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.

Sikhs: Contribution to the UK

Dawn Butler Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to be part of today’s debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) on having secured it. I also congratulate all the members of the all-party parliamentary group on UK Sikhs who have contributed to this very special month. It is lovely to see Parliament as diverse as it has been this month; sometimes, I think this place is at its best when Members can debate and talk about the beauty and diversity of their constituents and how much they add and contribute. It makes this a very special place.

We have heard a lot about the contribution of Sikhs in both world wars, and a recognition of the role that Sikhs played in our history. Sikh British Indian soldiers were just 2% of the population, but 20% of the British Indian Army, and I join other Members in calling for a war memorial in central London to recognise and celebrate that fact. I hope that when the Minister rises to his feet, in the spirit of today’s debate, he will agree and say that that will happen. As we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), a place for that memorial has already been identified.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston said, it is sad that this history month was born out of an attack on a turban-wearing Sikh outside Parliament, a place where we hope we break down barriers. However, as we have heard, something positive has come out of that negative. It was a pleasure to be a part of Turban Awareness Day in Parliament. I too now understand how long the process takes. It was a real education, and I thank Members, especially our Sikh Members, for allowing us to ask silly questions—I thought some of them were silly questions—and for the dignity with which they responded. That is testament to how we all need to embrace, understand and appreciate each other’s cultures.

A hundred years later seems like the right time for an apology for the Jallianwala Bagh murders. That incident should be taught in schools; it is time and it feels right. We have been talking about suffrage and the contributions that Sikh women made to suffrage movements, and we have talked about those centenary celebrations, but it is time to acknowledge the good and the bad and ensure that that incident is taught in schools.

We have heard a lot today about the “British Sikh Report 2019”. It refers not only to the many Sikhs who work in the public sector, but to those in the care sector. I found that a fascinating piece of research, and we should all reflect on the positive role that Sikhs play in public life.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) spoke with pride about his Sikh community and about events in the British empire that need to be investigated. What he said is true. Often history likes to talk about what are considered to be the good bits, but for us to understand and mature as a society, we need to talk about the bad bits too, so that history does not repeat itself, as we have seen in the recent increase in hate crime.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) spoke about Sikh soldiers and the ultimate sacrifice. He talked about the cross-party support and all the firsts we have here in Parliament and, beyond that, in his constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is a completely and utterly enthusiastic advocate for the war memorial. I congratulate him on all his campaigning since he has been in Parliament. He has hit the ground running, to say the least, and has always been so calm in doing so. He often talks about turning a negative into a positive, but I congratulate him on being elected as the first ever black, Asian and minority ethnic representative in the UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I am sure he will take that delegation by force and ensure that everything is considered in the right way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) talked about education about the turban and the gurdwaras in her constituency. She is no longer in her place, but she talked about West Park, and it sounded like the place to be. I might just have to pay a visit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) talked about her constituency with such joy and grace, but I must congratulate her on being the first female Sikh Member of Parliament. I remember when she was elected, everyone was saying, “Oh my gosh, I can’t believe that you are the first and there wasn’t one before.” There was almost a sense of it being a shame on the House. I congratulate her on being the first female Sikh Member and her words about being an advocate for action, not warm words. We must never forget how we can use this place to ensure that the Government make the changes they need to make. We need fewer warm words and more action.

My hon. Friend mentioned Princess Duleep Singh and the role she played in the suffrage movement. Often, women of colour are excluded from the history books and we have to dig deep to find the role they played, even when we know they played a full role and often made a bigger sacrifice to do so. She also mentioned the race disparity audit having no data on Sikhs. If the Government are going to do something, it is important that is done in its entirety, so that it is meaningful. If we are going to go through a process of auditing, it is important that we make it as meaningful as possible. The debate about having Sikh as a recognised box is not a new debate, and it could easily have been included in the Government’s race disparity audit. Will the Minister explain why that was not the case?

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) talked about how Sikhs punch above their weight and the planting of trees around Coventry. I should not forget to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). He talked about the warm Punjabi welcome and everything that is great about Great Britain, and that is the thing: Great Britain is known for its diversity. People coming from other countries often say, “I love the diversity, the unity and the acceptance.” It is not about tolerance. I do not want to be tolerated; I want to be accepted and appreciated for the contributions to society that my family and I make. My hon. Friend talked about the role we can all play in rooting out racial discrimination. Debates such as this highlight how we all have a significant role to play in ensuring that there is less hate in society, and more acceptance.