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.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I hope that what we are announcing today will bring clarity to the system. One of the things that came out of the phase 2 report was about the system being disjointed. Bringing clarity will hopefully ensure that people understand what they are meant to do—what their legal obligations are—and that we expect them to do it; if they do not do it, there will be serious consequences.

I also point to the remediation acceleration plan. I completely understand that many people are still in buildings that are unsafe, which is unacceptable. That is why this Government are taking action. On the Harold Wood case, I am happy for the hon. Lady to meet the Building Safety Minister about that.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her important statement. The people of Grenfell were treated badly because of who they were, what they looked like and how much they earned. We say that 72 people were killed in Grenfell, but the police are holding ashes for which they have no name. Nobody should have to go through this; the families should never have to go through this. This should never happen again. Does she agree that, as well as the chief executive officers of the companies, all the people in the council who treated the residents badly and did not listen to them, because of what they looked like, must be held accountable? Everybody needs to be held accountable.

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. At the heart of the new regulatory regime is the requirement that all landlords treat their tenants with fairness and respect, and take action so that the services they provide have fair and equitable outcomes. Social landlords are required to understand and provide information and support that recognise the diverse needs of their tenants, including those arising from protected characteristics. That has not been so in the past, and, if I am honest, it does not feel like it is the case today when I speak to residents of the community. That is why I have pushed the council in that particular area and why this Government are bringing forward legislation that says we respect people. Whether they are social tenants or private tenants, they deserve a safe and secure home and to be treated with dignity and respect.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to listen to the powerful testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky).

Racism and antisemitism is on the rise—that is without a doubt. It is on the rise behind closed doors. It is on the rise on the dark web. It is also hiding in plain sight. We have seen an acceleration since 7 October. When my constituent Noam’s mum Ada was kidnapped and held hostage, we worked tirelessly day and night for her release, and luckily we saw that day. Noam is always saying that we must strive for peace and that only light when we enter a dark room will make us see clearly.

It is really important that we mark the Holocaust every year in this debate. Although I am not so well—I apologise for my voice today—I wanted to come in to mark this day, because hate cannot win, and we have to show time and again that there are more of us than there are of them. This debate stands as a warning of the depths of cruelty and hatred that can be released when prejudice is allowed to grow unchecked and unchallenged. We cannot allow that, especially in this place.

In my constituency, Brent council marks Holocaust Memorial Day every single year, and this year we will mark it in the iconic Wembley stadium. Local events bring people together from all backgrounds to share in remembrance, united in the mantra of “never again”, fostering greater understanding and stronger bonds within our community.

As the Holocaust Memorial Day website states:

“following the 7 October attacks in Israel by Hamas and the subsequent war in Gaza. Extremists are exploiting the situation to stir up anti-Muslim hatred in the UK. Many UK communities are feeling vulnerable, with hostility and suspicion of others rising. We hope that HMD 2025 can be an opportunity for people to come together, learn both from and about the past, and take actions to make a better future for all.

There are many things we can all do to create a better future. We can speak up against Holocaust and genocide denial and distortion; we can challenge prejudice; we can encourage others to learn about the Holocaust and more recent genocides.”

I am proud to be working with local rabbis in Brent East, such as Rabbi Mason, and others to bring everyone together, including African-Caribbean and Jewish people, to fight against the rise of prejudice and discrimination. Together we can strengthen our ability to challenge hatred in all its forms.

As we have heard, the chosen theme for Holocaust Memorial Day is “For a better future”, which calls on all of us to actively work towards creating a society that stands up against hatred and prejudice. We know that antisemitism has risen alarmingly in recent years, and we each have a responsibility to confront toxic beliefs wherever they appear, regardless of who is acting on them. We cannot afford to be gaslit and to allow hateful ideologies to resurface in the mainstream. We have a collective responsibility to call out such actions and ensure that they do not gain traction.

As we come together on this important day, we have to ensure that our remembrance is accompanied by action. Genocide and crimes against humanity are not inevitable, and we can prevent them. We must raise the alarm when we witness dangerous rhetoric and divisive actions and symbols, and we must hold perpetrators accountable. However, the reality is that people are often scared because someone else with more power says otherwise. They are scared of being incorrectly labelled, scared of the unintended consequences.

