Centenary of the Armistice

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tom Watson]

I do join my hon. Friend in that. In remembering them and knowing their lives, we honour their sacrifice. These events are taking place up and down the country.

To take just one of many more examples, on 1 July 1916, the opening day of the battle of the Somme, 235 of the Accrington Pals—the 11th (Service) Battalion East Lancashire Regiment—were killed, and 315 wounded, in the space of just 25 minutes. The fighting continued right up until literally the last few seconds before the Armistice was signed. More men died in 1918 than in any previous year of the war. The last British serviceman to be killed, Private George Edwin Ellison, died just one and a half hours before the Armistice, on the outskirts of Mons in Belgium, almost exactly the same place where British forces had first seen action in 1914. Indeed, George Ellison’s grave now faces that of John Parr, the first British soldier killed during the conflict. Between the deaths of John Parr in August 1914 and George Ellison in November 1918, 1.1 million British service personnel lost their lives—more than in any other conflict before or since.

Almost every city and town and village in Britain has a war memorial listing those who never returned from the great war. Thanks to the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the brave men and women who lost their lives during the war are remembered with gravestones and memorials across the world. I know the whole House would like to thank the gardeners and staff of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, who do so much to ensure that our service personnel are honoured in fitting resting places. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Yet perhaps the bitterest element of this bittersweet commemoration, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, is that almost all of those war memorials have another plaque or another set of carvings listing those who never returned from the second world war, less than three decades later. The Armistice Day hopes of Lloyd George were dashed. Whatever else we might want to say about what was described as the war to end all wars, it turned out not to be the war to end all wars.

The great war was perhaps the last war in which people signed up to fight out of deference and patriotic fervour. We have all seen the photos of lines of young men, some of them perhaps lying about their age, desperate to join up and see action before the end of a war they believed would be over by Christmas. But in quite a short time, those deferential and patriotic sentiments were not enough to meet the needs of the military in a war on this scale, which is why conscription had to be introduced in 1916. The horrors of the western front made many in Britain doubt whether the war was worth it.

It was not only in this country that the success of the war effort relied on popular support. Russia’s experience on the eastern front, the gradual breakdown of its economy and the Russian people’s discontent with its leadership was a direct cause of the Russian revolution, which shaped global politics for the rest of the century and beyond. The mutinies of 1917 crippled the effectiveness of the French army. America’s entry into the war, which contributed so much to the allied victory, might not have been possible at all without the popular outrage generated by the German U-boat campaign sinking US civilian shipping, and the final German collapse owed much to the suffering of its population under the British naval blockade.

Leaders and generals do not operate in isolation, cold-bloodedly moving around blocks of troops, disconnected from the societies from which those troops are drawn. Political leaders have to earn and secure support for any military action, not just at the start but on an ongoing basis. That lesson has had to be learned again and again, from Algeria to Vietnam to Iraq.

The great war changed Britain forever in so many ways. This year we have also been celebrating the centenary of many women getting the vote—another momentous event in the momentous year of 1918. The achievement of women’s suffrage had many causes. The movement long preceded the great war, and achieving the vote was just one step on a path towards equality that still stretches before us. But the contribution of women to that war effort, in filling roles previously reserved for the men now fighting overseas, helped to solidify the argument that women were just as capable as men and had just as much right to political representation, making progress faster than it might otherwise have been.

In some ways—I realise that this could be controversial—Britain was lucky in 1918. Unlike France and Belgium, it was not scarred with bomb craters and ruined towns. Unlike Russia, it had no revolution or civil war. Unlike Germany, it had no reparations to pay or territory to concede. But its people bore the scars of war on their bodies and in their minds. They deserved and needed what Lloyd George promised them—a land fit for heroes. Instead, they got nearly two decades of economic slump, unemployment, poverty, poor housing and the great depression.

Both then and now, Britain has not always treated its service personnel with the respect they deserve. As a Defence Minister, I met Gertie, the daughter of Private Harry Farr, and her daughter, Janet Booth. They campaigned tirelessly for a pardon for their father and grandfather, who was shot at dawn for cowardice. Harry Farr was no coward. It was the dignity of his family and their tireless campaign that led to the pardons for the “shot at dawn” generation.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

As vice-president of the Greenford branch of the Royal British Legion, I am sure I speak for the whole House when I express gratitude for my hon. Friend’s words about the Royal British Legion.

Harry Farr was one of 306 British and Commonwealth soldiers executed for what was then called cowardice or lack of moral fibre. I would like to thank publicly my hon. Friend, who was then the Minister, on behalf of my constituent Joannie Farr, one of Harry Farr’s granddaughters, for the pardon that he was so instrumental in gaining, along with Des Browne, now Lord Browne. Will he put it on the record once and for all that if, God forbid, we ever face such a situation again, we will look to offer compassion, not condemnation, to young men who buckle and sometimes crack in the face of horrors that we in this House cannot begin to imagine?

