Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I am going to come on to more details about that a bit later in my speech, but she is right about it. She and I represent constituencies that include people living in high-rise blocks, and we know the stress and pain they go through. She is absolutely right on everything she said in that intervention.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the tone of the Prime Minister’s presentation and the Government’s position. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) has just alluded to this, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a much bigger picture than phase 1? Phase 1 focuses on the fire brigade response mostly, and many in the media have targeted the fire brigade for criticism, some of which is not unfair, but they are targeting only the fire brigade, as opposed to waiting for the big picture. The inquiry was always going to take a long time, it is incomplete and there are others, including ourselves here in this Parliament, who have some responsibility for the conditions that led to the Grenfell tragedy taking place.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He knows, as a former firefighter, not only the stress and strain firefighters go through, but the way in which, because we now live in an age of such instant media, people half-read half a bit of a report of a bit of the report and decide that that is the conclusion of all things. This is the first of two major reports and we should be cautious in throwing blame around too quickly and too soon, because these are serious and tragic matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Some outside—I am not saying that the hon. and learned Lady is doing this—have said that the fire brigade differentiated its response because of the ethnicity of the people in the building. That is complete and utter nonsense, as I am sure she will agree. On her point about the social class of the people in the in the building, a number of colleagues have referred to the privately owned freehold buildings across the country that are not getting reclad. They are all private blocks that are owned by leaseholders. The social blocks have all been done—perhaps a little slower, but they have all been done. These people are mostly white middle-class, and they are in desperate need of their cladding being taken down and replaced.

[Joanna Cherry]

I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s second point, and I also agree with his first point. However, the point that I sought to make was that it has not gone unnoticed by many of us that the social class and ethnicity of the people who died in Grenfell Tower was very different from that of other people who live in the surrounding area, and there is a very strong suspicion that that has led to some of the shortcomings in this case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). Grenfell is a tragedy that should never have happened, and the likes of it must never happen again. I welcome any report that allows us to learn lessons for the future, but we must not simply learn; we must follow through and apply those lessons. Unfortunately, given the timing of the phase 1 report’s release, I have been unable to read the 1,000 or so pages of the four volumes. That said, as a former firefighter and senior officer in Strathclyde fire brigade, I feel compelled to make a short contribution to this important debate.

I want to take a moment to set the record straight. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West referred to the wealth of the individuals concerned. Firefighters the length and breadth of the United Kingdom will do their very best, irrespective of people’s colour, wealth, religion or gender. It is uniform throughout the UK. We will do our best, irrespective of where people live. If they ask for our assistance, they will get it.

On that dreadful night, firefighters did not set out to fail; and nor did they fail. I am relieved that the inquiry, in its report published today, is not overtly critical of the frontline firefighters, but rather highlights systemic failures. Firefighters respond where others would fear to tread, often putting their own lives on the line. A question I would ask, assuming that the media coverage is accurate, is: why are we regrettably seeing a pattern emerging of the same or similar systemic failures or shortcomings, from which lessons are apparently not being learned and with no timeous action being taken to rectify such failures?

We live in a world where scientific developments and technological advances aim to enhance our safety. That may lead us all on occasions to feel a false sense of security. Indeed, perhaps too often we take such matters at face value and for granted. In the fire and rescue service, there are often specialist divisions, such as fire safety, fire investigation and fire engineering. However, regrettably, fire certification by fire services has given way to fire risk assessments being conducted simply by responsible persons. There needs to be sufficient exchange of relevant information, particularly to the frontline fire crews and operational commanders, including appropriate familiarisation training and support for those who may, in their firefighting role, have less cause to visit, inspect and become familiar with premises.

Many of those improvements have led to a reduction in the number of recorded fires. As a result, practical experience at incidents, as opposed to on fireground training, is in decline, and that gap needs to be addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) mentioned the Fire Service College at Moreton-in-Marsh, which is a wonderful facility. Under the stewardship of the then chief officer, Brian Sweeney, my old service—the Strathclyde fire and rescue service—built a wonderful, modern training facility at Cambuslang in Scotland.

For many years, compartmentalisation has been seen as offering, in effect, a safe refuge. It has worked well on many occasions, but we have learned the hard way that it may not necessarily offer a safe refuge, due in no small way to construction materials and subsequent modifications that may involve original fire-stopping or fire spread-limiting measures being compromised.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; I call him my hon. Friend because there is an affinity and comradeship between ex-firefighters. In London alone, there have been 5,000 high-rise fires since 2014, and compartmentalisation worked in the vast majority of those. That is not an excuse for the London Fire Brigade not taking evacuation action earlier, but it explains why people arrived at the scene conditioned to expect a certain action, and Grenfell did not act like a normal building.

[Bill Grant]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is correct. In Glasgow, where there are many high-rise flats, that policy has worked well, but as I will come on to say, we need a bit of flexibility. I firmly believe—I think he would share this view—that the events that night at Grenfell were exceptional. They were not normal; they were an extreme. It was a very difficult fire for any responding firefighters or senior officer to manage well.

While rules, procedures and practices are needed for health and safety, they require to be applied in such a manner that we do not stifle freedom of thought. One of the greatest assets in my early days as a firefighter was the use of initiative and improvisation. To some extent, that has been curtailed over time by the fear of disciplinary action, of being sued in an increasingly litigious society, or of departing from the perceived norm or any policy of long standing. Policies are often quite rigid and lack the flexibility that takes account of the inexact science of firefighting and the unpredictability of both fire and human behaviour.

The greatest question of all is: who was informed, and what revised fire risk assessment took place when the whole dynamic and risks presented at Grenfell changed? A high-rise building was draped in flammable cladding and became an inferno, costing the lives of 72 individuals. Their deaths must not be in vain. I would just comment that, as we speak today in this Chamber, there are still flaws in the building regulations in Scotland. We can still apply flammable cladding. I hope that the Scottish Government will put that right; I am sure that they will.

