UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: London

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Getting 75,000 Digitally Excluded Londoners Online

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Getting 75,000 Digitally Excluded Londoners Online

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 24 June 2022.

    Every Londoner should have digital access, but the sad reality is that too many Londoners lack the skills, technology and infrastructure to get online easily, preventing them from accessing the tools they need to thrive.

    “The new Digital Inclusion Service will build on the amazing work already underway to tackle digital exclusion, and bring vital resources such as devices, connectivity, and learning opportunities to the fingertips of those who need them. I’m calling on large businesses and public bodies to join us in upcycling their old laptops and other tech to the new Device Bank to be reconditioned, to help bridge the digital divide, aid London’s recovery and build a better London for everyone.

  • Gillian Keegan – 2022 Speech on Battersea Funfair Disaster

    Gillian Keegan – 2022 Speech on Battersea Funfair Disaster

    The speech made by Gillian Keegan, the Minister for Care and Mental Health, in the House of Commons on 21 June 2022.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on securing the debate. I must admit that I was not aware of the tragic events that unfolded 50 years ago, on 30 May 1972, and I am sure that others were not, either, so it is fantastic that she secured the debate to remind us all. However, I discussed it with my husband when I got home last night. At the time, he was a 10-year-old boy growing up in London. He was very much aware of what happened and he vividly remembers it. What should have been a happy day in Battersea Park, on the bank of the River Thames, resulted in five children losing their lives and a further 13 being injured, and it shocked many more.

    I very much hope that the survivors’ campaign for a permanent memorial in Battersea Park is ultimately successful, so that that terrible event is never forgotten—maybe that is the plaque the hon. Lady referred to, or maybe there is something else that they are still campaigning for.

    Undoubtedly, many affected by the Battersea funfair disaster will have suffered from what we now call post-traumatic stress disorder, but let us not forget that PTSD was not even added to the International Classification of Diseases until the ’80s, and guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence was not published until 2005. Events have taught us that people affected by any traumatic incident must be able to access timely mental health support when and if needed, but I am not sure there was the same understanding all those years ago.

    Luckily, PTSD can be successfully treated even when it develops many years after a traumatic event. The treatment depends on the severity of symptoms and how soon they occur after the traumatic event. The hon. Lady reports that survivors of the tragedy remain concerned that mental health support for children who have suffered trauma has not changed much since 1972. I too would be very concerned if that was the case, but I must respectfully disagree with that assessment.

    If a child has witnessed or experienced a traumatic event, it is quite natural for them to be stressed, upset or frightened. That should not usually last beyond four weeks, but if it does, it may indicate post-traumatic stress disorder and it is then important to seek help via their GP. There are now some really effective treatments, including cognitive behavioural therapy, for children and young people who are experiencing the effects of trauma.

    To respond to the hon. Lady’s specific question, NHS England and NHS Improvement have issued guidance on responding to the needs of people affected by incidents and emergencies, which stresses that plans for incidents and emergencies must provide psychosocial and mental health care for people affected, since early intervention for people at risk of developing mental health problems may reduce their severity and chronicity and, ultimately, related costs.

    In general, psychological support can be accessed four to six weeks after the event for those who are exhibiting signs of needing professional help, as per NICE guidelines. Those who require urgent support may be referred to services sooner than that, and it is important to ensure that messaging about support services is appropriate. Not all people need psychological support, and many recover over the course of time without specific interventions, but it is still important that such people continue to look after their health and wellbeing after a traumatic incident. That includes getting enough rest, eating well, returning to their routine and staying connected with others.

    Marsha De Cordova

    I just want to ask about the support that is available via NHS England and ensuring that it is available, as the Minister says, within a four to six week period. Can she assure me that that is actually happening? Is there any evidence base to ensure that children who experience trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder are getting that support in a timely fashion?

    Gillian Keegan

    Yes, and of course we always try to ensure that, as the targets we put in are worked throughout the system, those targets are met. That is why we measure those things. Maybe it would be helpful to the hon. Lady if I gave some recent examples. In the wake of the Manchester Arena terrorist attack, which sadly affected many children and young people, the Greater Manchester Resilience Hub was set up to provide a central point for mental health advice for those directly affected, including children and emergency responders. The hub worked with other agencies to develop packages of care.

    In response to the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower, more than £10 million has been spent on treating the mental health of those affected. In the year after the fire, 2,674 adults and 463 children were screened for symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and the St Charles Centre for Health and Wellbeing was opened up so that those affected could be treated in dedicated therapy suites. I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that we have seen a dramatic change in both attitudes towards mental health since the days of the Battersea disaster, and the NHS services available to support people with their mental health.

    Jim Shannon

    I am very encouraged by what the Minister has just said. In my intervention on the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) I suggested some contact with the authorities in Northern Ireland, which unfortunately have a long 30 years’ experience of trauma, especially among children. Has that happened?

    Gillian Keegan

    I have not met my counterpart in Northern Ireland but, having heard the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, I sent a WhatsApp message to request that a meeting be set up, because it is probably long overdue. We can learn a lot from each other, and I am always keen to learn from anyone I can.

    Over the past 50 years, we have seen the transformation of NHS mental health services for children and young people. From the passing of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the establishment of mental health trusts to more recent developments including the Time to Change campaign, which between 2007 and 2021 helped to improve the attitudes and behaviours of some 5.4 million people towards those living with mental health problems, these are all important steps along the way towards destigmatising mental health.

    The publication of the five-year forward view for mental health in 2016 made the case for transforming mental healthcare in England. The implementation of the “Transforming children and young people’s mental health provision” Green Paper from December 2017 has seen the introduction of senior mental health leads and mental health support teams in schools and colleges. We regularly talk about that programme, and I am sure it will make a massive difference to young people, particularly those affected by the pandemic. The 2019 NHS long-term plan commits to expanding and transforming mental health services in England so that an additional 345,000 children and young people will be able to access NHS-funded specialist mental health treatment by 2023-24.

    We are continuing to build up those services and the staff, as in some cases demand outstrips supply. As part of this work, we have all-age 24/7 urgent mental health helplines in all areas of England so that people experiencing a mental health crisis, or those worried about someone experiencing such a crisis, can speak to a trained professional. The helplines were established during the pandemic, so they are a relatively new addition to the landscape, but I am sure they are very welcome because many people have sought these services.

    We are also accelerating the coverage of mental health support teams in schools and colleges from the 287 currently in place to over 500, covering around 35% of pupils by 2023-24. There are currently 16 mental health support teams operating in or planned for south-west London, so they have already started to roll out.

    Our hard-working NHS community mental health services treated over 420,000 children and young people in 2020-21, an increase of around 95,000 on the previous year, so we can see there has been a massive increase in demand for these services, which is why we are working very hard to try to build up the mental health workforce.

    Although none of us wishes to see a repeat of the events in Battersea Park and the many things that have happened since, not only in mental health but in safety, I assure hon. Members that the NHS will always be there to support the survivors of such tragedies. However, it is important that we never forget. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea for securing this debate and for making us all aware of something that happened. This issue is important to her constituents, and this debate will ensure that we all remember the tragedy and learn from the events of that day.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Speech on Trust in Policing

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Speech on Trust in Policing

    The speech made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 17 June 2022.

    Thank you, Leonita.

    Not only for that introduction and your inspiring words…

    …but for everything you’re doing to ensure the voice, opinions and ideas of young people are heard loud and clear as we develop policies and programmes to reduce violence in our city.

    As Sophie said, what you do is vital.

    So please – let’s have another round of applause for Leonita.

    —

    Next year is the 30th anniversary of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence.

