Black History Month

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is good that English Heritage is considering that plaque—probably one of the most northern such plaques outside London. It is important that we recognise the rich contribution of many black Britons right across the UK. I hope that she will be successful in her pursuit of the plaque.

The theme of this year’s Black History Month debate is “Honouring Our Communities”, which gives us the opportunity to recognise people from black communities up and down the country who work every day to make their area and our society better. They are people who start a business, mentor young people or volunteer their time to help run a community space, and whose contributions too often go unrecognised or underappreciated.

Although Black History Month is about celebrating black Britons who have delivered outstanding achievements across society, who have helped to forge the country and who are here today through their visibility, it is also about recognising people in all parts of the country who may not make the news nationally, but who everyone in their neighbourhood knows. These are people like Lorna Jackson MBE. Coming to England aged five, Lorna went on to be an educator for nearly 50 years and a headteacher for 25 years. Today, she continues to serve a diverse community in east London. They are people like Claudia Jones, a Trinidad and Tobago-born activist and journalist who was granted asylum in the UK after facing political persecution in the US.

In 1958, Claudia Jones founded the West Indian Gazette close to where I grew up in Brixton. The West Indian Gazette is often referred to as the first black newspaper in Britain. After the race riots of 1958, she organised the first Caribbean carnival in the UK, to coincide with the annual tradition in Trinidad, but as London is definitely a lot colder than Trinidad in January, the carnival was held at St Pancras town hall. It was a predecessor of Notting Hill carnival, which started in 1966 and continues to be a true celebration of culture and heritage to this day—thankfully in August and not in winter!

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) highlighted blue plaques. I was honoured to attend the unveiling of the English Heritage blue plaque dedicated to Claudia Jones three years ago, on 5 October 2023, outside a terraced house in my Vauxhall constituency that Jones called home for nearly four years—her longest place of residency in London.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Nubian Jak does an amazing job in ensuring that black pioneers are recognised all around the country with blue plaques?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I praise the efforts of Nubian Jak and Jak Beula’s work across not just London but the UK in recognising black Britons and their achievements.

In the face of barriers, both conscious and subconscious, black Britons have driven lasting, positive change in every community: change that has profoundly shaped the arts and culture of this country, that has made our politics more responsive and more representative, and that reminds us time and again that Britain’s historical and present diversity is a strength—something not to be torn down, but to be cherished and invested in.

When we speak about honouring our communities, we are talking about the individuals across Britain who made them. Our national story is incomplete without the story of Mary Seacole, whose statue stands proudly in the gardens of St Thomas’ hospital just over Westminster bridge. That powerful landmark in my constituency continues to remind me of the values and aspirations that I came to this House to represent.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my constituency neighbour and want to recognise the many black Britons across not just London, but right across the UK who continue to be celebrated and remembered by hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. I felt immense pride at being able to choose the statue of Mary Seacole as the backdrop for my entry to the 40% Project last year, which photographs female MPs in recognition of the progress we have made towards gender parity in this House.

This year’s theme feels especially relevant to the Windrush generation—so embedded in the fabric of black British history. Their legacy is not only the work they did, but in the communities they nurtured, the opportunities they created and the generations they inspired. Through the Windrush Day grant scheme, places across the country are telling stories in their own words, helping to ensure they are remembered and passed on. Their courage, perseverance and determination opened the doors for future generations, and that legacy continues to enrich our shared national history.

But the Windrush stories also tell us that we cannot ignore the struggles we still face today. Black Britons still face deep systemic challenges every day, and although this Government are committed to tackling racial inequality and racism, it is our local communities who are on the frontlines. We need only glance online to see the racist rhetoric that has sadly been normalised. If anyone does not believe this, we just need to look at the racism—and let’s call it what it is—that my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali) faced after she was announced as the candidate in the recent by-election. This type of politics has no place in our democracy, and I hope the whole House will join me in condemning it. Thankfully, my hon. Friend was undeterred and went on to win resounding support from her community, and I welcome her again to her rightful place on these Benches.

I want to praise the Leader of the Opposition for her comments during her conference speech. We can disagree about things in society, but we should never normalise questioning someone’s loyalty or nationality based on the colour of their skin. We see the horrific consequences of this in the news far too often, and I want to take a moment to recognise and remember Jason Arday. His tragic death must be a call to action for all of us. I worked with Jason when I led as the project manager at the Runnymede Trust. Jason was one of the youngest board members.

[Dawn Butler]

Professor Arday has touched so many of us, and I will also refer to him in my speech. I thank my hon. Friend for ensuring that his name will be remembered in this place in perpetuity.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend and Members who were able to join Jason’s family at the tribute organised by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). Unfortunately, I was not able to make that.

Just this week, the comedian Munya Chawawa described the racism and homophobia that he and some of the cast members from “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” faced at the Chichester Festival theatre during the production’s six-week run. He said:

“I think I saw more”

racism

“in those six weeks than I have actually seen across my entire lifetime, which is just an insane concept…Some of you heard we had to cancel a show because one of our cast members was attacked just before the show—that is just the tip of the iceberg.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Oh, that has made my day, Madam Deputy Speaker, because normally it is only my mum who remembers, so thank you so much. As the first black female MP Minister of this country—I was the first black female MP to stand at the Government Dispatch Box—it makes me really proud to see other black female MPs doing the same, such as the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith; I thank for her powerful opening speech. I am as proud today as I was last year when I witnessed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) at that Dispatch Box, and the year before when my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) was at that Dispatch Box. Watching generations of women coming after me makes me extremely proud.

The only thing I would ask the Government to do is to make sure that this debate is scheduled in the diary every year, so that we do not have this merry-go-round of applying to the Backbench Business Committee and then being told that the debate will be held in Government time. Let us just put it in the diary and have a set date, because this debate is becoming more and more fundamental. As was mentioned earlier, we are witnessing the unapologetic rise of the far right, the rise of racism and the rise of white supremacy. When Reform-led St Helens council shamefully announces that it will no longer formally observe Black History Month, we know that the rest of us have to make sure that we observe it, put it in the books and fight to ensure that black history is not erased, because black history is indeed a part of British history.

I want to start by acknowledging the man, who was mentioned earlier, who brought Black History Month to the UK—Mr Akyaaba Addai-Sebo. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for his tireless work to ensure that black history, black achievement and black identity are not erased, but celebrated. The theme this year is “Honouring Our Communities.” Recognising the everyday contributions of black people across the whole UK, whose work often goes unseen, is vital.

We have lost many of those people over the last year, and I apologise in advance for the many deserving names that I will not mention: Yvonne Brewster, the pioneer who co-founded Talawa Theatre Company; Gerlin Bean, the British black feminist and community organiser; Uriah Rennie, the trailblazing premier league referee; Syd Lawrence, the pioneering black England cricketer; Trevor Toussaint, the British television and theatre actor; and Sonny Blacks, one of the founders of Notting Hill carnival. Some of my personal friends have passed away: one of my closest friends, Kanya King, the British businesswoman and founder of the MOBO—Music of Black Origin—awards, who created that awards ceremony to recognise black music when the major industries did not; Bonnie Greer, the playwright, novelist and critic; Rennick Thomas, affectionately known as Tom, who had a bakery in Forest Gate and on Ridley Road, who was in a bakery war with my dad over who could produce the best hardo bread and bun, and who was my mum’s best friend after my dad died; and, lastly, Professor Jason Arday, who was an exceptional scholar of race and inequality. He joined the faculty of education at the University of Cambridge in 2023, and in August 2026 he was hounded to his death, the hunt started by a self-proclaimed eugenicist and white supremacist.

It would be incomplete to honour our communities without acknowledging what has been taken away. Last Saturday, I attended a reparations conference organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and it made me think of something. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I stole your Rolex watch, would it become mine? Of course not. If I gave that Rolex watch to my daughter, would it become hers? Of course not. A gift does not erase a theft. If she passed it to her child, would it suddenly become a family heirloom? Of course not. Time does not turn theft into ownership.

Now imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, that your daughter discovers the truth that your watch was stolen. Would she not have every right to ask for that watch back? Suppose I used that stolen watch as collateral to get a bank loan and bought a house, and passed that wealth on to my children? The benefit of that theft would be in my family for generation after generation. Some will say, “But today’s generation did not commit the wrong.” That would be true, but your daughter did not suffer the theft. Others will say, “But the past is the past. Leave it alone.” But if the benefits of the injustice are still being enjoyed, then the consequences are not in the past at all, but are actually in the present.

That is the principle behind reparations. It is about recognising that the passage of time does not transform an injustice into a rightful inheritance. If time alone can turn stolen property into rightful ownership, what we are actually saying is that stealing is okay—we merely have to wait until people die and hope that the truth is not exposed or told. The issue is not about inherited guilt, but about inherited benefit and inherited loss. If we would not accept that argument for a stolen watch, why should we accept it for stolen labour, stolen wealth, stolen land or stolen opportunity?

When we look at the world today, we still see the legacy of historic injustice. Across Africa and the Caribbean, the effects of centuries of exploitation remain visible. We can all recognise the iconic Louis Vuitton pattern, but where did it originate from? The Adinkra symbols of the Akan people of Ghana predate many luxury brands by centuries. These are symbols rich in meaning and history. The oldest surviving Adinkra cloth is kept in a place that holds the largest collection of stolen property in the world: the British Museum. Where is the line between appreciation and appropriation? Appreciation acknowledges and credits the source; appropriation too often profits from culture while erasing its origins.

