartbreaking health consequences. As I said earlier, constituents have reported their pets shaking, crying and even having seizures long after the bangs have stopped.

Lowering the legal decibel level for fireworks does not solve that problem alone. What I am proposing today is a positive start for legislative change. Our domestic and wild animals need tighter laws around when fireworks can be licensed to be displayed and sold. If restricted to only be sold around permitted celebrations, such as fireworks night, new year’s eve, Diwali, Eid and the lunar new year, people with mental health issues, parents and pet owners can at least make preparations to minimise the impact of fireworks.

There must also be a review into who is permitted a licence to sell fireworks. Currently, retailers do not need a licence to sell around the celebration days I have mentioned. A review must also look into who is permitted to set off fireworks. Some stakeholders such as the Dogs Trust urge the Government to limit fireworks licensing to organised public displays only, with local authority approval. Currently, there is no legal requirement to have a licence for setting off consumer fireworks in the UK. Literally anyone can set off some rockets and a Catherine wheel in their garden with no training and no safety requirements. Surely that cannot be right.

Unfortunately, there are also people who deliberately misuse fireworks to cause harm and distress to others, which is completely unacceptable. That is why I have called for tougher minimum fines in my Bill. We know that the toughest sentences for misusing fireworks are very rarely used. A fixed penalty charge notice just does not cut it as a deterrent or a punishment when fireworks can often cost many hundreds of pounds, and it does not reflect the negative impact on our communities.

There is another group who have spoken to us who are severely impacted by noisy and reckless fireworks: veterans. I have no idea what traumas they have lived through, although some Members of this House will know. Their service to our country in volatile war zones can leave them with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression or a combination of mental health problems. Servicemen and women can experience heightened stress at times of the year when fireworks intensify, such as on bonfire night. The sudden flashes and bangs of fireworks can bring back memories of the horrors of war. After all they have enduring in their courageous work, that is simply not another terror they should or need to experience.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) found discarded boxes of fireworks during a campaign session. They had names such as “Rain of Terror”, “Big Bomb” and “All Out War”, which shows that many fireworks are not marketed as something beautiful, but as something loud, and something to be scared of.

At key times of celebration, veterans can make plans to avoid fireworks displays to protect their mental or physical health. However, in places where fireworks are a regular occurrence all year round, they can find themselves in a constant state of anxiety. Combat Stress told me:

“We see a higher rate of distress in veterans accessing our services in November.

Not only is it challenging because of the grief surrounding Armistice, but the sound and sudden unexpected bangs of fireworks can be reminders of frontline combat where they were exposed to the horrors of war in service to this country.

Firework displays bring people together and create a lot of joy for spectators. We don’t want to ruin anyone’s fun but we urge the public to understand how distressing noisy fireworks can be for military veterans.”

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I really applaud my hon. Friend for choosing misuse of fireworks as the subject of her Bill. The measures that she wishes to bring in would be absolutely fantastic, so I hope that she will have Government support. Does she agree with me that, together with those measures, an education campaign is needed to put the word out about how dreadfully people can be affected?

[Sarah Owen]

I wholeheartedly agree. I think that people do not fully understand the impact of fireworks, the changes that have been made to them and how loud they have become. If many people understood what a particular decibel level was and the impact that it would have on the wider radius of their neighbourhood or community, they would perhaps think twice about using them.

I hope that none of us will make a judgment that the veterans charity Combat Stress—or any other organisation that has expressed concerns about fireworks in support of our brave and struggling members of the forces—is trying to ruin anyone’s fun. As I have said, the measures that I suggest in this Bill are common-sense reforms that also show compassion to veterans who have already been through unimaginable trauma.