    It’s as important as ever that we not only remember and celebrate Stephen’s life, but that we acknowledge – and reflect upon – his legacy.

    The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry found that the Metropolitan Police Service was institutionally racist, and that institutional racism existed in other police forces around the country.

    This judgement was a landmark moment in the history of British race relations…

    …triggering far-reaching reforms to policing, public services and criminal law in this country.

    There’s no doubt that the police and criminal justice system have made significant and positive steps forward since then.

    But it’s become painfully clear that further reform – on a far-reaching scale – is now urgently needed.

    And let me be frank, I consider this to be one of the most important speeches I will give as Mayor.

    Because after nearly two hundred years since the creation of the Met, policing in our city has reached a crossroads.

    And ensuring we take the right path is crucial to the future of our city.

    At the outset, I must and want to put on record again that there are tens of thousands of incredible, incredibly brave and decent police officers in the Met…

    …dedicated public servants who go above and beyond every day to keep us safe.

    Just last week a Metropolitan police officer ran into a house-fire to save a family.

    And, every year, the Police Bravery Awards highlight some remarkable stories of courage in London:

    From two police officers saving the life of a seven-year-old girl who was being attacked.

    To officers saving the lives of two teenagers after they used themselves as human shields.

    The job the police do – protecting us and upholding the law of the land – makes everything else possible.

    It’s the bedrock upon which all else can flourish.

    And we owe the men and women who risk their lives – often in the knowledge that they have children and loved ones to get home to after a shift – a huge debt of gratitude.

    —

    So let’s be clear:

    Talking about the need for urgent police reform is not being anti-police.

    Far from it.

    In fact – it’s the exact opposite.

    It’s about believing the police can be excellent.

    And it’s about facing up to some hard truths so that we can ensure we have the best, most effective and most professional police force for Londoners.

    A police force that is second-to-none at bearing down on crime, bringing people to justice and keeping our city safe.

    —

    Throughout my time as Mayor, I’ve defended London’s police when I think they’ve been unfairly criticised.

    And this is something I’ll always do.

    No other Mayor has invested more in the police than I have.

    Good officers are one of the most valuable and precious resources we have in London.

    But given what’s at stake, we have a duty to be honest about the extent of the problems and the systemic and organisational changes that are urgently required within the Met, rather than seeking to downplay or shy away from the challenge we face.

    The reality is that a series of appalling scandals have not only exposed deep cultural problems within the Met, but have contributed to an acute crisis of confidence in London’s police force.

    A crisis that has left trust in the Met police at rock bottom among too many communities – many of whom – if we’re being honest – already had little faith in the police force.

    The latest crisis comes in the wake of:

    The kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer.

    The heavy-handed policing of the vigil held in Sarah’s memory.

    Two police officers sharing pictures of the murdered sisters, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman.

    The failures during the Stephen Port investigation that probably contributed to the deaths of his final three victims – Gabriel Kovari, Daniel Whitworth and Jack Taylor – after the murder of Anthony Walgate – with accusations that homophobia prevented the police from catching the serial killer sooner.

    And the shameful strip-search of Child Q – a 15-year-old Black girl whose degrading treatment was likely influenced by racism.

    The testimony of Child Q’s mother – about how her daughter has gone from a bubbly, happy-go-lucky girl to someone who’s self-harming, in need of therapy and screaming in her sleep – has been utterly heart-breaking.

    —

    And I’ll never forget the first time I read the shocking Operation Hotton report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the police watchdog, just over four months ago.

    That exposed sickening evidence of overt racism, sexism, homophobia, discrimination and misogyny among police officers at Charing Cross station.

    The messages shared between officers threatened rape, glorified sexual violence and were openly racist, Islamophobic and antisemitic.

    One read:

    “My dad kidnapped some African children and used them to make dog food.”

    Another:

    “Some uniform or plain clothes work on Somalian rats… I battered one the other day…”

    And another:

    “You ever slapped your Mrs?… It makes them love you more…”

    I’m not going to read any more, don’t worry.

    But perhaps what was most striking – and revealing – was that these officers felt comfortable sharing deeply offensive messages in Whatsapp groups with other officers – messages that were only made public due to an independent investigation.

    And this points to a much wider problem – a damaging culture.

    And – damningly – the Independent Office for Police Conduct concluded as much.

    Clearly, these issues were not isolated or historic, and cannot simply be explained away as the actions of just a few bad apples.

    I know that what’s been exposed in recent months has profoundly affected countless Londoners, who have every right to be outraged and to be demanding answers.

    These are feelings I share.

    The scandals have left me sick to my stomach – disgusted and extremely angry.

    Partly because they remind me – and I’m sure many other Londoners – of the bad old days of the Met.

    The Met I knew from my childhood.

    Growing up in the 1970s and 80s on a council estate in south London, it was commonplace to hear stories from friends and family members of racist, sexist and abusive behaviour by police officers.

    There was a palpable sense in my community that the presence of the police on our local streets did not offer reassurance or a sense of protection, but rather fear…

    …the fear of being unfairly criminalised or mistreated.

    In my life – and during the course of my career – I’ve seen and felt the damage that this kind of breakdown of trust can cause.

    It makes it harder to tackle crime.

    It prevents victims and witnesses of violence from coming forward.

    It discourages many girls and women from reporting rape, domestic abuse and sexual harassment.

    And it leads to local communities – the eyes and ears of the police on the ground – becoming less likely to work with officers when, for example, they’re worried about young people getting involved in criminal gangs and violence.

    This affects us all, and the safety of everyone in our city.

    —

    This is why the damage to trust and confidence in the police is not a side issue or marginal concern that can be downplayed or dismissed.

    Trust is everything.

    We have a longstanding tradition in this country of policing by consent.

    It’s the very foundation upon which our whole system of policing rests.

    At the heart of this approach is the recognition that for policing to be effective, public approval, respect and confidence in the service is paramount.

    When this trust is eroded, our model of policing – and thereby public safety – is put at risk.

    Trust is absolutely fundamental to preventing crime, to solving crime and to ensuring we have the best possible police service for Londoners.

    This is why you simply cannot divorce the deep cultural issues that clearly exist within the Met from its wider performance as an institution.

    The two are inextricably linked.

    To put it simply:

    The more inclusive the culture, the more trust the police can command…

    The more trust the police can command, the more they can drive down crime.

    And – in turn – the more crime falls, the more trust the police can win.

    It’s this virtuous circle we must create – replacing the depressing downward spiral of recent years.

    During my time as Mayor, violent crime has fallen in the capital.

    We’re managing to buck national trends:

    Since 2016 when I was first elected:

    Gun crime is down by 30 per cent.

    Knife crime with injury is down by 11 per cent.

    Knife crime where the victim is under 25 is down by 24 per cent.

    And the number of teenagers murdered in our city is down by 64 per cent in the first five months of this year.

    Of course, we’re not complacent.

    These are not just numbers – they’re people.

    One murder on our streets is one too many – leaving parents, siblings and friends grieving.

    We cannot rest.

    And if we’re to continue making progress, ensuring communities across London have trust in our police force is going to be critical.

    This is particularly the case when it comes to tackling the senseless knife crime that results in the murder of young Londoners, including a disproportionate number of young Black people, many just teenagers… just children.

    We know that violent crime is not a problem we can solve simply through enforcement alone.

    We’re never going to be able to arrest our way out of this problem.

    Prevention and early intervention are key parts of the puzzle, where trust is integral.

    Because it means working in partnership with families, local communities, schools, charities, the NHS, youth clubs, and the police… to prevent children from being sucked into criminal gangs and violence in the first place. This is a public health approach.

