INCOMPETENCE. DISHONESTY. GREED.

DAMNING GRENFELL TOWER INQUIRY REPORT PULLS NO PUNCHES

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry has published its second and final report into the
circumstances leading up to and surrounding the fire at Grenfell Tower in the early hours of 14 June 2017.

The publication of the Phase 2 report marks the end of a process that began on 15
June 2017 when then Prime Minister Theresa May announced a public inquiry to
examine the disaster with a view to ensuring that a similar disaster could never occur again. The fire at Grenfell Tower was the worst residential fire in the UK since the Second World War and resulted in the deaths of 72 people.

The Phase 1 report was published on 30 October 2019 and focused on the events of
14 June 2017: how the fire started, how it escaped from the flat where it had begun
and how it spread over the whole building with tragic consequences.

Phase 2 of the Inquiry examined the underlying causes of the fire to identify where
mistakes were made and how Grenfell Tower came to be in a condition which
allowed the fire to spread in the way identified by Phase 1. It also investigated the
response of the authorities to the emergency.

Introducing the report, Inquiry Chairman the Rt Hon Sir Martin Moore-Bick explained that the second part of the investigations had taken longer than originally hoped because, as those investigations progressed, the Inquiry uncovered many more matters of concern than had previously been expected:

The Inquiry report finds that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable “and that those who lived in Grenfell Tower were badly failed over a number of years by those who were responsible for ensuring the safety of its occupants.”

Sir Martin said: “They include the government, the Tenant Management Organisation, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, those who manufactured and supplied the materials used in the refurbishment, those who certified their suitability for use on high-rise residential buildings, the architect, Studio E, the principal contractor, Rydon Maintenance Ltd, and some of its sub-contractors, in particular, Harley Curtain Wall Ltd and its successor Harley Facades Ltd, some of the consultants, in particular the fire engineer, Exova Warringtonfire Ltd, the local authority’s building control department and the London Fire Brigade,”

Sir Martin went on to explain that while not all of them bear the same degree of
responsibility for the eventual disaster, “all contributed to it in one way or another, in most cases through incompetence but in some cases through dishonesty and greed.”

Panel member and architect Thouria Istephan, who spent nearly 30 years as an
architect before joining the Inquiry in 2020, said: “Our report identifies what we think is needed to make sure that the legacy of Grenfell is real and brings about lasting change.

“Our recommendations place new burdens and responsibilities on people and organisations. I make no apologies for that: put simply, if you work in the construction industry and you do not feel the weight of the responsibility you have for keeping people safe – you are in the wrong job.”

Former housing association chief executive Ali Akbor OBE, who joined the Inquiry as a Panel Member in 2020, said: ““I hope that our report acts as a reminder to the clients of future building projects – including social housing providers – that they have a responsibility to the users of their buildings to ensure that safety is not sacrificed to the demands of speed and cost.

Mr Akbor concluded: “We cannot in a few words here today do full justice to the totality of our report. What is needed is for those with responsibility for building safety – in my sector as in Thouria’s – to read the report, to reflect on it, and to treat Grenfell as a touchstone in all that they do in the future. To act with professionalism, with competence, and to put people first.”

Recommendations put forward by the Inquiry panel include:

● bringing responsibility for all aspects of fire safety under one government
Department;
● the appointment of a construction regulator to oversee all aspects of the
construction industry;
● the establishment of a body of professional fire engineers, properly regulated
and with protected status and the introduction of mandatory fire safety
strategies for higher-risk buildings;
● a licensing scheme for contractors wishing to undertake the construction or
refurbishment of higher-risk buildings;
● the regulation and mandatory accreditation of fire risk assessors;
● the establishment of a College of Fire and Rescue to provide practical,
educational and managerial training to fire and rescue services.the introduction of a requirement for the government to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by select committees, coroners and public inquiries, describing the steps taken in response or its reasons for declining to implement them.

