Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Owen Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises an important issue, and he is right to say that the local community should always have their voice heard. It is important that councils bring forward local plans, but this must be done in close consultation with local communities, because their voices matter. As I understand it, the Peterborough local plan is still under preparation and there are opportunities to provide comments on the draft plan, so I commend him for continuing to support his local community to ensure that their voice is heard.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister talks about things going backwards. The UK is the only western G7 power in recession, with seven consecutive quarters of no growth. That is the worst since records began in 1955. Can the Prime Minister tell the businesses going bust, the families struggling to pay their bills, and the people being made homeless why this recession, which has his name written all over it, is a good thing for our country?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady might want to check some of the facts that she just outlined to the House; they are not quite right. Perhaps she would like to explain to the country why her party is stuck with a completely incoherent energy policy that will saddle working families with £28 billion of higher tax rises and higher energy bills.
Israel and Gaza
Sarah Owen Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Over the weekend, the Archbishop of Canterbury said that
“The price of evil cannot be paid by the innocent”,
yet in Gaza, Palestinians have had no access to food, water or electricity for over a week. We have seen an evacuation order that has left people with an impossible choice. Constituents in Luton North have spoken to me about their pain and anguish at the unimaginable loss of lives in Gaza, so many of which are children, all following the despicable attack of terror carried out by Hamas. Even at times of war, there are still laws, so as well as the urgent and desperate need for humanitarian aid and corridors, what are Ministers doing to counter breaches of international law that risk the further loss of innocent life and threaten the possibility of peace in the middle east?
The Prime Minister
It is Hamas alone who are responsible for this conflict, and we support Israel in taking action against terrorism and to defend itself. Hamas have also enmeshed themselves in the civilian population in Gaza and are using them as a human shield. We will continue, as a friend, to call on Israel to do everything it can to reduce the impact on human life, and we will continue to support the area with humanitarian support.
Automotive Industry
Sarah Owen Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Industry and Economic Security (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
What a disappointing opening speech. There was an opportunity to praise, promote and protect the automotive sector—and to talk about all the positive news stories—but all we have heard for the last 10 or 15 minutes was the automotive sector being talked down. I appreciate that the timing of this debate has not gone well for the Opposition: as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) mentioned, today we have heard about the Renault Group and Geely having chosen the UK as the headquarters of a new company developing ultra low emission engines and potentially investing billions of pounds in the UK—up to €7 billion. That shows not only the confidence of the automotive sector, but its commitment to the UK, and these are the opportunities or the stories we should be talking about.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) constantly referenced the SMMT statistics, but he forgot to mention the ones he should have reported at the Dispatch Box so that we could once again promote how healthy and dynamic the automotive sector is. Car production in Britain rose for a fourth straight month in May. The SMMT has confirmed that a total of 79,046 cars rolled out of the factory gates a few months ago, which is an increase of more than 26%. Passenger car numbers are boosted by a greater appetite for hybrid electric motors built in Britain. The bosses at the SMMT have said that, while there have of course been challenges around the world, manufacturers have
“defied the challenging economic backdrop to fulfil customer demand for the latest British-built models, at home and overseas,”
so that manufacturing and production are indeed up.
This is a positive news story, and any opportunity we have to speak about the automotive sector should be positive, not negative or all about political point scoring. This is a serious topic and a serious industry. I know the hon. Gentleman is keen to be very ideological within the Westminster bubble, but I would suggest he steps a little outside it. I know my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), who is a champion for Toyota, which has the largest manufacturing plant in her constituency, would welcome a visit by Labour Members so they can see how the sector is booming just in her constituency. There are over 2,000 people working at the plant in South Derbyshire and involved in the supply chains, and 80% of the cars manufactured are exported to Europe. Exports are up, by the way, which I will get on to. Toyota continues to innovate and it is at the forefront of producing hybrid cars. It has been cutting emissions for over a decade and takes net zero seriously, having energy from solar panels all around the plant. The point she would want to make is, “Get out of the Westminster bubble, visit South Derbyshire, see what is happening at Toyota”—and at many other firms, as I will go on to say—“and you will see the work is going well.” Our job is to protect, promote and praise, not to talk the sector down.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is all very well and good talking about optimism, but does the Minister accept the reality facing the automotive industry in the UK today, and the stark warnings given by Stellantis about future job losses if the Government do not sort out the rules of origin problems?
Ms Ghani
I want to state for the record—and for the hon. Lady, who was obviously sitting there while I was speaking—that that was not optimism. Those were the facts and figures promoted not by Government, but by industry representatives. I had a meeting with Stellantis recently. We know that a number of challenges are reflected globally, not just in the UK, such as being able to recruit into the sector. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde missed another opportunity to talk about the fantastic jobs that are available. Of course, on rules of origin, that is an issue not just in the UK; it is an issue for lots of other countries that want to export and import, too.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who is right to talk about the importance of innovation and enterprise in this sector.
This is an important debate, which is why it is disappointing that there are now more Government Parliamentary Private Secretaries in the Chamber than there have been Conservative speakers in this debate. The public and workers will question why the Tories think so little of the automotive sector and will draw their own conclusions.
I am pleased that parliamentary time has been given today to focus on the automotive industry, which has a long and proud history in the UK. As we have already heard, from Sunderland to Coventry, Ellesmere Port and Luton, industrial cities and towns across the country have been hallmarks of manufacturing and quality production in our automotive sector for decades.
My constituents in Luton North have a particular interest in this debate. In a moment I will address the recent events at the SKF plant at Sundon Park in my constituency, but first I would like to discuss another automotive crisis facing the Luton community. Luton’s Vauxhall plant is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). She is a champion for the automotive sector, and I wish the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) had looked up how many times she has mentioned the automotive sector and industry, as he would have reached double digits for sure.
Vauxhall has been a proud industrial landmark of our town since 1905. The plant played a major part in the war effort during the 1940s, producing the Churchill tank and becoming a centre for repairing battle-damaged tanks. Thousands of Bedford lorries were turned out at Kimpton Road, including the QL, which was the company’s first four-wheel drive vehicle and a key feature of our country’s military fleet.
If we fast forward to the present day, we see that the Luton Vauxhall plant employs around 1,500 people from across our town and has been essential to creating skilled, unionised local jobs, running apprenticeship schemes for young people and fostering local talent, including across supply chains and other local businesses. The plant now specialises in producing vans, around 70% of which are exported to mainland Europe. I am so pleased to have had the pleasure of visiting the plant with my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South to meet the workers, and we saw how proud they are of what they turn out. Long may it continue, in the face of the challenge from this Tory Government.
Businesses such as Vauxhall not only provide jobs to people in Luton North, they are also intrinsic to our identity as a town. Generations have worked there, known each other and grown together. Automation changed the face and size of Britain’s automotive sector but, as quickly as we saw it rise, we are now sadly seeing it decline.
