UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Speeches

  • Tobias Ellwood – 2019 Statement on Armed Forces Day

    Below is the text of the statement made by Tobias Ellwood, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 26 June 2019.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered Armed Forces Day.

    It is a real honour to open this debate to celebrate Armed Forces Day. It is an opportunity for us to say thank you to those in uniform who serve this country. It is an opportunity for us to express our gratitude to those who are in the regular service, the reserves, the cadets and those who served in uniform, our brave veterans. Also part of the armed forces community are the mums, dads, children, girlfriends, partners, wives and husbands; those who are in the immediate surrounds of those who wear or wore the uniform. On behalf of a grateful nation, I hope the House will join me in saying, “Thank you. Today and this week is all about you.”

    This is the eleventh annual Armed Forces Day, and each year the event becomes bigger and bigger. I am pleased to say that the Defence Secretary will be going to Salisbury this weekend. That city is of course famous for its 123 metre spire, but it is also the home of 3rd Division. It is therefore quite apt for her and others to be celebrating our armed forces in Salisbury. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), the Procurement Minister, will be visiting Wales and the Minister for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) will be visiting Scotland.

    I had the real honour of visiting Lisburn at the weekend. As somebody who served there during the troubles, how inspiring it was to be able to stand there in the high street with the Mayor and various dignitaries to watch the parade of our soldiers, sailors, air personnel and cadets. They were able to walk through the town and receive the gratitude not just of those in elected office, but of the thousands of people who lined the streets. Armed Forces Day is not just about parades, but the open day that takes place afterwards. I am very grateful to the people of Lisburn and indeed to the people of the rest of Northern Ireland. The year before, I was in Coleraine.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    The Minister was also in Bangor in North Down. I was alongside him—that is how I know.

    Mr Ellwood

    I have made so many visits to Northern Ireland, but they do not blur into one and the hon. Gentleman is right. The point I am trying to make is that when I and others served there, there was simply no chance of being able to walk down any high street in uniform and there was absolutely no chance of the civilian population being able to express their gratitude. The change is absolutely fantastic and very welcome.

    Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)

    I would like to give my right hon. Friend a vote of confidence, because I know he played a very big part in the D-day commemoration events in Normandy. I had the great honour of going on to the Boudicca and meeting the veterans. I would also like to thank the Defence Secretary and the staff, who were absolutely magnificent in organising that event. It was simply extraordinary and a total success. I just wanted to say that to the Minister directly, because we owe him great thanks for all that.

    ​Mr Ellwood

    I am grateful for those kind comments. I not only thank my hon. Friend for what he has done, but pay tribute to the sacrifice made by his father, who was part of the Normandy landings and who received the Victoria Cross—

    Sir William Cash

    The Military Cross.

    Mr Ellwood

    The Military Cross, I beg your pardon. He was killed on Hill 112 at the very beginning of that advance. I will come to what happened there and to the fact that I was on board the Boudicca with 90-year-olds who stayed up later than I did, drank far more than I did and were up earlier than I was the next day.

    Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)

    I join the Minister in paying tribute not only to current armed forces personnel, but to ex-servicemen. Will he add to the list of those he is congratulating and thanking the merchant seafarers, particularly at the Normandy landing? Many civilians took to their boats at very short notice to help to liberate Europe.

    Mr Ellwood

    The hon. Gentleman has jumped ahead of me, but I absolutely am happy to pay tribute to the work of the merchant seafarers. They supply our surface fleet and submariner fleet and logistically keep them at sea. They played such a critical role in the Normandy landings and do so today as well, and he is right to point that out.

    Today is Reserves Day—I declare that I am a reservist—and we should pay tribute to them. Hon. Members might be aware that many are wearing their uniform today with pride, and I point out in particular that many reservists are part of the Whitehall family. Yesterday at the Foreign Office, we invited all those civil servants who not only work hard for the Government and our country in their day jobs but wear the uniform as reservists. They are in all three services, and it was wonderful to see the variety of support not just from the organisers who put this together to show that there are those who can do both jobs, but the other employers that allow and give time to our service personnel so that they can be reservists, as well as working for them.

    Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)

    I cast my eye towards the side Gallery during Prime Minister’s questions to see our hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) wearing his uniform—the uniform of the Royal Artillery—and, as the Minister mentioned, I look forward to welcoming the Minister for the Armed Forces to our Stirling military show on Saturday. I think that it would be a really good thing if our serving personnel and our reservists have more opportunities to wear their uniforms in public. The more that the public see those who wear the uniform and have the opportunity to thank them in person, the more the bond will be strengthened between the public and those who serve them so selflessly in the Queen’s uniform.

    Mr Ellwood

    My hon. Friend makes a very important point. If any of us travel to the United States for business or otherwise, we will see—in any airport or high street—that if there is somebody in uniform, others will go up and simply thank them for their service. Those people are completely unknown to them but simply do that out of a sense of duty and pride. Perhaps we are a bit reserved in this country, but we should do that more, particularly with veterans. I am really pleased ​that one thing I have managed to do is enlarge the veterans’ badge. It was so small that someone had to invade that person’s body space to realise that it said “Veteran”. It is now twice the size, so it really jumps out at people. I hope that that will be the green light so that if anybody sees that badge, they go up to that person and say, “Thank you for what you have done for our country.”

    Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

    Will the Minister also thank the many veterans charities around the UK who help and support veterans to adjust to civilian life? I am thinking particularly of the Coming Home Centre in Govan, which I regularly support with letters to ensure that they get adequate funding. Will he say something about that and encourage MPs to get involved in helping veterans charities to get the funding that they need and deserve so that they can help veterans?

    Mr Ellwood

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to heap praise on our veterans charities. There are around 400 service-facing charities of different sizes. Some of the large ones that we know well, such as Combat Stress and Blesma, have been around for 100 years or so; others, which aim to keep the name of a loved one alive, are just starting up. They do incredible work, and it is so important that we honour and respect that, but we must also make sure that their work is co-ordinated, because resources are limited, and it is important that charities work together in synergy to ensure that we provide the best possible service for those who require it.

    Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)

    The Minister makes an important point about the need for proper integration and co-ordination of the charities supporting our veterans. I join in his remarks about Reserves Day. Having served in the reserves for 12 years, I think it is important to acknowledge the sacrifices made by reservists. Thousands of them have served on operations overseas. We should recognise the impact that may have had on their personal life, and they should not be forgotten when it comes to supporting veterans.

    Mr Ellwood

    Sometimes reservists step forward to fill the gap when there is a shortfall in the regular components of a unit or formation. I know from when I served—I am looking around at others who have served—that after a number of days, no one can tell the difference between reservists and regulars; that is how good these people are. Also, with the character of conflict and conventional warfare changing, we need the skillsets and specialisms found on civilian street. That is another reason why reservists make an important and growing contribution to our frontline capabilities, so I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

    There are three objectives for Armed Forces Day. The first is to do with showcasing what the armed forces do. We need to recognise that the profile of our armed forces has changed. Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer in the headlines all the time. However, that does not take away from the fact that we are involved in more than 20 operations and exercises around the world. At any moment, about 4,000 members of our Royal Navy are at sea or working overseas; 7,000 members of our RAF are working overseas; and 10,000 members of our Army are deployed on operations or exercises. That is a major commitment. It is us looking beyond our shores, ​helping other countries and making our mark across the world. Those operations cover the full spectrum of capability, whether they involve the interdiction of drugs in the Caribbean, countering piracy, dealing with a resurgent Russia in the skies of eastern Europe, still mopping up extremism in Iraq or Afghanistan, or helping upstream with the stabilisation challenges in African countries, together with our Commonwealth friends.

    Let us not forget what happens closer to home. When we are required to support civilians here in dealing with flooding, or in Operation Temperer, when the police require extra support to deal with terrorist attacks, it is our armed forces who stand in harm’s way. It is because of our armed forces that we can sleep at night, knowing that our country and its interests are absolutely defended. What we try to do, through Armed Forces Day, is explain that. That is important because the footprint—the outreach—of our armed forces is shrinking. All those in our age group probably know of somebody who served—perhaps our parents, and definitely our grandparents. Our bond with them is a reminder of what they did for our country. We are aware of the duty they performed, and perhaps of their sacrifice. I am horrified to say it, but we could get our entire armed forces into Wembley stadium. That is how small our armed forces have shrunk, so civilians’ direct exposure to our armed forces is ever smaller. It is critical that on Armed Forces Day, we celebrate, show and educate the public on exactly what our armed forces do.

    Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)

    Like many colleagues across the House, I went out to speak to constituents who had come to talk to us about the “Time is Now” lobby. Will my right hon. Friend also explain what the armed forces are doing about the climate change challenge?

    Mr Ellwood

    My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I shall deal with the threats that we face in a minute, but she is right to point out that a campaign to do with climate change is taking place outside the building at this moment. I believe that, in the long term, climate change is the biggest threat that we all face but need to face up to. If we are to be the custodians of values and standards, that must include looking after our planet, in which regard Britain can take a leading role.

    The second point that I wish to stress is that Armed Forces Day is all about civilian society saying thank you to our armed forces. It gives civilians an opportunity to say, “We are really grateful for what you are doing.” That does not just mean us, perhaps through speeches in the Chamber; it does not just mean the town mayor taking the salute as the parades walk by; it does not mean just the crowds showing their appreciation by clapping and saying, “Thank you very much indeed.” It also means our being able to say, “Thank you for keeping us safe,” and ensuring that we do so regularly.

    This is a one-day event when we say thank you, but a thank you should be said on every single day of the year, and the importance of that should be reflected in the armed forces covenant. We highlight the event and it has a profile, but we have that duty every day—not just the Ministry of Defence, but every Whitehall Department. That is why it is so critical that the Ministerial Covenant and Veterans Board, which brings together ​the responsibilities of other Departments, can point the finger and say, “The NHS: is it providing the necessary services? Local government: is it providing the necessary housing, or are we disadvantaging the people whom we promised we would look after?”

    Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)

    As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, I am delighted that we are having this debate. The Minister has touched on the impact of other Departments and Veterans Gateway, and how they should be working together. Does he agree that there is a significant problem with the Home Office in respect of serving personnel and their families, especially Commonwealth soldiers who need visas?

    Mr Ellwood

    Not for the first time, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Lady. We have had Westminster Hall debates on this issue, and we have made the case for the Home Office to reconsider. There has been a communications problem, in that those who are making the trip have not been made aware of the consequences of bringing family members. We are correcting that, but no one should be hindered from doing what is best, given the contribution that our Commonwealth friends make to our armed forces. We shall have to see where things move in the next couple of months and what the appetite will be, but I am absolutely behind the hon. Lady in wanting this matter to be addressed.

    Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend was explaining what Armed Forces Day does to acknowledge the efforts of our current armed forces. Does he agree that it is also a time to remember those who lost their lives while pursuing their military careers? Just this week, there has been a fantastic community effort. A memorial at Califer Hill in Moray had become overgrown, as a result of issues that I do not want to go into. So disappointed were currently serving and previous members of the military that the memorial to three Tornado operatives—Samuel Bailey, Hywel Poole and Adam Sanders—had become overgrown that members of the community got together to tidy it up. That is a great thing that they do, not just on Armed Forces Day but all year round.