Exploiting indigenous cultures for profit should not be normalised or accepted. That is why the theme of honouring our communities is so important. The Maasai Intellectual Property Initiative is so powerful, because it was established to address the unauthorised use of Maasai branding. It enables businesses to work with the Maasai tribe ethically, ensuring that the benefits flow back to the Maasai people. It is so important in this debate, when we are honouring communities, that we give back, especially what is stolen and what is owed.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not just talk the talk; I walk the walk. I created the Bernie Grant leadership programme, the £1 student fees to get young people engaged in politics, and the parliamentary black caucus, because change will not happen without action. Sometimes this period of time feels extremely overwhelming when we think about the rise of racism and the far right, and all that is thrown at us. The civil rights activist John Lewis said:

“Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Ours is not the struggle of one day, one week or one year. Ours is the struggle of a lifetime, or even many lifetimes, and each one of us, in every generation, must do our part.”

So, my question to those of us here and to the country is: have you done your part in this struggle? For me, I want to see the end to racist practices and structures in different institutions all across the world in my lifetime. We should not be afraid to call out wrongdoing. Whether it is violence against women and girls, paedophiles, class war, genocide or racism, we need to call it out so we can end it in our lifetime.

John Lewis also said:

“Never be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble”.

I am known to get in a little bit of trouble from time to time. I may have got into trouble earlier; we will soon see. But I show up. International Women’s Day debates—I show up. International Men’s Day debates—I show up. Debates on white working class boys—I show up. LGBTQI+ debates—I show up. If we are going to beat the racists, we have to show up. We have show up for each other. We have to speak out and show up to protect black and brown people. We have to show up for them when they are being abused and discriminated against online. We have to show up. When we show up and when we unite, we will never be defeated.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I further remind Members that the Jason Arday case is sub judice, because the inquest has been opened and adjourned. While tributes are welcome and allowed in this debate, Members should not stray into the circumstances on contributory factors to his death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee]

My hon. Friend should be careful what he wishes for, because he will be caught out if he is not careful!

I want it to be normal—to be a given—and for it to happen right across this island home of ours that someone like me can serve in this House. We all know that black history is British history, and that is certainly true in the context of our United Kingdom. That should not be a controversial or difficult thing to say, so I will say it again: black history is British history.

I am tired of people who should know better—some who sit in this House—who appear determined to tear our communities apart; people obsessed with division rather than unity; people who profess an empty and meaningless care for and commitment to this country. It is not British to walk by on the other side, and those political leaders who seek to tell us otherwise should know better. Let me also say to some in this House, although I note they are not in the Chamber, “If you have an identity crisis and do not know who you are, if you are unsure how to be comfortable in your own skin, I am really sorry for you, but please do not project your insecurities on to the rest of us. Do not infect our national life with your complete and utter rubbish.”

I am proud of who I am and where I am from; I was blessed to be born into a family who made sure that me and my siblings felt that. I am proud of my white English grandmother who had some Irish in her too, of my Jamaican grandfather who made this country his home, of my dad’s parents born in Southern Rhodesia when it was run by this Parliament: I am proud of my Englishness, my African routes and my Caribbean heritage. Nobody—and I mean nobody—is going to make me feel otherwise, tell me otherwise, or make me question that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

As we approach Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday in a couple of weeks’ time, when our United Kingdom comes together to reflect and acknowledge the sacrifices of all the men and boys who went to war—and all the women who kept the show on the road at home—nobody in the Chamber today, in any political party, in any community in our country or in any corner of this land should ever forget that we would never have beaten the fascists on the beaches of Normandy or at Gallipoli without the bravery and valour of young men—black, white and Asian. Their bravery won the day.

For many of those who returned from the frontline, our United Kingdom became their home. Those black men and women rolled up their sleeves, put their shoulders to the wheel and helped rebuild a nation ravaged by war. As I have acknowledged before, with their skills and smarts, homes were built, our buses were back on the road, railways worked once again—though I say as someone who has to get the Avanti train back to North Staffordshire every Thursday that we could do with more of their railway working today. Our national health service was established, and as a husband to a nurse, that is particularly important to me. Restaurants opened and sold food with spice, seasoning and everything nice; fabric shops and tailors ensured that our country had some of the best dressed people on the world stage, and our United Kingdom bounced back.

So much more happened, and we as a country would and could not have done it without the sacrifices and contribution of the black British community. And you know what, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is okay for us to say that. I have said this before to the House, and I will say it again: that does not take away from white people, Asian people or those of mixed heritage. We all have a contribution to make, and we all deserve to have that contribution acknowledged and celebrated. It is that blend, that connection and that understanding that we must use Black History Month this year and every year to hold on to.

For me, this is as much about class as it is about race. The black families I represent in Chesterton, Silverdale or Madeley in Newcastle-under-Lyme who moved there to build a life and raise their families have not had the same experiences as people like Kwasi Kwarteng, for example. Those families live in exactly the same economic situations as their white neighbours. We have a wider challenge before us: how do we build an economy that works for all of our people? How do we uplift, enrich and empower all of our people?

While I absolutely believe that the contribution made by the black British community must be acknowledged every single day of the year, I welcome the focus that Black History Month provides for all of us to celebrate, enjoy and recognise that. As we celebrate Black History Month, I like to reflect on the promise of our country—to think that my grandfather arrived here on a boat during the war, and here I am today.

My grandfather came to this country before Windrush. Everyone who has spoken in this debate has, quite rightly, mentioned Windrush. I do not say this to them, but I say generally that there were black people in this country before 1948. The experiences of my grandfather and the men who came with him on that boat in 1941 made it ever so slightly easier for those who came after them, and it is important that we remember those people, too. My standing here today would not happen in many other parts of the world, but it happened in this, our United Kingdom, and we should never forget that.

I am proud of my race, but it does not define me. It inspires me every single day. It has opened doors for me; regrettably, I suspect it has closed a few, too. It allows me to show those who come after me that anything is possible.

My hon. Friend the Minister touched on online racism and the fact that some seek to normalise it, as did the hon. Member for Chichester when talking about our friend, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). I have never been so conscious of the colour of my skin as I have been when calling out the racists throwing abuse towards the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and the hon. Members for Eastbourne and for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). While listening to colleagues, I have been looking through the responses on Twitter to when I called out that racism, and I want to share a couple with the House.

I was called “another foreigner” in British politics. I was born here. Boris Johnson, another former Prime Minister, was born in the United States, but I do not think he is called a foreigner. What does that tell us? Another called me a “parasite”. My favourite was being told that

“with a surname like that, you cannot be English.”

It is a real shame that there are some in our country who have so little going on in their lives that they have the time to talk such garbage. As my near-ish neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) pointed out earlier, no one is born racist. But it is important that I give this snapshot of what happens when someone who looks like me in this House calls out that racism.

Racism is not just online; it happens on our streets, too. Look at what we saw earlier this year in Northern Ireland—a place I know well, as my wife is from there and we spend as much time there as we can. The streets of this country saw black and Asian people chased out of their homes and hospital workers hiding in the boots of their white neighbours’ cars because they were scared they would not get home. [Interruption.] In 2026, that is an utter disgrace. It is not who we are, and it must never be who we become. [Interruption.] This is quite good going for me—I did actually cry when I gave my speech at my wedding, so this is an improvement. I spoke for 28 minutes when I got married, though, so I will have to see how tolerant you will be of me this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Over the past decade, I have had the honour of attending Black History Month events at local schools, churches and community hubs. I have listened to children speak of their lived experiences, good and bad, and heard pensioners recall the stories of their ancestors. The overwhelming feeling I come away with every year at the end of this month is how proud we should all be of the black British contribution made to our communities.

There has been talk of reparations in this debate and in recent weeks, ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Antigua. I am the descendant of slaves, and I want to share my view. I say this, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, as someone who is very proud of and aware of who he is, where he is from and what he is on earth to do. Who do we pay? What value do we put on the lives of those disgracefully, immorally and forcibly removed from their homes? Where does it stop?

I know where I think it can start: with a British Government who take the Commonwealth seriously and who stop lumping together the Africa and development briefs in the Foreign Office. We have to stop looking at our relationship with Africa through the prism of making ourselves feel better with a development policy approach—there is more to Africa and our relationship with Africa than just development. It starts by ensuring that we reflect on the legacy of the British empire and our collective and complicated history and by properly and effectively trading with the Caribbean and Africa—as much as I love Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we must do more and go further. We should be establishing genuine and real links between our leaders, and I hope that my more senior colleagues in government will lead by example. I want to see more ministerial visits to the former colonies—I say this word consciously—because it is on those visits that we can show our equal partners the respect that they deserve. That would go so much further in acknowledging the contribution that our forefathers made and that the black community is making today, and it would show that this Government get it.

When my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) became Prime Minister, I was asked to become Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Education. I was told that that, on paper, is the first step on the ministerial ladder—in reality, on occasion it feels a little different. But it is an important role, because through it, I am determined to ensure that everyone who needs the skills to succeed is able to get them, that everyone who wants to seize the opportunities before them is able to do so, and that we give our young people—all our young people—the tools to succeed and thrive.