The Panel expressed its gratitude to all those who had supported the Inquiry through giving evidence and providing statements to assist its investigations, in particular the bereaved, survivors and residents of Grenfell Tower.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry opened on 14 September 2017. During the course of its
investigations it disclosed over 300,000 documents to 646 Core Participants,
obtained over 1500 witness statements and sat for more than 300 days, most of
which were devoted to taking evidence from a wide range of factual and expert
witnesses.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s statement in the House of Commons on Grenfell Tower Inquiry final report:

Mr Speaker, this morning Sir Martin Moore-Bick published the final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.

And I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking him, the members of the Inquiry and his whole team for their dedicated work.

Mr Speaker, I want to speak directly to the bereaved families, the survivors, and those in the immediate Grenfell community…

Some of whom are with us in the gallery today. 

Sir Martin concluded this morning – I’m afraid there is no way of repeating this that won’t be painful – “the simple truth is that the deaths that occurred were all avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were badly failed over a number of years and in a number of different ways”  by, as the report lays out in full, just about every institution responsible for ensuring their safety.

Mr Speaker, in the face of an injustice so painful. So deserving of anger

Words begin to lose their meaning. 

Seven years – still waiting

For the justice you deserve.

I want to say very clearly, on behalf of the country: you have been let down so badly before, during and in the aftermath of this tragedy. 

And while Sir Martin sets out a catalogue of appalling industry failures, for which there must now be full accountability, he also finds – and I quote – “decades of failure by central government.”

He concludes that “In the years between the fire at Knowsley Heights in 1991 and the fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017 there were many opportunities for the government to identify the risks posed by the use of combustible cladding panels and insulation

And he concludes – and I quote – “By 2016 the department was well aware of those risks, but failed to act on what it knew.”

Further, he finds that “The department itself was poorly run”  and “the government’s deregulatory agenda dominated the department’s thinking to such an extent that even matters affecting the safety of life were ignored, delayed or disregarded”. 

So Mr Speaker, I want to start with an apology on behalf of the British state to each and every one of you and indeed to all the families affected by this tragedy. It should never have happened. 

The country failed to discharge its most fundamental duty to protect you and your loved ones: the people we are here to serve. And I am deeply sorry.

I also want to express my admiration for the strength it must have taken to relive those events when giving your evidence to this Inquiry.

And indeed, to see written down today the circumstances that led to the deaths of your loved ones. 

After all you have been through, you may feel you are always just one step away from another betrayal. 

I get that – and I know I cannot change that with just words today. 

But what I can say is that I listened carefully to one of the members of the inquiry Ali Akbor who said this morning: “What is needed is for those with responsibility for building safety to reflect and to treat Grenfell as a touchstone in all that they do in the future.”

Mr Speaker, I consider myself responsible for building safety. And that is exactly what I will do. And what I will demand of this government.

Mr. Speaker, today is a long-awaited day of truth – but it must now lead to a day of justice. Justice for the victims and families of Grenfell. 

But also a moment to reflect on the state of social justice in our country and a chance for this Government of Service to turn the page. 

Because this tragedy poses fundamental questions about the kind of country we are.

A country where the voices of working class people and those of colour have been repeatedly ignored and dismissed. 

A country where tenants of a social housing block in one of the richest parts of the land are treated like second class citizens. 

Shamefully dismissed – in the words of one survivor – as people with needs and problems… Not respected as citizens, as people who contribute to Britain, who are part of Britain, who belong in Britain. 

And Mr Speaker, unbelievably this continued even after the tragedy.

Sir Martin highlights…and I quote – “Certain aspects of the response demonstrated a marked lack of respect for human decency and dignity and left many of those immediately affected feeling abandoned by authority and utterly helpless.”

Mr Speaker, that alone should make anyone who feels any affinity towards justice bristle with anger. But Sir Martin continues. He finds – and these are his words – “systematic dishonesty on the part of those who made and sold the rainscreen cladding panels and insulation products

And he goes on to say: “They engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing process, misrepresent test data and mislead the market.” 

Sir Martin also cites – “A complete failure on the part of the Local Authority Building Control over a number of years to take basic steps to ensure that the certificates it issued were technically accurate.” 