My sympathies go to the families of those who lost their lives in the Grenfell tragedy, but my sympathies also go to the families of the frontline firefighters, who have to deal with their loved one’s experiences on that dreadful night of 14 June 2017, together with external pressures from very intense public scrutiny. Grenfell must be a catalyst for change and secure improvements for fire safety and firefighting not only for the London fire brigade, but for the whole of the UK. Finally, I thank Sir Martin and those who gave evidence and shared their experience of that dreadful night, which will haunt many for years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate, and I am honoured to follow the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson).

I need to start by acknowledging the grief, pain and anger of the bereaved and the survivors from Grenfell. No one can be anything other than deeply saddened at the huge loss of life. Anything other than complete condemnation of this event is unacceptable. No one escapes their share of the blame from Grenfell. This includes the London Fire Brigade, and I speak as a former operational firefighter with the brigade. London Fire Brigade is not hiding from the criticism levelled at it, but the catastrophic failure that is Grenfell was not caused by the London Fire Brigade, which did its best to deal with it. Compartmentalisation normally works. I have fought high-rise fires, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) has, too. It has saved countless lives over many years, but Grenfell was not compartmentalised. The building failure led to London Fire Brigade making many mistakes of which, I am sure, it is absolutely ashamed and that it regrets deeply.

Responsibility for what happened lies with us here in Parliament, with the Government and with many others—local government, building suppliers, construction companies and the rest. The focus of the inquiry is, in phase 1, on the initial evidence supplied by witnesses called by the inquiry. Subsequent phases will apportion more responsibility to a wider number of organisations and individuals. I believe therefore that the criticism of London Fire Brigade has to be viewed with that perspective—that there is a bigger picture and that it will subsequently be uncovered. I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for his kind words about London Fire Brigade, to the Leader of the Opposition and to Sir Martin Moore-Bick for commending the brigade’s bravery in his report.

The conspiracy theorists have had a field day, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) for putting on record that the resident who suffered from the fire and was vilified for it has been proved to be completely innocent. There were accusations that London Fire Brigade had used different operational firefighting techniques because of ethnicity, as well as accusations of cover-up and that the body count was not accurate; all these things are not only offensive but insulting to everyone involved in firefighting all the way through.

Nobody can deal with the pain of the survivors or bring back the victims. What we all have to do is to learn the lessons; I believe that London Fire Brigade has, and it is obvious that that is already being demonstrated. I say to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government that cladding is still a huge issue, both in terms of safety and policy.

Finally, I thank the inquiry. People said that it would not get to the truth and that it would be a whitewash. I had faith that it would never be that, and the inquiry has demonstrated that it is digging, and digging deep. There is a lot more to do, but the first phase demonstrates that the inquiry knows what happened and is telling the world.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has given excellent advice to the House, and I thank him very much for his support. I wish to stress that the whole House will be involved in devising that future partnership.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his reassurance that workers’ rights—avoiding a race to the bottom, no regression, and so on—will be written into the Bill, because it is a huge issue for many Opposition Members and needs to be recognised by many Government Members. Can he give the same reassurance that consumer protection will also be written into the Bill?

[The Prime Minister]

I can indeed give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. [Interruption.] There will be no race to the bottom. For right hon. and hon. Members who wish to be involved in the building of our future partnership, there will be every opportunity at every stage for the House to be involved, and quite properly so. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I have given way a great deal, as I am sure all Members would agree. I am going to make some progress and then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).

On jobs and manufacturing, this deal will reduce access to the market of our biggest trade partner and leave our manufacturers without a customs union. As we have heard in many interventions, Members have heard desperate pleas from businesses in their constituencies all saying that they need frictionless supply chains. So I ask all Members to do the right thing: let us work together to make sure that a comprehensive customs union is hard-wired into our future relationship with the EU.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He knows that we disagree on elements of this Bill and this issue. As his former Whip, with my Whips tie on, may I ask him for an assurance that Labour Members who exercise their conscience this evening and do not follow the whip will not have that whip removed, any more than he had it removed when he exercised his conscience?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I believe in the powers of persuasion and tonight I would like to persuade my hon. Friend: come with us, vote against this Bill and vote against the programme motion, because I believe, and I think he may agree with me, that that is in the interests of his constituents.

Death of John Smith: 25th Anniversary

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful and honoured to be called to speak briefly in this debate to pay tribute to John Smith. I am pleased to follow the very personal testimonial of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).

We have heard some moving speeches, but we have also heard about John’s humour. In case colleagues have not seen it, there is a great compilation of clips on Twitter of John Smith at the Dispatch Box tearing the Tory Front Bench apart. I mean no disrespect to the present Tory Front Bench, but it is so funny that even Lord Heseltine is laughing, and he is the butt of most of the jokes, which shows that it is really worth watching. It was posted by David Ward, and I have retweeted it, so colleagues can find it easily.

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for affording this time, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech. I did not know John very well. I was chair of the London Labour party for nearly 10 years, from 1988 until 1997, and I only met him on a few occasions. Neil—now Lord—Kinnock saved the Labour party from the hard left and turned around our fortunes, making us a serious party again. John Smith, as leader after Neil, consolidated that process and set us on course to win the 1997 general election.

In the 1980s, the capital was not a happy place for our party. The Sun branded us the “Labour loony left” or, more precisely, the “London Labour loony left”. But through the support of the national leadership and the great efforts of professional staff like Terry Ashton, Margaret—now Baroness—McDonagh, David Evans and David Wilkinson, and hundreds and thousands of councillors, activists and volunteers, London became Labour heartland again. John Smith drove that progress, and one of his first regional visits on becoming leader was to London, which was not always a popular place for Labour leaders to visit in those days.

