Grand Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, it is the usual drill: if there is a vote in the Chamber, a bell will ring and we shall adjourn for a time to allow your Lordships to go and vote. So let us begin.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, before we start, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the other members of the Select Committee on the Bill: the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Jamieson, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. I particularly express gratitude on behalf of the House, as much as the committee, for the extraordinary devotion to the committee’s work on the part of those who supported us, bearing in mind that there were 18 petitions against the Bill and three KCs. They were Chris Salmon Percival, the clerk to the committee; Che Diamond, assistant counsel to the Chair of Committees; Mike Wright, private and hybrid legislation manager; and Kiran Kaur, committee operations officer. They worked well above and beyond their duty.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Tuesday 4th March 2025
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Grand CommitteeHolocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 View all Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-I(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (3 Mar 2025)
Lord Blencathra
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I am a member of Conservative Friends of Israel and a supporter of its current fight against the new attempts to destroy the Jewish homeland from the river to the sea. I say that because I do not want my opposition to this Bill to be misconstrued.
So why am I opposed to the Bill? It is because it fails in every way to implement the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission. The commission recommended a campus with large amounts of space:
“The Learning Centre should include facilities to host lectures and seminars and to run educational courses and workshops, as well as the opportunity for Holocaust organisations to locate their offices, or set up satellite offices, within the wider physical campus”.
This Adjaye design fails that requirement. The commission recommended a unique British design; Adjaye has given us a cast-off rejected by Canada. The commission said in its first recommendation that
“it is also clear that a memorial on its own is not enough and that there must be somewhere close at hand where people can go to learn more”.
about the Holocaust. “Close at hand” does not necessarily mean shoehorned into the wrong space, which is too small to do justice to the commission’s recommendations but far too large for this little garden.
The commission recommended three possible solutions: the Imperial War Museum site, Potters Field and a site further along Millbank. Indeed, it waxed lyrical about the Imperial War Museum and a plan to build a whole new wing to house the campus on the extensive land around the museum in Lambeth. Victoria Tower Gardens never entered its contemplation because the experts on the commission knew it was entirely inappropriate. Ed Balls claimed that Victoria Tower Gardens was his suggestion, but we have never heard why the Imperial War Museum offer was turned down. Nothing has been produced regarding any comparison of the sites, why they were rejected and why Victoria Tower Gardens was picked on a political whim. I think I know why: politicians in my party took the arrogant view that Victoria Tower Gardens was an easy win, right next to Parliament and run by the Royal Parks, which would buckle to political domination.
In summary, I am opposed to this project because it fails to implement the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission, is grotesquely ugly and is designed by a discredited architect whose previous iterations of this were rejected by Ottawa. It does nothing to properly commemorate the evils of the Holocaust nor the ongoing threat of a new one.
I turn specifically to the cost issue, as in my Amendments 1 and 27. I shall use more temperate language and say this: successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery that at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable.
“The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed”—
that is not a Lord Blencathra observation but the words from the national Infrastructure and Projects Authority in its latest report of 16 January 2025. That is the third year in a row where the authority has given it its most damning “Red” categorisation.
I cannot blame the present Government for pushing on with this out-of-control shambles. The Government whom I supported were more guilty, because they were told two years ago that the project was unachievable. Did the department do anything to sort out the project definition, the schedule or the budget, which the authority said was not manageable nor resolvable? No, of course not, because it was a big sacred cow—or, to mix metaphors, no one dared to suggest that this emperor had no clothes. Just as Jewish organisations were told, “You’d better back this proposal or there’ll be no Holocaust memorial”, so no one dared to admit that this project in Victoria Tower Gardens was out of control, for fear of being accused of not supporting Holocaust commemoration.
The project was originally costed at under £100 million, and the Government proposed to finance it with at least £25 million in philanthropic funding. There has been no suggestion that the Government would not fund the rest of the project and its operating costs as well. The latest capital cost estimate for HMLC—the Holocaust memorial and learning centre—is £138.8 million without any contingency, which shows a substantial rise in the estimate before contingency of 36% between 2022 and 2023. This estimate was based on the expectation of starting construction before 2025.
The only comments about costs which it has since been possible to extract from MHCLG has been a figure for the total spend to date of £18 million, given by the then Minister, Simon Hoare, to the Commons in May 2024 and a recent estimate of a further £2.1 million spent in the last six months. That would bring the total to £20.1 million. If the figures are correct and comparable, that would represent an acceleration on 2020 to 2024, when only £2.8 million was spent over 22 months.
In July 2022, the National Audit Office delivered a report with a whole battery of criticisms of MHCLG’s performance in preparing, planning and managing the project to date, at a point when £15.1 million had been spent with absolutely no result. In particular, the NAO criticised the management of the project and the provision of data on cost escalation to justify the project costs between 2020 and 2022. The NAO report described at paragraph 23, among the “emerging risks” causing potential cost increases, the promoters’ failure to consider any alternative site or the possible effects of legislative delay, or
“to quantify, or account for … the risks”
that that has created, but there has been little subsequent evidence that this NAO criticism has been heeded by MHCLG.
The NAO was critical of the fact that MHCLG had made no provision for defining the governance of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. It commented that the MHCLG accepted the need for a non-departmental public body but insisted that it would set up a new, dedicated NDPB which, the NAO commented, would mean a minimum of 12 months to pass the requisite legislation—and it wants to set that up 12 months before the thing is due to open.
MHCLG made an insubstantial reply in 2022 to the NAO’s criticisms but its statements since then show that it believes it has responded to those criticisms, even though no change is visible to the world outside the ministry. For instance, MHCLG has never provided any estimate of the inflation that would apply to construction costs based on starting construction in, say, 2026 and starting operations in, say, 2028. The Government have never made any provision for operating costs and have made the likely costs higher by agreeing in 2022 to make all entry to the learning centre free, although visitors will still have to register online.
The operating costs will be high and have so far escalated from £6 million to £8 million per annum, but absolutely no detail has been provided about what the costs will cover. This is particularly important because it is not clear what provision the department has made for the costs of policing and other security measures required for the project if it is built. I also believe that MHCLG is not charging significant or even realistic amounts of civil servant management time to the project, which is either poor accounting or evidence that the project has insufficient governance, or both of those things. It is therefore no surprise that the Infrastructure and Projects Authority has three times now—in 2023, 2024 and 2025—classified the memorial project as undeliverable.
In 2024, the MHCLG created the post of senior responsible officer for the project and gave that officer the power to act within cost overruns with a contingency of £53 million—£53 million as a contingency for a £138 million project, well above the normal 10% to 15%. There has been no explanation for why this contingency was pitched at that figure. The MHCLG budgeting process within the published management and other accounts remains completely untransparent about what the HMLC costs will be, what they are for and who is accountable for them.
Finally, I note that, despite the MHCLG having stated in 2024 that it had suspended work on the project, thus partially justifying the suspension of Sir David Adjaye, it recently—this year—told the Lords Select Committee that its design team is already working on adjustments to the design in relation to the assurances provided to the Select Committee, so that shows that some design cost has continued to be spent.
Here we are today, debating a Bill for a project which the Government’s own top infrastructure authority says, and has said for the last three years in a row, is undeliverable. I say that pushing on with a failed project with no proper cost control is treating Parliament with contempt. We need to know the best estimates for the operating costs and exactly who will be in charge. We will debate the possibility of a new NDPB to run this in Amendment 5, but it is legitimate to ask about the financial sustainability of the entity or entities which will execute and operate the project. A report on that should be laid before Parliament. If we pass the Bill, Parliament is entitled to see the legitimacy of what we have sanctioned.
When the Minister replies, I do not want him to answer my points, I want him to answer the points raised by the Government’s own infrastructure authority. Let him tell us what the Government will do about
“the major issues with project definition, the schedule, the budget, the quality and/or benefits delivery, which do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.
Will he do as it has asked and rescope the whole project and reassess its overall viability?
Finally, I apologise to colleagues for speaking at length, as I probably will on some other amendments also. This is partly a reaction to the various gagging attempts we faced when giving evidence to the Commons and Lords Select Committees, where every other week we seemed to be copied in to a letter from those lawyers, Pinsent Masons, telling the committees that they could not ask this or that question and that they had to limit their inquiries. I thought it was appallingly arrogant to attempt to tie Select Committee hands in that way. Well, our hands will not be tied and we will not be gagged in these debates, except by our own rules of order and procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I shall not mimic my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who has spoken extremely well and raised a great many issues. I did not petition the Government, although I think I signed a couple of petitions, but I happen to know the area very well, not least because my four month-old puppy, who noble Lords would all adore, goes there for exercise every morning, but that is not a particularly good reason for stopping the progress. I am opposed to the Bill, not opposed to a memorial. I am opposed to putting a learning centre in such a small area. It would destroy the park—there is no question of that.
To turn to the amendment, we can all hear from what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said that nobody really knows how much this will cost. I have seen the scope of the archaeologist who has looked at the diggings by the Thames, and it is almost certain that this area will flood. I am not an archaeologist, so I have not got a clue. I have never dug a big pit next to the Thames, but it is almost certain that this will flood. It is a bonkers thing to do—absolutely mad—and that is why I absolutely support my noble friend Lord Blencathra in this. It is the wrong place to put a large building such as this. It will, furthermore, cost a great deal more than £138.8 million, as I think we all know, even including a 15% contingency, so I support this amendment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Robathan, in their attempt to bring some fiscal discipline to this project. Not only has the cost escalated beyond the original estimates without even a spade in the ground; the figures that are available are old. No allowance for inflation has been made. The contingency is far higher than usual. Private funds have not been identified publicly and there is no management control, as pointed out by the National Audit Office.
I am struck by the contrast with the planned expenditure on a fitting memorial to our late Queen, together with a space for pause and reflection, which is reportedly to be sited in St James’s Park. The construction cost is £46 million excluding VAT—including a replacement of the Blue Bridge in the park—and it is going to be ready in 2026. If such fiscal restraint is good enough for our late Queen, surely something has gone adrift in the financial plans for the memorial.
Before the Select Committee on the memorial a few weeks ago, the petitioners asked that the Government should present, for the approval of Parliament, a report on the capital and operating costs of the project, as well as the financial sustainability of the entity that will execute the project and operate it before presenting any new or amended proposal for planning permission. This has not been taken up but it should be.
Originally, the government grant towards this project was £50 million. That was soon raised to £75 million, with £25 million to be raised privately when the cost was estimated some years ago at £100 million. Now, that has nearly doubled. We can assume only that the Government will pick up the entire bill. The latest estimate, made a couple of years ago, is £138 million without contingency and £191 million with contingency. There is no information about who will do the building—indeed, whether there are any builders willing to do it, given the security risks.
There are gaps in our financial knowledge. The Commons Select Committee commented on this, saying:
“We are particularly concerned about the costs around security of a Memorial and Learning Centre, which would need to be taken into account. Security is likely to be required around the clock, and this is, as yet, an unknown cost. Security is likely to become an expensive additional cost, which we urge the Government not to overlook”.
Construction costs are bound to rise because this is an historical site very close to the river. It oozes underfoot when you walk through it in the rain and it squelches. It is a fair bet that obstacles relating to water and archaeological finds will emerge if digging ever starts.
About £20 million has been spent so far, I believe, with nothing to show for it; nor has inflation been accounted for. A specific charity is fundraising for the private element but we have heard nothing about its success. Can the Minister tell us how the funding has now been settled, including how much has been raised privately and from where?
In 2022, as we heard, the NAO delivered a report that was highly critical of the department’s performance. It was particularly anxious about management. It noted the failure to consider an alternative site. All this got a complacent response from the department that all was well, with no changes in management and no transparency. Operating costs are also a mystery. The Government have pledged free entry to the learning centre—provided, of course, that visitors book in advance online. Operating costs so far are estimated to have risen to £8 million a year and the cost of security is a big unknown. The Government had hoped to make some money from the learning centre by opening it for conferences, even in the evening, but it would be a most unattractive site: open to the elements; open to risks of various sorts; and calling for expenditure to run it out of hours, not to mention disturbance to the neighbours.
Can the Minister tell us about the operating costs and what plans there are to commercialise the space? The Infrastructure and Projects Authority has three times rated the project as “red” and “undeliverable”—most recently, just a few weeks ago—in the same bracket as HS2. The Minister believes that this is because planning permission has not been granted, but that is mistaken because the authority has reported three times in three years on this and, during one year of that, there was planning permission before it was quashed. Anyway, if not having planning permission was the important factor, why is HS2 regarded as “red” and “undeliverable”? This is a quasi-HS2 project.
An important recommendation in the Prime Minister’s report in 2015 on remembering the Holocaust was that there should be an endowment fund. This was to be used to
“support Holocaust education around the country for generations to come”,
to support
“local projects and travelling exhibitions”,
and to ensure that the learning centre would be
“at the heart of a truly national network of activity”.
The report said:
“In administering the endowment fund, the Learning Centre’s trustees would be expected to ensure maximum value for money. This would include requiring organisations to work together more collaboratively across the network, removing duplication and enhancing the impact of the whole sector”.
Have the Government made an allowance for this in their cost calculation, and if not, why not?
The Commons Select Committee on the Bill commented:
“It seems to us that the true cost of this project has not been established. We note that it is not unusual for the costs of major projects to increase with time, due to unforeseen building issues, the ambition of the project, and increases in inflation. The longer that building works go on, the more expensive this project will become. On this basis, we urge the Government to consider how ongoing costs are likely to be paid for and whether it offers appropriate use of public money”,
which it clearly does not. This amendment seeks to cap the costs to force proper management of the project and bring it into a reasonable financial framework. It also proposes a normal contingency fee rather than an extraordinary one.
This Government pride themselves on financial management, and now is their chance to demonstrate that. If the Government will not accept this amendment, will they meet the signatories to the amendment and show transparency about the cost calculations and where they are going?
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I have a clause stand part Motion in this group. I am a neighbour of Victoria Tower Gardens, I live with my wife in Smith Square and I was a petitioner to the House of Lords Committee.
After what my noble friend Lord Blencathra told us, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I will try to be short. My purpose is, and always has been, just to set out the contrast between what was put on the tin in January 2015 and what is on the table now. As my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, they are very different, and I think it will help the Committee if they can be clear about what the differences are.
In January 2015, my noble friend Lord Cameron said:
“Today—with the full support of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—I am accepting the recommendations of the … Commission”.
You could not be clearer than that, and later, in his Statement in the House of Commons, he reiterated that. I suppose—because I do not think we have ever been told—that after 10 years, nine and a half of which, of course, were under the previous Administration, that undertaking is still in existence, so we are going to carry out the recommendations of the commission.
There were five recommendations from the commission, and the first was that there should be a “striking memorial”. Its very first qualification of that was that it should be
“a place where people can pay their respects, contemplate … and offer prayers”.
I rather doubt that what is on the table now—which I gather as best I can from Clause 1 and the Explanatory Memorandum—is a suitable place for paying respect, contemplating and praying. As I understand it, the people visiting will be expected to move through in something like half an hour.
You can make an argument, which I will later, that this is not a suitable memorial. Remembering people is a private affair. The Holocaust was 6 million Jewish tragedies. It is not to say that this is, as we would expect, a London-based conventional memorial. It is something different. In its report, the commission in no way indicated that the memorial would be manned or that there would be interactivity at the memorial. It is clearly set out as a conventional memorial, in a long paragraph.
The second recommendation, about the learning centre, is much longer. It has a huge text. It is clear that the commission did not expect that to be done in five minutes. It did not see this as part of the memorial. There was mention of a campus. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, it is not the same thing but a completely different activity. Yes, the commission said that it should be close to the memorial, but that closeness depends on where you choose to put the memorial. As the noble Baroness said, the commission proposed three big sites and on all of them it would not have been difficult to put the learning centre and build it up over the years as a campus. It also said that the money for that should be raised immediately.
The third recommendation was for an endowment fund. We all know that endowment funds are not easy. They are very difficult things. It is clear that the commission saw the fund as being for, as the noble Baroness said, the development of the learning centre. The fourth recommendation was that records should be brought up to date. Out of the £20 million that has been spent, a certain proportion has been spent on records of “survivors and liberators”, to use the commission’s words. However, we do not know what has been collected and I cannot see why we have not been able to see some of that work. It is not dependent on the construction of David Adjaye’s building in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Finally, in two places—in Mr Davis’s summary and in the commission’s summary—it is said that an immediate executive independent body should be formed. There was an effort to start one by the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister—who, we must remember, was there for only some 18 months after his January statements before he resigned. Clearly, when Sir Peter Bazalgette was appointed to the foundation, it was in mind that it would be executive. He secured the Victoria Tower Gardens position and held an exhibition—and showed us the result. However, in April 2018, quite a long time after the Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Cameron, had made way for my noble friend Lady May, he resigned. We do not know why he resigned, or why the body then formed under my noble friend Lord Pickles was made advisory. One can speculate but it has never been explained why there was a change from the proposal of an executive body to one for an advisory body. The fact is that nobody is accountable for managing this project.
There is such a serious difference between what was on the tin in 2015 and what is in front of us now that it needs to be thought about again. It seems to me that the new Government, who have been looking at this whole issue as accountable only for the past seven months, are in a very good place to review it and, if it requires change, to make those changes.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
My Lords, I should say at the beginning that I am a patron of the Wiener Holocaust Library—my grandfather’s Holocaust library—that I was a member of David Cameron’s Holocaust Commission and that I take a long-standing interest in this as the son of a Holocaust survivor. Of course, not all Holocaust survivors agree about this memorial, but my mother certainly did, as did Ben Helfgott, who sat on the commission with me. Indeed, he regarded the issue of the location as central.
Although this is an amendment about costs, we have heard a number of what amount to Second Reading speeches, so I hope I can be indulged in responding to some of those points a little. Although the noble Viscount is correct that David Cameron resigned, I do not think that he resigned because he appointed my noble friend Lord Pickles to look after the Holocaust memorial. I would just say that it is possible to make an argument against any kind of construction of anything, anywhere. I think that probably the preponderance of people who have attended today have done so in order to be against it, because we tend to get very annoyed when we see points against something and we want to stop it happening.
Every single point that I have heard was also made against the erection of Nelson’s column. They did not have the money. The public subscriptions had fallen short of how much it would cost. The cost ballooned. It was too high. It had to be made shorter. People were not sure about the design and lots of people were not sure about Nelson either. They were furious that the Tsar had contributed. The economic strain was regarded as too great. These are points that are made about the construction of anything when it is first proposed and are later found to be entirely irrelevant to the impact that it will have.
This Holocaust memorial is a memorial to everything we fought the war for and that the young people who liberated Belsen liberated Belsen for. It is a reminder of why we have a Parliament and why we have a parliamentary democracy and therefore it is relevant that it be right next door to Parliament. There is not a single place you could ever put anything that does not disrupt anyone. If we put it somewhere where no one goes, we would have a committee full of people saying, “We cannot believe you are putting this thing in the middle of nowhere”. We have put it in the middle of somewhere where people might actually visit it, and people are worried that too many people will come to it. If we put it somewhere else, people will worry that no one will come to it. There is an argument against doing anything, ever. If we do not do this, we absolutely after 10 years will not have a Holocaust memorial. It was the dearest wish of Ben Helfgott and my mother also supported it. I am going to robustly support it because of that.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lord, I am most grateful to noble Lords. Again, I would appreciate a degree of latitude. First, coming to the point that was made with regard to the advisory nature, it was always an advisory committee. When Bazalgette resigned to go on to other artistic projects, I was appointed, along with Ed Balls, as a co-chair to demonstrate the political unity of putting this together.
I was disturbed by what my noble friend Lord Blencathra —my dear friend—said. He seemed to be almost on the defensive to suggest that if you are opposed to this, somehow you are opposed to Jewish people or opposed to Israel. Nobody thinks that and no one has a greater, more distinguished record in their support of Jewish people than my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I want to make that absolutely clear.
I admire my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He was an amazing Chief Whip when we were in opposition, as indeed my noble friend opposite was an amazing Whip. He taught me many things, one of which was the kind of amendment to put down to embarrass the Government, to hold them down and to get them to say various things. He did it with great style.
But there is something that we need to be clear about. We saw a newspaper article yesterday. I do not blame the reporter—they are as good as the information they are given. I should be grateful if, when the Minister comes to reply, he can confirm that in all the briefings that he received, none suggested that this memorial would be about the glorification of the British Empire or the trivialisation of the Holocaust, or that the Holocaust would be diluted by references to other genocides.
A lot of the amendments before us might best be described as about planning. There is always a balance in planning. There is no absolute, and that is why we have such an elaborate system of planning to test the damages and balances. We are almost trying to set ourselves up as a planning authority to second-guess. This Committee, distinguished as it is, is not in a good position to do that because supporters and objectors do not have the same rights as they would have in a planning application, committee or appeal.
There is also an element in this of marking our own homework. If this went through a planning committee now—there is no criticism of anybody here—the fact that people who are expressing views live close by would be taken into account. If they were on a planning committee, they would have to recuse themselves. They would not be able to speak or vote. We cannot have a situation in this country where it is one rule for their Lordships and another rule for the rest of the country.
Lord Pickles (Con)
Can I just finish this point? I am not criticising. It is within the rules. Nobody is doing anything wrong. But it does not look terribly good from the outside.
We do not like the design. We have become almost like Queen Anne. We kick over a stool and say, “Build it like that”. This design won an international competition among top international architects. Frankly, saying it looked like something that somebody in Canada objected to is wrong. That is the style of the architect, Ron Arad. It would be a bit like saying to Picasso, when he was going through his blue period, “That’s enough, Pablo. Too much blue.” That is the nature of Ron Arad’s work.
The trust that had been put together to raise the sums of money cannot start until we have proper planning permission. We cannot gather lots of money, although Sir Gerald Ronson is confident that we can do it. The state of the park is a disgrace. We have allowed it to get into such a situation.
Lord Pickles (Con)
Just give me one moment and then I will bring you in. This will improve the park. It will improve the park’s access for the disabled, for young people and for four month-old puppies.
Lord Robathan (Con)
If we are talking about planning permission, the whole point about this design was it was turned down flat by Westminster City Council—by both Labour and Conservative councillors.
Lord Pickles (Con)
That is why we have a planning system. When I was a Planning Minister, we often had situations where gaming was played.
Lord Pickles (Con)
Allow me to allow me to develop the point. We always have an independent inspector to look at these things. If the Secretary of State disagrees with the independent inspector, then there is generally a row. But we accepted the report.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
I appreciate that my noble friend had a lot to do with planning when he was a Minister. The point is that this is not planning. This is to try and overturn a legal dedication of this park to being a park. That is what it is about.
Lord Pickles (Con)
With the greatest respect, my noble friend needs to look more carefully at what is being asked here. It is second-guessing the planning.
In terms of the size, it is the size of the Berlin Holocaust underground site. It is the size of the one in Jasenovac. It is the size of the large temporary exhibition in America. It is not particularly small art; it is adequate for its size. It will not have any exhibits. It will all be digital. That does seem reasonable. On the location, more than 50 different sites were looked at.
I apologise for going on for so long; I hope that I will have an opportunity to speak in further debates.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I cannot contribute with the degree of fluency and authority of those noble Lords who have spoken so far, but I have a question for the Minister and an observation.
The question stems from the Explanatory Notes. Years ago, I had the function in another place of looking at Explanatory Notes in draft—not taking responsibility for their contents but ensuring that they were not used by the Government of the day for the purposes of advocacy. I looked at these Explanatory Notes, and they were pretty much typical of the breed: they are certainly notes but they are by no means explanatory. Where I hoped that I would have their assistance was on Clause 1(3) of the Bill, which states:
“For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), ‘construction’ includes erection, extension, alteration and re-erection”.
I would dearly like to see the instructions that counsel was given before it drafted that particular provision. It sounds as though the memorial is going to be mobile, which I am sure is not the intention.
If I can move on to the observation, at the north end of the Victoria Tower Gardens is the education centre; I have a particular reason for remembering this because, as a corporate officer, I was the applicant for the planning permission when it was originally given in 2015. As noble Lords will know, the planning consent ran out on 22 August last year; it was renewed or extended to 2030. When that runs out—or in anticipation of it running out—there will be substantial works, but I have not seen any reference to those in any of the supporting papers that the Committee has before it today. There will be traffic of substantial character, such as heavy lorries moving kit to and fro. If that is going to happen, as is possible, as the memorial and learning centre is in the later stages of construction, whatever difficulties of security, access and safety that that is going to pose will be exacerbated by doing all this to the education centre at the same time.
I am not sure whether my observation should find a home in our discussion of security or in our discussion of planning, but it seems to me that the Clause 1 stand part debate is a pretty good place to put it to begin with. I would be very grateful for the Minister’s reaction to that simultaneity of works and to the additional element of complication and cost that is no doubt to be introduced.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I was not proposing to speak on this group, but I have been moved to do so by the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Finkelstein and Lord Pickles. As I do so, I make clear my gratitude to them and to everybody else who has been determined that there should be a memorial and a memorial learning centre. I absolutely applaud that, for reasons I explained in another debate in the Chamber. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, that I was rather shocked by what I hope he will forgive me for describing as his grandiose lecture creating an analogy with Nelson’s column. First, I remind him—I regret having to remind him, because he has an extraordinary family history, of which we are all aware, and we are hugely grateful for the contribution that his family have made to the remembrance of what happened to my and many other people’s families and ancestors—that Nelson’s column was a memorial to a man who had lived and not to 6 million people who had died. It is a very different proposition.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I have always felt that this is a most appropriate Room in which to have this debate—it tells you everything. Also, in Prayers today, there were several mentions of Jacob; those of you who were there may remember.
I am afraid that I have a different viewpoint. I will not talk about anything to do with construction whatever, although some of your Lordships know that I know quite a lot about it.
I am the second generation born in this country after the pogrom which happened in 1880, from which my great-grandmother managed to escape. She got to this country and some of our relatives went to New York. What I wanted to say was that when one thinks about the pogroms then, and I take my own family, we finished up here. This country allowed us to be free and to live; it is a great country and we are proud to be part of it. But I also know that some of my family did not get out and finished up in Auschwitz. I am not going to go into what has been happening for the last few thousand years; we could spend years on that.
I was approached early on by friends in both Houses, and the comment which was made to me—I see the Father of the other place back there; we talked about this years ago—is that there are nearly 3,000 people in the Parliament complex, and they love this park for what it is and how they enjoy it. At that stage, it was said to me, “Would you be prepared to get involved, because the problem is that there are many in both Houses who actually are nervous, afraid and very worried that if they come out publicly to state that they are not happy with this park being used for that purpose, they will be considered anti-Semitic”. So, a dear friend and I, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, of all people—she is now facing me—talked about the pros and cons. I thought I knew what I believed in, and what I managed to achieve and not achieve, and the mistakes—all the usual things all of us around this table have made—but she knew the law. I did not know the law.
As a result, there was a major article in the Times—your Lordships can look it up if you want. It was supported by many people on the basis that I said that there were at least four memorials in this country—in fact, in the London area. If you go into Hyde Park, you will see one there, and the best and most important one of the lot is in the Imperial War Museum.
I remember when our late head rang me up, the marshal—sadly, he has now died—and he said, “Jeffrey, can I have your advice? Could you come along and have a chat?” I said, “Yes”. He said, “I’m seriously thinking that I would like to have built in the Imperial War Museum a whole part dedicated to what happened”. If any of your Lordships have not been there and seen how it is been done, you should go. It was supported by a very large number of the Jewish population, of course, and what is even more splendid is that many people who are not Jewish supported it. So you have that.
Also, from the way I am built, you cannot destroy ideas—they are impossible to destroy. You do not need things such as memorials to think about this. You can go out in the morning and look up in the trees and think about it yourself. I have never felt you can destroy it. I have to tell your Lordships, speaking personally, that I love that park.
I come back to the concern about danger, and taking into account anti-Semitism, which has got even worse. In the days to come, as I have said many times before, we could live to regret it if there is any form of memorial in that park; in practice, that is very dangerous. With my other hat on, I am very involved in what happens on the military side on terrorism and so forth. It is from both sides of the park. If you have 500 children, shall we say, when the whole thing is built and the schools come along, and we say, “Right, you can come there”, and there are kids from all over the world, you only have to get somebody to drop a satchel and blow the bloody thing to smithereens. But more importantly, for those noble Lords who know, we have only to look outside at the protection we have here; somebody could come along and fire something into that area. We could therefore live to regret totally what danger there could be.