Of course, it is not only ex-servicemen and women who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Mental health problems are experienced by people from all backgrounds; as a society, we are gradually beginning to recognise how we can adapt to their needs and show sensitivity. I just want to share one example. During the recent lockdowns, in Northwell in Luton North we had some community clear-up days. Neighbours went door to door to involve people in those clear-up days, and there was one house with a garden that was terribly overgrown. They had never seen the person living there come out of the house. Deniece Dobson, who was running that community clear-up and has been an absolute stalwart and leading light of it, knocked on the door—it was somebody who lives four or five doors away from her—and it was the home of a veteran who was suffering from PTSD. She could not go out; she said how distressing the fireworks had been. I am so grateful to Deniece and all the people around her and in that community who took the time and made the effort to clear up and to get to know their neighbour. But to hear that fireworks were having such an impact on someone who served our country was truly worrying.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this Bill forward today. I think the whole House can agree that this is an area where the law has not kept pace with developments, and that what my hon. Friend has put forward is well researched and well argued. Although the timescale of the day means that the Bill is unlikely to proceed, I just wanted to place on the record my thanks and support for the Bill from the Dispatch Box.

[Sarah Owen]

I thank my hon. Friend. I am grateful for everyone’s interventions and support. I think we can all agree that it is crucial that, in taking this legislation or any other relevant changes forward, the Government—I urge them to do this—consult veterans charities and mental health organisations to learn from the people affected about the very real impact that fireworks have on their lives, hear their wisdom and show a willingness to learn. It is clear that there are simple steps, laid out in my Bill, that could go a long way in ensuring that our children, pets, animals, veterans and all our neighbours have a much more peaceful life.

Firework displays can be a really beautiful and joyful spectacle without being so loud that they become medically and mentally harmful. Limiting the noise to 90 dB and reviewing who can sell and use fireworks will go a long way to solving the issues faced by residents in Luton North and thousands of other people across the country. The noise from fireworks is currently unreasonable and unregulated. Thankfully, today we can go one step further towards changing that. I hope that Ministers will work with me and support the measures laid out in this Bill.

Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

First, may I minute my condolences on the death of Jack Dromey? I shared his 12 years here and he made an enviable contribution to the House. Particular condolences to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman).

I am thankful for the excellent contributions we have heard today, and over the past few weeks during the passage of the Bill through the House, from Members throughout the House. I will attempt to address all Members’ comments and explain why the Government do not believe that today’s amendments should be accepted.

I turn first to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for the SNP, regarding the special administration regime, but before I deal with his amendments, let me reflect a little bit on the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). The SNP, as we know, is talking today about transparency, but its real agenda is a hardcore anti-civil nuclear power agenda. This comes, ironically, just a few days after the closure of the Hunterston power station, which had its life extended by two decades beyond what was predicted and provided 31 years—31 years—of zero-carbon electricity to every home in Scotland. The Bill would make things cheaper, but I do not think that the SNP has got Scotland’s best interests at heart here for Scottish electricity or Scottish consumers.

Nuclear power has been a massive success story in Scotland, which is what I hope the Bill will also enable. New clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, would severely risk the effectiveness of the special administration regime by delaying the speed at which an administrator could access funding to continue a nuclear RAB project construction or a plant’s generation of electricity. That could result in significant sunk costs for consumers and is not in the public interest.

I will turn now to Labour amendments 1 and 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), while responding to some of the points made in the debate. The hon. Member and I are aligned in our concern that foreign investment in our critical infrastructure should not come at the cost of national security. However, I want to be clear that the Bill is not about decisions on individual future projects; it is about widening the pool of potential investors and financing while reducing our reliance on state-owned developers to build new nuclear power stations. As the House is aware, we have committed to taking at least one project to final investment decision in this Parliament, subject to value for money and all relevant approvals. We are in active negotiations on the proposed project at Sizewell C. The hon. Member argued that the approval of Hinkley Point C would inexorably lead to the approval of other projects. That is simply not the case. Decisions on nuclear projects in this country are made on a case-by-case basis, and subject to a number of robust approvals from both Government and independent regulators.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I am not going to take an intervention. I will respond to the debate first.

Whatever the intent of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test with amendments 1 and 2—this is the crux of the argument, ably pointed out in interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester—they could rule out many companies from investing in new projects under a RAB model. The RAB model is designed to bring in new investment, but in my view and in the view of the Government, his amendment would severely restrict who could invest. It could extend to some of our closest international partners. My advice is that EDF itself would be very much in scope, or at least it would be arguable in court as being in scope, of his amendment. It could also mean the rejection of huge amounts of potential investment from bodies such as major sovereign wealth funds of friendly or allied countries.