    Mr Ellwood

    I am really pleased to learn that the memorial is being given the reverence and support that it needs, and is being cleaned up so that people can actually see it. I try to distinguish between this day and Remembrance Day, because Remembrance Day is about thanking and reflecting on the fallen. I want Armed Forces Day to be a celebration and also an outreach, educating people about the positive aspects of our armed forces.

    The armed forces covenant falls, almost, into three parts. It asks organisations to support our regular personnel, and there have been nearly 4,000 signatories. We have seen companies give deals and special discounts to those in the regular forces. The covenant also covers the reserves; it asks companies to make sure that if someone signs up to be a reservist, they get time off to go and do their annual camp and training and so forth, and they are not impeded or have to use their holiday time. I stress that anybody who allows their employees to go away for a number of days finds that those employees will come back all the richer from their learning and what they have experienced, to the benefit of the employer.

    ​Ruth Smeeth

    Does the Minister agree that we as employers in this House—every single Member of Parliament—should become covenant employers in our own right and that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority should work with us to deliver that? We should not have to go through the MOD to deliver that; we should all be encouraging everybody to promote the covenant both in this place and in our constituencies.

    Mr Ellwood

    Let us go further than that: shall I write to IPSA and invite it to become a signatory to the covenant? Perhaps that is what should happen.

    Ruth Smeeth

    That would be a wonderful intervention by the Minister, but I have tried to make that suggestion in private to IPSA and have not been very successful, so any help the Minister can give me to ensure that IPSA allows us all to become covenant employers would be very welcome.

    Mr Ellwood

    I suspect that following this debate IPSA will be more aware that there is an invitation heading its way.

    Another organisation that I hope is well aware that there is an invitation on the way, because I have written to it, is the BBC. I make the following point directly—although the BBC will probably cut this because our debate is being broadcast by BBC Parliament. Our veterans—2.5 million of them—are changing in profile. Sadly, in the next 10 years that number will diminish and go down to 1.5 million, because we will lose the second world war generation. The television is so important to many of these elderly people, who are on their own and use it for company and so forth; we have heard all the debate about this. I simply ask the BBC to look carefully at this issue. Its contribution to the covenant could be to allow our veterans to continue having that free TV licence. I have written to the BBC but have yet to have a reply; I look forward to receiving something in the post very soon indeed.

    Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)

    There has been consensus thus far in this debate, but I must point out that one way of achieving that would be to bring it in-house; let the Government of the day decide. The provision was in our manifesto and we are willing to introduce it, and it was in the right hon. Gentleman’s party manifesto as well. Let us keep those TV licences free for the over-75s.

    Mr Ellwood

    The hon. Gentleman makes his point and it is now on the record—unless the BBC has cut that bit as well.

    I need to stress the issue of perception, because another aspect of Armed Forces Day is to correct the perception that somehow if someone joins our armed forces they might be damaged by their service. Nothing could be further from the truth: those who serve are less likely to go to prison, less likely to want to take their own life and less likely to be affected by mental health issues. If anyone is affected by any of those issues, then absolutely the help should be there, and we spoke about the importance of veterans support and indeed what comes from the Government too. The idea that those who serve are damaged is perpetuated in society; the Lord Ashcroft report underlined that, and we need to change it. We need to change it for two reasons. First, it ​does nothing to help recruitment and the next generation wanting to sign up for our armed forces. Secondly, it does nothing for those who have left the armed forces and are seeking a job, as they might therefore not get that job. They might not gain employment because their employer has a false idea that somehow they are damaged. We need to change that.

    Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)

    Although I agree with much of what the Minister is saying about employers, we must also recognise that neither a reservist nor a full member of the armed forces is an employee. The Minister has implied on the Floor of the House that he does not agree that members of the armed forces should be treated as employees. Does he think that it would help with recruitment if he said that they should be?

    Mr Ellwood

    I think the hon. Gentleman is being pedantic; I think he knows exactly the spirit in which I support the armed forces. If he wants to discuss this after the debate I will be more than happy to do so, and I will listen carefully to his speech if he wants to elaborate on that. My commitment to all those who serve and their ability to get into employment is second to none, as I hope is reflected in the comments I have made.

    Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)

    I absolutely echo the support of everyone in this Chamber for the current members of our armed forces and for our veterans. Most of the veterans I see in my surgery are suffering for one reason: their mental health is suffering as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder. We live in a rural area, and they need quite specialist treatment. Even with the best will in the world, and with the covenant, they are not able to access that support. Will the Minister make a commitment today that any member of the armed forces who is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder will be able to access Defence mental health services at whatever time after they have left service, because PTSD often crops up more than six months after they have left?

    Mr Ellwood

    The hon. Lady highlights the challenge that we face. While someone is serving in uniform, their mental health and physical health are the responsibility of the MOD, but once they depart from the armed forces—or, indeed, if they are part of the family in the armed forces but not wearing a uniform—that is the responsibility of the NHS. The NHS has good facilities in some areas, but they are less good in others. They are getting far better: the TIL service—the trauma intervention and liaison service—is the first port of call for anybody with the challenges that the hon. Lady mentions. We also have complex treatment centres up and down the country, but they are still in their infancy and we need to get better from them. I absolutely hear what she says, and this is exactly why we have the Ministerial Covenant and Veterans Board to point the finger and say, “Please look, this is the support that we require.” The NHS has just received £21 billion extra. Let us see some of that money go into creating parity between mental and physical health.

    James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)

    My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about looking after our veterans and their mental and physical health and all that, but he must not allow himself to be ​diverted from the important point he was making, which is that we have 200,000 extremely fit and active members of our armed services, very few of whom are suffering in those ways. The point of Armed Forces Day is to celebrate the fantastic service that they make to our nation. Of course we must look after those who are disabled in one way or another, but we must none the less celebrate those who are fit, healthy and active, and serving the Queen.

    Mr Ellwood

    I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does in supporting the armed forces’ profile in Parliament. It is absolutely paramount in educating others. He is absolutely right to say that we need to keep this in perspective and celebrate the positive side of being in the armed forces, while not forgetting our responsibility and duty to look after those who are less fortunate or require support.

    Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)

    I apologise to the Minister for coming in late. The covenant has now been going for about 10 years. What percentage of its objectives have been realised in areas such as mental health, housing and employment? It has been going for a very long time and I would like to know how far we have come. Has he had any discussions with the British Legion about this?

    Mr Ellwood

    That is mapped out in our annual report, and, if I may, I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of it. He is absolutely right to suggest that we should not be complacent about the importance of setting the bar ever higher. This is one of the toughest things that I have found in getting parity across the country, not least because responsibility for this is devolved to the other nations.

    I can finally get to my third point on what the armed forces are actually about: the bond of the communities themselves. I am looking round the Chamber, and I can see representatives of the places where people have served. There is a symbiotic relationship between the garrison, the base or the port and the surrounding conurbation. Let us take Portsmouth, Aldershot and Plymouth as examples. Those places have a long history of relationships between those in the garrison and those who are working outside. Spouses and partners will seek work in those places, and children will need to be educated there. It is absolutely paramount to get all those things right, and we must ensure that we celebrate that as well. Armed Forces Day can highlight and illuminate the bond between organisations, and it is important for us to focus on that.

    That brings me to the issue of veterans, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—who has now departed—raised earlier. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you want me to conclude soon, but it is worth focusing on this issue for a minute or so, if I may. We owe a duty of care to our veterans. I was on board the Boudicca for that incredible journey, taking people who did so much 75 years ago at the turning point in the war. It was humbling to be with those soldiers, who landed in the biggest maritime invasion that has ever taken place, with 150,000 people on those five beaches: Omaha, Utah, Gold, Sword and Juno. I discovered that Juno was originally going to be named after jellyfish. ​Ours were all named after fish—goldfish, swordfish and so forth—but Churchill was not going to have a beach landing, at which people would die, called “Jelly”, so it was changed.

    I spoke to some of those veterans. I asked one in particular, “What’s it like coming here?” He said, “It reminds me of when Britain was great.” That sent a bit of a shock through me about where we are today and the role that we have taken. Perhaps we have become a little risk averse in what we do, and in our willingness to step forward as a force for good. We should reflect on that.

    The veterans strategy, which I touched on earlier, is critical to bringing together and co-ordinating charities and the work that we do, to ensure that support is there. Part of that is ensuring that there is a transition process, and that when people leave the armed forces they transition back into civilian society with ease. Of those who participate in the official transition process, which can last up to two years, 95% are either in work or employment within six months, which is very good to see.

    Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)

    I represent Darlington, which is the nearest major town to Catterick garrison. I see what the Minister is talking about day in and day out. Does he think that we do enough to celebrate, and to highlight to people who might be considering a career in the armed forces, the support that is available to people leaving, and the breadth of successful careers that veterans enter into, from teaching to running their own businesses? All kinds of things are possible, and sometimes we do not explain and highlight enough the support that is available to people as they leave.

    Mr Ellwood

    The hon. Lady is right to point out the challenges for somebody who has perhaps done three tours of Afghanistan on the general-purpose machine gun. How do they put that in their CV and then sell it to, say, a civilian organisation? There is not a lot of call for that, unless they are some soldier of fortune who is looking for mercenary work, which I hope would not be the case.

    We need to ensure that this can be turned around, and the skillsets can be recognised. That must happen in two phases. First, we must explain to companies what the skillsets are, and our Defence Relationship Management organisation does exactly that. Secondly, we must ensure that the individual who is in uniform and who is departing can learn the necessary skills and gain civilian qualifications on their way out, so that they can land in civilian street best armed to face the future.

    James Gray

    Will the Minister pay tribute to some very good companies? FDM springs to mind, which has so far placed 500 personnel in the IT industry, and does great work. To pick up on one detail, when people leave the armed forces they tick a form that gives them the option of a variety of interests and industries in which they might like to be retrained. For some reason, there is no box for the land-based industries: farming, game keeping and so forth. Will he change the form to allow soldiers to opt for land-based careers, for which, after all, they are well qualified?

    Mr Ellwood

    I was not aware of that. I would be delighted to have a meeting with my hon. Friend. Perhaps we can take the matter forward and see what we can do. Absolutely, we should not miss any such opportunity.​

    While we celebrate the armed forces we must look to the future and ask why we have our armed forces. They do not just defend our shores and promote prosperity; perhaps for Britain more than any other country, they project global influence. It is in our DNA to participate and be active on the international stage, to move forward, and to have an understanding of the world around us and to help to shape it. We will lose that ability if our hard power cannot keep up with the changing character of conflict.

    As I see it, we are facing greater danger than at any time since the cold war. However, in the cold war, we had three divisions in Germany alone. We had 1 (British) Corps; now we are down to one warfighting division just in the UK. We are pleased to have an aircraft carrier, with a second on the way, but the fact that the Navy’s budget did not change has affected the rest of the surface fleet. We are pleased to have the F-35 and the P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, which are excellent, but in the Gulf war we had 36 fast jet squadrons—today we are down to six. Our main battle tank has not been updated for 20 years, and our Warrior has not been updated for 25 years.

    The money needs to come. We need to invest more in our defence if we are to keep that profile, but the threats are changing and becoming more diverse. There is not just a single threat—not just a resurgent Russia or a rising China—and extremism has not disappeared, but cyberspace will take over as the area of most conflict. Data, not terrain, will be the prize, and we will become all the more vulnerable as 5G and the internet of things take over.

