Tulip Siddiq: 'Why I did not support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza'

 Tulip Siddiq, MP for Hampstead and Kilburn, unlike her Brent colleagues Barry Gardiner and Dawn Butler, abstained on the SNP motion supporting an immediate ceasefire,

She has written to 'thousands' of constituents at considerable length to explain her position:

 Firstly, I want to assure you that I of course want to see a ceasefire in the Middle East as soon as possible, and I think anyone looking at the devastating scenes in Gaza we have seen over the last few weeks would feel this way. This is such an important topic, so I hope you will bear with me while I take the time to explain my thinking on both the issue and the vote on the amendment which you wrote to me about.

I did not come into politics to stand by as death, destruction and suffering on the scale we are seeing in Palestine takes place, and I have thought long and hard about what I can do to give the best chance of bringing to an end the horrifying and unacceptable killing of innocent people that we have seen over the last few weeks, including so many children in Gaza. As I made clear to the Government this week in an intervention in Parliament which you can watch here, the conditions across Gaza including in hospitals are inhumane and indefensible. An end to the fighting must be our top priority and a meaningful, lasting ceasefire which leads to a negotiated political settlement and a two-state solution with a viable state of Palestine is the only way that we are going to get there.

I understand the frustration and anger of those who asked me to back the Scottish National Party’s amendment to the King’s Speech this week. I take my responsibility as your local MP very seriously, and I can assure you that my priority in all of this is to do whatever I think is most likely to prevent further bloodshed and achieve a genuine, lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. I took the decision to support Labour’s amendment to the King’s Speech as I truly believed that it provided a more realistic chance of bringing the violence to an end and achieving a ceasefire that holds, and I will explain why.

The Labour amendment I voted for condemned the fact that there have been far too many deaths of innocent civilians and children in Gaza and set out the need for “an enduring cessation of fighting as soon as possible and a credible, diplomatic and political process to deliver the lasting peace of a two-state solution”, as well calling for an immediate end to the siege conditions in Gaza, for essentials like water, food, fuel, electricity and medicine to get to the Palestinians, and for the fighting to stop to allow the free flow of desperately and urgently needed humanitarian aid. The amendment I voted for also called for international law to be followed by and enforced on all parties, a guarantee that fleeing Gazans can return to their homes, and an end to the expansion of illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank.

The UN definition of a ceasefire is “a suspension of fighting agreed upon by the parties to a conflict” which is “intended to be long-term” and usually aims “to allow parties to engage in dialogue, including the possibility of reaching a permanent political settlement”. While I can assure you that this outcome is absolutely what I want to see as soon as possible, at the moment the two parties which would need to agree upon the suspension of fighting – Israel and Hamas – will not accept it. Hamas has said that they will continue to attack civilians in the manner they did on 7^th October “again and again” and continues to hold innocent hostages and fire rockets at civilian areas, and Israel won’t accept a ceasefire as long as this is the case. There is tragically no prospect for an immediate ceasefire of the kind the Scottish National Party’s amendment called for, as has been acknowledged by the UN’s humanitarian coordinator who has said that right now humanitarian pauses are “the only viable option” to get the necessary relief into Gaza and alleviate suffering.

Though I want to see a ceasefire as soon as possible, I do not believe it is in the interest of the suffering Palestinian people for me to vote for something that we know cannot happen right now, when I could be voting for solutions that actually have a chance of being accepted and alleviating the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Securing a full, immediate humanitarian pause is the only substantial, practical step that the parties in this conflict might accept at this stage, and therefore putting pressure on them to do this is, in my view, the best way I can try to help the Palestinians. It is also, in my opinion, the only viable way that we can start to create the necessary pre-conditions for a genuine, lasting ceasefire and a two-state solution, which I believe is the only route to a Palestinian state and the peace that you and I want to see.