[Tom Watson]

I can, and we should. I thank my hon. Friend for the work he did on the campaign to ensure that Gertie’s dying wish was met.

I am proud of my role in righting what I saw as the injustice of the 306 soldiers that my hon. Friend mentions. Many of them had clearly been suffering from what was then called shellshock and what would now be called post-traumatic stress disorder. Their families were not entitled to a military pension and often faced great hardship. Granting them a pardon did not change what was done to them, but it eased the stigma felt by their loved ones over the generations. Anybody who has ever visited the National Memorial Arboretum to see the commemoration to those who were shot at dawn cannot fail to be moved.

We should pay tribute to the work of the National Memorial Arboretum in the west midlands, which allows so many to pay their respects to the men and women of our armed forces. As a young Minister, newly in post, I remember feeling my heart in my mouth when I had to give what is called a ministerial direction to underwrite the cost of the magnificent armed forces memorial that was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in October 2007 to honour the sacrifice of those who, in more than 50 operations and conflicts since the second world war, lost their lives in service. Today, we understand the impact of war better than we did 100 years ago.

With a smaller professional military, we do not have to face the challenge of reintegrating millions of ex-service personnel into the civilian economy. However, we do owe a duty of care to veterans and their families that lasts beyond the last echo of gunfire. That has to include physical and mental health support, as well as efforts to ensure that they have the skills they need to find civilian employment.

Both the great war and what came after it show us the need for internationalism. It was rival nationalisms that caused the war—rival imperial ambitions, rival insecurities and the escalation of responses to perceived threats until it was easier for the great powers to go to war than for them to back down from it. There can be no greater failure of diplomacy than the resort to armed conflict, even if armed conflict sometimes is the right response to a failure of diplomacy.

One of the causes of the failure of the Armistice to hold was the disastrously punitive terms imposed on Germany by the treaty of Versailles in 1919 and its insistence on German war guilt, which both crippled its economy and fed the resentment that the Nazis were able to harness so effectively. As Marshal Foch prophetically said, Versailles was

“not a peace treaty, it is an armistice for twenty years.”

After the great war, the world failed to build a sustainable peace.

The post-war League of Nations was a well-intentioned attempt to stop such a thing happening again, but it proved inadequate to the task of responding to the nationalism, fascism and territorial ambition of Hitler and Mussolini, Soviet expansionism, or indeed America First isolationism. The failure of the League of Nations showed the need for stronger international institutions, and since the second world war, for all their flaws, institutions including the United Nations, NATO and the European Union have helped us to avoid any repeat of war on a global scale, even if they have been unable to prevent myriad smaller conflicts.

Building lasting, sustainable peace is not easy, but it requires a commitment to internationalism, development, diplomacy and the fostering of economic ties between nations. Where necessary, it requires conflict resolution, but also a strong defence posture and a willingness to countenance military intervention as a last resort, not as a first step, as well as a framework of international laws and justice. Too many of these were absent in the aftermath of the great war, and the whole world paid a terrible price for the fragility of the Armistice.

If ever there is a time to forgive and reunite, it is 11 November 2018. This year, of all the articles written on the great war, the one that moved me the most was that written by Lord Michael Ashcroft, who made the case that courage is something displayed by service personnel on both sides of war and conflict. We should never forget that. He made a strong case for reconciliation in his tribute to the courage of Manfred von Richthofen, the Red Baron.

There was some controversy last month when the Government revealed their plans to invite the German Head of State to the Cenotaph. However, it strikes me that in this year—100 years after men and women of courage gave their lives fighting for their countries—we should, in the spirit of reconciliation and peace, honour the valour and sacrifice of our opponents in the great war by inviting the German President to share in our remembrance. The Secretary of State was absolutely right to make that commitment.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and to colleagues for their thoughtful and humane interventions. We owe so much to all those who served and to all those who gave their lives in the great war that ended on 11 November 1918. One hundred years later, they still have much to teach us. As the Bishop of Lambeth said in his address to us in that very moving service: “War starts in the hearts and minds and souls of men and women like us. And peace, too, starts in the hearts and minds and souls of men and women like us.” Let us not just speak of peace, but let each and every one of us be the peacemakers.