John’s belief in Europe is chronicled in today’s New European by his former head of policy from 1988 to 1994, David Ward, who is here listening to the debate. David has supplied me with a reminder of John’s legacy, some of which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South and others. The John Smith Trust runs the fellowship programme, which promotes good governance. It is very positive to see that the Foreign Office is funding the trust, which I hope will continue.

One spin-off from the trust is EASST—the Eastern Alliance for Safe and Sustainable Transport—which was founded by Emma MacLennan and other trust alumni. Emma, who is married to David Ward, was Labour’s social security and taxation policy officer during John Smith’s time as shadow Chancellor and leader. EASST promotes road safety in former Soviet countries and saves lives there. More recently, John’s legacy includes the John Smith Centre at Glasgow University, promoting leadership in public service. Kezia Dugdale has just been appointed its first director, and I wish her well. Both those important programmes keep alive John’s strong commitment to democracy and public service.

As we have heard, some of John’s policy legacies were the national minimum wage, which he strongly supported as both shadow Chancellor and leader; constitutional reform and devolution, including on freedom of information, the Ministry of Justice and Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and internal party reforms, including one member, one vote and electoral college revisions, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), a fellow Holyrood boy from Glasgow.

John was known for his commitment to social justice, and his strongest belief was that social justice and economic efficiency went hand in hand, hence the Commission on Social Justice. I am told he believed that party politics was like an aeroplane—you need a wing on the left and a wing on the right, and if you don’t have two wings, the beast won’t fly. Sometimes we forget that in modern party politics, in both the main parties.

John Smith’s incredible wit and debating skills in the Chamber led him to being credited, as we have heard, with provoking the resignations of Leon Brittan over Westland and of Nigel Lawson over Sir Alan Walters, Mrs Thatcher’s economic adviser.

On “Desert Island Discs”, John’s luxury item was a case of champagne. He told Sue Lawley that when he had drunk it, he would send a message in a bottle asking for more champagne. He was tickled to receive correspondence from a member of the public rebuking him for being so stupid for not knowing that you cannot put corks back into champagne bottles. Apparently, he loved that letter.

I would like to conclude, like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South, by quoting from John Smith’s last leader’s speech to the Brighton Labour conference of 1993. This passage is perhaps a little more tribal than my hon. Friend’s, but this is a measure of the time and of his incisiveness. John said:

“Today I offer the British people a better way and a clear choice: a choice between Labour’s high skill, high tech, high wage economy, and John Major’s dead-beat, sweatshop, bargain basement Britain; a choice between Labour’s opportunity society which invests, which educates and which cares, and the sad reality of neglect, division, and rising crime that is Tory Britain today; a choice between Labour’s commitment to democratic renewal, rights, and citizenship, and John Major’s centralised, secretive and shabby Government.”

In conclusion, we were robbed of a great Prime Minister. Britain would be a different place today if John Smith had been given the opportunity to serve and to lead our country. It is 25 years on, and I sincerely thank my hon. Friend and his supporters for giving the House the opportunity today to remember John and to pay a fitting tribute.

Voter ID Pilot Schemes

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I am delighted to follow my fellow five-a-side footballer, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green). I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), who passionately outlined her position, but as the hon. Member for Bolton West just outlined, although Tower Hamlets was not in the voter ID pilot, we were a postal voter pilot, so we have some experience of this. I will speak briefly, because other colleagues want to contribute.

I support the Government’s efforts to protect our democracy. I am not persuaded by the argument that people have been deterred, and especially not by the argument about pensioners not having passports or driving licences. Every pensioner in London has got a freedom pass. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the freedom pass, which is photographic ID—I do not know any pensioner in London who does not have such a card, which allows them to take advantage of free travel—is an appropriate document for the trials.

The hon. Member for Bolton West mentioned Tower Hamlets. We have had allegations of fraud in every single domestic election except 1997, including of personation, intimidation and postal vote manipulation. The ID proposals should deal with personation. Intimidation has been dealt with by establishing sterile areas outside every polling station, which are policed by the Metropolitan police at every election. I think postal voting is still far too lax, which is why I am glad Tower Hamlets participated in the pilot. Every political party has been spending far too much time harvesting postal votes from its supporters. Anyone can sign up for a postal vote, which is to the parties’ advantage, but I think that devalues postal voting and lightens the democratic burden on the citizen to participate in our democracy.

The final paragraph of the Tower Hamlets briefing that I sought for this debate, which was very superficial, says:

“On completion of the two stages the data compiled was extracted and forwarded to the Electoral Commission for analysis in accordance with the requirements of the order. Once analysed by the Commission all stakeholders—namely the Commission, Cabinet Office and Tower Hamlets Returning Officer—will meet to compare the data extracted, review the process and explore the merits of these pilots and any further schemes that may be considered necessary in the future.”

My question to the Minister is, is there a timeframe for when we might hear what the conclusion of that analysis was?

Postal voting is far too easy. I had a look at the briefings from the House of Commons Library, the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society. I had to chuckle at the briefing from the Electoral Reform Society, because one of the frequently asked questions it attached to its response is:

“Don’t you need ID to vote in Europe?”

It says:

“Nearly all European countries have mandatory ID card schemes with either free or low-cost cards. As the ID cards are mandatory all voters have ID cards, so no groups of voters are discriminated against.”

I am very disappointed that, when the Labour Government proposed ID cards, we were beaten back by the liberal left, the libertarian right and the media, which said, “This is outrageous and too expensive.” It not only would have dealt with voter fraud and personation but would have improved security, dealt with NHS tourism and helped to deal with benefit fraud, but the proposals were defeated.

Voters welcome the opportunity to defend their right to vote. That is a precious privilege that we need to defend—I do not think that that view is something that is under attack. I will be listening to the Minister, because I think these pilots are important. Serious questions are rightly being asked of the pilots, and the Government will have to defend their conclusions, but I am not opposed to the fact that the pilots took place, as we need to defend our democracy as best we possibly can.

Grenfell Tower Fire Inquiry

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I have been very generous in giving way and I really need to make some progress.

