Holocaust Memorial Day

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western). Although I did not hear his speech, it was clearly brilliant, given the tributes that he has received.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. After the abominable Windrush scandal, in which black Britons were detained, deported, denied healthcare, denied housing and denied education, successive Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries came to this House and said they would accept in full the recommendations of Wendy Williams’s inquiry into the scandal and that they would compensate the victims.

This morning, from a written statement slipped out quietly, this House finds out that in fact only half the compensation has been made and that Windrush recommendations have been dropped. This tramples on the hopes of the Windrush generation and anyone who believes in our shared multicultural future. Have you had any indication at all that the Home Secretary expects to come to this House and make a statement in full about why she has now decided to deny the hopes of the Windrush generation?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank Mr Lammy for his point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. As he knows, the next business I am going to take is the Adjournment of the House, so there will be no statement today and the House is not sitting tomorrow. However, I do ask that the Treasury Whip on duty ensures that Home Office Ministers are made absolutely aware of the point of order he has made.

Leaseholders and Cladding

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

I am happy to reiterate that point to my hon. Friend. Lord Greenhalgh has had a series of meetings with the insurance industry to make sure it fully understands and takes on board that point. He will continue to do so, as my hon. Friend will continue to campaign doughtily on behalf of his constituents.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I have to say to the Minister that I never dreamed that, three and a half years after my friend Khadija Saye died with her mother in Grenfell Tower, I would be here begging him to sort this problem out. I have over 1,000 residents in the Tottenham Hale Village in my constituency, a development built by Bellway Homes, which made £500 million profits in 2018, another £500 million profits in 2019, and has shown complete disregard for my constituents living in these buildings with combustible cladding. What is the Minister going to do about leaseholders in that situation when it is clear that his building safety fund is inadequate to meet the task? Will he meet me and my constituents, so we can sort this three and a half years after the Government promised it would be fixed?

[Christopher Pincher]

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I sympathise with him for his personal loss and the loss of many of his friends and associates at Grenfell Tower. He asks what is being done to accelerate the pace of remediation in London, where there have been challenges that are unique to our capital. Lord Greenhalgh convened a summit of the London Mayor and the London Fire Brigade back in September to address an action plan to accelerate the work of London remediation. There was a further progress tracking meeting last month, and there are case conference meetings to address specific buildings in the capital and beyond. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there were something like 2,700 applications for the £1 billion that we put aside for non-ACM cladding. We will work through those. We have now agreed that a significant number of them meet the criteria, and the first funding of those applications is about to begin. I am confident that the funding will be fully allocated by the end of the financial year in 2021, for which the money was made available.

Leaseholders and Cladding

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered leaseholders and cladding.

May I say what a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies? I am grateful to all colleagues present. I know that a number will wish to intervene, but the more interventions there are, the longer I will take to complete my argument, which I am keen that the Minister should hear. I think the turnout shows her the strength of feeling on this issue.

It is not difficult to understand why there are strong feelings. Imagine that someone has saved up all their money and bought their first flat. It is the home of their dreams. They move in, the future beckons, and then one day a letter drops on the mat. It is from their managing agent, and it tells them: “Your home is in a building that has now been judged a fire risk because of unsafe cladding, and as a leaseholder you must immediately—this day—start paying for a waking watch. Otherwise, all of you will have to move out of your homes.” In one case in Leeds, such a waking watch is costing each flat-owner £670 a month plus VAT, on top of mortgage payments and the service charge.

The leaseholder is probably then asked to meet the cost of putting in a fire alarm system, which may or may not reduce the cost of the waking watch. Then, to their absolute horror, they are asked to pay for the cost of replacing the dangerous cladding to make their building—their home—safe. The problem is pretty obvious to us all: they simply do not have that kind of money. Their home has been rendered completely worthless, therefore they cannot remortgage. Their insurance premium is, in all likelihood, going up, and they worry about possibly being made bankrupt because of all the costs. That could result, depending on what job they do, in the loss of their job as well as their home. Yet none of that is in any way the fault, responsibility or doing of the leaseholders.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I have a building in the Tottenham Hale village with 432 people who cannot get a mortgage or remortgage. Is it the view of my right hon. Friend that that is entirely unacceptable, because fire and building regulations are rightly the Government’s responsibility? The Government should step in to support those individuals.

[Hilary Benn]

That is absolutely my view. My right hon. Friend anticipates what I will come on to say.

Wards Corner Redevelopment

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to have the opportunity to have the Adjournment debate this evening.

Mr Speaker, you may not know that Seven Sisters tube station in my constituency has about 3 million people visitors every year. Mr Speaker, I can tell that you are aghast. That is because it is the home of Tottenham Hotspur and people arriving to see them often come through the station. It is very much the gateway to my constituency.