Dulwich Hamlet Football Club

Stephen Pound Excerpts

Friday 16th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes]

I do indeed agree that more can be done to protect these powerful institutions. When such institutions are lost they may be gone forever, so we must do all that we can to keep them alive. The Government may argue that they cannot intervene in the commercial or legal affairs of any individual club, but the situation at Dulwich is not individual; it is representative of a much wider problem, in which short-term financial gain seeks to assert itself over an institution valued not just in pounds and pence, but in people, friendship, aspiration and history.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am really pleased that my hon. Friend has brought this issue to the House. The Hamlet has a lot of affection and a lot of people respect it, but this issue is bigger and wider than that one club. If we do not have grassroots football—if we do not have the small teams such as, in my part of the world, Hayes & Yeading, where players like Les Ferdinand and Paul Merson started—how are we going to channel talent into the higher leagues? Without teams like the Hamlet, we will not have top-tier football. The Minister is a great sportswoman and she supports a team in north London, the name of which escapes me. Does my hon. Friend agree that without teams like the Hamlet, we would not have teams like Spurs?

[Helen Hayes]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend’s remarks.

This year, Dulwich Hamlet celebrated its 125th anniversary. The historic first formal meeting of Hamlet Old Boys and founder Pa Wilson took place on Friday 28 January 1893 at the Dulwich Hamlet Elementary School in Dulwich village. The team eventually settled at Champion Hill in 1902—the same year in which both Manchester United and Real Madrid were founded—and it has been there ever since.

Dulwich Hamlet has a long history and a strong and proud heritage: they are four-time FA Amateur cup winners; two Hamlet players, Edgar Kail and Bert Coleman, earned full England caps; and in 1948 Champion Hill was used for the London Olympics, hosting football just as the neighbouring Herne Hill velodrome hosted cycling.

It has not all been plain sailing over the years. The club faced closure in the 1960s, and in the 1980s it gave up its old ground to ensure that there was a future and a new stadium. But Dulwich Hamlet is far more than just a football club. It is part of the very fabric of the local community through its inclusive and accessible approach to football, its social activity supporting good causes, and the many initiatives that are led by the club and its army of volunteers—from Dulwich to Dunkirk and to Syria.

One fan told of his days as a beat bobby in south-east London and how Dulwich Hamlet and its loyal supporters —the Rabble—came together to engage the local youngsters, providing school competitions, role models, and an alternative to getting into trouble: just one of countless initiatives the club has led in the community. Under current manager Gavin Rose, who is in the Public Gallery today, the Aspire Academy has been developed and works with hundreds more young people every year. Thirty-five players from the academy have moved into the professional game. Aspire is not just about success on the field—although it is certainly that—and it is not just about developing better players; it is also about instilling in our young people the importance of becoming better members of their community.

I am proud of the many young people from Aspire who have not gone on to make a career in football, but who have become outstanding citizens. The academy’s work is not limited to young people. In recent years, it has seen the club host a ground-breaking match against the Stonewall 11 in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights; arranged food bank collections; and sent aid to refugees in Calais. I have with me today a special edition scarf to celebrate 100 years of women’s suffrage. The list of its work goes on.

Dulwich Hamlet has a strong community identity. It is a family club that has brought pleasure—and admittedly some pain—to generations of supporters. It is very often the first club that children attend because it is local, family friendly and has a great community feel.

Dulwich Hamlet FC fans mainly live nearby and are part of our wider local community. They are rightly proud of the way that they have grown to become a central part of that community, and they are recognised for what they are doing. The efforts made by the club and all its volunteers to ensure that the club connects with all parts of its local community were recognised in 2016, when it was awarded the football foundation community club of the year at the National Game Awards in London. Everyone wants to keep the club that way and, given the chance, I know that it can do even more.

Dulwich Hamlet has business sponsors and partners who back the club financially, put up posters and display its scarves because of the positive image the team has in the local community and the benefit that the supporters bring to their businesses. The club is heading in the right direction. As recently as 2008-09, the club saw average attendances of just 180. That has now risen to more than 1,500 this season, proving the sustainability of the club and the impact that it has on the community.

Dulwich Hamlet has much to celebrate, currently sitting third in the league and chasing a promotion to the Conference South, but off the pitch the picture is entirely different. The club was acquired by Meadow Partners with operating partner Hadley in 2014. The company took day-to-day control of the club and paid off a significant number of debts, which had come very close to driving the club into bankruptcy. It made no secret of the fact that it was looking to redevelop some or all of the current ground, with the club being moved to more appropriate facilities nearby. It publicly stated that giving the club a long-term future was an integral part of its plans.

In March 2016, an application to redevelop the ground was submitted to Southwark Council. The plans included provision for 155 new dwellings, as well as a new stadium for the club to be built on metropolitan open land, which would be handed over to Dulwich Hamlet FC for fan ownership. However, there was no planning policy designation for residential use on that site, and of course there was the very strong planning protection of metropolitan open land, which meant that, essentially, there was no clear policy framework against which the council could determine the application.

In December 2017, a planning appeal was lodged by Meadow on the grounds that Southwark Council had failed to reach a decision within the required timescale. Subsequent legal wrangling between the developer and the council over the football club’s lease resulted in costs, thought to be around £320,000, being awarded against the club, which had played no role in the legal case, and ultimately to the developer withdrawing the planning appeal.