The inquiry will need to examine all relevant circumstances leading up to and surrounding the fire at Grenfell Tower, its spread to the whole building and its effect on residents. That necessarily means looking at circumstances well beyond the design, construction and modification of the building itself. It will mean looking at the role of relevant public authorities and the contractors, and the broader implications of the fire for the adequacy and enforcement of relevant regulations. It will also mean looking at the handling of concerns previously expressed by local residents.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

rose—

[Damian Green]

May I make some progress and then I will give way? I am conscious that many Members want to contribute to this debate. I have been extremely generous in giving way during my opening remarks, and I think the House will benefit from my making progress.

Sir Martin is highly respected, and as a recently retired Court of Appeal judge he brings with him many years of judicial experience. He and the Government fully agree that, for this inquiry, consulting on the terms of reference is an important way of involving those affected by the tragedy. It is clearly right that those affected by this terrible tragedy, and others with an interest, are given the opportunity to shape the terms of reference, which will in turn give direction and focus to the inquiry. Sir Martin has started that consultation process and is keen to give as many people as possible the chance to contribute to the consultation. He will consider all suggestions made to him when drawing up the terms of reference. He will then make a recommendation to the Prime Minister, who under the Inquiries Act 2005 is responsible for setting out the terms of reference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend raises a valid and important point. I assure her that the expert panel, which covers a range of different expertise, is already looking at that, and it will feed into the inquiry.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), the building regulations should be due for review. In this country that usually happens every 10 years, and 11 have now passed. The Lakanal House inquiry recommended in 2013 that building regulations should be reviewed. The Government have been saying since 2011, including after Lakanal House, that that would be done by this year. We do not have to wait for a public inquiry to say that building regulations should be reviewed. When will the working party be recalled, to show that that work is under way?

[Damian Green]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has huge experience and expertise in this area. I assure him that the expert panel is considering whether any advice needs to be given urgently to the Secretary of State to act on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and her typically thoughtful contribution in this important debate. I am also pleased to have had the chance to listen to maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Jo Platt), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). I was trying to think what the collective noun must be for maiden speeches and I decided on this occasion that it is a feast—we had a feast of maiden speeches. Their constituents must be proud of them already, and I know that they will work very hard in the months and years ahead to repay the confidence that their constituents showed in them.

The First Secretary, in opening the debate, referred to the fire guidance and Approved Document B, which is an essential element of the building regulations. He said that the expert panel will be advising the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, and it is that issue that I wish to ask about. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), speaking for Her Majesty’s Opposition, also commented on that aspect of matters relevant to Grenfell, saying that the Government can start the overhaul of building regulations now and feed into the public inquiry recommendations afterwards. In my view, that is the right approach to take.

I raised the issue of the terms of reference for the public inquiry in my Adjournment debate two weeks ago, when I said:

“It would be very helpful if the Minister gave the House any details of when more might be known about the inquiry, which will face many questions on many issues. They include: the source of the fire; the rapidity of the spread of the fire; the catastrophic failure of all the fire protection features that the building should have contained; the building’s refurbishment, including the original specifications and the materials actually used, as well as the quality of the work and the finish; the monitoring of building control; the inspection of the completed job by the council, the designated responsible person and the fire service”.—[Official Report, 30 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 430.]

I went on to raise the question of the outstanding review of the building regulations guidance on fire, as contained in Approved Document B, and the recommendation for urgent review by the Lakanal House coroner in 2013. There is no statutory timetable laid down for a periodic review of the guidance, as I said at the time and as I mentioned in my earlier question to the First Secretary when he was opening this debate. In my Adjournment debate, I asked about the building regulations, and in response the Minister said that after Lakanal House:

“The Government took action in a number of areas following that fire. In particular, DCLG provided funding to enable the Local Government Association, in partnership with the housing sector and enforcement authorities, to publish new fire safety guidance for purpose-built flat blocks in 2011. That guidance is still current”.—[Official Report, 26 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 436.]

That raises the key issue. If the guidance is still current and it failed at Grenfell, one of two things must be true: either the guidance is not up to the job and needs reviewing; or the guidance is adequate but was ignored. That is the fundamental question that should be addressed by the independent expert advisory panel, which was announced by the Secretary of State and which contains a number of distinguished members. As I understand it, it can also second additional members for specific tasks. When he responds, will the Minister tell us whether the panel has identified the guidance in Approved Document B of the fire regulations as a priority piece of work that needs addressing? As has been mentioned several times today, it was last revised in 2006, so its review is overdue.

If the Government await the outcome of the public inquiry and then start the review—given that it will then take time for any working party to do its job properly—the gap between the last revision and an updated Approved Document B will be at least 14 years and probably a lot longer. Historically, the reviews in the UK are usually about 10 years apart—in some other countries it is less. Does the Minister agree that that is too long a gap and that there should be a statutory responsibility to review the guidelines in a set period of time rather than having a periodic review? Has the expert panel commented on that? If it has not, will the Minister ask them that question?

On 3 July, in response to the above questions, the Secretary of State said to me:

“The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about building regulations and the guidance on them. It is already clear to us that there will need to changes, and that we need to look carefully at the causes and at the fact that so many buildings are failing the guidance test. The expert panel has a wide remit, which is broadly to recommend to the Government immediately any action it thinks we should take that will improve public safety.”—[Official Report, 3 July 2017; Vol. 626, c. 920.]

That validates my question about whether the expert panel has recommended an immediate urgent review. If the answer is no, will the Minister ask it why it has arrived at that conclusion?

It is not just me who is asking these questions. The all-party fire safety and rescue group has been pressing them for some time. The Royal Institute of British Architects wrote to colleagues yesterday, saying:

“Ahead of any inquiry conclusions, the RIBA has called on the Government to carry out the following:

Commence immediately the delayed formal review of Approved Document B, which was first proposed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in 2013 in response to the Coroner’s rule 43 letter following the inquest into the deaths resulting from the 2009 fire at Lakanal House.