Wards Corner is part of that gateway. It is the first building that people see on exiting Seven Sisters tube station. In the year of my birth, 1972, the former Edwardian department store was left abandoned. Soon it fell into a state of disrepair and throughout my childhood and teenage years, the space remained unused. It was not until the early 2000s, when new arrivals came to Tottenham—from Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Brazil and other countries across South America—that it became lively again. Many had fled chaos and upheaval at home, but in Wards Corner, they spotted an opportunity to build a new home out of the disused space.

Stepping inside the Latin Village that they created is like entering a whole different world. Inside is a magical maze of shops, food stalls, barbershops and nail bars. Salsa and Spanish music vibrate the shelves of groceries. Kids run excitedly though the aisles. Men and women sit and chat, sipping strong Colombian coffee. The smell of Argentinian meat, freshly made empanadas and tamales is impossible to resist.

As day becomes night, the aisles fill up with young couples, groups of friends and families sitting down at tables to eat. The volume of the sound system is turned up. Beers imported from South America are passed round. People chat, their faces illuminated by fairy lights and the hues of shop fronts. Couples dance. Out of the rubble, Tottenham’s South American community has created a treasure trove of culture, community, love and life. London is often hailed as a centre of openness, diversity and multiculturalism; this is a corner of the capital that lives up to the hype.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point in the way he did. He knows something about what it means to be excluded and excluded communities, and he is right that I will come to that. I know that those listening to the debate will be very grateful that he and others have taken interest.

Today, the Latin Village hosts the United Kingdom’s second largest concentration of Latin American businesses. Around 60—mostly female—traders run businesses in the Latin Village, providing a living for some 80 families, but for those who work and shop and have even grown up in the plywood jungle, the market represents so much more than a pay cheque.

Tottenham has witnessed two riots in my lifetime: in 1985 and 2011. Its current challenges, including London’s knife and gang-crime epidemic, are well known. In that context, the Latin market is a vital space, where social belonging is promoted and a sense of collective identity is built. Across families and generations, residents rely on the village as a safe and inclusive space for socialising and raising their families. It is a thriving model of community wealth creation, of affordable and effective childcare, and of inter-generational bonding. The demolition of Wards Corner represents a very real threat to that social cohesion. For many, it could mean the end of their way of life.

Almost everyone accepts that Wards Corner would benefit from investment, but at present, there are two competing visions of its future. The first redevelopment plan is that of Grainger plc, which was selected as a development partner by Haringey Council in 2004. In 2012, the council granted Grainger plc planning and conservation area consent for the redevelopment of the Wards Corner site. It sets out a blueprint to build 196 new luxury flats—with no allocation for social or affordable units—and a new retail and leisure space. Just six commercial units will be allocated to independent stores. The rest will be filled with generic coffee shops and chain restaurants—a world away from the vibrant and unique stalls inside the market. In addition, it was agreed that the Seven Sisters market, including Latin Village, would be temporarily relocated, before getting a new site on the other side of the road.

However, planning documents show that the new market will come with a dramatic increase of rent—effectively locking out the traders and family businesses that make up Latin Village. For the first five years there will be a 2% cap on rent increases, but after that, rents will be subject to the market. Traders have estimated that that could mean a rent increase of up to 300%.

UN human rights experts have already condemned the scheme, calling it

“a gentrification project”

that

“represents a threat to cultural life”.

Traders could be forced to shut up shop, families may have to look for new incomes and the jewel of Latin Village could shatter and ultimately be swept away.

The second vision for the future of Wards Corner is the “community plan”, proposed in a planning application to the council by the West Green Road and Seven Sisters Development Trust. Earlier versions of the community plan have had planning permission, but you would not know that from the public statements of Haringey Council, Transport for London or the developer. The community plan outlines a vision for a high-quality, tasteful restoration of the Wards Corner building to its former glory and its use as a community asset and space, rather than demolition of the Wards Corner department store building. The plan says:

“We believe that it is not necessary to demolish existing historic assets or to dislocate an entire community that has lived and worked on the site for a generation and more. We regard restoration as a more sustainable form of regeneration, building as it does on already existing community assets. Top-down, developer-led regeneration is not the only way.”

The redevelopment of Wards Corner is a local issue in Tottenham, but it is part of a national, and even global, story. We have heard it so many times, in so many different places. Migrants turn a run-down space into a cultural and business centre, but then a corporate entity threatens to take it away. The questions it raises are the same in Tottenham as they are in Glasgow, just as they are the same in the Bronx. When a deprived area is “redeveloped”, are we not meant to improve the lives of deprived people who already live there? Why does it take an influx of wealthy new people to an area before anyone bothers to invest in it? Should we not bring the existing communities along with the redevelopment, rather than kick them out? Is the purpose of redevelopment social cohesion or social cleansing?

