Hilary Benn
MP for Leeds South · Labour · United Kingdom
“As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Irish Government published on 8 June their legislative outline, entitled “The General Scheme of the Legacy of the Troubles Bill 2026”. That is intended to fulfil the commitment that the Irish Government gave in the joint framework to co-operate to the fullest extent possible with the commission.”
“Northern Ireland is a society, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than most, that has been undergoing profound change since the signing of the Good Friday agreement 28 years ago. As the famous lines go, we have a shared history, but not necessarily a shared memory.”
“The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point, and I am grateful to him for his question. We all have a responsibility—political leaders have a responsibility to call out what was witnessed for what it is and not mince our words, and as I have already indicated, social media companies have a responsibility to ensure that such m…”
“I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that the common travel area, which is more than a century old, is of great benefit to the citizens of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Many people in Northern Ireland live their lives across that border every single day.”
“I do agree with my hon. Friend. The attack on Mr Ogilvie was truly shocking, and there was no justification whatsoever for the racist thuggery we witnessed on the streets of Belfast in the days following.”
“That was, of course, an awful feature of what we saw. One of the things I learned in my discussions was that those from the far right had taken a list of houses in multiple occupation in Belfast—a list that, in the interests of openness, was properly available on the Belfast city council website; the council has now taken it down—and used…”
The complete record
Every one of 6,304 lines we hold for Hilary Benn, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 60 of 127.
“What is the Minister going to do about that? Councils are showing “clear signs of financial stress”. What contingency plans do Ministers have to deal with the potential failure of local councils? The truth is that the Government either do not want to know what is going on or do not care. Tough times do indeed require tough decisions, including on spending, but there is no justification whatever for taking the most from those who have the least. I have a number of specific questions to put to the Minister. How many councils will face the maximum reduction in spending power of 6.4% in 2015-16? Will he accept the NAO’s advice and in the final settlement publish figures detailing the change in individual local authority income in real terms since 2010-11, so that the cumulative impact of funding reductions is made clear?”
“That is still happening. Why is it that the most disadvantaged communities are yet again being hit the hardest? Why is it that by 2017, the city of Liverpool, the most deprived local authority in the country, will have lost over half its Government grant compared with 2010? Why is it that Wokingham is on course to have a higher spending power per household than Leeds and Newcastle, despite those cities’ greater need? Why is it that, having claimed that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden, Minsters have done the very opposite to local government? Given the complacency of the Department for Communities and Local Government, is it any wonder that the National Audit Office found that the Department had “a limited understanding of the financial sustainability of local authorities”?”
“Councils have experienced the biggest spending reductions in the public sector, and they have done an extraordinary job in trying to deal with that, but they rightly resent the Secretary of State claiming, as he did, that the cuts are “modest” and that Local Government Association fears for the future are “utterly ludicrous”. Does the Minister still agree with those statements, given that in an open letter last month, a large number of council leaders, including 40 Conservatives, said bluntly: “Services such as libraries, leisure centres and road maintenance continue to buckle under the strain of cuts and the ever-rising cost of caring for our growing elderly population”? The Audit Commission has confirmed that “Councils serving the most deprived areas have seen the largest reductions in funding relative to spending”.”
“I am grateful to the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement, and at least Ministers have chosen to come to the House today rather than having to be summoned, as happened last year. In its recent report “Financial sustainability of local authorities 2014”, the National Audit Office found that the Government “will reduce its funding to local authorities by 37% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2015-16”. Will the Minister confirm that this is the case, and that the Government are going ahead with a 10% reduction in the main component of Government funding to local authorities in 2015-16, as also reported by the NAO?”
“May I start by expressing the Opposition’s concern about the situation in Sydney today? Our thoughts are with all the people who appear to have been taken hostage and with their families. We are all aware of the threat posed by Islamism, the extremist ideology that wrongly claims to be informed by Islam and which attempts to recruit and radicalise our citizens. Can the right hon. Gentleman update the House on what his Department is doing with faith groups to help identify and deal with the sources of extremism and radicalisation in our communities?”