Thirteen years of Tory chaos have turbo-charged the closure of factories and the destruction of workers’ livelihoods. The Conservatives’ disastrous handling of Brexit negotiations, the explosion of the economy by the previous Conservative Prime Minister and the long abandonment of any semblance of an industrial strategy are just a few of many contributing factors.
Locally, even in the face of the Government’s evolving mess, we have seen a committed, quality automotive sector and supply chain in Luton, but it is now hanging by a thread. The Minister talked about optimism, but this is the reality facing thousands of workers across the country. Other jobs linked to manufacturing, the automotive industry and the supply chain are similarly under threat.
SKF is a major employer in my constituency. SKF is a ball bearing manufacturing plant, formerly closely tied to Volvo. SKF, like Vauxhall, has been a proud feature of Luton for more than 100 years, and it is another prime example of how this Government are sitting on their hands while they oversee the slow, managed decline of manufacturing in this country.
Last month, SKF announced its plan to close the Luton plant and move production to Poznan in Poland by the end of 2024. This is a devastating blow to our town and our local economy, and it could see the loss of up to 300 jobs. I went to meet workers and Unite union reps at SKF, and they are all deeply concerned about the sudden closure. They told me that, throughout covid, they were considered key workers. They operated and worked throughout, putting their safety behind production, for the good of the company and for the good of the economy.
Generations have worked at SKF in Sundon Park, and thousands have given their best working days to that business, only for SKF’s board members to turn their back on them and for this Government to turn their back on manufacturing workers again. Seriously, what do the Government want? A land of Amazons? A blanket of windowless storage warehouses, where people compete and break themselves to meet unrealistic and ever-increasing pick rates? That is what they are turning our country into.
I am pleased the Minister was keen to take up invites to visit Members’ constituencies, so will she please commit to meeting me and workers at SKF who face losing their jobs to see how we can save SKF’s future in Luton?
Ms Ghani
I recently had a meeting with the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and Stellantis, and I am always open to meeting colleagues on both sides of the Chamber. Of course I will meet the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), those employees and Unite the union.
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for giving that commitment. It will mean a lot to the workers of SKF and to the constituency and the wider economy.
Long-standing businesses with ties to our constituencies and our constituents are being forced to shut up shop and relocate elsewhere because the lack of Government support has left them with little choice. The lack of an industrial strategy has been a major factor in the lack of certainty over not just the last few years but, sadly, over the last 13 years.
There are positive examples of companies in the industry refusing to give up their UK-based factories and the workers who work in them. Next door to SKF in my constituency sits Comline, an auto parts business. When I visited Comline in Sundon Park, I was impressed by its innovation in dealing with the challenges thrown at it from all angles. It has a flourishing business that values its staff, and it has established strong trade links with offices abroad, which has perhaps guaranteed its continued success. Although I am glad that that has given the company security, it is deplorable that the Government have made international trade so complex that Comline has found it easier to trade with countries thousands of miles away than to trade with its offices in Northern Ireland.
Despite our proud history, I remain deeply concerned that our automotive industry has been consistently let down, with the industry’s concerns ignored by this Government. The Government have been warned by representative bodies and businesses for months, even years, of the cliff edge facing the UK automotive industry due to the combination of changes to the rules of origin and a lack of battery-making capacity in the UK.
The collapse of Britishvolt in January 2023, having planned to build a £3.8 billion gigafactory in Blyth, Northumberland, is a stark reminder of these failures and is undoubtedly a disaster for the UK car industry. Even more worrying is the wider picture. Even if Britishvolt were going ahead, we would be far short of where we need to be to continue making cars in this country. The Faraday Institution says we need 10 gigafactories by 2040 to sustain our automotive sector. Without domestic batteries, we will have no domestic automotive industry at all.
While this Government dither on their investment strategy, a Labour Government would commit to rapidly scaling up UK battery-making capacity by part-financing eight additional gigafactories to create 80,000 jobs and power 2 million electric vehicles. New gigafactories will also allow the UK’s automotive sector to source components locally and avoid tariffs from rules of origin agreements.
The Stellantis three—my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and me—are sitting together, In May 2023, the car maker Stellantis, which owns Vauxhall, Peugeot, Citroën and Fiat, issued warnings that it may have to close UK factories if the Government do not renegotiate their Brexit deal. Under the current deal, UK car makers could face 10% tariffs on exports to the EU from next year due to rules of origin on where parts are sourced. Unfortunately, it is not us but business—companies such as Stellantis—that must be convinced that the Government will sort this out. Other car manufacturing giants and competitors, including Ford and Jaguar Land Rover, have joined Stellantis to warn that the transition to electric vehicles will be affected unless the UK and the EU delay the strict rules of origin that are due to start next year and could add tariffs on car exports.
This is not a new argument that I have had. Before entering this House in 2019, I was a trade union officer with GMB. I declare now that I am also a proud member of it, which will not surprise anybody. Alongside the late Jack Dromey, who was a champion for the automotive industry—I hope everybody from across the House could agree on that—we took workers from Toyota, AstraZeneca, the whisky-making industry in Scotland and the Stoke potteries to meet the then Cabinet Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I can see you looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me say that I have informed him that I was going to mention him in the Chamber. When we went to speak to him with this delegation of manufacturing workers, every single one of us questioned what was going to happen when the rules of origin changes kicked in. He shrugged his shoulders, arrogantly saying, “This is going to be worked out.” Yet here we are, in 2023, many years later, and all those industries and workers are still left without a proper answer.
While the EU is pumping billions into manufacturing as part of its green industrial revolution plan, and the US is investing with the Inflation Reduction Act, our automotive industry is still being left behind. The UK lags behind the rest of the world in terms of global automotive manufacturing relative to GDP, ranking sixth in Europe and 17th in the world last year. The Minister talks about optimism, which is of course welcome, but that is the reality facing workers and the sector. I ask the Government to get real on this, because blind optimism does not pay the bills. It does not create certainty for an industry and it certainly does not make car manufacturers such as Stellantis think that this Government are serious about the automotive sector.
That means my constituency is missing out on potential businesses starting and growing in Luton North, and local people who are keen to work in those industries are being failed. This Government are not only preventing new British jobs from materialising, but diminishing existing jobs before our eyes. As I said, we are facing a possible 270-plus job losses at the SKF factory. That is coming at the same time as there are threats to close ticket offices, including at Leagrave station. We cannot take more job losses in Luton North. My constituents are having the jobs they have done diligently for generations stripped from them, in the automotive sector, in rail and in all manner of business breakdowns.