The RIBA believes that the review of Approved Document B must be a comprehensive, transparent and fundamental reappraisal, rather than an amendment or clarification, and should begin without delay to remove uncertainty, provide clarity and protect public safety.”

It also goes on to raise the issues of Building Bulletin 100 and school sprinkler systems, which I also highlighted in my debate and which has been mentioned by several colleagues today.

The Fire Sector Federation president, former London Fire Commissioner Mr Brian Robinson, writes a more qualified view of Approved Document B, which none the less supports the idea of a review. He said:

“We would also part recommend and suggest increased provisions for protection, including sprinklers, in line with the latest thinking in fire safety. But an update of AD B is only one part of the greater whole. That isn’t, by any means, the complete solution to the weaknesses exposed by the Grenfell fire.”

In support of that key point, the Association of British Insurers was even more direct. It said:

“A comprehensive review is urgently needed of ‘Approved Document B’, the regulations in England covering fire safety matters within and around buildings. The ABI has been calling for a comprehensive review of Approved Document B since 2009, and most recently in May 2017 in our response to the Government’s Housing White Paper.”

My final source is the London Fire Brigade itself. In the briefing for this debate supplied by Helen Newton on behalf of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, it says of Approved Document B:

“This document has not been reviewed for some time, which means that it has not kept up with British standards and new and innovative methods of construction or allowed debate of the sprinklers and other suppression systems especially around specialised housing.

We have been calling for Approved Document B to be reviewed and renew that call now as a matter of urgency.”

The Lakanal coroner, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Association of British Insurers, the Fire Sector Federation, fire authorities, the all-party group and others, including the Fire Protection Association, which I have not had time to quote, all agree on the urgency of reviewing Approved Document B. It is not the full solution, but it needs to be done, and it needs to be done now—not in three or five years’ time. If the work does not start until after the public inquiry, it could be as long as five years before Approved Document B is renewed. The “Government building safety programme—explanatory note” says:

“We have set up an expert panel to advise us on other urgent steps we should take to improve fire safety”.

I would be grateful if the Minister addressed my specific points about the review of Approved Document B. For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that there are three questions. Has the expert panel advised on an immediate review of Approved Document B? If not, will the Secretary of State ask the panel whether it considers such an immediate review to be appropriate? Will the Secretary of State deposit the answer to those two questions in the Library?

It has been said many times today that the majority of those who die in fires are the poor, the old, the young and the sick, as well as people with substance abuse issues and the rest of it. The Grenfell Tower fire demonstrated that—writ large. We need regulations to protect people in our buildings. Approved Document B is the foundation stone on which all buildings safety is constructed. If it is not operating as it should, we are exposing people to more danger.

Grenfell Tower

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. During his time in the House, he has taken a long interest in issues related to housing. I understand that the number of empty homes is currently low, but, of course, we always look to see what we can do. We want to ensure that people are housed, and that properties are being used for the purpose for which they were built.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

If the building regulations are fit for purpose, all of us, whether rich or poor, should be protected from fire in our own homes. What assurance can the Prime Minister give that the review of building regulations and Approved Document B, as recommended by the Lakanal House coroner, will be carried out as urgently as possible, and that the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, which has historically undertaken this work, will be recalled as a matter of urgency? That could be done in tandem with the public inquiry; it would not be necessary to wait until the end of it.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman, given his background, has a particular interest in these issues. The coroner’s recommendation was in relation not to changing the regulations but to the guidance that followed the regulations. That work is indeed in hand. My understanding is that the fire regulations have not been changed since 2006. Obviously, that will be one of the issues that the public inquiry will want to look at.

Ukraine (Flight MH17) and Gaza

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that people in Russia hear about what is happening in their name. One Russian newspaper has reported—I think this is a quote—that it seems likely that it was a separatist missile that was fired at the plane. It is very important that we get that information through. What he says about working together in Europe is absolutely right.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister rightly says that big countries should not bully smaller countries, and he rightly expresses concern about the 500 Palestinian dead and 3,000 injured. However, he stops short of accepting what I believe is the opinion of the majority of people in this place and in the country, which is that the Israeli response is not proportionate. What more can he do to express to Israel that that is the view in the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that the Israelis will be watching the debates in this House and international opinion carefully. One point that I made to Prime Minister Netanyahu was that international opinion supports Israel’s right to defend itself, but that it is in danger of losing the support of international opinion if anything happens that shows a lack of restraint and a lack of care about civilian casualties. At the same time, the message should go out from this House that there have been ceasefires called by the Israelis and not matched by Hamas. We must not wish that away or ignore it, because it is a crucial point.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan). She is obviously thinking hard about how to vote later, and I know that a lot of right hon. and hon. Members feel the same way.

I wish briefly to address the words of the corrected motion and the intent behind it, then I will turn to the Opposition amendment. First, however, I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary on effectively putting the brakes on a Government who were heading for military action this weekend. Of that I think the House can agree there is no doubt. My right hon. Friends have served the country and the Commons well through their actions, especially over the past 24 hours, and I hope that the Opposition will continue to lead in the same way and act as a restraint on the Government.

This is not the debate that the House expected to have, it is certainly not the debate that No. 10 was planning, and it is not the one that the media predicted would happen, but there have none the less been some excellent contributions. Despite the fact that there will be another debate and vote next week, this has been a useful exercise in testing the issues at stake.

I turn to the motion, which I have real problems supporting. That is not because I am a supporter of President Assad—I am not—but neither do I support the jihadist element of the Syrian Opposition that has been referred to in many contributions today. The wording of the corrected motion is important. The first and second paragraphs are straightforward in their commentary and condemnation. The third introduces the requirement of military action, and the fourth, fifth and sixth are very instructive. The fourth notes

“the failure of the United Nations”.

That is the softening-up line. The fifth notes

“that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime…and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action”.

