Confidence in Her Majesty’s Government

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Marco Longhi]

No.

[Sarah Owen]

That’s leadership.

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sarah Owen]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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).

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sarah Owen]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sarah Owen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[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

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[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

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Commons Chamber

[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?

[Michael Ellis]

I am not going to dignify that with a response.

Debate on the Address

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[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

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Sarah Owen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[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—

[Sarah Owen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[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.

Ukraine

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a threat to communications already. We are observing it in the contacts we are having with people in Ukraine. Satellite phones are certainly an option and we will be looking at that.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

We have rightly heard a lot about tougher trade sanctions today, but nothing about ridding our democracy of Russian state influence. Will the Prime Minister commit to investigating all political donations received from people with links to Putin, and will his Government finally bring forward measures to clean up the corrupt Russian money that for far too long has been laundered in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

All political donations are properly registered and monitored. I can tell the hon. Lady that we are putting forward progressively over the last few days and weeks and today the biggest ever package to crack down on dirty Russian money, not just from Russia but from anywhere.

Health and Social Care

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are massively recruiting NHS staff. I think I am right in saying that, as I stand here today, there are 11,600 more nurses in the NHS than there were this time last year, and we will go on to deliver on our manifesto commitment to recruit 50,000 more nurses.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Having been a care worker, I know that it is a hard and skilled job that deserves decent pay and recognition, not a Tory tax hike. Does the Prime Minister really believe that his tax hike, which will fall on the shoulders of care workers, is any way to reward the heroes who have got us over the last 18 months?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, because the burdens fall overwhelmingly on those who can best afford to pay, and the benefit for care workers is not only the increase in the living wage, but the colossal investment that we are making in care. That is something that will benefit not just care workers, but their charges: their patients, and the families who desperately need care up and down the country.

Covid-19 Update

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely right and he gets to the heart of the problem in the pretend policy that has been announced by the Opposition party. If we were to interfere with the JCVI 1 to 9 list, which is intended to target those most vulnerable and those most at risk of dying or of hospitalisation, we would, of course, interpolate it with other people appointed by politicians, taking vaccines away from the more vulnerable groups and, as he has rightly said, delay our ability to move forward out of lockdown. He is spot on.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]]

In Luton, like many places, we are challenged to reduce cases of covid as a large number of people work in jobs where it is not possible to work from home. What are the Government doing to support businesses to reduce workplace transmission? Will those plans include decent sick pay and the rolling out of home rapid test kits to small and medium-sized employers to support reducing this risk?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point about the need to roll out rapid test kits. That is happening in communities, towns and cities across the country, and I commend her for supporting them. They may not be the total answer— of course not—to fighting this disease, but they are extremely useful in isolating asymptomatic cases and helping us to drive down the R rate in local communities.

EU Withdrawal Agreement

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]]

The vehicle industry has consistently warned that a no-deal Brexit risks the future of UK plants and skilled, unionised jobs. Without a deal, Luton-made Vauxhall vans could face tariffs of 22%. Coupled with covid, cuts to our council and no support for our aviation industry, for Luton no deal would make this a job-killing Government. With just 22 days to go before the end of the transition period, can the Minister guarantee that there will be no tariffs on vans and cars made in this country?

[Michael Gove]

The automobile sector is important not just in Luton, where there are so many skilled people producing fantastic products, but across the UK. Of course, if we secure a free trade agreement, it will be a zero-tariffs, zero-quota agreement. If we do not secure that agreement, there will be tariffs, but there will also be tariffs on automobiles coming into the UK, and that will have an impact on industry in the EU.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Sarah Owen Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

Since this Bill came before us, I have had serious misgivings about its aim and its effectiveness. As it has progressed unamended, we have heard evidence from military and legal experts as well as charities, all stating that the Bill does not provide the protections that the Government claim it does for our armed forces. Worse than failing to protect our armed forces and their families, it risks limiting them from holding the Ministry of Defence to account when it fails to equip armed personnel properly or when it makes serious errors leading to injury and, in some cases, sadly, death. That was confirmed when the Royal British Legion director general told MPs on the Committee:

“I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.]