    We are becoming ever-reliant on an automated world, but how vulnerable we become, and how our world closes down, if that world is interfered with in any way. Two thirds of our universities are hacked or attacked in any year, so we need to build resilience. A hundred years ago we developed the RAF, which moved away from the other armed forces—we created a new service. I pose the question of whether we now need a fourth service, one to do with cyber and our capability to lead the world’s understanding of not just resilience, offensive and defensive, but of the rules of engagement, too.

    Somebody could attack this House of Commons, and we would not know who it was. We would not understand where the threat came from, but it would affect us, Even if we found out who it was, to whom do we go to complain? Who sets the rules of what is a responsible response? How do we retaliate?

    These are questions that we should be asking ourselves, and we should work with our allies to defend western values.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr Ellwood

    I will conclude, if I may.

    We constantly talk about the erosion of the rules-based order, but we do not say what we will do about it. China was not included in the Bretton Woods organisations that were created after the second world war. Somebody, some nation, who understands how the world is changing needs to step forward and articulate where we need to go. Otherwise, we will see a new cold war between the United States and China, and we will see these threats become greater and greater.​

    As we say thank you to those who have served and are serving, what are we doing about it? What role do we see ourselves playing? We have become distracted by Brexit in this vortex of discussing something that has taken our mind off what is happening around the world. The world is changing fast. I believe it is in our DNA to step forward, as we did 75 years ago, and help craft the world into a better place. That requires greater investment in our armed forces.

    I conclude as I began, by saying thank you to all those who have served, all those who do serve and all those who want to serve, and the families around them. We owe you a debt of gratitude, and we are very grateful for your service.

  • Kevin Hollinrake – 2019 Speech on Disabled Access at Thirsk Station

    Below is the text of the speech made by Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, in the House of Commons on 26 June 2019.

    I am grateful to you for granting this important debate, Mr Speaker, because train travel has never been more popular or important. Around 20,000 miles of railway track criss-cross our island, and altogether, we made 1.8 billion rail journeys last year—a 3% rise on the previous year. I am a frequent rail user, boarding a train every week at York or Thirsk that whisks me to Westminster to represent my constituents, and then boarding another to return home to glorious North Yorkshire in time for my surgeries and visits at the weekend. Importantly, this week the Government legislated for a target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Using public transport is one way that we can help to tackle climate change and improve air quality.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    This week, most Members across the House took the decision to drive for that net zero carbon outcome for the UK, but that can be achieved only if more people make use of public transport. The fact that those who are disabled are precluded from using many railway stations, such as Thirsk, due to the lack of facilities is absurd. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must, in future policy relating to climate change targets, enable all people to travel on public transport, not just those who are able-bodied?

    Kevin Hollinrake

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I will say later, around 40% of stations do not have access for disabled people, and we know that disabled people are accounting for a greater and greater proportion of our population, so this is hugely important. I am grateful for his intervention.

    We need to encourage train use for all users and facilitate access to stations. Trains allow us to commute and explore the length and breadth of our country, from Thurso in the very north of Scotland to St Ives in Cornwall, both of which, I must mention, are replete with step-free access for disabled passengers. This is the essence of the problem: these essentials cannot just be for those who are in the physical prime of their life. Trains and the 2,500 stations that they pass through should be made more accessible for everyone. Everyone, including disabled people, the elderly and parents pushing prams, should have the same opportunity to travel by train.

    In particular, Thirsk railway station in my constituency is in need of accessibility improvements, which will make a real difference to people’s lives. As with most stations, trains travel through Thirsk extremely quickly—I have stood on the platform when trains come through at over 100 miles an hour—but Thirsk is unique in that it has an island ticket office and platforms stationed between the tracks. Concrete steps are the only way to access the ticket office and platforms. Passengers must reach the ticket office and both platforms by navigating a barrow crossing across the high-speed railway line. This can be a very difficult and even traumatic experience for the elderly, disabled passengers, parents with pushchairs or people heaving heavy suitcases. Thirsk is not alone: ​40% of railway stations in England, Scotland and Wales do not have step-free access, and research found that over a third of working-age disabled people had experienced problems using trains in the last year as a result of their disability. A solution is much needed.

    The railway industry is on the right track: it is encouraging more people to travel by train using the disabled persons railcard; carriages have been adapted; and I regularly see ramps on platforms, and kindly staff going above and beyond to facilitate access for passengers. Information is also improving and becoming more widely available to disabled users. National Rail has published an access map online, which is a great resource for disabled passengers, but it also highlights the limited access they have to railway stations in my constituency. I quote the entry for Thirsk station:

    “customers should note that access to all platforms is via a barrow crossing which is reliant upon staff assistance, and cannot be accessed outside of staffed hours.”

    Fortunately, we are starting from a good place in this debate, as improving access to our railway stations for disabled passengers is very much a key priority for the Government. As for further down the line, Network Rail is working towards an entirely accessible transport network by 2030, in which there will be assistance if physical infrastructure remains a barrier. That timetable will remind those of us who remember train travel before privatisation of the British Rail slogan, which is apt: “We’re getting there”.

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and the Minister, whom I met to discuss these issues and our bid to the Access for All funding programme. Access for All is providing £300 million of additional funding to make 73 stations more accessible by 2024. Unfortunately, Thirsk is not one of them. I felt that our campaign was good, and was building up a head of steam. It had strong support from Graham Meiklejohn at TransPennine Express, Grand Central, Graham North for North Yorkshire County Council, Professor Abrahams of the Northallerton and Thirsk Rail Users Group, members of the public, and of course me. I am grateful to all those people, with whom I work very closely on this issue.

    Our bid was unsuccessful. Apparently, we fell short on footfall. However, the number of users on these routes continues to increase. There was a 3.6% increase this year, and the population of Hambleton is expected to grow by 4% by 2035, which of course will mean more disabled and elderly people there. I am disappointed that our bid was unsuccessful, but to be fair, I am not sure that we adequately highlighted the fact that there is no unaided access to any platform at Thirsk station. We need to revisit our bid, make it more compelling, and point out the growing issues at the station. According to the Rail Delivery Group, in 2018, there were 6,700 people using a disabled person’s railcard in my constituency. That is up from 4,200 in 2015—an increase of 59%. It is great that more people are saving money on their journeys, ​but what is the point of encouraging the use of that railcard if its users are deterred from using the train, or simply cannot access the platform?

    According to the Office for National Statistics, nearly one in five people in England and Wales have some form of disability. Leonard Cheshire estimates that almost 45,000 journeys are made by disabled people at Thirsk station each year. The Equality Act 2010, which I know the Minister is very familiar with, urges the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow disabled persons to travel without unreasonable difficulty in safety and reasonable comfort. I call on the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport to ensure that that can happen at Thirsk railway station.

    I appreciate that funds are always in short supply; there is no magic money tree. Elected representatives, including my colleagues in the Department, must always consider those footing the bill—the taxpayer—and, of course, value for money. I am keen to work with the Department, TransPennine Express, local authorities and local enterprise partnerships to find a solution. I am very flexible in my approach to ensuring better access to the station. Rather than putting in two lifts, one on either side of the bridge, there is perhaps a business case for putting in a lift on one side of it, and for moving the ticket office on the platform to the other side. That would be a cheaper option. It would save us perhaps around £1 million in our bid. It will be interesting to see what further funding might be made available to facilitate that solution.

    As I say, there are alternative cost-effective solutions. I would be keen to hear more from the Department about what can be done. I invite the Minister to Thirsk—it is always a pleasure for anyone to visit Thirsk—to meet the groups I mentioned and help develop a plan. Facilitating access is something we can all get on board with. I look forward to working with Ministers to develop a plan to improve disabled access at Thirsk station and, over time, to see better access to public transport for all.

  • Liam Fox – 2019 Speech on Exporting and Trade

    Below is the text of the speech made by Liam Fox, the Secretary of State for International Development, in London on 26 June 2019.

    1. Introduction

    Perhaps I could start with a question. Of these Government Departments, which has the biggest budget?

    Justice, Defence, the Home Office, International Trade. Answers on a postcard. Well, last year Defence came out top, with £28.4 billion. The Home Office was second at £10.8 billion. Third was Justice at £6.3 billion. The Department for International Trade was way down the list. But what might surprise you is the size of the gap between International Trade and the other Departments. In fact, DIT’s budget was less than a tenth of the Ministry of Justice’s, at around £400 million.

    Now, this is in no way to suggest other Departments are over funded or that justice, the police or the defence of the realm are not vital spending priorities. I could hardly say otherwise as the former Defence Secretary!

    2. DIT in context

    But I wanted to put my remarks here in context because there is an untold story here, which I’m going to set out today.

    I am proud to lead a department which has a direct impact on our prosperity.

    In 2017/18 alone, we helped UK businesses export goods and services worth around £30.5 billion, against our total exports of around £645 billion.

    And based on analysis by the Institute for Economic Affairs, DIT estimate that this could potentially generate around £10 billion for the Exchequer.

    Over 2016/17 and 2017/2018 we supported more than 3,500 inward investment projects, creating and safeguarding over 190,000 jobs.

    So my point is that we have some amazing ‘bang for your buck’ given the resources and for the taxpayer’s investment.

    Yet for all this success there is an implicit warning. Global Britain cannot be built on a shoestring.

    As the UK leaves the EU, it is vital that Government aggressively promotes and finances international trade and investment, and champions free trade: promoting the private sector companies that are the wellspring of our national prosperity.

    Economies in South Asia, East Asia and Africa are becoming more and more prosperous, driving demand in precisely those sectors in which the UK excels.

    Ensuring Britain succeeds in this new era means having the right tools to ensure we can unlock the global economy, which will in turn support the UK economy.

    And to sell Britain abroad we need to understand two things. First, the markets we are selling into and the opportunities that they have to offer. And second, our overseas network also has to understand what Britain has to sell in goods and services, constantly updated by our sector teams here in the UK.

    If the United Kingdom is under-armed – if we fail to rise to the opportunities and challenges of a rapidly changing global economy – there are plenty of competitor countries who may be better resourced or equipped. We must ensure that Britain is not left behind in the global trade race.

    3. The case for DIT

    Now, according to the International Trade Centre, the UK has an untapped potential of £124 billion in the export of goods alone. That’s companies that could be exporting because their peers do but are not choosing to do so.

    And fulfilling this potential means being serious about the scale of the challenge posed.

    As we prepare for life after Brexit, we must embrace the opportunity to connect into the markets of the future.

    The global economy is changing, as you all know, at a staggering pace. The population is projected to increase to 9.8 billion by 2050, and will become better educated, wealthier and more urbanised.

    It is predicted that the share of global GDP of the seven largest emerging economies – including China, India and Turkey – could increase from around 35% to nearly 50% of global GDP by 2050, which would mean that they overtake the G7.

    Last year Africa had five of the world’s fastest-growing economies.

    Africa’s GDP has been predicted to double between 2015 and 2030. And the African Development Bank has estimated that by 2060 there could be 1.1 billion middle class Africans: quite a big consumer market.

    This is a golden opportunity for high value UK goods and services to find new consumers and business markets.

    And we are working at the moment to deliver the Prime Minister’s ambition for the UK to be the largest G7 investor in Africa by 2022.