The sixth mentions the “wide international support”, including from the Arab League, for action from the international community.

The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said that tonight’s vote was not really important, because the important vote would be next week. I say to the Liberal Democrats in particular that if we get another debate and a vote next week, I predict that those words will come back to haunt them. The Conservatives are boxing them in by saying, “You’ve got to support military action, since the UN has failed, and we don’t need it anyway. We’ve got legitimacy, because the Attorney-General says so, and we’ve got international coalition support. It’s only the Russians and Chinese who don’t support it.”

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the general secretary of the Arab League has tonight said on CNN that it shies away from backing western intervention, and that it would intensify anti-US feeling in the region? Those of us who have been sitting here all day have had a chance to google.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that information to the House. It clearly demonstrates the fragility of the international coalition lined up behind the attempt to intervene militarily in Syria.

The Opposition amendment, it is fair to say, is at least more open and honest. However, from my reading it essentially endorses the same principle: if we address certain issues and if certain conditions are met, military action can happen. I do not believe that it should happen under any circumstances. The Opposition amendment is stronger and clearer, but whereas the Government motion is explicit in its direction of travel towards military action, the Opposition amendment states that we will go there if the conditions in six of the paragraphs it lays out are met. My concern is about the end game and the exit strategy. There have been many excellent contributions to the debate.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Paragraph (e) of the Opposition amendment refers to

“precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria”.

What are those “precise and achievable objectives”?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I have exactly the same difficulty as the hon. Gentleman—I do not know what they are either. I do not think that they are identifiable. I do not think that they are achievable. My objection, as I was saying a moment ago, is that there is not an exit strategy or an end game. There have been many contributions to the debate in which colleagues have said, “If we do this, that will happen. If we do not do that, this will happen.” Only one thing is absolutely guaranteed: nobody knows what will happen if we go down the road of military action. We have seen that too often in recent decades. The difficulty I have is the fact that we do not have an exit strategy.

In conclusion, and for the hon. Gentleman’s information, I have problems with both the Government motion and the Opposition amendment. Ultimately, I do not believe that either is able to achieve the honourable ends that both sides of the House want. I am opposed to military intervention in Syria full stop. To be honest and consistent on both questions, I will vote in the No Lobby against the Government motion and against the Opposition amendment.

Algeria

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Friday 18th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should keep the travel advice and information updated, and we do. He is also right to say that Algerians living and working in this country make an important contribution. His general point about working with NATO partners to see how we can further improve links and relationships with countries—Libya, Algeria, Mali and other countries in the region—should be a real focus in the months ahead. As I said, it is about diplomatic and political engagement, but military-to-military co-operation and understanding can be a real benefit too.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

As part of the police parliamentary scheme, I spent time earlier this week with CO15, the counter-terrorist unit at Scotland Yard. Can the Prime Minister reassure us that the Government will continue direct funding from the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the excellent work that those officers do to protect us against terrorists at home and abroad? Can he also assure us that the Government will continue their efforts, particularly given Ben Macintyre’s excellent article in The Times today, to close down the space for those who would use religion, whether here or abroad, as an excuse for intolerance at best or violence at worst?

[The Prime Minister]

I have not read Ben Macintyre’s column, but I will try to do so later today. On policing, we see the work of anti-terrorist policing as absolutely vital and we will continue to prioritise it.

Tower Hamlets (City Status)

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the Tower Hamlets city status bid, and I welcome the Minister. I know that his reaction must be neutral, so in reality, this will not be much of a debate. It is none the less good to see him—he is highly regarded on both sides of the House.

It is also good to see the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field) in the Chamber. He represents London’s two existing cities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and I—she cannot be with us tonight—would be very happy were Her Majesty to allow us to represent just one city between us. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can offer us some advice and assistance on how to get there.

The east end has always been special in many ways. Today, however, Tower Hamlets is a reflection of Britain and the Commonwealth—a centre for global business and multiculturalism. The borough has come a long way since the blitz. Tower Hamlets has been transformed during the decades of Her Majesty’s reign, adapting from the industry of the docks and the merchant navy to become an internationally recognised world centre for trading, business and banking, and a celebrated tourism hub.

We have over two millennia of history and share more than a thousand years with royalty. Now as before, but in a different way, we are a powerhouse for the United Kingdom’s well-being. We are the third central business district for the heart of London, alongside London’s west end and the Corporation of London, both cities of which are represented by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, as I have said.

Our new economy creates an economic surplus that contributes through Government tax distribution to many of the poorer parts of Britain. We are proud to be able to make that contribution, having experienced hard times ourselves in the past—we still have deprived areas today.

On the history of our part of east London, the iconic Tower of London symbolises our strong and enduring links with the monarchy. Founded by William the Conqueror, it is the country’s oldest royal palace. The constable of the tower has the right of direct access to the sovereign, and of course it is home to the Crown jewels.

Tower Hamlets locations feature in royal and maritime chronology. The first ships to establish English-speaking settlements in north America left Blackwall stairs in 1606, 13 years before the pilgrim fathers left the south-west. Four hundred years later, almost symmetrically, the major US banks, with others, now occupy Canary Wharf. Famous navigators and explorers such as Sir Martin Frobisher sailed from Blackwall and the Ratcliff highway—now the King Edward VII memorial park—to advance British trade and fight on behalf of the Crown. The Royal Naval Reserve’s “stone frigate”, HMS President, was commissioned in November 1903, and is now at St Katharine’s way, close to Tower bridge. The Isle of Dogs was home to the royal stables for King Charles II’s Greenwich palace. Victoria park was established as London’s first public park in 1850, and named after Queen Victoria. A petition signed by 30,000 residents requested a royal park in the area because of the lack of green space in the east end.