During the past 16 years, there have been 25,000 civil cases against the MOD by British troops who have been injured or their families. If this Bill goes through without protecting the armed forces covenant, we could potentially see thousands of personnel, veterans and families left wanting when what they deserve is justice. When looking at legislation, I always ask, “What’s the problem that this is trying to solve?” When we compare the 25,000 civil cases against the MOD with the number of vexatious claims, we should be questioning who is really being protected with this Bill. Unlike the Minister, I completely agree with the Royal British Legion’s director general: this Bill is about protecting the MOD, not service personnel.

[Johnny Mercer]

It is important to correct the record. The claims that the hon. Lady refers to have not happened overseas, so those figures are not right. This Bill is specifically designed for overseas operations, and the figures that have repeatedly been raised are incorrect.

[Sarah Owen]

As has been raised many times by Members on both sides of the House, we would like to know exactly how many, yet we are left wanting.

We know that the armed forces risk their lives every day—[Interruption.] The Minister does not want to hear this. I have already had to suggest to him that he should turn off Twitter and listen to the genuine concerns of Members around the House. We know that the armed forces risk their lives every day, and we owe them a huge debt. We also know that they are sometimes faced with difficult decisions, but even in the heat of war, the rule of law still applies. The Government have provided no rationale for why sexual crimes should be excluded from the Bill, but not torture and other war crimes. All is not fair in love and war. Our armed forces are still bound to international humanitarian law, and the Bill risks UK personnel being dragged to the International Criminal Court, which is why I urge Members to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).

The exclusion of sexual crimes but not torture is important. Under international law, torture is clearly defined as intentional infliction of very serious or cruel suffering, yet the Minister said in Committee that

“we expect our service personnel to undertake activities that are intrinsically violent in nature. These activities can expose service personnel to the possibility that their actions may result in allegations of torture”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2020; c. 206.]

The definition of torture in international law is clear, yet the Minister seemed to deliberately muddle the violent nature of the work of the armed forces with legitimising torture. Given the world that we live in at the moment, that is a very dangerous path to go down. We are rightly condemning the horrendous abuses by the Chinese state in Xinjiang, the violations of human rights in Kashmir and the plight of the Rohingya people, but how can this Government call out other states for their use of torture and human rights abuses when they seek to pass legislation that legitimises the very same? Some Members on the Government Benches have loudly, and in some cases rather surprisingly, become self-appointed champions of protecting human rights overseas, yet we will see them again walk through the Lobby to vote for a Bill that erodes the international human rights laws that we should all uphold. Our armed forces can and should be held to the same high standards, being protected by, and adhering to, the same international law that we expect of others.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in this debate.

My colleagues and I support the good intention of this Bill. It is the right thing to do to protect those who have protected us and this nation, and indeed many other innocents, in the face of the threat to life and the oppression of fundamental rights.

The Bill is not drafted perfectly, but tonight we have an opportunity to address and debate its deficiencies. One area of significant concern is torture. Amendments 1 to 10 seek to address that deficiency and, indeed, go a long way towards addressing this matter of grave public concern. That is the right thing to do. Like sexual offences, torture must fall outside the provisions of this Bill. Let us do nothing to undermine the values we hold dear as a nation. Where no investigation has taken place, it is absolutely right that the provisions of this Bill do not apply.

Cognisant of the purposes of today’s proceedings, I still wish to raise once again the plight of veterans of Operation Banner. I represent many such veterans who live in my constituency, and indeed hon. Members right across this House do so as well. While the operation was in Northern Ireland, those who served came from right across our United Kingdom and beyond. In the previous debate on this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I asked the Minister to state that the provisions of this Bill will not become law until the assurances made in the House on 18 March regarding Northern Ireland are fulfilled. The Minister said in response:

“We are clear that we will deliver our commitments to Northern Ireland. In a written ministerial statement on 18 March, we committed to equal treatment for those who served on Op Banner. We will not resile from that position.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 1049.]

That is a good intention—it is the right intention—but there is no guarantee. I know from our conversations with veterans that the longer this delay continues the more suspicious they get. This is wrong, and I need to know that the Minister believes it is wrong as well, so what is the cause of the delay? Those who await the knock at the door for standing up to terrorism deserve answers, and I urge the Minister to give those answers today.

The Bill is welcome and delivers on promises made by the Government, but we must no longer leave some veterans behind as prey to vexatious prosecutions. That is wrong, especially if, as suspected, it is for no other reason than to give a sop to the political front of the very people who killed and maimed many of those they served beside.