I strongly advocate that we have these wonderful memorials, but when you speak to people in Newcastle and so forth, they are not even aware of or interested in it. During the war, as we know, and even earlier in 1938 or 1939, the Government here knew that there were problems. They knew what was happening in Poland and other areas. It all got back, but the key was: “We are willing; this is a fight for world survival”. I hope the Committee does not mind me saying that I like the idea that we have that lovely park, which people enjoy. In the morning, there are young families with their children and babies wandering along there and enjoying it. I would like it left like that.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I rise to express my great concern, because I am a strong supporter of a memorial and a learning centre. But I am also pretty clear that if the plans continue on their present course—as it is now nine years since this started on its way—then God knows how many more years may be involved, with all the controversy and concerns about the proposals for the learning centre. The original proposal was for it just to be a memorial and then, as we know, a learning centre was added to it. Since then, other opportunities have come up of various Jewish institutions and facilities that might be suitable. Meanwhile, the learning centre itself has shrunk, because of the obvious problems of cost involved.
Perhaps my only justification for getting to my feet at all is that I know a little about what is going on in the construction industry in London at present. I would be interested to know what quotations there are around for building this learning centre. What I know is that with events elsewhere—Gaza and other things certainly have not helped—any company invited to undertake this is going to look at a very different scale of figures from what it might have looked at a year or two ago.
I declare my interests as in the register; I am involved in quite a major construction activity in London at present, and I know something about the problems that the industry is in. It is not in good shape, and I think this will be very difficult. If you can get somebody to quote who thinks it will be all right on the night, the problems could then emerge in trying to stick to those figures and seeing what sort of money might be involved. That is why I support the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who has spelt it out. It will not be that figure; there is no chance of anything being built for remotely near that.
As I say, I speak from some personal experience, having seen what is happening to quotations being put in for works in London at present. I admire the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, very much and his objective, which has my full support, is to have a good memorial and a good learning centre. But let us have a decent-sized learning centre, and one that can be built without all sorts of reservations about whether it can be done.
One of the comments made was that we need to get on with this or the few remaining Holocaust survivors will not be around to see it opened. How many have died in the last nine years while we have been trying to put this project forward? It is embarrassing for both Governments. My Government put it forward; the Labour Government felt the duty to pick it up again. It is not right to offer a bet on this, but it is almost impossible to see this project going ahead as it is at the moment. If we could start again on the learning centre, there are opportunities which could be quickly achieved without too much controversy. We could then get our memorial and learning centre achieving both the objectives that we all want to see.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I did not declare my interests. I also reference that I am a trustee of the fundraising committee. Given the enthusiasm, I shall certainly be coming round with my tin for a collection fairly soon.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise in support of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, not because I have any involvement—I have no Jewish blood in me—but because we are looking at the project through rose-tinted spectacles, as the noble Lord, Lord King, has just said. I have in the last two or three years been personally involved in two significant big construction projects. The rate of inflation in the building industry has been going through the roof. The thing that he touched on will undoubtedly make this even more difficult to budget and then to carry through on budget.
On top of that, whatever it will ultimately cost depends upon the detailed design. It is clearly a difficult site, as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said. That is why the contingencies are on the high side, and what are we faced with from the Government? We do not have any realistic figures giving any worthwhile indication of the order of magnitude of the bill that we are likely to be paying at the end of this process. It is not a matter of arguing about the detail of the morality, ethics or desirability of the project. Anyone embarking on a big project of this kind, which will incur very substantial expenditure, particularly public expenditure, ought to have a proper budget in front of them so that they can then take an informed decision on where they want to go. We do not have it. It is as simple as that. It is irresponsible to talk in grandiose terms about all kinds of things when the boring, prosaic aspects of cost and delivery have not properly been considered.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not an accountant.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I want to add to what has been said because it is all about education. If your Lordships look back, in every educational course at state schools, as they were, there had to be education on what happened with the Holocaust and other holocausts. It was there to be done. I can tell your Lordships from my own grandchildren that over the last few years it has not come up at all. I have checked with teachers, headmasters and headmistresses in some of my other roles, and they say that one of the biggest problems is that now they are advised that it is not necessary, other than on a wider front. That is the key point in education—for it to get back into state schools. It does come up in non-state schools but not in state schools in the form that it should.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, for the information of the Committee, I mention that I will not be speaking in every group on behalf of these Benches. Indeed, I do not speak on behalf of my Benches because if any vote were to come up, it would be a free vote. Any comments that I make will be my own views.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord King, that we need a national Holocaust memorial, a fitting one, a respectful one, somewhere we can remember the suffering and death of 6 million people in the last century. We also need a learning centre. We must never forget, and we must ensure that future generations never forget either. However, like others, I think that they should not necessarily be in the same place and that they should not necessarily be where they are currently proposed to be.
I want to speak about Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, requiring a detailed cost estimate to go before both Houses of Parliament before any planning permission is determined, because my particular concern about the location of a learning centre underground in Victoria Tower Gardens is flooding. As noble Lords will see, I have tabled Amendment 25 about this, so the Committee will hear a lot more from me and, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who supported it, when we get to that amendment.
In my researches in tabling that amendment, it became very clear to me that even to reduce the chances of flooding—and you certainly cannot completely remove the chances of flooding—would require measures the cost of which cannot be known at this time. When it comes to the point of planning permission, at least some sort of estimate will have to be given of the cost of them, and I do not think that the risks of flooding can be accepted under any circumstances. When we get to that point, there will be some idea of the cost, but currently there is not, and that is why I support Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I have been living at Tufton Court since 1982; it is just around the corner from this park. I was not intending to speak to this amendment until I got rather provoked by a number of my noble friends.
My noble friend Lord Finkelstein said, “If it doesn’t go here, where else does it go?” I think my noble friend Lord Sterling has answered that point. There is a very satisfactory Holocaust memorial at the Imperial War Museum, which is not a place where nobody ever goes. It is a place where lots of people go, and it is very regularly visited. Could there be a better location for it than that?
My noble friend Lord Pickles said that this is going to improve the park. It is one of the smallest parks in London. I do not claim to go to it very often, but it is a very, very small park and, with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, I am not sure it has been much improved by the Parliament Education Centre, which is a disgracefully low-budget architectural piece of building. I am very glad that it is going to be rebuilt —perhaps it will be rebuilt better than it is now—but it occupies quite a lot of this very small park, and the idea that we should shove yet another building into the park seems unbelievable. I cannot quite understand where we are going on this.
I do not understand why the Government have volunteered taxpayers’ money, when there is so little of it, to finance this. The Jewish community in Britain has an awful lot of money. It has a lot of education charities that would contribute towards this. I do not understand why they should not pay for their own memorial. Unlike my noble friend, I have plenty of Jewish blood, and I am a member of the Conservative Friends of Israel.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this is not a memorial for the Jewish community—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
The noble Lord was not here at the start of the debate.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I was under the impression that you could speak even though you were not.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
Well, perhaps somebody else might like to make the point that it is not a memorial for the Jewish community.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
I take that point, but the driving forces behind putting up this memorial are the Jewish people in this country. They are people who have property everywhere. I do not see why they should not fund it. I just do not understand why the British taxpayer should be asked to pay for this when there is quite clearly a tremendous shortage of taxpayers’ money to go around. The whole thing is very strapped. I would have thought that this could be financed by individuals, Jewish charities and so forth that would be happy to contribute to it. I am just amazed.
I do not pretend that I go into this park on a regular basis, but I do occasionally go into it. It is very small, and it will be made even smaller if this memorial is put into it. There will be no room for anybody to do anything in it at all. London is not blessed with a number of parks anyway, and the particular park that we are talking about is one of the smallest there is in London. It is not like Hyde Park, where you could tuck this away in a corner; this is going to be completely dominant in a very small park, and it will reduce the amenities available for local people who live in Westminster.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I really cannot leave that comment on its own. The noble Lord cannot stand up here and say, “The Jews want the Holocaust memorial, and they ought to pay for it”. The Holocaust is not something that is just about the Jews. I am sure that others on the noble Lord’s side of the Room do not associate themselves with that comment. It illustrates the variety of arguments being put together, each one of which is an argument against it but many of which clash with each other. It is probably a pretty eloquent contribution as to why we need this memorial—and near Parliament.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have been careful to confine my remarks to the precise amendment, so I do not want to stray into other issues. I just want to pick up on three small points.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, mentioned Ben Helfgott. It is the case that most of the remaining Holocaust survivors do not know what is being done in their name or the details of it. In fact, people have gone to great lengths to stop them finding out. I was temporarily banned from talking to a group of survivors in north London in case they found out what was going on. However, one of the greatest survivors, Anita Lasker- Wallfisch, is opposed to this project; I believe that there will be some comment from her in the Times tomorrow.
Secondly, it is a matter of profound Jewish scholarship that the Holocaust is diluted by mixing it with other genocides, but there is no time to go into that now.
Finally, even if the Jewish community had money, it supports its own people through a number of charities. If it was called on to come up with £200 million, there would be nothing left for anything else. It is a misconception that this is a community project or that the community should pay for it.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I echo what has just been said. I have no problem with the British taxpayer paying up its share to realise this noble objective; I just wish there were a figure that would allow us to think of the scale, size and nature of the project so that anything above and beyond that would rest with others in the private sector. I do not care whether they are Jewish or not Jewish.
It seems to me that the bald statement on the face of the Bill—
“The Secretary of State may incur expenditure”—
pure and simple—is not helpful at all. If people do not agree with the figure in the amendment, let them come up with a better one, but it seems to me to be a responsible thing, at a time of great financial stricture, for us to be generous but to indicate the levels of our generosity by putting in the Bill the sort of figure that we would be happy to endorse in legislation coming from this Parliament.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this has been a mostly good opening debate on this very important Bill. I want to begin by setting out His Majesty’s Official Opposition’s broader approach to this legislation before addressing the specific amendments in this group. As I said at Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton made a solemn commitment to the survivors of the Holocaust, saying that
“the past will never die and your courage will never be forgotten”.
That was 11 years ago.
We have heard a great deal about solemn commitments already this week, but this is not a promise that we can break. In the 80th anniversary year of so many liberations of concentration camps, we have a duty to deliver a Holocaust memorial and learning centre right here in Westminster, at the heart of our democracy. We must do this so that survivors who are still with us can see it opened to the public, sure in the knowledge that we as a nation have renewed our commitment never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust. That is what is at stake with this Bill. I fear that if the Government do not succeed in securing this Bill in this Session, we may lose our chance to build the memorial that the survivors of the Holocaust and their families deserve in their lifetime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government gratefully acknowledge the Select Committee’s report and conclusions. We thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the members of the Select Committee, who performed their task conscientiously and thoroughly, dedicating considerable time and effort to ensuring that they tested and understood the evidence presented to them. Their report is proof of the balanced approach they have taken. The Government thank them for their patience and dedication.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his amendments. It would be appropriate alongside this amendment move the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. This group of amendments deals with matters relating to public expenditure on the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The purpose of Clause 1 is to authorise expenditure on the construction, use, maintenance, improvement and operation of a new national holocaust memorial and learning centre. We want the centre to be a permanent feature of our national consciousness that ensures that the lessons of the Holocaust and the testimony of those who survived have an enduring legacy.
This clause will enable the Government to deliver the commitment, first made in 2015, with cross-party support, to deliver a fitting national memorial that meets the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. The commission found widespread dissatisfaction with the existing memorial in Hyde Park. That is why the commission recommended that there should be a striking new memorial, prominently located in central London, to make a bold statement about the importance that Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust.
Plans for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre have been endorsed by every living Prime Minister and have widespread support from leading representatives of the Jewish community, other faith and community leaders, survivors, refugees and the wider public. The proposed memorial will honour the 6 million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered in the Holocaust and all other victims of Nazi persecution. The collocated learning centre will examine the Holocaust through British perspectives, looking at what we did and what more we could have done to tackle the murder and persecution of the Jewish people and other groups.
By long-standing convention, based on the Public Accounts Committee concordat of 1932, reflected in the current Treasury guidance Managing Public Money, specific legislation is needed for funding new services that are expected to continue beyond two years. Clause 1 meets that requirement.
Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would put in the Bill a limit that would apply to both the construction and the operational costs of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Although I sympathise with the noble Lord’s concern to manage public expenditure, I think noble Lords will be aware that other mechanisms are used to allocate funding and control costs. The figure of £138.8 million is evidently taken from the Written Ministerial Statement made by the previous Government in June 2023. As a consequence of that Statement, Parliament and all interested parties were fully aware of the expected costs when the Bill completed its passage through the other House and passed its Second Reading in this House.
The amendment would use that published sum, plus an arbitrary 15% contingency, to set a cost limit for both the construction and the ongoing operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre programme. Setting a limit in primary legislation in that way would create a great deal of inflexibility in the management of the project. The project to create a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre is being taken forward in line with normal procedures and processes for government projects. As part of the Government’s major projects portfolio, it is subject to regular and transparent reporting.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, particularly as he has been so amenable to consultation throughout the process of the Bill. Is he saying that the passage of the Bill would allow the Government to raise the money, whatever the cost of the project would be? Is it not the case that all that the Bill would do is allow the Treasury to be asked, from its vote, to allow a certain sum of money to be granted? My understanding is that the Bill does not give a blank cheque to the Government without further checks and balances in normal Treasury procedures. If that is the case, please would the Minister not leave that impression?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall clarify what Clause 1 is about. Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to spend money to build the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. That is what it is about.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
With respect, the Minister is not answering my question. Of course this Bill, once an Act, would allow the Secretary of State to spend money, but the implication of what he says is “any” money. Is it not a fact, and the law, that it has to be provided from the Treasury vote? Therefore, decisions have to be made as to how much money will be permitted. Can he help us, if that is true, as to how much money it is intended to permit?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, that is correct. The appropriation Act allows us to spend the money.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
The Minister said the Government needed flexibility in the case of additional cost. Is that limitless?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, it would help if I can come on to more details about contingencies and costs, and then we can come back. If I do not answer anything specific, I can come back to the noble Lord in writing or in a further meeting.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
We will deal with this issue more extensively in the third group of amendments, but perhaps it would help to quote from page 11 of the National Audit Office report, which sets out all the organisations in charge of trying to run this project. It says that the Treasury is:
“Responsible for allocating funding for the programme. Treasury approval is required at different stages as per the Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan … As a condition of the funding, the Department must seek further Treasury approval if the programme is forecast to use more than half of the approved contingency”.
Another box also says that the Cabinet Office must give approval as well.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I must make progress but, very quickly, we will follow the normal public expenditure rules, as I have illustrated. I remind noble Lords that Clause 1 refers to allowing us to spend the money to build the project. I understand that it does not say how much money, but whatever the Government do will follow the normal Treasury rules, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
Lord Robathan (Con)
The Minister is under a bit of flak here. This is a very unusual Bill, as he will understand. It is not like voting for huge amounts to go to defence, or whatever it might be. We in Parliament surely exist to control what public money—not our money—is spent on. We are talking here about some astronomical amount that we do not know. That is why people are asking these questions.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but this Bill allows expenditure. Funding will be allocated through the normal public expenditure arrangements. The House of Commons passes annual appropriation Acts.
The project is also subject to review by the National Audit Office. In July 2022, the National Audit Office conducted a review and produced a report noting, among other points:
“The programme has controls to try to safeguard against substantial cost increases”.
Three recommendations made by the National Audit Office have been implemented. On the points that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raised about the management of the project, we welcome the National Audit Office’s July 2022 report on the project and have addressed all its recommendations. The National Audit Office also recognises that governance arrangements are in place. The strategic benefits of the programme have been clearly identified and specialists with the necessary skills have been recruited to the programme.
It is also important to make the point that the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which the noble Lord referred to, currently rates the project as undeliverable because the Bill needs to be passed and planning consent granted in order for it to proceed. That is why there is a red flag rating on this. The project needs planning consent. That was quashed, and it was given a red rating as this Bill needs to be passed.
The £138 million estimate is based on professional advice from cost consultants and allows for inflation.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
Are those the same cost consultants who advised on HS2?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to limit myself by saying “yes” or “no” because I do not know the answer. As you would expect, I do not have that knowledge here.
On contingency, the estimate considers potential inflation being more than expected and the risks of the site. Again, the estimate is based on professional advice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised the commitment to raise charitable donations. The commitment to raise £25 million has been given by the Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust, which is chaired by Sir Gerald Ronson. Specific donations will be agreed once planning consent has been granted.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised improving records. The testimony of 120 Holocaust survivors has been recorded and is being made available online for all to see before the memorial opens. We have worked with the Association of Jewish Refugees to create an online portal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, also talked about the operating costs. These have been estimated at £6.5 million to £8 million per annum.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I was responding to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on the operational costs. Operating costs have been estimated at between £6.5 million to £8.5 million per annum, and the estimates draw on comparisons with other museums and galleries of a similar size. Further detailed costs will be developed as the programme proceeds.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
If those costs have been estimated in line with other museums, do they include the extra costs that will be needed for potential demonstrations at that particular memorial, especially as it is so close to Parliament?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Yes; all the costs associated with the operation of the memorial learning centre reflect the estimation I have just detailed, but further details of costs will be developed.
On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on the Explanatory Notes and re-erection, the purpose is to avoid having to come back to Parliament to change legislation in the event of damage and related issues. We have regular discussions with the Palace of Westminster on the issue of other works, including the restoration of Victoria Tower. These will continue to take place and we expect to manage logistics, deliveries, and so on, through sensible planning. The estimated cost of the UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre has been produced in line with the Treasury Green Book guidance. Taking all that into account, the last accounting officer assessment from June 2023 concludes that the project represents value for money. The ordinary mechanisms by which Parliament allocates public funding and holds Ministers to account can apply to this programme, just as with any other programme.
The further Amendment 27, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would introduce an additional step in the process of seeking planning consent for the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. While the noble Lord is to be commended for his focus on cost control and value for money, the additional step he proposes is not necessary and would simply add still further delay to the decision-making process. Costs are regularly reviewed, and updated figures will be published in due course, in line with the Government’s major projects portfolio reporting process.
A range of options are being considered for operating the memorial and learning centre. As a significant public investment, responsibility for managing the centre will need to rest with a body that is ultimately accountable to Parliament. The Government will continue to be transparent about the costs and future arrangements for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. This should, however, not delay the separate planning determination process.
The Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be a source of pride and an inspiration to the whole of society across boundaries of religion, class, geography or political party. I have only to quote the words of 94 year-old Holocaust survivor Mala Tribich, MBE, to underline why this is so vital:
“As the Holocaust moves further into history and we survivors become less able to share our testimonies this Memorial and Learning Centre will be a lasting legacy so that future generations will understand why it is important for people to remember the Holocaust, to learn from the past and stand up against injustice”.
I just want to echo—
Lord Pickles (Con)
I am sorry; I agree very much with the tenor of what the Minister is saying. He may recall that earlier I asked him to address a specific question. During his briefing, has he seen anything to suggest that the memorial centre will be about white- washing our history and praising the British Empire, and not about telling the whole truth, warts and all?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I was literally going to come on to that particular point. There will be nothing at all like that. If I can further add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, the memorial and learning centre will draw on the history of the Holocaust, and particularly the decisions made by the British Parliament, to stress the importance of tackling intolerance and hatred at all levels in our society. It will deliver this message for all the people across the UK and the rest of the world, regardless of faith and background.
I just want to remind noble Lords what we are debating. The Holocaust Memorial Bill includes measures essential for the Government to deliver the long- standing commitment to build the planned Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The Bill authorises expenditure on the construction, maintenance, operation and improvement of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Finally, the Bill also disapplies the relevant sections of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, ensuring that this legislation does not block the building of a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens.
I hope that I have been able to provide further clarity and assurance as to the purpose of this Bill to enable the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to withdraw his amendment. I also hope that my explanation of Clause 1 will enable noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to agree that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
Can I ask the Minister something before he sits down? Does he have evidence that there are companies that are willing to quote for carrying out this construction? What is the situation over there?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the simple answer is that we will seek tenders for the main construction contracts once planning consent is secured but, to use the noble Lord’s words, we need to get on with it.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I can recall this Committee Room being so packed out with colleagues, on all sides, for such an important and controversial debate. As the Minister would say, some passionate speeches are being made here today; I am grateful to all colleagues who have taken part.
I was particularly struck by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who gave a powerful criticism of the Explanatory Notes. It is not just this Bill where I have found that the Explanatory Notes did not explain much; as a former chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I found that in almost every Bill we got. The noble Lord is right to make the points that there could be substantial changes to Parliament’s visitors centre and that that has not been taken into account here.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly praised the dedication of my noble friends Lord Pickles and Lord Finkelstein to a memorial. My noble friend Lord Pickles has for many years championed this cause; just because I think that it may be the wrong place and the wrong memorial does not take away from the fact that he has been an absolute hero. However, my noble friend said that this memorial would improve the park, but that is not what Adjaye, the architect, said. When people said that these fins are despicably ugly, he said:
“Disrupting the pleasure of being in a park is key to the thinking”
on the memorial. I thought that key to the thinking was finding a memorial that commemorated the 6 million exterminated Jews, not putting something ugly in the park. Of course, the Government never mention Adjaye now. In the press release announcing that his bid had been accepted, he was named 12 times as the greatest architect in history. Now, he is wiped out from the memory, and the name is given to the rest of his firm but not to Adjaye.
Moving on, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was so right to point out that people will come to a memorial if it is good enough, not because of where it is sited. That is a key point.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sterling. His description of his family circumstances and the Holocaust match, if in a different way, the circumstances of my noble friend Lord Finkelstein. The noble Lord, Lord King is right: let us have a decent learning centre and a fitting memorial.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood said that building in inflation, which is going through the roof at the moment, will be absolutely essential. That tied into the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, about the fact that we must have a cost ceiling. It may not be £138 million—indeed, it may be something else—but, unless there is a cost ceiling, the costs will go through the roof.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her comments and her personal statement. I appreciate that she was not speaking as a party spokesperson.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood said that he was not an accountant, but at least what he said added up and made sense to me in any case.
The shadow Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, said that no one wants to break a solemn promise. I suspect that there is no one anywhere in this Room who wants to break the promise to build a memorial, but what we all want is a proper memorial and a big, proper learning centre, as the Holocaust Commission recommended.
I come to the Minister. I have always liked him, ever since he was a Whip. I used to be a Whip in the Conservative Party. Us Whips have to stick together, in a sort of camaraderie; someone should explain that to Simon Hart. I welcome the Minister to his position—he is a thoroughly decent man and a caring, nice Minister—but he has been under some pressure today and that is not his fault. We have the National Audit Office’s report, which is devastating against his department. We have the Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s report, which is also highly critical. That same department has had to give the Minister a brief. He has had to defend the indefensible today, but I give him credit for trying.
I want to conclude by asking the Minister something. Before Report, when I suspect that noble Lords—perhaps better noble Lords than I—will wish to put down a new amendment on costs, will the Minister produce a full, updated cost for the project? Will he give detailed answers before Report, as well as full answers to the NAO’s criticisms? I should say to him that I do not think the NAO criticised this project because we have not got the Bill through yet. It said that this project was undeliverable based not on that but on the fact that there was no schedule, no budget and no quality control. For a whole range of reasons, it found it grossly inadequate.
I think the Minister said that my ceiling of a 15% contingency was an arbitrary figure. Well, the Government have suddenly bunged in an extra £50 million with no justification, and I suggest that that is also an arbitrary figure.
I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. Obviously, I will not push it today, but we will need to get some detailed answers on the costing and control of this project before Report, or I suspect that we will have to come back to this then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I just point out for Hansard that I am Lady Scott of Bybrook, not of Needham Market.
Baroness Blackstone
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by correcting the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. I think she suggested that I had my name down on the first group; I did not. I may have misheard her but I was not alone in hearing that. If she did not, that is fine.
I have a couple of other opening remarks. I really hope that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, who is not in his place at the moment, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, will respect the views of those who are opposed to the Bill and not in any sense intimate or suggest that we are not in favour of a Holocaust memorial or indeed a learning centre. That is not the case as far as I am concerned and I do not believe that it is the case among any other members of the Committee who are speaking against the Bill.
Lord Pickles (Con)
Can the noble Baroness point to a single sentence I have uttered over, say, the last 10 years where I have suggested that?
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
I am not alone, because I have talked to one or two people in the intervening time, when we were taking part in the Division, who believed that that was what was intimated from what the noble Lord said.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
I will reread what the noble Lord said and come back to him if in fact if what I understood does not seem to be held up in the Hansard report of what he said.
I also want to say that I think I am one of the few Labour members of this Committee who are speaking against the Bill. I know many Labour Members who are not taking part but who are very concerned, and I expressed my worries about this to the Minister. I do not like opposing the Government on any issue and I am not known to be serially disloyal. However, there are two particular things in my past that make me worried about the Bill.
The first is that I am a former Minister responsible for heritage, including heritage parks, and I think it is a great and grave mistake to change the 1900 Act that was set up to protect heritage parks in a way that will lead to great damage done to this park. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Sterling and Lord Hamilton, that this is a beautiful, much used but small park which will not have the same role as it had in the past because of putting this very large—from the point of view of the size of the park—memorial and learning centre in it.
The second reason I am worried about this Bill as it is currently proposed is my interest in education. I do not think that the learning centre as currently proposed is fit for purpose. I do not want to make a Second Reading speech now but want to go straight in to my amendments in this group. I will speak to Amendments 2, 3, 4, 6 and 13, all of which concern the learning centre, which is at present an intrinsic part of the design of the Holocaust memorial as proposed by the sponsors.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans has had to go to another meeting and asked me, with noble Lords’ permission, to speak to his Amendment 23. It is about an endowment fund to help counter anti-Semitism. An Ofcom report of July 2022 showed that for teenagers, Instagram gave them 29% of the news, TikTok 28% and YouTube 28%. These are the main sources of news with ITV and the BBC way down in fourth and fifth places. The Ofcom report also states:
“Users of TikTok for news claim to get more of their news on the platform from ‘other people they follow’ (44%) than ‘news organisations’ (24%).”
The report continues:
“Teenagers today are increasingly unlikely to pick up a newspaper or tune into TV News, instead preferring to keep up-to-date by scrolling through their social feeds”.
If those social media outlets were accurate, we would have little concern, but also in July 2023 we had a United Nations report History Under Attack. It was a co-operation with an Oxford organisation and found that up to half of Holocaust-related content on Telegram denied or distorted the facts. It said that distortion and Holocaust denial was present on all social media but that moderation and education can significantly reduce this. It went on to say that UNESCO and the United Nations sought to measure the extent of this phenomenon on social networks and commissioned researchers to identify and analyse about 4,000 posts related to the Holocaust on the five major platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Telegram, TikTok and Twitter. These were the findings: on Telegram, there was 50% distortion and denial of the Holocaust in English language messages; on Twitter, which is now X, there was 19% distortion; on TikTok, 17%; on Facebook, 8%; and on Instagram, 3%. Many of those comments were anti-Semitic as well.
Another key finding of the United Nations report is that the researchers identified that perpetrators have learned to evade content moderation through the use of humorous and parodic memes as a strategy intended to normalise anti-Semitic ideas and make them appear mainstream. I had no idea what anti-Semitic memes were, or any memes, but I found hundreds on the internet, some suggesting that the Jews had attacked USS “Liberty” in 1967, others that the Jews had brought down the Twin Towers in New York. Some said that if America was to save itself then it had to declare war on Israel. Thousands of these memes are absolutely scurrilous, despicable lies and hate-filled, but millions of our young people are lapping them up.
Up to even three years ago, I thought that education on the Holocaust of 80 years ago was all that we needed to do, but now we see hundreds of thousands of people on our streets calling for a new Holocaust, the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jews. Indeed, in 2019 the BBC published a poll of more than 2,000 people that was carried out by Opinion Matters for the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. It found, and this is quite frightening, that 5% of UK adults—that is, out of 45 million—do not believe that the Holocaust took place, and one in 12 believes that its scale has been exaggerated. Some 45% of those polled said they did not know how many people were killed in the Holocaust, while 19% believed that fewer than 2 million Jews were murdered and 5% believed that there was no Holocaust at all; that is 2.2 million people. That is frightening—all those British people denying the Holocaust or completely ignorant about it.