We must not forget that genocide does not come about overnight; rather, it is a gradual process. Even though it can sometimes seem scary, especially for those who are not in the in-crowd, hatred cannot and must not be normalised if we are truly to look towards a better future. If you are the last person standing and calling at the top of your voice for peace and love, that must be the ultimate goal for a better future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Monday it will be 80 years since the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. I find this debate quite difficult, so please bear with me. I went with my own family, my father and my two sons, to Auschwitz-Birkenau in the summer of 2023. I know that many Members here have been to Auschwitz-Birkenau, and although it is a difficult place to visit, those who have not definitely should. I thank the Prime Minister for his recent visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau.

When you are there, you can imagine the industrial scale of murder that happened there. You see many skulls, shoes and clothes. You see the cabins where people had to live. You go through the killing stations where the Nazis murdered millions of people: Jews, the LGBT community, the Gypsy Roma community, trade unionists and others they decided had to be removed in their genocide—in our Holocaust. That really commits you to wanting to see the future education of generations on this subject.

I have also been to the POLIN museum in Warsaw, which documents the history of Jews in Poland. It has a significant section on antisemitism in that country, which I will come to later in my speech. When you visit such places, you can better understand the rise of antisemitism and how things could get to that point.

This year the theme of Holocaust Memorial Day is “For a better future”, which is uplifting. My own grandparents returned to Poland and Lithuania after the Holocaust. Following the Yalta agreement, they were very different countries from what they were before the war. My grandparents hoped to rebuild their lives, as did the few members of my family who survived the camps and ghettos, but it was still very difficult after the war.

When I visited Warsaw with my father, he took me to the tower blocks where he grew up and told me stories of how, as a child, he received antisemitic abuse and bullying from Polish children after the war—this was after everybody knew about the Holocaust and the camps. Unfortunately, that was the reality for Jewish people. The state authorities had antisemitic attitudes too, which in the end resulted in the mass emigration of 13,000 Jews—almost the entire remaining Jewish population of Poland—in 1968. That was just 23 years after the war, which was very much in recent memory for those people. All of this made attempts to rebuild lives in eastern Europe very difficult, not just in Poland but in other countries. My own parents emigrated from eastern Europe in the ’50s and ’60s, and in the end arrived in Leeds in the 1970s. Similarly, thousands of Jews came out of communist and post-communist countries, found homes and contributed economically, socially and culturally to their new countries.

I want to tell a story about two of my former constituents—they are no longer with us—who were very close family friends. When I was growing up, I spent a lot of my time in their house, and they certainly contributed a lot to my own Holocaust education. Yanina Bauman was a Holocaust survivor, having escaped the Warsaw ghetto with her sister and mother. Like other Jews, they were hidden by amazing Polish families in the countryside. Yanina and her husband, Professor Zygmunt Bauman, came to Leeds in the 1970s, and he worked as a professor of sociology. He was one of the most decorated sociology professors in the world, and his books are world class and outstanding. His literature discussed the theoretical effect of the “Holocaust mentality”, and he came up with the theory of “liquid life” as part of post-modernity. I do not want to get into a sociology lecture, because the Chamber is not the place for that, but people who are interested in those subjects should certainly look up his work.

Yanina, who survived the ghetto, wrote two books about her own life and history; one was about her life in Poland before the war, and one was about her experience during and immediately after the war. Those books are recognised as part of a very important canon of literature on the Holocaust. I am really proud that Yanina and Zygmunt both lived.

[Dawn Butler]

I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech, which shows just how important it is that living memory is passed on and why we should continue to have this debate in Parliament.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Take your time, Mr Sobel.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

In the short time available I want to say to the survivors and the next of kin—some of whom are here today; some will be watching from home—that I am sorry they have been so severely let down by the previous Government and by their council. I hope that the words of the Deputy Prime Minister today have given some comfort.

Brent East is just next door to Grenfell, and we watched the fire unfold. They say that 72 people died, but the reality is that we do not really know the exact number, as people from Kensington tell me. Every time we say that this disaster was preventable, we have to be honest about what happened in the system. Some 85% of people were black and a minoritised group. That is why they were not listened to and were ignored. Grenfell United and Grenfell Next of Kin have been fighting for more than seven and a half years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) said, they are still not being listened to. They have been so badly let down, and there needs to be an investigation into what happened, how the council used Grenfell to get funds and what happened to those funds. There is so much that needs to be discussed.

