Last night there was a good attendance at the Wokingham Conservatives annual dinner, with the Lord Chancellor as our speaker and guest of honour. He talked about prison reform, explaining how we was seeking to get drugs and organised crime rings out of our jails. He is considering what to do about the large number of short sentences for prison now given by the courts, which is adding greatly to the pressure on prison places. He explained that there is no evidence that many of these short sentences do any good. There might be more effective alternatives.
He was asked about a range of issues, from why the probate fees went up to the need to draw a line under investigations into soldiers actions in Northern Ireland many years ago. I raised with him the need to move on from the Chequers proposals which have found so little favour on either side of the Channel, in the wake of the news that they annoy a Remain MP like Jo Johnson as much as the many Leave MPs who find them unacceptable.
I would like to thank David Lee for hosting the event at St Anne’s Manor, the organisers and all who attended.
Author: johnredwood
Be realistic about what our armed forces can do
Twice in the twentieth century government and Parliament sent the professional but small British army onto the continent to fight against German militarism and expansion. In 1914 around 100,000 men were sent as the British Expeditionary Force. They fought bravely at Mons, on the Marne and later at Ypres. They retreated a long way but helped the French slow and turn the rapid German advance, stopping them capturing Paris. Most of that force was killed and by year end the UK was embarked on recruiting a far mightier citizens army capable of measuring up to the scale of Germany’s forces.
In 1939 a larger expeditionary force was sent, expanding to around 400,000. This army with our French allies was heavily outnumbered and outgunned by German forces. It had to be rescued from the beaches at Dunkirk, whilst the German forces went on to conquer France. Around 60,000 of the force did not return in the rescue.
On both occasions the UK had been aware of the threat for some time. On both occasions the UK sent an army that was far too small, and inappropriately equipped to stand up to the forces ranged against it. The original British army of 1914 did not have the equipment needed to fight a trench based war, with insufficient machine guns, grenades and artillery. The army of 1939 was better equipped,but lost most of it in the retreat that resulted from the far stronger forces ranged against it.
In 1914 the army command had not thought through tactics in the machine age. As the war got bogged down towards the end of 1914, more thinking was needed over how you defended men in trenches, and how you could mount an attack at such well defended positions. The answer was not clear until the invention of the tank sought to inject some mobility and pace into the static battlefield. Several years were spent whilst at war experimenting with mining, with more intense artillery bombardments on trench lines and in seeking an alternative front in the Dardenelles. Gas also found its cruel way into the repertoire of torture at the front. Most of this failed to produce a breakthrough, and was pursued in battle in ways which allowed far too many casualties for no good purpose.
It is difficult not to be angry to read of the many times armies of men were asked to undertake a frontal assault of a kind which had failed many times before, only to fail again. Wellington sought to conserve his troops and keep them out of danger as much as possible, knowing replacements were hard to come by. In 1914-18 there was a wanton approach to the loss of life, brought on by the huge numbers of volunteers followed by conscription and by a stubborn refusal to see that killing so many was not advancing the cause of victory.
So what can we learn from this for today? Our current army is not large enough to fight a major war against a substantial hostile power. We need the NATO alliance and the engagement of the USA to help keep our peace. The army has been used to fighting asymmetric wars against terrorist groups in splintered countries and neighbourhoods. In some of these Middle Eastern conflicts our force committed has been small, and has not always had the equipment it needed. Were we to be drawn into a wider war we would need time to expand our military numbers and to produce many more vehicles and weapons.
There is a need for more thought over what kind of weapons we might need and what we might face at a time of rapid technological change. Our professional army would become the core of an expanded army were need to arise, which we trust it does not. We need above all to ensure that home defence is strong, which as always depends on our ability at sea and in the air to control approaches to our coast. We also need to ensure that we can sustain our weapons and maintain military production on these islands if our supplies from abroad are disrupted as they were in both major wars of the twentieth century. Our island position makes it so much easier militarily to defend ourselves. It also requires plenty of sea power to ensure supply from abroad, and plenty of flexibility to produce more of what we need at home.
More money for roads maintenance
The Minister for Roads has written to me and other MPs today to tell us how he intends to divide up the £420 m of money this year announced in the Budget for additional highways maintenance.
He tells me that Wokingham will receive an extra £1,177,000 and West Berkshire an extra £1,913,000. I look forward to our Councils bringing forward more schemes to fill more potholes, mean more road edges and improve surfaces. This money is on top of existing maintenance budgets.
My contribution to the debate on the Centenary of the Armistice, 6 November 2018
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): A hundred years ago on Sunday, a deafening silence broke out over the vast battlefields of Europe. Then, as now, there must have been very mixed emotions.