    So how can we turn things around?

    As Mayor, I’ve already taken a series of steps since 2016 – using the limited powers and resources available to me – to boost trust and confidence in our police force.

    This includes:

    A huge push to recruit more officers from London’s Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, as well as more women.

    Investing to protect visible neighbourhood policing.

    And the world’s biggest rollout of body-worn cameras to London’s frontline officers.

    We’ve also launched a new strategy to tackle violence against women and girls.

    We’ve put trust and confidence at the heart of our new Police and Crime Plan;

    We’ve comprehensively overhauled the gangs Matrix, removing over a thousand young Black men from the database.

    And we’ve published an Action Plan to address the concerns about the disproportionate use of certain police powers on Black Londoners, including stop and search.

    But this must just be the start.

    We now need to see nothing less than a new contract forged between the police and the public.

    This means root and branch reforms to improve policing to ensure the Met can deliver the basics better.

    It means an overhaul of disciplinary processes.

    And it means systemic change to the Met’s culture.

    But before any of this, before any of this, Londoners need to hear the leadership of the Met publicly acknowledge the scale and depth of the problems.

    Something which will be a crucial first step for the next Commissioner to start rebuilding trust and credibility with our communities.

    Look, no one expects the police to be perfect, or to get things right all the time.

    But they do expect the Met to be honest and open about their mistakes – to identify problems and to admit when they’re happening.

    It’s a sign of confidence, not weakness.

    And it’s essential to rebuilding trust.

    —

    I make no apology for demanding this.

    It’s not about being political.

    It’s democracy in action.

    It’s the checks and balances of power, without which we’d still be living with the kind of policing we saw before the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.

    My job as the elected Mayor of this great city is not only to support the police in bearing down on crime, but to hold the Met to account.

    And I’ll never shirk from these duties.

    That’s why I want to make crystal clear today I won’t support the appointment of a new Commissioner unless:

    They can demonstrate they understand the true extent of the cultural and organisational problems within the Met.

    That they appreciate the moral and operational imperatives to confront them head on.

    And they have a convincing plan to reduce crime further, improve detection rates and bring more criminals to justice.

    London needs a reforming Commissioner.

    Someone in the mould of Sir Robert Mark – who got the job in 1972.

    He became known for his determination to root out corruption and criminality.

    For the way he took steps to improve relations with communities in London.

    For making the Met more transparent.

    And for driving forward efforts to make the police more diverse.

    Although some of the issues the Met faces today are of course different, there’s no doubt that we need someone with a similar drive to reform.

    Not just of the culture and standards, but of some of the fundamentals of the organisation.

    —

    We also need someone who acknowledges that they’re never going to be able to solve all the problems alone.

    This means the type of leadership that:

    Understands and accepts the Met needs to improve.

    And is ready and confident enough to bring in outside expertise and oversight to ensure we get the systemic, organisational change – from top to bottom – that’s required.

    —

    The next Commissioner needs to ensure that every rank and layer of the Met is working towards a shared goal and is properly held to account.

    In short, the next Commissioner must ‘get it’.

    They must be a reformer.

    They must be humble in accepting the limitations of the Met, and open to learning and constant improvement.

    And they must put forward a comprehensive plan to deal with these deep-rooted problems with urgency and conviction.

    I’ll accept nothing less.

    This is my promise to Londoners.

    I’ve dedicated a large part of my working life to trying to make policing better.

    And – as Mayor – I’ll not stop until we’ve delivered the police reforms and step change in policing culture that our city deserves.

    To achieve this – and to forge a new contract between the police and the public – we need to see a whole host of new commitments and reforms:

    More robust vetting of new and serving police officers.

    Better recruitment processes to ensure we only get the right, top quality people in the job.

    Far-reaching changes to the misconduct process, which includes making it much faster.

    Proactive procedures to weed out those who should never have been allowed to become police officers in the first place.

    Strengthened IT monitoring within the Met to help identify corrupt officers and inappropriate behaviour.

    Ensuring officers and staff have confidence to come forward as whistleblowers.

    Better training and supervision – particularly sergeants and inspectors who are so influential in shaping the frontline police culture and delivering the policing Londoners expect.

    Clear steps on how the Met will not just tackle racism, but proactively be an anti-racist institution.

    Greater community oversight and engagement with Londoners from all backgrounds.

    And a first-class emergency response, which protects Londoners, supports victims and brings those who commit crime to justice.

    Ensuring the Met is the best in the world at the bread-and-butter issues of policing will always be a key part of rebuilding trust.

    Because it’s about assuring Londoners that our police force will always be there for them – and for all our communities – in their time of need.

    —

    We must also redouble our efforts to hire more officers from diverse backgrounds.

    The Met is bigger and more diverse today than at any time in its history, but we have a long way to go.

    And so I want to take this opportunity now to appeal to Londoners from all backgrounds to apply to join the Met police.

    Now, more than ever, we need you.

    London needs you.

    Because you can help change the culture of the Met from within.

    You could help serve our great city.

    And you could help us to ensure we have a police force that is truly representative of the communities it exists to serve.

    I was instrumental in the establishment of the independent review of culture and standards at the Met, and I look forward to examining Baroness Louise Casey’s report and considering any recommendations she makes.

    I also supported the Home Secretary’s decision to order a full inquiry into the issues raised by the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer.

    Because I know this tragedy has done so much to damage the faith of women and girls in the police.

    As we move forward, I’m keen to work both with the Home Secretary and the new Commissioner to ensure we act on the findings of these reports and the reforms I’ve outlined today.

    This is especially true with regard to changes to the misconduct process, which can only be made with the Home Secretary and the Government’s approval.

    We need to work together.

    Because this goes much wider than London.

    As the Police Foundation has said, the cultural and systemic problems in London – which has led to in their words “a crisis of public confidence” – are also present across the country, and will also require sweeping reforms at a national level.

    —

    I’m hopeful that together – in partnership with the next Commissioner, the Home Secretary, the Government, members of our police force and London’s communities – that we can:

    Deliver the reforms that are needed to create a modern police service, fit for the future.

    That we can drive out racism, misogyny, discrimination and bullying.

    And that we can restore the trust and confidence of Londoners in their police force.

    In 21st century Britain.

    In an open, diverse city like ours.

    It’s essential that all of London’s communities feel like the police are there not to threaten or criminalise them, but to protect and serve them.

    I’ve heard time and again – directly from the parents of girls and Black teenagers, and young people across our city – that what they want more than anything else is for their children to be safe, to feel safe, and to feel like the police is there to protect them – and is on their side.

    On their side.

    They should expect nothing less.

    It’s what I want when my daughters go out in London.

    It’s what every parent and Londoner wants.

    And we mustn’t relent until this is the case.

    Let me just finish with this important point:

    I fundamentally believe in the Met.

    And I’m proud to be London’s Police and Crime Commissioner.

    I know we have thousands of brilliant police officers who not only share my concerns, but my aspirations for better policing in London.

    I’ve spoken to many who are just as disgusted as I am by what’s come to light in recent times – and feel badly let down by their colleagues and the toxic culture that’s been allowed to take hold.

    They’re desperate to play their part in raising standards, aiding organisational change within the Met, and ensuring the bond with the communities they serve is restored and strengthened.

    —

    People who say that when we come down hard on police officers who behave badly we are somehow reducing confidence in the police are totally wrong.

    It’s the opposite.

    And it sells our good officers short.

    We need to create the right culture in policing to ensure the good officers have the trust of the public, which will make it far easier for them to do their job.