The traders who depend on Latin Village have been treated with gross disrespect and a lack of compassion throughout this process. The firm Quarterbridge was appointed the “market facilitator”—a supposedly independent body responsible for looking after traders’ interests during the redevelopment. However, the director of Quarterbridge, Jonathan Owen, is also the director of Market Asset Management. How can the market manager be the same man as the market facilitator? The very person who is supposed to stand up for the Latin Village’s market traders has an interest in the new development’s going ahead. Jonathan Owen has made his conflict of interest very clear, by adding insult to injury of those he is supposed to protect. Owen has used phrases such as “bloody illegal immigrants” and declared that, “If I wanted to I could get rid of 90% of the traders here”. When traders asked whether drains could be cleared, he replied, “When was the last time you cleared the drains in your house?”

Jonathan Owen and Quarterbridge were chosen and paid for by Transport for London. They were supposed to look out for the traders. Transport for London should have done proper due diligence when awarding the lease. If traders had experienced even a fraction of the racism and bullying that they have had to endure while on the platform of Seven Sisters station, Transport for London would have acted. However, moments away in the market, on land owned by Transport for London, there has been deflection and inaction when blatant acts of discrimination have taken place. This is not acceptable. Jonathan Owen, Quarterbridge and Market Asset Management must now be fired and sent packing from the market. There needs to be a thorough review into why this level of unacceptable conduct has been allowed to carry on over such a long and sustained period on public land without Transport for London having done anything meaningful to stop it. There also needs to be an investigation into the very serious allegations of overcharging of traders for electricity and other utilities by the market operator—allegations that might amount to fraud and which ought to require police involvement.

Haringey Council has technically given the community plan permission to go ahead, but at the same time it says there is no way for the Grainger plc plan to be stopped. The council’s housing and regeneration scrutiny panel undertook a thorough review, which lasted several months and heard evidence from traders, council officers, Transport for London, Grainger, Quarterbridge, architects, experts and academics. For the first time in years, traders at the market felt listened to. It was a model of good overview and scrutiny work.

Last week, however, the cabinet of Haringey Council rejected eight, partially agreed with three and fully agreed with just three of the 14 recommendations made by its own scrutiny panel on the redevelopment. The council maintains that some of the recommendations were simply not within its remit. I spoke to the council about this just this week. The recommendations it rejected, however, included recommendation 5, which calls for a review of how all section 106 conditions are monitored and enforced in order to make sure that people with protected characteristics are protected under equalities legislation.

An investigation undertaken by Haringey Council’s own planning department into section 106 concluded that it indeed was breached and that the council should have known and should have acted earlier. In addition, when the compulsory purchase order was granted by the department, the planning inspector, John Felgate, gave an “erroneous interpretation” of Grainger’s commitment to guarantee the traders’ rent. The report suggested that traders’ rents should be guaranteed to rise by no more than 2% per year indefinitely. In reality, this guarantee only holds for five years. Given these issues, does the Minister maintain that the CPO is still valid?

Other recommendations rejected by the Haringey Council cabinet include the recommendation to

“explore the feasibility and cost benefits of all approaches for a full or partial buy-out”.

This means not giving the community plan a chance. Worse still, the council even rejected the recommendation to work with Grainger plc and relevant community groups to co-ordinate a combined solution. Surely that is wrong. How can we bring partners together, how can people sit down with traders, with the council, with Grainger, to broker a solution that all of us can get behind?

We say we are on the side of the many, not the few. We should not be sending enforcement officers to hassle family traders. When a Labour council rightly talks about putting people before profit, that means being led by the voices of the communities, not developers. Some of the evictions we have seen just this week are a scandal and have caused real concern in the constituency. That is how people in my constituency have been treated by what has been called the first “Corbyn council”. We cannot claim to do housing differently and then simply do it in the same way. Due process matters. Proper scrutiny and accountability matter. Standing up to racism, bullying and victimisation in all their ugly forms matters.

The good thing for Haringey Council, TFL and this Government is that it is not too late. There is still time to do the right thing. All it will take is swallowing some pride and applying simple principles that should have been followed from the start. It means recognising the huge cultural and social value of the Latin Village, investing in the traders who created it and taking their plans for its redevelopment seriously. I want to see the market operator got rid of, properly investigated and, if applicable, met with the full force of the law. I want to see the community plan for the market given proper and active consideration as a viable part of a new vision for Wards Corner. I want the Minister’s help to facilitate as a matter of urgency independently chaired roundtable discussions at which the market traders are treated as equals and genuinely listened to, so that a better future can be shaped for the site, with them at the heart of decisions on what happens next.