“Interfaith dialogue of the type that the Secretary of State describes with mainstream religious groups is important. The problem is that radical Islamists are not part of it, and Muslim communities are just as keen as others to know what he is doing to help them identify, isolate and deal with the conditions in which such an ideology develops. Does he agree that it is now time for his Department to focus its efforts on helping families to stop the radicalisation of their children and on promoting greater mutual understanding so as to undermine the corrosive effects of Islamism, which so damages our values and our democracy?”
“Scotland is not proposing a 21.8% reduction, as in England, but a 9% reduction, and in past weeks, Wales has also moved to consult on 9%.”
“Firefighters in England, a very large number of whom have been lobbying their Members of Parliament in recent weeks, are therefore asking this question: if a different scheme can be offered to firefighters in Scotland and in Wales, then why not in England? Regulation 61 of the statutory instrument deals with the penalties firefighters will face should they need to retire between the ages of 55 and 60. Under the Government’s proposals, firefighters will lose 21.8% of their pension at the age of 55, yet the Government Actuary has shown that there are two different ways of calculating that reduction: one that seems fair to firefighters, and another that is not, which is the one that the Government have chosen. This issue of the reduction is where negotiations in Scotland and Wales have made most progress.”
“This debate is about producing a pension scheme that is fair to firefighters and workable—something that, to date, DCLG Ministers have failed to do. Unlike the Governments in Scotland and Wales, Ministers have laid before the House regulations that are unfair to firefighters who, through no fault of their own, may have to retire between the ages of 55 and 60, and that are not based on what we would regard as a common understanding of fitness levels. I want to deal with each of those points in turn. The Minister knows that the scheme is not the only one possible within the cost limit. The Government Actuary has told them that, and firefighters know it too. That is why the devolved Governments have proposed lower actuarial reductions.”
“Nor is it acceptable to claim, as she did in Communities and Local Government questions earlier, that she will guarantee an unreduced pension to firefighters who cannot maintain their fitness and cannot be redeployed, when in fact her own letter to me, also of today’s date, confirms that that is not the case. She should not try to pull the wool over firefighters’ eyes. I will return to that point later on. This dispute is not about the need for change in this or other public sector pension schemes. We know that we are living longer and will therefore draw a pension for longer, and that means higher contribution rates and later retirement ages. Any Government have to ensure that public sector pensions are financially sustainable. Nor is this debate about challenging the cost ceiling for the regulations, because we accept that.”
“I beg to move, That the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) Regulations 2014 (S.I., 2014, No. 2848), dated 23 October 2014, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 October, be revoked. This is an extremely important debate—I thank the Government for providing time for it—about an issue that firefighters feel very strongly about and which has been the cause of industrial action. Ministers ought to ask themselves why that is. Let me begin by saying to the Minister that it was not acceptable to table a written statement this afternoon suggesting that all the concerns have been dealt when, on reading it, we discover that that is clearly not the case.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Indeed, there has been no industrial action in Northern Ireland, and that is why I did not refer to the agreement that is in place.”
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the concerns that very many firefighters have talked to many Members of the House about. That is, in part, the nub of this issue.”
“I do not agree with the hon. Lady, because when the 2006 regulations were introduced they made provision for that retirement age. The difference and the reason that there was no industrial action in 2006 was that firefighters felt that other jobs were available for those who could not maintain operational fitness. As I shall say in a moment, those jobs do not exist anymore.”
“My hon. Friend’s latter point is absolutely correct. It is very clear from this debate and the campaign that is being waged that Ministers have completely failed to win the confidence of firefighters.”
“I agree with my right hon. Friend and I shall come back to that point later. On the offers made in Scotland and Wales, those devolved Governments are subject to exactly the same cost ceiling, so they have adjusted their accrual rates to come up with a fairer scheme. Why does that matter? It matters because firefighting demands certain standards of physical fitness, yet some firefighters reaching the age of 55 will, after decades of service and through no fault of their own, find they are unable to continue because they cannot meet the fitness requirements.”