    It’s the decent police officers we have in the Met that continue to give me hope that we can meet the challenges ahead.

    Because I know that with the right leadership at the top of the Met, they are the ones who can do what’s needed to win back public trust.

    —

    Of course, history tells us that none of this is going to be easy.

    Change on this scale at the speed we need is difficult.

    But we owe it to Stephen Lawrence, to Sarah Everard, to Child Q, to all the victims of the recent scandals, to all their friends and families, and to all Londoners –– to continue the struggle with fierce determination and an unflinching sense of purpose.

    Because change is long overdue.

    And delivering it will be crucial to building a better, fairer and safer London for everyone, and for all our communities.

    Londoners deserve the best policing in the world – and I believe we have the potential to get there.

    Thank you.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Cool Spaces in London

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Cool Spaces in London

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 17 June 2022.

    London in summer can be delightful but as temperatures rise it is vital we look after our own health and that of our friends and neighbours.

    The people most at risk are the most vulnerable Londoners, including the elderly, those living alone, those with chronic or severe illnesses.

    Common sense precautions can save lives so please stay hydrated and take advantage of London’s 4,000 free refill locations, 100 new water fountains, stay out of the sun either at home or in one of our Cool Spaces and avoid travelling at the hottest times of day if at all possible. With more places to keep cool and top up on free water than ever before, we are building a better and greener London for everyone.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Free School Meals

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on Free School Meals

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 19 June 2022.

    Free school meals were something my family relied upon – and every child in London deserves that safety net.

    With the summer holidays on the horizon it is essential that the Government act now to reinstate the meal voucher system to give families dignity and nutritional choice over the summer. This should then be followed by the introduction of universal free school meals for all primary school children from the start of the new school year in September.

    Multiple London councils are already leading the way on this and showing what can be done if we put the health and wellbeing of our young people first in such perilous economic times. It is time for the Government to step up.

  • Nickie Aiken – 2022 Speech on the Sharing Economy and Short-Term Letting

    Nickie Aiken – 2022 Speech on the Sharing Economy and Short-Term Letting

    The speech made by Nickie Aiken, the Conservative MP for the Cities of London and Westminster, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered short-term letting and the sharing economy.

    I have called this debate to once again draw attention to the negative impact on our neighbourhoods up and down the country caused by the abuse of short-term lettings. Short-term lettings are when property is let on a nightly or weekly basis usually for leisure and tourism purposes. We are seeing them pop up on a variety of platforms, including Airbnb, Booking.com, Tripadvisor and Expedia. Since the Deregulation Act 2015, we have seen an increasing number of properties, which would otherwise have been rented out on a long-term basis, being turned into basically holiday accommodation. Between 2015 and 2020, the number of Airbnb listings in London alone grew by 378%. Research by London Councils found that by 2019, there were more than 73,000 listings for short-term lets in London across six of the largest online letting platforms. That is equivalent to one in every 50 homes in the capital.

    Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that one issue with short-term lets is that they take housing stock out of the market? I have the neighbouring constituency of Kensington, and in the tourist areas, particularly around the South Kensington museums, there are streets that are almost exclusively Airbnbs. Many of those are one or two-bedroom properties, and that is aggravating the housing crisis because young people who would typically buy those properties simply cannot get access to them.

    Nickie Aiken

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With the explosion in the number of short-term lettings, a whole host of problems associated with such lettings have become more widespread across our neighbourhoods. I shall highlight a number of the issues we are seeing, which include increased pressure on housing stock, leading to higher property and rent prices—that is what my hon. Friend referred to. They also include a rise in associated antisocial behaviour, noise complaints and dumped rubbish, and an increasingly unfair playing field in the accommodation sector, which is placing more and more pressure on hotels and private bed-and-breakfast businesses.

    Since coming into force, the Deregulation Act 2015 introduced several changes that were designed to free businesses from the burdens caused by regulation and existing laws, including relaxing planning permission in London for short-term lets. When the Bill was going through Parliament, Westminster City Council predicted that homes would be, en masse, turned into lettings for tourists. We knew that those lettings would soon basically be turned into mini hotels, without any of the oversight or regulation that genuine hotels have to adhere to. That is why it was a relief in some contexts to see short-term lettings in London limited to just 90 nights per year under the Deregulation Act, following a sustained lobbying campaign by Westminster City Council. That was not enough, however, and sadly our worst fears have come to fruition.

    Without the right tools to enforce the Act our biggest concerns have become a reality for many local people, and many landlords involved in short-term lettings are ignoring the law. Research from 2019 estimated that 23% of 11,200 Airbnb listings in London alone were occupied for more than 90 nights in that year. With the number of short-term lettings skyrocketing, it is clear that we need urgently to get a grip of the situation, because it is becoming unsustainable.

    This is obviously not just a London issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) recently highlighted, 4,000 homes have come out of private rent in Devon since 2016, and 11,000 have joined the short-term holiday listings. I know from speaking to colleagues across the country that we are seeing that trend up and down the United Kingdom, particularly in places such as Cumbria and the south-west. This issue affects our whole country, and although problems such as strain on housing availability and the cost to local authorities may be the same nationwide, the diverse nature of the issue means that there will be no one-size-fits-all approach to resolving the problem. What we need, in my humble opinion, is for local authorities to be given the powers to do what they feel is right for their unique areas. For example, here in Westminster we need a licensing scheme much like those seen in other countries. Such schemes are generally set at a local level and ensure that standards are adhered to and that the market is not overwhelmed.

    We see key examples around the world. In Lisbon, the city council has implemented containment zones that limit the amount of short-term let accommodation within them. In Barcelona, landlords are required to have their properties inspected and approved before they can be let out. Closer to home, the Scottish Government have legislated for local authorities to introduce a short-term lets licensing scheme by October. It will be interesting to see how that works when it is implemented, and how successful it is.

    While such schemes differ from one another, they all suit their local needs, seeking to balance the sharing economy with the rights and amenity of local residents. That is what we should strive for across the UK, balancing tourism with the desire and need of locals to have a comfortable and quiet neighbourhood.

    We also see examples around the world where that has been taken further. In Atlanta in the United States, a tight licensing regime has been introduced with strict conditions. For example, hosts in that city have to hold a permit and pay an annual $150 fee. They face a $500 fine if a tenant violates city rules. They may have a maximum of two properties, one of which must be the host’s permanent residence. That is probably what we need for London.

    Across the world, we see that there is a full spectrum of examples and solutions, and it is about finding what works best in a local authority area. As it stands, the spirit of the Deregulation Act is not being met. We are seeing not the rise of individuals opening their spare rooms or their homes while they are on holiday, as the Government had hoped would happen under the Act, but a gradual increase in commercial businesses snatching up properties for the short-term letting market. Here in Westminster, 64% of hosts on Airbnb have at least two listings.

    Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)

    The hon. Lady is right to emphasise both the scale and the commercial nature of the problem; a lot of people think it is marginal when, in fact, in some areas it is endemic. Last week, I talked to a local headteacher who said that her school’s intake had been affected by a local mansion flat area changing from being long-term accommodation for homeless families into luxury accommodation with a substantial proportion of short-term lets, changing the character and demographics of the entire area. That is why the Government need to act.

    Nickie Aiken

    I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly do on this.

    We are aware that, in Westminster and across central London, landlords can often skirt around the 90-night rule by posting their property on multiple sites or re-registering it in a location a few metres away. In turn, I am deeply worried that we are witnessing a hollowing out of central London, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) referred to regarding his local area, as properties convert all too easily from homes to holiday lets.