It is clear that this Government’s sticking-plaster approach cannot continue. Labour has stated time and again that securing an agreement with the European Union to make Brexit work for the automotive industry is critical to ensuring its survival. The knock-on effects of the Government’s approach are being felt across the manufacturing industry more widely. Staggering energy costs, a lack of an industrial strategy and investment, and a more competitive European market mean that manufacturing across our country could soon cease to exist in its entirety. Clearly, our automotive industry needs a Government that will fight to support it to be competitive in the global market. Labour will deliver a modern industrial strategy to bring investment and jobs to industrial heartlands. That will create an employment revival where there has been years of Conservative depression, because on these Benches we are about creating strong jobs with a secure future, not stripping them away.
Under Labour leadership, battery-making capacity in the UK would boom. We would support the creation of eight new gigafactories, with this all laid out and costed in our green prosperity plan. The new factories would allow for our home-grown automotive businesses to source their auto parts within the UK. That would be huge for businesses such as Comline in Sundon Park. Crucially, with these new gigafactories, we would introduce about 80,000 new British jobs. I know how much that would mean to my constituents, from youngsters getting apprenticeships to older people knowing they do not need to worry about redundancy before retirement. With eight new gigafactories, we would also power 2 million electric vehicles, which is so crucial for working towards our commitment to net zero. All of that would bring in an additional £30 billion to our economy. It sounds like a good deal to me.
We are committed to building strong economic foundations that businesses need to succeed, including through reforms to the apprenticeship levy and business rates to give firms flexibility where they need it, and making the UK a clean energy superpower by 2030 with net zero carbon electricity, lowering electricity costs for the car industry. That is the leadership and the strategy that the automotive industry has been crying out for, and that is what a Labour Government would provide.
Ian Lavery
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but he should come and have a look. He can drive his electric vehicle up the road and call in to see the obvious difference between my constituency and his.
Sarah Owen
This is indeed a UK-wide issue in that if one of us succeeds in the sector, then we all succeed. However, we are talking about not just the jobs of the future that need to be created and maintained, but, unfortunately, the jobs now that need to be saved. There are just not the equivalent jobs for people to go to. Is this not a serious problem for the sector? It is not just about future jobs, but about saving the jobs now.
Ian Lavery
That is an excellent point. The reality is that we have lost 37% of production in 13 years. If there is not a halt to that and if there is not the investment that is required to maintain and then increase employment, we will see a total loss of the automotive industry in this country. It is as simple as that. Members have mentioned the different new rules coming into place, the state of origin rules and issues such as that. It is getting more and more difficult to maintain and increase what we have, on top of a 37% decline. The reality is that we do not have anything in place to make that transformation from where we are now to where we need to be. We need to have, I think, nine new gigafactories. We have one. In fact, it is half a gigafactory. That is just not good enough. We keep being told by the Conservatives that they are on the case, that the development is coming, and that they will be developing it—whether it be in Coventry, in the midlands or wherever; hopefully, the next one will be in my constituency—but it is not right to continue saying that we are on track. We are not on track. There needs to be some investment. We need the readies. We will not get people rolling up to different areas saying that they will build a gigafactory unless they have support from the Government.
We should look at the support that other countries have given to their businesses in grants and loans: CATL in Germany received a loan of €750 million, 22.8% of the total build cost; Northvolt in Sweden got €505 million, 17.1% of the build cost; GM in North America got $2.5 billion; Stellantis $1 billion; Tesla $1.3 billion; and Ford $884 million. Britishvolt, which had so much promise, were promised £100 million, 2.3% of the build cost. That was heavily caveated to the point where the company never had a penny of Government support.
We should take a look at the stats. What Labour is suggesting would provide a fantastic opportunity. It needs to be grasped. Regions up and down the country will benefit greatly as a result of what has already been described as turbocharging electric vehicle manufacturing. There could be £30 billion-worth of investment in the regions. We cannot turn that down, but we have to get on with it, which is why I hope that once the election comes and we get elected as the next Government this can be introduced without delay. It will make a huge difference to areas such as the north-east, which will have 13,000 jobs in vehicle manufacturing. Its share of the £30 billion in economic benefits from the Labour plans will be £2.45 billion. Areas such as the west midlands will have 57,000 such jobs, and it will receive £10.76 billion in its share of the investment. The list goes on. The north-west will have 22,000 jobs in vehicle manufacturing and £4.13 billion-worth of investment.
That Labour party turbocharging of electric vehicles is so important and so exciting, but my constituency has been absolutely battered. It has been bruised by the deindustrialisation programme of past Conservative Governments. The lack of an industrial strategy from the Government is still holding my area back significantly. Levelling up means an active state willing actively to protect and invest in the interests of people in held-back areas such as my constituency of Wansbeck. The area where the site would have been developed lies in Cambois, a coastal area in the parish of East Bedlington. Bedlington and Wansbeck—not in Blyth. Britishvolt was never in Blyth. A number of people have mentioned that today, and I have already mentioned it to the Minister a few times. Britishvolt was not in Blyth; that is a Conservative seat next door. Britishvolt is in Wansbeck—my patch. I thought that I would make that point once again, because it appears that very few people listen to what has been said.
We have a proud history in the industrial revolution. It is a coal area. My patch was coal town. We were built on coal. We were part of the great industrial revolution, not only extracting the coal that powered it, but being the birthplace of wrought iron rails in the Bedlington Ironworks, which triggered the railway age. Why should that industrial heritage not be continued at the site of what could be the heart of the green industrial revolution—the transport industrial revolution—simply because once again the Government have failed to deliver for the people of Wansbeck and south-east Northumberland? We need to do a lot better for my constituents.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It has been an interesting and absorbing debate, and I thank all those who have taken part in it. I must say that I take my hat off to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). It is interesting to know that he grew up in Sunderland, and I notice his great affection for the Black Cats—an affection I greatly share—Niall Quinn and the glory days of Peter Reid. Who but the hon. Gentleman could better hark back to the 1990s, and how much does he do so in politics as he does in football? It is a little unnerving to see him newly hirsute—at least in terms of the past year or three. He is getting an unnervingly close resemblance to His late Majesty King George V, which creates a somewhat unnerving impression across the Dispatch Box when one is trying to respond to the important points he makes.
The hon. Gentleman came, as did the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), with a clear agenda for this debate, which was to tell a desperate story of a struggling industry and a country labouring in its automotive manufacturing. Unfortunately, they have both had desperately bad luck in their choice of debate, because those gloomy speeches are made, and the desire for optimism is expressed, and then it turns out that Geely and Renault have today announced a pioneering new investment to become a global leader in new engine technologies. Not only that: it turns out that we just laid the new charge point regulations, which will make it easier than ever to own an EV. Those were widely welcomed, I might add, by Mike Hawes of the SMMT, who was richly quoted today by Opposition Members, and with reason. Fascinatingly, only today, Tesla has announced its intention to become an electricity supplier, which will itself become an enormously important part of that wider systems infrastructure that has been rightly mentioned. What a day to choose to be gloomy on. What a day of good news, and how much that reinforces the picture of an industry that is dealing brilliantly with the challenges and changes to its own circumstances.