I am sure that the hon. Member’s intent does not lie in that direction, as that could make it much harder to bring new projects to fruition, and the purpose of the RAB model is to find new investors. We also need to maintain resilience in our fuel supply chain, referred to in amendment 2. I put on record my visit to Springfields recently to give the UK Government’s support, including funding announced in the spending review recently, to make sure that we have that flexibility.

Fireworks: Sale and Use

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.

On Saturday night, I received an email from a Luton resident, who told me:

“We can hear fireworks every single night. Without exaggeration, I counted, they can go off every 10 minutes between 6 pm and midnight. Sometimes at 1 am. The stress caused by them is enormous and growing. My child is terrified. To a point where she screams and begs me to stop them. We have to put on a white noise sound on a tablet in her room in order to reduce the sound of the bangs. If she wakes up, she cries, shivers and goes back to sleep with earmuffs on. Before bedtime she begs me for no fireworks. Mental health in our family is in pieces. I am genuinely worried about the wellbeing of my daughter. We can’t live like this.”

I start with this message because I am not sure I could have made the case better myself. They finish by telling me:

“Please, help us, somehow. This is too much to deal with. We feel trapped and powerless.”

Their voice adds to those of over 300,000 people who have signed this petition telling MPs to act.

I love bonfire night, new year’s eve, Eid, Diwali and the lunar new year. This is not about being anti-fun or anti-celebrating when it comes to our diverse British traditions. But it just cannot be right that it is so easy to get hold of fireworks and to cause nuisance to others. For some, fireworks are not about celebrating but about causing a nuisance. My fellow Luton MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), recently found boxes of used fireworks. Their names showed that they were not about celebrating or about the beauty of fireworks, but about disruption. They were called “Rain of Terror” and “All Out War”.

Over the past few months, I have been inundated by people getting in touch to ask that MPs make it harder for fireworks to cause chaos to their lives. That is why I introduced a private Member’s Bill to tackle the misuse of fireworks. It is clear that the law needs to change. Ahead of Second Reading of my Bill early next year, I hope to include a minimum £1,000 fine for use of any fireworks past the existing 11 pm curfew and to reduce the production and availability of louder fireworks, as well as access to them. Importantly, the Government must consult on the impact of fireworks with veterans’ charities such as Combat Stress and animal welfare charities such as the RSPCA and Dogs Trust.

However, I am not naive—I know where most private Members’ Bills end up—so I ask the Minister to meet me as soon as possible to discuss the measures I want to outline in my Bill. The last time we debated this, the Minister responding confirmed that the Government do not consider a ban on fireworks to be an appropriate course of action, so I ask the Minister today, what action do they consider appropriate? Why are we all here if we are so rigidly unresponsive to the voices of the people who send us here? I want to help my constituents. I hope the Minister will work with me and Members here today to end the misery that people are facing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

Scotland has put forward some proposals and there has been a consultation; I am interested in seeing what happens there. I am also aware that the Scottish Government are drafting a Bill on fireworks to be introduced next year; that primary legislation is still at the proposal stage. My officials engage regularly on the matter with officials in the Scottish Government; it will be interesting to reflect on what happens in Scotland as a result of that work.

We are continuing to engage with local authorities to understand the issues they face, and I am committed to working with my colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that the Government provide appropriate support.

[Sarah Owen]

I am glad to hear that the Minister is willing to work with Members, so I reiterate my question: will he meet me to discuss the subject and the measures outlined in my private Member’s Bill? What we have heard so far is that the current restrictions are failing people. What we are not seeing from Government is new action that will tackle the misuse of fireworks.

[Paul Scully]

I will happily engage with the hon. Lady on her private Member’s Bill.

Employment and Trade Union Rights (Dismissal and Re-engagement) Bill

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Friday 22nd October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), a fellow Bedfordshire elected representative, but it will not come as any surprise that we do not agree on all the points he has raised.

People have had their lives changed since 2020, with people going months without hugging loved ones, jobs lost and food bank use rocketing. So many people in Luton North have been worried about where their next pay slip is coming from—people who never thought of their job as insecure are now experiencing that their job and their wage is only as secure and reliable as their employer allows them to be. That is not inevitable, even during a pandemic.