    At the start of 2022, the number of properties listed to rent across London was 35% lower than in pre-pandemic times. As I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, the housing market in my constituency and across the capital is already squeezed on both affordability and availability. We currently have over 4,000 households on the Westminster social housing waiting list in the same area that has 7,230 available properties on Airbnb. The average house price in the two cities has risen by £32,000 a year over the past 25 years. The most troubling issue is that, according to SpareRoom, average rents have now risen in the capital by 13% in the last year alone. That is why I find it increasingly frustrating that, while I can easily find plenty of examples of hosts with 50 or even 100 properties available, I cannot find a home to rent on a long-term basis in my constituency in the same areas.

    The dramatic increase in the number of properties converting to the holiday accommodation market and away from the private rented sector is ensuring that people are forced out of central London. It is getting so bad that I fear the only realistic possibility of the young finding a property in central London is by playing Monopoly. I do not mean to be flippant, but it is getting that bad. For those lucky enough to be able to find a property, there is an increasing likelihood that they will still find themselves living close to short-term letting properties, no matter where they are. As I am sure it is for many of my colleagues, that is reflected in my mailbag by constituents who find themselves having to live next door to short-term letting properties.

    Felicity Buchan

    Does my hon. Friend agree that there are other attendant problems with short-term lets, such as antisocial behaviour, properties being taken over essentially for large parties, rubbish being put out on the wrong day and littering the street, and, sometimes, a lack of respect for the neighbourhood?

    Nickie Aiken

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of my constituents from Pimlico who wrote to me recently shares that view:

    “There has repeatedly been antisocial behaviour in the Airbnb-type flats in Tachbrook Street. The residents have no interest in the wellbeing of their neighbours. The flats are without doubt let throughout the year and the 90-day rule is completely ignored.”

    Post-pandemic complaints have increased in my constituency, with noise, rowdy parties, serious overcrowding, dumped rubbish and even sex work occurring within nightly let properties. From Mayfair to Marylebone and from Hyde Park to Covent Garden, no neighbourhood in Westminster is now free from the short-term let blight.

    On the ground, we have seen some pretty clear signals that short-term lets are increasingly causing social damage to our neighbourhoods. A YouGov study from 2019 found that 40% of Londoners felt that such accommodation was having a negative impact on the local sense of community. Worryingly, it also showed that one in five Londoners, when asked, felt that short-term lets had had a negative impact on safety in their local area. If these properties were rented out for just a few days a year, this issue might be manageable. However, as mentioned earlier, we know that is not the case. Local authorities lack the tools necessary to enforce the 90-night rule. As such, complaints are rising and communities are suffering.

    On antisocial behaviour, yes, the police and local authorities have powers to tackle it with antisocial behaviour and noise orders, but we do not always have the information needed to identify those involved. Of course, it is very hard for us to make general statements about what we would or would not think was a good idea, because this is a complex issue, but as I said earlier it is about flexibility. It is about giving local authorities the tools they need to protect their local areas. We have to be practical when it comes to enforcement measures. Right now, what continues to frustrate me, and I know thousands of my constituents, including councillors and officials in my local council, is that enforcement is virtually impossible, particularly when we do not know who is undertaking the antisocial behaviour. The lack of data makes it extremely hard for local authorities to identify them and then begin enforcement action.

    We need a change in the law to allow local authorities to fine landlords of properties that violate the rules, such as those on dumping rubbish. At the moment, responsibility lies with the tenant, not the landlord, even though the tenant will be long gone after having rented the property for a couple of nights—they have dumped the rubbish and they have gone. What we need is exactly what the former leader of Westminster City Council, Councillor Rachael Robathan, called for in response to more than 2,000 breaches of short-term letting rules—namely, to allow councils to go after the landlord rather than the short-term letter. That would help resolve the issue.

    The issue of tax compliance is also of concern. As the home sharing phenomenon becomes more mainstream, an important taxation revenue stream needs to be captured. As it stands, it is possible for landlords to hide their activities from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and to perhaps not tell the truth on their self-assessment forms. If local authorities were able to collect data on what properties are being let out on a short-term basis, HMRC could access that data and ensure that no one was able to avoid paying tax on any money raised.

    In 2018, the Government issued a call for evidence on the role of online platforms in ensuring tax compliance by their users, but there do not appear to have been any major developments since then. Ensuring proper compliance would go some way to levelling up the playing field with other parts of the tourism economy. As highlighted by UK Hospitality:

    “Between the short-term lets, hotel and B&B sectors, a regulatory mismatch has also occurred in terms of health and safety and taxation.”

    I appreciate that there is a degree of self-regulation in the industry, but that is not enough. While hotels and B&B businesses must go through all sorts of checks and regulations to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their guests, the same oversight does not exist for short-term letting. For example, while Airbnb insists on things such as insurance indemnity, proper fire precautions and safety certificates for gas and electricity, I have met Airbnb hosts who have not once been asked by a platform to prove that they meet those requirements. If we were able to collect tax receipts from short-term lets, that could and should help in the enforcement of laws. It is not just about tax collection; we also need to make sure that landlords are on the same playing field as bona fide hotels and B&B businesses.

    I want to make it very clear that I am not against short-term letting. I absolutely recognise the many positives. As an Airbnb user in the past, I have benefited from being able to rent a home while on holiday. Short-term letting has provided and does provide an innovative and imaginative competition to the accommodation industry. However, the bottom line is that those positive impacts are paired with negative impacts, including lower health and safety standards; unfair competition for other hospitality providers; general economic issues such as mixed tax revenues and less availability of long-term rentals; increased rents and house prices; and pricing ordinary local people out of their area’s housing and rental markets. That is happening not just in central London but across the UK. In many cases, neighbourhoods have changed, with issues including antisocial behaviour, overcrowding of properties and transient communities.

    A sustainable approach, hopefully in the form of evidence-based, data-driven regulation and policy making, should address some of those issues. As I said earlier, there is no easy fix, no one-size-fits-all approach, but there are certainly stepping stones that we need to introduce. I hope that the Minister will pay serious attention not just to what I have said but, more importantly, to what we will hear later in this debate from Members of all political parties.

  • Eddie Hughes – 2022 Speech on Fifth Anniversary of Grenfell Tower Fire

    Eddie Hughes – 2022 Speech on Fifth Anniversary of Grenfell Tower Fire

    The speech made by Eddie Hughes, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    I thank right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their moving and thought-provoking contributions in today’s debate. I know that I speak for all Members when I say that the 72 men, women and children who senselessly lost their lives at Grenfell will never be forgotten. It is entirely right that the House has met again just two days after the fifth anniversary of that national tragedy to honour their memory and to discuss our collective duty to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated and that no one ever has to go through what residents of Grenfell Tower were forced to go through on that night or what the bereaved and survivors have had to endure over the last few years.

    As a Minister in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, I feel an acute responsibility to do the right thing by the Grenfell community, and I know that feeling is shared on both sides of this House and in the other place. For those directly affected by that national tragedy, life has never been, or ever will be, the same again. The tributes paid this week by the survivors and their families to the victims have brought that fact into the sharpest possible light. As Members have rightly highlighted in their moving tributes today, and in last week’s debate led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the community has consistently shown incredible bravery, resilience and courage in the face of unimaginable loss.

    Until the Grenfell Tower inquiry concludes and the police investigation finishes, the search for justice will continue. Five years on, the bereaved are still waiting for at least some sense of closure from that terrible night. Sir Martin and his counsels have been working diligently in pursuit of the truth, and they have already laid bare the opportunities missed by the Government and others, as well as exposing cut corners and wrongdoing on the part of several other organisations. We now need to ensure that we take seriously all the inquiry’s recommendations when it concludes.