Jesse Norman
I would give way, but I want to respond to the many other points from Members who actually made speeches.
Jesse Norman
I hope the hon. Lady will let me get to those points first. [Interruption.] We can go on, or Opposition Members can listen to what the Government are trying to say.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about low business investment, and he is absolutely right that one should not pick and choose statistics but try to give a full picture. I was, therefore, slightly surprised that he ignored the fact that business investment has grown steadily since 2010. The Institute for Government published a report that tracks the crashing of business investment in this country to the Labour Administration and dates its recovery from 2008 to 2010. That is the picture of business investment that the hon. Gentleman asks us to get to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) rightly highlighted MIRA. What a great facility that is and what a great testing opportunity it will create for this country over the next few years. He is right to talk about grid connectivity and to mention Triumph Motorcycles, a business that I met only the other day, but he would have wanted to mention the strategic framework, which was announced last year, for electricity provision. If there is a report coming soon—he can speak from his knowledge of that in a Parliamentary Private Secretary context—I can only applaud that.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) worried about the roll-out of charge points. I hope she will be reassured by the new regs on charge points, which we have only just laid and which were welcomed by the SMMT and many other players across that industry. I also hope she will be pleased that ChargeUK, representing the charge point operators, has announced that £6 billion will be invested in charge points across the country over the next few years. That is a direct result of the ZEV mandate, which ties the creation of charge point infrastructure to the support for EVs in the systemic way that parties across the House, including the Opposition, recognise. It is those two things that will grow together. It is the ability to aim against that target of specific EV numbers coming into and being sold in this country that creates the priming for private investment, and rightly so.
I was pleased to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), who was absolutely right to raise the topic of apprenticeships. As an apprentice in this House, I salute him; he echoed the “Education, education, education” policy of a former Member of this House with “Skills, skills, skills”, which I completely agree are very important. Let me remind him that in my constituency we are pioneering a specialist STEM technology university—the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering—which is just the thing that can be used to build skills and to prime levelling up across the country.
What a wonderfully fresh and enthusiastic speech from the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I was excited to hear it, but tragically it turned out to be a tag-team “curse on both your houses” misery exercise, relitigating Brexit long after that horse has left the stable. That was rightly picked up by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, who did not want to be drawn on Brexit. I understand why: the country took a decision and we are working with the consequences.
The hon. Member for Gordon said that the speech by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Economic Security—a brilliant speech it was, too—was the length of time it would take to charge an EV. At 35 minutes, that is not quite true, but that is absolutely the ambition that we want to get to for all EV operators across the country. We want people to be able to charge very rapidly while they go and pick up a cup of coffee in the usual way.
I thank the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for her comment. She asked for a renewable energy focus and was right to do so. I hope that I can reassure her by reminding her that National Grid reported that in 2010 less than 20% of our energy was renewable, while in 2022—last year—more than 50% was renewable in five months of the year. That is tremendous progress. She may also be pleased to know that coal, which was used for 43% of electricity generation in 2012, is now at 1.5%. That is tremendous progress on both those fronts.
Sarah Owen
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Listening to the Minister’s response, I want to give him the opportunity to correct the record. Not only does he seem not to be living on the same planet as us, but he is clearly not in the same Chamber. He implied that I had not spoken in the debate, but I gave a lengthy speech on the issues we are facing in Luton right now. I invite him to correct the record at the Dispatch Box.
Jesse Norman
I would be happy to respond to the hon. Lady. That is not actually what I said. I said that I wanted to respond to the speeches and therefore I would not take interventions at that time. I will of course—[Interruption.] If she would prefer me to respond not to her speech but to an intervention, I will let her make an intervention.
Sarah Owen
I thank the Minister for finally allowing an intervention. He talked about optimism. Does he feel optimistic that the manufacturing industry now faces a 10% tariff on passenger cars and a 22% tariff on vans? Does he believe that we should all be optimistic about that future, or does he believe the reality—that the manufacturing industry faces a cliff edge?
Jesse Norman
If that is the best the hon. Lady can do, she would have been better to wait for my response to her speech. No, the truth of the matter is that this country is engaged in discussions and negotiations with European partners about the circumstances—we export an enormous number of cars, which is an important fact from their point of view as it is from ours—and it would be futile to discuss those matters in public. We all know that none of these negotiations is ever done in public, and that includes commercial negotiations, which Labour appears to wish to be done in public as well.
Let me proceed a little more. The hon. Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) touched on new gigafactories. I invite Opposition Front- Bench Members to comment further if they wish, because this is a much-heralded part of the Labour strategy, and if the Labour party seeks to subsidise eight new gigafactories, perhaps they would like to put on record how much public money—taxpayer’s money—they propose to spend on that and how it would be funded. We very much look forward to seeing their plans. I will be interested to see whether they bear any resemblance to market conditions or show any signs of doing anything other than immiserating and impoverishing the British taxpayer.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises that the automotive industry is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing and believes it can have a bright future creating good jobs for people across the UK; regrets that after 13 years of Conservative neglect the UK risks losing this world-class industry, putting thousands of jobs under threat; condemns the Government for its lack of an industrial strategy and the negative impact this has had on investment in the UK’s automotive sector; calls on the Government to urgently resolve the rules of origin changes which are due to take effect in 2024, working with partners across Europe to negotiate a deal that works for manufacturers; and further calls on the Government to adopt an active industrial strategy to build the battery factory capacity needed to secure the automotive sector for decades to come.
Draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Sarah Owen Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I apologise that the relevant shadow Minister cannot join us today: I will do my best to fill her shoes on this important issue. The Opposition welcome this instrument. We are grateful that the Government are making efforts to communicate better with working families across the UK. Sadly that is especially needed now after the pain that has been inflicted on them through the economic chaos of the mini-Budget that left many families wondering how they can feed their children, heat their homes and keep a roof over their heads.
Whatever lifts the burden and makes families’ lives a little easier is to be welcomed. It is especially crucial to have such engagement with families with regard to the education and care of small children. We will always support and advocate for more measures that help each child have a strong start in life. Therefore, we will not oppose the regulations today. I wish only to ask some questions and probe the legislation so that it is as strong as possible.
