National Accident Prevention Strategy

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing forward this debate. It really is about time, because this issue comes in, goes out again and somehow is never really fixed or sorted. I declare an interest as the president of the Road Danger Reduction Forum.

The one problem I have with the accident prevention strategy—I apologise to the RoSPA team, its president and its vice-president—is that we should never use the word “accident”, because accidents very rarely happen. There is almost always a cause. It is a problem with roads, vehicles or drivers. Survivors who have suffered road traffic crashes or collisions find it very difficult to stomach the fact that they are called accidents. An accident is something where you say, “Oops, I’m so sorry that happened. I didn’t mean it”. Actually, often these incidents are utterly preventable, so when we are talking about traffic, collisions and injuries, which are incredibly serious and a blight on society, we should really not be saying that they are unavoidable, which is almost what “accident” suggests.

I have been working on this issue for 25 years. When I was in the London Assembly, when Ken Livingstone was mayor, we worked very hard to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on London’s roads. By and large, we did a very good job. It is about joined-up thinking. As the noble Baroness said, this has to cut through all departments and be a common language, so that it is possible to make progress.

I got the Met Police to stop using the word “accident”. Now the Met and some other police forces do not talk about “road traffic accidents”, as they used to, but “road traffic collisions”, RTCs. This is a direct result of the work we did in London on road deaths and injuries. I often say “crash”. I was a victim of two crashes as a cyclist. The first time, on a zebra crossing, I got knocked off my bike across the middle of the road, past all the signs, and landed on my wrist. I still have a very impressive scar from that. The second time, less than a year later, I got knocked off by a cyclist and got only a black eye, so that was good. I went on “Newsnight” that night, and they had to put huge amounts of make-up on my face and film me only from one side.

When looking at these collisions, deaths and injuries, we have to look at multiple things. It can be the design of the roads or a lack of police enforcement, which comes and goes. When I was working on this in the London Assembly, we made sure that the road traffic element of the Met Police was very active and supported. Every year, people talked about cutting its budget, but we managed to stop those cuts. Crashes can also be the result of badly maintained HGVs, a lack of segregated and safe cycle paths, drugs, drink or inattention. All these things are factors, and we have to be clear that you have to tackle them in different ways and with a joined-up approach.

I was the Mayor of London’s road safety ambassador for seven years. It was a bit of a joke title at first; Ken gave it to me because he thought that I would not do much with it, I think, but actually we were very successful. In those seven years, we saw a big decline in the number of injuries and casualties on our roads. Some of that was due to the introduction of 20 mph zones, which had quite a big impact in terms of traffic calming and people being aware of the fact that cars really ought to drive more slowly and more carefully—this happened across London—and some of it was due to the extra resources for the traffic police, which was a very important component of driving down deaths and injuries.

My point is that it took political will but also money and, to some extent, research to understand how these things happen. The car lobby often did not like the things that we did, but the fact is that it worked, and people could see that it worked. The 20 mph zones became fairly well accepted in London, and segregated cycle lanes worked and made people a lot happier. The measures reduced the number of people who were killed or injured, obviously, but they also reduced the number of grieving family members and partners who had to face the fact that their loved ones were dead and gone or might never be the same again—that is, they might never walk or speak again. As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said earlier, they also reduced the costs to the NHS and the care system of looking after thousands of people with life-changing injuries; on a national scale, that is absolutely huge. So, having an accident prevention strategy is worth while, but only if departments are willing both to put resources and safeguards in place, in order to make things happen, and to work together; that is a really important part of it.

On health inequalities, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to live next to a large, dirty road such as the M25, which, of course, gives you not just a huge amount of traffic and air pollution but danger.

The Labour Government are right to keep repeating that prevention is better than cure, but I am not sure that they recognise just how much that involves challenging vested interests. I know that this is not easy, whether it is the car lobby whingeing about the police doing something on our lawless roads; the development industry taking shortcuts with the regulations around fire safety; or people drinking or taking drugs and then driving, thinking that the police have better things to do. For me, it is hard to think of anything better that you can do with your time—particularly for politicians—than prevent deaths and injuries. The well-being of the people has to be our first job. So I hope that Ministers will adopt this call for a crash prevention strategy, but I also hope that they will learn the big lesson from Grenfell Tower and our lawless roads: you have to face down vested interests in order to save lives and progress this agenda.

I very much support the asks from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, for a named Minister and to co-ordinate the national data. In the NHS 10-year plan, where do road crash victims come in? I do not know much about the Get Britain Working reforms; they sound okay. Of course, education from primary school onwards is absolutely crucial. I would be happy to be the Minister named to do this job for the Government, because I am very well qualified and I am sure that I could get on with the whole Labour Government.