There is more agreement on this issue than much of the framing of it suggests as I know from my discussions in recent weeks that my Labour colleagues and I all want to see an end to the fighting and death of civilians in Gaza as soon as possible, even if we may disagree on exactly what role the UK Government and Parliament can play in getting there. The Scottish National Party’s amendment was very similar to Labour’s, including in demanding that Hamas release hostages and Israel end the siege of Gaza. However, their amendment did not mention the role of the International Criminal Court in holding parties to account for war crimes, nor did it specifically call on Israel to protect hospitals, both of which are essential steps to safeguard civilian life and infrastructure in Gaza. The amendment also did not directly address the awful settler violence we have seen in the West Bank, nor did it call for a guarantee that people in Gaza who have been forced to flee during this conflict are allowed to return to their homes, which is essential.

An amendment that calls for an immediate ceasefire has to confront the tragic reality that, at this moment in time, neither party to the conflict will accept it. My overwhelming wish is to see the bloodshed stop as soon as possible, and I truly believe that the Labour amendment was the most constructive one in support of that principle and a realistic roadmap to peace. While I considered it very carefully, I decided not to vote for an amendment that I felt was an empty gesture towards an unrealistic outcome and lacked the necessary substance and practical steps to help those Palestinians suffering so horrendously as quickly as possible. I can assure you that I have raised my concerns about the appalling situation in Gaza and breaches of international law directly with Ministers including in Parliament and in a letter to the Foreign Secretary, and I have taken every opportunity to raise the views of my constituents including on a ceasefire with my colleagues who lead on foreign affairs in Parliament including the Shadow Foreign Secretary and Labour Leader.

As a mother of two, I cannot imagine what it must be like to lose a child or raise a child in the dire conditions we can see in Gaza, and heartbreakingly we know that this is the unimaginable situation for so many Palestinian families. All human life is equal, and I can assure you that I will always do what I believe has the best chance of preventing bloodshed and is in the best interests of people facing this appalling suffering, wherever they are. My Labour colleagues and I will continue to do everything we can to push for an end to the fighting, the punishment of war crimes in this conflict, and peace in the region that is based on the creation of a state of Palestine – something I have called for my entire life and argued for in Parliament ever since I was elected as your MP.

I have received thousands of emails on this topic in recent days and weeks, and I am doing my best to reply to each one as quickly and personally as I can. However, if there are any points from your email that you feel I have not addressed in my response or further questions you would like to ask or concerns you would like to raise about this, please write to me again and I will get back to you as soon as I can.

Thank you once again for writing to me about this important and harrowing issue, and for taking the time to read my lengthy response. If there is ever anything I can help with or write to you about as a constituent, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me again.

Best wishes,

Tulip Siddiq MP

Member of Parliament for Hampstead and Kilburn
Shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury (City Minister)

LETTER: Tulip Siddiq under fire for opposing RMT strikes. She should support those defending their living standards.

 First published in Camden New Journal LINK

Dear Editor,

AS socialists and trades unionists we were disappointed to see one of our local Labour MPs, Tulip Siddiq, saying, “We didn’t support the [RMT] strikes… because we felt they were very disruptive to the country”.

We wonder what effect Ms Siddiq thinks “non-disruptive” strikes would have. Why else would the Tory government be planning to introduce legislation precisely to stop such “disruption”?

The imbalance of power in our society is such that without the ability to take effective collective action, employers can slash workers’ pay and conditions and summarily sack employees with virtual impunity as at P&O.

The alternative, at a time of soaring inflation, is to accept pay cuts in real terms even as profits rise for many corporations.

The Labour Party was formed by trade unions to further the interests of the working class, not to undermine its efforts to defend and indeed improve its rights and conditions.

We would hope that Tulip Siddiq, like many other MPs, councillors, and ordinary Labour Party members, would recognise this and lend her support for future strikes.

As another MP, Barry Gardiner, said: “The Conservative strategy is clear: blame the victim. The Labour Party response must be even clearer: we will always support the workers’ right to withdraw their labour in order to keep their families warm, fed and secure.”