“In England, many use an aerobic fitness test, among others, that measures a firefighter's maximum oxygen intake with each breath, the so-called VO 2 max measurement. The Williams review stated: “The general standard used by many FRSs is a minimum fitness level of 42…while some have an ‘at risk’ standard of 35…where firefighters are allowed to continue on operational duties for a limited period while they undergo remedial fitness training.” The Government, however, claim that firefighters will be able to maintain operational fitness until the age of 60 based on the following line in the report: “a 35…VO 2 max would ensure that 100% of firefighters who remain physically active will still be operational at age 60 assuming they remain free from injury and disease.””
“The Government commissioned Dr Tony Williams to conduct a review of the normal pension age for firefighters and to consider the associated fitness issues. This is the second relevant matter to this debate. Dr Williams published his report in January 2013, but I do not think that Ministers have taken proper account of what he had to say. There is not currently a nationally agreed fitness standard across the 46 fire and rescue authorities in England. Dr Williams says there should be one, and so do the chief fire officers. There is a very strong case for it, but the Government’s position has been that individual fire and rescue authorities should determine their own appropriate standard.”
“Instead, they have laid regulations before the House that will leave those retiring at 55 facing the loss of more than a fifth of their pension. How is that fair? That is the first problem with the regulations, and I now wish to turn to the second problem. The concern that many firefighters have expressed about having to take early retirement with a reduced pension would not be so great if there were other, non-front-line jobs in the fire service that firefighters over the age of 55 could be redeployed to for the rest of their career. The Minister talked about such jobs earlier. That used to be the case, but, as has been pointed out, reductions in funding for the fire service mean that there are far fewer of those jobs.”
“May I make some more progress, if my hon. Friend will bear with me? The FBU has proposed a fairer scheme, accepting that the accrual rate will need to be adjusted. In other words, firefighters will accept less pension if the Government will accept a smaller actuarial reduction for those forced to retire early. Indeed, an e-mail to the Department in January from the Government’s own deputy chief actuary reported back on the calculation of active early retirement factors from age 55. It confirmed that Ministers could indeed propose a scheme with a 12.8% reduction at age 55—rather than the proposed 21.8%—and calculated the exact accrual rate to ensure that the Treasury bears no extra cost. In other words, Ministers could reduce the actuarial reduction if they wanted to.”
“More recently, an interim report, produced by the university of Bath in March and entitled “Enhancing the Health, Fitness and Performance of UK Firefighters”, identified that “firefighters with an aerobic capacity below an occupational fitness standard of 42.3…would not be guaranteed to be safe and effective in their ability to complete necessary roles within their occupation…the lower VO 2 max standard of 35…for continuation of work with remedial training amongst operational firefighters is potentially unsafe for the majority of firefighters.” The House is owed an explanation from Ministers. What do they have to say about that? I hope that the House will now understand why concern has been expressed about the question of fitness standards.”
“That is the concern of everyone in the House. The most important thing is that firefighters should be fit to do the task they are asked to undertake and that they volunteer to do on behalf of society, and I am coming to that point. We have two different potential measures of fitness, one of 42 and another of 35. Why does that matter? Dr Williams adopted a VO 2 max of 42 as the benchmark for his recommendations because fitness levels are not academic. It is a question of safety. He said: “Studies show that below an aerobic fitness standard of 42…the risk of sudden catastrophic cardiac events increases, and below the level of 35…the increase is significant”.”
“Given that many fire and rescue authorities have a fitness standard of 42, is she going to tell the House that she thinks it will recommend a lower fitness standard than that which is currently applied by many fire and rescue authorities?”
“Furthermore, Dr Williams found that in the best case assumption, if the 42 standard were used, as opposed to the 35 standard, “the age related decline in VO 2 max”— due to the natural ageing process— “would indicate that 15% of firefighters would be unfit for duty at 55 years, increasing to 23% at 60 years of age”. As for women firefighters, Dr Williams said this: “more women are likely to drop below the required aerobic fitness standard as they age.” Those figures amount to a lot of firefighters, yet the Government have failed to respond properly to the Williams review. In fairness to the Minister, she has set up a working party to consider fitness standards, but we do not know what that working party will recommend.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right and if she bears with me for just a moment I shall come directly to her point. This is the central problem with the regulations: Ministers appear to have based all their assumptions for the pension scheme on the 35 VO 2 max measure. They assume that all firefighters will be able to maintain operational fitness when they cannot even tell us what the fitness standard will be and when their own assumption of a fitness standard would put the safety of firefighters and the public at risk, which is what the Williams report and the report from the university of Bath say. Dr Williams also states that many of the fire and rescue authorities, understanding the importance of the VO 2 max standard, insist on a standard of 42 for operational fitness.”
