UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: London

  • Lilian Greenwood – 2025 Statement on Dartford Crossing Charges

    Lilian Greenwood – 2025 Statement on Dartford Crossing Charges

    The statement made by Lilian Greenwood, the Transport Minister, in the House of Commons on 17 June 2025.

    The Dartford Crossing is the only fixed road crossing of the River Thames, east of London, and one of the most important links in the strategic road network.

    To manage demand and protect the crossing’s role as a vital component of the nation’s economic infrastructure, a user charge has been collected at the crossing since 2003. In 2014, the tollbooths were removed to help make journeys smoother and the charge was increased to help manage increased demand. This was the last time that charges were increased for all vehicles.

    In the 11 years since, demand at the crossing has grown 7.5%, with the crossing now used by an average of over 150,000 vehicles every day and up to 180,000 vehicles on the busiest days. These traffic levels are well in excess of the crossing’s design capacity, causing delays for drivers using the crossing, congestion and journey disruption to drivers on the M25 and a range of knock-on impacts for local communities.

    Current charging levels are no longer sufficient to achieve their stated aim of managing demand so that the crossing works well for users and local people. The need to increase the charges to manage traffic highlights the need for the additional capacity that LTC, for which the government confirmed new funding yesterday, will provide.

    To secure the effective operation of the crossing, I have, therefore, decided to increase the charges for all vehicle types that currently pay to use the crossing from 1 September 2025. The new tariff is given below.

    Class Vehicles One-off payment Pre-pay account holders
    A Motorcycles, mopeds and quad bikes Free Free
    B Cars (including trailers), motorhomes and any minibuses that have 9 or less seats (including the driver’s seat) £3.50 £2.80
    C Buses, coaches, vans and other goods vehicles with 2 axles £4.20 £3.60
    D Buses, coaches, vans and other goods vehicles with more than 2 axles £8.40 £7.20

    The increase in charges for car drivers will be a maximum of £1, with significant discounts for local residents and account holders. The new charges will be significantly lower than if they had increased in line with inflation since the tariff was last fully revised in 2014.

    I am aware that these necessary changes to the charges will be unwelcome news for users of the crossing. However, we will continue to support local people through the local resident discount scheme and I have been determined to keep the nominal fee paid by local people as low as possible, as many rely on the crossing to get around their local area. Drivers who live in Dartford or Thurrock and who have signed up to the scheme will pay £25 for unlimited annual crossings from 1 September 2025 – a small increase from the current annual fee.

    There are no other changes to the charging scheme. Journeys made between the hours of 22:00 and 06:00 will continue to be free, when there is no need to manage demand, as will those made by motorcycles at any time and the bicycle pick-up service.

  • Monica Harding – 2025 Speech on Unauthorised Moorings on the River Thames

    Monica Harding – 2025 Speech on Unauthorised Moorings on the River Thames

    The speech made by Monica Harding, the Liberal Democrat MP for Esher and Walton, in the House of Commons on 29 April 2025.

    No issue in my constituency demonstrates more the inertia and failure of the previous political leadership than the problem of overstayed, wrecked and abandoned boats that have been left to proliferate along the banks of the Thames for the last decade. I am pleased to have the opportunity today to bring this issue to the attention of the House and the Minister.

    Esher and Walton is a river community. The Thames forms our boundary with London; its waters have brought Vikings to raid Walton and kings to live in Hampton Court, and it is loved by my constituents. We have rowing clubs in Molesey and Walton that generate home-grown Olympians, the Ajax and Viking sea scouts, and wild swimming groups. We have riverside businesses that contribute to our local economy and provide residents and tourists with access to the most famous river in our land. All these activities have been impacted by the sunken, wrecked and abandoned boats, alongside unlicensed overstay boats. They line the entire length of my constituency, from the Dittons through Molesey and down into Walton-on-Thames.

    There are wrecked vessels, half sunk and rusting, on the banks opposite Hampton Court Palace, visible to the hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit. Next door, there are overstay boats which one constituent described as a “small village”; it is Dickensian. The overstay boats are almost always unregistered. They turn up, moor, and then stay for months, sometimes years. In addition to this impunity, they generate litter and waste. Some boats apparently operate as Airbnbs. Others have erected fences: they have fenced off public land on the towpath, put up “Keep out” and “Private” signs, and intimidated residents. Stretches of land—our riverbank, enjoyed for centuries by my constituents—have become no-go areas characterised by drug use and antisocial behaviour.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I commend the hon. Lady for introducing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand to hear her thoughts on what she hopes to achieve. I represent a constituency that is equally as nice as hers, and I can well understand the desire to stay and take advantage of the lovely locations on the River Thames. However, the people she describes are taking advantage and preventing others from having enjoyment that is meant for all. Does she agree that we must have regulations in place that allow for reasonable enjoyment, without people taking advantage?

    Monica Harding

    The hon. Gentleman makes the main point that I want to make today: I will speak about regulations and who is accountable.

    One resident told me:

    “In the past few years, my neighbours and I have been subjected to constant harassment, including threats of physical harm, theft of property, firing of catapults, fly-tipping, dog fouling and antisocial behaviour.”

    That is profoundly unfair on my constituents. Residents who pay their taxes have lost the river as they know it.

    Rowing clubs and boat hire and paddle board companies are unable to launch. Residents with boats who want to take them out and moor alongside riverside restaurants and cafés are unable to do so. The Molesey regatta, which has been a fixture of my community since 1867 and in which I declare an interest as an honorary president, has been required to alter the course of its race.