We have seen big businesses—British Airways and British Gas, to name just two—trading under this country’s name but not in our country’s interest. They have used the pandemic as an excuse to get rid of thousands of workers and replace their old contracts with worse pay, worse terms and conditions and fewer rights at work for very similar roles. We have heard today that few of us disagree that the practice of fire and rehire is wrong, so why not vote to stop it?

I am so proud to stand with working people and our trade union movement, including GMB and Unite—I declare an interest as members of both, as well as of the Communication Workers Union—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, Unison, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and many others. They are backing the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), whose campaigning fervour has got it to this point in just a few short weeks. We know from the TUC that one in 10 workers has been told to reapply for their job since the start of the pandemic. We know that black and minority ethnic workers, women workers, young workers and working-class people have been hit even harder by the pandemic. And we know that when restrictions were lifted in July this year, millions of people in constituencies across the country were less secure in their workplace than they were in March 2020.

I am going to say something that I am probably only ever going to say once. I do not disagree with the Prime Minister—just once. I agree that we must build back better, but after 11 years of austerity and weakening of workers’ rights, better is anything but more of the same.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful points that she is making. Is it not fair to say that if Members believe that fire and rehire is an unfair practice, they could vote for the Bill and then, in Committee, make any amendments that are needed to make it stronger?

[Sarah Owen]

I absolutely agree. We have heard today a collective understanding that the practice of fire and rehire, and its misuse, is an abomination for workers and is against our country’s values, so why not vote the Bill through today instead of talking it out?

After 11 long years of austerity and weakening of trade union and workers’ rights, we need to build back people’s working lives with better rights at work, stronger foundations and more security in jobs. No one can disagree with that.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that we have devastating levels of child poverty in this country, and that unless the Government take action on fire and rehire, they will just leave families in insecurity? The Government talk about levelling up, but they need to act on it.

[Sarah Owen]

Absolutely. We hear terms such as “levelling up”, but what we need is action, for exactly those people—those who are suffering from the horrific levels of child poverty and the insecurity of work. That is having a physical, mental and economic impact on constituents across the country. We need to see some action, and today would be a good time to start.

People in Luton North need jobs to be protected and created, and they need that now. We have been hit harder than most places, with our airport and proud manufacturing industry bearing the brunt of the pandemic. But these bad employers hurt the good ones, and therefore they hurt our economy and our constituents.

We had a statement earlier today—one that apparently could not wait—about improving the health of our nation. What better way could there be to improve our country’s health than giving people peace of mind, money in their pockets and security in their jobs?

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On improving health, does she agree that having employment rights from day one would go a long way to improving workers’ rights?

[Sarah Owen]

I absolutely agree with my fellow Luton MP. We are talking about how we cannot go back to where we were, and about building back better. I think all of us represent constituents whose priorities are different from their priorities before the pandemic. What we hold dear and take for granted has changed. Workers’ rights must be at the heart of that, and providing security in the workplace—providing a secure job, a secure home and a future that we can all look forward to—is key to that. That is why I ask the Government and their Members to put their votes where their mouths are and vote to end the practice of fire and rehire.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (First sitting)

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, especially in my first Bill Committee.

We have heard a lot of evidence in the two sessions about the need for ARIA to identify what it is for. We should also be clear about what it is not for. Professor Wilsdon, do you think that moral and ethical boundaries need to be placed on ARIA?

Professor Wilsdon: You mean in terms of the research areas it would work in?

[Sarah Owen]

Yes.

Professor Wilsdon: I am not sure whether one would need to legislate for that. I would expect that most provisions in those areas would apply, but it is a good question and one that bears more thought. It links a bit to my point about accountability mechanisms. As I have said already, the nervousness is that you combine an institution with a fuzzy, ill-defined purpose with very loose mechanisms of accountability. That is a recipe for all sorts of problems down the line, as well as potentially for great things—who knows? It is a model that has very obvious potential flaws. It is not going to work in the defence arena, which is clearly the one, as I understand it at least, that would raise the most issues in that respect. The key thing is the governance structure for this entity, which I see as too loose.