“The advice that has been given to Ministers by Dr Williams should be taken seriously, including that on the safety of firefighters, because the safety of firefighters impacts on the safety of the work that they do on behalf of members of the public in fighting fires. If a lower figure is recommended by the working party, the Minister will have a big problem, because Dr Williams has told her clearly that a number of firefighters will not be able to maintain their fitness up to the age of 60. There is another problem.”
“I have here today’s written ministerial statement, which I have read carefully. Where is the guarantee? There is not one. I also have here the letter that the Minister wrote to me today, in which she says: “The Framework also reminds fire and rescue authorities of the fact that they have the opportunity to retire firefighters over 55 on an unreduced pension if they so wish.” That is not a guarantee. There is no guarantee.”
“The Minister then tries to rely on the Government’s promise to put fitness principles on a statutory footing, but there is a problem with that, too. The national framework is only guidance and cannot be binding because section 21 of the Fire and Rescue Act 2004 requires only that fire and rescue services “have regard” to the advice. In case there is any doubt, the Local Government Association employers said in response to the consultation: “Whilst an FRA would of course have to be mindful of the content of the Framework it would not be compelled to comply with it”. If fire and rescue authorities cannot be compelled to do so, where is the guarantee? The alternative would be to pay an unreduced pension. My final question is where the Government’s guarantee is on that.”
“1165.] The answer from the Minister was, “Yes.” If firefighters believed that answer, there would not be a problem, but they do not. The reason is that the Minister has been completely unable to explain to the House how she intends to ensure—that is an important word—that firefighters who find themselves in that position will not be dismissed. Indeed, when I asked the Minister last week in a written parliamentary question “how many redeployment opportunities there are within the Fire and Rescue Service to accommodate firefighters who are unable to maintain an operational fitness standard”, she replied: “We do not keep data on redeployment opportunities for firefighters.” If the Department has no data, the Minister does not know, so how exactly can she make the promise that she has made? Where will the jobs suddenly come from?”
“Time is very short and I want to bring my remarks to a close. While claiming that firefighters will be able to maintain their fitness, the Minister has simultaneously reassured the House that there will be redeployment opportunities. However, she has provided no evidence of that being the case. At oral questions on 10 November, the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) asked: “Given that the Minister has recognised that there remain severe reservations about the fitness test for firefighters, is she saying that she will pass regulations that will ensure that firefighters who fail the fitness test will not lose their jobs, because there are insufficient numbers of back-office jobs in the fire service to accommodate them?” —[ Official Report , 10 November 2014; Vol. 587, c.”
“Members on both sides of the House, many of whom have signed the early-day motion, know that the regulations are not fit for purpose, and I urge the House to revoke them so that Ministers can come back with something that will actually work and is fair to England’s firefighters.”
“The Government claim that they will be able to maintain operational fitness standards for firefighters, and they try to offer reassurances that anyone who falls below those standards will be redeployed, even though by her own admission the Minister cannot say how many redeployment opportunities there are. They have failed to come forward with fairer early retirement actuarial reductions, despite the Government Actuary costing the alternative within the same financial constraints. Ministers have claimed that there is a guarantee that firefighters who cannot be redeployed and cannot maintain their fitness will get an unreduced pension, but the documents before the House today show that there is no such guarantee. For all those reasons, we cannot support the regulations.”
“I am going to finish my remarks. If we follow the Government’s logic, either the regulations are based on a flawed assumption about VO 2 max levels or an additional burden will be placed on fire and rescue authorities at a difficult time. The truth is that the Government have put the pension regulations cart ahead of the fitness horse. To conclude, the regulations are unfit because Ministers have drawn them up based on the flawed claim that all firefighters can maintain their fitness—it is flawed because Ministers cannot tell us what the fitness standard is and because their assumption on fitness is not safe.”