And in the words of Jon Cruddas, a former adviser to Tony Blair on unions, “the rail strikes are arguably the canary down the coal mine. You cannot dodge this. Labour has to be supportive of those seeking to defend their living standards.”

SIGNATORIES —
Mary Adossides Chair of Brent Trades Council & Greater London Association of Trades Councils; Cath Attlee Unison; Rebekah Ball Unite Community; Michael Barson Secretary Finchley Road & Kilburn Branch Labour Party; George Binette Camden Trades Council Vice-Chair/Former Camden Unison Secretary; Angie Birtill UCU; Katharine Bligh Unite Community Camden; Alex Colas UCU Branch Committee Member Birkbeck; Gerry Downing Assistant Secretary Brent Trades Council & Chair Unite the Union NW London Retired Members; Una Doyle Camden Trades Council Chair/Camden NEU; Bernie Driscoll Joint Branch Secretary UCU College of NW London; Bridget Dunne Unite Community Camden; Graham Durham Secretary Unite the Union NW London Retired Members; Andrew Feinstein former ANC MP; Ian Ferrie GMB Delegate to Hampstead & Kilburn Labour Party; Padraic Finn UCU London Retired Members & BTUC; Pete Firmin CWU Vice-Chair Brent Trades Council; Jonathan Flaxman Doctors in Unite; Tessa van Gelderen GMB Delegate to Hampstead & Kilburn Labour Party; Nick Gowers Camden Trades Council/Aslef St Pancras 199 branch; Rathi Guhadasan BMA; Luke Howard TSSA Chair, TfL Central Branch & Former Trade Union Liaison Officer Hampstead & Kilburn Labour Party; Nick Jones Secretary Brent Trades Council; David Kaye UCU London Retired Members; Richard Kuper UCU; Liz Lindsay UCU Retired Members; Gaynor Lloyd Unite Community; Marie Lynam GMB Delegate to Hampstead & Kilburn Labour Party; Moshe Machover Unite Community Brent; Anthony Molloy Kilburn; Gareth Murphy Branch Secretary Unite Community Camden; Seamus O’Connell TSSA Delegate to Hampstead & Kilburn Labour Party; Nayra Bello O’Shanahan Unite; Mary O’Sullivan NUJ; Diane Pearson Camden Trades Council Delegate/Camden Unison; Simon Pearson Former Camden Labour Councillor/TSSA; Keith Perrin Unite Community; Chris Powell Camden Trades Council/UCU; John Purcell Unite Community; Paul Renny Schools Convenor Haringey Unison; Shezan Renny Haringey NEU Camden Momentum Officer Highgate Branch BAME Officer Holborn & St Pancras Labour Party; Ian Saville UCU & Equity; Martin Sherry RMT THSC London Underground; Sean Taylor Musicians’ Union; John Tymon Camden Unison Retired Members.

Come to Queens Park Farmers' Market on Sunday and send your message to COP26 - Tulip Siddiq MP has sent hers in advance

Children's messages at the Harlesden stall

 

Brent Friends of the Earth will be setting up their 'Messages for COP26' stall outside the Farmers' Market at Salusbury Primary School, Salusbury Road, Queens Park on Sunday from 11am to 1pm. 

This is the third stall after successful appearances in Harlesden and Wembley Central.  The pennats will be displayed outside the school before being sent to the politicians and NGOs  in Glasgow.

 

Hampstead and Kilburn MP has sent  her pennant in advance.

 

Paper and pens are all supplied  so pause for a few minutes to send a message, which along with thousands of others,  may save our children's future.

 

HS2 vent next to South Kilburn primary school at Planning Committee tomorrow but its powers are limited

 

The development site outlined in red, school grounds in green and Canterbury House and Carlton House

A battle started about 6 years ago when Brent Council asked HS2 to site a proposed vent site for the high speed rail running underground at this point at a site next to a primary school in South Kilburn rather than one adjacent to Queens Park station.

In a  message to constituents, March 23^rd 2016,  Tulip Siddiq MP said:

Today in Parliament, I voted against the High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) Bill that will devastate areas of Camden and Brent.