If Grainger’s development is what goes ahead, at the very least it needs to make some serious compromises. First, given the housing crisis, it is outrageous that there is no provision for social housing. A new minimum quota of 10% should be introduced. Secondly, there must be a large increase in the number of spaces for independent traders. We cannot allow Wards Corner to become another clone high street. Thirdly, the five-year rent increase cap is not good enough. There is no point in preserving Latin Village for half a decade only to let it collapse later. Let us introduce a review at the end of that period to decide whether to extend or change the cap.

It would be a great failure if Tottenham were to become just another story of gentrification, with locals pushed out as wealthy investors come in, and culture bulldozed and replaced by clone high streets—if it were to become another deprived community that is not invested in, but pushed further away. Let Wards Corner instead become an example of how we can do regeneration better: bottom-up, not top-down, and with investment for the community that is based there, not in spite of it. Let us have a new future for Tottenham that does not demolish the past.

The Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), would have liked to be here this evening. He has met people in the Latin Village, and he too says that he stands with the Latin Village community to protect the market. It is a place of community identity that gives more than 60 independent traders a livelihood. Their struggle, he says, is his struggle, and I associate myself with his remarks. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[The Minister for Housing (Esther McVey)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on securing the debate. I know that this matter is of great importance to him and to those associated with Seven Sisters market.

Given the time limit, I may not be able to address every issue that has been raised. I should also make it clear that, for reasons that I will explain in more detail, I cannot comment freely on the regeneration of Wards Corner, and in particular the Secretary of State’s decision to confirm the Wards Corner compulsory purchase order. I know that the right hon. Gentleman, as an experienced Member of the House, will understand that, as there is an application to the Court of Appeal in respect of the High Court ruling upholding the Secretary of State’s decision to confirm the CPO, it is simply not possible for me to discuss the details and the application, as to do so might prejudice those judicial review proceedings. The matter was lodged with the Court of Appeal just before Christmas, and it may be a number of months before it is known whether permission will be given for it to be subject to those further proceedings. I therefore presume that the right hon. Gentleman considered it more important to put his concerns on the record than to hear anything that I might be able to say, and in that context I commend him for making those points. Let me emphasise, however, that the Government take the issue of regeneration and the role of planning extremely seriously. With that in mind, I will explain the background to and the Government’s involvement in the Wards Comer CPO, leading up to the application to the Court of Appeal. I will then place that in the context of the Government’s view on the use of CPO powers.

In September 2016, the London Borough of Haringey made the Wards Corner CPO to enable it to acquire 9 hectares compulsorily to facilitate the comprehensive regeneration of the land known as Wards Corner, for which it had previously granted planning permission for a mixed-use development. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the council made a robust case to the inquiry that the scheme would act as a catalyst for the local community by bringing an injection of new investment, higher order retail activity, an improved Seven Sisters market, and more and higher quality jobs. The overall investment in terms of construction cost alone was estimated at about £60 million. It is forecast that during the construction phase the development will provide 190 full-time equivalent direct jobs, and that once it has been completed a further 95 direct jobs will deliver £4.8 million per year in gross value added. The scheme will also support further spin-off jobs indirectly.

The CPO was submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation. Following the receipt of public objections to it, a public local inquiry was arranged in July 2017. The community and the market traders themselves played a full and active part in the CPO process and in the public inquiry. An independent inquiry inspector heard oral submissions on behalf of the market traders’ group and other interested parties. The public inquiry inspector returned his findings and recommendation to the Secretary of State in January 2018, and just over a year ago the Secretary of State issued his decision to confirm the CPO.

That would normally end the Secretary of State’s formal involvement, but as I am pretty sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Secretary of State’s decision was then challenged in the courts. The case was heard by the High Court in October 2019, and judgment was handed down in two days. The claim was dismissed and the judge refused leave to appeal the decision. I cannot interpret on the judgment, but I should say that, overall, the judge was not persuaded that a genuine doubt existed as to the approach adopted by the inspector and therefore the Secretary of State in his decision, on the issues of affordability and the public sector equality duty of concern to the claimants.

That was not the end of the matter, and litigation has continued. Following the High Court judgment, the claimant lodged an application to the Court of Appeal. As yet, there has been no word on whether the application has been accepted and it might be several months before it is known whether the fresh appeal will get permission to be heard at that next tier of the judicial system. Therefore, while the Government welcomed the judgment made in the High Court, the council must again wait to see whether it can take forward the order that will enable the proposals on much-needed regeneration for the area to proceed.