Following the withdrawal of the planning appeal, the developer announced that it had withdrawn all financial support and management of the football club as, in its opinion, there was no chance of its being able to build on the part of the site that was the subject of the dispute concerning the lease. In December 2017, Meadow demanded that the football club sign a new lease to continue playing at Champion Hill or face being evicted.

Recently, things have accelerated further. Dulwich Hamlet has been locked out of its ground—including access to club merchandise, historic memorabilia and the war memorial. In a bizarre turn of events, Dulwich Hamlet FC has even had its own name, nickname and initials registered as a trade mark and was told not to use them. Although I understand that there may have been some progress on this in the past few days, it is nevertheless the case that, last week, Dulwich Hamlet found itself without a home and without a name, putting at risk its historic ground and the basis for all the wonderful work that it does.

None of this is necessary. There are a number of alternative options on the table from potential investors who are interested in doing the right thing: safeguarding the club and building much needed social housing. Southwark Council has made a strong commitment to the club, including taking a formal decision this week that it would make capital funding available to acquire the site. But not every club benefits from such a strong and vocal support base, and a strong and committed council.

The situation developing at Champion Hill is unfortunately far from an isolated one. Across the country, we are seeing clubs whose communities face losing access to vital sports grounds or that have been adversely affected by stadium land deals. After all, many football clubs—particularly in London and not only at non-league level—have found themselves homeless, and in some cases merged or out of business, after falling victim to the ambitions of property developers.

[Helen Hayes]

If the hon. Gentleman bears with me for just a couple of minutes, I will come to exactly those points.

There is a significant housing crisis in London. At least 50,000 new homes a year are needed just to keep up with demand, and the unavoidable fact is that football clubs commonly sit on large, expensive sites and are often considered less valuable than the ground beneath them. This is not an argument against building new homes, which are essential, but as new homes are being built we must also take care of the fabric of communities—the institutions and the places that knit people together. It is this value that is never captured on the developer’s balance sheet.

In London the list of clubs that are under pressure is depressingly long. In recent years Enfield Town, Edgware Town, Hendon and Thurrock football clubs have all lost their historical homes. Away from London and the south-east, where the pressure on housing and the value of land is not always so acute, the story continues. Northampton Town, Kettering Town, Torquay United, Skelmersdale United, Coventry City and Merthyr Town—to name just a few—are all facing battles to survive as the property developers circle. As with Dulwich Hamlet, these teams are very much a part of their communities.

As a symbol of the solidarity and community that exist across the world of local football, Dulwich Hamlet will play out its remaining games this season at arch rival Tooting and Mitcham United’s ground. The club has had messages of support from countless teams across the country. More can be done to stop the situation at Dulwich Hamlet happening to other clubs, and I will end by making a number of asks of the Minister.

First, will the Minister commit to an urgent audit of the premises of league and non-league football grounds and stadiums across the country, and quantify the extent and nature of the threat that is exemplified by the situation at Dulwich Hamlet? Secondly, will she use that information to make the case to her colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for greater protection to be afforded to league and non-league football grounds, perhaps using the protections introduced by Labour to safeguard school playing fields as a model?

Thirdly, will the Minister review how it could possibly come to pass that a developer was able to register the trademark of a 125-year-old football club, seemingly without regard to the live and continuous use of the club’s name? How could this decision possibly have been approved by the Intellectual Property Office? Will she take steps to ensure that no other football clubs can be threatened with the loss of their identity in this way? Fourthly, will she look at the redistribution of funding within the football world from the premier league to grassroots football, without which the premier league will be starved of the talent it needs to be sustained?

[Stephen Pound]

I did not want to interrupt my hon. Friend because she has made an incredibly powerful case, and I know that the Minister will be very keen to respond, but I hope that she will pay tribute to the Football Foundation, which is doing a great deal of work in redistributing money. I appreciate that one of the problems with British football is that there is a lot of money at the top and not a lot at the feeder clubs, but the Football Foundation—in my opinion and, I think, in that of many of our colleagues—is doing a really good job for grassroots football.

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point.

Finally, will the Minister progress reforms to ensure that the fit and proper persons test must apply to non-league ownership and that some form of bond be attached to any acquisition, and explore how fans can play a greater protective role in the ownership and governance of league and non-league football clubs?

For Dulwich Hamlet the immediate solution is simply for the club to be given its home back. The current breakdown of trust and relationship between Meadow, the council and the club is of grave concern. It would be better for everyone, including Meadow, for the land to be sold at fair market value on terms that guarantee a sustainable future for the club. I hope that the Minister will also join me in calling on Meadow to re-engage with the council and the club, and to negotiate a way forward that places a secure future for Dulwich Hamlet football club at its historical home, Champion Hill, as the highest priority. Forward the Hamlet!