He finds that the work of the Building Research Establishment “..was marred by unprofessional conduct, inadequate practices a lack of effective oversight, poor reporting and a lack of scientific rigour.”   And that the Tenant Management Organisation “must also bear a share of the blame

Its only fire safety assessor “had misrepresented his experience and qualifications (some of which he had invented) and was ill-qualified to carry out fire risk assessments on buildings of the size and complexity of Grenfell Tower.” 

He also finds – “a chronic lack of effective management and leadership” on behalf of the London Fire Brigade” With tragic consequences on the night of the fire. 

Mr Speaker, in the light of such findings it is imperative that there is full accountability, including through the Criminal Justice process, and that this happens as swiftly as possible.

So I can tell the House today that this government will write to all companies found by the Inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings as the first step to stopping them being awarded government contracts.

And, of course, we will support the Met Police and the prosecutors as they complete their investigations.

But, Mr Speaker, it is vital that as we respond to this report today we do not do or say anything that could compromise any future prosecution. 

Because the greatest injustice of all would be for the victims and all those affected not to get the justice they deserve.

Mr Speaker, there must also be much more radical action to stop something like this from ever happening again.  

Because one of the most extraordinary qualities of the Grenfell community is their determination to look forward.

They are not only fighting for justice for themselves, they are fighting to ensure no other community suffers as they have done. 

Mr Speaker, some important reforms have been made over the last seven years.

Reforms we supported in Opposition. 

Including banning combustible cladding.

New oversight of building control.

A new safety regime for all residential buildings over 18 metres.

New legal requirements on social landlords.

Making sure Fire and Rescue Services are trained and equipped to handle large scale incidents. including moving from “stay put” to “get out” when needed.

And we are now addressing the recommendation from Sir Martin’s first report: to introduce a new Residential Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan policy for anyone whose ability to evacuate could be compromised and funding this for those renting in social housing.

Mr Speaker, we will look at all 58 of Sir Martin’s recommendations in detail.

There will be a debate on the floor of this House. 

We will respond in full to the Inquiry’s recommendations within six months.

And we will update Parliament annually on our progress against every commitment we make. 

But there are some things I can say right now. There are still buildings today with unsafe cladding. And the speed at which this is being addressed is far, far too slow. 

We only have to look at the fire in Dagenham last week. A building that was still in the process of having its cladding removed. So this must be a moment of change. 

We will take the necessary steps to speed this up. 

We are willing to force freeholders to assess their buildings and enter remediation schemes within set timetables with a legal requirement to force action if that is what it takes to tackle industry intransigence. 

And we will set out further steps on remediation this Autumn.

We will also reform the construction products industry that made this fatal cladding so homes are made of safe materials and those who compromise that safety will face the consequences. 

We will ensure that tenants and their leaseholders can never again be ignored. And that Social landlords are held to account for the decency and safety of their homes.

And as this government tackles the most acute housing crisis in living memory, building one and a half million new homes across the country, we will ensure these homes are safe, secure, and built to the highest standards. 

Places of security, health and wellbeing that serve the needs of residents and their wider communities. Because a safe and decent home is a human right and a basic expectation and the provision of that right, should never be undermined by the reckless pursuit of greed. 

One of the tragedies of Grenfell is that this was – and is – a community that nurtured so much of what we want from housing.

People who had made the Tower their home. And were entitled to a place of safety and security not a death-trap. And yet time and again they were ignored.

Mr Speaker, two weeks ago I made a private visit to Grenfell Tower. I laid a wreath at the Memorial Wall and affirmed the government’s commitment to the work of the Memorial Commission. Delivering a permanent memorial on the site through a process led by the Grenfell community.

As I walked down that narrow staircase from the 23rd floor and looked at walls burned by 1000-degree heat I got just a sense of how utterly, utterly terrifying it must have been.

And as I saw examples of the cladding on the outside of the building, and listened to descriptions of the catastrophic and completely avoidable failures of that fatal refurbishment.