I said in my maiden speech that my becoming a parliamentarian

“was not inevitable, but it was possible.”—[Official Report, 29 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1122.]

The fact that I am a parliamentarian tells me how far the black community has come—from my grandfather getting off the boat in a cold Liverpool in 1941 to me this morning, late, getting off the tube at Westminster station and taking my seat on these green Benches. The fact that I am in Parliament reminds us of what we need to do to lift everybody up, and is a reminder of the age-old value that I have repeated on many occasions: anything can be possible in this United Kingdom of ours.

We all know that the black community has made an unbelievable contribution to the life and soul of this country, from music and the arts to film and sports—and, yes, to food, although the hon. Member for Beaconsfield mentioned the House of Commons jerk chicken earlier, and let me tell her: that is not jerk chicken. There are a couple of places we can go if she wants to taste some. Having said that, my white English grandmother was born and raised in a white working-class family in Birkenhead in the 1920s, but after having been with my grandfather for half a century, her rice and peas was second to none. I just wish she had passed that down to all of her 10 daughters—

[Dawn Butler]

And sons.

[Adam Jogee]

No, no—we will talk about that later. [Laughter.] Some things are complicated.

Under this Prime Minister, there is a renewed determination and focus to bring our country together, to tackle injustice wherever we find it, and not to let the haters win. Let us get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

We are all extremely proud of the Serjeant at Arms.

I start by congratulating my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on her powerful opening speech. I hope that there is some pepper soup in her future to help with her cold. I join her in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), who has, in our time in this place, led this debate on a number of occasions. I also pay tribute to her because earlier this week I read out a list of names and inadvertently missed her off it. She may wonder why this is the fourth time I am apologising. Perhaps it is the death stare she gave me on the day, or perhaps it is how she has looked at me from out the side of her eye ever since. It might be because I cannot allow the idea that I would shadily forget her, of all people. She is my fellow British-Ghanian MP, of whom I am extremely proud.

When we err publicly, we should atone in the same way. I put on record that my hon. Friend has been a huge support to me, particularly in the past few months, as I have dealt with a challenging time as the Member of Parliament for the Arday family. I know her well enough to know that she will look at me from out the side of her eye until at least 2027, which is not too far away, but I hope that this House now knows that she is somebody who I celebrate in my community.

As we celebrate our friends and community members, it is important that we do not lose sight of the dangerous times that we live in. Online hate is rising, and foreign billionaires such as Elon Musk pour time, money and energy into far-right movements, such as the one led by Tommy Robinson. Racism is no longer whispered; it is amplified, monetised and making its way into our politics. That is why this debate is not a nicety, but a necessity.

Despite what some in the Reform party would like to suggest, black Britons are British, our history is British history and our contributions are equal to those of other Britons and equally worthy of celebration. Before the online trolls pile in with the inevitable, “Why do we have Black History Month? What about White History Month?”, I remind them that had they paid attention in school, they would know that the history of other Britons has dominated our curriculum and that happens all throughout the year. We have a Black History Month as just one month to honour those who were clearly written out of our history books. Black History Month is intended to exist until such a time as those Britons are truly incorporated. It is a means to an end. It was never intended to be an end in itself. We say that black history is British history simply as a call to action.

Black History Month was first marked in October 1987, as we have heard repeatedly, and it was specifically done on the 150th anniversary of Caribbean emancipation. It was organised by Akyaaba Addai-Sebo, a Ghanaian-born special projects officer at the Greater London council. He has been trying tirelessly, particularly as we move to the 40-year celebration next year, to get in touch with Ministers, the Mayor of London and others to make sure that he is included in the celebrations. I hope Members have heard that and will encourage that, as he was the person who led on this.

I was pleased to hear the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), saying that black history is British history during her opening speech, because I understand from comments left on my own social media that that is not the view of everybody in the House. I posted a video of me speaking during Black History Month perhaps a couple of years ago, making that specific point that black history is British history. Her colleague commented that that was not the case. They did not make a racist comment, but they made a point about how it was divisive.

On the same post, I received a lot of racist abuse—some of a kind that I had not necessarily seen in that volume before. I had people calling me the N-word, people telling me to eff-off and go back to where I came from, and people sending monkey photographs. All those sorts of things show just how turbocharged things are. The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said that things seem to be going backwards, and I think we need to keep an eye on it. As we look forward to the 40-year celebration of Black History Month next year, I hope a lot more effort is put into challenging racism, right from the top in this House.

We have to remember that Black History Month began as an act of resistance, a way to challenge racism and inspire young people, and a way to repair the record. Today it is a fixture in our national calendar, with thousands of events every October. That is why we find that some Members are losing their voice because of all those events every October. It became a fixture not by accident, but because campaigners, activists and educators fought for it, and they still do. They make sure that our young people learn things that we were never taught. They lift up names that would otherwise be forgotten, and they push back against those who profit from dividing our communities.

Every year, however, black Members are forced to play a guessing game. We look on the Order Paper with no idea whether this month we will be honoured with a debate in this Chamber. While I am pleased that this debate is being held in Government time, Black History Month has happened every October since 1987. That means it is almost as old as me and, as my aunt reminded me last week, I am much older than she thought I was. There is absolutely no reason why this debate should not be a permanent fixture, and I hope that the Minister will take that request to the Leader of the House.

We cannot talk about black history without talking about reparations. I say that because the existence of black history is reparatory in itself. I pay tribute to those Members in this House—the first black Members in this House—who made that point repeatedly. There was Bernie Grant MP, who was the first to ask a question in Prime Minister’s questions on it. He was the founder of the UK reparations movement. Our Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), has led many meetings in Parliament on this issue, including when I worked for her. Lord Paul Boateng continues to lead the charge in the other place on the restitution of artefacts and human remains.

My old history teacher, Mr Melvin Smart, passed earlier this year. He said that we study the past to live the present with an eye on the future, and that is just it. Reparations are not meant to be about guilt, but repair; looking at what we did wrong and attempting to fix it. It is not meant just to be about money, but that is what always happens. We talk about it in financial terms, and we talk about paying. We talk about who gets paid and all the things that can easily be slammed down, instead of talking about all the things that we could move forward with.

[Dawn Butler]

I thank my hon. Friend for her incredible conference last week, which saw thousands of people attend, and the debates we had. One of the signs that resonated for me, in terms of reparations, was “First stop the harm”. Does she agree that that is a fundamental part of reparations?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The idea of reparatory justice is to acknowledge that the reason we have to have a month even to celebrate black history is that we have not addressed the harm. We have not gone about repairing all the things that are wrong, including in our education system. We talk about all the different elements of discrimination that black people face in this country, and that is because we have not gone about repairing those institutions that lead to that discrimination. She is absolutely right about that.

We need to make people understand that reparations cannot possibly just be about money. Money is perhaps the smallest part of it, because there would be no point in giving any individual or any country a whole heap of money if we were not first going to repair the institutions and the relationships, because otherwise things would not change. That is the reality of the situation, and I think people are beginning to realise that. That is why there has been a huge move forward this year with the campaign globally for reparations.

In March, the United Nations General Assembly declared the transatlantic trafficking of enslaved Africans as

“the gravest crime against humanity”.

That was 123 nations declaring that. In Accra, Governments and campaigners have gathered to decide what comes next. The Jamaican Government gave a petition to the King, which has now been referred to the Privy Council. CARICOM—the Caribbean Community—has revised its 10-point plan. In the UK, we had our largest conference ever on reparatory justice, with grassroots campaigners, scholars, parliamentarians and Heads of State speaking, all with one demand: understanding where a country like ours built its wealth, why that led to the discrimination faced by people in terms of enslavement, and asking that as a country we first apologise and then seek to do what we can to repair the damage. That can be done in a number of ways, including education—what we are doing right now is a form of reparatory justice—and returning artefacts, as was discussed, or even just human remains.

Some hon. Members may remember that earlier this year I had a ten-minute rule Bill when we found that numerous human remains are being held in boxes or sold on auction sites, and many of those have come from colonial times. It is a disgusting practice. To deny peoples of African descent dignity even in death points to the discrimination they still face. It is so important that this movement can no longer be ignored; it cannot be ignored by the Government or by the House. We need to think as a country about how we will go about the work of repair.

Black History Month cannot be only for talking about these issues and perhaps celebrating, as we have throughout the debate, although that is really important. It must also be about honesty and what we are still getting wrong. This year, our community lost Professor Jason Arday, the youngest black professor in Cambridge’s history, my constituent and my friend. How he died is a matter for the coroner—I will say nothing that gets in the way of that—but how he was treated is a matter for all of us. It is not right that we have not been given the opportunity to discuss that. Nearly 30,000 people stood in Trafalgar Square for Jason and vigils were held across the country. The public did not stay silent, yet when a few weeks ago at business questions I stood to ask the House why it had not discussed him, I was asking a question that I should never have had to ask in the first place.

The House has debated other issues in relation to press conduct—it has done so for Milly Dowler, Lucy Meadows, Caroline Flack and others—and Jason deserves no less. I put it to the Government that it is still not too late for them to come to the House with a statement. We cannot stand here every October and celebrate black excellence and then look away when black excellence is torn down in front of us. We cannot honour the names in the history books and ignore those being dragged through the newspapers today. Celebration without reflection is just performance, and we are no one’s minstrels.