[The Chair]

I think we are going to hear your question, Aaron, but we will not get the reply.

Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (Second sitting)

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Q Good afternoon and thank you for joining us and for your excellent contribution. Anne, you made a very interesting point about the independence of ARIA, to avoid it being used potentially as pointing at political failure. If you are investing in high-risk, high-reward research, there will be failure—that is undoubtedly true. May we ask for your advice on how we should measure the metrics of an ARIA over the early years, before potentially there is any output that has demonstrated a transformational benefit to society? On top of that, could you give us some advice on advising project managers on how they should go about selecting projects to explore? Should it be just on the basis of interesting science, or should there be a vision of the commercialisation of that science at the end, to motivate them? We are only going to be able to fund a certain number of projects, and presumably applications will outstrip the funding fairly quickly.

Professor Glover: How we measure success in the early years is a very important question. I am not going to give you an exact answer, but what I might say is that maybe we should not try. That would be unusual, wouldn’t it? That is what I meant earlier about not just following the formula of, “You need to tick these boxes to demonstrate success.” Of course, you would hope that whoever is leading ARIA would have an idea of how you are developing the innovation ecosystem that will be supported by ARIA. They might have some ideas about numbers of applications, where they are coming from, and having a good look at and analysing that, and looking at the amount of interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary research that comes forward. That is always quite hard to fund. Historically, when I have been involved in such things, interdisciplinary research tends to get kicked around different agencies: “This is more for you.” “No, this is more for you.” Everybody is worried about their budget and thinks, “If you fund it, we won’t have to fund this from our budget.” Thinking about the number of applications that could come from a broad range of different disciplines—that would be good. I am not answering your question directly. I am just saying that it is very easy to say, “Let’s have a way of measuring success,” but sometimes that can be stifling.

It is a bit like—perhaps not in the years timescale of ARIA—how it is around the time of year when we plant seeds in our garden or wherever. If you want to measure how well a seed is germinating, if you keep pulling it up and having a look at it you are really going to set it back, so sometimes you just need to think, “I’m hoping that in four or five months’ time this is going to be a broad bean plant with broad beans on it. I just need to wait and see.” I know that that is difficult to do.

The second thing you asked is about commercialisation. I cannot for the life of me remember who said this, but someone once said that there are two types of research: applied research and research not yet applied. That is quite true. There might be some areas where you think that there is a very easy market for this, but if we look back and learn from experience we find that an awful lot of research has been developed. The whole area of medical diagnostics, for example, was pure research. There was no commercialisation; it was just a fundamental biological problem that was being investigated. Some of the outcomes of that research led to molecules called monoclonal antibodies. It is quite a beautiful specific diagnostic—supremely sensitive—that can pick out particular molecules of interest that might tell you if you have a particular disease or have been exposed to a particular compound or whatever.

In renewable energy or an area around that, you might understand that there will be a lot of potential commercial partners and opportunities. In some other areas, perhaps not. This might be an opportunity to think about what the relationships would be like between ARIA and existing research funding, because it might be part of an ecosystem. I would hope that there were distinct roles for UKRI and ARIA but very good communication between the two, as well as very many other stakeholders, in order to identify areas that might not be suitable for UKRI funding but that might have a strong commercial or development potential that ARIA would be much more adept at supporting.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins. Anne, you talked about citizen buy-in. That would take an element of trust, so my two questions are around that. What could or would good transparency look like without stifling innovation, in both of your opinions? Secondly, if we do not have FOIs and we do not know precisely how this will be reported to us, do we need an ethical baseline to ensure that we are spending public money on the greater good?

Professor Glover: On the citizen buy-in, I think that would be reasonable to consider achieving. I do not think that it would be insurmountably difficult in many ways. If I give you the example of some of the grand challenges that were funded at European Commission level, it was getting down to three brilliant projects. Which one will we fund? If the European Commission made the decision about which one was going to be funded, inevitably different member states would complain: “Why is that getting funded in that member state? This other project was just as good.”