I felt just a sense of the anger that now rises through that building. And it left me a with a profound and very personal determination. To make the legacy of Grenfell Tower one of the defining changes to our country that I want to make as Prime Minister.

To the families, the survivors, and the immediate community We will support you now and always, especially those who were children. In the memory of your loved ones we will deliver a generational shift in the safety and quality of housing for everyone in this country.

And in the memory of Grenfell, we will change our country. Not just a change in policy and regulation – although that must of course take place – but a profound shift in culture and behaviour.

A rebalancing of power that gives voice and respect to every citizen, whoever they are, wherever they live.

And Mr Speaker, we will bring the full power of government to bear on this task.

Because that is the responsibility of service. 

And the duty we owe to the memory of every single one of the 72.

And in that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.

A STATEMENT FROM THE METROPOLITAN POLICE:

GRENFELL UNITED CAMPAIGNERS SAID:

FOR THE FAMILIES OF THOSE WHO DIED AND A COMMUNITY THAT WAS IGNORED FOR FAR TOO LONG, LET’S HOPE THIS REPORT IS JUST THE BEGINNING IN THE FIGHT FOR JUSTICE. THIS STORY IS FAR FROM OVER.

= more to follow =

Minimum Unit Pricing has ‘positive impact’ on health

Report concludes policy has saved lives and cut hospital admissions

Public Health Scotland (PHS) has today published the final report on the independent evaluation of the impact of minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol in Scotland. Evidence shows that MUP has had a positive impact on health outcomes, including addressing alcohol-related health inequalities.

It has reduced deaths directly caused by alcohol consumption by an estimated 13.4% and hospital admissions by 4.1%, with the largest reductions seen in men and those living in the 40% most deprived areas.

MUP led to a 3% reduction in alcohol consumption at a population level, as measured by retail sales. The reduction was particularly driven by sales of cider and spirits through the off-trade (supermarkets and shops) products that increased the most in price. Evidence from a range of data sources shows that the greatest reductions were amongst those households purchasing the most alcohol, with little impact on households purchasing at lower levels.

For those people with alcohol dependence there was limited evidence of any reduction in consumption and there is some evidence of consequences for those with established alcohol dependence on low incomes, that led them to prioritise spending on alcohol over food. At a population level there is no clear evidence of substantial negative impacts on social harms such as alcohol-related crime or illicit drug use.

The evaluation report shows that while the impact on alcoholic drink producers and retailers varied depending on the mix of products made or sold, there is no clear evidence of substantial negative impacts on the alcoholic drinks industry in Scotland as a whole.

Clare Beeston, Lead for the evaluation of MUP, Public Health Scotland said: “We have seen reductions in deaths and hospital admissions directly caused by sustained, high levels of alcohol consumption, and this is further evidence that those drinking at harmful and hazardous levels have reduced their consumption.

“MUP alone is not enough to address the specific and complex needs of those with alcohol dependence who will often prioritise alcohol over other needs, and it is important to continue to provide services and any wider support that addresses the root cause of their dependence.

“Those living in the most socioeconomically deprived areas in Scotland experience alcohol-specific death rates at least five times greater than those living in the least deprived areas. Alcohol-related disorders are a leading contributor to health inequalities in Scotland.

“Overall, the evidence shows that MUP has had a positive impact on improving health outcomes, including alcohol-related health inequalities, and can play a part in addressing the preventable harm that affect far too many people, families and communities.”

Dr Nick Phin, Director of Public Health Science, Public Health Scotland said: “Public Health Scotland is committed to evidence-informed policy, and we are confident in the validity of the robust research published today. The evidence in our report is consistent with earlier research on minimum pricing elsewhere.

“Public Health Scotland is confident that MUP is an effective mechanism to reduce alcohol-related harm in Scotland and we support the continuation of MUP beyond April 2024.”

View the ‘Evaluating the impact of Minimum Unit Pricing for alcohol in Scotland’ report

Drugs and Alcohol Policy Minister Elena Whitham has welcomed research from Public Health Scotland which concludes that Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP) has saved lives, reduced hospital admissions and had a ‘positive impact’ on health.