Those who are good at maths will know that next year marks the 40th anniversary of Black History Month in the UK. Plans are already under way, with resources being prepared for schools and communities across the country. Again, I encourage the Government and the Mayor of London to be in touch with the founder of Black History Month in the UK, Akyaaba Addai-Sebo, and his team, who really want input into the conversation and the plans we have.

Windrush Day

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

It is an absolute and wonderful pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and her beautiful tribute to the Windrush generation and her constituents. I know how much they appreciate the fact that she calls for this debate in Parliament every single year, and I concur with her on the beautiful exhibition in Portcullis House. However, I slightly disagree on raising the Windrush’s anchor. I have had this conversation with Sir Patrick Vernon, and I would prefer the money to be spent on a learning centre and an educational trust. I feel that would be a more worthwhile spend of money.

My mum and dad came here on British passports. They would be considered part of the Windrush generation, and they are extremely proud of coming on their British passports. The way they were taught English in school was way better than how we were taught English in school, and we often got into trouble for how we spoke, because we were not speaking the Queen’s English. I remember being in the garden with my father one day and asking him to sing the national anthem. He started singing “God Save the Queen”, but I wanted him to sing the Jamaican national anthem, because I wanted to learn it. There is a deep history there. As my hon. Friend said in her moving speech, some politicians are trying to divide us, but there is so much that unites us.

The Windrush scandal has been such a painful time. The first time I heard of it was when Winston, as I will call him, came to see me in my surgery. He had been working for the council for 40 years and was looking forward to his retirement, but when it was time for retirement, he was told that because he was not legally here, he would not have access to his pension. I was absolutely stunned by that. Sometimes constituents do not tell us the full story, and I thought that maybe there was more to it, but on further investigation I found that it was just a complete injustice.

Winston was embarrassed and ashamed. I would say to him that it was not his embarrassment or shame to carry, because this was something done to him by the British Government. However, there is a lack of understanding of the pride that this generation brings with them, as seen in how they carry themselves, how they speak and how they dress. People carrying things in a plastic bag is a no-no in the Jamaican community. If it is see-through, it is called a scandal bag, and is embarrassing because nobody should see what someone has in their bag. There is a lot of pride, which is why this has caused such embarrassment and shame.

I asked Jacqui McKenzie, who is the head of immigration, asylum and Windrush cases at Leigh Day, about the cases she is currently dealing with. The first issue, she said, is the excessive delay, with some people waiting four years. Many of them are very elderly, and the stress of the wait has caused illnesses such as dementia. We should hold our heads in shame. There are problems with claims for loss of earnings and the impact on people of a life lived in limbo, waiting for a decision, or in shame, waiting for the Government to acknowledge they belong in the country. That has a profound effect, and the fact that it is not considered is unacceptable. People were sacked from their jobs and they did not get their promotions. Some people could not find places to live or to rent, and as I have mentioned, they did not get their pensions. All of this is unacceptable.

Caseworkers are currently not sufficiently trained. Constituents have told me that caseworkers have said to them, “Whereabouts is that?” or, “Are you sure?” when they present information. Teachers have contacted me saying that they can vouch for the West Indian children they taught in their schools if we need evidence, and that is how the community is coming together to try to right these wrongs.

Jacqui also mentioned the misinterpretation of demonstrating lawful status, which has led to cases being refused incorrectly. For example, two brothers, now in their 30s, applied for indefinite leave to remain in 2008 as children of settled Windrush parents. The Home Office wrongly refused their application, but years later the Home Office admitted it had made a mistake. However, it has not corrected the knock-on effects that the error caused, and those brothers are still waiting for justice five years later.

I have constituents who went to Jamaica to visit family or bury a relative, and when they went to the airport, they were told they could not come back and they were stuck in Jamaica. We have cases of people stuck in Jamaica for 10 years—10 years! One resident who is stuck in Jamaica has plenty of evidence, but he has been refused compensation based on having no lawful status, which is wrong. He was offered £10,000, but then was told that giving him that amount of money was a mistake, which has retraumatised him, and he is now showing signs of dementia.

There are problems with requests for updates, and there is a lack of transparency and a lack of care. All of this is unacceptable. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there is also a discrepancy between claimants in decision making. In exactly the same cases, sometimes in the same family, when people have presented their information, they have been given different awards. Some get no award, some get £10,000 and some get £40,000. All this shows that the system is not fit for purpose.

The scheme should be moved from the Home Office, which should never have been the administrator of a scheme when it was responsible for the injustice it has inflicted on others. We also need a truly independent appeal mechanism, as well as more experienced staff. At the moment, constituents have to go to the ombudsman, which means they have to go to their MP, who has to sign the application, so we need a straightforward appeal system. The current system is built to retraumatise people who have been wronged.

Lastly, we need a Windrush inquiry. We really need to know and understand the cause of the scandal, but also why it is still ongoing. We should be providing redress instead of causing trauma. Next year is the 10th anniversary of this scandal, and the consequences and injustices are still ongoing. It is our job to do this, and when the Minister gets to her feet, I hope she will commit to our putting these injustices right.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler]

My hon. Friend and I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. There are many times when we agree on things, believe it or not—people think we do not agree across the House sometimes. Does she agree that not only was the racism real then but it is really disappointing that that generation is now saying that what is happening on our streets and the abuse that they are getting today is very reminiscent of what happened when they first came to the country? We must set a better example and ensure that parliamentarians stop stoking division and hate in our country.

[Mims Davies]

I believe the hon. Lady to be my friend as well. I completely agree with standing up to that abhorrent behaviour and to those seeking to divide us. It is right that we reflect on the discrimination that many of the Windrush generation felt around housing, employment and daily life—barriers that no one in a fair society should endure. That is true now as much as then. Any injustices that are lingering need to be understood and dealt with.

The hon. Member for Brent East rightly said that the experience of racism should belong to the past. We must never forget it, but we should also recognise that, as a country, we have changed fundamentally. As the Sewell report made clear, Britain is not a racist country, and that ought to be celebrated as an immense achievement, giving us renewed commitment, as the hon. Member said, to continue to tackle inequalities and ensure that they do not remain.

There is a balance to be struck. In confronting injustice, we should also recognise how far Britain has come, so that people do not drag us back to the past. The overt racism that shaped the early experiences of the Windrush generation is unthinkable in today’s society—although we must recognise that some people may still experience it.

The Conservatives truly and simply believe in treating people as individuals, not categories. Perhaps that is why we have been led by four women, and two people with ethnic minority backgrounds, and I am incredibly proud of that. That brings us to a broader truth about modern Britain: the Leader of the Opposition has argued that our country stands as a successful multiracial democracy, where people from different backgrounds rightly can and should be able to live together under our shared laws, values and institutions with respect. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield reflected on learning to be British, but we still love her accent—she did not hear that because she is not listening, but there we go.

Our diversity is real, but so too is our unity. As the shield of Jo Cox on the Chamber wall behind me says—10 years on—there is so much more that unites us than divides us, and we truly have more in common. That was pointed out by the hon. Member for Brent East, who is my co-chair on the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament. We must push and highlight the importance of women having voices and the vote, as we head to 2029 and the anniversary of universal suffrage. We cannot stand by and let any of that be eroded in this country or beyond. Our public bodies and institutions must have a common commitment to fairness and opportunity, so that we can preserve all that lies within that ideal.

The Windrush generation shows that people from different backgrounds can come together, contribute, and fully and roundly succeed, by not retreating into separate identities—that is the danger—but building something that is truly shared and celebrated.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly loved hearing about the work of Baroness Benjamin—I think we all look up to the Baroness. In fact, coming to work in this place and finding out that she worked here too was pretty cool, which slightly shows my age—I don’t think I should keep going down that route! Today, we truly honour the Windrush generation’s great legacy. We do so with gratitude and we celebrate their success. It is a national success that is worth sharing this year and into the future.

Grenfell Tower Fire: Ninth Anniversary

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

This Sunday will be the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell tower fire. With thousands of others, I will join the silent walk on father’s day to remember the 72 people who lost their lives in an entirely preventable and foreseen tragedy, and to support families who lost parents, siblings and children in unimaginable circumstances.

I know that for the bereaved and for survivors, and for our community in Kensington and Bayswater, this is always a difficult time, because nine years on, there has been no criminal accountability for those responsible; nine years on, the pace of change at local government and at national level is too often too slow; and nine years on, the cladding crisis still affects hundreds of thousands of people across the country. I pay tribute to all those who continue to advocate for truth, justice and change for Grenfell, and to everyone across the country affected by this national scandal.

But it would be a mistake to give up hope. The Metropolitan police said last month that it will hand over files to the Crown Prosecution Service in September this year and that the CPS will make charging decisions by the 10th anniversary in 2027—20 organisations and 57 individuals could face criminal charges, and potential offences under consideration include corporate manslaughter, gross negligence manslaughter, fraud, health and safety breaches, and misconduct in public office.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Justice delayed is justice denied. It is great that the Met has now come to this position. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should try to ensure that the cases are fast-tracked in our criminal system so that justice can now be speeded up?

[Joe Powell]

My hon. Friend is right. We have seen, in recent history, that with events of national significance—from Southport to the recent disturbances on our streets—the criminal justice system has moved really quickly because of the importance of showing that justice is seen to be done. I hope that once the CPS has made its decisions, we will do everything we can to ensure that the court capacity is in place to deliver the trials as soon as possible. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the investigation will continue to be fully funded and that that planning is already taking place with the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice so that the cases are prioritised. If those trials take place, which I obviously hope they will, they will be some of the most complex ever held in the UK. I therefore hope that consideration is also given to a special court or a Nightingale-style court. I know that is being looked at.