I would now like to set out the wider purpose of the CPO process and its role in enabling and supporting the regeneration of communities such as those in Tottenham. Successive Governments have supported compulsory purchase as an important tool to assemble land into a single ownership to enable the delivery of a wide range of development projects. Used properly, compulsory purchase can enable the development of new communities, essential social infrastructure and commercial facilities, all of which can support economic growth, regeneration and improvements in quality of life. It enables the acquisition of land and property in the public interest without the agreement of the owner, subject to the payment of fair compensation. While land can be acquired by agreement between the parties concerned, such voluntary approaches are unlikely to be suitable for assembling all the land needed for major projects because some owners might not agree to sell their land, or might ask an unreasonably high price. Local authorities and others are empowered to use compulsory purchase powers to deliver a wide range of projects, from large-scale town centre regeneration schemes to the refurbishment of individual empty homes.

To use compulsory purchase powers, an acquiring authority must first make a CPO and submit it to the relevant Minister to decide whether to confirm it. The acquiring authority must notify all qualifying persons, including the relevant owners and occupiers. The CPO is advertised through newspapers and site notices to notify the general public. Remaining objectors to the CPO have the right to object and be heard at a public local inquiry. An inspector’s task is to inquire into the CPO and to elicit all the information needed to enable the Minister to decide whether to confirm the CPO. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the CPO process provides ample opportunity for all interested parties to be fully, properly and fairly involved in the process.

The inspector will then prepare and submit their report to the Minister, including their recommendation on whether the CPO should be confirmed. The Minister will then carefully consider the inspector’s report and decide whether to confirm, modify or not confirm the CPO. In deciding whether to confirm the CPO, the Minister is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. In exercising this function, it is incumbent upon the Minister to act and to been seen to act fairly and even-handedly. A CPO will be confirmed only when the Minister is satisfied that the order contributes to the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of an area. The Minister must also be satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest to justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected by the CPO. In making the decision, the Minister must also have due regard to the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010.

[Mr Lammy]

The Minister is setting out the rules that govern CPOs and am grateful for that. However, would she be worried if a local authority and others were engaging in evictions while the CPO is still being challenged in the courts to get people out of the building, or using false pretences regarding the state of the building to get the building vacated so that they can proceed as they desire?

[Esther McVey]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case, but any person aggrieved who wishes to dispute the validity of a CPO or any of its provisions has the right to legally challenge the confirmation of the CPO. Where a legal challenge is successful, the Court has the discretionary power to quash either the decision to confirm the CPO or the whole or any part of the CPO itself. A decision not to confirm a CPO may be challenged by way of a judicial review application made to the High Court and that was the case with the Wards Corner CPO.

I assure colleagues that the Government remain committed to the regeneration and revitalisation of communities most in need. We fully support Haringey Council in its commitment to regeneration throughout the Tottenham area. Major developments are ongoing at Tottenham Hale and around the new Tottenham Hotspur stadium, with others planned. The intention is that the development will provide a catalyst for the regeneration of neighbouring areas such as Seven Sisters, which is the focus of the CPO that we are debating today.

As I said at the start, I must avoid prejudicing the legal process should the application to the Court of Appeal succeed. We must await the outcome from the Court of Appeal. I commend and thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and speaking so eloquently about the case.

Question put and agreed to.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 1 Report

David Lammy Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), and I hope that I can work with her on issues in relation to Grenfell, as I was able to work with her predecessor. Her contribution was a very good start.

On the morning of 14 June 2017, I woke up at around 5.30 am, and when I checked my phone, I saw dozens of message notifications. My wife’s phone, just next to it, would not stop buzzing. I shook her awake and we began to scroll through our messages. We were in complete shock as tears flooded down our faces. The first images and videos we were confronted with were of a burned-out shell of a building that we had known for much of our lives. Grenfell Tower had turned black, and its windows were fluorescent with orange light. My wife and I were just two of the many hundreds of people who woke up that morning to find out that a friend or relative had been burned alive.

In the wake of the fire, I assumed that this man-made disaster would be a defining moment in how we thought about housing in this country. In my view, it exposed a tale of two cities. In the wealthiest borough of one of the richest cities in the world, 72 people were forced to live in a tower wrapped in flammable cladding, and their complaints about safety in the blocks were ignored by the authorities in the months and years before. Back in the summer of 2017, I would never have imagined that the response, including that of the Government, would be so appallingly slow. I cannot believe that I am standing here in the next decade and that the Government still cannot say that all the necessary action has been taken to prevent another fire like Grenfell from happening again. In a sense, that is a summary of what the Secretary of State has said.

Members will have heard some of the statistics already today, but they are worth repeating so that the message gets through. We know that 91 out of 159 social sector buildings found to have Grenfell-style ACM cladding have still not had it removed, and that 174 out of 197 private sector buildings—those are the ones we know about—are in the same situation. On any analysis, this must be defined as cruel and unusual punishment for the families living in those buildings. I ask all of us in the House this afternoon, particularly those of us who are parents, to imagine the stress and strain of being in a building that could go up in the way we saw Grenfell Tower go up. This means that for more than two and a half years, thousands of concerned families have had to go to bed at night afraid that what happened in June 2017 might happen to them.