    I reiterate my humble appreciation of the way in which the bereaved and survivors have stoically campaigned for justice and reform. Their dignity and strength continues to inspire us all. They have been let down. No words and no apology could possibly make up for these failings, but I echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the debate last week when he said that we are sorry. For my part, I am sorry.

    We are committed to making things right by fixing the building safety regime that badly failed those at Grenfell on that night through the Building Safety Act, by implementing the toughest and most stringent fire safety standards through the Fire Safety Act, and by putting residents at the heart of a reformed social housing sector through our Social Housing (Regulation) Bill. We are not naive about the scale of the challenges that remain and, as has been rightly pointed out in this debate, we still have a long way to go on several issues.

    I do not want to cover the same ground as last week’s debate, but I will mention some of the comments and contributions that were made today. In congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this debate, I acknowledge that he and I agree on almost nothing politically, but we are united in our determination to ensure that a tragic event like Grenfell Tower genuinely never happens again. He called for an annual debate, as did the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), and my understanding is that the Secretary of State committed to that during the debate last week.

    The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) asked why the debate did not take place on the anniversary of that terrible event. Clearly, partly, that was because the Grenfell bereaved and survivors could attend the debate last week. They were invited to, and they did—there were two rows of them in the Gallery—and the Secretary of State and I met them before the debate. It would have been inappropriate for us to have it on the same day that they were holding events in other areas to commemorate it.

    Touching briefly on the technical point that the hon. Gentleman made with regard to electrical surveys that will be carried out and whether properties of other tenures will be caught up in that, we are going to consult so that we can understand some of the complexities he described where there are multiple tenures in a single building as to what would be the most appropriate position to take.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) for her support—I am incredibly grateful to her. I have recently done a lot of engagement with the Secretary of State. We have held a number of town hall meetings giving the opportunity for people to come in, for several hours if necessary, to speak to me and the Secretary of State to discuss their concerns and make their case.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for putting on record his recommendations, which I am sure will be given serious consideration.

    Sir Bernard Jenkin

    Will my hon. Friend undertake to arrange a meeting between Keith Conradi, Nick Raynsford and me and the Secretary of State? We have not met the current Secretary of State, and we met a Lords Minister who has now changed, so we feel that we need more engagement with Ministers about this. I would be very grateful if he could undertake to arrange that meeting.

    Eddie Hughes

    I would be very happy to speak to the Secretary of State’s diary secretary on my hon. Friend’s behalf.

    The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) made an important point about the memorial that may follow on-site. The Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission will ensure that the bereaved, survivors and, indeed, north Kensington residents lead decision making on the long-term future of the site.

    Members have mentioned the pace of justice, and I recognise the importance of that to the families seeking justice who have already had to wait so long. The police, the CPS and the inquiry must rightly remain independent from Government. The police are keeping families updated and over the weekend issued a public update on their progress. It is also important that those affected by the tragedy can fully participate in the inquiry. As such, we have made a fund for legal expenses available to witnesses and to the building safety review’s core participants.

    Of the 46 recommendations made in phase 1 of the report, 15 were directed to the Government. The majority have been addressed by the laying of the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and by the Building Safety Act. The remainder are being considered by a Home Office consultation that runs until 10 August. I urge all Members to contribute to that, not least because it will include reference to PEEPs—personal emergency evacuation plans—and it would be good to get contributions from Members across the House.

    With regard to the pace of remediation, the building safety reset announced by the Secretary of State in January is galvanising activity across the board. The industry is gearing up to play its part, and over 45 developers have now pledged to remediate unsafe buildings that they developed. We are working rapidly to turn those pledges into legally binding contracts, and our goal is to get these out of the door before summer recess. In many cases, developers who made a pledge are getting on with it, contacting building owners and leaseholders and lining up surveyors to carry out assessments and prioritise work. For the 11-to-18 metre remediation scheme, in signing the pledge, developers have committed to working at pace with Government to finalise arrangements and commence remediation or mitigation work, as necessary, as soon as possible. We will announce further details of the launch of the 11-to-18 metre remediation fund shortly.

    Jeremy Corbyn

    I am interested in what the Minister says about the remedial works being done. What compensation will be made available to people who, as I outlined, have paid unbelievably excessive levels of insurance, through no fault of their own, and are seriously out of pocket and unable to continue doing so?

    Eddie Hughes

    I cannot speak to compensation, but I can say that the Department is in regular touch with the financial services industry to talk to it about the cost of insurance products and to do everything to ensure that it takes a balanced and proportionate approach so that those costs come down.

    On the comments made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) on the work of the regulator, I ask him to meet the Housing Minister to discuss this in detail, because we are very keen to see progress made on a cross-party basis.

    As a Parliament, we cannot and will not ever forget the events of 14 June 2017. The moving tributes of the past few days commemorating the lives lost and indeed lives shattered have brought home the responsibility for all of us to do right by the victims. I am certain I speak for every Member of the House when I say that we must never go back to where we were before this tragedy. Our job as parliamentarians is to make sure we never do. The magnitude of what happened at Grenfell Tower demands that we all try to find a way to put politics aside, and I believe we are already making progress in that direction.

    When we one day look back at what followed the tragedy, one of the defining parts of the post-Grenfell era will be what we did to replace a broken building safety system with one of the most rigorous and robust building safety regimes in the world. But the job is not done—we know we still have a long way to go—so we must redouble our efforts to finish the job we started and deliver justice for the survivors of the tragedy, forcing the industry to take collective responsibility for the safety defects it created. As Members of this House we can rightly expect that we will all be judged not by our words, but by our actions to fulfil our promise of making sure that everyone lives somewhere safe and secure and that they can be truly proud to call home. That will be our ultimate tribute.

    Richard Burgon

    I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this very important debate. I am glad that the Government have committed to an annual debate on this in Government time.

    I hear the Minister say that he and the Government will take seriously every recommendation from the inquiry, but I would like the Government to commit to implement every single recommendation, not just to take them seriously. I would like the Government to revisit their decision and overturn their rejection of personal evacuation plans. I would like the Government to help all people hit by the cladding crisis and surely, as we have heard from other Members, the cladding companies should pay. We need a commitment that no one in this country will live in a fire-unsafe home, and we do need the urgent implementation of the Hillsborough law, because the duty of candour from public authorities is so important.

    Along with other Members, I was on the very moving memorial walk the other night, and we sensed the unity. I want to pay tribute to Councillor Emma Dent Coad, who has continued to pursue this injustice and advocate for local residents in the community in which she lives.

    I want to finish with two brief quotes. One is from the journalist Peter Apps, who wrote in a recent article:

    “What has emerged is a profoundly depressing portrait of a private sector with a near psychopathic disregard for human life, and a public sector which exists to do little more than serve or imitate it.”

    However, I want the final words of this debate, fittingly, to be from the families, the bereaved and the survivors of Grenfell United, who said:

    “We must pave a new way forward. We must hold those responsible to account.”

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2022 Speech on Fifth Anniversary of Grenfell Tower Fire

    Matthew Pennycook – 2022 Speech on Fifth Anniversary of Grenfell Tower Fire

    The speech made by Matthew Pennycock, the Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    It is a privilege to respond for the Opposition in this important and timely debate. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing it and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. In so doing, they have given the House not only the opportunity to appropriately mark the fifth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire, but a chance for us to properly reflect on its aftermath and what could be, but is not yet its legacy.