I have campaigned against HS2 for the past seven years as I believe it is an ill-thought out scheme that will lead to bedlam on our roads, disruption to the education of school children and a compromised local environment. (my emphasis)

Further, these plans will cost taxpayers billions of pounds. I believe this money could instead be spent on projects that will actually bring real improvements to living standards across the country.

Having spoken against this Bill at the Select Committee, and again in today’s debate, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank residents who engaged with the lengthy and costly petition process. Though the Bill received support from across Parliament, it is your voice that will force HS2 to fulfil its assurances to compensate and mitigate the worst of the impacts.

My first priority as the MP for Hampstead and Kilburn is to protect residents in Camden and Brent. Therefore, I am proud to have voted against High Speed Rail 2 today in Parliament.

The scheme have now been granted permission by parliament, but I will keep fighting for mitigation for constituents.

Of course HS2 has gone ahead costing billions of pounds more than first suggested but for South Kilburn residents the question is still whether on South Kilburn the proposed vent will 'lead to bedlam on our roads, disruption to the education of school children and a compromised local environment.'

Unfortunately as officers note the legislation gives HS2 enormous powers and limits that of the Planning Committee:

The above mentioned approvals have been carefully defined to provide an appropriate level of local planning control over the works while not unduly delaying or adding cost to the project. As such the legislation states that planning authorities should not through the exercise of the Schedule seek to revisit matters settled through the parliamentary process, seek to extend or alter the scope of the project, modify or replicate controls already in place, either specific to HS2 Phase One such as the EnvironmentalMinimum Requirements, or existing legislation such as the Control of Pollution Act or the regulatory requirements that apply to railways.

 

For residents the immediate issue will be noise from the site and associated vehicle movements with extensive ground works required. These issues are not the subject of the report:

Mitigation includes a small strip of grass to be made available to St Mary's Primary School, walls and fencing around the perimeter of the site and  the widening of the cross-over with Canterbury Road from 3 metres to 6 metres.

There is only one objection recorded on the Brent Council Planning Portal froma resident of Canterbury House:

The current design is radically different from the original proposal. There are more buildings and the design height is much greater; the original proposal included the extraction fans installed underground but the revised plans are far more intrusive on residents neighbouring the development. The current proposed height of the headhouse building will have a major impact on natural light and views available to the properties at the rear of Canterbury House. Residents of Canterbury House bought their properties with knowledge of the original plans but there are deep concerns that the revised plans could significantly deter potential future buyers. If the first plan to construct the vents at Queens Park was withdrawn due to resident objections, why has the design at Canterbury Works revised in such a way that the impact on nearby residents will be significant and possibly more so than what was proposed at Queens Park. 

Planning officers say:

The committee report states at paragraph 16 that there would be no breach of the 30 degree rule when considered in relation to Canterbury Terrace. However, there would be a slight breach of the 30-degree rule from two of the ground floor units due to the greater height of the ventilation stacks which sit adjacent these homes. However, given the separation distance (approximately 18 m) and the fact that a daylight/sunlight report has been submitted to demonstrate that there would be no harmful loss of light, the breach is considered acceptable in this instance. It is also important to note that the Design and Access Statement confirms that the vertical ventilation stacks have been reduced in size to the minimum required in both plan dimensions and height. Therefore when having regard to the fact that the LPA are required to given consideration to whether the works 'ought to or could reasonably' be modified to protect local amenity, given the information provided the arrangement is considered acceptable.

A supplementary report responds to a late comment:

Since the publication of the agenda one further comment has been received in relation to the application. This comment raises concerns about a lack of mitigation or compensation for protecting or safeguarding South Kilburn's residents' quality of life. It also makes reference to the new tree planting HS2 are doing in the Chilterns and the lack of any similar mitigation for Brent. The potential impacts on surrounding properties is discussed within the committee report.