It is therefore essential that we create an endowment fund to undertake 24/7 Holocaust education and rebuttal of all the new anti-Semitic attacks. That is why we need a proper campus, as recommended in the Holocaust Commission report, staffed by experts who can work online 24/7 countermanding lies about the Holocaust and the new Holocaust demand to push the Jews out of Israel, their homeland, from the river to the sea. Anti-Semitism is on the rise worldwide, and it seems to be even worse in the UK, so a monument to the unique Holocaust of 80 years ago is essential. Equally essential is annual funding to tackle the new lies about Jews and the calls for their extermination.
I turn to my Amendments 29 and 30, and I believe my noble friend Lord Hodgson will speak to Amendment 31 in my place. I also support Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. As I said in my speech on Amendment 1, I concluded that Conservative politicians opted for the completely unsuitable Victoria Tower Gardens and ignored the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission because they thought the gardens would be an easier bet. However, the site fails to deliver a central theme of the commission—indeed, its key recommendation 2. Recommendation 1 concluded with the words:
“But it is also clear that a memorial on its own is not enough and that there must be somewhere close at hand where people can go to learn”
about the Holocaust. This is what the commission said about the ideal site for the memorial and learning centre. In its “Delivery and Next Steps” section, it said, and it is worth while quoting it:
“The Commission has identified three possible locations that should be considered as part of a consultation taken forwards by the permanent independent body … The Holocaust Exhibition at IWM London is very highly regarded, as was demonstrated throughout the evidence received. There is therefore an obvious advantage in locating the Learning Centre alongside IWM London in Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park near Lambeth. The site is within easy reach of Westminster and accessible via several routes by public transport. It offers existing high footfall with approximately 1.5 million visits to IWM in 2014. IWM has proposed the building of a new wing to house a memorial and a learning centre and to link to newly expanded and upgraded Holocaust galleries in the main building. This would also benefit from being able to use the existing visitor facilities and essential infrastructure of the IWM building”.
Lord Robathan (Con)
As a matter of interest, I do not know how many people in this Room have been to the Holocaust memorial galleries in the Imperial War Museum. They are incredibly instructive and similar to the ones outside Tel Aviv, whereas somewhere here would be about one-eighth of the size.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. I visited them almost two years ago, and they are extraordinary. The good thing about the museum is that it has physical artefacts, although not many—it has more Nazi uniforms than Jewish uniforms —but it has physical things to look at, whereas the Adjaye bunker will merely have videos showing on a screen that kids can look at on their mobile phones and iPads much more easily. Why build a museum if you have nothing physical to put in it?
The Holocaust Commission concluded on the Imperial War Museum by saying:
“It is the view of the Commission that this is a viable option, provided a way can be found to meet the Commission’s vision for a prominent and striking memorial”.
Then there was Potters Fields as an option—it is between Tower Bridge and City Hall—but I believe that it has been sold and is no longer available. On Millbank, this is what the commission said:
“David and Simon Reuben have been inspirational supporters of the Commission’s vision and have proposed a redevelopment of a large area of their Millbank complex. The location offers great potential for a prominent riverfront memorial, a short walk along the river from the Houses of Parliament. The campus could include a hidden garden, reflective pond, wall of remembrance and a learning centre, incorporating the existing cinema, doubling as a lecture theatre. The complex sits alongside Tate Britain which attracts 1.4 million visits a year. It also benefits from its own pier with river boat connections to Westminster. There may be the opportunity to work alongside Tate Britain to further develop the area to increase its appeal, helping to create a new cultural and educational quarter”.
That is what the official Holocaust Commission recommended on the location of a memorial and a learning centre nearby.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
I ask the noble Lord to draw his remarks to a conclusion.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I appreciate that. I apologise for going over 10 minutes, but I did not expect to have to do two minutes on the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
If I can conclude with just a few more seconds to go, the commission commended the 9/11 exhibition in New York. In November last year, I had to attend some official meetings at the United Nations, so I thought I would go along to see it. I was half expecting it to be, in the usual American way, a bit over the top and a bit tacky, but I was utterly wrong. It was exceptionally well done, moving and authoritative, with exquisite architecture—and it was absolutely massive. It was to commemorate just—just—2,977 victims. We are trying to commemorate 6 million victims by squeezing them into this tiny little bunker under the ground, which has usable space of just 1,700 square metres. It is simply not good enough. I commend my amendments to the Committee.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee but this is my first intervention on the Bill. I declare my interest as a former chairman of Arts Council London. I rise to speak to Amendment 29 and the consequential amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra.
I would like to put on record my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and all the work that she has put into this extraordinary debate today. I have a few brief observations to add to the comprehensive remarks that my noble friend delivered just now with his customary eloquence and wisdom, with which I entirely agree. I support the analysis by several noble Lords of the problems of this site in Victoria Tower Gardens.
I must begin by saying that I am entirely in favour of a Holocaust memorial in central London. We all want present and future generations to recognise, understand and learn what the Holocaust was, why it happened and why it still matters. It is frightening that anti-Semitism is ever present. As my noble friend highlighted, a poll showed that more than 2 million people —about 5% of our population—believe that there never was a Holocaust at all. That figure is probably much higher now as a result of social media. Anti-Semitism must be a central element of whatever or wherever the learning centre is.
As Prime Minister in 2015, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton had a noble ambition when, with cross-party support, he announced details of his proposal. The memorial and learning centre would be world-class. My noble friends have already set out clearly what was promised and what will now be delivered. There is no doubt that the original ambition has been radically reduced as, now, the proposed learning centre would be just a few rooms, all digital. My noble friend Lady Bottomley once memorably described the learning centre as a “subterranean shoebox”.
Several eminent historians, including Sir Richard Evans, have pointed out that London’s contribution would be put to shame by what can be seen elsewhere in the world—indeed, in our own Imperial War Museum, which has been referred to already, and its Holocaust galleries. In preparation for today’s debate, I revisited the Holocaust galleries. They are indeed world-class: through more than 2,000 photos, books and letters, they tell individual stories of some of the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust.
The first room is extraordinary. It introduces us, through home movies, music and photos, to Jewish families across Europe in the early 1930s. They are smiling and posing on graduation from school or university, at family weddings, skiing and playing table tennis. With the dark reality of what was to come, we then see personal possessions—a child’s teddy bear, a darning mushroom and sheet music—displayed in the large cabinets. A dozen or so spacious, themed rooms link events from the rise of Hitler through to the final solution. It is a profound, emotional and educational experience.
The proposed learning centre, squeezed into the very limited space of Victoria Tower Gardens, lacks this essential content and impact. Surely the Imperial War Museum, set in the verdant 14-acre Harmsworth Park just a mile from Westminster, is a potential alternative site for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The Victoria Tower Gardens site is totally inappropriate. As my noble friends have said, it has been criticised by UNESCO, Historic England and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which rated it red—in other words, undeliverable. Victims of the Holocaust and survivors, as well as our future generations, deserve a world-class learning centre. That cannot be in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 29 and 31 in this group. My noble friend Lord Blencathra has, as my noble friend Lady Fleet just pointed out, spoken with great eloquence to them, but I have a few sweeping-up remarks to make about Amendment 31 and some tangential matters arising therefrom.
Before I speak to them, I owe the Committee an apology because I did not participate at Second Reading on 4 September last—I am afraid that I was abroad at the time—but I did make a submission to the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on the Bill and appeared before it to plead my case. If I may, I will return to that in a minute or two.
Since I did not participate in the September debate, I should perhaps say a few words about where I stand on the principles of the Bill as a whole. I am not nihilistic. I reject the suggestion from my noble friend Lord Finkelstein that one is going to find objections to everything. I am very much in favour of a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. I am prepared to work and live with the design that people think is satisfactory.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I was half way through explaining my position on the proposals of the Bill. I believe that there should be a memorial to the Holocaust and that it should be in Victoria Tower Gardens. I would work with almost anybody regarding the design. I do not think that the present design is particularly attractive. I also support the proposal for a learning centre but have difficulty with putting that into Victoria Tower Gardens, for the reasons that have been given by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. That site is not suitable for the scale and importance of the task that it would be undertaking. That is the background to Amendments 29 and 30—the need for a campus and all the other things that have been mentioned.
Amendment 31 has a slight additional edge to it, because the Jewish Museum in Camden has closed due to a lack of funding. All its exhibits are now in storage. It might be worth while considering that this could be included in an overall context of a British-Jewish experience and a national, or London, Jewish museum. That is simply the background and purpose of Amendment 31: that this is included in any consideration of alternative sites.
My noble friend Lady Scott—I know she is “of Bybrook”—explained that we had to consider some of the tangential impacts. I will do that briefly now—again in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—because quite a lot of what is talked about on the tangential experience is based on poor evidence and soggy experience. Those of us who have offices in Millbank, as I do, see how very crowded the pavements and the areas outside are all the time—particularly in the summer, obviously, but nearly all the time. Obviously, there is a bus shelter for Transport for London. There are coach points where people come to hop on and hop off tourist buses, and where students are dropped for tours of Parliament, all of which are very worthy things. If you walk along there on an ordinary day, you will find that not only is the pavement crowded but, because of the black crash barrier, you have a choke point that makes it even more crowded before you can get to where you can turn right into the Victoria Tower Gardens or go straight on to Black Rod’s Garden entrance.
I raised this issue with the committee and I was ruled out of order. The committee said, in paragraph 56 of its report:
“These concerns do not confer an entitlement to be heard and … the Standing Orders do not confer on us any discretion to consider his petition”.
Of course, I accept the Standing Orders of your Lordships’ House, but we are now moving from the rather dry area of Standing Orders to the real world. What is going to happen in this area over the many years ahead? If an activity or something inside the periphery of the area—that is, inside the gardens—causes trouble, difficulties, problems or inconvenience in the immediate environment outside, that at least demands to be considered and weighed in the scale. I would therefore like to tackle that briefly now.
In his reply in the Second Reading debate, the Minister said:
“We estimate that there will be 11 coaches per day, using a proposed coach bay on a quieter section of Millbank”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1225.]
I have done a bit of research, because I have been popping into coaches for the last few days to ask, “How many passengers do you carry?” The truth is that I have not found one that carries fewer than 55 or more than 70, so we have an average of probably around 60 or 65. Eleven coaches a day is 660 people. Are we going to do all this for 660 people? Surely not. The idea is that this should be much bigger than that. If we then ask what estimates are being given for the number of people, it comes out usually as between 3,000 and 4,000. That number means that you are going to need about 58 coaches a day. If you are open between 9 am and 4 pm with a line for a 45-minute tour of the building—that is, for seven hours—that will be eight coaches per hour: one every seven minutes. Those are the numbers that we are likely to have to face.
I am sure the Minister does not know anything about the 11 coaches per hour; he was given a speaking note by his official. I am not suggesting he made this up at all. However, we need to think more carefully about this, because at present, the footfall and the impact on the area is absolutely clearly underestimated. If I may just quote from his speaking note one more time, he suggested using a proposed coach bay on a “quieter section of Millbank”. I invite him to get his officials to take him to a quieter section of Millbank. There is no quieter section of Millbank—it is a main thoroughfare where traffic passes all the time. I hope we can get more clarity on what the tangential impact is likely to be in the areas around what is proposed.
I share the view that the learning centre is not in a good place. In my view, it is going to be born in the spirit of rancour, whereas it surely should be born in the spirit of remembrance and healing. I hope that the Minister will be able to demonstrate that the Government are listening to all the points being made, and we do not just have a situation of “Put the pedal to the metal and get this thing done as quickly as possible”.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend mentioned the Jewish Museum in Camden, which has closed down. Is he aware that it says that it has 28,000 items and artefacts—including Jewish art, and examples showing the Jewish way of life going back centuries—in storage? Can he understand why, on the one hand, we have plans for this learning centre in Victoria gardens that will have no artefacts while, on the other, we have a closed-down museum with 28,000 artefacts looking for a home? Can the Government explain why on earth they are unable to marry them up and put the two together in a big, proper museum and learning centre, as the Holocaust Commission recommended?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Well, my Lords, that just shows that you should never speak after my noble friend Lord Blencathra, because of course he is right. I hope I made it clear that I thought the consideration of alternative sites should include the idea that we should have a national Jewish museum, which would pick up the 28,000 items, the number of which I was not aware.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, had there been time yesterday, we would have disaggregated this group because it covers three enormous topics that are very different, and I will not have time to say everything that I wanted to. I will start with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, which is perhaps the most obvious and sensible of all of them. I call them over and under. If we stick to over and avoid under, nearly all the problems are solved—in other words, a memorial overground, and a learning centre somewhere else. That would avoid all the complications and costs of excavating Victoria Tower Gardens and the disruption and damage. Moreover, apparently the learning centre will have only digital and audio material in it, so why not just send us round the country, in whatever way can be done technologically these days, rather than bringing people to London?
I turn to the issue of endowment—what is in the learning centre and what it is supposed to do. The inadequacy of Holocaust education, which is well known, can be seen on the streets of London every week and on our campuses. Young people who have had some education about the Holocaust at school cannot make the connection between that and the vicious hatred of Israel today, the attacks on the survival of Jewish people, the resurgence of Nazi language and images, and the violence we find against Jewish people as they go about their businesses or go to synagogue. That is because of the failing of Holocaust education in two respects. First, it places the hatred of Jews in a box, something that was the exclusive province of the Nazis 90 years ago and ended at the end of the Second World War. The planned learning centre will compound that.
The other failing is the presentation of many genocides as if they had anything in common. The messages coming from the learning centre, as far as one can tell, will be “Do not be a bystander” and “Hatred is what brought on the Holocaust and other genocides”. That serves as an obfuscation and diversion of blame. It misses the point entirely: it was 2,000 years of anti-Semitism. The civilised world has said “Never again”, but that is overoptimistic. Anti-Semitism remains alive and well, not only among the denizens of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran but of course, since 7 October, in countries hitherto thought immune, such as the Western world.
Holocaust education has failed, but it should include the place of Israel in the world and in Jewish life and history. Scholars say that the Holocaust found Jews defenceless. After 7 October, sadly, a Jewish state was able to hit back and may eliminate its enemies, but certainly Israel provides a haven for Jews elsewhere who find themselves threatened by this new anti-Semitism. That fairly obvious statement shows what is so wrong about the theme and location of the memorial planned for VTG. As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, has said, his intent is that seeing the Palace of Westminster and being reminded of the power of democracy means that there is protection for Jewish people under British values, but that is historically and contemporaneously wrong. Democracy here, now and in the past, has not protected Jewish minorities. We can see that even today there are plenty of people in our democratic Government who wish Israel ill and who have failed to protect the Jewish community from the pressure that it faces right now.
What saves people from genocide? It is having a state of one’s own and the means of self-defence. Take, for example, the Uighurs, Armenians and Tutsis. What they have in common is that they were minorities in a state that had power over them. As the late Lord Sacks of blessed memory pointed out, today’s anti-Semitism is directed at the world’s only Jewish state, which should be a haven for a persecuted minority. He called for Holocaust education to be in context—the context of Jewish history over the millennia, and Jewish culture. In regard to the Holocaust, it is wrong for people to learn only about that and nothing else. The ill-educated person in the street often associates Jews only with the images of concentration camps and knows nothing other than that—nothing about Jewish history and practices.
That is made worse by the films, some of them ghoulish, that deal with that period. This concentration on the Holocaust, taken out of context and history, turns it into just a word for describing something dreadful, which is casually used, as is the word “genocide”. It even results in those accusations being turned against the Jewish people. Holocaust education needs a complete overhaul, rather than being frozen into the same inadequate frame that we will find in the learning centre. That is why there needs to be an endowment fund and a professor, as suggested in Amendment 32, because those awkward topics of anti-Semitism today and Israel need to be faced up to and explained. We want to know why the Government have abandoned the suggested endowment fund.
I turn briefly to alternatives. No effort was made to find a suitable location when Victoria Tower Gardens was announced, but the supporters have clung stubbornly to that site, though they must know in their hearts that it is no good and that the choice has provoked litigation, disharmony, delay, expense and discord in the Jewish community and elsewhere. Indeed, the choice of site has provoked adverse comment around the world. In 2015, the call was only for a central London site of up to 10,000 square metres, with room for conferences, offices and all the appurtenance of a campus, and only near at hand to the memorial given that proponents also recommended that the site incorporate the Imperial War Museum exhibition. So they could not have had in mind an underground construction somewhere else. The choice of VTG was reached without consultation, given that the consultants came up with the London Museum, Millbank Tower and other sites.
I imagine that VTG was chosen because it was free, whereas Imperial War Museum co-operation over the use of its green space was ignored. My own ideal compromise would be a suitable figurative memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens and a suitably sized learning centre somewhere nearby, maybe along Millbank. Buildings on Millbank have been offered. They are available to rent or buy. What about College Green, whose underground is not being used, the education centre in Victoria Tower Gardens or Victoria Tower itself, as the archives have been removed? My favourite is Richmond House, which it seems will not now be used for decant during R&R and which has a forecourt suitable for a memorial and is right by the Cenotaph. No position is more visible and important. Others have suggested the former Museum of London, the Barbican and underneath Carlton House Terrace. There has never been any meeting with the department to consider these suggestions. Michael Gove offered a round table but did not pursue it. The only other meeting with him was a formality, with no intent other than to head off my repeated complaints that there was no discussion. My offers to talk to supporters have been ignored or worse.
We know about the drawbacks of VTG—the cramped nature, the deprivation of local residents, the breach of trust, the environmental damage, the flooding risk, the fire risk, the crowding and the security. The cost is bound to rise. Climate protesters and the public will not be sympathetic to a project that flies in the face of all the government pledges to be green and economical. The Jewish community is sharply divided, with establishment figures and donors on one side and those who study the situation—scholars and most ordinary members, whether of the reform, Orthodox or mainstream persuasion—on the other. Once they know what it looks like and what it will contain, which is carefully hidden from most of us, they are against it.
Advances in technology lessen the case for the exhibition hall. There are already six memorials in this country and 21 learning centres. No one has stopped to think what effect they have or what they achieve. Is anything lacking? Why do we need another one? What is it for? Of course, people outside London will find it hard to get to. I have said before that this is not a memorial, it is not about the Holocaust and it is not a learning centre. The choice of VTG is to make a political point which is naive and misleading: that putting a memorial close to Parliament will make the point that democracy protects Jews and protects against genocide. This is the British values narrative, a project led by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and Mr Ed Balls, who also leads the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation. The placement of memorials makes no difference if you look around the world—nor are they a reminder to parliamentarians of the dangers. If parliamentarians have to have a memorial next door, at a cost of £200 million, they must be in even bigger trouble than we thought.
There is no evidence that a visit to this will make any difference. There are 300 memorials around the world, from New Zealand to China, and nobody measures the effect. In fact, anti-Semitism is growing. The memorial will provide a nice political backdrop for politicians who want to pose against it and say, “I don’t have a racist bone in my body”, but it will not help prevent anti-Semitism today. I support the movement to create a wonderful new Jewish museum like the fabulous one in Warsaw, which is placed where the Warsaw ghetto used to be and has made that into a sacred site.
I support all these amendments.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I particularly support Amendments 13, 29 and 30. Their effect would be that there was a sculpture but not a learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. In doing so, I urge the Minister to consider the difference between your Lordships’ House and the other place. Many Members of your Lordships’ House are very modest about their achievements, other than possibly us lawyers.
However, we have heard in this debate two Members of your Lordships’ House with great expertise in the matters that we are discussing. One is the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who has a long history in education. She was master of Birkbeck College, the paradigm of education to a large external audience. That is an example of what we are trying to achieve, at least in part, with the learning centre. Also, the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, who made a superb speech, is a person with real experience of cultural arenas and the like—of how cultural issues are delivered to a much larger public right across the cultural spectrum. It would be useful for the Minister to focus particularly on their expertise before any final decisions are made about what should go in Victoria Tower Gardens.
I am very much in favour of a memorial and a Holocaust learning centre, but not in Victoria Tower Gardens. A memorial there could be one of the most magnificent sculptures in the world. To give one example, Anish Kapoor, the great British sculptor, has already done a small Holocaust sculpture in London. Someone such as Anish Kapoor might produce one of those sculptures that lives for the centuries, maybe rather like how the Burghers of Calais, which has lived for well over one century, anyway. Putting a sculpture in Victoria Tower Gardens but nothing else would remove many of the security concerns, which I will address later, that will arise if a so-called learning centre is built in the gardens.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The noble Lord mentioned the shoebox. Is he aware that, if I remember correctly, the Holocaust Commission wanted a campus of between 5,000 square meters and 10,000 square metres, but in an Answer from my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on 12 April to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the department said that the Adjaye bunker would be just 3,258 square metres? The Answer went on to reveal that 48% of it will be completely unusable, made out of risers, ducts and unusable space, leaving a mere 1,722 square metres for the learning centre. That is about four or five times the size of this Room—some campus, is it not?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I absolutely agree and I will try to finish within the 10 minutes, and I believe that there is going to be a vote in a moment anyway. I believe that if the Minister were to listen to the witnesses available in your Lordships’ House, we would have a different conclusion. I promise the Minister, not because I know it but because I know it in my bones, that if we were allowed to build a Holocaust learning centre elsewhere, with the subvention that is already promised by the Government, we would have no difficulty in raising the money for an establishment that would rival the great POLIN museum that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned.
I finish by saying that if the noble Baroness will allow me to say so, and she knows that I love her dearly, I thought she was a little unkind to some members of the Committee. I do not believe that anybody is ill motivated about this in any way. I believe that, unfortunately, they are just wrong and should recognise it.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, that is my cue. I was going to take the noble Lord up. He quoted me earlier as saying something I had not said, but I realised that it is the kind of thing I would have said, so I did not object to being misquoted.
Lord Pickles (Con)
On the improvements to the park, the grass is not of very high quality, but it will be returfed. The paths will be redone. Those paths are important because, as they stand right now, they are strangling the roots of the trees and causing long-term problems. It will be possible to get water to the existing trees, there will be access to the Embankment for wheelchairs for the very first time and there will be extensive tree planting.
Some very interesting points were made about fire, flood, transport and, of course, planning matters. We will discuss any new planning application. I just want to address the questions of whether it is too small and what new things have been found. In terms of its size, it is by no means unusual among Holocaust museums. I talked about the Berlin museum, which is subterranean and roughly that size. Jasenovac is roughly that size. If we talk about museums in Warsaw, a short walk from the POLIN museum is a museum dedicated to the uprising, which is roughly the same size.
As for new things, we have discovered, hidden for 80 years, some tapes by Patrick Gordon Walker, who many here will remember. He went in the week after Dimbleby did his famous interviews and interviewed inmates of the camp as well as perpetrators. We also have the first recording of the singing of Hatikvah after liberation. As the Government took the decision to release all the documents relating to the Holocaust, we have lots of new material that has simply not been seen. It will certainly address what we knew and when we knew it.
In terms of getting an idea of what it would look like, if Members have visited Hut 27 at Auschwitz, which is an audio-visual experience of the book burning and the effect that it had on Jewish life and young people, they will know that that gives you an idea. You cannot say, “We need to embrace new technologies”, then criticise us for doing precisely that. It is not as though we are in a position where we are waiting for this to happen; the United Kingdom has already created a portal of evidence. Everyone here can now see the testimonies of Holocaust survivors going down the years, no matter where they were given. It is a big leap forward. Other countries are following suit because, to ensure that our stuff is worth while, it must be accessible.
My noble friend is right about TikTok and other social media, which is why we produced—it was just a tentative idea—80 Objects/80 Lives in which Holocaust survivors describe a particular object that kept them going through the Holocaust. That was repeated in 35 countries. It is not an answer in itself, but it is a fact that we are trying to lean out and to make a difference.
There will be natural light. There is going to be light; it is going to be used extraordinarily well with regard to a staircase.
I am very pleased that Members have gone to see the Imperial War Museum. It is a magnificent new exhibition, particularly about the use of the V-2 rocket, because it manages to bring the whole of the Second World War galleries together and demonstrates—better than the previous exhibition, I think—that the Second World War was a war of annihilation. I am pleased to say that that the past chairman of the Imperial War Museum is on the foundation’s board and that the Imperial War Museum is a key partner. I am also pleased to say that the former director of the 9/11 Memorial and Museum, which is apparently well disposed to here, is also on the board. In order to ensure that we never lose sight of the Jewish nature of the Holocaust, our director of the exhibition is a former deputy director of Yad Vashem. We work regularly with Yad Vashem on this, and there is a lot of interest.
I want to say something about numbers. I was quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. If she is going to quote me, let it be right. I do not take credit for that; it was from the widow of the great historian Martin Gilbert, who, in talking to her before his death, said that it should be about coming out of a building and recognising that democracy is there as a bastion against tyranny. It is not about the Jews to say that; it is a bastion against tyranny. However, it is also for the people in this building to look the other way and understand what happens when a compliant legislature passes various things.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Can I just ask the noble Lord why he thinks that being a tourist attraction that attracts millions is compatible with commemoration, grief, prayer, remembrance and all the other things that the commission called for and that are normally associated with a Holocaust memorial? There is a little plaque to one of my grandmothers in Manchester; that brings me more solace than any number of millions of people tramping through the gardens then heading off to have an ice cream.
Lord Pickles (Con)
It is important not to conflate the solemn nature of the memorial with the learning centre; they are two distinct but integrated matters. The Committee will always go to museums and Holocaust sites. What we want are the uncommitted: we want people who go to the learning centre and come away having learned something. They will use it as a doorway to wider knowledge. It will not be in isolation. We are going to work closely with our American friends, our friends at Auschwitz and our friends in Yad Vashem because the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and distortion do not recognise national boundaries. We have a common purpose, and part of that common purpose will be to spread it out in different languages.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as someone who is not Jewish, as I mentioned earlier, I have been very moved by the debate I have just heard about the learning centre. I subscribe to the perspective of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. As I was sitting there, I thought to myself, “Actually, there’s something that has not been mentioned”. It is—speaking as a non-Jew—the fact that Victoria Tower Gardens is a remarkable park as it stands now; that is a relevant consideration in our consideration in this place of what the future should be.
I am reminded of a story that I was told about the time when T Dan Smith redeveloped Eldon Square in Newcastle. He called in, as one of his expert advisers, Arne Jacobsen, the famous Danish architect. After the competition for the redesign of Eldon Square had been completed, he turned to Jacobsen and said, “If you had been putting in for this competition, what would you have done?” Jacobsen replied, “I would have left it just as it was before”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, that was an extremely interesting debate from both sides of what I will call a discussion, not an argument. I thank noble Lords for it; I have learned a lot.
This is a large group covering three themes that have been discussed throughout the years of work that have been done on the Holocaust memorial. First, Amendments 2, 3, 4, 6 and 13 relate to the design of the memorial and the learning centre, seeking to prevent it involving an underground element and to separate the learning centre from the memorial. These issues have been debated at length. I do not feel that this Bill is the right place for us to debate issues relating to the planning and design of the building. I am sure that the Minister will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in detail. We urge him to listen to her concerns, but we cannot support her amendments.
Amendment 23, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St Albans, is one I do support. I do not think he spoke to it, but it has been such a long debate that I have forgotten what happened at the beginning. At a time when we are seeing growing anti-Semitism while marking the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, we need to recommit ourselves to the memory of the Holocaust, as I said earlier this year when we debated Holocaust Memorial Day. My noble friend Lord Blencathra, speaking on behalf of the right reverend Prelate, was right to highlight the need for proper Holocaust education as we work to counter anti-Semitism.
I take this opportunity, a bit cheekily, to ask the Minister to update me on what steps his department is taking to counter rising anti-Semitism in this country. I am very happy to have a letter. Also, can he confirm that the Government will, at the very least, maintain the level of support for Holocaust education provided by the previous Conservative Government? I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for all the evidence that he provided showing the need for this continued education.