“I join the Secretary of State in condemning anti-Semitic abuse. I very much welcome the action he has taken today. Last year, the Secretary of State decided to extend permitted development rights so that offices could be converted to residential use without requiring planning permission. What assessment has he made of the impact of his change on the availability of office space, in particular for small and start-up businesses that are so important to our economy?”
“He said earlier that he has given more power to local communities to take decisions on planning, so why did he decide that his view on this matter would prevail over the views of local people?”
“It seems extraordinary that the Secretary of State has clearly made no effort at all to find out the impact of his decision, despite reports of small businesses being affected. As he will know, the Mayor of London is very unhappy about what he has done. The Business Secretary thinks it is a really bad idea, saying that “in south-west London large swathes of commercial property are in the process of disappearing…there is nowhere for small firms to operate.” A recent Local Government Association survey found in one case that 100 charities and small businesses had been given four to six weeks’ notice to quit. The right hon. Gentleman used to be a localist.”
“The people of Tower Hamlets are proud to live alongside each other in a community that reflects the face of modern Britain, which is why there can be no place for the politics of division in Tower Hamlets or elsewhere, whatever its motivation. It is the job of every locally elected representative to care for the interests of all his or her constituents. It seems clear from the report with which we have been presented today that those standards have not been upheld in a number of instances in the case of Tower Hamlets and its mayor. Just as, in April, Tower Hamlets welcomed the opportunity to demonstrate that council processes had been run appropriately—which, as we have learnt today, was not the case—it should now accept the findings of this report, and work with the commissioners to ensure that what has gone wrong is put right.”
“I will say, however, that given the concerns that have been expressed about the conduct of elections, we also support the Secretary of State’s decision to ask the commissioners to take responsibility for the appointment of an electoral registration officer and a returning officer for future elections. Local authorities have important powers and duties, which they exercise on behalf of the people whom they represent. They should be free to do that independently, in the way that they see fit. However, with those powers come responsibilities, and, in particular, the responsibility to ensure that all decisions are made on an open, fair and transparent basis.”
“Does the Secretary of State believe that the PwC report contains any further information that might warrant its being referred to the police, or is that aspect of the allegations now closed? In respect of publicity, the inspection report says that a “significant proportion of the budget is allocated to the” —weekly— “publication of ‘East End Life’”, which seems to be little more than a vehicle for promotion of the mayor. The Secretary of State knows of my concern about that particular publication. Will he tell us when he intends to make a final decision about “East End Life”? There are, of course, other legal processes under way relating to Tower Hamlets, and it is right for us not to discuss them here.”
“Will the length of their term of office depend on the progress that they and the council make, together with the mayor, in dealing with the problems that have been identified? What progress reports will the Secretary of State, and the House, receive? What relationship will the commissioners have with the elected councillors in Tower Hamlets, and what role does he envisage for wider local government in the provision of support for Tower Hamlets, as happened in the case of Doncaster? At the time of the Secretary of State’s original decision to send in the auditors, he told the House that a file had also been passed to the Metropolitan police for their consideration. The police subsequently announced that they had found “no credible evidence of criminality”.”
“In the light of what has been found, we support the course of action announced by the Secretary of State, although we must recognise that it is a very serious step to take. It is important for the considerable powers with which the Secretary of State has been entrusted to be used not lightly or because of a political disagreement with decisions made by a local authority, but because that local authority has failed in its statutory duties. When does the Secretary of State propose to announce the names of the three commissioners, and what background and experience will he be looking for in appointing them? Does he intend to consult anyone in making the appointments? Will the commissioners be paid, and, if so, who will bear the cost? The Secretary of State said that he envisaged that the commissioners would be in place until March 2017.”
“In relation to publicity and the use of media advisers, the report refers to a finding by Ofcom that a broadcast constituted political advertising, and states that “the clear implication is that Authority monies were spent inappropriately on what amounted to political advertising for the benefit of the Mayor…This in itself constitutes a failure to comply with the best value duty in this instance." The overall conclusion of the inspection is that the current governance arrangements do not appear to be capable of preventing, or responding appropriately to, the failures identified. The fact that the council is still without permanent appointments to its three most important statutory officer posts should also be a matter of great concern to the House.”