There would have been that great sense of loss and remorse that so many people had been slaughtered, and so many people maimed and incapacitated. I guess that for those in the trenches there was apprehension. Was this for real? Could they trust the enemy? Would this truce hold? Could they stumble out of those muddy dungeons that had been their safe houses over all those long weeks and months of toil into a more open and free world where they could behave more normally? But they were, and we are, also permitted some joy that at last this murderous, bestial war was over. After four years of mass industrial slaughter, with millions of individual tragedies between the men and the families of the different combative nations, at last the slaughter was over. There was a chance to build something better.
When I lay a wreath in the morning in Burghfield and in the afternoon in Wokingham, I will be very conscious of two things. I will be conscious that there are war memorials in every other village and town in my constituency that time does not permit me to visit that day. As I look up at those lists of names on those two war memorials, I will be very conscious of how long those lists are and of how many brothers are together on the same list, with a double or treble tragedy for the family.
That scale of loss is difficult to comprehend and to wrestle with.
It reminds me of my two grandfathers. As is the case with most of us, our great grandfathers or our grandfathers were the survivors. They were young men who fought as young men and then tried to build a more normal life when they got back from the trenches. They had not had time to have girlfriends and to marry and produce children before they went off to war. My two grandfathers, like many others, went at the earliest possible opportunity, or may even have misled those involved about their age so keen were they to volunteer. Both fought on the western front.
One was badly injured, but, fortunately, recovered. I wanted to know from them, as a boy and as a teenager, more about these terrible events. Like many of their generation who had been through the war, they did not really want to share it with us. It was obviously so awful. They did not seek my praise and they did not seek my sympathy. They wanted to shield me from it. I wanted to know more about it, but I think that they took that view because it was so awful.
We have heard many moving remarks today, particularly about those who died, but let us think about those who survived. Let us think about what it must have been like to have four years of no normal life—as someone who was 17, 18, 19, 20 or whatever they were—where they had no normal social life and no normal family life apart from very rushed periods of leave, when they could not pursue their normal sports and leisure pursuits because space would not allow it, when they had no privacy, and when they had very repetitious food. The dreadful things they fought are obvious—the shells, the bombs, the rifle bullets, the snipers and the machine guns.
You can just about imagine how awful it must have been to have that fear that you were going to be asked to advance on barbed wire and machine guns, knowing that you had very little chance of surviving, but what about the boredom? What about the relentless discipline and the inability to know how to fill the time while you were worrying about what was going to happen next? All of those things must have been dreadful.
So this is what I think we need to do. We owe it to them, to all those who directed the war, and to all those in this Parliament who sent our army to war—time does not permit this afternoon—to have a proper analysis and discussion about how we can do better in future. I am no pacifist. I think we have to arm ourselves well to protect ourselves and to preserve the peace.
We have fought too many wars and, too often, we sent our army into wars where they had limited chances of winning. We did not have a diplomatic and political strategy to follow the war. There is no use in winning a war, unless we win the peace as well. We know that the sequel to the first world war is the second world war—the tragedy that it all had to be done again on an even vaster scale with even bigger munitions and more terrifying bombs, eventually ending with the explosion of two atomic bombs to bring it to a very sad conclusion.
We need to ask ourselves how we can make sure that diplomacy and politics does not let people down so much again. How was it part of our strategy that, twice, this Parliament sent small highly professional British armies on to the continent to fight a war against a far bigger, better armed foe when they had no chance of winning because they had too little resource, the wrong weapons and the wrong tactics. In the first world war, it took four years to recruit a mighty citizens’ army, to invent a lot of new weapons and to develop new tactics during the war. We were sadly unprepared. We asked them to do too much and it is amazing what they did.
Groundhog day propaganda
The Remain spinners have long since run out of new or vaguely credible lines. Yesterday the BBC Radio 4 Today programme did its best to keep their flag flying. The Business editor led the questioning on food shortages, when there isn’t a scrap of evidence that any important continental exporter is about to cancel supplies or that the UK is about to place new barriers at our ports to keep the food out on March 30th. Instead of asking enough of his chosen expert and then of Sainsbury about the Argos acquisition, the possible tie up with Asda, the highly competitive state of the UK food market or about how they might source more UK produce to cut the food miles, we had to have the same old nonsense scares. There is a simple answer to all this. We don’t believe them!
Agreement fever – time to cool down
The UK government is trying to get worked up about a possible EU agreement.
Just remember this is not a possible future trading or partnership agreement. It is not anything the UK actually wants. They are talking about the EU’s Withdrawal Agreement, which contains many things including £39bn that Leave voters do not agree with.
I just hope the Cabinet realises in time that trying to sign such a deal will go down badly with many voters, and would place the UK in a very weak position. There are plenty of Conservative MPs who have said they would not vote for it, and it will need primary legislation. The government cannot commit the UK to this. Only Parliament can.
