Tag: 2022

  • Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement on His Personal Conduct in Attending a Party During Lockdown

    Boris Johnson – 2022 Statement on His Personal Conduct in Attending a Party During Lockdown

    The statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 12 January 2022.

    I want to apologise. I know that millions of people across this country have made extraordinary sacrifices over the last 18 months.

    I know the anguish they have been through – unable to mourn their relatives, unable to live their lives as they want or to do the things they love.

    I know the rage they feel with me and with the government I lead when they think in Downing Street itself the rules are not being properly followed by the people who make the rules.

    And though I cannot anticipate the conclusions of the current inquiry, I have learned enough to know there were things we simply did not get right and I must take responsibility.

    No. 10 is a big department with a garden as an extension of the office which has been in constant use because of the role of fresh air in stopping the virus.

    When I went into that garden just after six on May 20, 2020, to thank groups of staff before going back into my office 25 minutes later to continue working, I believed implicitly that this was a work event.

    With hindsight I should have sent everyone back inside. I should have found some other way to thank them.

    I should have recognised that even if it could be said technically to fall within the guidance, there are millions and millions of people who simply would not see it that way, people who have suffered terribly, people who were forbidden for meeting loved ones at all inside or outside, and to them and to this House I offer my heartfelt apologies.

    All I ask is that Sue Gray be allowed to complete her inquiry into that day and several others so that the full facts can be established.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson Breaking Law and Attending Party

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson Breaking Law and Attending Party

    The comments made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, on 12 January 2022.

    The party is over Boris Johnson.

    Resign.

  • Alastair Campbell – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson Breaking Law and Attending Party

    Alastair Campbell – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson Breaking Law and Attending Party

    The comments made by Alastair Campbell on Twitter on 12 January 2022.

    Just be clear what just happened. The serving Prime Minister just admitted breaking a law he had legislated for and misleading Parliament and public about having done so. And he thinks he should stay. And his rotten stinking party seem to think so too.

  • Wes Streeting – 2022 Comments on A&E Waiting Times

    Wes Streeting – 2022 Comments on A&E Waiting Times

    The comments made by Wes Streeting, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 11 January 2022.

    It’s unacceptable for almost half of patients to be left waiting, often in pain and distress, for more than four hours in A&E over Christmas.

    After a decade of Tory mismanagement of the NHS, we went into the pandemic with record A&E waiting times, leaving us in the worst possible position when Covid struck.

    It’s not just that the Tories didn’t fix the roof while the sun was shining, they dismantled the roof and removed the floorboards.

    Labour will secure the future of the NHS with the staff, modern equipment and technology needed to bring waiting times down.

  • Ed Miliband – 2022 Comments on Michael Gove’s Promise to Cut Tax on Energy

    Ed Miliband – 2022 Comments on Michael Gove’s Promise to Cut Tax on Energy

    The comments made by Ed Miliband, the Shadow Climate Change and Net Zero Secretary, on 11 January 2022.

    Broken promises don’t pay the bills.

    Both Boris Johnson and Michael Gove promised to cut VAT on energy bills. But when push comes to shove, when families and pensioners really need support, they’ve broken that commitment.

    While Michael Gove backpedals, Rishi Sunak is missing in action.

    Labour would give families security by immediately cutting VAT on energy bills now – part of our plan to save households around £200 or more, with extra support for those feeling the squeeze the most, paid for by a windfall tax on oil and gas companies facing record profits.

    A Labour government will invest in renewables, nuclear and upgrading homes to solve the long term problem that the Conservatives have created in our broken energy system.

  • Pat McFadden – 2022 Comments on the “Vanishing Chancellor”

    Pat McFadden – 2022 Comments on the “Vanishing Chancellor”

    The comments made by Pat McFadden, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 10 January 2022.

    Once again, when British families and businesses need support, the Chancellor has pulled a vanishing act and disappeared.

    When the going gets tough, Rishi Sunak goes missing.

    Labour would give families security by immediately cutting VAT on energy bills now – part of our plan to save households around £200 or more, as well as targeted support for those who need it most – with up to £600 in total off their bills.

    Labour has set out a plan. The Chancellor is silent.

  • Shrewsbury Town Football Club – 2022 Statement on Fans Mocking Hillsborough Tragedy

    Shrewsbury Town Football Club – 2022 Statement on Fans Mocking Hillsborough Tragedy

    The statement made by Shrewsbury Town Football Club on 10 January 2022.