I also notice that Kwajo is here. He is a housing campaigner and activist. That is an indication of how much people of colour are not listened to when they try to say that there is an injustice. Why was the cladding put on the building? The residents did not want it. It was so that it looked pretty and nice to the more wealthy residents down the road. We have heard about the profits, the greed and the deregulation that caused this catastrophe. If we want it not to happen again, we have to be honest about why it happened in the first place.

My thoughts are with the bereaved families and survivors. Every year, we go on the silent march. I remember speaking to a little girl who is a little bit older now. She said she was studying for her GCSEs and that the day after she was taking them, which she passed. She said that was what she was focused on, but what are the families and survivors focusing on now? It is justice, which they have not got. Until they have justice, none of us should rest, and none of us should feel comfortable—this may well happen again—because justice delayed is justice denied. I pass Grenfell on my way home most nights, and every time I pass that building, I say a prayer for everybody who died, everybody who survived and all the names we will never know.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving us the benefit of his personal experience—an experience that is suffered by far too many families. Hundreds of thousands of young families are in temporary accommodation, in many cases because of section 21. In 2019 the ending of this scandalous practice was included in the previous Government’s manifesto, but we are still waiting. It has taken us just four months to bring the Bill to the House, because we felt that the need for it is critical. Too many young people are priced out of leaving home, unable to move to the big city where they could start their careers because of sky-high rents, and that too must change—I know that many hon. Members agree.

The Conservatives promised to pass a renters reform Bill in their 2019 manifesto, but, in a desperate attempt to placate their Back Benchers, they caved in to vested interests, leaving tenants at the continued mercy of unfair section 21 eviction notices. They dithered, delayed and made excuse after excuse for their inaction. What has been the human cost of that failure? Since 2019, when the Conservatives first promised action, more than 100,000 households have faced a no-fault eviction, with 26,000 facing eviction last year alone. Too many families facing homelessness; too many families priced out of a safe and secure home; and too many families stuck in cold, rotting, damp homes—that is the inheritance that we need to fix.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for pursuing renters’ rights in this way. Does she agree with the Mayor of London that we should consider setting caps for rent increases?

[Angela Rayner]

I will set out later in my speech what we are doing to ensure that renters get a fair deal.

This is why we have moved so speedily in getting this Bill to its Second Reading. We will not take another four years, which is why we have done it in less than four months. I must give credit where it is due, because many parts of the Bill build on the good work of my predecessor in the Department. However, let me be clear that this is a fundamentally different Bill; it goes above and beyond the last Government’s Bill in several critical ways. This is not just a renters reform Bill; it is a Renters’ Rights Bill, a plan to ensure that all private tenants can aspire to a decent, affordable and safe home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

It is a privilege to open for the Opposition on Second Reading of the Renters’ Rights Bill in this momentous week. As the Secretary of State mentioned, Labour reaches 100 days in office this week, for which it is to be congratulated, as not everyone gets to 100 days—Sue Gray didn’t. [Hon. Members: “Liz Truss didn’t!”] Neither did Sue Gray. The point is that not everyone gets to 100 days, so we congratulate the Government. So far, the only real actions we have seen are the noisy infighting and chaos that resulted in the hurried reset we saw over the weekend—oh dear. This Renters’ Rights Bill will only add to the chaos.

The first time the Secretary of State and I faced each other across the Dispatch Box, I warned her that she is being stitched up by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I also told her that we are here to help, and we are, especially as it has been a particularly rough time to be a woman in the Labour party. It is not just the sacking of Sue Gray—she is soon to be awarded what Winston Churchill called a “disapeerage”—as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) has taken the brave decision to leave the Labour party. I have followed the hon. Lady’s career in this place closely and, although we do not agree on everything, she is very brave.

[Dawn Butler]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is Second Reading of the Renters’ Rights Bill, and the shadow Secretary of State is all over the place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sure the shadow Secretary of State will come back to that subject.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

The Minister is better than this motion—let us all agree on that. Like the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), I think it is a hangover from the Boris Johnson days, when the Electoral Commission upset him and he wanted to influence it. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong.