Firstly, it is important to note that HS2 works in South Kilburn and the Chilterns are very different. It is also important to note that the character of the areas differ greatly with South Kilburn being a far more urban environment. As this is not a planning application, the Local Planning Authority are unable to seek obligations to secure funding for tree planting in the area.

However, whilst the committee report focuses on the works for approval, the submission does include a number of 'For information' drawings to show future intentions of the site. As stated in the committee report a follow up application for 'Bringing into use' is required to be submitted, whereby HS2 are required to demonstrate that the impact of the development has been mitigated as far as possible. This is expected to include a detailed landscaping and tree planting scheme on site and the provision of a 'pocket park' to provide educational opportunities to neighbouring St Mary's PrimarySchool. However, it important to note that these works are not for approval under this application.

 

 

 

Brent MPs and councillors to join vital meeting on the Cladding Scandal March 16th

 

Leaseholders across the country have found themselves trapped in their homes as a result of the cladding and building crisis in the wake of the Grenfell fire.

In order to sell their homes leaseholders have to have an EWS1 certificate and this is not available if the building does not meet safety checks - they find that their home has no value.

While trapped in their homes they find themselves confronted with huge bills as the freeholder/management agency and the builders do not accept liability for the defect remediation. In addition they may also have to pay for additional meanwhile costs of a 'waking watch' fire marshalls engaged 24/7 to monitor the safety of the building.

The situation has left many leaseholders desperate and depressed but they have got themselves organised and are fighting back.

 Leaseholders in Brent and Camden have been in the forefront of the campaign to persuade the government to take urgent action on the situation. 

Join the meeting on Tuesday March 16th 6-7pm APPLICATION 

Information brentcladding@gmail.com

 

Local MPs back End Our Cladding Scandal campaigners in Opposition Day Debate - Quadrant Court and Forum House residents hear bad news

 

Shepherd Construction's Capitol Way development as visualised 8 years ago(see Barry Gardiner's speech below)

Months of campaigning by leaseholders trapped in their buildings for want of an EWS1 safety certificate following the tragic Grenfell fire bore fruit yesterday when the Opposition  held a debate on the motion:

Unsafe Cladding – Protecting Tenants and Leaseholders

 

That this House
calls on the Government to urgently establish the extent of dangerous cladding and prioritise buildings according to risk;
provide upfront funding to ensure cladding remediation can start immediately;
protect leaseholders and taxpayers from the cost by pursuing those responsible for the cladding crisis;
and update Parliament once a month in the form of a Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State.

 

Lucie Gutfreund, a tireless local campaigner, co- leader of End Our Cladding Scandal and founder of Brent Cladding Action Group,  and a leaseholder in South Kilburn, told Wembley Matters today:

 

The End Our Cladding Scandal campaigners are pleased with the result of the Opposition Day debate and the resulting vote on protecting leaseholders from unfair costs of remediating unsafe buildings. Even if the approved Labour motion is non-binding, it puts pressure on the Government to abide by the motion in the best way they can. Brent MPs Barry Gardiner and Tulip Siddiq spoke passionately about protecting their constituents and pushing for those who are responsible for the cladding crisis to be made to pay to make buildings safe. Across Brent, thousands of leaseholders live in unsafe buildings and are facing bankruptcy from the extortionate amounts being asked. The highest amount we have heard of is approximately £100,000 per flat in a housing association development in Alperton. No one has this kind of money; this situation is breaking not just leaseholders' bank accounts, but also residents’ mental health.

 

She urged leaseholders of affected buildings in Brent to get in touch with the local cladding action group on the closed Facebook group    https://www.facebook.com/groups/713506399518392

    or email:

brentcladding@gmail.com

 

These are the speeches from Barry Gardiner, Tulip Siddiq and Bob Blackman in support of the campaign’s demands:

Tulip Siddiq (Labour Hampstead & Kilburn)

The pain of the Grenfell fire was felt very deeply in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn. Those who died were our neighbours and our friends. Some survivors were rehoused in Camden and Brent and became part of our community. Then, one Friday night, shortly after the fire, thousands of my constituents had to be evacuated from the Chalcots estate in Swiss Cottage after it emerged that they had ACM cladding that was near-identical to that on Grenfell Tower. I ask all those on the Government Benches to consider what it must be like to live in a property that they know could face the same fate as Grenfell, and where a 24/7 waking watch patrol is required to make sure that the building is not on fire. That is the reality for many of my constituents living in the new-builds in and around West Hampstead Square, many blocks in south Kilburn and other parts of Brent, and over 70 private sector buildings in Camden that still have dangerous ACM cladding.