    Shrewsbury Town Football Club is disgusted and appalled to see and hear the reports on social media about the vile and offensive chanting and behaviour of a very small minority of our ‘supporters’ yesterday.

    These people do not represent our Club in any way shape or form and we are liaising with West Mercia Police to try and identify those responsible who will in turn liaise with Merseyside Police.

    If any supporters have any information that might assist us in identifying those responsible, they can contact the Club confidentially and we will use the information as part of our investigations with the Police authorities.

  • Lisa Nandy – 2022 Speech on Building Safety

    Lisa Nandy – 2022 Speech on Building Safety

    The speech made by Lisa Nandy, the Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2022.

    May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your kind words about Jack Dromey, who should have been with us here today? There is a space over there that I know Jack would have occupied. Back in the 1970s, horrified by the spectacle of a skyscraper in London that lay empty while people slept rough underneath it, Jack was one of those who occupied Centre Point tower in protest. He was never afraid to speak truth to power, and I hope that today marks the start of all of us across the House invoking his spirit.

    Four and a half years after the appalling tragedy at Grenfell, and with a road paved with broken promises and false dawns, hundreds of thousands are still trapped in unsafe homes, millions are caught in the wider crisis, and the families of 72 people who lost their lives are waiting for justice. It is a relief that we finally have a consensus that the developers and manufacturers who profited from this appalling scandal should bear greater costs, not the victims, and that blameless leaseholders must not pay. After a year of hell of the prospect hanging over leaseholders, we welcome the decision to remove the threat of forced loans, but can the Secretary of State tell us what makes him think that he can force developers, who have refused to do the right thing for four years, to pay up? We have been told there is a March deadline and a roundtable, but there is not a plan. If he has one, can we hear it? He will find an open door on the Opposition side of the House, if he has a credible proposal to bring.

    Today the Secretary of State warned developers that if negotiation fails,

    “our backstop…what we can do…is increase taxation on those responsible”,

    but that is not quite right, is it? I have in front of me the letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. May I remind the Secretary of State what it says? He was told that

    “you may use a high-level ‘threat’ of tax or legal solutions in discussions with developers”

    but

    “whether or not to impose or raise taxes remains a decision for me”

    —the Chief Secretary—

    “and is not a given at this point.”

    If I have seen the letter, I am fairly sure that the developers have too. Furthermore, it appears that what the Secretary of State has told the public—that tax rises are the backstop—is not what he has told the Treasury. The letter says that

    “you have confirmed separately that DLUHC budgets are a backstop for funding these proposals in full…should sufficient funds not be raised from industry.”

    That is not what the Secretary of State told the House a moment ago, so can he clear this up? Has the Chancellor agreed to back a new tax measure if negotiations fail, or is the Secretary of State prepared to see his already allocated budgets—levelling-up funding, or moneys for social or affordable housing—raided? Or is his plan to go back to the Treasury, renegotiate and legislate, if he fails in March? If that is the case, it will take months, and there is nothing to stop freeholders passing on the costs to leaseholders in the meantime. Does he even have an assessment of how many leaseholders will be hit with whacking great bills if he delays?

    If the Secretary of State is serious about going after the developers—I hope that he is—why is he not putting these powers into the Building Safety Bill now? The only trick that he has up his sleeve, as he just confirmed to the House, is to ban them from Help to Buy, and we know that the impact of that, though welcome, will be marginal. Can he see the problem? He will also know that there is a gaping hole in what he has proposed. A significant number of buildings have both cladding and non-cladding defects, and leaseholders in them face ruinous costs to fix things such as missing fire breaks and defective compartmentation. One cannot make a building half safe. Given that the Secretary of State recognises the injustice of all leaseholders caught up in the building safety crisis, why is he abandoning those who have been hit with bills for non-cladding defects, and why will he not amend his Bill so that all leaseholders are protected from historical defects in law?

    The truth is that the pace of remediation has been painfully slow. The Secretary of State is now on track to miss the deadline to fix all Grenfell-style cladding by over half a decade, and there are huge delays when it comes to building safety fund applications, so will he get a grip on what is going on in his own Department and ensure that the progress of remediation is accelerated markedly? As he knows, this has been a living nightmare for affected leaseholders, and we owe it to them to bring it swiftly to an end.