    Yet, notwithstanding that, the Department for International Development has more staff in Kenya than the Department for International Trade has in the whole of the continent from Egypt to South Africa.

    This is not to say that our international development efforts are too large, or that they are in competition with our international trade and investment promotion efforts.

    However, if we want to have greater influence, if we want to sell more goods and services abroad, if we want to encourage more British businesses to invest and operate overseas, and overseas firms to locate and invest in the UK, then we must invest in the capabilities required.

    And this means striking a new balance between our spending priorities – not just focusing on how we divide our national income, but how we grow that income too.

    Within whatever spending envelope comes out of the next Spending Review, we must ensure that we prioritise those areas that will generate economic growth and wealth creation for our country in the future.

    4. Free & fair trade

    Over the past three years, I have spent a great deal of time talking about the benefits of free trade. Open, free and fair trade, rooted in a sound and relevant international rules-based trading system has repeatedly shown itself to be of huge benefit to both individuals and states; producers and consumers; and in both developed & developing countries alike.

    And I say consumers because, all too often, we focus on producers without setting out the benefits of free trade to household incomes: keeping prices down and ensuring competition and diversity of supply.

    In fact, I sat through an International Trade Ministers’ meeting where I had my watch out to see how long it would take anyone to say the ‘c’ word: 52 minutes before anyone mentioned consumers.

    As the world’s emerging and developing economies have liberalised trade practices, prosperity has spread, bringing industry, jobs and wealth where once there was only deprivation.

    According to the World Bank, the three decades between 1981 and 2011 witnessed the single greatest decrease in material deprivation in human history. Or, as Francis Fukuyama put it in his recent book “Identity”, the percentage of children dying before their fifth birthday declined from 22% in 1960 to less than 5% by 2016.

    A billion people taken out of abject poverty in one generation. That is why it is morally unthinkable to reject free and open trade.

    Now, as with many freedoms, free and open trade can seem like an inherent fact of life. But the reality is that these freedoms and the benefits that they bestow have been hard-won. They must be continually defended from the siren-call of protectionism, which would tip the global balance in favour of the rich against the poor, the strong against the weak, and the developed against the developing.

    And it is worth reminding ourselves of the positive narrative around free trade and the improvement of the human condition, because in the world around us, there is a rising chorus of protectionism which threatens to drown out the case for a free and open global trading system.

    New barriers, which were touched upon in the last session, many of them invisible, are emerging around the global economy, creating new impediments to the open commerce that is the lifeblood of global prosperity.

    What is worse, many of these impediments are being introduced by G7 and G20 countries – the very nations who have prospered most from the open, liberal trading system of recent decades.

    Research by the OECD has shown that protectionist instincts have grown since the financial crisis of 2008. By 2010 G7 and G20 countries were estimated to be operating some 300 non-tariff barriers to trade: 300. By 2015 this had mushroomed to over 1200 non-tariff barriers to trade. Now protectionism can be seductive but is a dangerous affair. I have described it as the class A drug of the trading world – it can make you feel good at first, but it can prove disastrous in the long term.

    It is economically destructive, preventing us from reallocating global resources effectively. It is also socially regressive because those on lower incomes spend a higher proportion of their money on goods than services so tariffs and barriers will hurt the poor more. And we will all pay the price if those denied the opportunity of global prosperity turn their backs on the partnerships and cooperation that underpin global security.

    We all have to ensure that those who have most benefited from open and free trade do not pull up the drawbridge behind them and deny the same benefits to others. Why? Because I have never believed that trade is an end in itself, but a means to an end. Trade is a means to an end. Trade is a way in which we spread prosperity more widely. That prosperity underpins social cohesion, that social cohesion in turns underpins political stability and that political stability is the building block of our collective security. If you interrupt that continuum of trade and investment, do not be surprised if you get unwanted consequences, politically, economically or in terms of security.

    5. DIT’s role in ensuring a thriving economy

    Now the Department for International Trade has been key in ensuring we are in a better position to achieve our aims.

    We have been working as never before to help businesses take full advantage of global opportunities, ensuring the UK remains a leading destination for international investment, assisting outward direct investment for UK companies into overseas markets, and negotiating market access for UK exporters.

    Last year we launched a new Export Strategy: to encourage, inform, connect and finance businesses of all sizes with the goal of increasing our exports from 30% to 35% of our GDP moving us to the top of the G7.

    We have convened the Board of Trade for the first time in 150 years to champion trade and investment promotion across whole of the United Kingdom.

    We have created an overseas network of Her Majesty’s Trade Commissioners selected for their expertise in particular markets, building our regional trade plans and securing market access across the globe.

    We have our world-leading export credit agency UK Export Finance, celebrating its 100th birthday this year, with a £50 billion capacity , available in 65 international currencies, to ensure that no UK export fails for lack of finance or insurance: and at no net cost to the taxpayer. 77% of the businesses that UKEF supported in 2017/18 were small and medium-sized enterprises: a step change from the situation previously in terms of that business relationship.

    And, recognising that it takes more than one business to deliver an export contract, I was very proud to announce earlier this month that UKEF has extended eligibility for its support to companies in exporters’ supply chains: not just end stage exporters themselves.

    And this will enable these firms, from car parts suppliers to food packagers – who play a crucial role in supply chains but do not directly sell goods or services themselves overseas – to access the support they need to thrive, including in vital areas such as cashflow.

    We have also launched the UK’s first ever public consultations on new trade agreements – with the United States, Australia and New Zealand, as well potential accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP: easier said in the morning than after a drink in the evening!

    6. DIT’s global competitors

    And there is pressing reason for these efforts. It is no secret that countries across the world are ramping up their trade and investment promotion efforts.

    President Macron’s ‘Choose France’ initiative is openly seeking to attract businesses who may be looking to relocate from the UK.

    And the Dutch Government has hired more personnel to optimise support for British companies to move from the UK.

    And yet despite this, the United Kingdom continues to be the top destination in Europe for attracting foreign direct investment: reaching a record high on the latest figures to the end of 2018.

    For the first time in more than four decades, Britain has the opportunity to reach out to the wider world as an independent trading nation, and a global champion of free, fair, rules based international trade.

    And, in the shape of the Department for International Trade, the UK has an ideal – and indeed unique tool – to realise that opportunity to drive growth in a post-Brexit economy.

    And unlike many of our strategic partners such as Australia, or Canada, the United States or the European Union, the United Kingdom is unique – and I wonder how many people understand this – unique in carrying responsibility for export promotion, trade finance, trade remedies, exporting licensing and international negotiations in a single government department.

    It is one of the most important and farsighted legacies of Theresa May’s time as Prime Minister of this country.

    And DIT unites all the UK’s trade capabilities, bringing together the government’s international economic levers to give us a truly competitive ‘Trade Advantage’.

    It puts trade front and centre of the national agenda, a focal point to create the conditions for UK businesses to be competitive on the world stage.

    And as the only department with a network both in the UK and overseas, DIT is uniquely positioned to engage directly with business, with the high levels of expertise and global reach that those businesses need to exploit new opportunities.

    7. Aligning trade and development policy

    Now, it is not just about structures. As you will know it is also about priorities.

    It means ensuring that trade is at the forefront of the foreign policy agenda, as well as our development agenda, so that we can use the new policy freedoms which will be realised after we leave the European Union to better align our international policy goals.

    This means recognising the key role of trade in boosting global prosperity and security, and giving developing nations a chance – a real chance – to trade their way out of poverty on a sustainable basis.

    The Government is working hard to ensure development and global prosperity are at the heart of UK trade and investment policy, enhancing market access for poorer countries and ensuring that they can take advantage of this access through trade-related assistance that we give.

    We are committed to bringing trade and development policy closer together, investing to build a safer, healthier, more prosperous world and helping countries in the developing world leave aid dependency to become our trading partners of the future.

    This includes our £1.2 billion cross-Whitehall Prosperity Fund , to promote economic reform and development in countries eligible for ODA.

    And this will help tackle poverty and unlock new opportunities for UK businesses in strategically important markets such as India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South-East Asia.

    8. Global Economic headwinds

    And I believe the need for all this this is now stronger than ever. It will be no secret to those of you in this room this morning that significant headwinds are growing across the global economy.

    Last month, the OECD forecast of world GDP growth in 2019 and 2020 were revised down to 3.2% and 3.4% respectively.

    At the same time, global trade growth forecasts have been revised down significantly: by 1.6 percentage points to 2.1% for 2019 – the weakest rate since the height of the financial crisis.

    And for the first time in decades, the system of free, fair, rules based multilateral trade which underpins our prosperity, has itself come into question.

    The World Bank has identified that mounting protectionism and a broad-based increase in global tariffs could translate into a possible annual decline in global trade of 9%, or over US $2.6 trillion relative to the baseline in 2020.

    Of course, the strength of the UK economy has so far bucked the trend. The employment rate is at a record high, while the unemployment rate is at a 45-year low. Wages are growing faster than inflation.

    British exports stand at a record high of £645.8 billion – a year-on-year increase of 4% at a time when global trade growth has been slowing.

    And, as I have already pointed out, latest figures from UNCTAD found that the UK has once again been confirmed as the number one destination for FDI in Europe – hitting a record high of almost £1.5 trillion in stock – more than Germany and France combined.

    Nevertheless, for all its successes, we must acknowledge those headwinds in the global economic outlook in which we operate, and the risks which we therefore face.

    We need to take the measures in cooperation with our international economic partners to ensure those risks are mitigated, standing up for our belief in free trade and the free trading system.

    Otherwise there can be no guarantee that our economy will not be affected by adverse trends.

    9. Conclusion

    So we must be ready for whatever the future holds.

    The UK can only meet its global ambitions and drive prosperity at home – during a time of fierce international competition and global economic challenges – if it puts trade at the top of our agenda.

    That is why, at this critical juncture in our national history, it is essential we are appropriately equipped so the UK can boost its competitiveness, forge new and enhanced trade relationships around the world, and thus achieve our full economic potential.

    We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to realise our country’s potential as an outward looking, Global Britain.

    A country that promotes prosperity worldwide by helping developing countries to trade their way out of poverty.

    A country that champions free, fair, rules based trade, abiding by and shaping world-class standards and the international rules-based trading system.

    But we cannot do this on a shoestring and we must be willing to prioritise our spending to where it will lead to greater wealth creation and growth, providing us with the future funding of public services such as health, education and defence.

    Failure to take the scale of the challenge seriously will mean we may lose out on the potential of a new golden era of British trade.

    The opportunity is out there for the taking. And we must embrace it: with confidence, with optimism, and above all, with courage. Thank you.

  • Margot James – 2019 Speech on Designers

    Below is the text of the speech made by Margot James, the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, on 26 June 2019.

    Thank you for inviting me to speak at the Design Biennale summit and welcome to all those here today.

    I would like to congratulate the Biennale on its impact on the international design industry since its inception.

    I must also congratulate Sir John Sorrell and Ben Evans, the founders of this fantastic event.

    From what I have seen of the schedule, today promises to be a melting pot of ideas and fascinating discussions that will continue to strengthen this impact.

    This event promises to foster exciting international design thinking and to look more deeply at how design can make the world a better place.

    In many ways London is the design capital of the world, so it is a fitting backdrop for this truly unique event. We are all united by our common interest in design and our passion for how great design can boost our countries and cities.