Finally, Amendments 29, 30 and 31, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, all seek to re-open the question of an alternative site for the memorial or learning centre. While I understand the arguments made by many noble Lords on the question of where the memorial and learning centre should be located, I cannot agree that re-opening this issue, when in the past we have looked at more than 50 sites, would be a constructive step forward and would deliver that centre in anything like a timely manner.
I said in my opening remarks that it has been 11 years since my noble friend Lord Cameron made that solemn commitment to the survivors of the Holocaust. I feel very strongly that we should not take steps that will hinder the delivery of that commitment any longer.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I will just elucidate for the noble Baroness that 50 sites were not looked at. The foundation just plumped for Victoria Tower Gardens. The thing about haste is that we are not building for the handful of survivors who are left. They do not need a memorial. If we build, we are building for the future. There is not a hurry. Survivors have said to me that they would rather it was got right; that is more important than hurrying. Even if everything went smoothly now, which I hope that it will not, there is no chance of getting it up in the lifetime of people who are in their late 90s. You have to get it right for the future, not for the handful who are left.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Blackstone and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for tabling these amendments. This group concerns the need for a learning centre, what its focus should be and how it should be funded. I believe there is a great deal of common ground on these matters. The need for a learning centre was set out clearly in the 2015 report, Britain’s Promise to Remember, published by the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission and accepted by all major political parties.
The commission proposed
“that the National Memorial should be co-located with a world-class Learning Centre. This would be a must-see destination using the latest technology to engage and inspire vast numbers of visitors”.
That remains the Government’s intention. We want to put in place a learning centre that will set the memorial in context and will be a moving and inspiring experience for visitors. Work towards this aim has begun. We are confident that our proposed scheme provides the space needed for an enthralling exhibition; I will come on to the issue of its size later. It is certain that the experience of entering the underground exhibition space through the bronze fins of the memorial will be a powerful introduction for all visitors.
Our proposal for a learning centre integrated with the Holocaust memorial is a tangible demonstration of the importance that we attach to education, which has been at the heart of this programme from the outset. The creation of the memorial and learning centre will be a further development of the significant efforts already taking place to deepen understanding of the Holocaust. Already, the Holocaust is the only historic event that is compulsory in the national curriculum for history at key stage 3, for pupils aged 11 to 14. The Prime Minister has made a strong personal commitment that this Government will seek to give every young person the opportunity to hear a recorded survivor testimony. The Government fund the Holocaust Educational Trust’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme and Holocaust Memorial Day. It is right that we should also build this Holocaust memorial with a co-located learning centre as a focal point for national commemoration to demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that the lessons of the Holocaust are never forgotten.
Taken together, my noble friend Lady Blackstone’s amendments—this amendment, Amendment 2, and Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 13—would mean that no learning centre could be constructed at the Victoria Tower Gardens; and, indeed, that the Government could not allocate any funding to the construction and operation of any learning centre in any location. The Holocaust Commission recommended that a new world-class learning centre should physically accompany the new national memorial. The learning centre will provide an opportunity to learn about the Holocaust close to the memorial and will therefore provide necessary context to the memorial. It is essential that the learning centre should be co-located with the memorial.
Having chosen Victoria Tower Gardens as the site uniquely capable of meeting the commission’s vision, the architectural design competition for the memorial tested the feasibility of a below-ground learning centre. The judges panel chose the winning design for a Holocaust memorial with a co-located learning centre because of its sensitivity to the gardens. The potential impact of our proposed learning centre was captured effectively by Professor Stuart Foster, the executive director of Holocaust education at UCL, who told the planning inquiry of his belief that
“the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre will make a profound and positive impact on teaching and learning about the Holocaust in this country and, potentially, beyond”.
I ask my noble friend Lady Blackstone to withdraw Amendment 2 and not move Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 13.
Amendment 23 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke, would similarly interfere with our objectives of establishing a world-class learning centre and strengthening Holocaust education. Taking £50 million away from the construction budget will mean no learning centre and no programme of education. The right approach is to create a powerful Holocaust memorial and learning centre that can then be a foundation for enhanced educational efforts, drawing together the wide range of impressive organisations already working in the field. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, not to move Amendment 23.
Amendments 29 and 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, call for new site searches for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Adopting these amendments would take us all the way back to 2015. An independent, cross-party foundation appointed by the then Prime Minister, following cross-party commitment to the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission, led an extensive search for the right site. The foundation included experienced and eminent property developers. A firm of professional property consultants was commissioned to provide assistance. Around 50 sites were identified and considered, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, mentioned. The outcome is, of course, well known: Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the most suitable site. The foundation was unanimous in recommending the site, which will give the memorial the prominence that it deserves and will uniquely allow the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament. There is nothing to be gained by further site searches but there is, of course, a great deal to be lost. This Government and their predecessors believe that Victoria Tower Gardens is the right site for the memorial and learning centre.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government looked at 50 sites before deciding on Victoria Tower Gardens? Is it not the case that Victoria Tower Gardens was selected first and a search then went on to look for unsuitable sites?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly reject that assertion. That was not the case. It was a competition; 50 sites were considered and after all those considerations, it was decided.
I must make progress. I will answer the points that have been raised in the debate. There is a lot to get through as this is a big group, but turning the clock back 10 years to conduct further searches in the belief that some greater consensus will be found is simply not realistic. Moreover, one implication of these amendments is that the learning centre might be located separately from the memorial. The clear recommendation of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission in its 2015 report was that
“the National Memorial should be co-located with a world-class learning centre”.
That recommendation was accepted by the then Prime Minister, with cross-party support.
The reasons why co-location matters are clear. We want the Holocaust to be understood. We cannot assume that visitors, however powerfully they may be affected by the memorial, will have even a basic understanding of the facts of the Holocaust. We cannot assume that they will recognise the relevance of the Holocaust to us, here in Great Britain, now and in the years to come. A co-located learning centre provides the opportunity to give facts, setting the memorial in context and prompting visitors to reflect.
I have no doubt that visitors will be motivated to learn more, as I was when I visited the Washington memorial. For many, the learning centre will be a starting point. I am confident that many visitors will want to explore the subject further at the Imperial War Museum in Lambeth, at the Holocaust Centre and Museum in Nottinghamshire, at Holocaust Centre North in Huddersfield and at many other excellent institutions in the UK and abroad. If the memorial were not accompanied by a learning centre, how many opportunities would be missed? Is it realistic to expect that thousands of visitors would see the memorial and decide then to make a journey of some miles across London to search out further information? Perhaps some would; I am certain that a great many would not.
Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, making a comparison with the Imperial War Museum Holocaust galleries and the size of this learning centre, the learning centre will have around 1,300 square metres of exhibition space, which is about the same as the Imperial War Museum Holocaust galleries. I want to address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. To be clear, the great majority of visitors will come via public transport, not by coach. Our plans for vehicle access are included within a construction logistics plan which we previously shared with Westminster City Council and which we expect will need to be agreed with it as a planning condition. Visitors will have access to the gardens using the existing entrances, with the site entrance permanently manned with security and construction banksmen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said that her offer to meet supporters has been ignored. I must politely disagree. Officials and I have met with her and I will continue to meet her whenever she wants, my diary permitting. I am always happy to meet any noble Lord who strongly wants to raise anything. I can see the passion today. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the great expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, and my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I am happy to meet at any time in relation to expertise.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I have to say to the Minister that I have met him and his predecessors but not once have they entertained any compromise. They listen, sometimes they shout, and that is the end of it. There has never been an offer to compromise or change anything, no matter what we have written or what plans we have shown.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I have to politely disagree, with the greatest respect for the noble Baroness. I have always listened. We have to understand that I have two main goals with the Bill. The first, in Clause 1, is to allow the Secretary of State to have expenditure to build the project. Secondly, my job in bringing the Bill forward and promoting it is to look at the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 to disapply the condition for this project to be built. Noble Lords are passionate and the strength of feeling is clear, but there is a planning process. Planning permission is still to be granted, and noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity to raise these important and pertinent points on the planning side.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Will the Minister therefore guarantee that a new full planning permission application will go back to Westminster City Council and through all the layers of planning that are normally required, and that it will not be cut short?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot give that guarantee. I want to be clear because noble Lords must understand this: that is in the hands of the designated Minister. It is the role of the designated Minister to see how he takes that forward.
I repeat that the proposals put forward include more than 300 square metres of exhibition space, comparable to the International War Museum’s Holocaust galleries and capable of accommodating a world-class exhibition. I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 29 and 30.
Amendment 31 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who I thank for his kind words earlier, which I thought were most respectful. The amendment calls for a review of the feasibility of including the Holocaust learning centre within a Jewish museum. I want to affirm straight away that the learning centre must and will set the Holocaust in the context of Jewish history. It is simply impossible to provide an accurate account of the Holocaust without addressing the long history of anti-Semitism. For a British Holocaust memorial, that will include addressing the history of British anti-Semitism, working with an experienced curator with the advice of eminent and respected academics. That is what our learning centre will do. I know that several noble Lords may have had the opportunity to see a short presentation from Martin Winstone.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am troubled by the Minister repeatedly using the term “world-class”. Could he give us some comparators that enable him to say that what is offered in this centre is world-class? In what respect is it in the same class as the POLIN centre in Warsaw or Yad Vashem? Those centres set the standard for world-class. How can he make that claim for a small centre that will have only computerised images?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I will affirm the point. The noble Lord talked about Yad Vashem. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem. The ambition and vision is to have a quality curator with a strong academic advisory board.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I am sorry to keep interrupting, but Sir Richard Evans, who is our greatest historian of Germany, and who has been outstanding in combating Holocaust denial, said at the public inquiry that the learning centre will be a national and international embarrassment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee can understand that I do not agree with that point. That is a matter of opinion for Sir Richard Evans. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as we have seen in the passionate debate today.
I was making the point that several noble Lords may have had the opportunity to see a short presentation from Martin Winstone, the historical adviser to the programme, in which he provides a small insight to the work under way. For those noble Lords who have not seen it, we can arrange for Martin Winstone to come in and give them that presentation. I had a drop-in session yesterday; unfortunately it was just me and officials, but I enjoyed it.
The overall focus of the learning centre must of course remain clearly on the Holocaust, and it must be wholly integrated with the national memorial to the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust. We want to be sure that visitors are left in no doubt about the nature of the Holocaust. Having seen the memorial, they should clearly understand what it represents. For those reasons, it simply does not make sense to envisage a learning centre located elsewhere and carrying a much broader set of messages.
The history of the Jewish people is rich and deep. Jewish communities have a long history in Britain that needs to be understood, including of course the history of anti-Semitism, extending for many centuries. Telling such a story requires expertise, creativity and space. The Jewish Museum London told this story well, making excellent use of the tens of thousands of artefacts in its collection. I wish the museum well in its search for a new home. I believe also that there will be important opportunities in future for joint work between the learning centre and the Jewish Museum. We aim to work in partnership with institutions across the UK and overseas as we develop education programmes, and as we encourage greater awareness of the Holocaust and its deep roots. But I am sure that we should recognise the differences between the purpose of a Jewish museum in London and the aims of a learning centre located with a Holocaust museum. Each has a distinct and hugely important aim. Placing the Holocaust learning centre wholly within the Jewish Museum could easily mean a loss of focus and would certainly require breaking the essential link between the learning centre and the memorial.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
Who is the “we” who will work with these other institutions? Because, as noble Lords will know, as we come on to the next group, if we do, there is no management. Therefore, I do not understand who is going to work with these other institutions.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I mean “we” as in the Government. Can I continue my final point? The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made the very important point about rising anti-Semitism. Let me be clear. Anti-Semitism is completely abhorrent and has no place in our society, which is why we are taking a strong lead in tackling it in all its forms. The Government are particularly concerned about the sharp rise in anti-Semitism and will not tolerate this. We have allocated £54 million for the Community Security Trust to continue its vital work until 2028, providing security to schools, synagogues and other Jewish community buildings. We have been actively exploring a more integrated and cohesive approach to tackling all forms of racial and religious hatred. We continue to work closely with the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, in his important work of IHRA. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, continues his work as an anti-Semitism adviser to the Government. On that note, I respectfully ask my noble friend Lady Blackstone to withdraw her amendment and not move her other amendments in this group.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in reply to this group of amendments and I have to admit that I am deeply disappointed. I did not hear any spirit of compromise whatever in what he said, and no attempt to reach out on the many points that were made by Members of the Committee.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I am so sorry to stop my noble friend in her tracks but I said very clearly that I am happy to sit down with anybody, post-Committee, to look at any particular issues. I reminded her that I sat down with noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and had a drop-in session available for noble Lords to visit and see the presentation. My only focus, if we look at the Bill, are these two clauses, which I am trying to promote and make sure we can work through. However, I understand there are a lot of issues and concerns, which I think are for a planning stage of the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
I am grateful for the Minister’s offer to sit down with various Members of the Committee, but that is not compromising today, which is what I was asking for and expecting. I tried to set out as clearly as I could why what is being proposed for this learning centre is inadequate. There is not enough space for it; the proposals for a computerised exhibition are deeply disappointing; and what I hoped the Minister might say is that he would take this away, have a look at it and discuss it with his officials and others who have expertise in the provision of learning centres on this subject. There was none of that.
I can only say that I am disappointed, as other Members of the Committee will be. The Minister said at the beginning that he attached importance to education as far as this project is concerned, and I am grateful for that. But it is not about attaching importance just to education but to high-quality education that we can be proud of and that many people will want to experience. I do not believe that that is what is being proposed here, so I ask again that before we reach the next stage of the Bill, he will come back with something more positive about how to improve it.
My last point is that I was really surprised that my noble friend would be so dismissive about Sir Richard Evans’s comments. He happens to have been the vice-master of Birkbeck throughout my time there, so we were very close colleagues. He is the most eminent historian in this country of German history of this period. I do not want to sound patronising, but the Minister should not be so dismissive of somebody of that kind of commitment and expertise. I hope he will look again at that.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Just before my noble friend concludes and, I hope, withdraws her amendment, clearly, a lot of these matters are for planning. The Committee will understand that I might not be able to satisfy the very detailed and passionate contributions made by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I did not address his point about security because we will have a whole group on security arrangements. I was not ignoring it but wanted to make sure that I brought up that point.
On the point about Richard Evans, as we see today, everyone has a different view. I respect everyone’s opinion but we see in this debate that everyone has a different perspective. As I understand it, we are all well intentioned and want to make sure that we put our case across.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
I thank the Minister. I am delighted to hear that there is to be a proper planning process. He would not give a final commitment to that happening and said it was another Minister’s responsibility. I believe that that Minister said earlier, as a shadow Minister before the election, that there should be a proper planning procedure. Meanwhile, I will withdraw my amendment, but I indicate to the Minister that I will want to come back at the next stage to discuss having a better place for a learning centre than is currently proposed.
Relationship, Sex and Health Education
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for publishing revised guidance on relationship, sex and health education in schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the subjects of relationship, sex and health education are vital to support children and young people to thrive in the world in which they are growing up. Children’s well-being must be at the heart of this guidance and, as such, we are analysing consultation responses, talking to stakeholders and reviewing relevant evidence to ensure we get it right. We will publish the guidance when this important process is complete.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I have been contacted by a number of parents and teachers who are increasingly concerned by what feels to them like a lack of urgency from the DfE. They also make the point that the teaching and content of RSHE are not covered by Ofsted inspections, and anyone can set themselves up to provide and deliver courses to schools with no qualifications. This has led to contested ideologies being taught as fact, and age-inappropriate material being shown to children. Many parents are still reporting that schools are unwilling to share the content of the lessons with them. Why are parents being kept in the dark about what their children are being exposed to in schools? Does the Minister consider this to be a satisfactory way for RSHE to be delivered?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I would certainly share concerns if parents did not feel that they were being properly engaged with on what their children were being taught, both on the overall policy and in being able to look at the specific materials that are being taught. It is precisely in order to ensure that children’s well-being and the confidence of parents are achieved that we are taking our time on this work.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, relationship and sex education must be inclusive if it is to achieve its aims of sustaining and protecting the young person or child. There must be no return to the days of Section 28 and the promotion of prejudice and ignorance. Therefore, does the Minister agree that education must be about allowing young people the space to become themselves and not who others would wish them to become?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I certainly agree that we do not want to go back to the days of Section 28 and intolerance throughout society. It is important that children get the opportunity at the appropriate time to learn, from trusted teachers and with the support of their parents, the precise skills and knowledge that will enable them to grow up safe and, as the noble Lord says, in a way that will give them a fulfilled life.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the 2019 RSHE guidance was praised for its robust, evidence-based, cross-party and cross-sector support. Will my noble friend the Minister take note of concerns that revised guidance could undermine children’s access to protective and preventive education if teachers are not supported to engage with the questions that pupils seek answers to when looking to understand the real world around them? If children are forced to turn to the internet for their education, does my noble friend agree that this carries real risks?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that one of the important decisions that schools need to be supported in making is delivering the right content at the right time for students to gain, from trusted sources, the information that they need to grow up properly and to keep themselves safe. That is of course our key aim in reviewing the guidance, ensuring that children’s well-being is at the heart of it. That includes ensuring that they have the knowledge they need at the right time to help them to be safe.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I have taught more PSHE days than I care to remember. The fact that in secondary schools they are a stand-alone day once a term enables some parents to keep their children at home to avoid the uncomfortable truth that homosexuality, religious tolerance and contraception are part of a normal society. I too get the impression that relationship, sex and health education in schools is down the list of priorities. Can the Government urgently find a way for us to teach these vital topics, plus citizenship, in a more effective way?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that it certainly is not down the list of priorities. It is precisely because we need to provide guidance that identifies children’s best interests and the well-being of children, having drawn on a considerable process of engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, that we are taking our time to get it right.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, the Church of England’s National Society for Education is proud to be part of the White Ribbon project, whose aim is to prevent men’s violence against women and girls by addressing its root causes. In our Church schools, we support the ability to explore these themes in collective worship, RSHE curricula and class time. What plans do His Majesty’s Government have to address the root causes of violence against women and girls in their revised guidance?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a really important point about one of the areas where relationship, sex and health education can make an important difference. Education has a key role to play in the prevention of violence against women and girls, and it is therefore essential to the Government’s safer streets mission. We want to ensure that the revised guidance enables schools to tackle harmful behaviour and helps to ensure that misogyny is stamped out and not allowed to proliferate in schools. I commend the efforts of the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues in supporting us to do that.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, what action are the Government taking to ensure that relationship and sex education in all schools includes medically accurate and evidence-based information about contraception and reproductive health?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is fundamentally important that what our schools teach is based both on the best interests of children and on factually accurate information. Ensuring that that is the case is part of the reason for making sure that we take our time on this guidance, and for ensuring that schools are supported to find the right sources of that information.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister talks about the Government taking their time, but the review of the RSHE statutory guidance consultation closed in July last year, so we are nearly nine months on. Can she give a date for the publication of the results of that and the revised guidance? The Minister is right that these are very sensitive subjects, but that is why the previous Government had a very respected independent panel to advise them on this. Can she say whether its report will be published?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Precisely as I suggested, it is particularly because of the stakeholder engagement that commenced in December 2024 that we have not got to the point of publishing this guidance yet. That stakeholder engagement is still ongoing; it has included LGBT round tables, a round table for parents and events both online and in person for key stakeholders, teachers and local authorities. There are also plans to convene a round table for children and young people. The broadest range of voices will help us to come to the right place on this. In relation to the advisory panel that the noble Baroness mentioned, I will perhaps come back to her in writing.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear first from my noble friend and then from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, we know that pornography is poisoning the minds of our young women and men. It is so important to teach men and women at a young age what healthy relationships look like, as they are often not seen at home. They are seeing the most violent, misogynistic and dangerous images. We know this hurts women, but it also hurts men who are drawn to people such as Andrew Tate. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will make this education a priority?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, which is why healthy relationships are a key part of RSHE and contribute to the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade. That is why yesterday, or earlier this week, the Government also responded positively to the important work in the review of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, on online pornography.
Tariffs: Canada and Mexico
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what communications they have had with the governments of Canada, Mexico and other countries about the decision of the President of the United States to impose tariffs on certain of their exports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, we have noted President Trump’s announcement of tariffs on Canada and Mexico and the subsequent 30-day suspension agreement. That is a matter for the US Administration, and it is not for me to comment on another country’s bilateral trade relationships. We respect other countries’ dialogue with the US and we will not intervene. However, the UK Government are prepared to take action to mitigate the potential economic impact on our businesses and consumers. We will continue to monitor developments across the Atlantic.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and welcome the fact that, in his talks with the President of the United States, the Prime Minister managed to obtain at least a grudging hint that the UK might be exempt from proposed tariffs. Will she not agree, if there is a fully fledged trade war that affects our trading partners, that it will have an impact on the world economy and on our economy and growth rate, and make it more difficult to do what we want to do on defence spending? Secondly, if, as our newly appointed ambassador to the United States has said, there is a prospect of a UK-US technology deal, is it not extremely important that we take advantage of the extra flexibility that we have outside the EU to have a regulatory regime that is not hostile to the industries of the future but actually sees them as an opportunity for innovation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord raised several questions there. On the question of the UK and US, we have a strong economic relationship that is fair, balanced and reciprocal. As noble Lords know, the Prime Minister and President Trump discussed that on 27 February, when they agreed that we would deepen our relationship and have tasked teams to work together on a trade deal focused on tech. This is absolutely fundamental to us; the Prime Minister has been clear that he will not make any false choices between our allies—it is about our national interests. As the noble Lord rightly says, the Prime Minister has said that we are going further and we will work on an economic deal with advanced technology at its core—but these are early days to comment any further on this. Obviously, we will set out more details as discussions evolve.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the Minister’s first reply, which, as I understood it, was that while of course we will confer with colleagues and allies across the world, we will not intervene—it is a matter for them to deal with the United States. I also very much commend the noble Lord’s second comment when he recommended that we use, to off-set some of the damaging effects of Brexit, the opportunities of Brexit to manifest an acceptance of our point of view on the high-tech industries, because those are the industries of the future.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. Advanced technology is one of the key industries in our industrial strategy, and certainly one of the important areas for our future prosperity. We are committed to continuing our work with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and to help UK businesses grow. Our number one priority is the growth of the UK economy, and free and open trade with our most economically important partners will be key to its delivery.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
But, my Lords, our trade is so integrated with that of the European Union, and our trade policy is based on WTO rules. The Trump Administration imposing tariffs based not on trade policy but on other policy areas means that we will have to be a party to any WTO disputes if we are to protect our interests. One consequence of Brexit is that we have not followed suit with having an anti-coercion instrument, which would allow us to respond quickly if tariffs are put in place on non-trade policy areas. Does the Minister not agree that, for the resilience of the British economy and our trade, it would be better to co-ordinate with our European trading allies to have a common anti-coercion trade policy?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, we are committed to working with both the US and EU to remove barriers to trade and to help UK businesses grow. It is obviously very early days, and we will continue to take a cool-headed approach to any possible tariffs. We remain prepared to defend the UK’s national interest where it is right to do so.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, it is very welcome to hear the Minister talk about the national interest, because the importance of a trade deal with the US obviously cannot be overstated. Indeed, the British Chambers of Commerce estimates that if a deal could be reached it would provide business with a stable basis for up to £1.5 trillion of bilateral investment between the two countries. The Prime Minister has said, very wisely, that he is neither with the EU nor the USA, but the EU would seem to be taking a different view. A spokesman said that we need to make up our mind who we are with. Given the regulatory differences between the two entities, what steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that closer alignment with the EU does not hinder progress towards a comprehensive trade agreement with the US?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, we are committed to working with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and to help UK businesses grow. The noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to the fact that the US is one of our largest trading partners, with trade worth around £300 billion in September 2024, representing 18% of total UK trade. We have a long and deep relationship with the US, and we will obviously want to enhance that as the trade discussions continue.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
If President Trump imposes tariffs on the European Union and not, we hope, on the United Kingdom, what plans do His Majesty’s Government have to protect the part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—that has been left in the EU for some hundreds of trading areas? How will we be affected and what will His Majesty’s Government do to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we will always consider businesses across the country and their particular interests. However, it is difficult to comment on specific tariffs when there are few facts and speculation is taking place. Northern Ireland is part of the UK customs territory and internal market, and goods moving into Northern Ireland do not subsequently enter the EU. We are considering what action would be in the best interests of all UK businesses and will make sure that the implications for Northern Ireland are considered in those discussions.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
My Lords, the imposition of tariffs can have effects beyond trade. For example, this morning the New York Times reported that the Chinese foreign ministry is considering relaxing its co-operation with America on the import of the products necessary to make fentanyl. Fentanyl, along with other synthetic opioids, has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in America. Are the Government ready for the reduction in China’s co-operation in this area and what might happen as a result, even in this country?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we are aware that the US has imposed a tariff on all Chinese goods. I reiterate that it is not for me to comment on another country’s bilateral trade relationships—that is a matter for the US—but we are of course aware of China’s retaliatory response. We respect China’s dialogue with the US and will not intervene. However, the Government are prepared to take any necessary action to mitigate the potential economic impact on our businesses and will continue to monitor the situation.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, to return to the Minister’s first Answer, of course I am sensible that there are things that you do not say in public, but I hope that in private His Majesty’s Government are making it clear that we have an interest in free trade within North America. We are the largest investor in the US and we will be affected by US tariffs on every component part that will be hit by them. We also have an enduring interest in the prosperity of Canada. How can anyone in this country think of Canada without thinking of Vimy Ridge, Juno beach and a hundred other battlefields where it has stood alongside us? I hope we will make it very clear that free trade between the United States and Canada is a British national interest.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Canada is a valued partner for the UK, including as a Commonwealth member state, and our shared ties are deep and historic, as noted by our respective Prime Ministers when they spoke on 5 February. Our trade relationship, which was worth more than £26 billion in the four quarters to the end of quarter 3 in 2024, supports jobs and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. This is underpinned by our trade continuity agreement. These relationships are important and ongoing. We will continue these discussions and hope to further and deepen our ties with Canada in due course.
Theft of Mobile Telephones
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress is being made in addressing the theft of mobile telephones.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
Tackling mobile phone theft is a priority for this Government. The Home Secretary has brought together law enforcement agencies and the mobile phone industry to see what can be done to break the business model of mobile phone thieves, and the Government have included measures in the forthcoming Crime and Policing Bill. The Home Office will ensure that all parties work together so that technical innovations, policing and government efforts reduce this crime.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. It appears that the resale value of a stolen mobile phone is in the order of £400, depending on the model stolen. Clearly, something is not working if that resale market is so great. First, can my noble friend indicate whether arrangements have been made with mobile phone operators and companies to ensure that, once a mobile phone is identified as stolen, not just the account but the phone itself can be locked, using the IMEI number? Secondly, what does he think the lessons are for other local authorities of the initiative taken by the Labour Westminster City Council, reversing the policy of its Conservative predecessors, of increasing by 100 the number of CCTV cameras monitoring central London, which it has just announced?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I certainly congratulate Westminster City Council on its initiative on CCTV funding and the additional cameras in place. CCTV provides a deterrent and critical evidence in the event of criminal acts such as mobile phone theft. On the first point, when the Home Secretary met mobile phone companies recently, she charged them with reporting back on what measures can be taken. Phone companies such as Apple, Google and others are currently looking at what they can do to ensure that mobile phones are not used again and can be blocked, or that their parts are not compatible for the future. The key issue, which we are working with mobile phone companies on, is to determine whether phones that are broken up and used for parts are resold in the United Kingdom or, as is increasingly the case, are sold to a number of foreign countries, where they are used with impunity. We have set mobile phone companies the task of looking at how we can work together to tackle all those issues.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, a few Saturdays ago I took Lady Evans to theatreland. Between Shaftesbury Avenue and Leicester Square, she had her mobile phone stolen. We very quickly saw that she did not have her phone and managed to track it on an app called Find My iPhone. I tracked Lady Evans’s phone as it disappeared down Whitehall, through the Embankment, over Westminster Bridge and ended up at a premises in Brixton. We notified the police and were given a police incident report number. When we inquired about getting the phone back, they said—very much as the Minister just said—that it will be have probably been broken up and exported, and that the organised crime groups that take these mobile phones are very difficult to prosecute.