Pension Credit

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will remember that the previous Government decided to do something similar with child benefit. They wanted to means-test it, but because they could not find a way to do so, they decided to get just higher-rate taxpayers. He may also remember the massive complications that flowed from that—because the tax system is individual-based and the benefit system household-based—and that it caused huge complications and the Government effectively had to relitigate to do it all over again. We need to find something that works and is straightforward. The pension credit system is established; people know it is there. Our job is to make sure they can apply for it. If we can do that, we can ensure that they get not just this £200 or £300 but the thousands of pounds they might be entitled to under pension credit. We have absolutely committed to looking after pensioners. The triple lock gave people £970 the year before and £900 this year; who knows what the earnings data will be, but it could be several hundred pounds more this year as well. We will keep investing in pensioners, but we will direct more to those who need it most.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Why do these tough decisions always hit the poor and not the fossil fuel companies and the water companies?

Charitable Sector: Food Provision

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, given the increased use of food banks, what assessment they have made of ways of reducing dependence on the charitable sector for the provision of food.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, food banks are an example of the generosity of spirt of giving across communities in Britain. This Government are committed to understanding and addressing poverty. Last week, for the first time, we published official estimates of food bank use. This April, we are increasing benefits and benefit cap levels by 10.1% and making further cost of living payments. The Government have provided total support of more than £94 billion over 2022-23 and 2023-24.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for this Answer. One of the real concerns about the increase in the use of food banks—which has gone up phenomenally, by a third in the last year—is that they are being used more by the working poor: people in full-time employment who still cannot afford to feed their families and heat their homes. Is it not time for the Government to be even more creative than they have been already and perhaps introduce a wealth tax of 1% on the richest, so there can be pay rises for the poorest workers?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Well, it is helpful to have some innovative solutions from the noble Baroness, but she will know of the huge amount of support that we have given, of which the House is very aware. There are other measures as well: for example, the Government will provide £100 million of support for charities and community organisations in England. This will be targeted towards those organisations most at risk due to the increased demand from vulnerable groups, and targeted in particular to support critical front-line services.

Low-income Families: Benefits Freeze

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

We have. I am sorry—it is a fact. We have more people in work than ever before, and—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Zero hours.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I can answer that one too. While noble Lords will not want me to read out a shopping list of things we have done—I know that it does not go down well—I will mention three things: reducing UC debt deductions from 40% to 30%, increasing the national minimum wage and cutting income tax. I am assured by officials that that has put another £2 billion per annum into people’s pockets.

Social Security: Claimants

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I am in a difficult position because we are about to make our response to the NAO report, which is a formal process, so I do not have that response. Clearly the NAO concentrates on value for money. It wants more evidence and the department will be looking at providing it with some of that evidence in reply.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister must know that the Government’s own review of mandatory workfare shows that a young person is twice as likely to find work if they drop out of the scheme and three times as likely to find work if they do not participate in the first place. Will the Minister accept that the Government’s review has validity and update social security practices accordingly?

[Lord Freud]

If the question is about how the benefit system works for the young, we are now running one of the lowest levels of inactivity we have seen for young people. In the benefits system as a whole, we are looking at the highest-ever employment rate and one of the lowest levels of poverty since the 1980s. Household incomes at an all-time high, we have the lowest levels of children in workless households since records began and the lowest income inequality. If the noble Baroness is saying that the system is not working, how do these figures stand up? We are transforming the system and producing real results.

Pensions: Women’s State Pension Age

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

This measure was introduced in 1995 to equalise state pensions. There were adjustments in 2007 and 2011 and then in the Pensions Act 2014. The move to equalisation was a consensus policy by both the Conservative and Labour Governments during that time.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I regret the Government’s intransigence on this. Like many parliamentarians I have had a lot of letters from women who have been excluded saying things such as:

“I am 63 and have worked for 42 years full time”.

Another says:

“The Government want us to work until we are 66, there are very few jobs for older women”.

Does the Minister not accept that this is a case of unfairness and discrimination against a small group of women who are actually quite numerous?

[Lord Freud]

One of the odd things about this is that we are providing equality between men and women. Men have had to retire at 65 for many decades and we are bringing women’s retirement age to the same level. Women actually have longer in retirement, even after 65, because they still live longer. One of the reasons is that we are being blessed by greater longevity. In the period since 1995, men are living longer by four years and women by three years.