Memo to Dominic Raab
There are plenty of channel and North Sea ports allowing easy passage of goods from the continent to the UK. The Dutch and Belgian ports would love to lift more of the Calais-Dover trade. Calais has made quite clear it wants to keep the trade. No need to worry. There will be plenty of imports coming in on 30 March after we have left. Remember, the UK government will decide what checks to have at Dover! No need to delay them. They mainly come in already inspected, checked and logged electronically away from the border.
Public sector incentives
I gave another version of my Trafalgar talk this year, close to the anniversary of the battle. One of the reasons I am interested in it is that it was a moment when the UK public sector in the form of the English Navy excelled itself. It did so to such an extent that Nelson’s flagship is still a commissioned vessel of the modern navy sitting in dry dock at Portsmouth. 200 years on from the battle its strategy and tactics are still analysed by modern naval experts and officers.
The task before Nelson, the other officers and men was formidable. They had to engage a large enemy fleet with little wind to drive them to battle. The enemy allies had 25% more fire power and 22% more battleships than the English force. Confidence, skilled seamanship, faster gunnery and better tactics helped secure them a remarkable victory, with 17 battleships captured, one blown up and four more captured a little later after they fled the battle. It was an important victory at a time when the UK was under severe threat of invasion. All Napoleon wanted his Admirals to do was to hold the English Channel for long enough to get the troop barges across, but they failed to get anywhere near to do the job. Trafalgar set them back again and turned out to be the end of serious invasion threat, though Napoleon did rebuild his navy and did threaten in other ways as the war wore on.
Accounts of how and why they succeeded include mention of several advantages which I will not dwell on here. One feature which gets less mention is that the public sector Navy encouraged a very entrepreneurial and individual approach to leadership. Whilst Captains were paid state employees on a reasonable salary, and whilst their ships were supplied and victualed by the Navy, the Navy also agreed to pay Captains and crews prize money for any captured ship. This included the money realised from the sale of any cargo or effects on the ship as well as the value of any warship to the Navy. Captains could plan to get rich if they gained a command that allowed substantial raiding of enemy commerce, and would do well out of a successful battle if they captured and returned enemy ships for use in the Royal Navy. Captains could use some of their own money to enhance the ship and its cargo if they wished. They had flexibility over who joined the crew and how they carried out their orders for a voyage or mission. Crews liked working for Captains who had the Midas touch.
Captains could often be relieved of command and put on half pay, waiting for some suitable new opportunity. It meant there was a keen determination to excel, both to be offered the better and more profitable commands, and to ensure success when opportunity came to take a prize. Some experienced and distinguished Captains wanted to stay as Frigate Captains as these ships were more regularly used as state privateers against enemy commerce. The victors of Trafalgar were given additional prize style money by Parliamentary grant, as a grateful nation was aware that all too many of their captured prizes were lost in the storm which followed the battle.
It would not be right to re enact the same incentives naval public sector personnel enjoyed in the 1800s to the modern public sector, but it does remind us that personal incentive can lead to innovation, daring and success. There are acceptable ways of reward which can stimulate innovation and sensible risk taking. In this respect the navy of Nelson had much more in common with the first Elizabethans who plundered Spanish commerce from the New World, than with our own second Elizabethan Age.
The big issue is the Withdrawal Agreement, not the Irish backstop
Those in the Cabinet who told the PM this week that we cannot accept a backstop which leaves us in a Customs Union indefinitely were right. They are also right to want the full legal advice on the draft Treaty they are asked to accept.
There is however a much easier argument to use against the vague proposals emerging. The UK must not seek to sign the draft Withdrawal Agreement to pay the EU £39 bn in return for the promise of 21 months or more of talks about a possible free trade deal. That would be a very bad deal. It would be worse for the economy than leaving without signing such a one sided agreement. We need to spend that money at home boosting our own economy. We do not need another two years of uncertainty. Many Conservative MPs would vote against that. It would need new legislation to permit it.
We did not vote to leave one EU Treaty only to lock ourselves into a new one sided one. Nor is the Future Partnership Agreement likely to be one any independent self governing democracy could sign.
Secretary of State sets out improvements to Universal Credit
I have received the enclosed letter from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:
Today, I will be laying the Universal Credit Managed Migration regulations before the House. These positive regulations provide a range of additional support for claimants as they move onto Universal Credit – a simpler benefit system, providing tailored support to individuals.
Universal Credit is the biggest and most fundamental reform to the welfare state since its creation. It is a modern benefit based on the sound principles that work should always pay and those who need support receive it.
And this change is necessary, because we can’t go back to the legacy system it replaces.
Not only was it complicated to use and completely outdated, but it was unaffordable – and didn’t work for the people using it. Under the last Labour Government the amount of spending on welfare increased by almost 65%, and at the same time the number of households where no one had ever worked almost doubled.