The Government claim that this strategy will enhance the parliamentary accountability of the Electoral Commission and increase public confidence in its work, but as everybody has stated today, it will do the complete opposite. This strategy and policy statement is little more than an attempt by the Government to undermine the independence of the Electoral Commission and to stamp their own agenda on the regulation of our democracy. This is a fight for our democracy.

We in this House need to take back control—that is important. Avoiding transparency and accountability seems to be the hallmark of the Government. Do not just take my word for it; the Electoral Commission itself wrote to MPs this week stressing that the principle of independence is crucial to maintaining confidence in our electoral system. It warned Members:

“The introduction of a mechanism such as a strategy and policy statement—by which a government can guide an electoral commission’s work—is inconsistent with this independent role.”

If the commission is saying that, and the Speaker’s Committee is saying it, why is the Minister trying to convince us otherwise? It really does not make any sense.

As we have heard many times, this is not the first time that the Government have attempted to rig our democracy. They forced through their voter ID system, which threatened to disenfranchise the most vulnerable in society. Remember that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) mentioned, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) let it slip that that was a deliberate attempt to manipulate electoral outcomes in favour of the Conservative party, and then went, “Whoops!” because he had made a mistake and said the quiet bit out loud. It is not a shock that the Government are once again attempting to influence an independent body that oversees our elections, but it should shock us all.

This draft strategy and policy statement sets out the Government’s strategic and policy priorities for the Electoral Commission. It also contains

“guidance to which the Commission must have regard in the discharge of its functions.”

That places on the commission a concerning legal duty to consider first and foremost the Government’s priorities when fulfilling its duties. If it does that, it cannot be independent, and the whole point is that it is supposed to be independent. It is simply unacceptable for the Government to direct the commission on how it should carry out its functions. If a foreign Government were wielding that much power over their elections, there would be calls to send in independent advisers to ensure that their elections were being held democratically—that is how bad this is. When people ask, “Do we have corruption in our Government?”, I say, “Yes, we do, and this is an example of that.”

The Government keep focusing on the prevention and detection of voter fraud, yet there is little evidence that voter fraud is widespread. In fact, it is so rare that there were only nine convictions—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Lady talked about corruption in Government. I want her to withdraw that; she needs to rephrase what she said. She does know that—she is very experienced—so I ask her to say at this point that she withdraws any allegations of corruption within Government.

[Dawn Butler]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I withdraw the statement that the Government are corrupt, or that there is corruption in the Government—I do not know for sure, but I withdraw that statement.

There are, however, issues that need tackling, and the motion does not achieve that. There are rising considerations, such as the threat of generative AI, the use of deepfakes, the spread of disinformation and the scraping of people’s data. None of that has been tackled today—I wonder why, although according to the fact checking organisation First Draft, 88% of the Conservative party’s most shared online adverts in the final days of the 2019 general election campaign were found to have contained misleading information.

When the Minister gets to his feet, I hope that he will change his mind, because he is respected across the House and this motion is going to damage his reputation. As I have said, I urge the House to take back control and reject the motion.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Dawn Butler Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I feel strongly that BDS offers no meaningful route to peace either for the Palestinians or for the Israelis. I can assure him that when BDS is used as an argument for the total economic, social and cultural isolation of the world’s only Jewish state, not only will I speak out but I have spoken out time and time again. As far as I know, I am the only Member in the House—there may be others, and I apologise in advance if I have missed anyone—who has gone directly to take on those who argue for a boycott, divestment and sanctions against the state of Israel and for a one-state solution. I have taken on that argument, because I firmly believe that it is wrong and unhelpful. As I have just made clear to the House, this might not be every public body—I do not believe for a moment that it is—but one incident is too many. It has profound effects on the Jewish community.

That is why so many people in the Jewish community have fought long and hard for action to tackle this problem, and it is why we support them. In fact, we were sufficiently concerned about it that earlier this year we tried to amend the Procurement Bill to ensure that when councils take ethical decisions, they do so in line with an ethical framework and Government guidance and apply those decisions across the board, not seeking to single out any one country for differential treatment. We believe that that amendment offered clarity and certainty to our elected officials and councils, and security for the Jewish community, and we were disappointed that the Government voted it down. However, we continue to believe that there is not—and never should be— disagreement between us on that principle.