I am afraid that much of the blame for this inaction lies with the Government. It took them one entire year to provide the funding for councils and housing associations to remove the cladding, and it took them two years to announce a fund to help privately owned blocks. Ministers set a deadline of the end of 2019 to make social blocks safe and a deadline of June 2020 for private blocks. What is the explanation for why the first target has been missed and the second looks likely to be missed?

The inaction on cladding is matched only by the treatment of the survivors of the fire. Families have expressed frustration and anger at the chaos and lack of organisation over the past three and a half years. Much of this, of course, lies at the door of the borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Inquest is a charity that supports many of the families, including 55 of the 72 families who lost a relative. Its report contained serious criticism of the Government’s response at both local and national levels. Families have been made to feel like bystanders rather than participants in the inquiry proceedings. They have not been given adequate notice of hearings or fast disclosure of legal papers, and many have been locked out by technical jargon and inadequate language support. Most shockingly, 31 months later, nine Grenfell households are still living in temporary accommodation. When are these families going to be allowed to get on with their lives?

At the start of the last election period, we were shown the truth of how some in the Government really think about the night of the Grenfell Tower fire. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) blamed Grenfell residents for lacking “common sense” by obeying the orders of the fire service to stay put. Defending him, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) explained that it was because he is more “clever” than the Grenfell victims. I have got to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I was appalled by these statements. In a different era, what would have followed making statements like that was the honourable thing, which is a resignation.

I am obviously glad that the Government have accepted all of the recommendations made by phase 1 of the inquiry. I of course congratulate Sir Martin Moore-Bick on a very thorough first phase report that is some 1,000 pages long, but there are things that we need to take away from that. While I, too, would not want to do anything but add my own tribute to those firemen who rushed towards so many people, as I said in the last debate, I am hugely disturbed that my friend Khadija Saye heard fire officers on her floor in the early hours of the morning, but those officers did not come to her door and, as it were, drag her and her mother out of that building. Had she left earlier, I am absolutely convinced that she would be alive today and would not have lost her life on the ninth floor.

I am concerned that we now need to create a new independent body—a national oversight mechanism—to make sure not just that the Government accept the recommendations, but that the recommendations are implemented. Because of all we have heard about previous fires, previous reviews, previous inquests, previous recommendations and then inaction, it is really important that we have some kind of body that sees, this time, that implementation flows as result of what everyone has been through.

We also need to reintroduce the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill to create a duty of candour from state and private bodies. It is of course important that we do not allow the sequencing of this inquiry to scapegoat the brave firefighters who risked their lives that night. The bulk of the responsibility lies with decision makers in successive Governments and private companies that cut corners on fire safety. By doing this, individuals in positions of power, in my view, committed gross negligence manslaughter.

While this House makes much of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s inquiry, let us not forget that there is a police investigation into the decisions that have been made— I hope that at some point the House is updated on how that police investigation is proceeding—because for many, justice will be served when survivors see arrests and prosecutions and see those responsible for this crime given the justice that many of us believe they deserve.

Grenfell: Government Response

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, when we made the decision to ban combustible cladding, we looked at what other practice was out there and how to standardise in that way. We are consulting on key elements of the new building regulation regime, so that we are in a position to legislate. He is right to talk about learning from experience elsewhere. That is what we are determined to do, so that we see a difference. As Members have said, this is about people’s lives and seeing change happening. It is not about dry reports or doing consultations; it is about seeing change come into effect, and that is what I am resolutely determined to do.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s statement, but he made no real or meaningful reference to the means of justice for the Grenfell families and the bereaved. That justice is delivered by two things. The first is the public inquiry. Can he say more about the delays that seem to be dogging the inquiry and the frustrations of the families and their lawyers in participating fully in it? The second is the police investigation. Can the police update us on it, if he cannot? Many here believe that there is culpability, which must one day be found in court.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point in his customary way. I know how much he has rightly challenged and been engaged in this issue. He may be aware that Metropolitan Police Service detectives investigating the Grenfell Tower fire have conducted 13 interviews under caution. That provides part of the criminal investigation into the fire, and Scotland Yard says that more interviews are being scheduled. This is clearly an ongoing investigation, with the police examining closely and assembling all relevant evidence, and it is right that we allow it to take its course.

The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the timetable of the public inquiry. It has been announced that the phase 1 report will be delayed until October this year. It is obviously an independent inquiry and process. The extension is to allow the inquiry to look thoroughly at the significant volume of evidence, and to allow time for what is known as a rule 13 process, which requires warning letters to be sent to individuals or organisations who may be subject to criticism. That is the process of the inquiry, which is independent of Government. It is for the inquiry to set out its timeline and needs.

Definition of Islamophobia

David Lammy Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

Precisely. Let me make some progress on that point.