With that in mind, would the Government share in more detail how they intend to address concerns around data-sharing processes and how they will ensure that the data is not misused? I know the Minister touched on that issue, but given that we are talking about very young children and potentially very vulnerable families, it would be good if he could elaborate a little more on that important point. Can the Government also advise of any other objectives in England or any of the devolved nations that could be better served if information were shared by central Government using provisions under the Act? Will the Government review other possible avenues at a later date?
A significant criticism of the Government’s pandemic response was central Government not sharing data with local authorities for the purpose of things such as test and trace. Could a similar SI be laid in the future to ensure better communication between central and local government on objectives relating to public safety? Those are our questions at present, but as stated, we are content to see the regulations pass today.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I would like to address some of the points that have been made and to wish the hon. Member for Putney, who is unable to be with us today, a speedy recovery.
The hon. Member for Luton North made some sensible suggestions. First, on safeguards, we are aware of the risks regarding the misuse of people’s personal data. The data-sharing provisions in part 5 of the DEA include a number of robust safeguards. The most important, as we have mentioned, is compatibility with and strict adherence to the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. The DEA also goes further. It includes a number of other safeguards, such as sanctions for unlawful disclosures, including custodial sentences in some cases. The public service delivery powers are permissive, which means that the authorities listed in schedule 4 can choose whether to use them or not, and that safeguarding prevents inappropriate data-sharing.
Sarah Owen
I appreciate the severity of those reprimands should data breaches take place, but could the Minister tell us how many people have actually received custodial sentences as a result of a data breach? We are talking about particularly young people’s data, so I want to ensure that the existing regulations are tight enough.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I am happy to write to the hon. Member with the exact figures, so that there is a record of them. I share her concern; it is important that appropriate enforcement action is taken.
As new public service delivery objectives are created by regulations under the affirmative procedure, new objectives will be defined before data sharing can commence, and that will follow public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.
The public service delivery powers have not yet commenced in Northern Ireland; the policy does not apply there at the moment. The objective relates only to Scotland; however, our respective officials have engaged on the possibility of having equivalent objectives for Northern Ireland. We recognise that that would be contingent on the commencement of devolved government in Northern Ireland.
With regard to statutory instruments, the UK Government are taking the objective forward at the request of the Scottish Government. The territorial extent of the regulations is the UK, but the regulations apply in England and Scotland only. The Government are required to consult the devolved Administrations, and formal consultation was carried out with them. Furthermore, there is ongoing liaison at official level to ensure that the views of Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues are fully accounted for. On the point that the hon. Member for Luton North made about SIs, I am more than happy to provide information on where we are on that.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North is clearly passionate about making sure that we deliver the funding to those who are eligible; that is what this is all about. We already get the relevant information from Scotland; it is important that we reciprocate.
The objective will benefit Scottish families with eligible two-year-olds by increasing their access to funded early learning and childcare. If eligible families were to purchase the funded hours, it would cost them around £5,000 per eligible child per year. Another benefit for families is the narrowing of the poverty-related outcomes gap for children facing the most disadvantage. As the hon. Member for City of Chester said, that is very important. We want to make sure that we support families. I have a young family and have benefited from various Government schemes. I do not know how our working family would have managed without them, so I speak from first-hand experience. I fully take on board what he said. As for other benefits, the objective will provide parents with increased opportunities to be in work, training or study, and will improve family wellbeing.
I thank the Committee for taking the time to scrutinise the draft regulations, which will enable more effective use of data, so that we can better support the most vulnerable in society and deliver better outcomes for our citizens. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Tributes to Her Late Majesty the Queen
Sarah Owen Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I rise to pay tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on behalf of my constituents in Luton North.
Our country has lost its Queen, and a family have lost their cherished mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. My thoughts are with the royal family during this immense time of loss and with the people mourning the death of the Sovereign who played such a pivotal role in their lives for so many years. Many will have sadly experienced the painful hole left after the death of the head of a family—a matriarch—and they will know the emptiness that echoes through the generations because a loved one is no longer there, but they will also know the fullness of a lifetime of lessons and devotion—those things never leave us.
Since news of her death, there have been displays of affection for the Queen across Luton North, but especially from younger generations. Yesterday morning, students at Lea Manor High School lined up outside school to pay their respects, Luton Sixth Form College fell silent in remembrance, there was time for reflective prayer at Cardinal Newman Catholic School and the headteacher at Chalk Hill Academy addressed students and staff about the need to mourn, but also to honour and celebrate the Queen’s life.
What better place to honour significant occasions than in Luton. Indeed, Her late Majesty chose Luton to mark a very significant life event, celebrating her honeymoon with Prince Philip in Luton Hoo.
They say that some things cannot be fixed but can only be carried, and the Queen was the master of carrying on. Whether it was during the second world war, at times of national crisis or, most recently, during the pandemic, the Queen was the epitome of the British phrase, “Keep calm and carry on”—easy to say, but often harder to do, especially during times of grief. I understand that her Christian faith was a driver in that, because she was never shy about her beliefs and how they motivated her service. I know that churches, mosques and temples in my diverse constituency will be keeping the royal family and the country in their prayers during this period of mourning. Sundon Park Baptist Church has opened a book of condolence, and I know that many others will be doing the same.
The Queen came to power when the nation was recovering from the aftermath of war. The King comes to power at a time when the world is also recovering and facing many challenges. In 2002, during her Christmas broadcast, the Queen spoke words that are just as relevant today, nearly 20 years on:
“Our modern world places such heavy demands on our time and attention that the need to remember our responsibilities to others is greater than ever.”
Wise, wise words. We do not have to be staunch royalists to appreciate that, in every sense, this is truly the end of an era and the beginning of another. Rest in peace, Your Majesty.
Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government
Sarah Owen Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
One might think that Her Majesty’s Opposition had better things to do than waste valuable parliamentary time, and one might have thought they would respect parliamentary conventions in the preparation of a motion of confidence, but they failed in doing that, too. No matter, as this Government have again shown them how it is done, hence this debate. Here we are, playing these silly games while we have a war on our hands and several issues to deal with at home and overseas. [Interruption.] We are having this debate because of parliamentary convention, and this is the way to do it.
Much has been said about leadership in recent days, weeks and months, but no leadership has been found emanating from the Opposition, just the usual stone throwing from a party that is so out of touch with the people of this country that it felt its motion—the one that needed to be corrected—was the best way to spend valuable time.
Let us talk about leadership. This Government responded to covid by leading the western hemisphere’s response. Brexit, which Opposition Members all voted against, allowed us to fund and procure a vaccine, and to get it into people’s arms faster than pretty much anywhere else on the planet, saving lives quicker than anywhere else on the planet. What did Labour do? It opposed procurement and then criticised every move, with Captain Hindsight at the helm.