I also do not believe there is disagreement between us on whether we oppose the policy of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Opposing that policy is a long-standing Labour position, and it will not change. As I said to the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) a moment ago, it is something I feel so strongly about that I have taken the opportunity to debate with those who expound that policy and who believe in a one-state solution, which we thoroughly oppose. I have made the case that talk of a one-state solution and boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel offers no meaningful route to peace for Palestinians or Israelis. Over the past decade, the one bright spot on a very difficult horizon that I have seen on my trips to the middle east has been the co-existence and joint venture projects that have flourished, through which BDS drives a coach and horses.

We on the Labour Benches do not claim that all those who support BDS, despite our profound disagreement with them on that issue, are antisemitic. Our concern is with those who have tried to whip up hostility towards Jewish people under the cover of either BDS or the targeting of Israel, particularly those who seek the total economic, social and cultural isolation of the world’s only Jewish state. That is what we must deal with, in a way that is enforceable—that has real impact and real teeth—and that tackles the problem it is designed to solve.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have worked hard to ensure that we are not antisemitic, and that for the Minister to display what he has done in the Chamber does no good to our democracy? This is a very badly written Bill—it is not a good Bill—and the Minister’s suggestion that anyone who votes against it is antisemitic is just a disgrace and something he should withdraw.

[Lisa Nandy]

This is a debate that needs far less heat and far more light, because we are talking about real people—about communities in the UK who are among the most marginalised and discriminated against in our country. I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging in his opening remarks that Labour Front Benchers are acting in good faith in the approach we have taken, but I would echo a note of caution: we should not in any sense suggest that Members, of all parties in this House, who have expressed profound reservations about the Bill in front of us can be deemed to be antisemitic. They are not. They are participating in democracy and giving voice to real concerns. They are doing what we were sent to this House to do: scrutinise legislation and ensure that it has the intended impact. I encourage Members to continue to do so, because a Bill that is designed to promote and protect community cohesion can proceed only with the broadest possible consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I hope, as the debate goes on, that there may be an answer to this, but I have to confess that so far I am at a loss as to what it might be. Where does this leave our commitment to international law, given that it cuts across UN resolutions, as Conservative Members have highlighted, and weakens Britain’s stated support for a two-state solution, as the hon. Member has said?

The legal advice we have received strongly suggests that this is likely to be in breach of our international law obligations. Furthermore, it will force the UK courts, which have traditionally been reluctant to adjudicate on issues relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to take a view. All of these confusing and contradictory measures raise the very real prospect of protracted legal challenge. One of the Conservative Members recently called this woolly. Surely the Secretary of State can see that protracted legal challenge over the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the practice of boycott, divestment and sanctions would not be in the interests of community cohesion, which is the very thing this Bill is designed to protect.

[Dawn Butler]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Lisa Nandy]

I will not give way, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. A lot of people are wishing to speak, and given that she has made one intervention, I will make a bit of progress.

As if that were not bad enough, it seems that nobody in Government has thought of the consequences for local government pension funds, which is arguably the one area where councils have to have a global outlook. Let me give the Secretary of State a practical example. In recent months, as he will know, three Israeli companies have moved their money outside Israel due to concerns about the financial risks created by the contentious reforms to the judiciary. If a local government pension fund were to do the same, this Bill would open it up to legal challenge, forcing it to prove to a reasonable observer, whatever that is, that its decision was on financial, not moral grounds.

Writing in the Local Government Chronicle, the director of pensions at Westminster Council asks what happens

“where an analyst has anticipated that a company’s value will decrease because of ESG decisions it has made… if that strategy falls within the new law’s definition of not being in line with UK foreign defence policy, and the law therefore states that the fund must remain invested, and the fund therefore loses value, who will pay for that?... The government’s current message is that ‘this is not designed to get in the way of ESG factors, excepting the very narrow area of UK foreign or defence policy’. But this is absolutely not a very narrow area.”

He adds:

“We could end up in a scenario with never ending arguments involving ESG factors versus foreign and defence policy.”