In 2010, when the Conservatives took office, the welfare bill cost each household £8,350 – an increase of nearly £3,000 per household since 1997. Not only was this failing system disincentivising work, but it was the taxpayer bearing the burden.
Our welfare record
Universal Credit is revolutionary – it takes a common sense approach to support. Whereas the old system was “one size fits all”, we now have a system which supports each claimant’s abilities and skills. It recognises that every person is unique, and the support they receive should reflect that.
Even before the Autumn Budget 2018, Universal Credit has been helping people get into work faster and stay in work longer than the old system. Our record on employment is plain for everyone to see. Since 2010 we’ve broken 18 employment records, seeing an average of 1,000 people moving into work each and every day.
Alongside this, figures out only last week show that the number of children living in a household without working adults is at the lowest it’s ever been. Having a working role model in a child’s life is immeasurably important, as we know that children living with an adult who works do better at school and are more likely to be employed when they grow up.
Where the old benefits system trapped whole families relying on benefits, Universal Credit is opening up work for millions of people.
Now, we know there have been issues during the rollout – a fact I have not shied away from. With a fundamental and widespread reform like Universal Credit, which will be used by 8.5 million people, it’s inevitable. What is important is that where there have been issues we have listened, we have learned and we have made changes.
Autumn Budget 2018
This is exactly what we have done. We listened to concerns about Universal Credit delivery and funding, and in response the Chancellor announced a £4.5 billion cash boost to Universal Credit. A powerful injection of support, to ensure that vulnerable claimants and families are supported in the transition to Universal Credit, and millions keep more of what they earn.
We will put an extra £1.7bn a year into work allowances – the amount someone can earn before their benefit payment begins to reduce. We are increasing the work allowance on Universal Credit by £1,000 per year, helping 2.4 million families. Universal Credit has always ensured work pays – and now it pays even more. Something stakeholders and charities across the board – from the Resolution Foundation, to the Trussell Trust to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and more – have welcomed.
We will help people relieve the burden of debts by reducing the maximum deduction rates from 40% to 30% of standard allowances. At any one point this helps over 600,000 families when roll out is complete – providing them with £295 on average extra a year as their debts are repaid over a longer period. In addition, we will also extend the repayment period for people who receive advance payments from 12 to 16 months – giving them extra space to get on top of their finances.
And to support those supporting themselves, for new businesses we will open up a 12-month grace period before the Minimum Income Floor comes into effect, providing 130,000 self-employed families the best opportunity to grow a successful business.
In addition, we will extend the contracts for New Enterprise Allowance, providing help for those out of work to set up businesses – adding to the 45 new businesses a day that have seen created since 2011 through the scheme.
To assist those claimants who we move onto Universal Credit we will install a two-week ‘run on’ for those receiving out-of-work benefits. This means that when individuals move onto Universal Credit, they will still receive an additional 2 weeks payment, reducing the waiting time for their first UC payment, and helping vulnerable claimants make a smooth transition to the new system.
And at the Conservative Party Conference, I announced a new £51 million partnership with Citizens Advice, a trusted, independent organisation, to provide Universal Support – the comprehensive offer for claimants moving onto Universal Credit.
This package of wrap around support is in addition to the continued improvements we have already made to the system as part of our ‘test and learn’ approach to Universal Credit. In total, these proposals mean that since 2016 this Government has provided an additional £9.5bn of funding to Universal Credit claimants.
Managed Migration – what we are doing next
By December, Universal Credit will have rolled out to every Job Centre in the country, meaning all new benefit claimants will receive Universal Credit. Next year we will start the wider process of moving people from the old benefits system onto Universal Credit, following the passage of regulations in Parliament.
We have consulted on the regulations and listened to stakeholders and the Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC), and made significant improvements to the regulations, and have accepted almost all of SSAC’s recommendations. These regulations allow us to provide the comprehensive wrap around support package – including the ‘run on’ for claimants making the smooth transition to UC, and the transitional protection to ensure claimants are not worse off.
These are important regulations to pass, in order to ensure that targeted support reaches those it is designed to help.
Throughout managed migration, we will continue to take a slow and measured approach. This will begin in July 2019, after a period of preparation. For a further year we will then begin migration working with a maximum of 10,000 people, continuing with our ‘test and learn’ approach. This is to ensure the system is working well for claimants and to make any necessary adaptions as we go, until full roll out ends in 2023.
Universal Credit is bringing the welfare system into the 21st century. Rather than queuing up to fill out forms at 3 different departments, everything is done through a single application. It is simplifying the system, replacing six different benefits with a single monthly payment, removing layers of bureaucracy and making it easier for people to get the support they’re entitled to.