    It has been an excellent debate, and I thank all those Members who have taken part. We have had a series of incredibly well-informed and powerful contributions. On behalf of those on the Opposition Benches, I put on record once again the admiration we feel for the survivors and the bereaved, and for the wider Grenfell community. In the face of unimaginable loss, their pursuit of justice for their families and neighbours and their dedication to securing wider change command enormous respect.

    The events of 14 June 2017 were, as many have said today, horrific. The fear that the residents of Grenfell Tower must have felt on that night is inconceivable. The loss of 72 innocent men, women and children is something we must never forget. The fire is frequently referred to as a tragedy. I personally have never been convinced that is quite the right word to describe the horror of Grenfell, because labelling it as such implies that it happened not only unexpectedly, but entirely by chance, yet we know that what happened could have been avoided. It could have been avoided if shortcuts were not taken when it came to safety, if the countless reckless and unforgivable decisions made by some of those within the product manufacturing and construction industry were not taken, and if repeated warnings, including those expressed, as so many Members have said, by the residents of Grenfell Tower themselves, had not gone unheeded. But they were, and it is the survivors, the bereaved and the community who must forever live with the consequences.

    Doing so is made all the more difficult by the knowledge that those guilty of wrongdoing have not yet been punished. Many Members have rightly raised that point in the debate. While we can never fully appreciate the grief that those who were directly affected have experienced, I can understand the fury that they must feel as they watch the Grenfell Tower inquiry continue day after day to relentlessly expose a catalogue of malpractice and negligence. While we recognise the need to await the conclusion of the inquiry before it is determined precisely what steps must be taken, I can understand the frustration that they evidently feel—it was palpable on the silent walk on Tuesday—that the prospect of justice feels more distant than ever.

    When it comes to the question of justice, it is our responsibility as Members of this House to recognise that the fire at Grenfell Tower was not simply the result of pernicious industry practice; it was also the product of state failure—the failure of successive Governments in presiding over a deficient regulatory regime and ignoring repeated warnings about the potentially lethal implication of that fact. The Government have a duty to ensure that everyone lives in a safe home. Sadly, while there has undeniably been progress toward that end over the past five years—and a quicker pace of progress over the past nine months, for which I give the Minister and his colleagues due credit—this debate has highlighted the serious concerns that remain.

    Time does not permit me to respond to all the pertinent issues that have been raised during this debate, from the failure of the Government to implement all the recommendations from phase 1 of the inquiry, to the ongoing impact of the building safety crisis on blameless leaseholders in privately owned buildings and on social landlords. I therefore want to use the time I have left to pick up two particular issues raised in the debate that are incredibly important for how we go forward: the functioning of the new building safety regime, which was raised in considerable detail by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin); and the extent to which the wider post-Grenfell building safety crisis has been comprehensively resolved.

    When it comes to the new building safety arrangements, the Building Safety Act comes into force in 12 days’ time, but the practical implementation of the new arrangements is just as important as what the legislation itself provides for, and in that respect, we have real concerns about whether the new regime will be able to function effectively. In particular, we remain unconvinced that the new Building Safety Regulator, which the Act makes responsible for all aspects of the new framework, has what it needs to perform all the complex tasks assigned to it.

    Take the issue of indemnity insurance for approved inspectors. The Minister will be aware that as a consequence of a late Government amendment to the Bill, the current Government-approved scheme comes to an end next month, yet there is no sign of an appropriate alternative arrangement being put in place to protect the public and the public interest. Indemnity insurance may seem like an incredibly technical matter, but it is nevertheless integral to the proper functioning of the new regime, and on this and a number of other pressing issues it simply is not good enough for the Government to pass the buck to the new regulator without providing it with the necessary support, as is clearly the case.

    The Government will have to do more in the months ahead to ensure that the regulator can carry out its functions effectively, not least because the second phase of the Grenfell inquiry will almost certainly produce recommendations that place additional pressures on it. When he responds, can the Minister update the House on what more his Department is prepared to do to assist the regulator to discharge the duties the 2022 Act places on it?

    Sir Bernard Jenkin

    I would go further than the hon. Member. The concept behind the architecture in the Building Safety Act is still not adequate. There are conflicts of interest for building control surveyors, and there is the complete lacuna of independent incident investigation. Would he undertake to allow Nick Raynsford, Keith Conradi and me to come and brief the Opposition Front-Bench team on this matter, so that they understand our submission to the Grenfell inquiry fully?

    Matthew Pennycook

    I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member and the other individuals he cites. I agree that there are gaps and deficiencies in the new regime, and I agree in particular that there is a conflict of interest with the Health and Safety Executive being the body that investigates major incidents. If those incidents were in in-scope buildings, it would be investigating the regulator that sits inside it, but there are also conflicts in building control, as he rightly raises.

    When it comes to the wider building safety crisis, alongside its impact on blameless leaseholders, the overall pace of remediation is arguably the most pressing concern we face. It is agonisingly slow. In the debate that took place last week on social housing and building safety, the Secretary of State openly admitted what has been patently obvious for some time to any Member dealing with cladding casework, namely that the building safety fund

    “has not been discharging funds at the rate, at the pace and in the way that it should”.—[Official Report, 9 June 2022; Vol. 715, c. 974.]

    Despite Members from across the House having repeatedly expressed concerns about that fact with Ministers over a considerable time, little has seemingly been done to expedite the processing of applications.

    The result is that of the 3,462 non-ACM-clad privately owned buildings over 18 metres that have made applications to the fund, remediation works have begun on only 259 and have been completed on just 30. Can the Minister tell us what is being done to expedite decisions on those applications not yet determined? As one would expect, given that it was established earlier and its scope is far more limited, better progress has been made in remediating ACM-clad buildings via the building safety programme, with 78% having been completed, but five years on from the Grenfell fire, how can it be the case that 55 residential buildings still have deadly Grenfell-style ACM cladding on them, and 16 of those have not even begun to remove or replace it?

    Of course, in both those cases, the figures I have cited relate only to high-rise buildings over 18 meters. By its own estimate and published figures, the Department believes that there are likely to be between 6,220 and 8,890 mid-rise residential buildings that require full or partial remediation or mitigation to alleviate life safety fire risks. I suspect that the real numbers are far higher.

    The bottom line is that if the Government do not accelerate markedly the pace of remediation across the board, we are likely to find ourselves marking the 10th or even 15th anniversary of the Grenfell fire while still bemoaning the fact that some unsafe buildings require fixing. It is essential that the Government continue to be urged to address those failures and the others that have been raised in the debate, because honouring the lives of the 72 involves not just commemoration, but the building of a fitting legacy, as other hon. Members have said.

    As Grenfell United made clear in the statement it released on Tuesday to mark the fifth anniversary, the survivors, the bereaved and the community want those who were lost to be remembered not for what happened, but for what changed. Not enough has changed over the last five years and it is beholden on the Government to go faster and, in many cases, further so that everyone has a secure, decent, affordable and safe home in which to live.

  • Mhairi Black – 2022 Speech on Fifth Anniversary of Grenfell Tower Fire

    Mhairi Black – 2022 Speech on Fifth Anniversary of Grenfell Tower Fire

    The speech made by Mhairi Black, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    I start by echoing the sentiments of everybody in this debate. Everyone has spoken respectfully and it has been quite humbling to sit and listen to the memories of people, and I am not just thinking of the survivors themselves.

    The truth is that the inquiry so far makes really quite difficult reading, because it lays bare the level of incompetence, cronyism and indifference shown at both a corporate and governmental level. It is becoming clear that the manufacturers who made the cladding knew it was flammable, but ignored the tests proving it. There are claims that fire tests were rigged to look better and texts from employees seemingly openly joking about the mistruths their companies told. Overall, the inquiry is littered with evidence of a complete lack of knowledge, experience and regard for safety among those responsible for the tower’s refurbishment.