Corporate manslaughter convictions are incredibly rare, so it is essential that those responsible face the full force of the law. I also believe that it is completely wrong for any company cited in the public inquiry still to be receiving public contracts. In December I uncovered dozens of contracts with implicated companies, including two current NHS contracts with Rydon, the main contractor for the refurbishment, which was cited in the public inquiry. I urge all public bodies to do a full audit of their contracts, including subcontractors and supply chains, and publish exactly what they find. It is good news that this Government have introduced new powers to exclude companies on grounds such as professional misconduct. Now is the time for procurement offices to start using them.

We have already had a public inquiry that has laid out in stark terms why the fire happened and where responsibility lies, and I am glad that this Government have accepted the recommendations in full and that important progress is being made. It is important not to forget that. The last report shows that 20 of 61 recommendations are complete and 40 are in progress. I am glad that those include progress towards a single construction regulator, the expansion of product regulation, the introduction of residential personal emergency evacuation plans, the idea of a college of fire and rescue, and proposed changes to the statutory fire safety guidance in approved document B.

I am also pleased that, under Lord Roe in the other place, the performance of the Building Safety Regulator is improving, including signing off remediation works more quickly. I welcome the remediation Bill in the King’s Speech, on which I look forward to engaging in this parliamentary Session, so that we can address the outstanding unremediated buildings and the knock-on effects, such as crippling insurance bills for leaseholders.

I acknowledge all that progress, but there is one missing piece of the jigsaw: oversight and accountability. The online tracker for Grenfell recommendations is no doubt helpful, but Grenfell would not have happened at all if we had properly learned the lessons from the Lakanal House fire in 2009 and listened to the coroner’s recommendations. Instead, they sat on a shelf, and an opportunity to save lives was missed. We need a proper system of tracking and following up, not just on major inquiries that get a lot of attention here, but on all the inquests and investigations that lead to recommendations for change. That is why I continue to support the idea of a national oversight mechanism as a legacy for Grenfell.

On 25 February, the Secretary of State said in this House, in answer to my question:

“Work is continuing across Government, including in my Department, on setting up a national oversight mechanism”.—[Official Report, 25 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 363.]

I hope that the Minister can provide us with an update on that work and tell us when we can expect a decision to be made. Such a mechanism would sit alongside the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—which I hope to see back here soon, as landmark reforms that put power in the hands of citizens: a real duty of candour for the state, a level playing field for legal aid, and clear deterrence for misconduct in public office. If we design those well, they will lead to fewer and shorter inquiries, more rapid lesson learning by the state and a culture shift towards openness, which can contribute to the rebuilding of trust in politics and in government in this country.

The culture shift that we need extends to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I am deeply disappointed that the first decision of the Conservative leadership in the new council term last month was to remove an opposition chair of the housing scrutiny committee. Since Grenfell, that position has been promised to an opposition councillor. It is still unclear to me why or how that decision was taken, because avoiding scrutiny, especially for this council, which is so culpable for the fire, is an extremely bad look. I call on the leadership to think again and to reverse that decision.

Residents in RBKC know that the council needs scrutiny. The independent Regulator of Social Housing reported last year that the housing department was seriously failing, giving it a C3 rating. The council has the third worst complaints record in the country. It likes to say that it gets the basics right. Well, meeting the decent homes standard, so that everyone can have the minimum of a safe and healthy home, is surely a basic human right that any council should be delivering.

The Lancaster West estate surrounding Grenfell is a good example. After the fire, the promise was a model 21st-century housing estate, and that promise is still unfulfilled. I am glad that the Government have stepped in with an additional £8 million to ensure that there are no further delays to the current work, and that that will come alongside additional scrutiny on how that money is spent. I hope that the Minister can provide more details on how residents can be involved, including leaseholders and others, so that new oversight can be shaped by them and that they have confidence in the arrangement. I am also pleased that support was extended to NHS services through the period of the deconstruction of the tower, given the acute risk of mental health issues, and to five local primary schools to provide trauma-informed education around the community.

My final point is a simple one: with the passage of time, we cannot allow a return to business as usual before the fire. Already, we hear rumbles from parts of the construction industry and even, shamefully, some political parties, saying that Grenfell is somehow responsible for the slowdown in house building or that fire safety is a trade-off worth considering. There will always be policy choices for local and national Government to make, but putting life at risk should not be a trade-off we accept. I hope we can work together with empathy and respect—something I suspect Jo Cox would have wanted—and ensure that the legacy of Grenfell is that everyone in this country, regardless of class, race, geography or age, lives in a safe and healthy home.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) and to have heard all the incredible speeches today. I thank my wonderful hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for securing this debate on the legacy of Jo Cox—her sister and our friend. The debate has brought the House together in considering where we should be as a House and a society. The Opposition Members who really need to listen to this debate are not here—I do not mean the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), who gave an amazing speech, or the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). There are others who sit on those Benches who we know—we are dancing around it—are the agitators of a lot of hate. That is their hallmark.

I want to talk about a sunny evening. I grabbed my karaoke machine, two microphones and a bottle of vodka, and headed to a boat party for the 2015 intake, hosted by Jo Cox in Wapping. We croaked out some amazing songs. As we drank, the songs got better and longer. I think Jo sang “I Know Him So Well”—the extended version by Elaine Paige—which I know she sang many times with her younger sister. They even had dance moves—I have seen the videos. It was an evening of joy and laughter, and I actually forgot about the awards that we gave out. It was a wonderful evening of fellowship and love. Actually, I have a confession to make, so I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) is not in the Chamber: I got us a taxi there and he got me a taxi home, and I may have had to ask the driver to pull over so I could be sick. If my right hon. Friend’s Uber rating went down a bit, that may have been my responsibility. I feel like now is the time to make that confession—it just feels right.

On 16 June, as I lay on the sofa recovering from the boat party, it flashed up on the news that an MP had been stabbed. The WhatsApp group exploded. We were all thinking, “Who’s that? Who could that be?” It was unbelievable when somebody said that it was Jo—it can’t be Jo. I also thought, “How can it be Jo? We were just together.” The fact that Jo was going to her surgery on that day is a testament to who she was. She had hosted a very rowdy event, and she was determined that she would go to her surgery and do the job that she was elected to do. That is a testament to the amazing woman, advocate and politician she was.

Bernard Kenny was also stabbed as he tried to save Jo. He was a hero. In a strange coincidence, they shared the same birthday. I feel that that was a sign from the gods that they wanted Jo to be with us for a little bit longer—like her work was not finished. Bernard was given an award by the Queen; I think his wife picked it up for him. It is great to mention him, too.

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning Bernard. She is right: he was an absolute hero on that day. The other bizarre coincidence was that his son, Phil Kenny, was Jo’s and my geography teacher. I have got to know Phil and his family over recent years; I put on record my thanks to them for their support.

[Dawn Butler]

That is incredible. These are sometimes signs and messages as opposed to coincidences, but what is not a coincidence is your kindness and the person you have been in this House. It obviously runs in the family.

We need those traits more than ever in society, because there are politicians in this House and activists in our country who are intent on sowing division. As much as we try to stop them, it sometimes feels as though we are not winning the battle. That is tough, when we know there are more better people in the world than there are bad. It is tough because the people who are fuelled by money, ego and power are getting more publicity than anybody else.

Yesterday I was on Iain Dale’s show, having an argument with a Member from the other place. He kept saying, “Social media is a voluntary contract; it shouldn’t be banned or legislated.” Well, he was completely talking out of his rear end. [Interruption.] I’m getting better. He failed to understand the real damage that social media can do. Social media is like somebody producing a hate leaflet and delivering it through someone else’s letterbox, whether they want it or not. The fact that people get rewarded and paid to do that means that they do it more often. We have to recognise that in government, and we have to we legislate. It is tough, but we have to do it. We are in a different world right now.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the hon. Member agree that unless and until the Government take action that hits these companies where it hurts—in their profits—they will continue to do what they are doing? We set age limits on alcohol and cigarettes, and we ban heroin, crack cocaine and all that kind of stuff. This is one of those products that causes such harm.

[Dawn Butler]

I agree 100%: we have to hit them where it hurts. There have to be consequences. We have laws on inciting hatred in our country, and yet these companies seem to openly and flagrantly bypass them. The leader of Reform gets something like half a million or a million views whenever he posts a hate post—he is not that popular by any stretch of the imagination. It just feeds egos, and we need to legislate.

[Sarah Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we would be wise to heed the warning of what happened in the run-up to the first world war in Germany? Fundamentally, radio was a new media then, and there was no regulation of it. Where we landed was the first world war. If we do not recognise that history is in many ways repeating itself as we stand here now, we could pay the significant and ultimate consequence for that.

[Dawn Butler]

In fact, we are already paying the consequences. If we do not take this issue as seriously as we should now, we cannot foresee the additional harms that will happen. The growth of the involuntary celibate movement—the underground movement that we did not really know about, but that we felt through the rise in misogyny and hate against women—was being fuelled by social media. Just because we are not a part of it, it does not mean we do not have to legislate. That is also why I feel that we have to legislate for the individual. As soon as we introduce legislation, it is out of date. We have to legislate to protect the individual—to protect our voice and our image.