    In October, a single clean-up of one stretch of riverbank populated by these boats yielded more than 1 tonne of waste. The Environment Agency has failed to get to grips with the situation over a period of years, meaning that the number of such boats in Elmbridge has risen steadily. At the last count, the tally was approaching 250.

    Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)

    In Maidenhead, the local authority and generous individuals have taken matters into their own hands and have been able to get rid of many sunken boats along our stretch of the Thames. The EA has regarded owners of land as being responsible, but lots of riverbank owners are not known—we do not know who lots of the mooring owners are—and that causes significant delays and costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for the Environment Agency to step up and take responsibly? It should be supporting our community, rather than trying to pass on responsibility to unknown landowners.

    Monica Harding

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my constituency, the sense of frustration and disappointment with the Environment Agency is palpable. When a highly visible problem goes unaddressed year after year, as it has for a decade, and when a situation is allowed to deteriorate, it creates a deep sense of disappointment and frustration, and it undermines the faith that people have in the Government to deal with the things that affect people’s day-to-day lives.

    David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)

    I recognise the frustrations and problems that my hon. Friend is having getting the relevant supervisory authorities to pay heed. In Brecon, we have a similar issue: the canal might run dry following Welsh Water’s decision to start charging the Canal & River Trust for the water it extracts, yet none of the relevant authorities have responded to our request for a meeting. Does my hon. Friend agree that in instances like that, it would be helpful for the Minister whose Department is implicated to pay attention? They should come to Brecon and help us to find a solution.

    Monica Harding

    I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I would like the Minister to come to Esher and Walton first, although I appreciate his desire for her to visit his constituency as well.

    My predecessor in Esher and Walton, a previous Deputy Prime Minister, brought the former Environment Secretary to see the problem for herself. They committed to the permanent removal of these boats, but nothing happened: yet another broken Conservative promise. Either my predecessor was uninterested or he was ineffective. Like many, I had hope that the new Government would bring change. I wrote to the newly appointed Secretary of State and the chief executive of the Environment Agency as soon as I was elected, asking for action. At that point, there were 180 boats. I was pleased with the Minister’s reply, which acknowledged that the EA, as the navigation authority along the non-tidal Thames, was committed to managing the situation and to delivering a detailed action plan laying out clear steps for enforcement. I was assured that EA officials wished to regain the trust of the community.

    As a result of that letter, the EA towed away two of the largest and longest staying boats during an enforcement day—hooray! Elmbridge borough council housing department joined the operation and modelled a joined-up approach with the police and the Environment Agency to respond to any homelessness issues. My local council is ready and willing to play its part, but it is frustrated that the EA is not playing its part.

    The enforcement success in the autumn should have marked the beginning of renewed energy and action, with a long-term plan to finally get to grips with the problem. Instead, it was followed up with almost nothing, and the situation has since deteriorated.

    That is despite months and months of advocacy and regular meetings with the EA, in which I have heard again and again about its intention to clear the boats. It has consistently overpromised and underdelivered.

    I was promised a survey of abandoned vessels before comprehensive removals and a long-term strategic enforcement plan as a prelude to making progress in the spring. Well, it is spring now, but both documents were endlessly delayed. Last month, the EA finally produced the survey, but it was presented so confusingly that the council found it almost useless, and I am now told that the EA cannot resource any of it. When the plan came, it was manifestly insufficient.

    In today’s letter, the Minister referenced that document—the Thames waterways compliance and enforcement plan for Elmbridge—which I have read. It runs for 10 pages and makes one minor mention of taking action to reduce the number of unauthorised and unregistered boats, which should have been the central focus. As one of its tactical objectives, the plan promises to develop a clear and tactical plan. We have yet another promise, but no plan.

    All in all, the document marked a dramatic roll- back of previous ambitions. It has an almost complete lack of measurable targets, metrics and accountability mechanisms. In other words, there is no way to assess the progress of the EA in delivering outcomes against agreed objectives or on key concerns, such as the number of boats removed, the number of registration offences or the rubbish cleared. In fact, at our last meeting, the area manager suggested that the problem had become so big that it was too expensive to fix.

    Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)

    I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way—rivers have two banks, and we share one of them. I congratulate Spelthorne borough council, the EA and the police on doing such a good job on the Spelthorne side. I offer my support to the hon. Member in her endeavour to make her side of the river better. If we can give any assistance, we will of course do so.

    Monica Harding

    I am grateful to my constituency neighbour. I would love to work with him, the Environment Agency, our relevant borough councils and the police in order to fix this problem.

    Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)

    I thank the hon. Lady for giving way in such an important debate. I entirely share her frustrations about progress with these boats. This issue affects many of my constituents not just in Weybridge, but across my constituency. I am sure that she will come on to this point. Given the nature of rivers, does she agree that a positive step forward would be working with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) and the Minister to try to get a group together so that rather than pushing the boats on, we can tackle the issue once and for all?

    Monica Harding

    I thank the hon. Member, my constituency neighbour, for that point. I have no intention at all of pushing the boats down to his constituency: I want them gone. There can be nothing more powerful for our constituents than us working across parties in order to fix this problem.

    The BBC picked up on this story this morning. The EA gave a statement to BBC Radio Surrey in which it claimed to be taking

    “firm, lawful and proportionate action”.

    That is manifestly not the case: the action is not firm or proportionate. It also said that the current situation highlights the need for a “more sustainable, systemic response” and pledged a “longer-term approach”. This is the same hot air that we have heard for years and years, waffling on about the need for long-term plans while the situation deteriorates.