    What the Secretary of State has given us today is a welcome shift in tone and some new measures that the Opposition very much hope will succeed, but the harder I look at this, the less it stands up. We were promised justice and we were promised change, to finally do right by the victims of this scandal, and that takes more than more promises. It takes a plan.

  • Michael Gove – 2022 Statement on Building Safety

    Michael Gove – 2022 Statement on Building Safety

    The statement made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Housing, in the House of Commons on 10 January 2022.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on building safety. Before I do so, I can confirm that I have asked the permanent secretary in my Department to conduct a leak inquiry. It was a matter of considerable regret to me that details of the statement that I am about to make were shared with the media before they were shared with Members of this House, and indeed with those most affected.

    It is worth pausing at the start of any statement to reflect on why building safety is an issue of concern to all of us in this House today. It took the tragedy at Grenfell Tower on 14 June 2017, as a result of which 72 innocent men, women and children lost their lives, to put building safety properly on the political agenda. Families were living in a building that was literally a death trap because of failures of enforcement and compliance in our building safety regime. This Government must take their share of responsibility for those failures.

    Over four years on from that terrible tragedy, it is clear that the building safety system remains broken. The problems that we have to fix have been identified by many across this House, from all parties. I would like at this point to register my appreciation of the work that the late Jack Dromey did on this issue. He was shadow Housing Minister for three years and he did a great deal, both as a trade unionist and as the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Erdington, to bring to light the plight of those affected by this crisis.

    As we know, there are still a small number of high-rise buildings with dangerous and unsafe cladding that have to be fixed. We know that those who manufacture dangerous products and develop dangerous buildings have faced inadequate accountability so far, and shown insufficient contrition. We also need to ensure that we take a proportionate approach in building assessments overall. There are too many buildings today that are declared unsafe, and there are too many who have been seeking to profit from the current crisis.

    Most importantly, leaseholders are shouldering a desperately unfair burden. They are blameless, and it is morally wrong that they should be the ones asked to pay the price. I am clear about who should pay the price for remedying failures. It should be the industries that profited, as they caused the problem, and those who have continued to profit, as they make it worse.

    Mr Speaker, we will take action on all of these fronts. To ensure that every remaining high-rise dangerous building has the necessary cladding remediation to make it safe, we will open up the next phase of the building safety fund early this year and focus relentlessly on making sure it is risk driven and delivered more quickly.

    We will also ensure that those who profited, and continue to profit, from the sale of unsafe buildings and construction products must take full responsibility for their actions and pay to put things right. Those who knowingly put lives at risk should be held to account for their crimes, and those who are seeking to profit from the crisis by making it worse should be stopped from doing so.

    Today, I am putting them on notice. To those who mis-sold dangerous products, such as cladding or insulation, to those who cut corners to save cash as they developed or refurbished people’s homes, and to those who sought to profiteer from the consequences of the Grenfell tragedy: we are coming for you. I have established a dedicated team in my Department to expose and pursue those responsible. We will begin by reviewing Government schemes and programmes to ensure that, in accordance with due process, there are commercial consequences for any company that is responsible for this crisis and refusing to help to fix it.

    In line with this, just before Christmas, I instructed Homes England to suspend Rydon Homes, which is closely connected to the company that refurbished the Grenfell Tower, from its participation in the Help to Buy scheme, with immediate effect. I also welcome the decision by the Mercedes Formula 1 team and Toto Wolff to discontinue sponsorship from Kingspan, the cladding firm, with immediate effect. The voices of the families of the bereaved and the survivors of the Grenfell Tower were heard, but this is only the start of the action that must be taken.

    We must also restore common sense to the assessment of building safety overall. The Government are clear—we must find ways for there to be fewer unnecessary surveys. Medium-rise buildings are safe, unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. There must be far greater use of sensible mitigations, such as sprinklers and fire alarms, in place of unnecessary and costly remediation work.

    To achieve that, today I am withdrawing the Government’s consolidated advice note. It has been wrongly interpreted and has driven a cautious approach to building safety in buildings that are safe that goes beyond what we consider necessary. We are supporting new, proportionate guidance for assessors, developed by the British Standards Institution, which will be published this week.