I agree with the key calls from the most recent report of the Jo Cox Foundation. One is that political parties should enforce higher standards of conduct. That needs to happen, but some political parties will not care. In fact, some political parties actually recruit people who they know have violent intent and are racist, misogynistic, antisemitic, Islamophobic or homophobic. They actively go out to find them. We have to find a way to combat that.

Another of the report’s calls is that elected representatives and candidates should actively lead by example, maintaining civility during robust democratic debate. We can all take a leaf out of that book. The report also says that tech companies should do more to prevent and reduce online harms; media, digital and political literacy education should be expanded for all ages, to build greater understanding; and lastly, the Government should ensure sustained funding, police resourcing and cross-border co-ordination to protect elected representatives.

It is a sad fact that we need more protection than ever before. It is a sad fact that social media means that our speeches can sometimes be manipulated and misrepresented. The rules of the House are complex, and that can be easily manipulated for a certain agenda. It is a sad fact that that then puts us at risk in this place and outside it. A lot more needs to be done.

Jo was a great advocate for everyone—for people in Africa, for the children, for Syria. She would have hated what was happening right now in our country—she would have hated the rhetoric, and she would have been on the frontline, fighting. I want to end with a poem by a Syrian poet.

“It does not matter that I love her endlessly…

She lives in a world that the devil dreams to flee…

And yet she stands strong with a smile shinning through her lips…

With a laugh musical, poetry to my ears…

She is a brave woman…gentle and free”.

May Members of this House be a little bit more like Jo.

Housing Needs: Young People

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to partake in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask that Members please speak for roughly six minutes so that we can fit everybody in.

Grenfell Tower Annual Report

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

In fact, the police are investigating an incredibly complex set of circumstances. That is why one of the biggest teams in the Met’s history is focused on getting to the bottom of this and of whether there is a need to pursue any prosecutions. It is one of the biggest and most complex police investigations ever—rightly, because we need to follow culpability, find those responsible and bring them to justice. The victims deserve that justice, but so do the survivors and relatives, so that they can at long last have closure on this tragedy, which has affected their lives. The Government will ensure that we provide the Met with the resources they require to fund the team sizes necessary to deliver that justice.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I pass Grenfell on my way home every evening, and I see the green heart move lower and lower as the building is dismantled. I wonder what will happen when the building is gone. I think about the survivors, the families and the 72 lives lost. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, but after nine years, nobody has been arrested—somebody should have been. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) and I are often told about people who should have been arrested. The police need to arrest somebody and begin the process so that the community can begin to heal. Will the Minister push the Met to move faster?

[Steve Reed]

It is emotional to see the tower coming down slowly, brick by brick, but it is important for the community, and for all concerned about what happened, to know that the memorial commission is working with the community to secure a design for the memorial, which will be a lasting testament to what happened on that fateful night, and will honour the memory of those who lost their lives and their loved ones. My hon. Friend is quite right: nine years is a painfully long time to wait for justice. It is important, in such a complex investigation, that the police are given the time and resources they need to investigate properly, but we will of course encourage them to do that work as quickly as they can reasonably be expected to. We all expect them to bring to justice those who bear culpability for the deaths that night.

Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Helen Hayes]

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The maths on temporary accommodation costs simply does not add up at the moment. I have more to say on that a bit later in my speech.

[Dawn Butler]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important speech today. Brent council, which covers my constituency, spends £100,000 a day on temporary housing. We have around 40,000 people on the housing waiting list. It is impossible to match that need, but it is also important to understand that councils, as my hon. Friend has said, are trying to innovate. Housing costs in inner London need to be taken into consideration with any calculations.

[Helen Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes the point very well. It is the reality of people’s lives. People come to all of us who represent constituencies at the heart of the housing crisis in the most desperate of circumstances—in circumstances that everybody would agree are completely unacceptable—and there is no relief for them, because the options that are on the table are simply unaffordable, and what is affordable is unacceptable.

I am grateful to the Government for listening and for changing the deprivation criteria to include housing costs. I also completely recognise the very deep poverty and deprivation that affect other parts of the country. I grew up in the north-west and before I was elected to Parliament, I worked with communities all over the country. This should be about not pitting different areas of our country against each other, but resourcing and empowering local authorities right across our country to meet the needs of their communities. Some of those needs are universal, and some are specific.

While I welcome the changes made to the formulae in recent weeks, inner-London councils will still remain in a very difficult financial situation as a consequence of the settlement that was finalised yesterday.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day 2026 is “Bridging Generations”. That recognises that as the remaining survivors who can directly bear witness to the atrocities of the Holocaust pass away, living memory must become collective memory. As Jews, we know all about collective memory. The late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, of blessed memory, said:

“One of the most important halachic responses to tragedy is the act of remembering, Yizkor. More than it has history, the Jewish people has memory. There is no word for history in the Tanach, and modern Hebrew had to borrow one, historiah. But the word zachor (remember), occurs no fewer than 169 times in the Hebrew Bible. The difference between them is this: history is someone else’s story; memory is my story. In history, we recall what happened…so that it becomes part of us and who we are… We cannot bring the dead to life, but we can keep their memory alive.”

This Shabbat, Jews around the world will be reading Parashat Beshalach. The Torah portion opens with the Pharoah pursuing the Israelites into the desert and the miracle of the splitting of the Red sea. It ends with victory over the Amalekites, the first enemy that the Israelites face upon escaping Egypt. There are so many biblical teachings through which we can approach the Shoah in Beshalach. In particular, we can approach it through grappling with the evil of Amalek and the Pharoah, and we can contemplate the act of remembrance through how we are commanded to commemorate these events. This year, I came across a perspective that is both subtle in the closeness of the reading of it, and also completely striking in its depth.

I have been reading “Esh Kodesh”, written by Rabbi Kalonymus Kalman Shapira, of blessed memory, the Rebbe of the Warsaw ghetto. Composed between 1939 and 1942, it is a truly astonishing body of work. Reflecting on Parashat Beshalach, he notes that in the text, Exodus 13:21 begins:

“And God goes before them by day with a pillar of cloud to guide them along the way, and by night with a pillar of fire providing them with light to travel day and night”.

This is the first place where the text uses the present tense. With extraordinary faith and courage, and recognising the “bitter reality” that people were living through, he concludes:

“we must use the judgments and suffering we endure properly, utilising them to worship God, to keep going day and night”.

That this present tense speaks of the presence of God in their midst at a time of unimaginable privation, and is a source of strength for them to draw on, is profoundly moving as a contemporary reader. Later on in the parashah, Exodus 15:1, it reads:

“And they spoke, to say, I will sing to God for his great victory”.

Noting here the future tense, Rabbi Shapira says:

“Already, when still in Egypt, they could see God’s salvation, and so they were able, in their minds, to ‘sing in the future’—‘to say’ implies that they succeeded in establishing this for future generations”.

Rabbi Shapira did not live to see this victory, to sing in the future. He was murdered in Aktion Erntefest—Operation Harvest Festival—at Trawniki concentration camp on 3 November 1943. Jewish prisoners were separated from non-Jewish prisoners, and up to 43,000 Jews at the Majdanek, Poniatowa and Trawniki concentration camps were killed in two days—the single largest German massacre of Jews in the Holocaust. In all three camps, Jews were forced to strip naked and walk into dug trenches, where they were shot dead. Loud music was played to cover the sound of the gunfire.

Rabbi Shapira’s writing, however, survived to inspire future generations, buried in milk cannisters as part of the Oneg Shabbat underground archive, established in 1940 by Emanuel Ringelblum and a secret group of scholars and writers, to document the suffering, resistance and daily life of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, ensuring their story was not lost. They said:

“It must all be recorded with not a single fact omitted. And when the time comes—as it surely will—let the world read and know what the murderers have done.”

We mourn the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust. We mourn the lives cut short, the lives never lived, the children and grandchildren never born; the art, music and literature never written; the enormous loss to humanity itself of a tragedy at a scale we can barely fathom that reverberates through modern history and into our present. But as we mourn, we remember. As Jews, we can take forward our cultures, teachings and traditions to future generations, as we have always done, from the Exodus onwards, denying Hitler what the theologian Emil Fackenheim called “a posthumous victory”. Many Jewish communities around the world read and learn Torah from Czech scrolls from the desolated synagogues of Bohemia and Moravia, honouring the communities who were killed and keeping the flame of their memory alive.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and educational speech; I thank her so much. Will she join me in thanking John Hajdu MBE, who came to Brent yesterday to share with us his story of how he survived the Holocaust? As a young boy, he survived only because a non-Jewish family hid him in a cupboard for days on end. Will she join me in thanking him for sharing his story, so we can keep it alive?

[Charlotte Nichols]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and share her thanks to the survivor she mentions, but I also send our thanks to that generation of survivors who were so determined to ensure that their stories were carried forward so that we can learn from them.

Right hon. and hon. Members can visit the museum not far from here at Westminster synagogue, home of the Czech Memorial Scrolls Trust, to see the scrolls I referred to and artefacts from those communities.