Marco Longhi
Well, this is great leadership—just listen to this. To be fair, Labour did take a stance on one thing. Labour would have had us in lockdown throughout the whole of Christmas and beyond, destroying more jobs, destroying more businesses and harming lives. That is out there for everybody to see; everybody knows.
The Ukraine—
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
On behalf of the city of Southend, I absolutely have confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. My wonderful constituency of Southend West is undeniably healthier, wealthier and especially safer.
Labour Members seem to conveniently forget not only that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—the person they would have put into Downing Street—would have plunged us into the dark days of the 1970s, at the mercy of the militant unions, but that he and eight other Labour Front Benchers would have voted to get rid of our independent nuclear deterrent, fundamentally undermining our national security. That is why the Conservatives won the election so resoundingly three years ago. The British people chose democracy, freedom, security and opportunity over socialism, antisemitism, losing our nuclear deterrent and returning to the European Union.
We have not squandered the 80-seat majority that the British people entrusted to us. Yes, the past three years have been difficult.
Anna Firth
I will not, because of the time. We have had to deal with covid, a global energy crisis and Russia’s illegal, barbaric invasion of Ukraine, yet we have never once lost sight of our core manifesto promise. It is this Government who got Brexit done—not finished, but done, none the less. It is because of Brexit that we were able to develop the world’s first approved vaccine, followed by the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, as has been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon).
Shaun Bailey
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a point of clarity, my understanding is that they are all members of the Labour party. It is the Labour party that controlled that local authority. They are all comrades in arms together. Labour Members could have intervened at any point. They promised that they would get grip on this.
Shaun Bailey
No, I will not.
Labour promised that it would get a grip on this, and it did not. So when Labour Members sit there and talk about standards in public life, I tell them to come to Sandwell. Come to Sandwell. If Members want to see the horror that is the alternative, we can show them.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I would have preferred, as I think my constituents would, these many long hours of debate on confidence in the Government to have been spent discussing the safety of our children and the Online Safety Bill. This is a difficult moment for Labour Members, as they all stood to make the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who is aware of roughly what I will say, the Prime Minister of our nation. How would he have fared with his plan for a second referendum on the EU, which he did not even personally believe in? Would he have created the private sector-led vaccine taskforce? When Dame Kate Bingham was first appointed to it, there was no shortage of Opposition Members saying that it was a crony appointment. It was, in fact, a brilliant move, and she worked closely with our multinational pharmaceutical companies, which the right hon. Member for Islington North would happily have abolished, along with our intelligence agencies.
Richard Graham
There is no time, alas.
Would the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) today be defending his Prime Minister’s record on standing up to Putin? We are talking about the man who gave Putin the benefit of the doubt when it came to the murder of a British citizen in Salisbury and the handling of Novichok, which could have killed hundreds, if not thousands. As I say, I understand that this is a difficult debate for Labour.
Nor did we hear any mention from the Scottish National party of the first ever dedicated, ringfenced funding pot for marine energy in the recent renewables auction, which provides £20 million a year for investment in Scottish companies such as Orbital Marine Power, MeyGen Ltd, and Nova Innovation. There was nothing from the SNP about the value of the Prime Minister’s 33 trade envoys, who tirelessly promote Scottish products abroad. None of us has ever lost confidence in Scotland, or in the quality of Scottish products, but we think it is sad that the SNP does not see the value of the United Kingdom promoting Scottish exports all over the world.
On what this Government have achieved, let me highlight first their strong record on the Indo-Pacific pivot, which has led to better relationships across south-east Asia, to the great benefit of those nations and our own; and, secondly, what has been done with levelling up, pride and regeneration in small cities such as my own of Gloucester. There, the levelling-up fund, the station improvement fund and a whole number of improvements have done things that under Labour’s tenure were never even dreamed of.
Let us be in no doubt. There are always things that a Government can do better. For example, I wish this Government were thinking closely and hard about insulation for some of our poorer families to help them through this winter’s energy increase, and maybe that will come. However, I am in no doubt that this is a Government who are delivering, and I have full confidence in them.
Functioning of Government
Sarah Owen Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis
I cannot discuss the security arrangements of this country from the Dispatch Box, but the Secretary of State for the Home Department is in place and is responsible for the arrangements appertaining to the security services of this country.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I suggest that the Paymaster General look up the meaning of “functioning”, because his Government are not it. Will the Paymaster General confirm whether the now former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) will be getting the standard severance package for Secretaries of State of three months’ salary for a job that she did for just 36 hours?
Michael Ellis
Matters such as pay and remuneration are set in statute and are not a matter for me.
Adviser on Ministerial Interests
Sarah Owen Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis
There are exceptions in every case and, of course, we know that in the past 30 years Prime Ministers of all political parties have decided for themselves when Ministers have their confidence and when they do not. The Government are very grateful to all those who have served in the role of independent adviser since 2006. It is a challenging role, and increasingly so today. Let me repeat my particular thanks to Lord Geidt for his contribution to the office, but the Prime Minister has also made it clear that the resignation of Lord Geidt and the issues that he and PACAC raised last week demand a moment of reflection. They demand some consideration. Frankly, we think it is right to step back and take some time to consider what we have heard from the former independent adviser and from this House. This is a complex matter and one that touches on Executive functions and the royal prerogative in relation to the appointment of Ministers. As I have said before to this honourable House, we cannot have a situation where we expect any Prime Minister of any political party not to have confidence in a Minister that he or she has serving in their Cabinet. It is crucial that each Minister has the confidence of the serving Prime Minister.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Paymaster General talks about exceptional times, but unfortunately this is not exceptional behaviour from this Prime Minister. This is not the first time that we have heard allegations that the Prime Minister has sought to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money on his girlfriends. Just look at his time as Mayor of London. Does the Paymaster General not agree that this is a pattern of behaviour and the role of any new ethics adviser should be, for a start, to get the Prime Minister out of the gutter and find some ethics in the first place?
Debate on the Address
Sarah Owen Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Mr Speaker, allow me to join you and Members across this House in thanking His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for delivering the Gracious Speech and in sending our warmest wishes to Her Majesty the Queen. The whole House knows the reluctance with which Her Majesty made today’s decision, and her extraordinary service to this nation continues to inspire us all.
As we come to the halfway point of this Parliament, this country has seen off the biggest challenge that any post-war Government have faced, but the cost of the pandemic has been huge, with the biggest fall in output for 300 years, which necessitated Government expenditure of £400 billion. The aftershocks are still being felt across the world, with a global spike in energy prices and the impact that we are seeing on the cost of food. It is precisely because this Government got the big calls right and made the tough decisions during the pandemic that we had the fastest economic growth in the G7 last year—and will return to that status, by the way, by 2024—and therefore have the fiscal firepower to help families up and down the country with all the pressures that they face now.