In their final report of a series, researchers said that ‘robust, independent evaluation’ and the best-available, wide-ranging evidence drawing on 40 independent research publications, showed that MUP has been effective in its main goal of reducing alcohol harm with the reduction in deaths and hospital admissions specific to the timing of MUP implementation.

This follows a study published in March by PHS and University of Glasgow showing MUP reduced alcohol consumption by 3%, deaths directly caused by alcohol consumption by 13.4% and hospital admissions by 4.1%. compared to what would have happened if MUP had not been in place.

Ms Whitham said: ““We’re determined to do all we can to reduce alcohol-related harm and, as this research demonstrates, our world-leading policy is saving lives, reducing alcohol harms and hospital admissions. Just one life lost to alcohol-related harm is one too many and my sympathy goes to all those who have lost a loved one.

“MUP has also contributed to reducing health inequalities. The study found the largest reductions in deaths and hospital admissions wholly attributable to alcohol consumption were seen in men and those living in the 40% most deprived areas.

“We know that additional support is needed for some groups, including those dealing with alcohol dependence and issues such as homelessness. That’s why, alongside MUP, last year £106.8 million was made available to Alcohol and Drugs Partnerships to support local and national initiatives. We will now carefully consider this research as part of ongoing work on reviewing MUP.”

Music streaming report published

The CMA has concluded its independent study into the music streaming market

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published its final report and found that consumers have benefited from digitisation and competition between music streaming services.

Prices for consumers have fallen by more than 20% in real terms between 2009 and 2021 – with many services also offering music streaming for free with ads.

The study found that there were around 39 million monthly listeners in the UK, streaming 138 billion times a year.

The CMA also heard concerns from creators – artists and songwriters – about how much they earn from streaming. With an increasing number of artists, tracks and streams, the money from streaming is shared more widely – with those that have the highest number of streams earning the most. The CMA found that over 60% of streams were of music recorded by only the top 0.4% of artists.

The CMA found that the concerns raised by artists are not being driven by the level of concentration of the recording market. Analysis found that neither record labels nor streaming services are likely to be making significant excess profits that could be shared with creators.

Consequently, the issues concerning creators would not be addressed by measures intended to improve competition, but instead would need other policy measures in order to be addressed.

Digitisation has led to a major increase in the amount of music people have access to and to large increases in the number of artists releasing music (up from 200,000 in 2014 to 400,000 in 2020) partly by opening up new direct routes to listeners.

This has also meant that there is greater competition to reach listeners and for the associated streaming revenues. The study found that an artist could expect to earn around £12,000 from 12 million streams in the UK in 2021, but less than 1% of artists achieve that level of streams.

Some parts of the streaming market have improved for some creators in recent years, with the CMA finding a greater choice of deals with record labels available. Whilst individual deals can vary considerably, the report highlighted on average royalty rates in major deals with artists have increased steadily from 19.7% in 2012 to 23.3% in 2021. For songwriters, the share of revenues going to publishing rights has increased significantly from 8% in 2008 to 15% in 2021.

While the CMA understands the concerns from creators about the level of income many receive, the analysis in the study suggests it is unlikely that an intervention by the CMA would release additional money into the system to pay creators more.

The study does however highlight that the issues raised by creators could be further considered by government and policymakers as part of their ongoing work following the DCMS Select Committee’s inquiry into the economics of music streaming.

Sarah Cardell, Interim CEO of the CMA, said: “Streaming has transformed how music fans access vast catalogues of music, providing a valuable platform for artists to reach new listeners quickly, and at a price for consumers that has declined in real terms over the years.

“However, we heard from many artists and songwriters across the UK about how they struggle to make a decent living from these services. These are understandable concerns, but our findings show that these are not the result of ineffective competition – and intervention by the CMA would not release more money into the system that would help artists or songwriters.

“While this report marks the end of the CMA’s market study, which addresses the concerns previously posed about competition, we also hope the detailed and evidence-based picture we have been able to build of this relatively new sector will provide a basis that can be used by policymakers to consider whether additional action is needed to help creators.”