Remembrance of the Holocaust is, however, a society-wide effort that Jews cannot undertake alone. At a time of rising antisemitism globally, when Jews in Manchester and in Bondi Beach are killed just for being Jews, this same antisemitic poison is again taking root and must be confronted. We should remember the evils of the past to fight the evils of the present, taking strength from the everyday acts of resistance, large and small, and bringing their stories with us to secure for us all a safe and secure future. Eight decades on from the Holocaust, that is more important now than ever.

London’s National Economic Contribution

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on securing this vital debate.

If we are serious about national growth, we must invest in London. That should not be in dispute after what we have heard today. London is the UK’s top global city. It is home to more than 9 million people and generates almost one quarter of our entire economic output. Its net contribution to the Treasury now stands at a record £43.6 billion. That is why we need to invest in London—because London invests in the UK. It is essential.

On the way to this debate, I was talking to—or, more correctly, arguing with—a non-London MP, who was saying, “It’s about time we got some of that money out of London.” This is the environment that is being created when we talk about taking from London instead of saying that we need to invest in London and in the regions. We have heard how much tourists spend in London —a whopping £16.3 billion, even while still recovering after the pandemic. If the Government introduced a VAT exemption for tourists, that figure would be boosted, and an overnight accommodation levy of just £1 would bring in some more money, which could be used for the development of London by the Mayor of London. We need to stop the narrative that London is somehow separate from the rest of the UK and that we take from London to invest elsewhere. That was the attitude of the last Government, and it is the wrong attitude; it should not be carried over to this Government.

Let us take as an example the Bakerloo line, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater mentioned and which I travel on regularly. It is the oldest train service in the UK, and by gosh, when we are on it we can feel that. It very much needs to be upgraded. It runs right through my constituency of Brent East. If we invested in the Bakerloo line, not only would that make my life easier—although I know this is not about me—but the project would add £1.5 billion to the UK economy and support 150,000 jobs and more than 100,000 new homes. What is there not to like about investing in the Bakerloo line? In addition to that, two thirds of TfL’s suppliers are outside London—the new trains are built in Yorkshire—so that economic wealth is spread right across the regions. This is not London versus the regions; it is London working with the regions for the betterment of the UK. We can and must grow together.

The same applies to our safety and infrastructure. A safe and functioning London not only supports residents and businesses here, but ensures that our capital remains open to global investors, visitors and institutions. As we recently read, people now see London as the place to be and invest in. Companies are moving from the US to the UK: they want to invest here because of our infrastructure and our diversity, which we are proud of.

The reality is that after a decade of Conservative cuts and neglect, our emergency services are under huge pressure and are struggling to survive. The Fire Brigades Union had a lobby here yesterday. Ten or 20 years ago, there was talk of reducing the fire service because we had so few fires. Now, with the advance of electric cars, mopeds and bikes, we have more and more fires, so we need to invest. The Metropolitan police has delivered £1.2 billion in savings since 2012-13, and there is now talk of frontline cuts. We just cannot have that in London. That is a threat not just to London’s safety, but to our economic stability.

Past investment has delivered. To those who say, “That’s not the case,” I would point out that the Elizabeth line unlocked 55,000 homes, created tens of thousands of jobs across the country and added an estimated £42 billion to the economy. This is how we invest and make money. Not only that: the Elizabeth line has the best air-conditioned trains in the city—I think everyone appreciates that right now. We need to repeat that success, not retreat from it. We need to praise London.

Productivity in London has fallen since 2008. The Conservatives created funding formulas that pushed funding away from the areas that needed it the most. The then Prime Minister talked about that during the election—quite embarrassingly so. Since 2010, my borough of Brent has been forced to cut a whopping £222 million in funding due to the Tory austerity measures, and we still need to deliver. We need to stop cutting and start investing.

We are now behind cities such as Paris and New York in productivity. That should concern every single one of us in London and elsewhere. We need to work with London. I am concerned about the local government funding reforms, because although we are rightly introducing a new focus on deprivation, not including housing is a skewed way of looking at it. Often in my constituency, 70% of people’s earnings goes on housing.

I am always proud to see our London MPs—they are some of the best MPs in the House. I urge the Minister to reconsider the reforms and ensure that they reflect the unique, pressing challenges that London is facing. We should not shy away from that; we should be proud of what London brings to the UK. This is about not special treatment but sound economic judgment. A thriving capital fuels a thriving country. We do not have to choose between London and the rest of the UK. In fact, choosing London is choosing national growth, so let’s invest in our capital, our transport, our safety, our housing and our skills. Let’s back London, and let’s all love London.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for securing this debate.

London is not where I was born, but for so many of us who come to our great city, it is where our life begins. As a wide-eyed, bushy-tailed teenager arriving to study at Imperial College—as has been mentioned already—in the early 2000s, I felt the visceral sensation of my life changing. London is, and always has been, a melting pot, smorgasbord, tapestry and every other cliché you can find to describe the world’s greatest city—as I am sure all of us present in Westminster Hall agree. That is why it is the honour of my life to be the Liberal Democrats’ Front-Bench spokesperson for this city, which I love so dearly.

As I sat in St Paul’s cathedral earlier this week for the commemoration of the 7/7 attacks, I reflected on what makes London so special: everyday heroes and ordinary working people, who face unbelievable challenges in a city that stands astride hemispheres and cultures, but who get up every day and carry on.

It is often tempting to separate economic progress from cultural pride, but I think they are one and the same. It is the hard work and energy of Londoners that make this city contribute so much to the nation’s economy and society. Yet they face immense challenges: some of the highest rates of child poverty in the nation; crumbling hospitals; crimes such as knife crime and tool theft that destroy lives and livelihoods; profound infrastructure problems that hold back growth and cut off opportunities, not least for the disabled or disadvantaged; and lingering environmental problems, with pollution thick above some of our major roads and dense in our great river.

I cannot pass up this opportunity to ask the Government not to leave London behind or simply continue to tack to the record of the last Conservative Government in failing to take steps to keep London as a world city, and a liveable one too. Yet I fear they are veering dangerously close to that path. Let me start with the hike in employers’ national insurance contributions. If we were looking for a way to actively stymie London’s innovation and business environment, which is already dealing with global shocks and Trump’s tariffs, that misguided tax policy would be right up there.

If Britain is an island of shopkeepers, London is its longest high street. Our economic activity makes up more than a quarter of the nation’s annual GDP. Were it simply the case that such growth was generated just by the hands of a few financial institutions in a glass tower above the City, that would be less impressive. However, it is in the enterprising small businesses—the family-run restaurants that punch above their weight—and the world-leading research institutions, big and small, that London’s real economic powerhouse sits. London’s care workers, bus drivers and street cleaners, who keep our city liveable for ordinary people, despite the rising cost of housing, are the fuel that keep the engine going. To hammer them with what turns out in practice to be a jobs tax is totally misguided.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has shown that the £25 billion a year the hike is supposed to raise is far too optimistic, and the figure seems to be much closer to £10 billion. Indeed, that figure could be more readily and justly raised by reversing Conservative tax cuts for big banks, increasing the digital services tax on the largest multinationals or the remote gaming duty for online gambling firms, reforming capital gains tax to make sure that the super-rich pay their fair share rather than hard-working Londoners being hit by the tax because of the ballooning housing market, or funding His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect the tax that is owed and currently dodged by companies and individuals wealthy enough to afford the best advice.

Governing is about choices, and the Government have made the wrong choice for Londoners and the whole country with the NICs hike. Will the Minister outline whether a review of the policy, or at least exemptions, will be considered at the autumn Budget?

The Government have also chosen not to seriously grip the mantle of the reform that would turbocharge growth most of all: fixing the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal that has left London languishing outside the European market in so many meaningful ways. It is good that they have begun some of the work of normalising our relationship with our biggest neighbour and trading partner, but they will not budge on the most critical issue of all, which is a new customs union with the EU that would boost growth and, by extension, tax receipts.

Nobody wants to return to the Brexit wars of the last decade, but the Government would do well to remember that nobody voted to make themselves poorer on that day in June 2016. Whether Londoners or the British people, remainers or leavers, nobody wanted to be worse off—and we were all promised by both sides that we would not be. There is a significant opportunity to right that wrong as we normalise our relationship, and the Government are just not taking it.

In much the same way, the Government are failing to invest in the infrastructure that London needs to deliver its share of the growth that Britain needs. Even though we welcome the 10-year infrastructure plan, many of us noted that there was no commitment in the spending review to the capital funding needed for the Bakerloo line extension. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) so vividly explained, Hammersmith bridge—such a vital artery not just in her constituency but across west London—remains shut, with no commitment to a proper funding agreement to get it permanently reopened. Parts of outer London, like in Sutton in my constituency, remain in effect cut off from the TfL network, because of either poorly performing bus and national rail services or the complete absence of tram or tube infrastructure in the borough. To be absolutely correct about that, we have half a tram stop in Sutton, but we tend not to count that.

London is not just Soho and Chelsea: it is places like Sutton, Hillingdon, Hornchurch and Enfield—proud boroughs with combined populations of millions that must play their part in growing the pie, and that need commuter transport investment to do that. Where infrastructure projects happen, they seem either to be delivered at great delay and overspend, like the new Piccadilly line trains, or to be unimaginative white elephants, like Mayor Khan’s Silvertown tunnel. The new four-year deal for TfL outlined in the spending plan presents a chance to change that. I invite the Minister to outline whether the Government will now look at finally delivering progress on reopening Hammersmith bridge, on the Bakerloo line extension and on the DLR extension to Thamesmead.