Perhaps the worst part of it is that the residents—the leaseholders—who had no part in creating this crisis, are being forced to pay to fix it and to pay for the waking watches, the fire safety measures and the replacement of the unsafe cladding that threatens their lives. One constituent in Kensal Rise who bought their flat using the Government’s Help to Buy loan scheme wrote to me recently to say that they are being made to pay for cladding remediation works. As she so aptly puts it, it is

“a disgusting abuse that a government would aim to help so many and then bankrupt those they aimed to help by not legally protecting leaseholders from these costs”.

To add insult to injury, none of these people can sell their homes. Many others are unable to sell simply because they are being forced to wait many years for an EWS1 form. Lucie Gutfreund, a constituent of mine who co-founded the End our Cladding Scandal campaign, told me that she and others are effectively trapped, facing crippling bills, and that the mental turmoil is ruining their lives and the lives of so many.

Grenfell was a tragedy. The Government’s response has been a travesty. I am urging Ministers to do what they can and what they should have done a long time ago: make these buildings safe, shield leaseholders from the costs and make those who installed dangerous cladding pay. Anything less is unforgivable.

 

Barry Gardiner (Labour Brent North)

Residents trapped in unsafe buildings are fed up with sympathy; they want action—certainly those in Elizabeth House, Damask Court, Capitol Way, and many other developments in my constituency do. They know that this debate should not just be about who pays. Lord Greenhalgh has admitted that the Government’s building safety fund will not even cover one third of the cladding defects, and residents in Capitol Way know that this debate should not just be about cladding. This is about a whole range of fire safety defects that have turned their homes into a building site for the past three years, and threaten to do so for three years more.

The Minister started the debate by saying that the Government “absolutely expect” building owners to do the right thing. Three and a half years on—really? The Government hold developers responsible. The developers hold the construction companies responsible. The construction companies hold the building control inspectors responsible, and the building control inspectors say that the Government privatised the system of building control, creating a downward spiral of monitoring and control, as inspection became a competition about who would let the builders get away with the most short cuts. Nobody blames my constituents, yet they are now paying for all those mistakes. They are unable to move house, unable to sell their homes, and unable to get on with their lives. They are trapped in unsafe accommodation, with no end in sight.

In advance of this debate I was sent documents that show that many of the fire safety defects that exist in the Capitol Way development were not mistakes. I have reason to believe that that was known by the construction company, Shepherd Construction, by the approved inspectors, Head Projects Building Control, which is now in liquidation, and by the project managers for the development, who were from CBRE. Those defects were known about and recorded in reports that were prepared for CBRE by its quality assurance agent. Those reports were then doctored. Evidence suggests that that took place before residents were moved into those unsafe properties.

Given that there was full knowledge of the statutory breaches of the fire safety elements of building regulations, it is clear that life was put at risk. I believe that therefore constituted a criminal offence, and that withholding such information from leaseholders, who purchased their apartments in good faith, was fraud by false representation. There was a duty to disclose that information, but no such disclosure was made. In my view, that means my constituents were victims of fraud.

In July 2019, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government issued a written statement to say that all cladding remediation would be completed by June 2020. Seven months on, instead of expecting building owners and the construction industry to do the right thing, the Government should wake up, impose a windfall levy on the industry, and get this work done.