We will continue to use all our ingenuity and compassion for as long as it takes—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I will be saying more about this in the days to come —but at the same time as we help people, we need the legislative firepower to fix the underlying problems in energy supply, in housing, in infrastructure and in skills, which are driving up costs for families across the country. This Queen’s Speech takes those issues head on.
Above all, we are tackling the economic challenges with the best solution of all, and that is an ever-growing number of high-wage, high-skill jobs, Mr Speaker. Jobs, jobs, jobs! We drive up employment by creating the right platform for business to invest; making our streets safer, with 20,000 more police; creating a healthier population, with 50,000 more nurses; funding the NHS to help it to clear the covid backlogs; giving the confidence that people know that they will be looked after in old age, by fixing social care; delivering gigabit broadband, giving the remotest parts of the country the access that they need; and using our Brexit freedoms to enable revolutionary technologies like gene editing to help our farmers to grow more nutritious and more productive crops.
It is that combination of public and private sector together that is tackling unemployment, with half a million more people on the payroll now than before the pandemic began, and it is that strength at home that enables this country to show leadership abroad, as we have done and will continue to do in supporting the people of Ukraine. So this Queen’s Speech delivers on our promises: it will not only take us through the aftershocks of covid, but build the foundations for decades of prosperity, uniting and levelling up across the country.
Mr Speaker, allow me to join the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to those colleagues we lost in the last parliamentary Session. Time will not dim our shock at the despicable murder of Sir David Amess, a friend to so many, who lost his life giving the service he loved most: a constituency surgery in a local church. Among the many legacies of Sir David, which include his amazing work on animal welfare and his campaign to support women with endometriosis, I am proud to say that today Southend-on-Sea stands as a city in tribute to him.
Yesterday we gathered at St Margaret’s Church to remember James Brokenshire, a true gentleman who faced his battle with cancer with enormous courage, generosity and strength of character. It was typical of our dear friend that even in the midst of his own battle, he was supporting and encouraging others to seek help, campaigning for better lung cancer screening and becoming the first MP to secure a debate on the issue on the Floor of this House. We willed him to pull through because the world needs more people in public life like him. His loss is felt deeply in all parts of the House, and by all those whose lives he touched.
Finally, we began the year joining the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) in paying tribute to her wonderful husband Jack Dromey, one of the great trade unionists of our time, who, having married someone who would go on to become, in his words, the “outstanding parliamentary feminist of her generation”, will also be forever remembered, in his words, as Mr Harriet Harman, né Dromey. We all knew him as a man of great warmth, energy and compassion, and he commanded the utmost respect across the House.
The response to the Gracious Speech was magnificently proposed—self-deprecatingly, I thought—by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), whose campaigning brilliance I saw at first hand, as he pointed out, when, as Back Benchers almost 20 years ago, he and I organised a demonstration against Labour’s plan to close community hospitals. The campaign group was called CHANT—Community Hospitals Acting Nationally Together. His memory of it is much more glorious than mine; I remember only a tiny handful of desperadoes. We were stopped almost immediately by the police, who turned us back, but my hon. Friend none the less succeeded in forcing the Government—the then Labour Government, I should stress—to perform a U-turn on the funding for community hospitals. As a great pace bowler—or a medium-pace bowler, it is probably fair to say these days—he bowled them middle stump. It is fitting that today he has proposed the response to the Gracious Speech for a Government who are delivering the biggest NHS catch-up programme in history, and who, far from closing hospitals, are building new hospitals—48 of them, in fact—so that we have the best health service in the world.
I know, by the way, that my hon. Friend has personal experience of healthcare in a less fortunate country. He was lying in bed with a fractured rib after a skiing accident in Chamonix when three men in white coats arrived claiming that they were there to perform the operation. On closer inspection, they turned out to be my right hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my noble Friend Lord Lancaster. At that point, it is said, my hon. Friend levitated miraculously from his bed and made his escape. His speech today was in the finest traditions of this House.
I was delighted that the motion was seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones). Some more seasoned Members will recall the 14 years of service rendered to the people of Cardiff, North by her father, Gwilym, who joins us in the Gallery today. I am delighted to see him there, and I am sure he will be filled with admiration at the speech just delivered by his daughter. I know that my hon. Friend sadly lost her mother earlier this year, and I have no doubt that she too will be simply bursting with pride as she looks down on us today, because while my hon. Friend may have been an MP for only a few short years, she has already established herself as a fantastic campaigner. As she said herself, that included changing the law to ban cyber-flashing, saving Brecon barracks, and—with 1st The Queen’s Dragoon Guards—securing the return of a permanent Welsh regiment in Wales. Nor was she prepared to remain silent while the Leader of the Opposition’s colleagues in Cardiff tried to keep Wales in perpetual lockdown. She is a tireless advocate for Welsh veterans and the armed services generally, an issue that is personal as well as political for her.
As a fellow enthusiast for dogs at polling stations, I was delighted to see my hon. Friend take Nancy the Labrador to the polling station on Thursday. Nancy is, of course, named in honour of Nancy Astor, a great Conservative woman who certainly left a mark on this place and this country, and whose influence and achievements I am sure my hon. Friend will emulate in the long and successful career that so clearly awaits her. It was a pleasure to hear from her today, and I thank her for seconding the motion.
On Sunday, I spoke to my G7 counterparts, together with President Zelensky, urging our international partners to join us in going further and faster in supporting Ukraine. I am sure the whole House will share my sorrow and revulsion at events in Mariupol in eastern Ukraine, which has endured weeks of merciless Russian bombardment and some of the worst atrocities of the war. At the same time, I am pleased to report that our brave Ukrainian friends are succeeding in repelling the Russian assault on Kharkiv, defending their second city with the same fortitude that saw off Putin’s attack on their capital. We should be proud that, when the very survival of a great European democracy was in peril, our United Kingdom has led the way, providing Ukraine with the weapons to defend itself and helping the world to impose the toughest economic sanctions on Putin. As I walked through the streets of Kyiv last month, I saw at first hand what the wholehearted support of this House and this country has meant to the brave people of Ukraine, so let the message ring out from this Chamber today: we will persevere in our support for the Ukrainians until Putin has failed and Ukraine has won.
During the pandemic, this Government worked night and day at extraordinary speed to protect lives and livelihoods across our whole United Kingdom, whether by injecting £400 billion of direct support to the economy and supporting jobs through our world-leading furlough scheme, by becoming the first country in the world to administer and approve covid vaccines, or by delivering the largest testing programme and the fastest vaccine booster campaign in Europe. All this allowed us to retain one of the most open economies and societies across the continent—which we would not have done, by the way, if we had listened to the advice of the Labour party—with the fastest growth in the G7 last year.