    And how design thinking can revolutionise our approach to dealing with many of the challenges facing today’s society.

    Es Devlin’s choice of theme – Resonance – is very exciting.

    As Minister for Digital and Creative Industries, I am really interested in how the power of design resonates internationally.

    UK design is recognised the world over – the Tube map, the Mini car, the classic Penguin book covers. It is our calling card to the world.

    Design has the power to cross borders and provide links between cultures. It exports our values and culture to the world. And vice versa. This event shows the power of design to unite and facilitate collaboration.

    In an increasingly connected and digital world design resonates with people on an incredibly personal level.

    It alters accepted behaviours, shapes perceptions and helps to develop and transform societies and ways of living.

    Of course, design is also vital to the modern economy. From airplanes to websites, furniture to buildings, UK design exports continue to generate billions for our economy.

    I want design to be at the heart of our economic, cultural and social policies. And we are working hard to make this a reality.

    The Biennale brings together different nations to work together to explore a single theme. The varied interpretations of the theme and ideas demonstrated show the value of different perspectives and approaches to the issues of todays’ society.

    The Biennale is a great example of nations working together. This is ever more important in an ever more connected world.

    It demonstrates that design can be an exciting catalyst for such cross border collaboration, which is ever more important today.

    I look forward to seeing what the London Design Biennale 2020 brings. Thank you.

  • Theresa May – 2019 Speech on Housing

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in Manchester on 26 June 2019.

    Thank you very much, Gaby, and good afternoon everyone.

    It is a pleasure to be here with you all today, at Europe’s largest housing festival.

    I have to say, I was a little apprehensive when I saw where you were meeting this year.

    The last time I visited this venue it was hosting the 2017 Conservative Party conference – when, it is fair to say, I had one or two problems with my speech.

    But I have checked that the backdrop is good and solid.

    There is someone backstage with my cough sweets ready.

    And if anyone is planning on running on stage waving a P45.

    You are a little bit late.

    Because of course, in a few weeks from now I will be stepping down as Prime Minister.

    And it will fall to a new leader, a new government, to continue the vital work of making this a country where each and every person has a safe and secure home to call their own.

    Doing that was one of the challenges I set myself when I spoke from the steps of Downing Street a little under three years ago.

    And three years on, there is still much to do.

    But I am immensely proud of what you and I have achieved together.

    Because hand in hand, step by step and piece by piece, the government and the sector have begun to turn around the crisis in British housing.

    In our 2015 manifesto we promised to deliver a million new homes by 2020, a promise we restated at the general election two years later.

    Commentators and critics said it could not happen.

    But it is happening.

    Last year alone saw more additional homes delivered than in all but one of the previous 31.

    Since I became Prime Minister, the number of net additions has been growing right across England.

    Here in Greater Manchester the number of extra homes being created has risen by more than 12 per cent.

    In Nottingham, by 43 per cent.

    In Birmingham, by an enormous 80 per cent.

    The notable exception is London – where housing policy is in the hands of the Mayor, and the number of new homes being created has actually fallen by a staggering 20 per cent.

    But nationwide, the picture is bright.

    The number of affordable housing starts has been increasing year-on-year.

    And the latest projections show that, by this autumn, a million homes will have been added to our national supply in less than five years.

    A million homes for young families, for hardworking professionals, for downsizing retirees.

    A million homes giving more people the safety and security that many of us take for granted.

    A million homes that show that our promises are more than just words.

    It is a great achievement and one of which everyone involved should be proud.

    But it was never intended to be the final goal.

    The housing shortage in this country began not because of a blip lasting one year or one Parliament, but because not enough homes were built over many decades.

    The very worst thing we could do would be to make the same mistake again.

    So while it has taken a huge effort to get this far, we are only just getting started.

    The job is not done, the work is not over.

    And that is why, in contrast to previous administrations, the reforms I have concentrated on over the past three years have not just been about addressing the immediate shortage.

    Because, important though that is, we must also fight long-term structural problems with long-term structural action.

    And that means creating the conditions that guarantee a lasting supply not just of the homes we need today, but of the homes we will need tomorrow.

    For the first time in almost half a century we have a Ministry of Housing dedicated to that task – and, under its excellent Secretary of State, it is making exceptional progress.

    Our reforms of planning rules have made it easier to get more of the right homes built in the right places.

    For example we have given local authorities greater freedom to make the most of brownfield sites.

    We have standardised the way we assess the need for new homes in different areas.

    And we have made developers more accountable for delivering on their commitments.

    The £5.5 billion housing infrastructure fund is making it possible for developers to build on sites that were not previously viable, and giving new communities the infrastructure they need in order to thrive.

    Our funding for Garden Towns and Villages supports local authorities and developers as they create vibrant communities where people will be able to live, work and play for generations to come.

    And the Community Housing Fund is helping local people come together to plan and build the homes and facilities they want and need in their areas.

    Of course, there’s no point building the homes we need if nobody can afford to live in them.

    That is why we are restoring the dream of home ownership for a new generation – giving more than half a million households a step up the housing ladder with schemes like Help to Buy, and taking 80 per cent of first time buyers out of stamp duty altogether.

    It is no accident that the number of first-time buyers is at its highest level for more than a decade.

    So I am immensely proud to be leaving office with home ownership resurgent.

    After all, the idea of the property-owning democracy has been at the heart of Conservative thinking since Noel Skelton and a young Harold Macmillan first spoke of it almost a century ago.

    But too many governments – including, I am not afraid to say, the one in which I served as Home Secretary – have concentrated solely on boosting home ownership, as if supporting those struggling to find a home to rent was somehow contrary to such an aim.

    Under this government that attitude has changed.

    We recognise there are people for whom home ownership will be never be a realistic aim.

    That there are others for whom renting is an unavoidable reality at one time or another.

    And that some people simply choose to rent, especially if it allows them to live in an area they would otherwise struggle to afford.

    Being able to choose to rent a decent home in the place that suits you best is a vital part of a healthy housing system, one we see in every major developed economy.

    Across England, more than 18 million people from every walk of life woke up this morning in a rental property.

    And no government should ignore the needs of so many of its citizens.

    So yes, I want to see as many people as possible enjoying all the benefits of home ownership.

    But that should not stop us working to improve renting too – and this government has taken real action to do just that.

    First, we have moved to increase the supply of affordable rental properties in order to meet the rising demand.

    We have ended the forced sale of high-value council properties.

    Put £2 billion of extra funding into the Affordable Housing Programme with an explicit provision for building homes for social rent.

    And abolished the HRA cap so that local authorities are free to build once more.

    We are already seeing the results – just last week came the news that Liverpool is to start building council housing for the first time in three decades.

    Five year rent certainty has given housing associations the financial security they need to borrow, invest, and build.

    And changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, first announced in our ground-breaking Housing White Paper, have encouraged private sector developers to create more “Build to Rent” properties.

    But our truly radical reforms, our biggest breaks with the past, have come in our work to support those who rent.

    We are rebalancing the relationship between tenant and landlord, making major changes that will make an immediate and lasting impact on the lives of millions of families.

    In the private sector we have already capped the size of rent deposits and abolished letting fees, cutting the amount tenants have to find up front and making it harder for landlords and agents to take advantage of desperate house-hunters.

    Now we are going further.

    Because, if you rent a property it might not be your house but it is still your home.

    And to me, that means that if you pay your rent, play by the rules and keep the house in good order, your landlord should not be allowed to throw you out on a whim.

    It is simply not fair.

    So we are bringing to an end the practice of so-called “no-fault” evictions, repealing section 21 of the 1988 Housing Act.

    A consultation on the changes will be published shortly, with a view to introducing legislation later this year.

    For tenants in England’s four million social homes we have scrapped the so-called “pay to stay” policy and confirmed that this government will not pursue plans to abolish lifetime tenancies for new council tenants.

    We have retained supported housing in the welfare system – listening to those who know best about how to protect our most vulnerable citizens.

    And, most important of all, with our Social Housing Green Paper we are delivering a once-in-generation package of reforms and support for social housing.

    The fire at Grenfell Tower was a human tragedy on an unprecedented scale.

    But it also shone a much-needed light on the issues facing social housing and the people who live in it – not just within the Lancaster West estate, but right across the country.

    This year marks the centenary of what became known as the Addison Act, the post-war “Homes fit for Heroes” legislation that first provided government funding for council housing.

    Yet in recent decades and under successive governments, social housing became another victim of the single-minded drive for home ownership.

    The results were all too clear – both in the testimony we have heard from Grenfell tenants, and in the 8,000 conversations and submissions that informed the green paper.

    Across the country, people complained of living in substandard or unsuitable housing – and said they felt ignored and disrespected by their often remote and unaccountable landlords.

    I have always been clear that this green paper must not be simply an intellectual exercise highlighting the nature of the problem.

    It must be the practical first step in actually fixing it.

    So today I can announce that the next stage in the process, our action plan and timetable for implementing wide-ranging reforms of social housing, will be published in September.

    It will include the creation of a stronger consumer regulation regime for social housing, enhancing tenants’ rights and making it easier to enforce them.

    Changes to the way complaints are resolved, so that tenants know exactly how to raise concerns and can be confident their voices will be heard and acted on.

    Empowering residents still further by requiring landlords to demonstrate how they have engaged with their tenants.

    And a commitment to further boost the supply of high-quality social housing through the Affordable Homes Programme and other funding.

    A hundred years after the introduction of Britain’s first council houses, I want to see not just homes that people have to live in but homes they want to live in, homes they can be proud to live in.

    And that drive for greater quality, for higher standards, should extend right across the housing industry.

    For too long we have allowed ourselves to think there must be a trade-off between quality and quantity, that raising one means reducing the other.

    It is simply not true.

    I do not accept that, in 2019, we can only have sufficient and affordable housing by compromising on standards, safety, aesthetics, and space.

    That is why I asked the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission to develop proposals for embedding beautiful, sustainable and human-scale design into the planning and development process.

    I look forward to reading the interim report next month.

    It is why the Ministry of Housing will shortly be launching a consultation on environmental performance in new build homes, with a Future Homes Standard that will give all new homes world-leading levels of energy efficiency by 2025.

    And it is why I want to see changes to regulations so that developers can only build homes that are big enough for people to actually live in.

    It was the Addison Act that brought modern space standards to English housing law for the first time.

    During the Bill’s second reading, the architect of the standards, Sir Tudor Walters, urged MPs to “take care that the houses planned in the future are planned with due regard to comfort, convenience, and the saving of labour”.

    It is a message we would do well to return to today.

    Because in the years since, the pendulum has swung back and forth between regulation and deregulation, leading to a situation today where England does have national standards – but ones that are largely unenforceable and inconsistently applied.

    Some local authorities include the Nationally Described Space Standard in their local plans, making them a condition of planning permission.

    But others do not.

    And even where they are applied, as planning policies rather than regulations they are open to negotiation.

    The result is an uneven playing field, with different rules being applied with differing levels of consistency in different parts of the country.

    That makes it harder for developers to build homes where they are needed most.

    And it leaves tenants and buyers facing a postcode lottery – if space standards are not applied in your area, there is no guarantee that any new homes will be of an adequate size.

    Now I am no fan of regulation for the sake of regulation.

    But I cannot defend a system in which some owners and tenants are forced to accept tiny homes with inadequate storage.