Bob Blackman (Conservative Harrow East)

It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, who spoke about the inquiries that we have done—seemingly endlessly—over the past six and a half years. Three and a half years after the Grenfell tragedy, we still have leaseholders living in unsaleable, un-mortgageable, uninsurable, unsafe properties, and that is a disgrace that we have to put right. Progress on remediation has unfortunately been slow. It picked up last year, which is good news, but it has been slow and we still have buildings with unsafe cladding, which makes the homes almost impossible to sell, should someone so wish.

This is a complicated debate and a complicated issue, because we have ACM and non-ACM cladding and we have other fire safety issues, to which the Chairman of the Select Committee has referred. The Government, however, are responsible for two things that are important in this process: first, the testing regime, which is not fit for purpose and needs fundamental reform to ensure that cladding and other things that are put in buildings are safe; and secondly, the building regulations that control them.

We have a problem with building ownership, which is complex and unclear, with many buildings owned by offshore trusts and other organisations. We have to deal with those particular issues, but it is fundamental that leaseholders should not have to pay a penny piece towards the cost of remediating unsafe cladding.

The Government have rightly come forward with the Fire Safety Bill and the Building Safety Bill, and I sat through the pre-legislative scrutiny on the Building Safety Bill. The problem with the Building Safety Bill is that it will take a very long time before it comes into law and is actually put into practice. If the Government are against the amendments to the Fire Safety Bill tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) and for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), they are honour bound to come forward with alternative amendments that meet the fundamental principle that leaseholders should not pay.

The key is this: what do we do for the people who are in this position? Surveys cost an enormous amount of money. The industry cannot have the capacity at the moment to rectify all the damage that has been done. What is clear is that we need to ensure that the building owners and those responsible foot the bill. We have to end self-certification of buildings. It is unacceptable that building developers can just self-certify that their buildings are safe and are within the scope. We have to make sure that the Government extend the building safety fund into next year, increase the amount of money available, and make sure that the work is done—if necessary, taking over these buildings, remediating them, and then turning them into commonhold so that the leaseholders know that they have a safe building and are not paying a penny.

Bob Blackman, along with other Tories, did not vote in the denate. Dawn Butler Mo, joined her fellow Brent MPs in voting for the motion.

Meanwhile leaseholders and shared ownership residents at the Quadrant Court and Forum House buildings in Wembley Park, the first new builds to be completed in the regeneration, heard the bad news from landlords First Port that the fire risk survey of the blocks could only achieve a ‘B2’ EWS1.  First Port said: 

 

As you know, we recently commissioned an intrusive survey to find out more information about the external wall system at Quadrant Court. This information is needed as part of the process to obtain an EWS1 form for your building, as a result of the Government’s changing guidance on building and fire safety. 

 

The intrusive survey has now been completed and an independent fire engineer has reviewed the findings. The survey has advised that there are concerns regarding certain aspects of the external wall system. This means that the specialist engineer can only grant a ‘B2’ EWS1 form at the moment, which unfortunately won’t satisfy a mortgage lender. 

 

However, the independent engineer has advised that there is no requirement for any additional fire safety measures for your building. This means there is no need for additional fire alarm installation, or a waking watch, which would have incurred significant cost. We have been advised that a further survey of the external wall system would be prudent with the possibility of raising the B2 rating to a B1, this will satisfy most mortgage lenders. This survey will be undertaken by the simplest means and carried out in the next couple of weeks.

 

In the event that the rating stays at B2, this would mean that the external wall system should be remediated in order to meet the latest safety standards. Once remediation is undertaken this should then satisfy the EWS1 requirements and enable an EWS1 form of a higher rating, which mortgage lenders should then accept, to be granted for your building. I have received clarification from Quintain that Quadrant Court was built to BBA certified standards upon completion in 2008. 

 

These measures are being undertaken as a result of recent changes in regulations made by the Government. 