Now we will bring that same urgency, impatience and determination to deliver on our mission of getting our country back on track and easing the burdens on families and businesses across the land. That is why we have already committed £9.1 billion to assist with energy costs alone. We are giving back £150 to people in their council tax, cutting fuel duty, increasing the warm home discount, creating a tax cut for 30 million workers by raising the national insurance threshold and delivering the biggest ever increase in the national living wage, worth an extra £1,000 a year to those working full time. But however great our compassion and ingenuity, we cannot simply spend our way out of this problem; we need to grow out of the problem by creating hundreds of thousands of new high-wage, high-skilled jobs across the country.
The Prime Minister
As I give way to the hon. Lady, I remind the House that there has never been a Labour Government who left office with unemployment lower than when they came in.
Mr Speaker
It is not normal to give way in these speeches, but obviously the Prime Minister has agreed to do so.
Sarah Owen
I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. We have heard a lot of words being very rapidly delivered, but what we have not heard yet is an apology to the pensioners who are choosing between heating and eating, an apology to the children who have gone hungry throughout the school holidays and an apology to the hundreds of thousands of family members of covid victims who were lost during the pandemic.
The Prime Minister
Of course this Government are doing all we can to help people during the pandemic and to help pensioners, and by the way it was this Government who introduced the triple lock for pensioners, to protect them. This Government help people with the cost of heating, with the £9.1 billion that we are putting in, with the holiday activities and food programme and with the extra billions that we are putting in to support local councils. But be in no doubt—this is what everybody in this country needs to understand: we are making sure that we have a strong economy with high-wage, high-skilled jobs that will enable us to take this country forward. That would simply not have been possible if the hon. Lady had listened to the advice of those on her Front Bench, who wanted to keep us in lockdown—[Interruption.] That is absolutely true. It was worth giving way just to make that point. That is why we are going to continue with our levelling-up and regeneration Bill, which will help—
Appointment of Lord Lebedev
Sarah Owen Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis
Were the hon. Gentleman to look into the matter, he would find that Lord Lebedev has, through his newspapers, publicly criticised the Putin invasion of Ukraine, as one would expect him to do. He has done so on the record.
The motion provides a saving in respect of national security considerations, in that it would allow for the redaction of material
“for the purposes of national security.”
For that reason, I shall not dwell on the national security considerations in depth. I remind the House that Ministers do not comment on national security issues; nevertheless, I stress that weighty public issues are in play that should not be treated lightly.
As I say, when we balance a commitment to transparency against the protection of information when disclosure is not in the public interest, national security is one consideration that the Government must weigh up. Rather than engage in insinuation and speculation—I am afraid that is what has been happening—in respect of matters of national security that must be handled with care and caution, I emphasise that it is and always will be Her Majesty’s Government’s absolute priority to protect the United Kingdom against foreign interference.
It is easy for those in the media or on the Opposition Benches to cast aspersions and invite people to draw assumptions. We cannot answer points about national security in detail, but I emphasise that we in the Government will always give absolute priority to the protection of the United Kingdom from foreign interference. As proof of that, I remind the House that, as announced in the Queen’s Speech, we will introduce new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to disrupt state threats.
In conclusion, the passing of the motion would have long-term and damaging consequences for the system of appointments to the peerage. It would breach the principles of confidentiality that underpin the process; impugn the reputation of an independent body and damage its ability to undertake its role; and impact on the right of individuals not to have their private lives splashed across the media at the whim of the Opposition Front-Bench team.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
If the motion is as potentially damaging as the Minister says it is, why will Government Members not vote against it this afternoon?
Michael Ellis
It is quite normal practice to ignore Opposition motions; they are given the careful attention they deserve. That is common practice.
The Government regret the fact that the official Opposition have sought to use the procedures of the House to call for the release of information which, if released, would have lasting consequences and undermine the established system of appointments to the peerage. That system has served successive Governments and it is vital to preserving the commission’s ability to undertake its role.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
This is an interesting one, as I came in with a different speech from the one I am about to give. What can I say? I must touch on the point made by the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) about this not being party political. I do not know what debate he has been sitting in for the past hour and a half, but I would certainly disagree with him on that statement. Let us consider this road to Damascus that the Labour party seems to have been on in respect of Russia. When we had the Salisbury attack, Labour’s previous leader was calling for Russia to be allowed to take back samples to test. This is absolutely crazy; it is like to Saul to Paul. The disbelief with which I have sat here today is incredible.
The issue of awarding peerages had dogged this place for a long time—we all remember Lord Levy, although the Labour party does not want to remember the investigations that went on then—but it is as problem. As I said in my intervention, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) gave an articulate speech and touched on a really important point, which is about the broader process of peerages. I wish a more definitive answer had been given for how we solve this. That is the core of the debate. I appreciate that we are considering a specific motion on the release of information, but if we consider the principles behind the debate, it is very bizarre that the Labour party does not appear to offer up solutions to fix the problem for the longer term. Clearly, there is a longer-term issue and concerns about the advice given to Prime Ministers and from Prime Ministers in the appointment of peers. Would it not make sense to open up that debate?
My understanding of the role of an Opposition is that they are meant to put forward credible alternatives, not just sit here and moan. My concern is that I could not quite get a credible alternative from the Opposition in two times of asking—[Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) chuntering from a sedentary position, as usual, on that point.
When the Mayor of London was partying with Lord Lebedev in 2017, or when Labour Front Benchers were partying with him in 2011 and 2012, there was silence. What confuses me about this whole situation is the fact that it is one rule for them, as always, but another rule for everyone else. But that is the Labour party, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Shaun Bailey
No, I do not think so. The hon. Member has articulated her position from a sedentary position for a long time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) said that the core of the debate was a process issue. We do not want to undermine the process of the commission when there are GDPR and legal consequences of the motion passing. People put themselves before the process on the basis that it is confidential and they can give the full transparent disclosure that they are required to give. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General has articulated, there is a real risk—
Shaun Bailey
As the hon. Member has been so persistent, I will give way to her.
Sarah Owen
I thank the hon. Member for giving way on this point. Transparency is key to today’s motion. If he is all for transparency, why is his party not supporting this motion to be transparent and honest with the British public? The Minister talked about protecting processes, but this is a question about whether the process protects the British people.
Shaun Bailey
I hear the hon. Member’s point about transparency and I get that—there is a broader conversation to be had about that—but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General stated, we cannot do that at the risk of undermining the processes that are there. What I will say to the hon. Member—perhaps she and I will agree on this—is let us change the process. How about that? There is stunned silence at a Conservative MP suggesting changing the process, but that is the point I am trying to make.
There is a fundamental flaw in today’s motion. Okay, the documentation is released, but what then? Labour seems to be clamouring for something that it skirts around in the motion but does not go forward to suggest change. It strikes me as absurd.