In world war two, east-enders endured the terrible onslaught of Hitler’s blitz. The bombing was more painful as it followed the poverty of the economic depressions in the 1920s and 1930s. The people were fortified by the royal family’s visits, and by the shared experience of their suffering. Her Majesty’s mother, Queen Elizabeth, almost perversely, commented positively after Buckingham palace itself was bombed, saying:

“I am glad…now we can look the East End in the eye”.

In 1945, during two days of joy following VE day, the royal family celebrated with Poplar and Limehouse.

The royal family has maintained its links with the east end, and family members have taken an active interest in the area’s regeneration. The Prince’s Trust has been an assiduous partner in local initiatives, and Her Majesty herself opened the first stage of the Docklands light railway in 1987, and Poplar marina a decade later. She and His Royal Highness Prince Philip have also visited on other occasions. The ecumenical priorities of the royal family are a basis of staunch support from Tower Hamlets, as a multi-faith community. This was demonstrated at the recent royal wedding celebrations, which were organised and attended by people from all religions and backgrounds.

Our prosperity as London’s engine room has always been linked with London’s priorities as the nation’s primary trading centre, and now as a world city. We have moved from physical trade to international banking, creative industries, media, pharmaceuticals and company headquarters, and Tower Hamlets is now a leading world centre, with the City Fringe and Canary Wharf. Our economic turnover is now over £6 billion annually. Small and medium-sized enterprises on, and servicing, Canary Wharf, as well as traditional businesses, provide employment for thousands of people. Our inward-commuting population is more than 120,000 daily, and will rise to more than 200,000 by 2020. There will be 300,000 jobs in Tower Hamlets by then. Already, Tower Hamlets offers the largest number of jobs in the United Kingdom outside the cities of Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield, and London’s two other cities.

The Thames and Lea rivers, and the legacy of the Roman roads, were our early business arteries and our communities’ raison d’être. We still have the largest “blue network” of any London borough. The upper docks were a vital part of Britain’s maritime trade from the 1800s to the 1970s. London’s first canal—the Regent’s canal or Prince Regent’s canal—and early railways such as the London and Blackwall were built to serve the docks and carry national, imperial and international trade. Our markets, including Spitalfields, were the centrepiece of the capital’s provisioning. In 1982, Billingsgate fish market relocated to Tower Hamlets.

For international air and rail connections, we are neighbours to London City airport and Stratford International, and we will be only 40 minutes from Heathrow airport when Crossrail opens. All built-up areas in Tower Hamlets are within walking distance of a railway, a Docklands light railway, a tube or an overground station, and the Mayor of London’s cycle scheme is following. We can therefore support major growth environmentally in the decades to follow, and 170 million passenger journeys start or finish at our 30 stations yearly.

Tower Hamlets has a fascinating social, cultural and political history. A core test of strong community leadership is an enduring concern for the well-being of its citizens of all ages. Trade and social cohesion do not always rub shoulders comfortably in a major urban area. Poverty, slum housing, poor health and crime have all been present locally and, sadly, some aspects are still evident. Tower Hamlets council and its predecessors have a distinguished and continuing tradition of increasing democracy and rights for working people, including the Poplar rebels of the 1920s. The roll call locally is packed with social reform, equality, emancipation and self-improvement of communities, transforming them into our 21st-century society.

In the middle ages, Wat Tyler met King Richard II at Mile End during the peasants’ revolt, where the king acceded to a petition for better payments and social conditions. In Victorian times, the Chartists and local dockers, campaigning to improve industrial and social conditions, met at Victoria park. The Toynbee Hall organisation has worked on social and welfare reform since the end of the 19th century. Clement Attlee MP, one of my predecessors, was MP for Limehouse and became Prime Minister, championing welfare reform. In early 2011, the current Prime Minister announced the coalition Government’s plans for welfare reform at Toynbee Hall.

The Boundary estate in Bethnal Green opened in 1900 and was the world’s first council housing, built on the site of one of the capital’s most notorious slums, the Old Nichol. The Peabody estate in Commercial street was the first social housing, while the Lansbury estate in Poplar was a post-war prototype and is still going strong.

Sylvia Pankhurst settled in Bow at the beginning of world war one. With suffragette colleagues, she set up a cut-price restaurant, a milk centre, a toy factory and a nursery school. This provided local women and children with what they needed; the women worked in the munitions factories and on public transport, as their husbands and men-folk went to war. In other examples, the first women to form a trade union did so at Bryant and May’s match factory in Bow; the Salvation Army was founded by Charles Booth in the east end; and Mahatma Gandhi stayed in Kingsley hall in Bow in 1930s—a place that now houses the Gandhi Foundation.

New communities have always shaped Tower Hamlets. The east end has had a wide impact on British national identity through the archetypal cheeky Cockney and the resourceful, never-give-up, east-ender attitude. However, this is just its starting point. At the trading crossroads for the oceans, we have led the proud tradition of integrating migrants. Spitalfields’ origins were the migrants during Roman times, and I mentioned the Normans and William the Conqueror’s Tower of London. Through the centuries, our arrivals have included many thousands from across the British empire and the Commonwealth. The original London Chinatown was in Limehouse. Religious persecutions caused others to seek refuge with us: French Huguenots at the end of the 17th century and east European Jews in the 19th century. Economic needs and famine stimulated the arrival of many Catholics from Ireland and, more recently, we have seen the arrival of Bangladeshi Muslims. These new communities, defined by their faith and ethnicity, have created strong infrastructures around family and work—firm foundations for our city. The diverse population, cultures and identities reflect those of the wider 21st-century Britain. We now have the youngest population of any London local authority.

That rich background has stimulated a shining example of Tower Hamlets’ distinctiveness. One building that best tells the diverse religious history of Tower Hamlets, is the “Brick Lane mosque”, which was originally founded as a church for the Huguenots, but later used by Methodists. In the late 19th century, it was converted into the Machzikei Adass, also known as the Spitalfields Great synagogue, but as the Jewish community moved out to be replaced by Bengali immigrants, it became the Jamme Masjid or the Great London mosque in 1976. We also have the east London mosque in Whitechapel and no fewer than three Hawksmoor churches in the borough. Royal ensigns have permission to fly—the white ensign at St Anne’s in Limehouse, the red ensign at St Dunstan’s in Stepney, as well as the blue ensign at the floating church of St Peter’s in the docks.

