Agenda item

Middlesex Street Estate Car Park: Ventilation System Issues

John Fletcher asked a question of the Chair of the Community & Children’s Services Committee in relation to noise and air quality concerns related to a new ventilation system at the Middlesex Street Estate car park.

Replying, the Chair advised the old ventilation system in the basement car park had reached the end of its functional life and replacement was required. The new system had been designed and installed to comply with Building Regulations and to suit the specific requirements of the basement car park. Unfortunately, since installation, there had been several occasions where the fire alarm in the basement car park had been activated, causing the new extraction system to commence at its highest level. These false alarms had been caused by a combination of factors, including faulty detectors and vandalism, and activity was underway to ensure the number of false alarms was minimised, whilst still maintaining fire safety.

The Chair outlined steps taken to address residents’ concerns, including practical demonstrations and an independent air quality assessment; however, he accepted that communications with residents on this project should have been better from the outset. Further action was, therefore, being taken to recover the position, including the circulation of written apologies and information to all residents and a further practical demonstration for designated local community representatives.

With reference to a related query concerning car park income, the Chair clarified that the whole of the Middlesex Street Estate, including the car park, was an asset of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). By law, the HRA was ringfenced and any income derived from HRA assets could only be used for the purpose of those assets. Income received across all thirteen City housing estates went to the HRA and specific income streams were not reserved  for the exclusive benefit of any one Estate; however, it was worth noting that the Corporation was currently investing over £10million from the HRA in refurbishing and improving its homes on the Middlesex Street Estate.

In response to a supplementary question from John Fletcher, in which he thanked the Chair for his efforts to redeem the situation, the Chair agreed to circulate a further communication to residents explaining the issue and next steps.

Hong Kong National Security Law

Mark Wheatley asked a question of the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee concerning the ongoing situation in Hong Kong following the passing of the National Security Law concerning the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and seeking a commitment to issuing a statement expressing the City’s welcome to those affected with the right to live or work in Britain.

Responding, the Chair noted that the City owed much to its diverse workforce and population and added that people from all around the world, including Hong Kong, were always welcome in the City. However, she noted that the City would would not normally issue a public statement on foreign policy issues and that any statement specifically on Hong Kong at this particular moment would be viewed as entering into the foreign policy arena.

The Chair commented on the City of London Corporation’s role in supporting the business city, financial and professional services, and a diverse and thriving city, adding that its public statements should support that strategic position, not undermine it, and that China was an important market for UK financial and related professional services which helped underpin London’s position as a leading global financial centre. It was, therefore, important that the City continued to engage with China, on the basis of global standards, in the same way that it engaged with business partners across the world. The Chair noted that the City Corporation’s stakeholders had been explicit in encouraging this approach.

Whilst it was, of course, for elected members to determine the overall policy on engagement, she suggested it would be important to listen to what the views of the relevant sectors and project their interests, not personal political views, or the City Corporation would rapidly lose the sector’s confidence. The City should also be mindful of any guidance from the UK government on how and when to engage with the overseas Governments, including China. Therefore, she suggested that the City should continue to engage with stakeholders in China and Hong Kong, as it did with stakeholders around the world, until there was any change of policy decided by our Members and/or the UK government, and avoid making any public statements which relate to foreign policy rather than trade.

In reply to a supplementary question from Mark Wheatley, in which he referenced observations made by both former U.S. President Truman and author George Orwell concerning the importance of liberty and freedom of expression, the Chair agreed with the importance of support for freedom of expression, justice, and liberty; however, she expressed the view that this particular issue was a matter of foreign policy and a matter for Parliament. She suggested that making a formal statement at this time might not achieve the practicalities or outcomes one might hope for; neither would it be serving the interests of stakeholders.

Responding to a further supplementary question from Alderman Sir Roger Gifford, the Chair agreed that working together with the Chinese on critical areas for the UK’s interests – in particular, climate change – provided a positive method of engagement. Given that China accounted for a quarter of global carbon emissions and was also the world’s biggest investor in renewable energy, it would be impossible to make progress on such a critical issue without Chinese co-operation. The Chair made particular reference to ongoing close engagement in this area through the UK-China Green Finance Taskforce, which was helping to drive green principles into investment in Belt and Road projects. She stressed the importance of continuing to engage in order to bring about change, using the City’s expertise and working together with international partners on international standards to bring about change.

In reply to an additional supplementary question from Mary Durcan, in which she made reference to the effective voiding of the Sino-British joint declaration and the need to take a moral stand to help Hong Kong citizens, the Chair reiterated her earlier comments in relation to the role of the City Corporation in relation to foreign policy.

COVID-19 Response

Rehana Ameer asked a question of the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee concerning the response to COVID-19 and the handling and management of the City Corporation’s response to the crisis.

Responding, the Chair joined in publicly thanking those key workers, volunteers, officers, Members, and others who had worked so hard in tackling the COVID-19 crisis and in keeping services up and running whilst contributing to the wider London response.

The Chair also took the opportunity to advise on the award the Freedom of the City to a number of key people at Bart’s Hospital for their heroic work responding to the pandemic, noting that the ceremonies would be viewable on the City’s YouTube channel. Thought was being given to other ways in which some of the “hidden heroes” of the pandemic response could thanked and their efforts recognised.

Governance Review and Standards Regime

Marianne Fredericks asked a question of the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee concerning the initial findings of the ongoing Governance Review in relation to the Standards Regime.

Responding, the Chair noted the decision at the last meeting of the Court to ask Lord Lisvane to take into account the content of the motion under debate into his ongoing work on the governance review, adding that he was well aware of the issues of recent years. She shared Members’ enthusiasm for and interest in his recommendations, which it was hoped would provide a way forward that all Members could support.

However, whilst Lord Lisvane had shared some of his initial views orally, it should be noted that these were views, not findings, and the review was a work in progress.  She did not believe that it would be appropriate to second-guess or prejudge what his findings might be at this stage.

In response to a supplementary question from Marianne Fredericks concerning the interest of some 1600 City residents who had signed a petition concerning the Standards Regime, and the sharing of findings, the Chair advised that Lord Lisvane would be completing his review over the coming weeks, with a view to submission by the end of the recess. Whilst the Chair was cognisant that this was an issue all Members were keenly interested in, she urged patience and to let Lord Lisvane conduct his work thoroughly, so that he might present fully considered recommendations, supported by his rationale and relevant evidence, for Members to consider.