    All in all, this is a sad indictment of the poverty of ambition, application and competence in a body charged by taxpayers with protecting our waterways. Indeed, it is hard to overstate the disappointment of my constituents at the seeming inability of the Environment Agency to deliver results, even against objectives that it or the Secretary of State has set. This is the endless cycle: the most basic promises made to residents, the council or me are jettisoned after months of prevarication; the goals that remain are without measurement or accountability.

    I worry from the Minister’s letter to me this afternoon that, regrettably, nothing will change, apart from her very kind ask of the Environment Agency to review its enforcement approach and her commitment to strengthening the EA’s approach. I am keen to hear how she intends to follow up on those points. I was deeply frustrated that much of the letter repeated what I, my residents and the council have being hearing from the EA for months and years: promises of new plans and more joined-up working, and recognition of past disappointments and the need for change. The Environment Agency says that it wants to regain the trust of my constituents. That trust is at rock bottom. What is needed now is far greater oversight—ministerial if necessary —and accountability against specific and deliverable goals.

    I recently attended a public meeting with residents of Hurst Park and Molesey on a Friday night that was packed to the rafters with constituents deeply upset and justifiably angry with the situation. The essence of what people call broken Britain is the sense that the public realm is incapable of solving problems, even the most egregious and obvious ones—those that people and businesses see and feel every single day. The Prime Minister and members of the Government have spoken repeatedly about the need to rebuild trust in the state, rebuild its capacity, and show the people that systems can work and achieve things. Something that my residents and I have found particularly frustrating is the difficulty of attaching any accountability at all to anyone at any point, despite failure after failure. A failure to act deprives these people who I am privileged to represent—those who play by the rules and pay for public services—of the land, peace and natural beauty that they have always enjoyed.

    I ask the Minister to give this matter her personal attention, and to work with me to solve it as a matter of priority. I would like her to work with me to show the people of Esher and Walton that good politics makes things better. Boats listed by the Environment Agency as wrecked or abandoned can, and should, be cleared immediately. Doing so quickly and forcefully, rather than piecemeal, removes one of the permanent risks of those boats—namely, that a change in river conditions could dislodge vessels and transform them into immediate hazards. Clearing overstayed boats requires taking legal steps, and it is vital that this work is consistently and properly resourced. Taking a start-and-stop approach is not an option, because many enforcement mechanisms unlocked by serving initial notices on boats must be completed within a certain period of time. Letting opportunities disappear sets everything back to square one.

    The local police and the local council are ready and eager to help, and have put resources aside to do their part. As such, will the Minister commit personally to driving forward meaningful action on this issue through the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; to providing the necessary energy and resources; and to giving me a point of contact with officials in her department to co-ordinate our work? Will she also commit to meeting me, either in this place or in my constituency—where the problem can be seen and believed—to discuss the progress that we can make together? The problem of overstayed and sunken boats should not be intractable; everyone can see the problem, and the solution is obvious. It is time to show that collectively, we can deliver.

  • Grenfell Tower Inquiry – Phase 2 Report (Executive Summary)

    Grenfell Tower Inquiry – Phase 2 Report (Executive Summary)

    The summary of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2, the executive summary, published on 4 September 2024.

    Text of Report (in .pdf format)

  • Rishi Sunak – 2023 Statement on Armistice Day protests

    Rishi Sunak – 2023 Statement on Armistice Day protests

    The statement made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, on 11 November 2023.

    I condemn the violent, wholly unacceptable scenes we have seen today from the EDL and associated groups and Hamas sympathisers attending the National March for Palestine. The despicable actions of a minority of people undermine those who have chosen to express their views peacefully.

    Remembrance weekend is a time for us to come together as a nation and remember those who fought and died for our freedoms. What we have seen today does not defend the honour of our Armed Forces, but utterly disrespects them.

    That is true for EDL thugs attacking police officers and trespassing on the Cenotaph, and it is true for those singing antisemitic chants and brandishing pro-Hamas signs and clothing on today’s protest. The fear and intimidation the Jewish Community have experienced over the weekend is deplorable.

    All criminality must be met with the full and swift force of the law. That is what I told the Met Police Commissioner on Wednesday, that is what they are accountable for and that is what I expect.

    I will be meeting the Met Police Commissioner in the coming days.

  • Julia Lopez – 2023 Speech on Heritage Assets in London

    Julia Lopez – 2023 Speech on Heritage Assets in London

    The speech made by Julia Lopez, the Minister of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2023.

    I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for securing a wonderful debate and for superbly highlighting London’s great and rich heritage, its wonderful villages and, of course, the importance of protecting historic assets for the benefit of present and future generations.

    Like her, I absolutely adore London’s history. It is a pleasure to see her passion for her constituency again, after her contribution to last week’s debate on the lease of London zoo. I responded to that debate, and am responding to this one, on behalf of Lord Parkinson, who covers the arts and heritage portfolio for the Department. These are all fascinating diversions from my portfolio on data and digital infrastructure, and I am glad to say I have now taken on the tourism brief for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. With the creation of the new Department, tourism will play an increasingly important role within the work of DCMS.

    As my hon. Friend said, our heritage is an essential part of our cultural landscape, our economy and our country. It is both globally renowned and world leading, playing a vital role in communities across the UK, making our places great to live in, work in and visit. She has a significant number of impressive heritage sites in her constituency, including the beautiful Westminster Abbey and the building in which we stand today. Her constituency contains more than 3,900 listed buildings, scheduled monuments and registered parks and gardens combined.