    Secondly, we will press ahead with the building safety fund, adapting it so that it is consistent with our proportionate approach. We will now set a higher expectation that developers must fix their own buildings, and we will give leaseholders more information at every stage of the process.

    Thirdly, before Easter, we will be implementing our scheme to indemnify building assessors conducting external wall assessments, giving them the confidence to exercise their balanced professional judgment. We will audit those assessments to ensure that expensive remediation is being advised only where it is necessary to remove a threat to life.

    I will be working closely with lenders over the coming months to improve market confidence, and I have asked my colleague Lord Greenhalgh to work with insurers on new industry-led approaches that bring down the premiums facing leaseholders.

    Further, we will take the power to review the governance of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, to ensure that it is equipped properly to support a solution to this challenge. Those in the industry who refuse to work with us in good faith to take a more proportionate approach should be clear that our determination is to fix the problem for all those caught up in this crisis.

    Finally, we must relieve the burden that has been unfairly placed on leaseholders. I want to pay tribute to all those across the House who have campaigned so passionately on this subject. They know the injustice of asking leaseholders, often young people who have saved hard and made sacrifices to take their first steps on the housing ladder, to pay money they do not have to fix a problem they did not cause, all while the firms who made a profit on those developments sit on their hands. We will take action to end the scandal and protect leaseholders. We will scrap the proposal for loans and long-term debt for medium-rise leaseholders.

    I can confirm to the House today that no leaseholder living in a building above 11 metres will ever face any costs for fixing dangerous cladding and, working with Members of both Houses, we will pursue statutory protection for leaseholders and nothing will be off the table. As part of that, we will introduce immediate amendments to the Building Safety Bill to extend the right of leaseholders to challenge those who cause defects in premises for up to 30 years retrospectively.

    We will also take further action immediately: we will provide an additional £27 million to fund more fire alarms, so we can end the dreadful misuse of waking watches; we will change grant funding guidance so that shared owners affected by the crisis can more easily sub-let their properties, and encourage lenders and landlords to approve sub-letting arrangements; and in the period before long-term arrangements are put in place, I will work with colleagues across Government to make sure that leaseholders are protected from forfeiture and eviction because of historic costs. Innocent leaseholders must not shoulder the burden.

    We have already committed £5.1 billion of taxpayers’ funding from the Government, but we should not now look to the taxpayer for more funding. We should not ask hard-working taxpayers to pay more taxes to get developers and cladding companies making vast profits off the hook. We will make industry pay to fix all of the remaining problems and help to cover the range of costs facing leaseholders. Those who manufactured combustible cladding and insulation, many of whom have made vast profits even at the height of the pandemic, must pay now instead of leaseholders.

    We have made a start through the residential property developer tax and the building safety levy, both announced last February, but will now go further. I will today write to developers to convene a meeting in the next few weeks, and I will report back to the House before Easter. We will give them the chance to do the right thing. I hope that they will take it. I can confirm to the House today that if they do not, we will impose a solution on them, if necessary, in law.

    Finally, we must never be in this position again, so we are putting the recommendations of the Hackitt review on building safety in law and we will shortly commence the Fire Safety Act 2021. We are also today publishing new collaborative procurement guidance on removing the incentives for industry to cut corners and to help stop the prioritisation of cost over value. We will legislate to deliver broader reforms to the leasehold system, and also bring forward measures to fulfil commitments made in the social housing White Paper. When parliamentary time allows, we will have legislation on social housing regulation so that social housing tenants cannot be ignored as those in the Grenfell community were for many years.

    Four and a half years on from the tragedy of Grenfell, it is long past time that we fix the crisis. Through the measures that I have set out today, we will seek redress for past wrongs and secure funds from developers and construction product manufacturers, and we will protect leaseholders today and fix the system for the future.

  • Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on Michael Gove’s Department Leaking Information to Media

    Lindsay Hoyle – 2022 Statement on Michael Gove’s Department Leaking Information to Media

    The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 10 January 2022.

    Before I call the Secretary of State to make his statement, I have to express once again my disappointment that important announcements have been made first to the media, rather than to this House. In this case, I accept that issues of market sensitivity meant that announcements had to be made this morning. However, I am told that the announcements were required because of speculation about the policy change over the weekend. That speculation appears to have been substantially accurate, which means that the media appear to have known the details before this House did. If that is the case, I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could confirm that a leak inquiry is to be held.