“The findings of the report are indeed very troubling. There was a lack of transparency in regard to the giving of grants, the governance of grant awards was not effective, and grants were given to organisations that had been ruled ineligible or did not meet the required evaluation score. As for property transactions, in three of the four cases that were investigated—those of Poplar town hall, Sutton street depot and Mellish street—the inspection concluded that “the Authority failed to comply with its best value duty.” In the case of Poplar town hall, “The Authority accepted a late bid from the winning bidder after other bids had been opened, creating a risk of bid manipulation”, and the authority did not, in fact, select the highest bidder.”
“I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to have advance sight of his statement. Given that he had received serious allegations about Tower Hamlets earlier this year, and given the material that had been submitted to the Department, it was clearly right for him to exercise the powers granted to him under the Local Government Act 1999 to appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct an inspection of the authority’s compliance with its best-value duty. As I said at the time, that audit had to be full, open and transparent if it was to command public confidence. The publication of PwC’s report today has fulfilled the requirements for openness and transparency, and it has certainly done a comprehensive job, which may well explain why the process has taken slightly longer than I think both sides had originally hoped.”
“Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole made clear, a review would not say, “We’ve reached a decision about the sensible thing to do.” There is a very strong feeling on the part of home owners that the 10% commission is unfair. We could ask them whether they would be able to cope with higher pitch fees if the commission disappeared; people will have to express a view. I think it would be sensible to have a review. As I understand it, the only issue across the House is its timing. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on that. I conclude by congratulating the right hon. Lady on bringing this debate to the House. I hope that the Government will respond sympathetically to her points and those of other Members.”
“It would also help us answer the question raised in the argument made by site owners—that if they do not have commission income, they will not be able to continue operating sites as viable entities. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) made a point about the business model, and that is important. If someone is not entirely sure how many homes are going to be sold, how can they hope to run their business, which is dependent on something they do not control? With pitch fees, of course, there is control. We recognise that there is a balance to be struck. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) described one possible option: that of lowering fees. Others have argued for their removal. There seems to be a consensus across the House in favour of a review. As the right hon.”
“Where service charges are levied for works that the freeholder of the building undertakes, whether cutting the grass, cleaning or external painting, they have a right under legislation—the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, I think—to see a cost summary and then the underlying documents. However, park homes were not included in that legislation, which was introduced some years ago, and I simply do not think that can be right. Why should park home owners not be able to see where the money they have paid goes and what it is being spent on? That is a matter of principle if a fee is being paid to someone else, who may or may not be providing the services in return.”
“In that sense, would we want to take a step that might result in people facing fees that they would find difficult to pay? There is genuinely a balance to be struck, and we have to consider that. One of the ways we could help to answer that question—there has been strong consensus on this point—is by having greater transparency. It is self-evident. The right hon. Lady made that point at the start of the debate, and it has also been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) and the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). Let us look at the example of leaseholders.”
“We have to acknowledge that it would be in the interests of some residents to move in the direction of the commission disappearing, but others would prefer the status quo. The difference is this: those who favoured a reduction in, or abolition of, the commission rate accepted that it might well result in a higher pitch fee. The residents who intended to sell their home at some point in the future thought, “Well, that’s okay.” However, the residents for whom that will be their home for the rest of their lives were, understandably, much more anxious about an increase in their pitch fee, because they could be paying it for a long time. With people’s budgets already stretched, and as many of the people who live in park homes are on low incomes, as we have heard, I think that that is a reasonable consideration to take into account.”
“Reference has been made to the research carried out by Berkeley Hanover Consulting, which concluded at the time—I acknowledge that it was 12 year ago, as the right hon. Lady argued clearly and forcefully—that pitch fees would rise significantly if the commission paid to site owners was reduced. It argued that pitch fees could increase by about a third as a result. Indeed, when the Communities and Local Government Committee looked at that recently, it pointed to the case of a residents association that was offered a reduction in commission in return for an increase in pitch fees. It was reported to the Committee that one in 100 of the residents so approached agreed to such a move. The Committee’s report also pointed to the previous Government’s consultation in 2006.”