    It is a fun coincidence, as my hon. Friend said, that the debate takes place during English Tourism Week. I hope she will agree that the UK’s tourism offer is truly world class. I had the pleasure of visiting the Goring Hotel, in her constituency; the staff were complimentary about her efforts to champion the hotel sector and they are doing fantastic work supporting young people into hospitality jobs. As she highlighted, the sector has been tremendously resilient after some difficult years. As it is English Tourism Week, I pay tribute to everybody in that sector who has done such incredibly demanding work throughout the last three years.

    Our tourism landscape is iconic, from historic buildings and incredible scenery to culturally vibrant cities and world-leading hospitality, and that is not just here in Westminster. I loved the earlier plug for Strangford by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I hope he will not mind if I encourage hon. Members to sample the delights of my own constituency of Hornchurch and Upminster, including the vibrant Queen’s theatre. I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said about levelling up, but I am pleased to say that the Queen’s theatre was a beneficiary of levelling up within London, with a great grant from the Arts Council of England. We also have a wonderful green space in Dagnam Park, the Manor, as well as Thames Chase forest and heritage assets such as Upminster Tithe Barn and its windmill.

    It is undeniable that heritage sites are vital to our tourism industry and a tangible way to showcase our rich history. Of course, we want these sites to be around in the future for our children and grandchildren to learn from and be inspired by.

    Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)

    It seems the theatre in the Minister’s constituency was drawn out of the Arts Council lottery and won a prize. I am pleased to say that the theatres in my constituency also did not have their grants cut, but the loss of the London Coliseum and the English National Opera is a grave blow to London, and indeed to the whole country. Will the Government use their best endeavours to ensure that very misguided decision by the Arts Council is reconsidered?

    Julia Lopez

    I understand that hon. Members have made their feelings clearly known about ACE’s decision on the ENO. I know that a number of meetings have taken place, and I believe that some transitional funding is there, but I believe that this will continue to be a subject of ongoing discussion between the two organisations. I know that Lord Parkinson has been engaging with the issue.

    We want to make sure we are protecting our historic buildings, statues and memorials. Local planning authorities are required to

    “have regard to the desirability of preserving features of special architectural or historic interest”

    in any building. Buildings, statues and memorials of more modest interest can also be locally listed by local planning authorities. We want to make sure that developers and local authorities take into account the integrity and preservation of heritage sites and the local area. When considering applications for planning permission, local authorities are required to take into account national policy. That includes a clear framework on proposals that are liable to result in substantial harm to, or loss of, a grade I or grade II listed building.

    In some cases, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who retains the power to take over planning applications rather than letting the local authority take over, can take the final decision. That is done only in exceptional circumstances, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster will have seen a number of such cases in her constituency over the years.

    I enjoyed my hon. Friend’s reference to the Gasketeers campaign. As she set out, there is often a tension between development and heritage. That is brought into sharp relief by examples in her constituency, including the planned redevelopment of the City of London and of Liverpool Street station. As she articulately set out, there are also proposals to replace gas-powered lamps in Westminster with modern LED lighting. Just before this debate, I was at a tourism reception in this House at which a lady thrust into my hand a little card telling me that Beverley in the East Riding also has some of the oldest gas streetlamps still in situ. I give a shout-out to them—it seems that Westminster has a level of competition when it comes to heritage.

    There are tensions between conserving the significance of historic buildings and modernising them to be fit for purpose for future generations. It is therefore vital that Historic England, which is our expert heritage adviser, and planning authorities work constructively with development teams to facilitate creative solutions to resolve some of those tensions.

    I would like to name-check Tim Bryars, a key member of the Gasketeers campaign. I first came across Tim, who is a map and book seller in Cecil Court, during a campaign to save that gloriously unique street in Westminster; he then went on to sell me a beautiful silk pocket map of London in the 1800s, which I very much treasure. I commend him for his enthusiasm and for all the work of the Gasketeers’ campaign. [Interruption.] Ah—hello, Tim.

    I understand that, after concerted campaigning, pressure and support from my hon. Friend, the council has seen the light, or the gaslight, and has paused what it was doing. Heritage England has now offered to identify a way forward and is encouraging listing applications, which it will be prioritising. I understand that a site visit is being undertaken. It will also be engaging on the redevelopment plans for Liverpool Street station in my hon. Friend’s constituency; it will look especially at the station, but also at the Great Eastern Hotel. Having sat on the planning committee for the neighbouring borough of Tower Hamlets, I fully understand some of the tensions.

    We have managed to save some parts of London’s historic fabric from rather ugly and unpleasant development over the years. I am thinking of the campaigns on the Fruit and Wool Exchange. My hon. Friend also cited campaigns relating to Smithfield; I think back with some concern to some of the original proposals for Smithfield, which were not sympathetic. I genuinely believe that preserving that historic fabric can really enhance, and no doubt increase the value of, some developments. If a sensitive approach is taken, the protection of heritage and a developer’s ability to make a profit should not need to be an either/or.

    As my hon. Friend will be aware, it is a criminal offence to demolish a listed building or to carry out works of alteration or extension that affect its character without the permission of the local council. A recent example in which a local authority played a critical role was the reopening of the Tavern Inn, a London grade II listed pub, six years after its illegal demolition: the owners were ordered to rebuild it brick for brick following a planning enforcement ruling. It is hoped that such cases will prevent developers from demolishing other sites without the relevant permissions.

