The page on his web site shows he has a background representing a poorer constituency. Ideal for defending the U.K against Welfare Reform. His new boss Jeremy made it clear that Welfare is a key issue the Labour Party will be active in so Owen knows this is an important post that the party will be measured by.
Directly from the New Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary
"Thanks to everyone who has written to me on the Welfare Bill vote. I thought I would respond at some length with the facts of what happened and the reason why I voted as I did. Firstly, to be clear, Labour DID vote against the Welfare and Work Bill. There were two votes on Monday night. The first was a vote for or against Labour’s ‘Reasoned Amendment’ which explained some of our objections to the Bill and ‘Declined to give the Bill a Second Reading’ – that is arcane Parliamentary language for opposing the Bill. If that vote had been won then the Bill would have been defeated and the Government would have had to withdraw it.
The second vote, once we had lost ours, was a catch-all vote on whether the Bill should go on to the next stage of scrutiny and challenge – the Committee Stage and then Third Reading.
On that vote the decision taken by Harriet Harman, our interim leader, was that Labour should abstain.
The reasoning for that was that there are some things in the Bill we agree with, for example, a new duty on Ministers to create and monitor high quality apprenticeships and a cut to social housing rents in England. I disagreed with that decision, and argued in Shadow Cabinet that there is far more in the Bill to object to than we might support. Along with Andy Burnham and others, I said that we should table a reasoned amendment, to detail our opposition to the Bill but, if that fell, we should also vote against at the second vote. However, that was not the position that Harriet took and the leadership’s decision was to abstain. That left me and others in the Shadow Cabinet with the choice whether to resign our positions to vote against the party in whose name, and on whose manifesto we were elected, or to be loyal to the leader and abide by her decision and the rules of collective responsibility.
I clearly took the decision to do the latter. I did so for three reasons:
1. I believe that integrity is important in politics, as in all things. I was elected as a Labour representative, not as an independent delegate, and the leader of Labour sets our position.
2. Had anyone from the Shadow Cabinet resigned, the split in the Labour party would have been horrendous, massively damaging our ability to take the fight – on this Bill and on the many other pernicious measures that we will face over the next five years – to the real enemy: the Tories.
3. The Bill would still not have been defeated with my vote – or, indeed, the votes of every Labour MP.
The Tories won the election, they have a majority, even if every opposition party in the House of Commons banded together against them.
And, as a back bencher, I would have had less chance to influence the policy of the Labour Party – the only party that can defeat the Tories in the next election and give us a chance of implementing progressive politics in Britain.
The only people who would have benefit from such a massive split in the Labour Party are the Tories, Nationalists, Lib Dems and UKIP, parties who want to see Labour defeated. People do not vote for divided parties, as a rule – as the Tories illustrated over Europe in the 1990s – and every year out of power for Labour is another year of increased hardship for our communities here in Pontypridd and across the UK. Nye Bevan was right when he said that we have to win power if we are to be any real use to our constituents.
They don’t just want protest, they want us to wield power on their behalf and to make a better society and a fairer economy.
We can’t do that from Opposition. But that does not mean that we cannot and will not protest against injustice when we see it in opposition.
That is why we spent much of the last five years arguing against the Bedroom Tax, low wages, cuts to disability benefits, corporate tax dodging etc. That is why Labour’s manifesto proposed not to slash 12 billion from social security spending, to increase taxes on unearned wealth and the highest incomes. And it is why Labour will continue to oppose the current Welfare Bill, word by word and line by line, at Committee stage and, unless there are massive improvements made to it (reinstating the Child Poverty targets, scrapping this awful 2-child policy etc) we will vote against it at Third Reading.
Andy Burnham, who I am supporting to be leader of the party, has made that clear, and I will be supporting him wholeheartedly in opposing the bill when we get to those crucial votes in the Autumn.
The process of opposing the Bill at Committee Stage has already started – though it will not get the headlines that Monday night’s votes did. We have already tabled amendments which seek to • Prevent the Government abolishing the targets for reducing child poverty. • Stop the 4 year freeze of Tax Credits • Change the 2 child policy These amendments, and many others fundamental changes, would have to be made to the Bill or I will be voting against it.
Now that may not be enough of an explanation, nor sufficient opposition for some, but it is an honest reflection of what happened last week from my perspective and a sincere pledge that I will continue to vote against the Bill, and fight for a Labour victory in 2020.