    Where developers feel the need to fill show homes with deceptively small furniture.

    And where the lack of universal standards encourages a race to the bottom.

    It will be up to my successor in Downing Street to deal with this.

    But I believe the next government should be bold enough to ensure the Nationally Described Space Standard applies to all new homes.

    As a mandatory regulation, space standards would become universal and unavoidable.

    That would mean an end to the postcode lottery for buyers and tenants.

    And an end to the era of too-small homes that keep the housing numbers ticking over, but are barely fit for modern family life.

    I reject the argument that such a change will make building less likely.

    In fact it will have the opposite effect – a more strictly applied minimum would remove the commercial disincentive to develop sites in areas with stricter standards.

    And by providing a clear and uniform national standard it will increase the possibilities for the kind of off-site manufacturing we see being pioneered here in the Northern Powerhouse.

    Thanks to this government and the people in this room we are already building more.

    Now we must build bigger.

    We must build better.

    And we must build more beautiful.

    The measures I have set out today will help achieve that.

    But while many of the programmes introduced over the past three years have laid the foundations for building the homes of tomorrow, it will of course fall on my successor as Prime Minister to see the job through.

    To maintain and build momentum.

    To keep the pressure on planners, developers, builders and, yes, the rest of government.

    And, when asked how to bring an end to the housing crisis in this country, to answer not just with numbers, but with ideas.

    To set out what homes will be built where and why.

    How they will be funded.

    What infrastructure will be needed to support them.

    What standard they will be built to.

    How local people and local councils will be persuaded to support them.

    And how you will protect, enhance and enforce the rights of the people who live in them.

    Because few other areas of public policy better demonstrate the rule that politicians who propose simple answers to complex problem are seldom being entirely honest.

    Promising to build however many homes is easy.

    But as you all know, getting the right homes built in the right place is considerably harder.

    There is no single silver bullet.

    No button to press or lever to pull that can magically make millions of homes appear overnight.

    It requires concerted action on many fronts.

    A thousand small changes that, when taken together, bring about the revolution we want and need to see.

    It is the political world’s focus on the grand gesture rather than incremental change that is partly responsible for the crisis we are dealing with today.

    Successive governments were unwilling to get into the detail of housing policy, so simply sat back and relied on the industry to build enough homes.

    Under this government that attitude has changed.

    There has not been a single, big bang moment.

    No one measure to grab the front pages and silence the critics.

    But quietly, step by step and day by day, we have been working with you to bring an end to the housing crisis.

    And the results speak for themselves.

    We promised a million more homes, we delivered a million more homes.

    We promised a better deal for renters, we have started to deliver a better deal for renters.

    We promised a whole new approach to social housing, and we are delivering a whole new approach to social housing.

    Because this is a government with a bold vision for housing and a willingness to act on it.

    A government that has delivered radical reforms for today, and the permanent structural changes that will continue to benefit the country for decades to come.

    There remains much to do.

    But over the past three years we have shown what can be achieved.

    Everyone in this hall can look back with pride at the change that has already taken place.

    And everyone in this country can look ahead to a future in which each of us has a safe, affordable place to call home.

  • Richard Burgon – 2019 Speech on the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Richard Burgon, the Shadow Lord Chancellor, in the House of Commons on 25 June 2019.

    I welcome the Bill. Labour supports the introduction of a no-fault divorce procedure, which we committed to in our 2017 general election manifesto, and we are pleased that the Government have acted, especially in the light of the troubling case of Owens v. Owens. We will therefore vote to support the Bill if a vote is called at this stage. We will use our time in Committee to amend the Bill, if need be, to ensure that it is the best law possible for those who are already going through a difficult time in their lives.​

    The existing procedure and law managing divorce and the dissolution of civil partnerships is not fit for purpose and is in clear need of updating. A fundamental problem with the existing law, which is set out for divorcing couples in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and for the dissolution of civil partnerships in the Civil Partnership Act 2004, is that it requires people who seek a divorce to prove that the marriage has broken down, either by establishing fault on the part of one partner, or by showing that the couple have lived separate lives for a number of years. In reality, for those who cannot afford to live in two separate households for years in order to prove that their marriage has broken down, the only option currently available is to establish fault on the part of their partner. That is one way in which the current divorce law discriminates against women, particularly those on a low income, by reducing the options available to them to a fault-based divorce.

    Establishing of one of the three faults—adultery, unreasonable behaviour or desertion—can be difficult, and often heightens tensions at an already stressful time. We know the hurt that such heightened tension can all too often cause. There are widespread concerns about the increased risk of domestic violence faced by women who go through this fractious process. Surveys of people who have gone through the divorce procedure show that in excess of one in four people who go through a divorce have cited a fault that is not in fact true, simply because it is their only way to secure a divorce. This is plainly an unacceptable state of affairs, and it is right that the Government are now acting to address it.

    A conflictual process is deeply damaging to children’s life chances. Children will of course be better served by parents who co-operate, and if their parents have a constructive relationship. The law is a real barrier to that.

    Mr Ivan Lewis

    I reiterate the point I made earlier to the Secretary of State, who rightly talked about the impact on children of an acrimonious divorce. We need to protect children from the risk of abuse—everybody would accept that—but if a resident parent turns a child against a non-resident parent, that can cause massive long-term damage to that child. The current legal framework does nothing satisfactory to tackle that particular problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that now is the time to look again at what can be done differently in respect of the whole question of alienation and the impact on children?

    Richard Burgon

    My hon. Friend raises an important wider point. Further assistance and early intervention, which was mentioned by the Secretary of State, is required to protect all concerned.

    Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)

    There are very often issues with how the family courts go about these custody matters. I get lots of cases like this, as I am sure my hon. Friend does. It is an area that needs to be looked at. Equally, some lawyers—not all—can exacerbate the situation in the way they handle the case. I get lots of complaints about family courts, particularly with regard to who is right and who is wrong, and there is a lot of antagonism. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) said, this can be very damaging to children.​

    Richard Burgon

    That is why we are very supportive of mediation in family cases in general, and why we have made announcements in relation to legal aid and early family law advice. I hear my hon. Friend’s point about the role of solicitors not always being helpful, but there can also be problems when people end up being advocates for themselves.

    The need to apportion blame and ratchet up the acrimony is one of the main reasons that so many of us want to see an end to this fault-based law—not least because of the impact on children. For example, the present divorce ground of unreasonable behaviour requires allegations that are hardly ever challenged and can sometimes be exaggerated by one spouse against the other, which can exacerbate tensions between them. It also makes it more difficult to agree arrangements for children. Indeed, one of the most urgent reasons for these reforms is to alleviate the harm caused to children, including to their mental health, by acrimonious separations. For a child of a divorcing couple, the divorce can be one of the most difficult times in their life. As the Secretary of State has indicated, the introduction of a no-fault procedure should mean that the whole process can be quicker and less stressful for them. At an emotionally traumatic time, such as a divorce or separation, parents want and need support in order to put the best interests of their children first.

    This change to the law has public support and the support of family law experts. Margaret Heathcote— the chair of Resolution, which represents more than 6,000 family law practitioners and is a strong supporter of this change—said:

    “Every day, our members are helping people through separation, taking a constructive, non-confrontational approach in line with our code of practice. However, because of our outdated divorce laws, they’ve been working with one arm tied behind their backs.”

    In fact, the Secretary of State quoted her himself.

    Professor Liz Trinder, who led the Nuffield Foundation’s 2017 research into divorce law, is also supportive of these reforms, saying that

    “making people produce a ‘reason’ to obtain their divorce—as they are currently required to do—does not save marriages and instead just creates a meaningless charade that can create conflict, confusion and unfairness.”

    And Christina Blacklaws, president of the Law Society, said:

    “Making couples attribute fault…can escalate the differences between them in an already charged situation.”

    The recent case of Owens v. Owens highlighted a particularly iniquitous aspect of our existing divorce laws: the possibility for one party to attempt to refuse a divorce by defending it.

    Eddie Hughes

    Does the hon. Gentleman think this change will in any way lessen the seriousness of the marriage contract? Will people entering into it feel that they can do so more lightly because, from a purely contractual point of view, escaping from it is made easier by this legislation?

    Richard Burgon

    I know that marriage is technically a contract, but it seems strange to think of it that way when it is such a personal and emotional thing. I do not believe that this change in the law, which is welcome, will lead to an overall increase in the number of divorces in the long run. However, I do think that it will reduce ​the unnecessary tension, conflict, distress and damage to children in those divorces, which would take place in any event.

    In the case of Owens v. Owens, the family court judge refused to grant a divorce to Mrs Owens, who made the application for a divorce in 2015, despite finding that the marriage had in fact broken down. This was because she failed to prove, as required in the 1973 Act, that her husband’s behaviour was such that she could not reasonably be expected to live with him. Mrs Owens’s appeal was dismissed at both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, leaving her unable to divorce her husband until 2020—a clearly unacceptable case. The judges who heard the case at both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court expressed their dissatisfaction with the existing law, with Sir James Munby, the then president of the family division, suggesting that divorce law was based on a “lack of intellectual honesty”, and Lady Hale concluding that it was for Parliament to make any changes to the law. It is therefore right that Parliament is now able to take up this issue and make the reforms necessary to ensure that no one has to go through what Mrs Owens experienced in this case.

    The new divorce laws that we are considering today should aim to secure a number of desirable outcomes. They should ensure that people can separate as amicably as possible, keeping conflict to a minimum, so that the chances of reaching agreement are maximised and the risk of domestic abuse is as low as possible. Where there are children, their interests must be paramount, and a safe, secure and sustainable outcome for them should be promoted wherever possible. Unlike the existing system, these new divorce laws should not discriminate against women, especially those on low incomes. The new divorce and dissolution laws must also protect vulnerable and marginalised groups throughout the divorce process. In particular, they must not weaken the hard-won rights of LGBT people.

    One issue that has been raised by charities working to support victims of domestic abuse is that the Bill as drafted does not remove the bar on petitioning for a divorce in the first year of a marriage. This can leave women who are suffering domestic abuse trapped in the abusive marriage during that year. Will the Secretary of State address that issue during the passage of the Bill, and will he tell us whether he has met Women’s Aid and other charities to discuss these concerns?

    Since 2013, legal aid for divorce cases in England and Wales has been withdrawn by the Government—in most cases as part of a wider attack on access to justice that has had a very detrimental impact on family law cases. Groups including Citizens Advice have highlighted how legal aid cuts add to strain on divorcees, and more widely it is lower income people and those with children who are more likely to be litigating in person than any other group. Resolution, which was mentioned earlier, has previously stated that providing legal aid for a single, initial meeting with a lawyer would provide separating couples with clear “signposts” about their legal options and encourage more people to use mediation as an alternative to courtroom confrontation.

    Even with the welcome changes contained in the Bill, divorce will still be an often confusing legal process. There is a clear public interest in people being supported to achieve amicable resolutions to financial questions and arrangements for the care of children following a ​separation. Will the Government therefore commit to reintroducing legal aid for early legal advice for couples going through the divorce procedure?

    In conclusion, bringing our divorce laws into the 21st century can form an essential part of the efforts to protect women from domestic abuse, limit the damaging impacts that fractious separations can have on children and encourage amicable separations wherever possible. For those reasons, I am pleased to support these overdue reforms.