Drug Deaths: Words must become actions, say Scottish Families

Scottish Families Affected by Alcohol and Drugs has published a response to the report published yesterday by the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce.

The Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce has published its final report ‘Changing Lives’ that sets out the evidence-based strategy for ‘turning the tide of Scotland’s drug deaths crisis.’

The Scottish Families’ Family Reference Group which supported the national Drug Deaths Taskforce has today published its own companion report alongside the office Taskforce report, called ‘What about Families?!’

Families hope that the Taskforce and the Scottish Government will consider their reflections and recommendations to inform future developments, including the need for meaningful involvement of families, and ensuring their views are respected and drive real change.

Scottish Families’ Family Reference Group is made up of family members across Scotland who are affected by a loved one’s drug use.

This includes those whose loved ones are in recovery, are still actively using substances, and those who have been bereaved. The Group is chaired by Colin Hutcheon who was the sole family member representative on the Drug Deaths Taskforce.

Justina Murray, CEO of Scottish Families, comments: “There is much to welcome in today’s final report by the Scottish Drug Deaths Taskforce. Indeed many of the recommendations mirror the changes and improvements which families have been campaigning for over many years.

“The Taskforce has helpfully brought together new partnerships and additional resources, along with a level of political expectation and a willingness to test out new approaches. Families and others with lived experience have been involved from the start, which is good practice.

“There have been times where we have felt frustrated at the pace of change or questioned if there was more lived experience involvement than influence, however the final report makes a number of powerful recommendations which have the potential to reduce drug-related harm and risk to families and their loved ones.

“There have been some notable successes over the lifespan of the Taskforce, such as the national naloxone roll-out and the drafting of national standards for Medication Assisted Treatment. The commitments to expanding support for families in their own right, and to mandatory workforce training in family inclusive practice are particularly welcome.

“Families are frequently judged, stigmatised and excluded by services, and only reach family support at a time of crisis, after many years of coping alone. We also welcome the significant expansion in access to life-saving naloxone treatment, including the ongoing commitment to a national Click and Deliver naloxone service. This follows the successful establishment of Scottish Families’ service during the pandemic, proving that many family members and members of the public want to carry naloxone, so they can save a life.

Families want to see a firm focus now on implementation and accountability, so that these written words become tangible actions, and families can see and feel real change in their own lives and in their local communities.”

Another Edinburgh is Possible: Final Report published

The group, which is made up of community activists and trade union representatives, is appealing to Edinburgh residents to share the reports’s findings with their elected representatives:

‘Our full report on The City of Edinburgh Council services and communications has now been published. Please read, share and let your councillors know what you think – and let us know how you get on.’

#anotheredinburghhttps://tinyurl.com/2wfc7d8w

A Just Capital? Edinburgh Poverty Commission launches final report

Today, the Edinburgh Poverty Commission launches it’s final report, A Just Capital: Actions to End Poverty in Edinburgh.

In this blog, EPC Chair Dr Jim McCormick (below) sets out the Commission’s journey, what we have learned along the way, and what we are calling for next:

Our Call to Action in Edinburgh comes after almost two years of conversations across the city: with people experiencing poverty, the community anchors that support them, keyworkers, employers, councillors, public service officials, housing providers and taxi drivers.

This rich process has uncovered new insights on how poverty is experienced in Scotland’s capital city – some arising directly from the COVID-19 pandemic – but more stemming from long-established struggles. We set out much of what we had learned about the immediate impact of Covid in our interim report in May.

Since then, we have maintained a clear focus on addressing the root causes of poverty as well as mitigating the consequences. We have discovered common ground among people with different experiences and in different sectors: that poverty in Edinburgh is real, damaging and costly – but also that, despite the powerful currents that threaten to drive us further off course, there is enough determination in the city to embrace the twin challenges of solving poverty and reducing carbon emissions over the next decade.

We have identified six broad areas for action and one cultural challenge that should serve as a lens through which each action should be approached.