Can the Minister, notwithstanding Labour-run Westminster City Council, track these vehicles that go down over Westminster Bridge? It would be very easy to ascertain them. Would it also be possible to look into what the police are saying to members of the public, that this is very difficult to stop?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
First, I am very extremely sorry for that incident. It is an awful, threatening crime that worries people, and which can also access personal data, so it needs to be reduced and stopped wherever possible. One of the measures that we have in the Crime and Policing Bill, which was introduced into the House of Commons recently, ensures that police can take action quickly and speedily on the very point the noble Lord mentions.
At the moment, if a phone is tracked to a property, let us say, in south London, a warrant has to be issued for the police to enter that property. The proposals in the Crime and Policing Bill will ensure that, on the authority of an inspector, the police can enter those premises immediately. So in the case that the noble Lord mentions of his own family, if that were reported, a crime number logged and the phone tracked to a property in Lambeth, the inspector in Lambeth could immediately authorise a police visit and potentially either recovery or arrest. I hope the Opposition will support that when it comes before this House.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, mobile phone thefts are almost out of control and are taking up a huge amount of police resources, but these could be dramatically reduced if smartphones were fitted with advanced device locking technology. This technology—unlike kill-switch technology, which is used by some of the companies that the Minister has mentioned—is integrated at the operating level, resistant to factory resets and, crucially, is activated automatically without user setup, which is a major breakthrough. Will the Government consider mandating its implementation in all new smartphones?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very interesting suggestion. As I have already said, we are working with mobile phone companies to look at what is in the interests of preventing crime, while at the same time ensuring that users and consumers can use their phones in an appropriate way. I will look at that suggestion. We have a further meeting with the phone companies in around three months to report back on what action they have taken to date in relation to those issues, and we will certainly examine that for her.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, is right, that design is the way to prevent the thing, once stolen, being valuable, so that there is therefore no point in stealing it. This morning, I was out with the excellent cycling enforcement team in the City of London, who were enforcing cycling legislation. More importantly, they told me about having recently arrested a mobile phone thief who had 24 phones with him. Given that the thieves are getting rid of them very quickly, either abroad or because they do not want to be caught with them, I wonder whether the statistics that show how many phones are getting stolen are accurate.
In the City, there are probably two phones stolen per day, according to the crime stats. This is one indication—but there are many—that the crime stats are not representative, because people are not reporting it, perhaps because they are not sure they are going to get a reaction from the cops, but sometimes because they just do not need to. However, how much of this crime is out there, and that we are not able to stop it, is a worry.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One of the first things that anybody who is a victim of crime should do is report that crime, because we cannot act unless we know the level of crime and the impact of it in the first place. That is important. The noble Lord is also right that designing out the potential for this activity in the building of resilient phones that cannot be used post crime is the best way forward. There have been innovations by a number of phone companies on that, but certainly there is more that can be done.
We want to help to support CCTV, and to take measures such as the incident warrant and on neighbourhood policing. In the long term, we will work with companies to ensure that we design out crime, and we will look at the market for broken-up, exported or resold phones in the United Kingdom. That intelligence-led policing will help to have a great impact on the current 146,000 thefts from a person last year, up 22%, of which mobile phone thefts were approximately half that figure.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Is there not a lesson to be learned from what the Israeli intelligence service did with pagers? I am not suggesting that we should do that, but the principle is most appropriate. I cannot understand why the companies producing mobiles are not prepared to move quickly so that when their owners lose them they can disable them. That will stop the stealers.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I note what my noble friend thinks about the Israeli example, but if that happened, it might mean that half of south London did not have access to a phone on any given day. The key thing is that I, and the Government, welcome innovation in mobile phone protection. The mobile phone companies are looking into that, and we have to work with them in tandem. The idea of a kill switch or a stop in any way, shape or form is certainly welcome, but it is in technology that that is developed. It is in everybody’s interests, including those of the mobile phone companies, to develop that technology speedily.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, we have heard a lot about technological solutions and issues after the theft, but is there not a more analogue issue about the prevention of theft? Of course it can happen to any of us, but what focus are the Government putting on messaging and communications, perhaps even in schools, about simple tips on how to avoid mobile phone theft where possible, by being more careful about when and where phones are used?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a very salient point. I have heard this from my own family, who have said to me, “Don’t walk down the street in London with your phone out, Dad”. To be honest, I had never thought about that—but I do now. That level of public awareness is extremely important. But, actually, citizens should be able to walk down the street on their phone, so we need to tackle the perpetrators. That means people riding fast on a bike—CCTV can help with that —and it means tracking the phone when it has been stolen, in which the measures mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, can help. It also means giving people proper penalties when they are caught—and in the first part of this year the Metropolitan Police has made 200 arrests and recovered 1,000 phones, by focusing on street-level policing, in which the extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers that we are funding over the next three or four years will certainly assist.
Official Development Assistance
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask His Majesty’s Government how aid priorities will change following the decision to reduce the Official Development Assistance budget to 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI), and whether they intend to restore the commitment of spending 0.7 per cent of GNI in future.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister made clear, increasing our security and defence spending has demanded the difficult but necessary decision to temporarily reduce our ODA budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI from 2027. This Government remain fully committed to the UK playing a globally significant role on development; it is both in our national interest and in the interest of our partners. We remain committed to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when fiscal circumstances allow.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
First, I congratulate the Minister on her promotion, albeit in somewhat difficult and unexpected circumstances. I will seek to work with her to try to ensure that aid, in its reduced capacity, gets to where it matters most. Nevertheless, I believe that the cut in ODA is a strategic error, which not only gives a terrible signal but is a mistake that threatens our security. Anneliese Dodds, in her resignation letter, said that the scale of the cuts would make it virtually impossible for the Government to deliver their continuing commitments. So may I ask, in particular, how the UK will maintain engagement in conflict prevention, reducing migration pressure and building resilience? On top of the cuts inflicted by the previous Government, how can we prevent Russia and China supercharging their presence within the vacuum left by the US and the UK, pulling most of Africa and south Asia into their sphere of influence, undermining democracy and what is left of the rule of law, and seriously compromising our security? I am glad that she said this was temporary, but how temporary is it? When will we get back to 0.7%?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will get back to 0.7% when we no longer use debt for day-to-day spending and our overall debt starts to decline. We have not done this because of values or a wish to turn away development; we believe in international development, and we are proud of the record of the United Kingdom on international development. However, I should not have to remind anyone in Parliament that the first responsibility of any Government is the safety and security of our citizens, and we have committed to and will spend 2.5% on defence. That is the decision that the Prime Minister took, and it will not change; it was taken for reasons that I think we can all understand. We do not wish to turn away from our global commitments to development. I am glad that the noble Lord has reached out and offered to work with me on this, and I accept that offer. Undoubtedly, some choices will have to be made, and spending will have to be reprioritised; I will embark on that process today and I look forward to working alongside the noble Lord on it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister on her promotion to the Cabinet. She has inherited her very own personal black hole in the finances along with the job, but we wish her well none the less—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, will be on hand to advise. We support the Government’s decision, given the overwhelming importance of increasing the defence budget, but it will obviously require a very difficult exercise in the prioritisation of ODA programmes. Which ones will she cut?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will embark on a process. The Prime Minister very clearly told me that he wants a line-by-line analysis of our spend, most of which we inherited from the previous Government. We will look very closely at that and make sure that, on behalf of the British taxpayer, every pound we spend is spent as well as we possibly can. I emphasise again that it is our intention—because we are the Labour Party and we believe in international development—that, when we can, we will increase the spending back up to 0.7%. We are committed to our international obligations, multilaterally and bilaterally. This is a task that I do not think any of us in government enter into light-heartedly or glibly; we take it incredibly seriously. As soon as we have made decisions, we will of course make announcements in the usual way.
Baroness Amos (Lab)
My Lords, this is a particularly challenging and difficult time for fragile countries, countries caught in conflict and some of the most vulnerable people in the world. In congratulating my noble friend the Minister on her new role, can I ask: first, how will we protect the gains we have already made on poverty reduction across the world? Secondly, how will we protect what we have been able to do on the sustainability of some of the most fragile countries? Finally, how can we increase the impact of the money we spend through working through multilateral organisations?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. While this undoubtedly will be a difficult process and choices will need to be made, there is also an opportunity here to rethink how we approach international development and how we work more in partnership with other nations. We need to get away from some of the paternalism and the ways that may have been cutting edge in the 1990s; we need to have a fresh look now, and there is an opportunity to do that. She is also right to point to the successes and gains that have been made through the work that the United Kingdom has done over the years. We need to have a fresh conversation with the British public about why we do international development—what the point of it is and what the benefits are to the United Kingdom —and that is something that we have not put sufficient focus on in the recent past.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether I could press the Minister on what criteria are being employed to reduce development assistance. Which projects will be targeted? Can I also ask her whether existing commitments, especially to those smaller NGOs, will be honoured? Otherwise, so many of these smaller NGOs will simply cease working and may not be revived.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is an important point. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were very clear with me that they wish to avoid cliff edges, which is why we will maintain the 0.5% that we currently have for the next financial year. We need to work closely with our partner countries and organisations and make sure that this is done in a responsible way that avoids some of the dramatic changes that have such a devastating impact, which we know can happen in these circumstances.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, while I fully support the increase in defence spending, I am afraid I deeply regret where the money has been found. I genuinely wish the noble Baroness well in what are going to be incredibly difficult decisions on deciding where to spend the remainder of the money. The Minister will know that, historically, women and girls have been disproportionately impacted by cuts. Will she use her best endeavours to ensure that that is not the case this time? Will she also commit to carrying out and publishing an impact assessment in relation to women and girls?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
First, I commend the noble Baroness for her own work and her track record of being a champion for women and girls globally and for the work she did as part of government—we should all thank her for that. Ordinarily, yes, we would conduct an impact assessment; that is part of making sure that we make sensible decisions and that we understand the impact of the choices that we make. She made that point very well.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister. Will she agree with me that a key part of our national security and defence is working with allies, especially those smaller vulnerable nations, through ODA commitments for technical resilience against interference from both state and non-state actors? This is a large part of ODA funding, which the Government have now signalled will be cut by more than three-quarters. What security assessment was carried out before the Government indicated they were going to remove our technical and security support almost entirely for the very nations on which we rely for our national security?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is complete nonsense; we are not going to do that. When we talk about prioritisation, that is about making choices. The idea that the Government, who have just reallocated the money into defence, are then going to be blasé or relaxed about reducing spending that contributes towards our security is, frankly, ridiculous.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, further to the question raised by my noble friend Lady Amos, to make sure that every pound we spend is as effective as possible, particularly on poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa, would my noble friend the Minister consider setting up an advisory group consisting of non-governmental organisations and experts—such as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and others—to advise on where the priority for spending should be?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I can assure my noble friend that I have not been short of advice in the last few days, but he makes a good point. We do not want to make these important decisions, which have such far-reaching consequences, in an office in Whitehall. That would be the wrong way to go about it. I do not know if an advisory group is the right or wrong way to do that, but it is important to think about how we make sure that people with expertise, experience and knowledge of how these decisions will impact operations on the ground are included, and that they are part of the decision-making process.
Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 4th March 2025
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberArtificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, not least as adviser to Socially Recruited.
Finance Bill
Tuesday 4th March 2025
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberFinance Bill 2024-26 View all Finance Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 March 2025 - large print - (3 Mar 2025)
Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 January be approved.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 3 March.
Gaza: BBC Coverage
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is an incredibly serious matter. Public money may have ended up in the hands of supporters of a proscribed terrorist organisation. With the police and Ofcom both saying that they are willing to investigate this matter, and reports today that other broadcasters have used the same boy without making clear his parentage, would the Minister agree that a properly independent inquiry is needed and that the signatories to a letter urging the reinstatement of this contested programme—some of whom have been very well remunerated by the licence fee payer in the past—should not be heeded?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, it is right that the BBC is conducting a thorough investigation into what happened and who knew what, when. I will not prejudge the outcome of the BBC’s investigation. As the noble Lord is aware, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent of government, but we expect it to continue to follow robust procedures to protect taxpayers’ money and uphold the high standards the public and this Government rightly expect. The noble Lord will be aware of the letter that Ofcom sent the BBC, and the Secretary of State spoke to both the chair and the director-general of the BBC last week. She expects a clear response from them on a number of points.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I fully share the noble Lord’s criticism of the particular programme, but we should recognise that that in no way describes the BBC’s general coverage of Gaza. Speaking as a former journalist who covered a Middle East war, I was struck by the way BBC journalists strived for impartiality in all their reporting. As far as I can see, that is the same today.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
First, this incident is clearly very serious and, secondly, we expect that high standard of journalism. It is why the BBC has traditionally been a trusted source of news, both in this country and overseas. That is one of the reasons why this incident is so serious.
While we are talking about journalism in the context of Gaza, the House should also be aware that a considerable number of journalists and media workers have been killed since the war began. So there is a wider context as well, but, on the specifics, it is right that this issue be investigated.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Fowler, I was a journalist, but I worked for an independent production company and made documentaries for the BBC. One was about Osama bin Laden, and I was almost driven to a nervous breakdown by the scrutiny the BBC put the programme under, so I am surprised and saddened by what has occurred. The reputation of the BBC is central. However, picking up on what my noble friend Lord Fowler said, does the Minister not agree that, regardless of today’s discussion, it is vital to shine an ongoing, credible and sustained spotlight on the plight of those in Gaza, particularly the children? Therefore, it is essential that BBC coverage continues.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The unfortunate matter at stake here is that the whole issue of shining a light has been muddied by really unacceptable failures in this instance. Clearly, the BBC has a duty to provide accurate and impartial news and information. The voices of people affected in war zones are particularly powerful, but the public really have a right to be able to trust that BBC content is accurate. In this instance, there have been questions over governance, whether the guidelines are strong enough in the first place and whether the oversight has been sufficient.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, as with every major organisation, people working for the BBC make mistakes, and mistakes must be exposed when they happen, and the lessons learned. But does the Minister agree that the reason why the BBC, as she mentioned already, is the single most respected news organisation in the whole world, from Scunthorpe to Sudan, is that almost everyone who works for it is wholly committed and is doing their best to be fair, accurate and impartial?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes the really important point that, when we get these incidents, it can be hugely demoralising for people who are working hard to get that accurate, impartial information. There are two issues. We have to make sure that we understand exactly what went wrong, and the BBC is undertaking a thorough investigation into that. As I mentioned previously, Ofcom and the Secretary of State are very cognisant of the issues and want answers, as I know your Lordships’ House will. But that does not and should not detract, and we need to make sure that we find out the answers and move on, because that accuracy and impartial voice of the BBC in relation to news is critical, not least at this really uncertain time.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, given the very serious allegations of systemic anti-Semitism and bias, does the Minister agree with me that there is a need to look at the BBC’s complaints process? When I have had to use it in a Northern Ireland context, I have found it opaque, vague and overly complicated. Does she accept that there is a need to look at that?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The BBC’s complaints process, in the sense that it is BBC first, is intended to make sure that there is an element of independence from the parts of the organisation that are being investigated. Clearly, if Ofcom has concerns after that happens, that would be looked at. I think the process was set out at the point of the last charter review, and we do not have immediate plans to change that.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I understand that one of the particular worries was to do with the way certain phrases were translated, and therefore may have unwittingly biased people or been misleading. Will the BBC publish the principles and guidelines that are used for translation in these difficult situations?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate highlights the point that the Secretary of State herself has asked for clarity on: the BBC policy on translations and how a decision over translation of a particular word or phrase might be made. It is one of many questions we in this House and the public need clear answers on. We are clear that no stone should be left unturned by the BBC, or in its response to those who scrutinise its work.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from my noble friend Lord Katz next, and then the noble Baroness, Lady Foster.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am a long-term supporter of the BBC and the impartiality of its news output. While it pains me to agree with the BBC chair, Samir Shah, who just this morning in a Select Committee of the other place called the latest controversy over this documentary a dagger to the heart of BBC impartiality, sadly, noble Lords will understand—and I am sure my noble friend would agree—that this is not the BBC’s first misstep in this area as far as the Jewish community perceives it, especially since 7 October 2023. Does my noble friend agree with Mr Shah and me that a proper independent review of the corporation’s Middle East conflict coverage—not just this documentary but its wider coverage—is essential if it is to retain our confidence and, importantly, the confidence of the Jewish community in this country?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really important point. I go back to the point about needing clarity on whether the issues in this instance, and wider issues, are a failure of governance, whether the guidelines are strong enough and rigorously enforced, or whether the oversight itself is an issue.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
I listened very carefully to the Select Committee discussion this morning with the BBC on the showing of the appalling documentary on Gaza. According to Tim Davie, apparently, the board is now very exercised—it appears to have taken it about 18 months to be exercised about anything. In August 2024, over 200 members of the film and television industry signed a letter calling for an investigation into problems of systemic anti-Semitism and bias at the BBC. This follows a series of editorial failures and the employment of individuals who have openly glorified terrorism, particularly since the 7 October attack. Given these deeply troubling happenings, will the Minister support an independent inquiry, as my noble friend on the Front Bench asked for, into anti-Semitism and bias at the BBC?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I should like to be clear that there is absolutely no place for and should be no tolerance of anti-Semitism, whether in the BBC or elsewhere in society: it is a stain on our country. On the documentary, I think it right that in the first instance, the BBC is conducting a thorough investigation into what happened and who knew what, when. I am not detracting from previous incidents the noble Baroness referred to, and when the Secretary of State says and I stand here saying that no stone should be left unturned, no stone should be left unturned in addressing this issue.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Tuesday 4th March 2025
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberNational Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 75-I Amendment for Third Reading - (3 Mar 2025)
Lord Livermore
That the Bill be now read a third time.
Clause 1: Rate of secondary Class 1 contributions
Amendment 1
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
“(aa) a person providing a service who is regulated under section 47(1)(a) or 47(1)(b) of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010,”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
In my speech on Report on an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Barker, I expressed support for the amendment but flagged up that I had only recently been alerted to the possible glitch in it as it related to Scotland. Specifically, the difficulty stems from the fact that the term “domiciliary support service” is not defined in Scottish legislation, and therefore the provisions of the amendment would not apply to parallel services in Scotland. I flagged that up and that I might seek to address this at Third Reading.
I must confess that it was not easy to find wording that met the tidying-up criteria stipulated for Third Reading amendments. Some possible wording could well have extended the services in Scotland beyond those in the other parts of the United Kingdom. I am very grateful to Rachel Cackett and Chris Small from the Coalition for Care and Support Providers in Scotland for their help in trying to address this issue and to the Public Bill Office, especially Donna Davidson, for assistance in framing an amendment which satisfied the tidying-up rule.
This is a modest amendment. It is intended to achieve consistency of treatment for certain care providers right across the United Kingdom. I hope my comments will commend themselves to my noble friend Lady Kramer, whose name is on the first amendment, and I hope the Minister can accept this tidying-up provision. I acknowledge that it would be without prejudice to how the Government intend to proceed in the other place with this clause as amended, but at least it would mean that it went to the other place with a degree of consistency across these islands.
Before I sit down, I apologise that, in my contribution on Report, I inadvertently said that CrossReach, the social care arm of the Church of Scotland, employed 16,000 people whereas it is 1,600. When I got my handwritten notes back from Hansard, I noted that I had actually written down the correct figure, so my error was either due to my handwriting or my eyesight. I have corrected that in the Official Report. I beg to move.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid that I regard this amendment, although obviously achieving consistency with treatment in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom, as just another of the irresponsible measures we have seen from Opposition Benches. One will have noticed very clearly that there are no proposals whatever on how the expenditure should be funded. As a way of managing public expenditure, this is not the way to do it.
Public expenditure should be taken seriously as a means of deciding the structure, composition and scale of expenditure. Simply scattering money by proposing amendments such as this to the national insurance Bill is not a responsible way of going about this fiscal process.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, it seems to have fallen to me to again follow the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and it falls to me to again disagree with his comments. I am delighted to support this amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, which I see as just being a fair and administrative tidying up to ensure that, in whatever state the Bill ends up as it goes through our House and the other place, it treats all services across the United Kingdom as fairly as possible.
I cannot believe that noble Lords opposite would wish there to be a gaping hole in what applies to Scotland compared with what might apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. Given that the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Barker, was passed by your Lordships’ House with a majority of 130, the sentiment of this place is clear.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has done a lot of background work to try to get the wording within the specifics of a Third Reading amendment. The Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 is not a simple and clear definition, but we are trying to ensure that support services are included in Scotland as well as England. Therefore, it is my great pleasure to support this amendment and I hope that the Government will ensure there is parity across the UK for the Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment for the reasons the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has given. It is, obviously, quite important to bring the Scottish position into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
It also gives me an opportunity to make two points that I ask the Minister to bear in mind. The first is the extent to which the public services in Scotland are dependent on the third sector. They depend to a major extent on the work done by charities and other third sector organisations. There is, of course, an imbalance between the way in which public sectors react to the changes in the Bill and the third sector is left with very little support at the moment to enable it to do that. Perhaps the Minister might bear in mind, as time goes on, that it is necessary to keep an eye on the extent to which the Bill has that deleterious effect.
There are other ways—I know the Minister understands this—in which these bodies can be assisted. It may be, if the position is as people are saying and they will be so disadvantaged, that the Government might be able to support them in some way to enable them to continue to provide their vital support. In the end, the people who suffer are not those who provide the services but those for whom the services are provided, for which the public services in Scotland are not fully equipped.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that I take full responsibility for the misdrafting of the original amendment, and for not being sensitive to the legal differences between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the others who have supported him, and those in Scotland who were so concerned about what might happen to the care services there that they wanted to make sure that the language was reasonably perfected.
I am delighted to accept that amendment, but I am also very grateful that people came forward. It is good to know that we are sending something to the other place that is not holed beneath the waterline; I appreciate that. I also appreciate the vote that came in this House, which is not disrupted at all by this amendment, as people were very clear that they intended it to apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.
I hope that I will be in a position to thank the Government for accepting this tidying-up amendment, understanding the spirit both in which it was offered and in which the previous debate took place.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I want to raise an objection to the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, which accused us of making amendments to spray public funding around. We made a number of suggestions as to how government could raise revenue in other ways, and government does flex itself, as we have seen in the increasing defence expenditure and reduction in overseas aid, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do outside of a Budget.
When the chief executive of a hospice says publicly that, as a result of this legislation, people may die in greater pain and agony than would otherwise be the case, I think it is perfectly reasonable for this to be drawn to your Lordships’ attention and for amendments to be discussed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am concluding for the Opposition on this amendment. We are content with the amendment, which we see as a technical, tidying-up amendment.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, seeks to make a minor adjustment to the Bill to more accurately define care workers in Scotland. While the amendment does not change the fundamental principles or objectives of the Bill, it enhances the clarity and precision of the text. I am therefore happy to accept this amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have participated in this debate. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lady Kramer for accepting the spirit of the amendment to what was originally her and my noble friend Lady Barker’s amendment. I also thank the Minister for the spirit in which he has accepted the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has been very consistent; he said much the same last week. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made the point that, if the increase in national insurance contributions from bodies in the charitable sector should lead to diminution of services, it will be the people in receipt of the services who will suffer. That, in turn, could put a burden on government, possibly greater than the cost of being consistent with this amendment.
With that, and with thanks also to the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, I am pleased to move this amendment.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, it was this Government’s duty in October last year to repair the public finances and rebuild the public services. We did so in the fairest way possible, by keeping our promises to working people not to increase their national insurance, VAT or income tax. The Government did, however, need to take some very difficult decisions, including some of the measures contained in this Bill. As a result of those decisions, we have now wiped the slate clean, creating a platform of stability and enabling us to make significant additional investment in the NHS.
I thank all noble Lords who have given their time and expertise to scrutinise the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House. Specifically, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their constructive engagement and scrutiny.
While I acknowledge the commitment of your Lordships’ House to the scrutiny of the Bill, the Government have not found themselves in agreement with the amendments proposed. We believe that the Bill in its original form provides the right way in difficult circumstances of raising the revenue needed to repair the public finances and rebuild public services.
I thank my noble friends Lord Eatwell and Lord Chandos for their supportive contributions and thank my officials who worked hard to bring this Bill before your Lordships’ House, including Joe Oakes, Isabelle Urban, Alex Nevitte, Henry Lodge, Hannah Bewley and Will Smith. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I am sorry to disrupt the House, but it is common to use do now pass to say thank you and I certainly have thank yous to say.
I thank the House for passing a number of amendments that will substantially reduce the damage and harm being done by this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, took the lead on small businesses, the Conservative Benches took the lead on charities and transport for special needs children, and my own party took the lead on community health and social care. Those are all exceedingly important and I hope the Government will take the issues very seriously. I do not think we have ever heard better debates, frankly, than those in this House that talked about real-life experience to convey the significance of the impact of the original Bill.
I thank the Minister. He and his team were unable to give us any concessions but they said no in the nicest of ways. I thank all the other Benches. We worked closely together—Cross Benches, Conservatives and our party—because we all felt in an almost non-political way that it was really necessary to try to come to the rescue of the damage that we could see was going to occur.
There is one amendment that I did not mention and which I think is important because it may survive some of this process and that is from the Conservatives on an impact assessment. That is becoming a recognised vehicle for important assessment of Bills such as this and has historically not been adequate. Perhaps we could now change that for the future.
Lastly, I thank my own Benches. I thank my noble friends Lady Barker and Lord Scriven and the others who led on various areas within this. I also thank Elizabeth Plummer of our Whips’ Office who did so much of the heavy lifting. She will have my eternal thanks. It is so good to have somebody covering one’s back when trying to deal with complex issues. I thank the House in general for taking this issue so seriously and recognising its significance to so many people.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
I too have some thanks to give. I thank all noble Lords from across the House who voted for my exemption amendment on the 45% reduction in Clause 2’s secondary threshold for all organisations employing fewer than 25 staff. I particularly thank my supporters, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer. I was delighted to have the support of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, the majority of Cross-Benchers who were able to vote at that late hour.
I also thank the Public Bill Office for helping to draft an amendment that turned out to require five consequential amendments, the staff of the Whips’ Offices, and the Minister for at least listening and for his patient approach. I appreciate that he has a lot on his plate, but I hope that he and the Treasury appreciate that my amendment sits right behind their number one priority, which is to generate sustainable economic growth. That is why I tabled the amendment and I trust it will be given the full consideration and scrutiny it merits.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, in concluding for the Opposition, I thank the many Peers on my Benches who have made valuable contributions during the Bill’s passage. I cannot thank them all today as the list is too long but I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Altrincham—my comrade in arms—and our opposition research team.
I also thank noble Lords from across the House, because this has been a cross-party effort, reflecting the widespread damage this Bill will cause. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for his amendments to protect small business, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her amendments on health and social care, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her support across the board, including for the amendment calling for a review of the impact of the Bill.
I will say a couple of things. We have consistently heard that this is a job tax, plain and simple. It is the most important economic measure the Government have introduced so far, and it will have wide-reaching damaging impacts across the whole economy. It is being brought in on a tight timescale, creating a cliff edge on 6 April with no staggering for those who may be hurt. It has not been accompanied by an adequate impact note. It has led to businesses losing confidence in the Government, and that, I believe, is very bad for growth, of which I am very supportive. Despite the Minister’s protests, Peers from all Benches have agreed that the short document the Government call an impact note is an affront to the House, and that the Government have failed to provide sufficient sectoral information to allow for the effective scrutiny we try to bring. That is why we must have the review of the impact on affected sectors.
Despite the importance of these measures, the Government have made no effort to engage constructively. This House therefore voted to exempt small charities, transport providers for children with special educational needs and disabilities, early years providers and, as I have already said, small businesses and health and social care providers that provide public services in the private sector.
Of course we understand that taxes should be simple, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has explained, but when the Government fail to recognise the egregious impact this Bill will have on real people, we believe that some rethinking is necessary. Some of our changes would be modest in cost terms, but I know they would earn the thanks of many right across society.
I end by encouraging the noble Lord to use all his charms to persuade the Chancellor to think again.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I once again thank all noble Lords for their efforts on this Bill. I beg to move.