    My hon. Friend will also be aware of Historic England’s Heritage at Risk programme, which gives our Department a strategic, overarching view of the overall state of England’s historic sites. It identifies the sites that are most at risk of being lost as a result of neglect, decay or inappropriate development. Historic England updates the Heritage at Risk register every year, and the end result is a dynamic picture of the sites most at risk and most in need of safeguarding for the future. As my hon. Friend said, there are 16 at-risk sites in her constituency, and Historic England is actively engaged with owners and local authorities to find solutions and ensure that repairs are made. I know that she will be watching those 16 sites like a hawk.

    The protection of London’s great heritage also extends to supporting the capital’s vibrant theatre scene and cultural offerings. Recent Government funding has ensured that access to arts and culture is not limited to the bright lights of the west end, but can be experienced by everyone. Investment in theatres across the country has increased through the latest Arts Council England investment programme, in terms of both the number of organisations supported and the volume of funding, which is now more than £110 million each year for nearly 200 organisations. There were also some positive announcements in the Budget about the extension of tax reliefs. That is on top of the unprecedented £1.5 billion culture recovery fund, through which more than £270 million was given to support nearly 700 theatre organisations across England during the pandemic.

    It goes without saying that the protection of heritage and cultural assets for the benefit of future generations requires people to work in those places, and for children to learn about and understand their heritage. We recognise the importance of cultural education for the future of our world-leading arts and culture sectors in the UK, and we think that all children should be entitled to take advantage of those enriching cultural opportunities. We consider them to be an essential part of a broad and balanced education, supporting children’s health, wellbeing and wider development. This is something about which I am particularly passionate, and I am working closely with Lord Parkinson in my Department and with the Department for Education to publish a cultural education plan later this year. The aim of the plan is to highlight the importance of high-quality cultural education in schools around the country, promoting its social value. As Minister for the creative industries, I also see it as critical to building our pipeline of talent into those industries, which suffer from skill shortages—as does the tourism industry.

    We are committed to ensuring that our historic environment is properly protected, promoted and conserved for the benefit of present and future generations, but also because it is that heritage that draws visitors from every corner of the world. Whether through the statutory functions that protect our most special historic buildings and ancient monuments or through the public bodies that it funds, such as Historic England, my Department seeks to protect and promote understanding of and access to our glorious historic environment.

    Let me once again thank my hon. Friend for bringing the House’s attention to this issue and for, as ever, being a truly passionate advocate for London’s heritage.

    Question put and agreed to.

  • Nickie Aiken – 2023 Speech on Heritage Assets in London

    Nickie Aiken – 2023 Speech on Heritage Assets in London

    The speech made by Nickie Aiken, the Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2023.

    When I stood for election, I promised my constituents that I would be a strong local voice. This debate is at the heart of that promise. The Cities of London and Westminster sit in the heart of our nation’s capital. It may be considered one of a handful of global cities, but to those of us who call it home it is also a group of local villages, with local people who are incredibly proud of their neighbourhood’s history. Whether it is Covent Garden, the square mile, Marylebone, Pimlico, Hyde Park or the west end, heritage matters. Heritage matters for so many reasons, not least because of its significant pull factor for tourism. In London we see that on a magnified scale, with people coming from all over the world to visit our heritage buildings, palaces, iconic sites and parks, and enjoy our cultural offer. Places such as Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey will come into sharp focus later this year with the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla. Right here, the Palace of Westminster, where we sit today, is a UNESCO world heritage site. I can therefore think of no better time for this debate, with this being English Tourism Week.

    I recognise the incredible work that my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department is doing to bolster UK tourism, especially since the pandemic. In particular, I applaud the Department’s support for heritage and the arts including, of course, the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, and measures within the tourism recovery plan. I do so in large part because London’s unique appeal lies in its ability for its heritage assets to tell the many stories of a 2,000-year-old city.

    In London, our historic buildings are so common that it is easy for us to take them for granted without giving them a second thought, but without protection, those buildings may not be here in the future. That is made clear in Historic England’s annual at-risk register, which highlights the critical health of England’s most valued historic places. For those in the Cities of London and Westminster, such places have huge community importance, from the Buddhist temple in Margaret Street to the former Samaritan Hospital for Women in Marylebone, and the 18th-century church of St Mary Woolnoth in the City of London. Those are valued historic places, many of which, according to Historic England, are at risk of being lost.

    In 2022, London had 421 listed buildings, 101 places of worship, 25 archaeological entries, 12 parks and gardens and 72 conservation areas that were at risk of neglect, decay or inappropriate change. Thankfully, many have been rescued thanks to heritage bodies and dedicated teams of volunteers, community groups, charities, owners and local government, all working together. For example, two historic buildings with heritage value were recently under threat in the two cities, but both were saved due to community action that I was delighted to fully support. I speak of Bevis Marks synagogue—the oldest synagogue in continuous use in the United Kingdom—and the historic Simpson’s Tavern in Leadenhall, which is 250 years old and a constant in an ever-changing part of the City of London. Both were under threat, but local people stood up and said no to unfettered development, and yes to heritage.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I commend the hon. Lady, who I spoke to beforehand, for securing this debate. She has said not a word that I do not fully support and see the need for. She is right to say that our heritage assets are historic and need to be retained and protected, and that can happen only through funding. She also referred to tourism. Our tourism goes across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we can all benefit. I encourage people to come to London for their holidays, and I am sure she encourages people to come to my constituency of Strangford for holidays. Whenever she comes, I suggest that she goes and visits Scrabo tower, an historic building that has been retained for two or three hundred years. It overlooks Strangford lough, and whenever I go home on the plane on a Thursday night—I usually head home then, but now it will be tomorrow morning—I see Scrabo tower and I know I am coming home, and it always does my heart good.