It is just not good enough. Many Londoners are left asking why London’s contribution to the nation does not mean that its voice is heard. Compared with its peers around the world, London does not have anything like the appropriate devolved powers. In the patchwork of devolution that has been woven in this country this century, London’s settlement is looking increasingly threadbare and outdated.

The Greater London Authority has nowhere near enough power to shape the mayor’s agenda and hold them to account, and the mayor’s powers are themselves too limited. Not enough money raised in the city can be spent in the city. Local councils, the bedrock of London’s governance, are ignored, prevented from working strategically across the city, and powerless to stop year after year of funding cuts. How else can we explain the actions of a Government who are pushing ahead with a new funding settlement that could leave some councils losing 70% of their spending power? That is particularly foolish at a time when councils are doing great work to boost London’s growth, with superb research and development schemes such as the London cancer hub in my borough of Sutton, which could create thousands of new jobs locally.

Perhaps the most pertinent question is: who really speaks for London? It certainly isn’t Sadiq Khan, who promised us that with

“the winds of a Labour Government at our backs”

he would be able to deliver for Londoners, but on the day of the spending review made himself completely unavailable for media comment. Where was the voice that London needed on that day? He is evidently not as affective, and this Government not as receptive, as we were led to believe. As a result, I fear Londoners are being sidelined in respect of the industrial strategy and fiscal policy.

Why, for instance, is London excluded from the new £150 million creative place growth fund, and from the British Business Bank’s new nations and regions investment fund? Why have the Government not listened to calls, from not just the Liberal Democrats but the private sector, to replace the apprenticeship levy with a skills and training levy that is properly integrated with devolved powers over skills, to give businesses the flexibility they need? Why have the Government not even listened to our calls for lifelong skills grants? I hope the Minister can explain.

We must level up all parts of Britain. There are regional imbalances in this country that are totally unjust—I know that more than most, having come here from rural Lincolnshire—but there is no path to growing Britain without a strong, dynamic, self-governing London. As I stand here having recounted so many of the challenges that London faces in continuing to contribute to the nation’s economy, I wonder again in frustration why, in my role of Liberal Democrat shadow London spokesperson, I am not able to shadow a Minister for London—although I mean no slight on the Minister who is here. There has been one, on and off, for 30 years, and the Government’s decision not to appoint one is a gross oversight for all the reasons brought up in this debate.

[Dawn Butler]

It is actually not unusual that when there is a Labour Government and a Labour mayor—like when there was a Tory Government and mayor—there is not a Minister for London. Also, on the hon. Member’s comments about our Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan has been the biggest business mayor London has seen. He has been a better advocate for London than any Tory or previous mayor. It is a little bit unjust to refer to him in the way the hon. Member did.

[Luke Taylor]

The hon. Lady gives a stirring defence of the Mayor of London. We are trying to make the point that there is no cross-Government holistic view of London’s priorities. Londoners need a voice inside the Government: our interests ought to be not divided out across Departments and responsibilities, but co-ordinated and addressed holistically. That is the point about a Minister for London who would be able to co-ordinate Departments and responses.

There needs to be conflict with the Mayor of London—somebody fighting for London and against the Government, whether that is a Labour Government, a Conservative Government or, heaven forbid, a Liberal Democrat Government. We need that conflict, challenge and alternative view, because their goals often do not align perfectly. There has to be that champion, and I do not believe that the voice of the Mayor today is loud or clear enough in that regard. I take the hon. Lady’s points in the positive way that I am sure they were intended.

We deserve the attention, investment and confidence of greater devolution—even more powers for the Mayor to do as he sees fit, as the London regions and councils should direct. We need to keep on doing our bit to drive the economic value and contribute to our great country.

Local Government Finances: London

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered local government finances in London.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

This Government are committed to fixing the foundations and getting local government back on its feet after 14 years of neglect and decline. Vital uplifts in funding, alongside the move towards multi-year settlements and away from wasteful bidding wars, have been extremely welcome. This is a Government who stand for giving councils, like all our providers of public services, the certainty and stability that they need to go from costly crisis management to long-term prevention and root-and-branch reform of local public services. These agendas are vital for our national missions on growth, NHS waiting lists, and crime and antisocial behaviour, and are an opportunity for all our young people.

I want to lay out some of the main challenges facing local government, which need to be fully recognised and addressed by Government policy to prevent further councils from moving into crisis. The economic and social changes that have relentlessly driven council costs upwards were simply ignored by Conservative Governments. Rather than tackling these drivers and supporting our councils to adapt to the impact of social change, policy since 2010 has at best papered over the cracks. Financial support has been reduced to the point that our boroughs are receiving around 28% less funding per Londoner than under the last Labour Government.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. In my constituency, Brent council has had to cut its budget by £220 million since 2010. Under the Conservative Government, it suffered. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is nice that we now have this change of direction from the new Government?

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend is right. It is important that we recognise the circumstances in which we found ourselves and that we point to the measures that this Government have taken to start to fix this endemic problem, which I will continue to explain.

Over and over again, the Tories passed the buck without passing the bucks. Our councils have had to deal with wider changes to legislation and other new duties and responsibilities, even as financial support has been repeatedly eroded. This challenge has been building and building. London’s population has grown by 900,000 in the last 15 years, with massive consequences for rising demand for services, particularly adult and children’s social care, special educational needs and disabilities, and temporary accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but it is difficult to accept that kind of challenge when his Government missed every one of their housing targets over the course of 14 years, and he has ignored the fact that the trajectory I have described was set under his Government. If that trajectory continues, homelessness alone will push London boroughs into bankruptcy, although the Government have been working hard to address the enormous challenges that we have inherited—which I have just highlighted to the hon. Member—after the abject failure of Conservative housing and homelessness policies. We welcome the recent uplift to the homelessness prevention grant and this week’s confirmation of £2 billion of grant funding for social and affordable homes across the country. However, there are further measures that could provide much-needed support to London boroughs.

One issue exacerbating the crisis is the cap on the amount of local housing allowance payable for temporary accommodation, which has been frozen at 2011 rates for nearly 14 years, even though such accommodation has become massively more expensive in recent years. The cost to London councils of acquiring temporary accommodation increased by 68% in the single year up to 2023, while the number of homeless Londoners increased by about 8% over the same period. This has created a significant funding gap for local authorities. Updating the cap would provide immediate financial relief for London boroughs, which could then spend more resources on preventing homelessness.

[Dawn Butler]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. London Councils has stated that one in 50 Londoners are currently homeless and living in temporary accommodation, and as my hon. Friend has said, spending is around £114 million per month, or approximately £4 million a day. Does he agree that this is unsustainable?

[Mr Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She refers to one of the three main stresses on our councils: addressing that would bring the greatest relief to all of them. Another step that the Government could take to tackle the homelessness crisis would be to ensure that the LHA rates reflect actual housing costs. London rents have risen so fast in recent years that just 5% of private rented properties are affordable on LHA, pushing more and more families into homelessness. I hope the Minister will set out the steps the Government are taking to review LHA rates, because that could make a huge difference to many families as well as to council finances.

Additionally, a longer-term social rent settlement would stabilise council housing revenue accounts and allow boroughs to increase the building of the new genuinely affordable homes that Londoners need, which we know is the only way to tackle the housing crisis.

When deprivation measures—rightly—have such a significant impact on funding formulas, it is vital to ensure that they effectively account for the impact of rents. Housing costs are one of the biggest drivers of deprivation in London, which is the third most deprived region in England once housing costs are considered. Beyond housing, the fundamental issue at the heart of London’s council funding crisis is a growing disparity between funding allocations and actual levels of need. The main local government funding formula has not been updated since 2013, meaning that allocations are based on outdated data that fails to account for population growth, demographic changes or London’s high housing costs.

Such difficulties can be illustrated by the councils that serve my constituents in Leyton and Wanstead. Redbridge has had population growth of 11.4% since 2011 and has huge pressures from homelessness, with a spend of £52 million a year on temporary accommodation. This is driven by the fact that Redbridge has an enormous private rented sector, comprising 75% of renters locally. The eviction rate in Redbridge is at 4.6% per 10,000 renters, almost triple the London average, with 86% of those evictions coming from the PRS. There is no escaping the reality that shocking numbers of people in constituencies like mine are now being evicted as the housing market changes, and identifying creative policies to tackle it is truly urgent.

Waltham Forest is facing massive pressures from increased homelessness, with a 55% increase in temporary accommodation in just one year up to last October. The requirement to spend under 51% of the homelessness prevention grant on temporary accommodation, although obviously a step in the right direction, will mean that still more of the bill for rising homelessness costs will have to come from the general budgets, including from reserves and other spending.

Costs from special educational needs and disabilities have also been surging, with a forecast overspend of £4.6 million, but the increase in the high needs block funding has not recognised that. Across London the upshot of the large gap between assessed need and actual funding, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has identified as 17%, is the largest shortfall of any region in England. Many outer London boroughs are among the lowest funded per capita in the country, despite significant pressures.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing local government funding, because this is a huge opportunity to create a system that accurately reflects the current levels of need. In particular, we need to make sure population figures are robust, which requires serious attention to whether the figures for London reported in the last census are accurate, given that many people left the capital during the pandemic and have since returned.