Crown Estate Bill [HL]
Tuesday 4th March 2025
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberCrown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Crown Estate Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 74-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (3 Mar 2025)
Lord Livermore
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
“Territorial seabed
After section 3A of the Crown Estate Act 1961 (inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert—
“3AA Restriction on permanently disposing of interest in seabed etc
(1) The Commissioners may not without the consent of the Treasury permanently dispose of—
(a) any part of the territorial seabed, or
(b) any interest, right or privilege over or in relation to the territorial seabed,
which forms part of the Crown Estate.
(2) Accordingly, without that consent, any purported disposal of a kind mentioned in subsection (1) is void.
(3) In subsection (1), “territorial seabed” means the seabed and subsoil within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom territorial waters.””
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendments 2, 2A and 3. It is a pleasure to present the amended Crown Estate Bill to your Lordships’ House following its passage through the other place. As noble Lords will recall, this Bill focuses on removing existing limitations that hamper the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and invest as a commercial business, ensuring it has a sustainable financial future for years to come. In doing so, the Bill supports the Crown Estate to build on its strong track record of creating long-term shared prosperity for the nation.
Two main changes were made to this Bill in the other place. The first was the addition of a clause on the territorial seabed. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for bringing this important issue to the Government’s attention. As noble Lords may remember, this issue relates to the ability of the Crown Estate to dispose of the seabed, given that it is a unique national asset.
As I noted on Report, the law on the seabed is complex. I committed to explore the matter further and, if required, bring forward a legislative provision to restrict the Crown Estate’s ability to permanently sell the seabed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their support for proceeding in this way.
Clause 5, as inserted in the other place, delivers on this commitment and seeks to address the legitimate concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere. It puts special protections in place for the seabed by requiring the Crown Estate commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before they permanently dispose of any part of, or the Crown Estate’s interest in, or rights or privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed.
To be clear, this does not mean that the Crown Estate could never be permitted to dispose of seabed. It may be that national or local interests would be best served by such a sale—including, for example, by the sale to another part of the public sector to enable local infrastructure development—but any such sale could take place only with the agreement of Ministers, and it is right that they are the decision-makers on such sales.
This clause would not fetter the Crown Estate’s existing right to agree licences or leases in relation to the seabed that, by definition, do not represent a permanent disposal of the asset. The ability to agree long-term licences and leases for use of the seabed will continue to be an important feature for the Crown Estate to attract the significant investment needed for offshore clean energy developments. I believe this fulfils my commitments to your Lordships’ House and addresses the important points raised.
The second change made to the Bill in the other place was, I am afraid, the removal of Clause 5, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on Report, which would require the Crown Estate commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate on an ongoing basis. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for raising this important issue during the passage of the Bill, and for our constructive engagement on the subject since. As I said on Report, I wholeheartedly support the objectives behind his amendment, but I regret that the Government are still unable to support it. It remains the Government’s position that this amendment would duplicate protections that already exist in legislation or that are required by regulators as part of the licensing process for aquaculture.
As I also noted on Report, fisheries policy is the responsibility of the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All fish farming in England is regulated to ensure it is carried out in a responsible manner that respects the environment and protects consumer health and animal welfare. At present, virtually all salmon aquaculture in the UK takes place in Scotland, where the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland is a devolved matter.
However, as this House has previously heard from my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock on 12 September 2024, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red-list criteria, Atlantic salmon are now endangered in Great Britain and near threatened globally. To provide further reassurance to noble Lords, I have spoken to the Crown Estate and the Government are now prepared to go further. I can make two commitments to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, should he choose not to push his amendment to a vote.
First, on auditing standards, the noble Lord’s amendment on Report provided for Crown Estate commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate. Today, I can say to the noble Lord that the Crown Estate will undertake an audit to ensure that all salmon farms leasing land on the Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland comply with all relevant regulations on salmon farming in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The outcome of this audit would be set out in its 2024-25 annual report, which will be published in June. If this audit were to find that salmon farms are not complying with their legal obligations and regulatory requirements, the Crown Estate will ensure these practices are corrected. In extreme cases this may involve exercising forfeiture rights, in the event of non-compliance of covenants.
Secondly, the relationship between the Crown Estate and the Treasury is governed by the framework document. The Government will amend this document to ensure that the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms is considered at all times. The updated framework document will be amended to read: “The Crown Estate will continue to keep under review the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on its estate”. This amended framework document will be published on Royal Assent. I trust that these two commitments go some way to resolving the noble Lord’s concerns on this matter, and I hope he feels able not to press his amendment.
In addition to these substantive amendments, a procedural amendment was made in the other place. In line with existing convention, every Bill that begins in your Lordships’ House that requires a money resolution in the other place has an additional clause added to it that indicates that nothing in the Bill shall impose any charge on public funds. Once the Bill has been considered by the other place and authorised by a money resolution, this redundant clause is then removed.
I reassure noble Lords that the removal of the privilege amendment does not alter the position I previously set out on borrowing controls. To be clear, the Crown Estate will be able to borrow only with the consent of the Treasury and in line with the parameters set out in the memorandum of understanding that I have previously made available in draft. This includes that borrowing is not to exceed more than 25% of a net debt to asset value ratio.
Pre-appointment scrutiny was another important issue raised by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill in your Lordships’ House. In Committee, I committed to work with the Cabinet Office to ensure that pre-appointment scrutiny applied to the role of chair of the Crown Estate. I take this opportunity to confirm that the role of chair has now been formally designated as a public appointment for which parliamentary pre-appointment scrutiny now applies. The Government announced on 23 December that their preferred candidate would face pre-appointment scrutiny by the Treasury Committee in the other place. This hearing is set to take place on 19 March, with the committee’s report expected to follow shortly after. I am grateful for the opportunity to update your Lordships’ House on all these issues, and I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 2A. I made a speech yesterday about how important it was that this House got back to normal, listened to debates and responded in a constructive way. I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for the generous way in which he has responded to the amendment. I certainly would not wish to press it, having had the assurances he has given, which are very much appreciated.
This is not the occasion to make a long speech on the dangers of fish farming, but I draw attention to a report produced in recent weeks by a charity called WildFish, on the uncomfortable reality of farmed salmon. Rather than going through the content of it, I will email it to a number of colleagues who may be interested to read it. It really is quite shocking to see the damage that has been done to wild fish and the food we eat in prodigious quantities, in the form of smoked salmon and other salmon products.
I was grateful to the Minister for underlining the fact that, with wild salmon, we are dealing with an endangered species, one that is essential to the life of the river as a whole and that is an indicator of the quality of our rivers. Freshwater mussels, for example, are unable to breed because they are carried in the gills of wild salmon. This is an important part of the ecology of our rivers.
This was not given much consideration in the other place: there were about two paragraphs on something that is utterly vital to the health and well-being of our people, as well as of the Atlantic salmon, that wonderful fish. But I very much welcome what the Minister said. I hope that the Crown Estate commissioners in England will be able to lean on their colleagues north of the border and suggest to them that they might follow the excellent advice given today by the Minister. I have been puzzling about why the Minister has been so helpful and so accommodating but unable to accept this amendment. I have a feeling that somebody got on the phone from Edinburgh and talked to somebody in the Government—but I have no evidence to support that. I hope that somebody in the Crown Estate commissions south of the border will get on the phone to somebody in Edinburgh.
Some people have said, “Surely this is just about Scotland, because most of the fish farms are in Scotland”. I just point out that the salmon from English rivers have to make their way up north past these salmon farms, which infect those fish with disease and lice as a result of the way in which they are managed. This is killing and removing that beautiful wild Atlantic salmon, which used to be plentiful in English rivers as well as in Scotland.
Without taking more of the House’s time, I am most grateful to the Minister and I hope that the initiatives he has taken will help to prolong the wild Atlantic salmon for years to come.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I welcome the amendment with regard to the salmon and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on the stand that he has made and the excellent contributions he made at earlier stages on the Bill.
I too welcome the steps that the Minister is taking, but can he explain how the mechanics would work in relation to Scotland, where the Crown Estate is devolved—but also in Wales, where we still have salmon, mercifully, though in small quantities, in rivers such as the Dyfi? In Wales there is always a danger of the salmon suffering, though not as great a danger as there is in relation to fish farms in Scotland. How will the mechanics work with regard to the devolved responsibilities for wildlife and waterways but the non-devolved responsibilities when it comes to the Crown Estate? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that—but otherwise I certainly welcome this as a step in the right direction.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I have a quick question on this. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. He pursued this amendment with great vigour, and we have some form of concession from the Government. Is there going to be a reporting back mechanism in place? How do we review it in maybe two or three years?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we always supported the amendment on the territorial seabed when it was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, on Report. We did not feel that it was particularly likely to happen but, in a belt-and-braces approach, as the Crown Estate gets more powers to invest in offshore wind and develops, we always felt that it was sensible to have this measure in the Bill. The Minister in this place was clear that the amendment would probably need more time and consideration, particularly with the complexities of the law surrounding these matters. I thank the Minister that giving it more time has resulted in an amendment in the other place. We welcome that amendment and think that it is useful, as it provides security to our undersea assets.
We now have a situation in which the Crown Estate is unable to sell land without ministerial approval, but can the Minister confirm that we do not have a situation in which the Crown Estate could, for instance, do an indefinite lease that would not need ministerial approval? These are important matters. I do not think that is the situation, but I would be pleased if I could clarify that with the Minister.
Turning to Amendments 2 and 2A, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for raising these issues. We support him wholeheartedly on the need to protect wild salmon. These are important issues to raise. Our issue with the amendment was not what he sought to do—it was the vehicle of using this Bill, which was an inappropriate method for doing it. These are devolved matters, and there is only one salmon farm under the control of the Crown Estate. I wish him luck in continuing to fight for wild salmon.
It is good that the Government have listened and responded, and we welcome the two elements of that response. Adding standards and making sure that they are upheld and reported on is important. It is also important that those standards are written into the framework agreement—so we welcome that, and we think that it is a useful and constructive result of the dialogue that has taken place in this House.
On Amendment 3, I thank the Minister for his explanation. It may be just because I am the new boy here but I was very confused by it, and I am pleased with the explanation. Before I sit down, I also thank him for having listened to the House on the importance of pre-appointment scrutiny. The fact that the Minister has taken that away and it is being enacted is welcomed on these Benches and, I am sure, across the House. I thank the Minister and his Bill team for how they have conducted the business.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth for his work on salmon, highlighted in Amendments 2 and 2A, and the Minister for the response he set out at the beginning of these proceedings. As we know, genetically modified escapees infect wild migratory fish with sea lice and disease and interbreed with wild populations. Worldwide, salmon farms have led to significant environmental damage and pose a real risk to other species. We increasingly see recognition of this. Various standards for fish farming have been introduced, and countries such as Australia and Denmark have banned the practice.
We support the sustainable farming of wild Atlantic salmon or other fish species. However, that must not come at the expense of wild populations. We acknowledge that the Bill is relevant to only one existing salmon farm, and that the main problem is in Scotland, which is devolved. Given the comments of my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I hope that the Minister will make it clear whether the audit envisaged by the Government will also be relevant to improving things in Scotland, which have been highlighted in our discussions.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Forgive me if this point has already been made, but, on this idea that this is only about Scottish salmon, it is crucial that people understand that all the salmon migrate to the Arctic waters in the far-north North Sea. Therefore, English salmon are having to go past this environmental disaster in Scotland. It is very pertinent to England, and to suggest that there is only one salmon farm in these territorial waters is to miss the point about the most threatened example of the Atlantic salmon, which are those that come from English and Welsh rivers.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I very much take my noble friend’s point. I was thinking, in clarification, that problems in Scotland would be addressed by the measure that the Minister has very helpfully brought forward today, so that this is looked at in the round wherever the salmon may be. I think that my noble friend and I are at one about this.
Government Amendment 1 seeks to restrict the permanent disposal of interest in the seabed. It would ensure that the commissioners may not dispose of the seabed without the consent of the Treasury. In Committee and on Report, noble Lords across the House, including, as has been said, my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lady Vere of Norbiton, raised concerns about the disposal of the Crown Estate’s assets and emphasised the duty of the commissioners to protect the seabed. As stewards of our seabed, the Crown Estate and its commissioners bear a profound and unique responsibility to ensure its protection. It is not merely an asset; it is actually the foundation of our oceans and a vital natural resource that supports marine life and holds cultural and ecological significance. In a spirit of compromise, we can accept the Government’s amendment and reformulation.
In conclusion, I warmly thank the Minister for his efforts to meet our concerns on the Bill. That includes what he has not mentioned, the important 25% cap on borrowing that will be in the framework document, and it includes the agreement on pre-appointment scrutiny. I thank all noble Lords across the House—it has been a cross-party effort—who have taken part in the scrutiny of the Bill. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean again for his persistence in this matter, and success. Above all, I thank my predecessor and noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton, and my noble friend Lord Roborough, for their work on the Bill.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for what he said and his agreement on the way forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, knows, the Crown Estate is devolved to Scotland, so the measures I have set out will not apply to Scotland and I cannot ensure that they will.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as the Crown Estate is not devolved to Wales, the audit that the Crown Estate will conduct will apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, I do not believe that there is a salmon farm in Wales, so I do not know whether the audit will apply, but, clearly, all salmon farms on Crown Estate land in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be looked at.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, the outcome of the audit will be set out in the Crown Estate’s annual report, which will be published in June, giving an opportunity for scrutiny. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in terms of the seabed, the Crown Estate is limited to 150-year leases.
I am glad that we have been able to agree to the changes made by the other place to this Bill. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their efforts on the Bill since last July.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 3.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Tuesday 4th March 2025
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberTerrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-R-I(b) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (4 Mar 2025)
17:14 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 248 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
17:34 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 249 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
18:24 - Division on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 236 - Amendment 13 disagreed.
Lord Davies of Gower
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the other in the name of Lord Sandhurst to Clause 2 seek to remove the reference to “from time to time” and provide a benchmark by which the attendance at a premises may be measured.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to open this first group of amendments to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, who, unfortunately, is not in a position to be here today.
Although we do not wish to divide on Amendments 1 and 4, we have tabled them to seek further clarity and precision from the Government on this crucial area of the legislation. These amendments, proposed by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, replace the vague phrase “from time to time” with the more precise
“not less than once a month”.
This change is more specific and tightens up some of the language in the Bill. If, say, a venue has 200 people once a year for a Christmas party but has fewer than 200 at every other point in the year, under this amendment that venue would not be covered.
The logic of this amendment is to ensure that the SIA is given a clear benchmark by which it can measure venue capacity. This avoids ambiguity, and I hope the Minister will agree that it improves the quality of the legislation. I eagerly await his response and hope to see some movement from the Government on this issue. I look forward to hearing from my noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lord Udny-Lister. I am sure that this will be a constructive and positive debate.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, my amendment seeks to raise the qualifying premises threshold in this Bill from 200 to 500. This is a necessary and proportionate adjustment to ensure that the legislation is both effective and enforceable. At its core, this Bill is about ensuring that public venues take reasonable steps to protect the public from the ever-present threat of terrorism. This is a goal that we all share, but it is also our duty as legislators to ensure that any obligations that we impose are realistic, achievable and properly targeted. The current threshold of 200 is, in my view, too low. It captures far too many small businesses, community venues and organisations that simply do not have the resources to comply effectively with the security measures required under this legislation.
We must therefore ask ourselves what we are truly trying to achieve. If the Bill is about protecting high footfall venues that are most likely to be targeted, a threshold of 500 is much more appropriate. A venue that regularly accommodates 500 people is a significantly different proposition from one with just over 200. The former will have the infrastructure, resources and operational capacity to manage the enhanced security obligations that the Bill requires, whereas the latter will often struggle under the weight of compliance, detracting from the effectiveness of the legislation as a whole.
Moreover, this is a question of enforcement. By setting the threshold too low, we risk overburdening the enforcement agencies tasked with ensuring compliance. We should be concentrating our efforts where they will make the most difference: on larger, more high-risk venues, where the potential impact of an attack would be greatest. A threshold of 500 strikes that balance.
I also want to address the issue of fairness. Many small and medium-sized businesses are still recovering from the financial strain of recent years. The hospitality, entertainment and cultural sectors in particular have been hit hard. If we impose overly stringent requirements on smaller venues, we risk pushing them into further difficulties, leading to unintended consequences such as venue closures or reduced community engagement. This is not, therefore, about opposing security measures—far from it. It is about ensuring that these measures are appropriate for the size and nature of the premises they apply to.
I do not bring this amendment forward lightly. I support the principles of the Bill and I recognise the importance of making public spaces safer. However, legislation must be both proportionate and practical. The Government have not, in my view, provided sufficient justification for the 200-person threshold, and nor have they demonstrated that raising it to 500 would compromise security in any way.
On the contrary, I believe this amendment enhances the Bill by making it much more targeted and therefore effective. For these reasons, unless I hear a clear commitment from the Government today that they will reconsider their position, I will be dividing the House on this amendment. I urge noble Lords to join me in supporting a measured, proportionate and practical approach to this issue.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 3 in my name, which seeks to raise the threshold for a qualifying premises from 200 to 300, with an exception to allow the Secretary of State to set a lower threshold if any particular premises are at a heightened risk of terrorist threat.
While I agree with many of the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister in relation to 500, it is important that the House has the option to consider other variable thresholds. I suggest that this amendment, in setting the threshold at 300 with the flexibility to include other venues between 200 and 300, is a pragmatic, measured and proportionate adjustment that balances the need for public safety with the realities of implementation of this expensive and burdensome set of regulations on small businesses and community venues.
While we should do as much as possible to reduce the impact of an attack, should one occur, we must ensure that pubs, village halls, community spaces and other, similar venues are not subject to undue regulatory burdens where the risk does not justify them. By raising the threshold to 300, we are ensuring that those venues most at risk are prioritised. Almost all venues under 300 will now be excluded by reason of this amendment, while providing a degree of flexibility for exceptional cases where a lower threshold may be warranted.
The logic behind this adjustment is clear: a threshold of 200 captures too wide a range of premises, including many small business and community venues that may not have the capacity or resources to implement the complex security measures required by the Bill. Many of these venues operate on tight budgets and rely on volunteer or part-time staff. I worry greatly that one of the unintended consequences of the Bill will be to drive such small business and community facilities—which are presently just about managing and just about balancing their books—out of business, with the consequent massive impact on our communities and high streets. If this happens, the terrorists will have won.
I do not need to remind the House that the Home Office’s own impact assessment estimates that the costs to business of the measures in the Bill, at present values, are likely to be between £4.871 billion and £563.4 million, with the Government’s best estimate at £1.785 billion. This additional burden will land just at the time when small businesses and community ventures are reeling from additional regulatory burdens and rising taxes.
Increasing the threshold to 300 would ensure that the primary focus remained on larger venues with higher footfall and, therefore, greater potential risk. As I observed in Committee when debating these amendments, one need look only at the Home Office’s own impact assessment to see the considerable level of concern about the viability of small businesses and community ventures. At page 9, the authors note:
“Among respondents to the survey of premises with a capacity of 100 to 299”—
the respondents being the owners of smaller premises, places of worship, village halls and community centres—only
“four in ten … agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack … Around half ... reported that the revised requirements would be difficult to take forwards ... Six in ten ... were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements will affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating”.
However, in my amendment I recognise that security concerns are not always dictated by capacity alone. This is why it would allow for the Secretary of State to include particular premises that are at heightened risk of terrorist attack. This provides flexibility.
Commendably, prior to the introduction of the Bill, the Government raised the proposed threshold from 100 to 200 following the outcome of the consultation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister that there has been nothing in the debates on the Bill which really justifies the figure of 200, when set against the potential impact on the large number of premises now caught by the present threshold. The proposal in the amendment is a cautious—and, I suggest, proportionate and sensible—step, and I invite noble Lords to support it.
Lord Hardie (CB)
My Lords, I rise to ask for a clarification, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, said that he proposes to divide the House unless he gets a satisfactory response from the Minister. What would be the combined effect of Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister? If the premises have 500 people in them at least once a month, would that mean that this is otiose and they do not need a security assessment? Or does the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, accept that, if there were 500, which is the limit, at any one time during the year—not at least once a month—mean that the security provisions would be required?
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful that we are debating the amendments in this group. I declare my interest, having lots of churches in Manchester that fall under the terms of the Bill.
I am drawn to the important reminder from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, that we must not let the terrorists change the way we live our lives —I have said that myself on past occasions—so this is all about proportionality. I am drawn to his more subtle balance between 200 and 300 people, but I fear that, if we were to raise the threshold as high as some of the amendments in this group propose, it would take out many premises. We know that terrorists do not go for only very large events; they go for medium-sized events and buildings, as we have seen, sadly, with mosques and churches, not necessarily in this country but around the world. On the whole, the Bill as it has arrived to us is in the right shape, but there is considerable merit in the noble Lord’s proposal to have some flexibility in that 200 to 300 people range, and I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on that matter.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, it is extremely welcome that the House is now in the mood of trying to build consensus on the Bill. Despite the occasionally scratchy discussions we had in Committee, it is clear that people are accepting the main principles of the Bill. What we are now talking about is the quantum and the number of visitors who will trigger the threshold. I am very conscious that the Bill is not just about the legal requirements being placed on premises; it is about setting the tone with which all premises will respond and consider the threats they face.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I slightly query the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that a change of tone and consensus has broken out. We are at a stage where there is no point fighting until the last man standing. There are some fundamental philosophical disagreements about what we are doing in relation to this Bill, and I raise those because they relate to the amendments we have heard about.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that, for smaller venues with a capacity of, say, 50 or 100, we are establishing the notion that everybody should be sensible and take precautions. My argument is simply that we do not need new legislation at any level to encourage that, and that this could have been done through present legislation. For example, we have oodles of health and safety legislation. Councils are for ever issuing guidance on how events should be organised. This is a hammer to crack a nut, and it might have unintended consequences. That is what all of us have argued.
When I explain to people what I am doing in the House of Lords at the moment and what Bills I am following, and I explain this one, they are totally bemused that, in tackling terrorism, we are having a conversation about premises and regulators. They are more than aware that we need to tackle the problem and the threat of terrorism, and this just does not feel as though it is the most important way of dealing with that. The right reverend Prelate made a good point: it is not as though terrorists sit around and say, “That is a 500-seater”. As we know, whether it is a dance class in Southport or, in the case of Sir David Amess, an MP holding a surgery, it can be small places; or it can be the use of a vehicle as a weapon at a Christmas market. We have been through these different examples.
The question before us is whether the Bill will keep the public safe. My contention is that I am not convinced it will, but it will do a lot of damage to the public realm, and it could undermine civil society. Some of these amendments would at least help to remove the threat of legislative intervention from the smaller venues that are likely to be at the heart of community and civil society events. Of course there is a difference when there is a law. Even if you are a small venue, you might think “We do take precautions. We have 200 people. It is not as though we wander around oblivious to the protection of anyone who comes into our premises”. Once you have the threat of a regulator and a law, it is coercive and there are threats and things you need to do—I do not mean reports that have to be written—and you are answerable. As we have seen in every aspect of the evidence that has been given in consultation, people are put off; they say it is not worth running the venue or the event, and volunteers are standing down, as a number of later amendments will indicate.
We may have to make the best of what I consider to be an unnecessary and distracting law. I want to fight terrorism, but not this way; none the less, we should at least make the best of a bad job.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, this has been a useful if very short debate, and many of the issues raised in Committee have been repeated.
Most of these amendments would greatly increase the number of premises and events exempt from the provisions of the Bill. In particular, I want to speak against Amendments 2, 3 and 5 from the Conservative Benches. As has been described, they would increase the threshold to 500, or 300 for standard premises, or, in the case of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, from 800 to 1,000 for enhanced premises.
I will make two brief points, which are very much in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. First, it is worth recalling that the Bill, to quote from the Long Title, is
“to reduce the vulnerability of the premises or event to, and the risk of physical harm to individuals arising from, acts of terrorism”.
It is not a Bill that will prevent terrorism per se; it is about protecting individuals. It is about having a plan in place for what to do in the horrific eventuality of an attack and having someone responsible for ensuring that lives can be saved, so that people can be evacuated or invacuated as quickly and as safely as possible. Having such a plan, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others have said, is surely just common sense and good practice for any event or premises, no matter what its size.
Increasing the thresholds to such a degree as these amendments propose would, in our view, risk negating the very purpose and value of the Bill, as it would exempt so many additional premises or events. We cannot and should not necessarily make assumptions about the size of the venue or event that a terrorist or terrorist organisation would choose to attack. Being prepared, and having thought through an escape plan and what to do to save lives in the event of an attack, gives reassurances to the public and has to be good practice. I would even argue that it makes good business sense, if people, including potential customers, feel reassured.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the figure of 200 is already a compromise. The previous draft Bill produced by the former Conservative Government had a threshold of 100. My party and others, including the Home Affairs Select Committee, expressed concern that this would impact too many businesses and their premises, so the figure was raised to 200. As I said in Committee, I would have preferred 100, but I understand the reasons for the compromise.
For both these reasons, these Benches will not support any amendments this afternoon if they are pushed to a vote.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for speaking to these amendments and I look forward to seeing the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, back in his place at an early opportunity to continue these debates in future.
There are, in essence, three sets of amendments before us in this first group. Amendments 1 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, look at stipulating that the threshold is met monthly rather than “from time to time”. There are other amendments, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Murray, relating to the threshold and, at the end of the group, there are some small, technical government amendments that I will move in due course. I will speak to each in turn.
First, I will address the main point that was very well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in relation to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned. The Bill is not about preventing terrorism. There are mechanisms for the Government to look at policing, intelligence-led activity and legislation in the Crime and Policing Bill—a whole range of measures to prevent terrorism. This Bill, as has been mentioned, looks at the vulnerability of premises and making sure that we do all that we can to put public protection measures in place.
I said this in Committee, but it is important to refer noble Lords again to the measures in Clause 5 on public protection. For the areas that we are looking at, they include
“evacuating individuals from the premises or event … moving individuals to a place on the premises … where there is less risk of physical harm … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.
All of those are good practice and potentially have no or limited cost.
Amendments 1 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seek to change how attendance is measured at premises by stipulating that the threshold must be met monthly, not from time to time. The case was made that there is a need for a revised basis to assess the number of individuals in attendance at premises at once within a fixed, regular time period. As I set out in Committee, the Government disagree with that principle—although I know and understand why it has been brought forward—because we want to make sure that, if we do that, the benchmark we are examining for the premises is consistent.
Changing “from time to time” to a standard of the number of individuals expected at a premises at least once a month, or any other form of benchmark, would alter the scope of the Bill. It would exclude many of the premises from qualifying, whether due to seasonal or irregular attendance.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he give us the percentage figure? If it is 4% for the 500 threshold, what is the figure for 300?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I can give the noble Lord the figure, if he allows me a moment to find it. I have the figure in this pile somewhere and I will await some dissection of the file to arrive shortly to give him a definitive figure on that, if he will allow me. If not, I will come back to that in a moment. From my perspective, the figures of 800 and 200 are correct. I have that figure to hand somewhere—here we go. See: I knew at the end of the day, with a little bit of diligence, no ambush and advance notice, I could find the figure. Raising the threshold to 300 would mean that only 92,288 premises—or 10%, down from 17%, of eligible premises—would be captured. The figure that we have currently is significantly higher than that.
Again, 92,288 is a significant number of premises covered by the Bill, but if I go back to Clause 5(3), those requirements are not what I would term onerous. They are good practice. There are things that a good employer should do. They are things that good volunteers should do. There are things that are applicable not to stopping terrorism but to providing security in the event of a terrorist attack being undertaken. Again, if this House were a premises covered by the legislation, which it is not, and an attack were happening now, the responsible person here would have to decide which exit we went from, whether we stayed under the table, whether we shut the door and who should we contact. Those are the requirements in Schedule 5 to the Bill. They are not onerous, and I think that, on balance, as wide a group of premises as can be included is the desired amount, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Udny- Lister, wishes to intervene.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
Does the Minister accept that the percentage of premises is not the same as the percentage of audiences, and it is the audiences that we should really be concerned about?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I say to the noble Lord that the Government have made a judgment on the 800 figure, which we have estimated is just over £5,000 in cost, but this figure of 800, which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, would change to 1,000, is a figure that probably impacts the Wembley Stadiums, the big theatres, the big venues. A £5,000 cost for that, which is what we have estimated in the impact assessment, would be a reasonable cost and would probably be consumed in normal training for staff, because most of those arenas hold full-time staffed events. For the 200 to 800 threshold, again, we have been looking at the whole question of what is reasonable. I think that 200 is a reasonable figure to assess on that.