    Nickie Aiken

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As he knows, I have visited Strangford several times and I plan to do so in the near future. It is a great and beloved place that is part of the United Kingdom.

    We cannot rely solely on community action to protect our cultural assets. There are cases where local people and local government really make an effort to ensure we look after heritage assets—we saw that with the site of Smithfield market, which has been in place since the 14th century. It is now to be the home of the Museum of London, which is moving. The development plans pay a lot of attention to preserving the historic fabric of London for future generations, and I pay tribute to that. I appreciate that not everyone is happy to lose the meat market at Smithfield, but there are cases where development can be done well to create a new offer for the next generation.

    There are also cases where people are still fighting to save their heritage. I share the concerns of Barbican residents about proposals to knock down and redevelop the former home of the Museum of London and Bastion House, and replace it with a major office development. I am delighted to work with the Barbican Association and Barbican Quarter Action to ensure local voices are heard by the City of London Corporation, and that these unique and important historic places are saved for community use, and, hopefully, housing. They are functional historic assets that serve their community and add to London’s cultural offer. That is so important, because communities want to see their local heritage thrive.

    Yes, concentrating on digital and tech is important for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, but we cannot afford to lose focus on the conservation of the country’s cultural and historic heritage. Without that emphasis, heritage will be at risk. London is modernising, but tourism figures and local support underline the popularity of the historic landscape. People care passionately about their historic environment. They want to be involved in decisions about their heritage and how we manage change.

    A good example of that recently was when constituents, as well as heritage experts and heritage bodies, wrote to me concerned that Westminster City Council was not, in their view, giving enough consideration to the historical significance of Victorian gas-powered lamps in its plans to replace them with LED replicas. There are now very few functioning gas lamps left in Westminster. Each, in its own right, is a work of art and a piece of our history, surviving the Blitz and London’s urban revolution, but not all of them will survive due to the council’s diktat to replace them with LED lamps.

    Thankfully, the brilliant London Gasketeers, a fantastic group of locals, are rallying to save these historic lamps. I met the London Gasketeers on Maunsel Street in Westminster to show my solidarity with their cause, along with many locals. Many of those local people had never been part of a campaign before and they were delighted to support the London Gasketeers. The cause gained wide-ranging support: everyone from myself to the president of the GMB union—believe it or not—historians, actors, cabbies, heritage experts and, most importantly, a diverse mix of Westminster residents who care passionately about their local heritage. We have been successful. I pay tribute to the London Gasketeers and I am delighted to see many of them in the Public Gallery this afternoon.

    Things like gas lamps might seem trivial to some, but like it or not, they are our material history. People care because Westminster’s heritage belongs to everyone. Such things matter to our overall social landscape, and are so important because London is a city where history and modernity remain intrinsically linked. The same can be said for urban development. Consider Soho, which has always been characterised by its narrow streets that lend it a friendly, human scale. That is part of Soho’s material history. However, the pavement licensing scheme, which might have been a great offer during covid as an emergency lifeline to many local restaurants and bars, could now have a detrimental effect on the historic streetscape if it becomes permanent without any protections in place. That is why I am calling on the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure that guidance accompanying the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill is clear about the conditions on which licences are granted. It is important that local councils have the flexibility to determine where it is appropriate to have a licence and where it is not.

    Beyond the principal argument on access, we need to ensure that our streetscape is consistent with Soho’s conservation area status, respecting Soho’s unique history and character. We must preserve elements of material history and evolve sensitively in places that already have protection, such as Soho’s conservation area, or deserve protection, such as Westminster’s Victorian gas lamps or London’s historic buildings and places.

    The preservation of our heritage and cultural assets draws millions of tourists to London every year. A VisitBritain survey found that the vast majority of tourists see Britain as a place where heritage meets vibrancy and modernity. The same can be said of our cultural institutions, as 15% of international tourists attend a play, musical, opera or ballet. I am incredibly proud of the vibrant arts and culture offer in my constituency, much of which can be found in the historic west end, dating back to the 1600s. In fact, according to the Office for National Statistics, 8% of the UK’s art and culture businesses are based in the Cities of London and Westminster—around 2,500 businesses.

    There is no doubt that the past few years have been extremely difficult for the arts and culture. The commercial uncertainty of the current climate has not helped. Rising global inflation and consistent train and tube strikes have all had a knock-on effect, hampering the recovery of this £2.4 billion sector. We saw during the pandemic the fragility of the industry. We cannot be complacent; we must protect our cultural assets. After all, heritage and theatre bring in £890 million a year, with more than 16 million people attending London theatres last year.

    We need to work with the theatre sector in London to develop a strong UK talent pipeline, through investment in the arts premium and development of the culture education plan. My hope is that will mean that we can make sustainable, evidence-based decisions to conserve our culture and heritage while enabling people to enjoy them. While I am on this point, although London is not part of the new levelling-up agenda per se, it forms the heartbeat of British artists and culture. We risk losing those institutions at our peril. We saw that with Arts Council England’s rash decision to cut funding to the English National Opera, based in the London Coliseum, not far from here. That decision would have seen the loss of a national icon that gave local people so much—not just world-class opera performances but local initiatives such as the ENO’s Breathe programme, which supports people suffering with long covid.