    As if residents living in a highly flammable building was not bad enough, we now also know that the organisation responsible for maintaining the building also utterly failed in its duty to do so. With a backlog of hundreds of incomplete maintenance jobs arising specifically from fire risk, it failed to repair and inspect fire doors. As a result, on that fateful night, smoke and fire ran rampant throughout the place.

    For years, residents repeatedly complained about how unfit the building was, and specifically about the risks of fires. Yet they were ignored and palmed off time and again. It has been said by a few hon. Members, particularly the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), and by the survivors themselves, that had the residents been majority white and wealthy the response would have been completely different—and they are absolutely right. The fact that that is held as an open fact that everyone is aware of, whether we talk about it or not, shows just how deeply embedded the problem is.

    As the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) said, the treatment of survivors after the disaster is grotesque in itself. At every single stage, from when the fire first started right through the five years until now, those people have been failed at every single turn by the very people who should be helping them.

    The reason often given, which is quoted throughout the inquiry, is cutting costs; I think it was the hon. Member for City of Durham who made that point. Time and again, we see the company saying that flammable material was used because it was cheaper—it was to cut costs. Because of cost cutting, the council inspector responsible for ensuring the safety of the project had 130 other projects to keep an eye on at the same time. Our emergency services are stretched beyond their limit in the name of cutting costs.

    If someone told me that this fire happened in 1917, and that we were here as a memorial to remember the tragedy that instigated health and safety laws, I could believe that—but it did not. It happened in 2017. We are supposed to have health and safety. We are supposed to have standards. Yet, five years on, it seems that nobody, particularly in Government, is actually that bothered by it. There has been no accountability, and the companies are still receiving profits from this entire saga.

    Right now, we have half a million people still living in a building with some form of unsafe cladding. Officials still do not know how many buildings of four storeys or more could be at risk. The Government are yet to implement the majority of the recommendations from phase 1 of the inquiry, and as we have heard they have already rejected the idea that building owners should be responsible for evacuation plans for disabled people.

    While I accept, and I truly do, the warm wishes and the real desire to never see this kind of tragedy happen again—I do appreciate the sentiment—no matter how well-intentioned they are, words and platitudes do absolutely nothing. This tragedy started long before any fire. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith has said, if we are to be serious about this, and if we are to respect those who lost their lives, what is required is action, because it is action that makes the difference. We should take that action, learn from history, as we are supposed to, and reflect and respond, because otherwise—I agree with the hon. Member—as things stand, I fear there is every chance this will happen again.

  • Margaret Ferrier – 2022 Speech on Fifth Anniversary of Grenfell Tower Fire

    Margaret Ferrier – 2022 Speech on Fifth Anniversary of Grenfell Tower Fire

    The speech made by Margaret Ferrier, the Independent MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, in the House of Commons on 16 June 2022.

    I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing today’s debate and on circulating the briefings to help ensure that Members were well prepared to speak.

    Tuesday marked five years since the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, and I want, first and foremost, to pay tribute to the 72 people whose lives were lost—men, women and children who were taken from their family, friends and neighbours far too soon and in the worst way. For those who knew them and loved them, their grief will never leave them. The trauma suffered by the survivors also weighs heavy here today. I cannot even begin to imagine how difficult this anniversary is for them every year, with the painful memories and emotions with which they have to live. On this anniversary, I have been keeping the survivors, the victims and their loved ones in my thoughts, and I am sure that the people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West have been doing the same.

    What is so striking about the events of 14 June 2017 is the way that it resonated with so many of us, and the way that it still does today, half a decade on. London immediately entered a collective mourning for its lost residents. The entire United Kingdom mourned, and, as inquiries and investigations began, we all realised that the UK was sitting on a ticking time bomb. The disaster could have happened in any number of similar buildings across the nation.

    Late last year, Channel 4 aired a documentary on the events at Grenfell, which was deeply emotional. I spoke in Westminster Hall not long after it aired, and I will reiterate today one of the key messages that I took away from the programme. It was desperately sad to understand that residents in Grenfell Tower felt that this had happened precisely because they were living in social housing.

    They felt unseen and unheard, overlooked until the very worst happened, because of the outdated stigma that exists around council housing and the people who might live there. Having learned what we now know, the fact that it was social housing was a huge contributing factor in why costs were cut and existing concerns were not addressed.

    As I have said before, social housing is one of the great privileges of living in the UK and it should see investment reflective of that. No one should have to live in a home with potential safety risks just because it is a council property. While the Building Safety Act is a necessary milestone in improving the building safety system, the job is not done. There is work still to do and, for so many, justice to be done.

    Grenfell Tower and the surrounding community were just like many areas of London and indeed the UK: dynamic, talented, culturally diverse and economically deprived. As Imran Khan pointed out at the Westminster Abbey memorial this week, 85% of those who died that night were people of colour. That is not an accident or coincidence; it is symbolic of the many levels of discrimination that the UK still grapples with. It is important to recognise that fact, to think about all the reasons behind it and to acknowledge it so that we do not see it repeated.

    Imran Khan also said that many of the survivors and the families of victims have told him personally they have little faith in the public inquiry or the political appetite to act on its findings. They despair at the inquiry’s reluctance to face head-on so many aspects of this tragedy that are crucial to understanding what happened: the impact of race, class and disability. Even that service at Westminster Abbey faced criticism from some families of the victims for its lack of inclusivity of families from different cultures or faiths.

    On Monday, The Times published a short note, penned by Natasha Elcock of Grenfell United, Kamran Mallick of Disability Rights UK, and Sarah Rennie and Georgie Hulme of CladDAG, in which they highlighted that 40% of disabled residents died that night. None had evacuation plans. The note pointed to the Government’s refusal to place a legal duty on building owners to provide personal emergency evacuation plans for disabled residents following the inquiry. That shows lack of regard for disabled people. What message does that send?

    I hope the Minister will respond to that point in his closing speech, and I hope that it will be a substantial response. This is 2022, and the world has moved on from the times when a disabled person was seen as less important. They are just as entitled to respect as anyone else, and to peace of mind in the safety of their homes.

    Grenfell Tower still stands, a looming presence, a husk of the building it once was both physically and sentimentally. It represents something much larger than its physical size—the ignored red flags and warning signs predating the tragedy by years, the awfulness of that summer night in 2017, and the inequality and injustice that led to the fire.

    The failure to look at similar tragedies and learn from them is one of the hardest pills to swallow. In fire after fire, we know that cladding was the contributing factor. The Garnock Court fire in Irvine in 1999 was a moment of realisation in Scotland and led to the immediate removal of that cladding on all buildings. There were also the fires in Knowsley Heights in Merseyside in 1991 and Lakanal House in London in 2009. The all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue raised concerns in this area for years with a number of Ministers, but they fell on deaf ears.

    I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our late colleague and chair of the APPG Sir David Amess, who was a vocal advocate for fire safety and championed the cause regularly in this Chamber. The APPG, of which I am a co-vice chair and which is chaired by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), has today provided a statement setting out its position on current policy. I hope the Government will take note of the points made and consider them closely.

    Nothing will ever bring back those lost. Nothing will ever erase the pain for those who loved them. But the Government cannot ever allow this to happen again. Whatever recommendations are made, they must be implemented whatever the cost. In memory of the 72 victims of Grenfell Tower, whatever happens to the building now must be agreed with the survivors and the bereaved. It should be a fitting tribute, a memorial that keeps in clear focus the events of that dreadful night so that it is never, ever forgotten.