However, we are going to disagree and, if we disagree and if the noble Lord wants to move his amendment, we will test the will of the House. That is what this place is about. I will see him in the Lobbies—reluctantly —if need be but I hope that he will understand why we have settled on the 200 figure to date.
Before I sit down, I must speak to government amendments 6 to 11, which make small technical amendments to the Bill and which follow reflection we have had at official level and ministerial level. The amendments further clarify how the Bill is intended to apply to premises and events. They do not change anything in the scope of the Bill but simply increase certainty about the premises in scope of the Bill. For example, private events such as weddings attended by relations and friends, or office parties attended by employees or customers, are deemed private events that are not attended by the public. The amendments make it clear, even more so than they did previously, that they should be out of scope.
I hope the noble Lord will not test the will of the House. But if he does, I urge my noble friends and anybody else who wishes to join us to vote him down.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been a relatively short but very good debate, and I thank my noble friends for their amendments in this group. Amendments 2 and 3 address the threshold for qualifying premises. My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister’s amendment proposes raising the threshold from 200 to 500, while my noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment strikes a balance by setting it at 300, with flexibility for the Secretary of State to make determinations in exceptional cases.
These amendments recognise the practical implications of compliance while ensuring that the duty to protect the public is both proportionate and effective. It is essential that this legislation targets venues most at risk while avoiding undue burdens on smaller establishments, and if my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister is minded to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.
Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, would adjust the threshold for enhanced duty premises from 800 to 1,000. This refinement aligns with the broader effort to ensure that security obligations are applied appropriately. Larger venues naturally pose greater security challenges. Amendment 5A, which similarly adjusts the threshold for qualifying events from 800 to 1,000, also makes sense to me.
The cost of compliance for events will be large and thus slightly raising the threshold will allow for greater focus and precision in what the Bill intends to remedy. If my noble friend Lord De Mauley intends to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.
On Amendments 6 to 11, tabled by the Minister, I acknowledge the suggested improvements, replacing “invitations” with “tickets”, and substituting “other” with “similar”. These amendments means that the public protection procedures will apply only when members of the public are in attendance and not at private events such as weddings. I am supportive of these amendments and thank the Minister for tabling them.
In conclusion, the amendments I have spoken in favour of today enhance the clarity, proportionality and practical application of the Bill. In the face of ever- present security threats, our legislation must be both robust and precise.
Lord Udny-Lister
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would raise the minimum threshold for a premises to be a “qualifying premises” to 500.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I have not heard anything that makes me believe I should do anything other than divide the House on this matter.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“(ca) the premises have a capacity of more than 300 people or, if smaller, the Secretary of State determines that the premises are at heightened risk of a terrorist threat, and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment aims to protect small businesses from disproportionately burdensome security requirements while maintaining adequate protection against terrorism threats.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
In the light of the opinion expressed in the Division, I will not be moving Amendment 3.
Lord De Mauley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would raise the minimum threshold for a premises to be an “enhanced duty premises” from 800 to 1000.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I prevail upon the patience of your Lordships, if I may, in speaking to my Amendments 5 and 5A. These seek to increase the threshold for enhanced duty premises for qualifying events from 800 people to 1,000 people. The matter of thresholds was discussed at some length in Committee, but discussion focused, as it did a moment ago, on the lower threshold for qualifying premises in Clause 2—that is, 200 people.
My concern, which is similar to that which was expressed in Committee and earlier today by those proposing the relevant amendments, is analogous. However, the consequences for those organising small, ticketed, charitable events, with attendees exceeding 800 people, are considerably greater, because the costs of implementing the necessary measures to comply with the Bill’s requirements are that much larger. The Minister gave a suggestion as to what those would be in the debate earlier.
It became clear from the Minister’s response to amendments in Committee proposing to increase the lower threshold that there was little science behind the Government’s choice of 800 for the upper threshold. In fact, he admitted that the numbers are arbitrary, saying:
“Ultimately, we have to land on a figure, and the Government have determined that that figure should be 200”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 545.]
This is, of course, in the case of the lower threshold, but it seems reasonable to assume that the Government’s approach to the higher threshold is the same, and I have heard nothing today to change that view.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will respond very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. With due respect, it is not because I say so; it is because we have had a consultation. We had consultations in 2021 and 2023, when his party was in government, we have had discussions with the Home Affairs Select Committee and public discussions on this issue generally, and a revised figure was part of the consultation to determine the lower figure. So the 800 figure is not because I say so: it was determined by the previous Government—his Government—and endorsed by this Government coming in. Your Lordships’ House should remember that that figure came out of discussion we had following the Manchester inquiry and inquiries into other similar recent events.
I do not want to test the patience of the House. We had a long discussion in Committee and on the amendments we discussed earlier. Following engagement with stakeholders, the security industry and the public at large, and with the recommendations of several sets of officials dealing with several sets of Ministers, we have come to the conclusion that there is no right number —I accept that—but that the number of 800 will ensure that we bring into scope a large number of premises that have a higher level of security but should be doing those things on the basis of good practice and as part of normal training and induction for members of staff.
The 800 figure applies to the Wembley Stadiums—large football stadiums and the larger venues. I believe they can accommodate the restrictions and requirements in the Bill. The cost that we have estimated for the higher tier is only just over £5,000 per establishment. A £5,000 opportunity cost that might not even be a physical cost is not a burden on that establishment, but it may help to save a life. In the event of a terrorist attack, which we will try to prevent downstream, the measures in this Bill may help to save a life. Had they been in place at the Manchester Arena when the attack took place, lives may have been saved. That is an important consideration. I commend the 800 figure to the House and I hope it will reject the noble Lord’s amendment if he presses it.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said, but I respectfully point out that a threshold of 1,000 would catch events at the Wembley arena. His position on 800 will catch the event we discussed in Committee and that I talked to him about, which cannot possibly afford a figure of £5,000. It does not make £5,000.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, the figure of £5,000 is an opportunity cost. It may well be that it is in time given by volunteers. There is no cash payment up front by any organisation to any outside organisation to provide that level of assurance.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
It is impossible to know the answer. I think the Minister knows that and I do. Let us not waste any more time. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “qualifying event”.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “qualifying event”.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies references in the Bill to “visiting members of the public”.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies references in the Bill to “visiting members of the public”.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the definition of certain premises to which Part 1 of the Bill does not apply.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the definition of certain premises to which Part 1 of the Bill does not apply.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 32.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that, in this case, the Government have listened to the arguments made in Committee calling for further constraints on the powers in Clauses 5, 6 and 32. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for pressing the Government in Committee on these matters. This issue was also raised by a number of other noble Lords, and I have certainly reflected upon it. As we know—particularly on this Bill—collaboration and cross-party consensus have underpinned much of the Bill’s development and progress, for which I have been grateful. In this spirit, having reflected on the points raised in Committee, the Government have tabled amendments to further strengthen the safeguards on the use of certain Henry VIII powers in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has done me the great honour of signing the amendments, post my tabling those. He cannot be with us today for other reasons, but I know that the House will note that he has added his name to these amendments and has taken a constructive approach accordingly.
The government amendments are very clear. First, they consolidate in Clause 32 the powers previously found in Clauses 5 and 6, which would allow the Secretary of State to add, omit or amend public protection measures or procedures in the Bill. Secondly, and more significantly, the amendments place conditions on these powers that the Secretary of State must satisfy, as well as the powers in Clause 32 to change the qualifying thresholds for the standard and enhanced tiers. These government amendments limit the use of the powers to lower the thresholds, or to add new procedures or measures, to where the Secretary of State considers it necessary to do so for public protection—I put that phraseology before the House.
Conversely, the thresholds can be raised—or procedures or measures omitted, or have their descriptions amended —only if the Secretary of State considers that their retention is not “necessary for public protection”. Necessity sets a higher bar than the previous drafting did, and how the regime is functioning and the nature of the threat from terrorism at the time will be among the factors most relevant to the Secretary of State’s consideration, as will the availability of other means of public protection.
The House will know that the nature of terrorism is very often unpredictable, and methodologies may change over time. In tandem, so will the ways in which society can effectively respond. How certain businesses operate may also evolve over time, such as in the way that customers engage with them. The Government consider that this approach now strikes the right balance between ensuring that the Bill can be kept up to date, and providing in the Bill an important set of further safeguards to ensure that these powers, if used, are used appropriately and with proper consideration.
Furthermore, government Amendment 28 will require the Secretary of State to formally consult such persons as they consider appropriate before exercising any of the powers specified in Clause 32. This includes the powers previously contained in Clauses 5 and 6, which are now consolidated under Clause 32. One of the main demands of a number of colleagues in the House was that we undertook further consultation. Consulting relevant stakeholders is now integral to the development of the Bill, and it has been the Government’s clear intention that this will continue. In the light of the points made in Committee when we debated these clauses, the Government are content to put that wider consultation in the Bill, which I hope assists noble Lords in their deliberation on these issues.
So the Government have listened, and I hope that helps. I hope to have the support of the House for the amendments we have tabled. I will obviously respond later, if the House will allow me, to any points made by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in respect of their amendments. In the meantime, I beg to move government Amendment 12.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 13 and 25 in this group. Amendment 13 seeks to introduce a provision for exemptions to public protection procedures under the Bill. While I fully support the legislation’s intent to enhance security and preparedness in the face of the ongoing terrorist threat, I believe that a blanket one-size-fits-all approach is neither practical nor proportionate. This amendment introduces flexibility to ensure that obligations under the Bill are applied where they are truly necessary, without imposing undue burdens on venues where the risk is demonstrably low.
We must remember that security measures come at a cost, not only in financial terms but in administrative burden, operational complexity and resource allocation. Many smaller premises, community organisations and low-risk venues will struggle to comply with requirements that may be disproportionate to their actual risk profile. For example, a village hall hosting occasional gatherings, a small charity-run space or a low-footfall museum in a rural area does not face the same level of threat as a major city-centre venue yet, as the Bill stands, they may all be subject to the same requirements.
This amendment does not seek to weaken security; rather, it ensures that security measures are appropriately targeted. It would allow exemptions to be granted where a venue could clearly demonstrate that it does not meet a reasonable threshold of risk; that could be assessed based on factors such as size, location, historical risk data and the nature of the events that it hosts. The Government must consider whether it is justifiable to place the same regulatory demands on all premises, regardless of their individual circumstances.
The Bill must be robust, but it also must be fair. An exemption mechanism would ensure that security resources, both financial and operational, are directed where they will have the greatest impact rather than being spread thinly across venues that pose little to no realistic security concern. I urge the Government to consider the practical implications of this legislation and accept this amendment in the spirit of ensuring a proportionate, risk-based approach to public protection.
In Committee, the Minister helpfully said on 5 February that the responsible person would
“consider the appropriate procedures in the light of the cost and resources … Accordingly, no procedure is required to be put in place at unreasonable cost to the responsible person”.
His assurance is welcome, but the problem is that the Bill does not appear to allow the responsible person to consider appropriate procedures in the light of their cost. The Minister also said:
“What we are asking for in the Bill … is that he thinks … about the consequences and about whether there is a threat”.—[Official Report, 5/2/25; col. 794.]
Yet the Bill makes no allowance for the responsible person to think about the consequences and whether there is a threat—that is, assess the risk—as the Minister suggests. Instead it demands that, without consideration of the risks, the responsible person puts in place the costly rules that I am concerned about.
I am deeply concerned that, if we allow these rules to stop harmless, peaceful community events around our country like the ones that I referred to in Committee, as my noble friend Lord Murray so aptly said earlier, the terrorists will have won. The Minister’s encouragement to rely on the
“so far as is reasonably practicable”
wording is helpful—but the problem is that the term is subjective. Those enforcing the law are not the same people as those who make it, so phrases such as this are open to variations in interpretation.
Furthermore, one of the really important problems that the Bill creates is that it is, as Bills often are, very broad-brush in its drafting, especially in the public protection procedures and measures. It leaves the detailed requirements to be fleshed out in guidance and advice, so at this stage we have no way of knowing how difficult they are going to be to comply with.
On Amendment 25 and returning to the subject of thresholds, which we debated a moment or two ago, when the subject was raised in Committee there was much discussion of the level of the lower threshold—that at which premises became qualifying premises or an event becomes a qualifying event, as the case may be. This amendment approaches thresholds in another way, still seeking to address the concern that the selection of the level of the thresholds is based on very little science and, once the Bill is passed, they are set in stone effectively for ever—and they certainly cannot go up. The Bill would benefit from having an understandable framework under which the Secretary of State could vary thresholds upwards or downwards from time to time, which would also remove an element of doubt from the Bill as its stands, in that there is currently no clarity over how and when the Secretary of State may exercise his or her power to reduce thresholds.
The thing that is missing from the Government’s approach is a lack of any science to the question as to how the level of risk—for example, of a terrorist attack—changes from time to time. In Committee, the Minister mentioned the fact that the national threat level was then, as it is now, at substantial. As he knows, there are four other national threat levels—low, moderate, severe and critical. The setting of the national threat level is based on the assessment of risk by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre. This amendment therefore seeks to allow the Secretary of State to vary the thresholds with the national threat level.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
First, it is really gratifying to hear from the Minister at the start that the Government are listening, have listened and have acted accordingly. I really do welcome the reining in of Henry VIII powers and the remarks that the Minister made. On listening, do feel free to carry on.
Some of the arguments that have already been made and which will be made in this group and others are about whether the Government are still considering the points about ensuring that the Bill does not have the unintended consequences that some of us dread. Throughout Committee, I was struck that the Government stressed that the Bill was not a one-size-fits-all measure, and they did not feel that that was appropriate. Earlier, the Minister made the point that there are exemptions for this Bill and that this House itself is not under the same requirements as other venues—and I have referenced again that there is a different approach to places of worship. That is appropriate, because we do not want it to be one size fits all.
I have put my name to Amendments 13 and 25, which respond positively to the ministerial commitment to flexibility and agility. As we have already heard, there is a constant theme and genuine worry about the unintended consequences of the Bill harming civil society and the social fabric of communities by taking an unnecessary regulatory toll on events. As I have said, it can feel as though the discussions we have here are far removed from the material threats that society faces from terrorism. I appreciate what was said earlier: if the Bill passes, nobody is claiming that it will stop terrorism. None the less, we are constantly told that lives will be saved if we pass the Bill so there is a moral onus on us to pass it. However, we need to take a broader approach.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for another chance to address these amendments and support those brought forward by the Government. I am struggling a little with Amendments 13 and 25. I do not wish to deprive the good citizens of Buckley of the joy of their annual jubilee. Some of us thought that jubilees came round rather less frequently, but it is good that Buckley has them so often. I am not quite sure of the premises that would be covered by this legislation.
On Amendment 13, it would cost more in time, energy and effort to get an exemption for small premises than the fairly modest requirements for such premises would entail. It would not be much use for a small church hall to appeal for an exemption under Amendment 13. The risk for a large and wealthy organisation might be that they spend years in litigation and judicial review as to whether their premises should be exempt. I am not convinced.
As for Amendment 25, I yearn for the day when the terrorism threat is low or moderate, but I do not see that happening any time in the foreseeable future. We have to work on the basis that we will suffer significant threats of terrorism for quite some time. Given that the level is substantial one day and might be severe another, I would rather have the certainty of knowing what my premises had to do today and tomorrow and when planning an event in six weeks or 12 months, if it is a large event with a long lead-up time, rather than the rules changing depending on the terrorist threat having gone up or down a notch. Amendment 25 would create potential confusion, and I would rather that we kept things as simple as possible.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, these Benches welcome the government amendments to Clause 32, in particular Amendment 28 on consultation, which we were very keen to see written into the Bill when we debated it at previous stages.
Amendment 13 starts from the point of view that the measures in the Bill are inappropriately burdensome, as we discussed in the previous group. In fact, proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 13 would be burdensome on applicants and the Secretary of State. It uses the words “demonstrated” and “materially”; these things all require some judgment and work. In particular, the Bill does not seek to
“materially reduce the threat of terrorism”,
as we have discussed. The public protection procedures in Clause 5 are more than a single measure.
As I understand the way that the Bill will work, with premises being different there is bound to be some dialogue between the owner or operator and the SIA in assessing whether they are compliant. That is the time to make these assessments. I do not think it will be a box-ticking exercise, at any rate to the extent that has been suggested. The process will get people to think—a word used by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox —when they are planning the procedures. I hope she will invite noble Lords to come and see the Buckley procession, but the problem there sounds to me more like a problem with local authority funding than anything which arises from this Bill. The words “flexibility” and “agility” really worry me; this will create a lot of work for people. So our main objection to Amendment 13 is that it is neither appropriate nor, frankly, workable and we cannot support it if the noble Lord decides to divide.
Amendment 25 is on the national threat level. I do not want to say that it goes up and down like a yo-yo, because clearly it does not, but it does go up and down and so, again, I think it would be unworkable given the criterion. The right reverend Prelate used the word “confusion”, which was the first word I wrote down against this amendment. We know that owners and operators want clarity and certainty, so, again, we cannot support this amendment. I really cannot see how it could work because, when the national threat level changes, it happens quite immediately, so to change arrangements as the amendment proposes would take time. I just cannot see how it could operate.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester have said about Amendment 25. This needs consistency. The danger, as well as the fact that these things can change quite quickly, is that the SIA would struggle to respond to a potential wave of applications, when the certainty that people require is probably on whether they are safe in a venue and whether there is an invacuation plan or an evacuation plan. These things can be predictable and consistent, so it would not be helpful to tie them to the thresholds. These thresholds move predictably in the sense that we can see the threat rising and events happening, but sometimes they are based on intelligence that is not always open to the public, and therefore a rapid change could lead to quite a lot of uncertainty in the operation of premises. That is not wise, either, so I cannot support Amendment 25.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 13 and 25, both tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, which introduce much-needed flexibility and proportionality into the Bill. They recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach is neither practical nor desirable when it comes to public protection measures.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am always grateful for amendments because they generate debate, which is what this House is about, and because they create an opportunity to test the provisions in the Bill. I have tried to listen and I have moved on the government amendments in this group, but I cannot support Amendments 13 and 25 from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Let me explain why.
Amendment 13 proposes to allow those responsible for qualifying premises and events to apply for an exemption. All the way through the Bill, noble Lords on the Opposition Benches have talked about reducing both bureaucracy and the ability to put pressure on. Applying for exemptions and setting up the bureaucracy to manage those exemptions would be a major task. I remind the House that the potential exemptions are from the issues in Clause 5, and I am not sure which of them the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, wishes to remove. Is it the evacuating individuals from premises and events guidance? Is it the guidance on moving individuals to a place on the premises or at an event where there is less risk of physical harm? Is it preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises of an event and giving guidance on that? Is it providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event so that they can manage, in the event of a terrorist attack, the evacuation, invacuation or activity around that? I am not quite sure which of the public protection procedures in Clause 5 the noble Lord feels it is not appropriate to put in place.
I remind the House that, as set out in Clause 5, the sole objective of public protection procedures is to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals present at premises or an event if an attack occurs. It is not about reducing the risk of an attack occurring; we will do that through many other means. Even with the public protection measures in Clause 6, the objectives are not to stop an attack or the threat that terrorism poses but to reduce vulnerability in the event of an attack.
Of those specific procedures—invacuation, lockdown, communication—which ones does the noble Lord think we should put to one side? I am genuinely interested, because I do not see the benefit of that. If premises number one in a high street applied for an exemption and premises number two—exactly the same type of premises—did not, this would create confusion and a patchwork. This does not achieve the objectives of the Bill, which are to provide immediate responses in the event of an attack and to ensure that volunteers or paid staff understand what to do when that attack is occurring, as at London Bridge and the Manchester Arena. That is the important thing. We will issue and put in place guidance, and the SIA will be there to provide support and advice, but Clause 5 meets the objectives, and I therefore cannot support the amendment.
I cannot support Amendment 25 either, for the very sound reasons given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I may be the only other person in this Chamber who has visited Buckley recently—it is five or six miles from where I live and is next door to my former constituency. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned the problems with the Buckley jubilee parade. None of those problems relates to the legislation before the House. If there are challenges being put down by the local authority about the range of issues she mentioned, they are not because of this Bill; nor would the measures in Clause 5 incur additional expense of a significant nature to examine variations in the threat level and the provision of evacuating, invacuating, moving or information.
I respect both the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, but the revision of the threat level would add another tier to the things we are trying to encourage, which in Clauses 5 and 6 are good practice and information about what to do in the moment of an attack. The national threat levels may change, but the acts of terrorists remain unpredictable. Attacks may happen any time, anywhere. We have seen attacks at a number of smaller locations in recent years. Changes to the national threat level are not directly aligned with the objectives of the Bill.
As for the premises and events that will be in scope, as we have seen from the recent past, those threat levels may change quickly but the level of a potential attack is still present for any of the areas in scope of the Bill. To have the threat level determined by whether something is in scope would make it a very blunt instrument, which would potentially create the very confusion and bureaucracy that many noble Lords have been keen to avoid with the Bill.
The Government have listened on this group of amendments, including to the serious points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, by those on the Liberal Democrat Benches and by His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, and we have made changes to the Henry VIII powers which I hope—and know—are welcome in this House. However, I cannot continue to listen to all representations. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and the provisions in Clauses 5 and 6 are that line for the Government—as was the case, dare I say, for the previous Government. In that case, I urge the noble Lord and the noble Baroness not to press their amendments.
Lord De Mauley
“Exemption from public protection procedures(1) The person responsible for qualifying premises or events may apply to the Secretary of State, or the Security Industry Authority, for exemption from one or all of the public protection procedures.(2) Exemption from the public protection procedures must be granted if the Secretary of State, or the Security Industry Authority, is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the public protection procedures in question would not materially reduce the threat of terrorism or the risk of harm in the case of a terrorist attack.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would oblige the Secretary of State or the Security Industry Authority to alleviate rules if the applicant can prove that the implementation of such procedures would not materially reduce the threat of terrorism or the risk of harm in the case of a terrorist attack.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I am grateful to the Minister for his patience, but I go back to what I said earlier, which is to quote him, actually. He exhorted us to rely on the
“so far as is reasonably practicable”
wording. The problem with that is that the wording is subjective. Those enforcing the law are not the same people as those who make it, so there are wide variations in the possible interpretation of it. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 32.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the document prepared under this clause to be provided to the Security Industry Authority within six months of it being prepared.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
Amendment 15 seeks to enhance the efficiency of providing documents to the SIA. It was debated in Committee and offers a small but practical improvement to the Bill. I hope that I can be brief.
The amendment would introduce a clear requirement for the document to be provided to the SIA within six months of it being prepared, rather than
“as soon as is reasonably practicable”.
It would help to ensure timely and structured reporting and to prevent unnecessary delays in the implementation of security measures. A six-month time limit would simply provide a definitive timescale and an end date, which would bring clarity and certainty and be a helpful addition.
I will also briefly introduce Amendments 18 and 32, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower—without, of course, stealing his thunder. These important amendments address the need for greater oversight of the SIA. Amendment 18 seeks to establish an advisory board to support and guide its work, and Amendment 32 proposes an independent review panel to assess its performance. Both measures would help to ensure that the SIA remains accountable and thus responsive to emerging threats. More broadly, I hope that the Minister accepts that all the amendments in this group seek to improve the quality of the legislation, and I look forward to hearing his response in due course.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for moving his amendment, and I welcome him to the Front Bench. This is the first time we have had a debate with him as the shadow Home Affairs Minister, and I welcome him to his post and wish him as much success as I possibly can, given the Government’s position and his own position on these issues.
Amendment 15 is important, as it looks at the question of the timeframe by which the compliance document must be submitted to the Security Industry Authority. As we have had previous debates on this issue, there are a number of points for me to make to the noble Lord. The document being provided to the Security Industry Authority will detail, among other things, the procedures and measures in place, under the provisions of the Bill, to comply with the Bill’s requirements. It is an important document, as it will enable the SIA to make any initial evaluation of the security approach at the premises or event in question, to engage with the person responsible and to assess compliance with the Bill’s requirements. As such, the document should be sent to the regulator at an early stage, as the noble Lord mentioned.
However, we have not stipulated in the Bill a single deadline for enhanced duty premises and qualifying events in scope, because the Bill applies to a wide variety of such premises and events, from long-established department stores to potential pop-up events. Some will require little change to their security approach, whereas others might need to make a substantive change, or, in the case of certain events, may have long or short lead-in times. The Government therefore determined that the document should be provided as soon as is reasonably practical.
If we accept the noble Lord’s amendment and have an imposed blanket deadline of six months, following completion across enhanced duty premises and qualifying events, this could hinder the SIA’s ability to monitor compliance and provide advice. It may result in out-of-date or inaccurate documents being provided. Depending on the circumstances, the SIA submission may be delayed until very close to the deadline, which is not necessarily the best way to do business. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from—he wants to give that certainty—but I cannot accept the amendment today.
We had an extensive discussion about Amendment 18 in Committee. I refer back to the two public consultations on this legislation, the engagement that both the previous Government and the current Government have had with hundreds of trade organisations and industry bodies, and the work with relevant stakeholders, existing regulators, security partners and local government. That was all about how we can put this legislation in place effectively.
In its current role, the SIA already works with industry, local authorities and civil society. Those working relationships will not end with Royal Assent; the Home Office will build on its existing work to ensure that the SIA is fit for purpose. As I have said before, Royal Assent is the start of a process, of potentially two years or more, of implementation. The amendment would place the burden of a statutory duty on the Secretary of State and, for that reason, I cannot support it, although I again understand where the noble Lord is coming from.
On Amendment 32, I hope that I can assure noble Lords that Clause 12 has been drafted to ensure appropriate oversight by the Secretary of State, with checks and balances on the SIA to ensure that regulation is being delivered as the Home Office intends. The SIA produces annual reports, which will, following Royal Assent, both encompass its regulatory function and provide transparency.
The Secretary of State will continue to appoint board members when required and will be held accountable, in this House and the other place, for those board members. The Secretary of State will make sure that there is significant expertise in the SIA to ensure effective regulation and organisational change, and that it will work closely with business. The Secretary of State will have the power to give directions to the SIA when necessary if they so wish. The Government will therefore be able to ensure that the legislation is being implemented as intended. I know that both the noble Lord and shadow Ministers in the House of Commons will question the SIA and hold it to account, and potentially have debates about the progress of this legislation.