    I urge the Minister to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the arts and culture sector, and in particular the west end. We cannot forget the strength of the sector as an entrepreneurial and SME-led economic driver locally, nationally and globally. For those reasons, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on the importance of protecting heritage assets in London.

    Since London’s founding in what is now the square mile in the City of London, this has been an ever-changing metropolis. Each generation has added its own personal touch, culminating in a hugely diverse and historic modern city. Now more than ever, it is our duty to ensure that we do not lose what makes London London. Therefore, we must be proactive in protecting our cultural assets, from the west end to the wider historic fabric of London, which is becoming increasingly under threat.

    I urge the Minister to reaffirm her commitment to protecting our heritage assets for future generations, and ask that she work with London’s cultural sector to stimulate growth, encourage tourism and safeguard the industry. London’s historic assets are at risk of being lost to history; we cannot allow that happen.

  • Louise Casey – 2023 Report into the Met Police (Baroness Casey of Blackstock)

    Louise Casey – 2023 Report into the Met Police (Baroness Casey of Blackstock)

    The report by Louise Casey, Baroness Casey of Blackstock, published on 21 March 2023.

    Text of report (in .pdf format)

  • Sadiq Khan – 2023 Speech on Brexit at the Mansion House

    Sadiq Khan – 2023 Speech on Brexit at the Mansion House

    The speech made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, at the Mansion House in London on 12 January 2023.

    I’d like to align myself with the Lord Mayor’s words on levelling-up… he is of course entirely correct – London both requires levelling-up and is required for levelling-up to be successful across the country.

    The Lord Mayor is already proving a tireless champion for the City of London – both here at home and across the world – and I’m looking forward to working more closely with him in future. As the Lord Mayor said, London’s diversity of thought, cultures and backgrounds has long given our city a competitive edge, as I can see looking around Mansion House this evening. As Mayor, I’m committed to harnessing the thinking and talent to deliver a better London, a city that is fairer, and more prosperous for everyone. Now we know, that neurodivergent Londoners have so much to offer our city, from innovative thinking to creative approaches. City Hall is proud to already be working closely with Neurodiversity in Business and tonight, I’m committed to making London the neurodiverse capital of the world.

    I’d also like to pay tribute to everyone from local government here with us.

    As someone who began my time in public life as a councillor, I can’t imagine a more difficult period to serve in local government.

    Terrible pressure on budgets.

    Covid.

    And now the worst cost-of-living crisis for a generation.

    You play a critical role supporting the welfare and wellbeing of our communities.

    And you don’t get anywhere near the recognition you deserve.

    So, I want to express my sincere gratitude to all the council leaders, councillors and officers here tonight from across the political spectrum – not only for continuing to deliver vital public services, but for standing up for Londoners in the most challenging of circumstances.

    My Lord Mayor, Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to use this opportunity to speak mostly about a phenomenon that occupied our TV screens, newspapers and Twitter feeds for many years.

    But which seemingly has now vanished without trace from our national political discourse.

    No, not Boris Johnson…

    But Brexit.

    Given a sizeable number of politicians seem to have taken a vow of silence on its damaging impact, I’m conscious that breaking the Brexit omerta makes me somewhat of an outlier.

    I understand the genuine apprehension many share about this issue.

    No one wants to see a return to the division and deadlock that dominated our body politic for 5 long years.

    I certainly don’t want to re-open old wounds.

    However, the inescapable truth is that this unnecessarily extreme, hard-line version of Brexit is having a detrimental effect on our capital and country – at a time when we can least afford it.

    We can’t – in all good conscience – pretend that it isn’t hurting our people and harming our businesses.

    As Mayor of this great city, choosing not to say anything would be a dereliction of duty.

    We’re gathered in one of the great financial districts in the world – supporting millions of jobs and generating billions in tax revenue – but the reality is that the City of London is being hit by a loss of trade and talent… because of Brexit.

    So, my message is this:

    Trying to will Brexit into a success, or simply ignoring its impact, is not a strategy that will deliver prosperity for London or a brighter future for Britain.

    If we’re not honest about this problem we cannot ever hope to fix it.

    Raising Brexit this evening is not about trying to make a partisan point.

    Or just a chance to moan about the past.

    What I’m interested in is the future – doing what we all know is right for London – and looking at how we can sensibly and maturely mitigate the damage that’s being inflicted.

    Let me share three short examples: First, our national economy.

    We’re facing an economic downturn.

    Yes, we’re not alone – the economies of the US, EU and China are all forecast to contract – but the UK is predicted to face the worst recession and weakest recovery in the G7.

    In fact, UK GDP is set to shrink by 1 per cent this year, compared to 0.1 per cent for the eurozone.

    What makes us exceptional?

    Well, Brexit has already reduced our GDP by 5.5 per cent…

    It’s reduced investment by 11 per cent…

    And reduced goods and services trade by 7 per cent.

    The hard mainstream? Brexit we have is a drag on growth, investment and trade.

    Fixing it would mean the recession would be less painful and less prolonged.

    This is what businesses are telling me across our city – and I have a responsibility as Mayor to speak up on their behalf.

    Second, the cost-of-living emergency…

    The London School of Economics found that Britons are paying an extra 6 billion pounds to eat because of Brexit.

    That’s 210 pounds added to the average household’s supermarket bill over a two-year period.

    Food inflation is now running at more than 13 per cent and its poorer families – who spend a higher proportion of their income on groceries – who are being hit the hardest.

    A Brexit tax on life’s essentials is the last thing they need right now.

    So, putting right the wrongs of Brexit would mean we can ease the pain on those less able to shoulder the burden.