All sorts of problems can arise. Whereas, if you asked European Union citizens which one they would like to be funded, they would say what matters most to them. That is quite an interesting insight into the mind of the European citizen, or it would have been, in that particular instance.

I do not think you are in any way betraying confidences; you are talking about whether it is a project looking at delivering limitless amounts of sustainable energy, or a project in mapping the functioning of the human brain, so that you might be able to exploit that in other ways. You are not saying how you are going to do those things; you are not revealing confidences or information that would be inappropriate or undermining of those doing the research. I think we might be worrying needlessly about that.

As to the ethical baseline, of course this has to be ethical. Tabitha and I are probably agreeing too much with each other, or perhaps we are going back to the same thing. If you are not open and transparent, you will have problems. That is just not rocket science. For example, there are many agencies that are not part of Government but that might receive governmental funding. Scotland’s National Academy, the Royal Society of Edinburgh, is one of those. We are completely independent from Government. We get funding from the Scottish Funding Council, which gets its money from Government. We are not subject to FOI requests but we voluntarily behave as if we are. If we did not do that, people would say, “They’re being directed by Government, so the reports that come out of the RSE will be influenced by Government.”

If we say, “This is how we approach it,” and if somebody comes to us and asks for information, we behave as if it were an FOI. It has never been too onerous. The only onerous time for me with FOI requests was when I was chief scientific adviser to the President of the European Commission, when it became unrealistic, because I had such a small team and there was such a lot of FOI requests. Generally, that is the direction we should be moving in. You do not want to hobble a new agency by making it seem that any aspect of it is secretive. To be able to demonstrate ethical compliance, you need that transparency.

Tabitha Goldstaub: Ethical transparency is key, but we also have an opportunity with ARIA to set a robust, rigorous ethical review process that is fit for the AI era. We do not currently have that.

There has been a tremendous amount of attention on the public-facing ethical principles and frameworks for assessing AI products, but relatively little on the frameworks and practices for assessing research, or how to launch and manage a data science and AI ethics review board, in any way that would cut across disciplines, organisational, institutional or national boundaries, as ARIA would need to.

If ARIA can work with others, such as the Health Foundation, which is in collaboration with the Ada Lovelace Institute, or the Alan Turing Institute, on this problem, ARIA could achieve its mission responsibly, become a beacon for other ARPA-like programmes, and tolerate failure much more safely; because ultimately we need to break new ground and to do so with an ethics review, specifically with research that has anything to do with artificial intelligence. It would enable us to set real international standards, if we can get that right. It is both a risk and a huge opportunity for ARIA.

[The Chair]

Virginia Crosbie. I am afraid this will have to be the last, very quick question.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have one last very quick question from Sarah Owen.

[Sarah Owen]

Q Bob, you mentioned engagement and trust. We have heard a lot today about accountability and trust. How do you feel that we can get that trust without stifling innovation, and do you think FOIs are the best way to do that?

Bob Sorrell: If you are to get trust, you need to be transparent about the choices that you are making and how you are making them. Then, when you move to the execution phase, you need to allow the programme managers and the people who are driving the programme scenario to make the choices flexibly and in the quickest way possible. I understand in part what you are perhaps playing into, but I think you just need to strike the right balance between transparency on how choices are made and holding to account on that, and allowing people to get on with executing against those programmes once those choices have been made.

David Cleevely: I think the acid test is whether you can explain something to someone who is independent and is one of your peers. If you are happy explaining it back to somebody like that, that is fine. That is the way in which the system works. If you listened to Peter Highnam talk about how DARPA was organised, that was built into the DNA.

[Sarah Owen]

Q Do you think it would be useful to have that built into ARIA from its inception?

David Cleevely: I think it is essential. I would be very uncomfortable if you had an agency that did not have some degree of—accountability is not exactly the way to describe it, but you have to have a group of independent people reviewing what you are doing, not quite in the same way as you would do an audit, but it is basically that kind of principle. If I have to explain something, as I am having to do for this Committee, it is a lot clearer and more straightforward, and I feel a lot more comfortable about the way in which I can rely on the ideas and what I am doing. I think that process is very, very important.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. The Committee will meet again on Tuesday at 9.25 am to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Tomlinson.)