  • David Gauke – 2019 Statement on the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill

    Below is the text of the statement made by David Gauke, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 25 June 2019.

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

    Marriage will always be one of our most important institutions. It is vital to our functioning as a society, as we all know instinctively from our own lives and from the lives of family and friends. Rightly, then, none of us is indifferent when a lifelong commitment cannot continue, but it cannot be right for the law to create or increase conflict between divorcing couples.

    I am encouraged by the many colleagues and others who have told me that the law must change to take unnecessary conflict flashpoints out of the legal process. Like me, they believe in the importance of marriage but see the destructive effects of what the law demands. People going through divorce already have to face more than enough emotional upheaval without the conflict that can be created or worsened by how the current law works.

    I have reflected at length on the arguments for reform, on what people have said in response to the Government’s proposals and on the painful experiences we all know from talking to family and friends. I have heard from people who have been through divorce, from people who support divorcing couples through the legal process and from people who say they cannot afford to live apart for two years—without finally sorting out their finances—but, at the same time, cannot bring themselves to throw hurtful allegations.

    The Bill responds constructively to the keenly felt experience of people’s real lives. This is a Bill for anyone who agrees that the end of a relationship should be a time of reflection, and not of manufactured conflict.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    I warmly congratulate the Government and the Secretary of State on introducing this Bill. I think I have married more people than anybody else in this House, in the transitive use of the word. I was always painfully aware that, when two people come together, it may well be that, in the end, they need to part, but the idea that they would have to prove in court all sorts of reasons for why the marriage had fallen apart—relying on the common law understanding of adultery, for instance—is just nonsense and adds to the sense of pain that there could already be within a family.

    Mr Gauke

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and this Bill is by no means anti-marriage. As he rightly says, this Bill seeks to ensure that, in those unfortunate circumstances where a marriage comes to an end, it comes to an end in a way that minimises the conflict between the parties. That, in my view, has to be a sensible way forward.

    Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)

    There is undoubtedly fault in a divorce but, in my experience from continual exposure at constituency surgeries, the attribution of that fault leads parents to use their children as weapons in a continuing battle with their former partner.

    Mr Gauke

    My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is worth bearing in mind that, where children are involved, it is all the more important that we minimise ​the conflict. The current requirement incentivises that sense of attribution of fault, which does nothing to ensure that the relationship between the two parents can be as strong as possible, and it is the children who lose out in those circumstances.

    Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)

    I have thought about this with care. Obviously, to practising Christians and those of other faiths, the end of a marriage is not to be taken lightly, but I am glad the Secretary of State has accepted the proposition put by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) that causing more conflict at the end does not help.

    Will the Secretary of State confirm that in no other respects any of the protections for often the more vulnerable party to a marriage, the woman, will be affected by this measure, particularly in relation to financial arrangements and the custody of children, and that it simply removes the evidentiary requirement for a fault to be attributed to one side or the other?

    Mr Gauke

    My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice, is right. This is about the attribution of blame and fault, and no more than that. Indeed, the protections in place for the vulnerable party remain just as they are. It is often the vulnerable party who suffers most from the need to attribute blame, because that can be difficult. In the context of domestic abuse, for example, it is striking how the likes of Women’s Aid have been very supportive of these measures because of their concern that there might be women trapped in marriages who do not want to attribute blame because they feel that may result in a further deterioration in the relationship.

    The truth is that when a marriage or indeed a civil partnership has sadly broken down and is beyond repair, it stops benefiting society and the people involved. At worst, continuing in a legal relationship that is no longer functioning can be destructive to families, and the law ought to deal with the reality of marriage breakdown as constructively as possible. The current law does not do that. The requirements of the divorce process at present can often give rise to a confrontational position, even if the decision to divorce is mutual. The incentive to make allegations at the outset, to avoid otherwise waiting for two years’ separation, becomes ingrained. Divorce is traumatic, and children are inevitably affected when their parents separate—that goes without saying. I agree that marriage has long proved its worth for bringing up children, but the reality is that not all marriages last. The law should deal with that reality as sensibly as it can. When a marriage has failed, we have to take a serious look at how to reduce conflict for everyone involved, not least for children. Research shows that it is conflict between the parents that has been linked to greater social and behavioural problems among children, rather than necessarily the separation and divorce itself.

    Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

    I very much welcome the proposals in this Bill. Getting rid of the fault-based approach to divorce and the conflict is a good thing, as is ensuring that people do not have to wait for two years. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and with Resolution, the organisation for family lawyers, that we also need to provide earlier ​advice for cohabitees who believe that common law spousal rights might exist for them? Legal advice on whether such rights exist would be beneficial. Does he agree that including provision for early advice in the Bill would be welcome?

    Mr Gauke

    Obviously, this Bill’s focus is on divorce for those who are married. There is a point about advice where we can have a wider debate. I will focus my remarks today on the contents of the Bill and the argument I am making about the problems with fault in the current divorce system, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support on that. Clearly, there is a debate to be had as to how we can provide support to couples, be that about reconciliation or in other contexts.

    Whatever family structure children grow up in, they benefit most from stable, loving and caring relationships with parents and other close family members. We are clear that when parents have taken this difficult decision, children’s best interests are served by minimising conflict during and after the legal process, to support co-operative parenting and positive parenting relationships. This Bill is in the best interests of children whose parents are divorcing. It will therefore remove the harmful requirement for wives, husbands and civil partners in England and Wales to hurl blame or to go through the waiting limbo of separate lives. It will help them move forward more amicably and constructively. It will make a genuine difference to many thousands of children and families who each year, sadly, experience divorce.

    It is 50 years since the Divorce Reform Act 1969 gave rise to the law we now have, and few of us will have known anything else. Some among us will have divorced under this law. All of us will be conscious of the bitter experience of friends and constituents who have. Even so, the existing law is not always understood. It allows divorce only on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. The court cannot hold the marriage to have done so unless it is satisfied of one or more of what the law calls “facts”. Three of the five facts—adultery, behaviour and desertion—relate to conduct of the respondent. The other facts are two years’ separation and five years’ separation, the difference being that two years’ separation requires both parties to agree to the divorce—the same applies to civil partnerships, except that the adultery fact is not available. But the fact someone chooses does not necessarily bear any resemblance to the real reasons the marriage or civil partnership broke down. Those reasons are often subtle, complex, and subjective. Who, if anyone, was responsible is a question that can be answered honestly only by the people in the marriage.

    We are probably all aware of situations where a couple have sadly grown apart over time and jointly agree to divorce The current law does not allow them to do so, unless they are first financially able to live apart for two years. They might be forced to present events in a way that serves the system; minor incidents become stretched out into a pattern of behaviour to satisfy a legal threshold, which then bleeds over into how a couple approach negotiations over arrangements for children and finances; or there may be a coercive relationship, where one partner is desperate to divorce but is too scared of the consequences of setting out the ​evidence of their partner’s unreasonable behaviour to the court. It should be enough that the relationship has irretrievably broken down.

    I do know where people are coming from when they say the requirement to prove a fact is useful, because they think that someone must be held responsible for the break-up of the marriage and that this requirement lets the court determine blame for that. The court, however, cannot do so, and the law does not require it to. Instead, making allegations or having to live apart in a marriage introduces conflict or makes it worse—this conflict can continue far beyond the legal end of the marriage and hurt children’s life chances. That is the reason for this reform.

    Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the careful way in which he is taking us through these proposals and for his indication of support for marriage. Will he look, perhaps in the context of this Bill, at supporting marriages before they have broken down irretrievably and providing support where couples are under pressure, in order to reduce marital breakdown by intervening earlier?

    Mr Gauke

    The last two words, “intervening earlier” are key. Once the point of a divorce is reached, it is likely—the evidence suggests this—that it is too late. The question is: can we provide support earlier? In all honesty, I do not believe that the Bill provides the vehicle to address that point, because if we try to provide that support in the context of the divorce itself, we will be too late. Clearly however there is an argument—one that I suspect is for the next spending review—as to what assistance can be provided to couples at an earlier stage in the process. I completely understand where my hon. Friend is coming from and I very much agree that the point is about earlier intervention, but where someone is going through the divorce process, making that process more difficult and confrontation is counterproductive.

    Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)

    Does the Secretary of State understand the circumstances where a resident parent turns children against the non-resident parent where no abuse whatsoever is involved? That causes estrangement for the child, often for many, many years. Is it not time that we found a legal framework—early intervention is important in this respect—to tackle this problem? I have only recently become involved in this campaign on parental alienation, and I was shocked that hundreds if not thousands of parents are estranged from their children because the resident parent seeks to manipulate the child against a non-resident parent for no reason whatsoever.

    Mr Gauke

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention on a matter that I suspect all of us have had experience of as constituency Members of Parliament as well as citizens. These circumstances are hugely difficult. To some extent, the existing divorce law can somewhat encourage that behaviour, because of the need to attribute blame, but he is right to suggest that this is a wider issue, one that is hard to address in the context of divorce. He is right to highlight the difficulties that can exist and how parents can be alienated from their children in what are difficult circumstances.

    When I became Justice Secretary last year, I was able to take a deeper look at the issue of divorce. What became clear to me was that making allegations does ​not serve any public interest. It needlessly rakes up the past to justify the legal ending of a relationship that is no longer a beneficial and functioning one. At worst, these allegations can pit one parent against the other. I remain deeply concerned that what the existing law requires can be especially damaging for children.

    The law on divorce and dissolution is out of step with the constructive approach that family law takes in other areas and that practitioners take every day. It is time to change that. Resolution is the lead organisation representing family lawyers who subscribe to a non-confrontational approach. Resolution’s chair, Margaret Heathcote, has said that

    “because of our outdated divorce laws”

    practitioners have effectively been working

    “with one arm tied behind their backs.”

    The Bill will change that.

    At the beginning of my speech, I spoke about the confrontational position that the law sets up and about its harmful impact on children. That confrontational position undermines not only good co-parenting but any prospect of reconciliation. I understand concerns about people being divorced against their will. The reality is that under the existing law the court can refuse a divorce only if a legal requirement is not met, and never simply because one party wants to stay married. Only about 2% of respondents say that they want to contest the divorce. Hardly anyone continues contesting all the way to a court hearing. Marriages are not saved at all by the ability of a spouse to contest the divorce.

    Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)

    When I got married, as a Catholic I did not think the option of divorce was open to us. I genuinely thought that under all circumstances our marriage would be forever; my wife decided otherwise. That was a very emotional time. Does my right hon. Friend expect that when the change comes in some people will find it easier to divorce and that there be a spike in the divorce figures? A period of reflection sometimes gives people the opportunity to save their marriage, and that opportunity might be missed under the proposed changes.

    Mr Gauke

    I agree with my hon. Friend about a period of reflection. In fact, the Bill will ensure that there is a longer minimum period of reflection for people in a marriage to consider whether reconciliation is the right course. The evidence suggests that by the time things get to that stage, reconciliation happens very rarely, but we are extending that period, so it is not really about making divorce easier but about making it less confrontational.