We toured the length and breadth of the country, engaging in extensive consultation with Muslim communities, academics, lawyers, police officers, public services, civil society leaders and politicians. That is why our definition already has widespread backing from more than 750 British Muslim organisations—including the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Women’s Network and British Muslims for Secular Democracy—and from the First Minister of Scotland, the Mayor of London, local authorities across the country and the chair of the Government’s own working group on anti-Muslim hatred.

It is particularly disappointing to hear a noisy chorus of vocal opposition from many of the usual suspects, who are making arguments in bad faith that accuse us of trying to use the term “Islamophobia” to shut down criticism of Islam and introduce blasphemy laws by the back door. In fact, our report makes it crystal clear that our definition does not preclude criticism of Islam or Islamic theology. I am not Muslim. I do not believe that the Holy Koran is the received word of God or that the Prophet Mohammed was the seal of the prophets who I recognise from my Bible, who Jews would recognise from their Torah or who many people would fail to recognise at all because they think religious books belong in the fiction section of the local library. God, if we believe in such a thing, does not need protection from criticism. Ideas must always be subjected to debate and challenge.

The motivations of some of our critics are particularly exposed when they accuse us of pushing a definition written for us by others, including Muslim Engagement and Development and Cage—two organisations that have pointedly refused to support our definition. I would have thought it obvious by now that the right hon. Member for Broxtowe and I do not take kindly to being told what to do by anyone, let alone organisations with which we have serious disagreements.

Let me turn to some of the other concerns that have been expressed in good faith and reply in kind. Our definition does not cover sectarianism, which extends from the abuse levelled at our Home Secretary on social media by other Muslims calling him a “coconut”, through to the treatment of the Ahmadiyya community, which whom we are proud to engage through the work of our APPG. We recognise that sectarianism is a serious problem that extends beyond one religion and is worthy of separate consideration and action, just as the persecution of so-called non-believers or ex-believers is something we must consider further and separately.

Our definition does not prevent security and law enforcement agencies from recognising and fighting the threat posed to this country and other democracies by those with a warped view of Islam who carry out acts of violence and terrorism. Our definition does not prevent academics from pointing out the religious motivation behind, say, the sieges on Constantinople or the caliphate’s imposition of discriminatory taxes on Jews and Christians, just as we would discuss the role of Christianity in the crusades. Our definition does not prevent critical discussion about the conflict that can arise between conservative religious teaching and more liberal attitudes to issues such as human sexuality, the role of women, food laws, abortion and assisted dying.

While our definition cannot prevent false-flag accusations of Islamophobia to shut down reasonable debate and discussion, it does not enable such accusations. In fact, it makes it easier to deal with such behaviour. Context is everything. Our definition provides a framework for helping organisations to assess, understand and tackle real hatred, prejudice and discrimination.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an outstanding contribution to this very important discussion in this country. He raises the difficulty of terrorism, and he could also raise the very difficult issue of sexual grooming. Does he deplore and condemn the way in which this most minority of sinners who exist in every single ethnic group on the planet is being extrapolated to condemn an entire community? That is precisely what we are trying to get to grips with, through this important definition, to challenge those who take a terrible act by a small group of people and extend it to an entire ethnic group.

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree; that is exactly what we are trying to achieve. The story that is not written or told is about the faith leaders in my community who do not just know the challenge posed by hate preachers; they have physically wrestled them out of their mosques. Those are the same people who, when an act of terrorism is carried out in the name of one of the world’s great faiths, not only deplore the attack but know that they will be on the receiving end of the backlash, even though they believe their faith and the teaching of their religious text to be about peace and harmony.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady is right to say that the prejudices and hatred that I described in my opening remarks, and which were highlighted by the hon. Member for Ilford North, are undoubtedly cause for alarm and require action. There being no doubt about that, the argument is about whether this definition of Islamophobia is helpful or not. This debate is not about the intent or our shared commitment to dealing with hatred and prejudice, or about our determination to stand by the people the hon. Lady describes; it is about whether this initiative, APPG report and definition move things on or not. There are differing opinions about that, and they are not all spiteful, unhelpful or deliberately obstructive. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged in his speech, such opinions are exercised in good faith. People may, of course, have tangential views and not act in good faith—he drew attention to that as well—but not all criticism of this is based on bias. Indeed, some criticisms, such as that offered by Mohammed Abdel-Haq, are based on a fear of separation, segregation and stigmatisation.

Let me develop the argument a little further. The report essentially identifies Islamophobia as an exercise in racism, which presumes that the Muslim peoples of this country, or any country, are a race. Given that Islam is a religion, that proposition is of itself contentious, and has been described as such by some critics of the report. People who ascribe to that religion come from all kinds of places, are all kinds of colours and creeds, and adopt all kinds of different practices. Rather like Christians, some take a more fundamentalist view of their faith than others. To describe them as a race is, of itself, a bold, and some would argue contentious, view, yet that is what the report does by identifying Islamophobia as a matter of anti-racism.