Our first proposition is that Edinburgh will only succeed in creating a prosperous city without poverty if it creates the conditions for good jobs, genuinely affordable housing, income security and meaningful opportunities that drive justice and boost prospects – above all, in the city’s schools.

In addition, a much sharper focus on connections across the city is needed – via digital participation, cheaper transport and creating neighbourhoods that work. These actions combined will flow through to reduced harm to people’s physical and mental health. Emergency food support should not become locked in as a fourth emergency service but serve as a gateway to other support that will ease isolation and build human connection and kindness where it has been lacking.

The common challenge running through all of our work is a cultural one. We call on the City Council and its partners in all sectors to shift towards a relationship-based way of working which gets alongside people and communities in a holistic way.

The experience of poverty is too often one of stigma, being assessed, referred and passed from pillar to post – a separate service and multiple workers for each need. This radical move would see public servants authorised to put poverty prevention at the heart of their day-to-day work.

It will mean new relationships with citizens, employees and third sector partners. It will take visible leadership and longer-term financial commitment. There are green shoots in Edinburgh and examples from beyond Scotland demonstrating how better outcomes for families can be achieved and fewer resources locked into multiple complex systems.

We call this ‘the right support in the places we live and work’ to signal the importance of local access to multiple forms of support under one roof and within walking or pram-pushing distance – for example money advice and family support offered in nurseries, schools, GP surgeries and libraries.

None of these challenges are new. The City Council and its partners can point to significant investment in recent years to turn the tide on poverty. But we are not persuaded that actions have been consistent, at scale, sustained over time or have poverty reduction as part of their purpose.

While Edinburgh has many of the powers to go further, we are not persuaded that it can deliver on the required social housing expansion without a new funding deal with the Scottish Government.

This is urgently needed to boost investment and to help unlock the supply of land at a reasonable price. Almost one in three families in Edinburgh in poverty are pulled below the water line solely due to their housing costs.

That compares with one in eight households in poverty across Scotland. Solving the city’s housing crisis will go a long way to delivering on affordable housing ambitions for the country as a whole.

At the same time, the UK Government has a critical role in creating an income lifeline for families in and out of work, by maintaining the currently temporary increase in Universal Credit and Local Housing Allowance – both of which have become more significant as a result of damage to Edinburgh’s job market since March. 

This Call to Action is not a list of recommendations or a menu of options. Reflecting our lives, each area is connected to the others. A plan for housing makes little sense in isolation from a plan for schools. Developing skills for employment will fall short if basic needs for secure, decent housing and food are neglected.

Nor is the ten-year horizon a get-out clause. We have worked on this basis because Scotland has committed to a significant cut in child poverty by 2030 and because many of the city’s existing plans run to the same schedule. We call on the City Council and the wider Edinburgh Partnership to set out its initial response by Christmas, as part of a first year of planning and early implementation.

And we are leaving a legacy through a new independent network, End Poverty Edinburgh. Led by Commission member Zoe Ferguson and our partners at Poverty Alliance, this brings together a core group of residents with first-hand experience of living on a low income and allies who want to be part of shaping the solutions.

Inspired by a similar approach in Edmonton (Alberta), they will stress test this report, challenge and add their own ideas, work with city partners to achieve progress but also hold the city to account on its response.

I want to thank everyone who contributed to our work in the hard graft of sharing painful stories, completing surveys and through organised and chance conversations.

Each member of the Commission gave their time, energy and ideas generously and for longer than originally asked. The quotes in this report reflect only a little of their brilliant contributions. Our work – and this report – was only possible due to the skill, care and patience brought by our secretariat team of Chris Adams, Nicola Elliott, Ciaran McDonald, and Gareth Dixon.

We have listened, been shocked and inspired – I hope we have done justice to what we have learned. Our Call to Action sets out something beyond hope: it is an expectation of what the city can and must now achieve.

Dr Jim McCormick, Chair of Edinburgh Poverty Commission

Read the final report here and the supplementary data and evidence paper here.