    On my hon. Friend’s point about whether we anticipate a spike in divorces, there is international evidence as to what is likely to happen following such a reform. I shall be open with my hon. Friend: there will be people who are currently waiting for two or five years for a divorce, and that divorce will be brought forward, so the likelihood is that there will be an increase because of that waiting list. However, the international evidence suggests that once that initial spike has been dealt with, in a steady state the divorce rate is unlikely to increase; it is likely to remain much the same. I hope it is clear to my hon. Friend that although we would anticipate that some divorces will be brought forward, the change is unlikely to increase the divorce rate in a steady state.​
    Let me turn briefly to the measures in the Bill: it does not create a new process, but instead retains the framework of the existing law and removes those aspects that are considered to cause conflict. The Bill therefore retains the two stages of divorce and dissolution orders. The Government believe that the need to confirm to the court that it may make the conditional order, and to apply to the court for the final order, means that a divorce or dissolution is never automatic and that the decision to divorce is a considered one, with opportunities for a change of heart right up to the last moment.

    The reform will retain irretrievable breakdown as the sole legal ground for divorce and dissolution. It will replace the current requirement to evidence irretrievable breakdown through a conduct or separation fact with a statement of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage or civil partnership. For the first time, couples will have the option to make this a joint statement, to reflect some couples’ mutual decision to divorce. It will remove the possibility of contesting the decision to end the legal relationship, as a statement of irretrievable breakdown will be conclusive evidence to the court that the marriage or civil partnership has irretrievably broken down.

    The reform will introduce a new minimum period of 20 weeks from the start of proceedings to the point at which the applicant—or applicants jointly—can confirm to the court that a conditional order may be made. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) some reassurance about that moment of reflection. Our proposal will make the court process towards a conditional order less rushed and give couples further time to consider the implications of the divorce. Between 2011 and 2018, around two thirds of cases reached conditional order in less than our proposed 20-week minimum period. That included approximately one in 10 cases within eight weeks, and four in 10 cases between nine and 16 weeks. The Bill also modernises language such as “decree nisi” and “decree absolute”, to bring terms in line with the more modern terms used in civil partnership law.

    The reforms I have set out will deliver a system of divorce that is fit for the 21st century. It is time to end the blame game. The system we have now does not support the reality of marriage and civil partnership breakdown. It has been criticised as a system that

    “is, and always has been, a sham”.

    Those are the words of Sir Paul Coleridge, former family judge and chair of the Marriage Foundation, who, like all of us, believes strongly in marriage but sees that by reforming the law to remove from it unnecessary requirements that can fuel conflict, we will not undermine marriage and will support people to look to the future as they go through very difficult times. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.

  • Eddie Hughes – 2019 Speech on Ground Rents

    Below is the text of the speech made by Eddie Hughes, the Conservative MP for Walsall North, in the House of Commons on 25 June 2019.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate ground rents charged on leasehold properties; to make provision for a cap on ground rents; to make property developers liable for the legal costs of leaseholders seeking to vary certain ground rent contracts; and for connected purposes.

    Mr Speaker, imagine for a moment that you own a lovely one or two-bed apartment with your family, or perhaps even a recently built house. You have lived there quite happily for a few years, but you decide it is time to move, perhaps because of schools, for work or to move up the property ladder. You are primed and ready to go, but the estate agent asks for a copy of your leasehold agreement and there in the small print you get hit with the fact that you cannot sell your property—you are trapped. Tens of thousands of people across the country are in this position, and it simply cannot be right. This leasehold ground rent scandal needs attention right now. In many cases, developers have created leases with feudal ground rent clauses that have since fallen out of favour with lenders, leaving owners stuck with an unsaleable property because prospective buyers cannot get a mortgage to purchase the property.

    In some cases, the ground rent doubles every 10 years. In others, it doubles just once. There are reports of lenders refusing to lend on what they deem as unreasonable or onerous ground rent clauses. Some will not lend if the ground rent exceeds 0.1% of the property value at any point during the lease. Leasehold campaigners argue that there are close to 100,000 people affected by terms that leave them with a ground rent in excess of 0.1% of the property value. I would argue that such circumstances are onerous. The result is an unsaleable property and, in many cases, the developer is long gone, having sold the freehold on to a distant investment company. They have, of course, made their money twice—not only from selling the leaseholds in the first place but from selling on the freehold.

    Ground rents can, of course, be peppercorn or set at a reasonable rate, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government report shows that the market place is mixed, but it is important to clarify that ground rents have nothing to do with the maintenance of a building. They are simply an income for the freeholder. As the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), who has responsibility for housing and homelessness, told the MHCLG Select Committee:

    “One of the things I do find utterly fascinating is that a building might be beautifully maintained at a peppercorn ground rent or poorly maintained at £500 ground rent. The amount of ground rent payable is no indication of the quality of the maintenance and services provided.”

    There is nothing wrong with a freeholder taking a reasonable ground rent, but when that ground rent becomes onerous and stops someone selling their home it becomes a problem. The rights between freeholder and leaseholder need to be redressed.​

    As the Select Committee commented:

    “Any ground rent is onerous if it becomes disproportionate to the value of a home, such that it materially affects a leaseholder’s ability to sell their property or obtain a mortgage. In practical terms, it is increasingly clear that a ground rent in excess of 0.1% of the value of a property or £250—including rents likely to reach this level in future due to doubling, or other, ground rent review mechanisms—is beginning to affect the saleability and mortgage-ability of leasehold properties.”

    My Bill seeks to address this.

    The result of developers selling on the freehold to investors is that some freeholders are remote and uninterested in helping their leaseholders. Those who are interested charge unfair fees and legal costs for what should be a simple solution. I know of one such scenario in which there is a £180 charge just to discuss terms with the freeholder.

    The freeholder could of course just ignore the problem, or say no. There is currently no obligation on the freeholder to help to sort the problem out—except good will. It cannot be right that in 2019 we have leasehold properties unable to be sold because of ground rent clauses. Behind each problem is a person, an individual, a family, a couple or perhaps a small investor. They do not deserve to be forgotten and left high and dry, trapped indefinitely with their property.

    What can be done? Currently, the law allows 50% of leaseholders in a block of apartments to get together to buy the freehold—quite a task, and a long and expensive process if you just want to sell your property. Leaseholders could try to extend the lease, but again there is an elongated process, with expenses running into thousands of pounds. There is also the possibility that the leaseholder negotiates a variation of lease with the freeholder. This is also costly, and there is no onus on the freeholder to do the deal. It is probably the simplest solution but, with prohibitive expenses and no obligation on freeholders to engage, we have a postcode lottery of failure and success.

    The Select Committee noted:

    “The options for leaseholders with onerous ground rents are limited. House owners are entitled to pay to enfranchise after two years of ownership, thus removing any obligation to pay ground rent, onerous or otherwise. However, this would only be possible if the cost of enfranchisement…is both reasonable and affordable for the house owner. Flat owners, similarly, are entitled to enfranchise, although this is a much more difficult process, requiring the ​consent of 50% of the owners in a residential block… Otherwise, leaseholders are reliant upon the benevolence of their freeholder to remove unreasonable terms.”

    That is why I am proposing this private Member’s Bill.

    I am aware that the Law Commission is currently contemplating a solution to the thorny issue of onerous ground rents on existing leases, but I propose simple solutions. First, we need to create a legal obligation on freeholders to grant a quick and simple lease variation to leaseholders where ground rent prohibits a sale. Secondly, it is important that ground rents are capped at the lower of £250 per annum or 0.1% of the property value.

    I am also considering including an obligation on the original developer to foot the leaseholder’s legal bills in such situations. After all, why should families have to find a large sum to solve a problem not of their making? If the Bill progresses, I hope we will be able to shape it more specifically in Committee—I imagine that might be somewhat optimistic.

    Systems and institutions are supposed to serve the public, and I hope we can all agree that we cannot have people unable to sell their property. Drastic and immediate action is required. I believe there is growing concern on both sides of the House about leasehold properties, and the Select Committee should be commended for its excellent report. I am also pleased to see that the Competition and Markets Authority has taken this issue on board and is looking at mis-selling in this arena. I hope both the Government and the Select Committee will keep this under further review.

    I believe there is a wide cross-party consensus in Parliament on this issue, and the time for Parliament to intervene on the leasehold ground rent scandal is now. I hope hon. Members will help me to change the law to restore fairness in this sector and to stop people being trapped in unsaleable properties.

  • Therese Coffey – 2019 Statement on the EU Environment Council

    Below is the text of the statement made by Therese Coffey, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2019.

    The next EU Environment Council will take place on 26 June, in Luxembourg. I will be attending to represent the UK.

    On environment items, the main legislative focus will be a general approach on the regulation on water-reuse. In addition, there will also be an exchange of views on the environment implementation review (EIR), as well as the adoption of Council conclusions on a sustainable EU chemicals policy.

    Any other business (AOB) will include information from the Commission and the presidency on four items:

    Clean Planet for all: Strategic long-term vision for a climate neutral economy (information from the presidency);

    A discussion on current legislative proposals (information from the presidency):

    A discussion on regulation on LIFE; and

    A discussion on shipping monitoring, reporting and verification.

    Reports on main recent international meetings (information from the presidency and the Commission):

    Triple conference of the parties to the Basel (COP 14), Rotterdam (COP 9) and Stockholm (COP 9) conventions (Geneva, 29 April-10 May 2019); and

    Fourth session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-4) (Nairobi, 11-15 March 2019).

    Communication on the draft integrated national energy and climate plans (presentation by the Commission).

    There are currently five member state led AOBs:

    Workshop on the “Future environment action programme” (information from the Austrian delegation);

    Possible European measures to support clean mobility and in particular, electromobility (information from the Bulgarian delegation);

    Conference on carbon pricing and aviation taxes (information from the Netherlands delegation);

    G7 Environment Ministers’ meeting (information from the French delegation); and

    Work programme of the incoming presidency (information from the Finnish delegation).

  • Philip Hammond – 2019 Statement on ECOFIN

    Below is the text of the statement made by Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2019.

    A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) was held in Luxembourg on 14 June 2019. ECOFIN was preceded by a meeting of the European Investment Bank (EIB) Board of Governors:

    Annual EIB Board of Governors meeting

    The meeting included: statements from the Chairman, President and Chairman of the Audit Committee; a governors discussion; a presentation on the annual report of the Audit Committee; and a vote for partial renewal of the Audit Committee. The UK was represented by Mark Bowman (Director General, International Finance, HM Treasury) during the EIB meeting.

    Following this, EU Finance Ministers discussed the following at ECOFIN:

    Early morning session

    The Eurogroup President briefed the Council on the outcomes of the 13 June meeting of the Eurogroup, and the European Commission provided an update on the current economic situation in the EU.

    Banking union

    The Council endorsed the progress report on the banking union.

    Financial transaction tax

    The Council received a progress update in relation to the enhanced co-operation on financial transaction tax.

    G20 follow-up

    The Romanian presidency and Commission presented the main outcomes of the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, which took place on 8 to 9 June in Fukuoka, Japan.

    European semester

    The Council discussed a horizontal note on the draft 2019 country specific recommendations, and progress towards the Europe 2020 targets.

    Stability and growth pact

    The Council adopted Council decisions and recommendations on the implementation of the stability and growth pact.

    Clean planet

    The Council held an exchange of views on a strategic long-term vision for a climate-neutral economy.

    Non-performing loans

    Under any other business, the Commission provided an update on the implementation of the action plan to tackle non-performing loans in Europe.