My third point—for those who are counting, Mr Deputy Speaker—is that many existing laws deal with these things. When I was the Security Minister, I worked with Mark Rowley in the Home Office on counter-terrorism matters, so I know him well. The argument that he made on the BBC this morning is that existing legislative arrangements on incitement to hatred, discrimination and a panoply of other measures allow the police, if they so choose, to pursue people who behave in a way that is unacceptable and, much more seriously, illegal—there is a perfectly proper argument that the police do not do that enough. I do not make that argument, but others might. It is certainly right that the police should pursue those people, who should be questioned, charged and, where appropriate, prosecuted. However, the argument that we are starting from a blank sheet of paper belies the fact that all kinds of anti-discrimination and anti-racism laws exist that allow us to protect those who might be victims of such prejudice.

[Mr Lammy]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what the definition describes is a form of racism? It does not state racism per se, but rather forms of racism. Does he understand that the historical roots of racism began several hundred years ago, when at the time there was an understanding that the Christian, Ayran, European race was superior to others? For those with a different religious faith, there was a pecking order, which would have put my ancestors, who were African, at the bottom. That is where it comes from. It is a form of prejudice that comes from our history.

Tower Block Cladding

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Like my hon. Friend, I would like the funds to be available quickly. That is why we will be writing out to relevant agencies later this week with further details. This is about prioritising the funding becoming available to relevant housing associations and local government, and we will take action this week.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I have just come from the Grenfell inquiry, which began this morning. One of the survivors said to me, “If it was thought that combustible cladding was responsible for the fire and it had to come down, why is not banned?” Can the Secretary of State give some timetable on when combustible cladding will finally be banned?

[James Brokenshire]

I understand and hear very clearly the call that has been made. There are certain statutory obligations to consult under the Building Act 1984. That is why I have said that I am minded to make this change, subject to the consultation. My officials are working at pace in relation to getting that consultation out, because I hear the very clear message that the right hon. Gentleman is giving about the urgency of this.

Grenfell Tower

David Lammy Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to have a few minutes to speak in this debate, and because it is only a few minutes I want to focus on Khadija Saye, who died on the 20th floor. My interest in this is not wholly impartial, because Khadija worked for my wife as an intern. She was a beautiful 24-year-old woman with her life before her. She was really going to emerge as a fantastic artist and had already done some formidable work that was on show at the Venice Biennale.

Even though Khadija lived on the 20th floor, she died on the ninth floor of Grenfell Tower. I think that her mother was found further up, on the 16th or 17th floor. Khadija died, frankly, because the state failed her. The state told her to stay put and she stayed put. When she did leave, even though obviously she got spilt up from her mother, she did not quite make it out. Had she set about leaving earlier, she would probably be with us today. It is that business of state failure that I ask the new Secretary of State to reflect on.

When we have a Prime Minister who says that people will be housed within three weeks, that compounds state failure. When we have a community that ask for representation on an inquiry that speaks to them and their experience, and it takes so long to get that, that is state failure. When there are other people living in social housing and big tower housing blocks fully aware that the vast majority of Members of Parliament have not experienced living in a tower block, have not experienced social housing, and do not have families who have experienced it, and it takes this long to get a commitment to help fund the replacement cladding, that is also state failure.

I implore the Secretary of State to reflect hard on what “social” means. In the economy around us, “social” clearly has to mean something. That is why there is now so much emphasis on social housing and not just affordable housing. Affordable housing has come to mean something that might speak to a political class because they find it affordable—just—but certainly does not speak to many ordinary people. Let us put back in the “social” if we are to rebuild trust and make a commitment to Khadija and her mother Mary who died, and all those others who lost their lives, but also to the people who witnessed this most awful atrocity.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Lammy Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I pay tribute to the work of local government across the country. Local authorities have done a commendable job over the past few years of delivering high quality services in a difficult financial climate. I thank them, as I know their constituents do. On my hon. Friend’s point, I look forward to the representations from Devon and the south-west as we reform local government financing through the fair funding formula which is coming soon.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

24. On 4 July, the Secretary of State said to the House that he would help, with every precaution, local authorities dealing with the cladding problem across our country following the Grenfell Tower fire. Why, despite over 41 local authorities asking for that help and the Department giving £817 million back to the Treasury, has he not been able to find the money to help those poor worried people who are in those buildings as we speak?

[Rishi Sunak]

The Department is in discussions with multiple local authorities on the requirements to improve the safety of buildings. My understanding is that the Department has not said no to any local authority thus far that is seeking flexibility with those plans.