 

Building Safety Fund 

 

As you know, Forum House and Quadrant Court were both registered with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) for the Building Safety Fund and we are delighted that Forum House has been invited to apply for funding. To put this into context 2,821 buildings were registered last year and only 294 have so far been invited to apply for funding, Forum House is in this group. 519 have submitted all the required information to MHCLG but are waiting for the invitation to apply, Quadrant Court is in this group. There doesn’t seem to be any reason other than time and due process that would dictate why one building over another is invited to apply so we are anticipating an invitation for Quadrant Court over the coming weeks. It is important to note that we will wait to understand the outcome of this application before starting any remediation works which could incur costs that we will turn to the fund to cover, however, the second intrusive survey can go ahead as planned.

Residents are in disrepute with First Port over charges for the works and made it clear that residents agreeing to pay for an intrusive survey  did not mean they accepted that they were responsible for paying for any consequential remediation works. At Quadrant Court work was needed on lifts and 44 fire doors had to be removed and refitted to be compliant according to the risk assessment.  

 

Brent NEU issues urgent appeal to Brent MPs and Council leaders on contagion dangers of full opening of nursery classes

 Continuing his hapless mismanagement of the education service during the pandemic, Gavin Williamson has changed guidance on the opening of nurseries from that initially sent out at the beginning of term.  The opening of school-based nurseries had initially been left to headteachers to decide and in schools open to only vulnerable and critical workers (the latter a widened category compared with key workers) it made little sense to open nurseries to all children and thus increase the potential of contagion.

The DfE has now issued guidance that nurseries should be full open.

 Brent NEU has written a letter to Brent MPs Barry Gardiner, Tulip Siddiq and Dawn Butler; Muhammed Butt leader of Brent Council and Cllr Tom Stephens lead member for schools asking them to intervene in what could be a life or death matter.

 

Dear Brent Councillors and MPs,

 

As you know, there is great pressure to open nurseries and special schools fully during this lockdown despite the fact that Sadiq Khan has today declared a major incident and school settings have been shown to be a major transmission factor with the new variant of Covid-19.

 

In Brent our nursery and special school headteachers have, as usual, put safety first, and resisted opening to increased numbers of children. As you know this is in line with the policies of all education unions, the NEU included.

 

However they are now being pressured to implement this government's shameless edict just at the moment that deaths and cases reach a record high, the virus is out of control, we hear of deaths of our workers every day and the NHS in London is at breaking point.

 

I'm afraid I have to be brutally honest with you here. I cannot morally bring myself to advise my members (when they write to me concerned that their settings are going to fully open to children and staff) that they must go into their school or nursery, because the reality is that I know that if I give this advice, some will subsequently become seriously ill or die. This is the reality.

 

I feel I have no option but to advise against this. However it is within the gift of the council and MPs to come out publicly and state that you will not require your schools and council officers, in Brent, to adhere to DfE advice where that advice contradicts with the evidence we have on safety, risk and the headteachers' own risk assessments.

 

With that in mind I am asking you now if you can offer this support? Of course, not only would this protect my members from harm but it would help halt the spread of the virus, help save hospital beds and also prevent the deaths of pupils, bearing in mind that children with learning disabilities are six times more likely to die from Covid-19.

 

I am happy to meet with any of you to discuss this further, or indeed, organise a public meeting so that you can hear the views of our Brent community on this.

 

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter, as soon as possible.

 

Jenny Cooper

 

Brent NEU Joint District Secretary.

Vice Chair, NEU National Health and Safety Organising Forum.

 

Meanwhile the National Governors Association (NGA) has drawn attention to the problem of more than the expected number of vulnerable and critical worker children attended school, undermining the intention of school closures to stop the spread of the virus. Boris Johnson had insisted both that schools are safe and should close as they are vectors for the spread of the new strain:

One of the main issues we are currently in dialogue with the DfE is on the number of children who are attending schools despite there being a national lockdown with a stay at home request from the Prime Minister with supposedly schools closed to most pupils: significant numbers of governing boards are reporting that they have between 40 and 70% of their pupils attending in strong contrast to the first lockdown.  We are also aware that there are particular challenges for special schools, alternative provision and those with large numbers of disadvantaged children, but it is helpful to make the case if we have your stories to bring the points alive.

 

Mail to: covidfeedback@nga.org.uk