Most recently, the regeneration of the area, overseen by the London Docklands Development Corporation, has caused the riverside populations to be reborn, with renovations and adaptation of older buildings and the construction of new homes, bringing many thousands of new residents to the area. That stimulation and new investment has extended inland to centres such as Spitalfields, Whitechapel, Bow and Victoria park—and, of course, Tower Hamlets is one of London’s Olympic boroughs.

Tower Hamlets’ experiences with community activism in past times are paying dividends as we look to the future. At the 1936 battle of Cable street, 300,000 people blocked Oswald Mosley’s fascists from marching on the local Jewish community. Today there are some 2,500 community groups working within Tower Hamlets, delivering a vast range of services to local people, ranging from small self-help groups run by volunteers, to larger organisations delivering public sector contracts. Our thriving third sector is a reflection of our vitality and community spirit, which is inspired by our origins. There was stability in Tower Hamlets during the riots that took place elsewhere in the United Kingdom during the 1980s and 1990s, and most recently we were pretty much spared the violence seen in so many parts of the UK.

The sustaining core of the east end’s future will be our young people, and ensuring that they are educated, skilled, experienced and adaptable. Our secondary schools are benefiting from a £290 million investment to create world-class learning environments for our children. Our schools have moved in the last 15 years, and are now among the highest-performing in Britain. Education and training-related courses can be taken in the borough’s idea stores—formerly libraries—and higher educational opportunities are available in Tower Hamlets at Queen Mary and Westfield college, part of the University of London, at London Metropolitan university, and at Tower Hamlets college.

We are profoundly keen for our new generations to be politically articulate, and the council has organised and held annual elections for a “Young Mayor” since 2008. The most recent election, in January 2011, saw a record turnout of 52.4% of young people, a higher turnout than those in some recent mainstream elections. We have a directly elected executive mayoral system of local government.

Tower Hamlets has always had a high-profile artistic identity. Among our residents are Dame Helen Mirren, Sir Ian McKellen, Tracey Emin and Gilbert and George, and 3 Mills Studios in Bromley-by-Bow are London’s largest film and television studios. The Old Truman Brewery is now host to many creative businesses, and we have a number of artists’ colonies including Trinity Buoy Wharf, where Faraday experimented with electricity. For over a century the Whitechapel gallery has showcased the work of world-renowned artists such as Picasso, Jackson Pollock and Lucian Freud. The Museum of London Docklands is considered to be one of London’s hidden treasures, and addresses the history of the capital as a port. Children locally are encouraged to visit the V&A Museum of Childhood, which was opened by the Prince of Wales in 1872, to see its collection of childhood-related objects dating back to the 1600s. Wilton’s Music Hall, which opened in 1858 in Wapping, is the oldest surviving Grand Music Hall in the world, and is Grade II listed. However, the jewel of all our buildings is the one that I mentioned at the start, which is home to the Crown Jewels.

One of Britain’s most striking and famous historical landmarks, the Tower of London, is now a world heritage site attracting more than 2 million visitors a year. Other high-profile buildings include the Canary Wharf skyscrapers, the Old Truman Brewery, the old and new parts of the Royal London hospital, the northern half of Tower Bridge—I would not want to claim Southwark’s southern half—and the Whitechapel Bell Foundry, which cast the Big Ben bell, as well as the bells of many cathedrals and parish churches and others further afield. I am told that it also cast the Liberty Bell, which, as we know, is famously cracked. During the American quadricentennial celebrations, a stunt was organised by Americans who handed out leaflets outside the foundry asking for their money back. The foundry showed its sense of humour: they were told that they could certainly have their money back provided that the goods were returned in the original packaging.

Some of our street markets are known worldwide and are major destinations for residents, Londoners and tourists alike, such as the Columbia Road flower market and the Whitechapel, Petticoat Lane, Spitalfields and Billingsgate markets. The Roman Road, Watney and Chrisp Street markets are well known throughout the east end. Food is a symbol of Tower Hamlets’ many cultures, whether it is sold in the local pie and mash shops, at Tubby Isaac’s jellied eel stall, in the bagel bakeries or in the curry houses. The Olympic organisers have just named Brick lane as Curry Capital 2012.

Events take place in Tower Hamlets throughout the year. The Baishakhi Mela, a festival to celebrate the Bengali new year, is the largest carnival in the UK after the Notting Hill carnival, and more than 100,000 people turned up in 2010. Lovebox, a music festival held in Victoria park, attracts star performers and plays to over 100,000 people, and Canary Wharf sponsors a year-round arts and events programme encompassing music, sport, visual art, food, fashion and dance.

Many excellent towns and boroughs are seeking Her Majesty’s pleasure and approval to be named a city in 2012, her diamond jubilee year. As the Minister knows, Tower Hamlets is in very good company, and whichever area Her Majesty chooses will be worthy of the title. My speech is intended to draw attention to some of the stronger reasons for the view held by many of us that Tower Hamlets has an excellent case to make. Our bid has the support of all our major political parties.

A city is defined through its deeds, its concern for citizens and its central roles. We have a powerful track record of managing and behaving as a city, with national and world impacts in business, and a profound and strong cultural and social record at a human level.

We hope that Her Majesty will choose Tower Hamlets because we foresee more investment and economic growth coming from city status with its new united identity. These gains will be re-invested back into our communities and our people, and towards the wider London and national well-being. Our vision is built on our multicultural, multi-faith approach to social development, and our aim to be the leading example of how Britain can best influence the dynamics of the world in the 21st century, and I am grateful to have had the chance to make these remarks.