Reading Will Hutton’s piece on the threat posed by the police and crime bill to our democratic right to peaceful protest got me thinking about how we should challenge it if it is eventually passed (“Attempting to ban protest is usually the mark of a repressive state. That’s not us, is it?”, Comment). I am dismayed at the lack of coverage being given to the dangers of climate change; it is as if Cop26 never happened. Government, big business, the media and the public are rejoicing at the prospect of resuming foreign holidays, cruises, driving to work again and consuming. What happened to “building back greener”? I would like to see a grand coalition of environmental groups joining forces and getting out on to the streets. A few thousand Extinction Rebellion protesters blocking roads may be dismissed as “crusties”. Hundreds of thousands of “middle England” members of the RSPB, National Trust, Wildlife Trust, Woodland Trust et al could not be so easily ignored. Even this government can’t arrest and imprison us all.
Geoff Jones
Lincoln
What happened to loyalty?
The treatment of Kate Clanchy by her publisher, in dropping her from its list and dropping a book of poems by her pupils, makes one wonder what has happened to the tradition that publishers stick by their authors (“The hounding of author Kate Clanchy has been a witch-hunt without mercy”, Comment). It also makes one feel helpless: how to show solidarity with this exceptionally humane woman in the face of treatment such as this? One solution might be for Pan Macmillan’s authors to sever their links with this disgraceful publishing house. One thing publishers can’t do without is authors. I have published several books with Macmillan, but that was years ago and they’re now out of print. If I was still publishing with them, I’d break my contract and publicise the reason why as widely as possible. Behaviour like this brings the entire industry into disrepute.
Ruth Brandon
London NW3
Slavery on the curriculum
Eric Williams’s Capitalism and Slavery was certainly recognised as an important book in the 1960s (“Hidden history of why the British abolished slavery back on the shelves”, News). I still have a copy of the 1964 André Deutsch edition. It was recommended to me as a sixth former in the late 60s and my history teacher, Patrick Richardson, who was an expert on 18th-century history, also used it in his published work which included work for school students. He also taught us to balance sources and historians, so Williams was one voice among many. It was also among the works on my reading lists at university.
It is often asserted (by Sathnam Sanghera, among others) that slavery was not taught in schools until recently. This is certainly not true. I taught it as part of the curriculum in comprehensive schools in the 1970s and the well-known Jackdaw series for schools had a whole pack on the African slave trade, with graphic images. Later, when I was visiting a range of schools for a publisher in the 1980s, slavery/the slave trade was in the curriculum, placing it of course in its full historical context. To assert that modern academic historians don’t recognise the context of abolition is not sustainable.
Peter Langworth
London NW1
Poverty and inflation
Poor people become poorer because wage negotiations and benefit rises are based on inappropriate inflation indices (“Poor people face a perfect storm. Let no one tell you it’s their fault”, Comment). The CPI and RPI underestimate inflation for poorer people by including items such as new cars and consumer durables that generally have a lower inflation rate than food, energy and rent. We need an additional index based on, say, the spending of the poorest 20% of households.
Richard Mountford
Hildenborough, Kent
Fire guidance not ignored
Kenan Malik is wrong in claiming that the Labour government “ignored” the recommendations of the 1999 select committee report following the Garnock Court fire (“Grenfell delivers yet more horrors. But the guilty still fail to take responsibility”, Comment).
As minister responsible for the building regulations from 1997-2001, I gave evidence to the select committee and responded to all its recommendations. In the government response, I agreed to introduce the new full-scale test methodology as recommended by the committee and confirmed that I had begun the process to secure its adoption as a British Standard. I made it clear that when this was achieved the government would amend the guidance (Approved Document B) to reflect its status as a British Standard and review whether the reference in the guidance should be strengthened. On the committee’s tragically prescient concern about the possibility of a serious fire resulting in many people being killed, I strongly endorsed the committee’s view, explained the mandatory requirements of the building regulations – in this case “to resist the spread of fire over the external wall surfaces” – and the role of the guidance document and added: “The department considers that if this guidance is followed, then the risk to life safety as a result of fire spread via the external cladding system will be minimal.”
Sadly, the shocking evidence that has been emerging from the Grenfell public inquiry has illustrated serious subsequent failures to adhere to the requirements of the regulations and the advice in the guidance in Approved Document B.
In the amended online version of the article, Kenan Malik maintained that the retention of approval for Class 0 materials was a “loophole”, which undermined the government’s response. However, the government’s technical advisers (the Building Regulations Advisory Committee), which had recently conducted a review of Part B of the building regulations, made no recommendation to withdraw approval from Class 0. The select committee emphasised that the main focus of concern was the adequacy of the previous small-scale arrangements for testing the performance of materials, which is why the government supported the introduction of the large-scale test. Like all other materials, Class 0 should have been subject to the new, more rigorous testing regime designed to demonstrate the performance of cladding materials in a “live” fire situation after the test methodology was adopted as a British Standard.
A reading of the government response to the select committee report illustrates the degree to which the government at that time was seriously committed to enhance fire safety and, far from ignoring the committee’s report, engaged fully and constructively with the committee, and many others, to this purpose.
Nick Raynsford
London SE10
Give trees a chance
Farmers don’t need to plant trees as they have already been planted – in their hedges (“Farmers’ dilemma: if we plant trees, will we take a cash hit?”, News).
The trees already in our hedges have a good rootstock, are healthy, indigenous and can start absorbing carbon immediately – if hedges are just “faced” but not “topped” with the tractor flail every year. If farmers were paid for the trees already growing on their land, rather than wished for, we could make a major and immediate impact on carbon absorption, rather than waiting 20 years for newly planted trees.
Bob Harvey
Blackawton, Totnes, Devon
Dishonourable mention
William Keegan’s comparison of Boris Johnson to Falstaff is extremely apt. I’m reminded of Falstaff’s catechism on honour: “What is honour? A word. What is that word ‘honour’?… Air… Therefore I’ll none of it.”
Roger Cottrell
Kenninghall, Norwich