    Third, our public services…

    Many are now in a desperate state, most acutely our NHS and I want to pay tribute to all of those who work in our national health service.

    The estimated cost to the Treasury in lost tax revenues due to Brexit is 40 billion pounds.

    With more than one million Londoners currently waiting for treatment…

    With nurses on strike for the first time in history… and doctors, paramedics, 999 call handlers, physiotherapists soon to join them..

    With patients needlessly dying because of unprecedented delays…

    We simply cannot forgo 40 billion pounds of potential investment in our health service.

    So, repairing our relationship with Europe would mean we can better support our NHS.

    After two years of denial and avoidance, we must now confront the hard truth:

    Brexit isn’t working.

    It’s weakened our economy…

    Fractured our Union…

    And diminished our reputation…

    But crucially… not beyond repair.

    A New Year brings new opportunities.

    And political leaders must now seize the opportunity, and with renewed purpose set out the need to reform our relationship with Europe.

    Not with a return to the interminable Brexit wars of the past.

    But with a sincere, considered, civil debate about Britain’s future that has at its core a clear-eyed view of the national interest.

    Let me be clear:

    We need greater alignment with our European neighbours – a shift from this extreme, hard Brexit we have now to a workable, softer version that serves our economy and people.

    That includes having a pragmatic debate about the benefits of re-joining the Customs Union and the Single Market.

    If the government wants to get the ball rolling on fixing Brexit, the perfect place to start in London would be addressing our labour and skills shortage.

    The number of businesses in our city experiencing at least one skills shortage has now risen to almost 7 in 10.

    Meanwhile, the number of jobs in our city held by EU-born workers has fallen by over 80,000 – putting huge strain on crucial sectors such as hospitality and construction.

    Devolving powers to London and allowing us to create a regional shortage occupation list would be one way to give businesses the ability to attract and retain talent in the areas they need it most.

    But another option would be a fundamental rethink of the existing Brexit deal.

    Securing a better Brexit would mean more trade, higher investment and stronger growth.

    It would mean a boost to both exports and living standards.

    It’s key to unlocking London’s full potential and, in turn, helping us to power the national recovery.

    More broadly, the government needs to entrust communities with the power to control their destiny.

    Devolution improves our economy and politics.

    Even in the face of huge challenges, we’ve shown what can be achieved from City Hall…

    We’re building more council homes than at any time since the 1970s.

    We’re taking huge strides to clean up London’s toxic air.

    We’re offering free skills training to anyone who’s unemployed or in low-paid work.

    We’ve delivered the Elizabeth Line and much, much more.

    But fixing Brexit will mean we can accelerate our efforts to build a better London for everyone – moving faster to achieve a city that is safer, fairer, greener and more prosperous for all.

    Let me just end by saying this:

    While it’s true that the twin nightmares of the pandemic and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine continue to cause great harm, we cannot continue to hide under the covers from the damage being done by Brexit.

    We are no longer in 2016 or 2019.

    The landscape has shifted.

    More and more Londoners are worried about the impact of Brexit on our city.

    Our business community is increasingly speaking out and in growing numbers.

    It’s time the government caught up.

    Ministers seem to have developed selective amnesia when it comes to one of the root causes of our problems.

    Brexit can’t be airbrushed out of history, or the consequences wished away.

    Europe was, is and will remain our most important relationship, but it’s in desperate and urgent need of repair.

    So, let 2023 be the year we summon up the political courage to rebuild those essential bridges and tear down those needless walls standing in the way of our businesses and our people.

    The future prosperity of our capital and country depends upon it.

    Thank you.

    Finally, can I ask everyone to join me in raising a glass… to the Lord Mayor and the Lady Mayoress.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2023 Statement after Three Years of UK Leaving the European Union

    Sadiq Khan – 2023 Statement after Three Years of UK Leaving the European Union

    The statement made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 31 January 2023.

    Three years on from leaving the European Union, we must all now face the inescapable truth: that this unnecessarily hard-line version of Brexit is having a detrimental effect on the London and UK economy – at a time when we can least afford it.

    While Whitehall has taken a vow of silence on the damage Brexit is causing, businesses across the country are drowning under the weight of increased bureaucracy, staffing shortages and supply chain challenges. London is being hit hard by the loss of trade and talent to our global competitors.

    It is time to abandon the hostile mentality of the referendum years and open a dialogue with our European neighbours about greater alignment.

  • Fleur Anderson – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Energy Costs for Post Offices

    Fleur Anderson – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Energy Costs for Post Offices

    The parliamentary question asked by Fleur Anderson, the Labour MP for Putney, in the House of Commons on 9 January 2023.

    Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)

    The delay in this statement has already left several businesses in Putney to go under. I am now concerned about the post office in Southfields, where the sub-postmistress thinks they will be unable to continue operating. There will be a community cost if post offices across the country go under as a result of the increase in bills. Has the Minister assessed the impact of the energy crisis on post offices? Can he confirm whether they will be included in the cut-back scheme after March? Could he consider a community impact criteria in the scheme so that there will not be a high cost for our communities in Southfields and beyond?

    James Cartlidge

    On the point of going under as a result of the delayed announcement of the results of the review, we were due to announce on the last sitting day before recess, and we have announced on the first sitting day—it is a delay, but not a huge one. In that time, those businesses, whatever they are, will have been benefiting from the current support running until the end of March. We have now given them certainty for the next 12 months with a scheme that remains generous and universal. It is not as generous as before but I can confirm that it will include the sub-post office.