Surely that cannot be the intention of this Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Luke Hall]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for the opportunity to pay tribute to our waste collectors and the work that they have done right across the country throughout the pandemic, keeping our communities clean and helping to keep them safe, too. Of course, it is for councils themselves to decide how best to meet their commitments and how to manage the performance of their contractors, but my right hon. Friend’s voice carries significant weight. I am sure that his point has been heard loud and clear. I hope that it is resolved as quickly as possible. I know that these are extremely important issues for his constituents and for residents across the country, and of course I am happy to meet him to discuss the matter in more detail.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

If he will take steps with Cabinet colleagues to ensure the permanency of the covid-19 memorial wall.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Eddie Hughes)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Like many MPs, I pass the memorial wall daily when I am in Parliament, and I am moved when I see family and friends either laying floral tributes or making an inscription on the wall to commemorate loved ones they have lost. The Department keenly understands that communities across the country will want to find ways to commemorate our collective experience. Therefore, it is critical that all those we have lost are commemorated and that families receive, as the Prime Minister himself has stated, a fitting and permanent memorial. As the Prime Minister announced on 12 May, the Government will establish a UK commission on covid commemoration. We will set out the commission’s membership and terms of reference in due course.

[Dawn Butler [V]]

I thank the Minister for that thoughtful response. The covid memorial wall is an iconic, organic work of art created by bereaved families, and it should not be removed or painted over. I hope that the Minister agrees that it should be a permanent memorial and that MPs should visit. I met Fran, whose husband died three weeks after they were married. She lovingly drew 2,000 hearts, and I dedicated one of those hearts to my uncle Buck, who died. I am, however, disappointed that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has yet to visit. I hope that the Minister will encourage all MPs to visit like he has done, and ensure that the memorial wall is permanent and that MPs speak to bereaved families.

[Eddie Hughes]

I believe that the memorial wall is owned by St Thomas’ Hospital. I am not sure what decision it has come to with regard to its permanency. However, as I said, having seen friends and family visiting, I would keenly encourage MPs from across the House to do that. We need to consider the most impactful and enduring way to remember those we have lost and to commemorate the service of everyone involved in this unprecedented response to the pandemic. As I say, the commission has been set up and we will report on its terms of reference and membership in due course.

Financial and Social Emergency Support Package

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I will come on to the issue of repatriation, but let me mention it now. All of us now have constituents contacting us about their loved ones who are not able to come home. We need clarity about what support is available and can be given. If it requires emergency measures, let us undertake them, because people are now deeply worried and isolated.

[Dawn Butler]

I do hope this is not my right hon. Friend’s last outing at the Dispatch Box. I very much thank him for writing two Labour manifestos; a lot of that is being carried out today. He talks about this being a war and the Government talk about it being a war. If it is a war, is it not right that we should be sending in our doctors and nurses with the protective equipment they need to fight that war?

[John McDonnell]

I welcome some of the reassurances that we have heard from the Prime Minister and others today, but I have watched the interviews with individual doctors about the risks that they have taken. They are heroes and heroines, but they should never have been put in a position where they took those risks in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

In fairness, I am a servant of the House, and the House will decide whether we sit or do not sit. The House will decide what it wishes. I will be quite honest. The Leader of the Opposition quite rightly made a plea that party leaders should come together by phone to have discussions about how we move events forward, because events will begin to overtake us. We have to remember that we will have a vote shortly on whether to have the Easter recess, and I will abide by what the House decides.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I absolutely agree that, at this time of national crisis, parties should come together. I think the Prime Minister is in breach of that sentiment and trust by briefing journalists that he is going to make an announcement tomorrow. If we suspend before the Adjournment today, can we order the Prime Minister to come to the House to deliver the statement that he has already written and is planning to deliver at the press conference tomorrow? Can that be done, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

If we were to sit tomorrow, no doubt somebody might wish to table an urgent question. I will leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dawn Butler]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House says that it is not possible to brief the House before this is ready, but if that is the case why has the press been briefed before this House? Does he not think that things have been done in reverse? He is holding the House in contempt. He is the Minister who loves the procedures of this House, so why have the Government briefed the press before the House?

[Mr Speaker]

The only thing I would say in their defence is that I do not think there was much detail in Peston’s tweet. I call Kevan Jones.