If we were to have, as is proposed, an independent review panel, it would add an extra level of bureaucracy. As I have set out, the Secretary of State has robust powers and oversight to ensure that the SIA manages its responsibilities accordingly. Therefore, I am ashamed to say that, yet again, I reject the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and ask the House, if he presses them, to reject them accordingly. If the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, wishes me to give way, I certainly will.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister. I will make a connected but slightly separate point. After Committee, the Minister very kindly wrote to me on the reviews, particularly the post-implementation reviews. A copy of the letter is in the House of Lords Library. For the benefit of noble Lords, he said:
“I would like to reassure you that a post-implementation review will be undertaken”—
which is what we sought—
“and this will assess whether the legislation delivers the Government’s policy objectives … this will include analysis of the costs and impacts on qualifying premises and events … this will naturally include smaller businesses and community-run premises where they fall in scope. The Government’s intention is that the review will be conducted, at most, within five years of commencement … This will incorporate … microbusinesses and small community premises”.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the indication in his letter. Can he let us know, from the Dispatch Box, whether the Government intend to publish the outcome of those reviews?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I fully expect to publish the outcome of those reviews. I give the noble Lord an assurance that this Government will continue that practice and will publish those reviews in the event of them taking place in the timescale he mentioned for the SIA. With that, I hope that he can respond positively and that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very generous words of welcome. I look forward to working with him—and, occasionally, against him—in future. I listened very carefully to what he said, and I do not intend to take Amendment 15 further. However, it remains my view that accountability and oversight should not be seen as bureaucratic hurdles; they are fundamental to ensuring that security measures are properly implemented and continuously improved. I make it clear that I do not plan to press Amendment 15, so I respectfully beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Suttie
“Developing and implementing training on public protection procedures(1) The Secretary of State must take such steps as they consider appropriate to ensure that—(a) adequate accredited training provision is made available for persons responsible for qualifying premises or qualifying events in respect of public protection procedures that includes—(i) the monitoring of premises or events and the immediate vicinity of premises or events,(ii) evacuation procedures and the movement of individuals into, out of and within a premises or event,(iii) physical safety and security of occupants in a premises,(iv) provision of security information to individuals on a premises or at an event, and(v) other measures related to terrorism protection training;(b) a training implementation plan is put in place to ensure all organisations and persons to which the provisions of this Act apply are encouraged to undertake training related to public protection procedures.(2) Functions of the Secretary of State under this section may be exercised by any organisation or persons authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.(3) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report setting out the steps they have taken in relation to subsection (1).”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to develop and implement a training plan in respect of qualifying premises and events.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 16, I will also speak to Amendments 17 and 24A, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
Amendments 16 and 17 are, as we debated in Committee, about the importance of training and guidance and ensuring the quality of that training. It is worth repeating that all the organisations we have spoken to about this Bill have stressed the importance of ensuring good-quality training; it was the one issue they all raised with us. This is perhaps particularly true for smaller events and premises, which have not necessarily previously had experience of drawing up plans for what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. As we discussed previously during the passage of the Bill, many larger venues have already put such training in place.
In Committee, the Minister gave some reassurances about training, but we have retabled the amendments to push him a little further on these matters. The previous draft Bill from the previous Conservative Government had a much more prescriptive approach to training. This has been removed, but it is vital that guidance on training is produced as soon as is practically possible, following consultation with the sector.
In Committee there was much discussion about the risks of expensive consultants—“snake oil salesmen”, as noble Lords referred to them. The sooner guidance is published, the less able such consultants will be to promote unnecessary or “gold-plated” training. Consultation with the industry affected by the provisions of the Bill will be key.
This brings me on to Amendment 24A. Consultation with those to be impacted will be the very best way to ensure that training is user-friendly, of a high standard and comprehensive, but not unnecessarily complex, and that guidance is written in plain, easy-to-understand English. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us further reassurances—he has already given some this evening—on full consultation with the sector to be impacted, including with small rural village halls, and the voluntary sector, as well as with big venues and the night-time and creative industries. Will he also commit, following that consultation exercise, to publishing guidance on training as soon as possible, and certainly well before the end of the rollout period of the Bill, which I believe is going to be two years? I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to address this group of amendments, which touches on critical aspects of training, funding, economic impact and consultation within the framework of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. Although I cannot support Amendments 16 and 17, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Hamwee, I express my strong support for Amendments 30 and 34 and will speak to Amendment 31.
Amendments 16 and 17 propose requirements for training in public protection procedures and would ensure that training providers meet high and competent standards. The importance of proper training in counterterrorism preparedness is self-evident. However, there are practical considerations regarding how such training is implemented, who bears the cost and how providers are accredited. Although these amendments highlight an important issue, further clarity may be needed to ensure that they are applied in a way that is both effective and feasible for those affected.
I fully support Amendments 30, 31 and 34 as they introduce essential provisions to ensure that implementation of the Bill is both fair and practical. Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, calls for additional funding for local authorities. This is absolutely necessary. Local authorities will play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the new security measures, yet they are already under considerable financial pressure. Without adequate funding, we risk imposing responsibilities on local government without the means to fulfil them effectively. Security cannot be done on a shoestring budget. If we are serious about protecting the public, we must ensure that local authorities have the resources to do so.
Amendment 31, in my name, seeks to review the impact of the Bill on the night-time economy. This is a crucial safeguard: bars, clubs and entertainment venues are vital to the economic and cultural life of our towns and cities. Although security is of course paramount, we must ensure that the measures imposed by this legislation do not have unintended negative consequences, leading to excessive costs, closures and job losses. A structured review would allow us to monitor these effects and make adjustments if necessary.
Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, proposes that businesses be properly consulted. This is a matter of both practicality and fairness. Businesses, particularly those in hospitality and events, will be directly affected by the Bill, and it is only right that they have a voice in shaping how its provisions are implemented. Engaging with businesses will not only improve compliance but will ensure that security measures are designed in a way that works for all stake- holders.
In conclusion, I urge the House to support Amendments 30, 31 and 34, which would provide essential financial support, ensure careful economic consideration and guarantee meaningful engagement for those most affected. A well-crafted security framework must not only protect the public but be practical, proportionate and sustainable.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the amendments before us today. I hope I can give some comfort on at least one of the amendments during the course of our discussion.
Training is extremely important. I have been supportive of the need to make sure that those who have to have a role in the legislation—and the premises and events within scope of the legislation—are given sufficient training and guidance, so they understand how to follow the procedures and measures in the event of an attack. Such training will be imperative to ensure that procedures and measures are adequately implemented and that the Bill’s public protection objectives are met. However, the Government assesses that a one-size-fits-all approach to training would be inappropriate, due to the different types and wide variety of premises and events that fall within scope. The most important factor is that the public protection procedures are effective and that they will be able to be carried out at any particular event.
We have tried to ensure that the public protection procedures are suitably in place and that the responsible person ensures that relevant workers, or volunteers, are adequately instructed as to how to carry out a procedure. The procedures in Clauses 5 and 6 are relatively straightforward. We have been through them in a number of stages, in Committee and on Report. I do not wish to repeat them today. They are designed to be simple and low cost. It is about putting in place appropriate procedures that could help protect people from harm and ensuring that staff or volunteers are properly trained in those procedures and how to follow them.
For the overwhelming majority of venues, this should not require specialist training. As I mentioned previously, free guidance will be available. Given that the procedures and measures will need to be tailored to the relevant premises, the content of any staff training will also be very much venue-specific. A generalised scheme for certifying training providers, as proposed in Amendment 17, is unlikely to be helpful in the circumstances. Premises and events should not have to pay for any specific training and the relevant legislation should be easily understood and put in place without detailed training. The Government will ensure that free, digestible guidance, advice and training will be provided. I hope that helps with the first set of amendments.
On Amendment 24A, in the name of the Liberal Democrat Front-Bencher, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, much of the debate throughout the Bill has rightly focused on ensuring that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have both the time and information needed to ensure that they can plan and prepare for, and ultimately implement, what is reasonably appropriate for them under the Bill. I put on the record today that the Government will publish guidance well in advance of commencement the new regime. The Government will determine the exact timescale for this in due course, ensuring that we strike the right balance between publication and making the guidance as robust as it can be through a period of proper consideration and engagement. I would expect that to last for a few months prior to implementation.
The Government are therefore happy—I hope this helps the noble Baroness—to support Amendment 24A, from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, which will place a statutory duty to consult as appropriate before publication of the guidance under Clause 27. I hope that demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we get the guidance right, by having a consultation, which will be well in advance of the implementation date and give an opportunity for colleagues across the sector to comment on the guidance that, potentially, is being published. I hope that is of further reassurance to the House.
Further amendments have been tabled. Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, was spoken to by the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench. I know that we are mindful of cost. We have discussed the cost issue on several occasions. Because of the Bill, there will be pressures on local authorities. It is not the Government’s intention for the Bill to frustrate the vital work they undertake. Our intention is to keep the public safe. I would like to reassure the House that the requirements for appropriate procedures and measures to be in place, as far as is reasonably practical, are designed to ensure that the relevant factors, including costs, are considered. Throughout our debates, “reasonable”, “practical”, “relevant” and “considered” are words I have used from this Dispatch Box and wish to re-emphasise today.
As we have discussed on a number of amendments today, it is envisaged that the requirements will be simple and low cost. Those in the enhanced tier will tailor the procedures and measures they implement to their particular circumstances. This includes consideration of the resources available to them. As a result, I do not believe that the Government should be looking at financial assistance.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
I thank the Minister for accepting Amendment 24A on consultation, as well as for putting on the record his clarifications and reassurances on training. We have all come a long way on these matters since we started debating the Bill in your Lordships’ House. I think we all agree that training and guidance are key elements of the Bill and that it is extremely important to avoid smaller organisations paying out unnecessary sums of money to receive training that is above and beyond what is helpful or necessary.
I accept the Minister’s reassurances in good faith, particularly on the timescale and his assurance that he will publish the guidance well in advance of implementation. As a consequence, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“(8) Where the Tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time the Tribunal must—(a) consider ordering that the notice or variation (as the case may be) is of no effect until the appeal is determined or withdrawn, and(b) notify the applicant of the outcome of the Tribunal’s consideration under this subsection.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Tribunal to consider whether a notice should be ordered to be of no effect in circumstances where the Tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 19, which is tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I will speak also to Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 19 would require the tribunal to consider whether a notice should be ordered to be of no effect in circumstances where the tribunal has been unable to determine the appeal within a reasonable time. That is the context for the amendment.
The fundamental background behind this amendment is that the SIA will issue notices; we do not know how many, at this stage, but there is a strong likelihood that they will be appealed in significant numbers. This will likely be a major additional burden on the First-tier Tribunal, raising questions on capacity and speed of response. It is also right to say that many of the regulated persons are responsible for events with a hard deadline, which carries with it financial and operational consequences. How will events deal with a situation where their appeal is lodged with a tribunal but no determination has been made in a reasonable time?
Amendment 19 seeks to prevent people being left in limbo. It would follow Clause 16(7), which allows the tribunal to decide that an order is of no effect until the appeal concludes, and it should be read in that context. In that sense, Amendment 19 is simply an additional protection for those organising events if, for whatever reason, the tribunal has simply not been able to determine the appeal within a reasonable timeframe. I hope the Minister understands the reasons behind this amendment, and I am keen to hear his response.
I will speak more briefly on Amendments 20 and 23, in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 20 seeks to extend the grace period from 28 to 42 days. This is a practical adjustment: compliance with new regulations takes time and, while security must remain a priority, we must recognise the operational realities faced by businesses, charities and community groups. A slightly longer grace period provides a fairer timeframe for implementing necessary measures without imposing undue pressure. An additional 14 days is a reasonable and fair addition of extra time.
Finally, Amendment 23, again tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, calls for local authorities to be consulted. Local authorities are on the front line of implementing security measures under the Bill, and their insight and expertise should be taken into account. Consultation will ensure that security policies are practical, properly resourced and, critically, aligned with local needs. Effective counter- terrorism measures require co-operation at all levels and this amendment strengthens that collaborative approach. I look forward to hearing the Minister in reply.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26. I am sure we all know how important volunteers are in the way our society works. Across the country, many vital community venues are run on our behalf by volunteers who give up hours and hours of their time to help run community enterprises—for example, village halls and community centres. I am also sure that noble Lords will have found that it is getting more and more difficult to persuade people to take on voluntary roles and responsibilities. It is very much harder to persuade people into senior voluntary roles, particularly if those roles carry with them personal risk to that volunteer, either of financial liability or criminal liability.
As I have made clear in previous debates on this legislation, I am very concerned that this Bill will unintentionally have a significant negative impact on members of our community volunteering. By Amendments 21, 22, 24 and 26, I seek to ensure that voluntary unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees are exempt from the personal and criminal liability under Clauses 24, 25 and 26 of the Bill, provided, of course, that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence.
As I observed in Committee, when this Bill was considered in draft by the Home Affairs Select Committee, it heard evidence about the impact of these proposed measures on community volunteering. The committee, under the then chairmanship of Dame Diana Johnson, reported in July 2023 and said this in paragraph 39:
“However, we are concerned that the capacity figure of 100 for standard tier premises, which will capture some small and micro-sized businesses, and community-run and voluntary groups, could be disproportionate and burdensome. This category is particularly troubling because it would include many smaller venues that may not have sufficient resources to cover costs of what is proposed. It would also cover village halls, places of worship and similar amenities that provide vital community support, often on low budgets. If such places are forced to close down, this represents a win for terrorism, rather than an effective means of combatting it”.
I could not have put it better myself.
In light of this and other representations, the present Government increased the threshold from 100 to 200, and I commend them for doing that, but that increase is no sufficient answer to the problems that have been raised. I remain concerned that, with the effect of the measures in the Bill—on top of the other measures facing volunteers across our community, which we heard so ably outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in an earlier group—there is a risk that we will have fewer volunteers and volunteer leaders, which may mean wide- scale closures of village halls and community centres up and down our country.
It is clear to me that the effect of the measures in the Bill as it presently stands runs the serious risk that the new liabilities in the Bill will reduce the appetite for members of the public to step forward and volunteer. This is, in any event, in an era when public involvement in these sorts of institutions is waning. It is important that the Government do not make it harder and harder to be a volunteer or a trustee of these institutions.
The amendments that I propose here are directed to removing the worst of the disincentives for people to volunteer. The way Amendment 21 works, as the House will have seen, is to remove the risk that a volunteer or unpaid trustee would be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under Clause 17, provided that they were acting at all times in good faith and within the scope of their duties.
Amendment 22 would exclude a voluntary unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee from the daily penalties, described in the Bill as being up to £500 a day. I suggest that that sort of measure is a powerful disincentive to people to volunteer, due to the risk of their own personal liability for these sums.
Amendment 24 would exempt volunteers, unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees from criminal liability, provided again that they have acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. I hope the House will agree that it is a significant disincentive to volunteering to think that you face, on a cursory reading of the Bill, the risk of up to two years in prison for failing to adhere to the strictures of the regulations made under the Bill.
I appreciate that, as the Minister will no doubt tell the House, these criminal powers will be used only rarely and are a maxima, and I am sure all that is right. However, the fact is, if it is in the statute, it will act as a disincentive to volunteers. People will not want to be the responsible person, because they will not want to take the risk of going to prison.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I support the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has just spoken to, for largely the same reasons that he does: we have many volunteers running church buildings and church halls around the country.
In addition to what he says, I know in practice that it is very unusual for a charity trustee, for example, to be held personally liable for something unless they have behaved egregiously. In many cases, organisations have a structure that allows them to take out insurance against some kinds of risks. But perception really matters here: the perception that one might end up going to prison, or be made personally liable, as a church warden or parish clerk, for excessively heavy fines compared with your own personal income.
Given the deterrent effect of that—when we find it so hard, and in an age when there are fewer volunteers, to keep the voluntary structures of this country running —if the noble Lord wishes to bring these matters to a Division, he will certainly have my support and, I hope, that of other Members of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I was surprised at the last stage by the amendment requiring the tribunal to issue a determination within a reasonable time, as defined by the Secretary of State, because it seemed to me that that was an inappropriate combination or eliding of the roles of the judiciary and the Executive. That was not pressed, but this amendment seems to me to be on the same page.
Others will have experience of the courts staying an order—I mean professional experience—but I understand that to be part of proceedings in a lower court. As I read Amendment 19, it would require an extra stage in the proceedings, presumably a hearing on an application that the time before determining an appeal is unreasonable, and so a further addition to the tribunal’s load and further delay. We cannot support that amendment.
On Amendment 20, having to pay within 28 days does not seem to me to be excessive penalisation, which is the wording used in the Member’s explanatory statement. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talked of a grace period being aligned with similar penalties. The Minister disagreed and made the point that 28 days is a minimum.
The penalty will not come out of the blue in most cases, as I understand it. The SIA has to be satisfied that there has been, or will be, a contravention. Unless the responsible person has refused, or completely failed, to engage with the SIA, there will have been a dialogue.
With regard to volunteers, of course we are with the noble Lord on not disincentivising volunteers, but I do not think this is the first or only time that volunteers have been faced with or have had to think about the responsibilities laid on them as volunteers, particularly if they are trustees of charities. There are a lot of rules that have to be observed by them.
The Bill, in any event, is about taking precautions appropriate to the premises or to the event. The distinction between the operators—volunteers or paid—is surely irrelevant. I doubt terrorists would make that distinction. As we have been reminded today, the Conservative Government were proposing 100 as a threshold. That would have meant a greater problem, as the noble Lord defines it. We are, I am afraid, not able to support those amendments.
With regard to Amendment 23, Clause 20(2) allows for the SIA to consider “matters it considers relevant”, which presumably will include the local authority’s view. Having specifically to obtain the local authority’s view seems to be another bit of bureaucracy in certain cases. If it is relevant, it will be considered, and provision is made for that.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friend Lord Murray.
I turn briefly to the amendments. My noble friend Lord Murray dealt with the treatment of volunteers and spoke eloquently about the principle that volunteers acting in good faith should not be subject to financial penalties, criminal liability or civil liability. He made the point that volunteers play a vital role in many public and community settings, often stepping forward to help in times of crisis. To penalise those who act voluntarily and in good faith would be both unfair and counterproductive. If the Bill is to encourage a culture of shared responsibility for public protection, it must also offer reasonable protections to those who contribute to that effort, and volunteers should not be deterred from assisting by fear of punitive measures. Those amendments strike the right balance by ensuring that only those who act negligently or with ill intent are held responsible.
On Amendment 19, respectfully, I do not accept the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this creates an additional court process. The Bill already contains a mechanism in Clause 16(6) and (7) for rendering a notice as having no effect, and Amendment 19 would simply add another scenario to that. Taken together, I suggest these amendments improve the Bill and I urge the Government to accept them.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the amendments. I will try to run through them and do them justice in as short order as I can.
On Amendment 19, first, I do not consider it necessary to require in the Bill that the tribunal consider suspending a notice where it has been unable to determine an appeal within a reasonable time. The tribunal is already subject to relevant tribunal procedures. The Bill makes provision for the tribunal to consider whether a notice of variation should, in effect, be put in place pending the outcome of an appeal. The Bill gives the right of appeal to such a notice, which, while not automatic, allows the tribunal to make an order to suspend its effect pending the appeal’s determination. I hope that addresses the issues in Amendment 19.
Amendment 20 talks about the penalty period being within 28 days from the date of a penalty notice being issued. I reassure the House that the period of 28 days, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, a is minimum period that the SIA may specify, and it may therefore specify any number of days post that 28-day period. I hope, on that basis, that the flexibility for the SIA on the 28-day period is acceptable.
I fully understand why we have had this debate on a number of occasions: we have been round this at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report. It is because it is a valid issue to raise. We want to ensure that we encourage volunteers to continue to meet their responsibilities, and I understand that there are concerns, which have been expressed today by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, about the liability of voluntary officeholders and unpaid trustees. The Government are mindful of the pressures that voluntary and community-run organisations face. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester endorsed those pressures, and I understand, having been voluntary trustee on a number of small bodies myself, where noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate are coming from. Again, I go back to the requirements of Clause 5. The requirements are there to achieve public protection outcomes; they are not there to put disproportionate burdens on trustees or, indeed, organisations.
As to the consultation, the Government have increased the threshold from 100 to 200 to ensure that we take out a number of smaller bodies. An estimated 13% of village halls and 10,000 community centres have been taken out of scope by that change to the threshold. We are trying to ensure that these are voluntary, simple measures that will require no specific expertise. I understand and accept that in some cases, that could put people off, but would it do so more than any other legislation? Health and safety legislation, for example, could put people off. This is meant to be a simple measure in Clause 5 that allows individuals to undertake, and to do so in a way that meets the obligations but does not discourage volunteering.
Turning to Amendments 21 and 22, under the Bill, penalties can only be issued for non-compliance with the requirement, and daily penalties can be issued only where a penalty notice for a contravention has been issued. Again, I would hope that, in the first instance, if there is any contravention, the SIA will be there to provide guidance, support and help for individuals and organisations to meet their responsibilities, which, I reiterate, are relatively low under the provisions of Clause 5.
Turning to Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, there are limited circumstances in the Bill where an individual would be liable for an offence committed by a body in connection with failure to comply with a requirement. That will happen and apply only to certain persons in control, and again, it is an offence to fail to comply with compliance or restriction notices only in relation to enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. The offence is therefore less likely to be implemented against village halls or community premises in any event. Again, it is our intention, as it has been all the way through the Bill—and I reiterate that in respect of Amendment 26—that a civil claim for breach of statutory duty may not be brought against an individual. I hope the House will accept those reassurances.
There are limited proposals in Clause 5. There are responsibilities for a responsible person, but they are not ones on which we do not seek guidance and advice from the SIA in the event of non-compliance. Prosecution would be the very last resort in any particular instance. That applies equally, as I mentioned, to other amendments, including Amendment 23. I hope those reassurances will allow noble Lords not to press the amendments.
The implementation period of, potentially, two years, the guidance issued by the SIA, the reviews we have put in place, and the assurance I gave the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on the last set of amendments—that any review of implementation would be published and open to scrutiny—will, I hope, give noble Lords the reassurances they sought in tabling the amendments.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
Having been prematurely enthusiastic, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 19.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“(7A) A voluntary unpaid office holder or unpaid trustee must not be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed under this section, provided that they acted in good faith and within the scope of their duties.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that financial penalties do not apply to volunteers serving in good faith.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Although I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, I at least take some heart from the fact that a review will be conducted and I am very grateful for the support expressed for these amendments by the right reverend Prelate. I have also been, frankly, disappointed by the approach from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who could have chosen this moment to make a real mark on this legislation to help volunteering. But with that, and the fact that there would appear to be little prospect of this amendment succeeding, I will not move Amendment 21.
Baroness Suttie
“(2A) Before publishing guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(ba) amendsection 5(3)(public protection procedures) so as to—(i) specify a further procedure, or(ii) omit, or amend the description of, a procedure for the time being specified;(bb) amendsection 6(3)(public protection measures) so as to— (i) specify a further measure, or(ii) omit, or amend the description of, a measure for the time being specified;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment moves to clause 32 of the Bill the powers left out of clauses 5 and 6 by my amendments to those clauses.
“(2) Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult before exercising the powers in clause 32 to amend Part 1 of the Bill.
“(2) The power in—(a) subsection (1)(a) or (b), so far as it confers a power to lower a figure,(b) subsection (1)(ba)(i), or(c) subsection (1)(bb)(i),may be exercised only if the Secretary of State considers that doing so is necessary for public protection.(3) The power in—(a) subsection (1)(a) or (b), so far as it confers a power to increase a figure,(b) subsection (1)(ba)(ii), or(c) subsection (1)(bb)(ii),may be exercised only if the Secretary of State considers that it is not necessary for public protection to retain the figure, procedure or measure (as the case may be) for the time being specified.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment imposes conditions on the exercise of certain powers to amend Part 1 of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
Amendment 32A is a manuscript amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. It is quite long, so I do not propose to read it out unless any noble Lord wishes that to be done. I invite the noble Lord to move the amendment.
Amendment 32A
Lord Hogan-Howe
“Counter-terrorism measures in planning law(1) The Secretary of State must consult with local authorities on integrating counter-terrorism measures into the planning and design of new buildings which are likely to be designated “qualifying premises” for the purposes of this Act.(2) Following that consultation, the Secretary of State must introduce measures to ensure the incorporation of anti-terrorism design principles in new building projects, particularly those in high-risk areas, where the buildings in question are likely to be designated “qualifying premises” for the purposes of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment was tabled as Amendment 43 at Committee stage.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I beg to move the manuscript amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I will be quite brief and I do not intend to push it to a vote. My reason for bringing the amendment forward—it is a repeat of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, in Committee—is because it is fundamental to the aim of the Bill, which will become an Act. It is about the design of new premises.
One of the most strategic things that can happen is to ensure that premises are designed to mitigate the effects of a terrorist attack or, ideally, to prevent it altogether. To be fair, the Minister reassured us in Committee that some action would be taken. It is not that I was not reassured by the Minister, but I was not reassured by the Government’s response in two respects: first, when that change would happen and, secondly, the method by which the advice to planners would be effective. I thought the best way to change that might be in this Bill, not some future one.
It is so important that we design places to enable evacuation and invacuation, and to reduce the risk of a rampant gunman running around a building—all of which is entirely possible by design, particularly in new venues. I would not propose this for every venue but certainly for our major venues—perhaps the 1% of our venues that account for a very high percentage of the people who attend public events and, frankly, will be the priority targets for terrorists, as that is where they will achieve, in their warped view, the most impact by creating public outrage.
For those reasons, I would like to hear how the Government intend to implement this type of design change in a way that, I hope, can be more reassuring than I heard in Committee. This is nothing to do with the Minister but entirely to do with the Government’s response.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I will speak, briefly, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I do not want to repeat everything I said previously, but it is important. I know the Minister will say that this is not the appropriate Bill, but the trouble is that there is never an appropriate one, and therefore we keep on missing the opportunities of starting to design out terrorism and crime from the very start. So I would hope that, after this, the Minister will at least take this on board with his colleagues and try to push hard for people to start thinking seriously about doing this for new developments, particularly larger ones.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure whether we are actually debating this or not, because I do not think the chair has put it to us. However, I will say in one sentence that both the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, have a point that this is an important provision. We should be building into planning legislation —into licensing legislation—arrangements to design out terrorism and, I would go further, to design out crime.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say in reply that that is something the Government will bring forward in another way, at another time.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
The noble Lord has correctly picked up on my error. The matter is before the House and the amendment has been moved.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We on these Benches agree that this is an extremely important matter. Perhaps this is not the appropriate piece of legislation to put it in but, as we said in Committee, it is an extremely important measure that in the longer term will save both time and money.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Udny-Lister, for raising this matter both in Committee and on Report. The amendment today is a late addition but it is welcome none the less, because it allows me to put on the record a couple of very key points.
I will not revisit the debate we had in Committee, but I did say then that the national policy framework for England and its equivalent in the devolved Governments already contains provision on the need to promote public safety and take account of wider security arrangements during the planning process. That requires local planning authorities to take information from the police and other agencies and to consider steps that could be taken to reduce vulnerability, increase resilience and ensure public safety and security.
There is also associated planning practice guidance providing greater detail. But I get the sense, and I understand where both noble Lords are coming from, that it is far better to design out that challenge in future new build than it is to put in place other measures downstream. As was mentioned in Committee, there is the National Protective Security Authority, and counterterrorism police will continue to serve as valuable advisers on these issues. But since Committee, and this is where I hope I can help both noble Lords, we have reflected on this as an important issue. My officials have discussed the matter further with their counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and we want to consider how we can reinforce planning authorities with the existing arrangements and requirements to consider security and its importance as part of planning regimes.
It might be helpful for me to say very quickly that the Government are updating their National Design Guide and National Model Design Code, which provide guidance on the very issues that the noble Lords, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Hogan-Howe, mentioned on safety and security in public spaces. The plan is that they will be published later in the spring.
The Government intend to consult on changes to the national planning policy guidance, to make it clearer and to introduce a more rules-based approach, in spring 2025. The consultations will specifically include policies for addressing security—the very points that both noble Lords have brought to the attention of the House in this amendment, and on which we had a full debate in Committee.
To conclude, I will say what the noble Lord said I would say, which is that this is not the appropriate vehicle for this legislation. That is what Ministers say occasionally at Dispatch Boxes and it is the right thing to do in this instance. But I hope the reassurance that I have given to both noble Lords, that this is on the Government’s agenda and that there will be a consultation that noble Lords can feed into, addresses the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and by the two noble Lords who spoke on this matter in Committee and today. So I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
I thank noble Lords for such a generous response to such a late amendment. I appreciate it, and I am reassured by what the Minister has said. I heard the timeline, and I can see why these things need to be considered carefully. With that reassurance, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clauses 5 and 6.
Ukraine
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement on Ukraine made by the Prime Minister yesterday in the House of Commons. The Statement is as follows:
“It is less than a week since I called on this House to show the courage of our predecessors. We see before us clearly the test of our times, a crossroads in our history. With permission, I will update the House on my efforts to secure a strong, just and lasting peace following Russia’s vile invasion of Ukraine.
It begins in this House, where on Tuesday I announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War—a recognition of the fact that, once again, we live in an era where peace in Europe depends upon strength and deterrence, but also a rediscovery of the old post-war argument, long held on these Benches, that economic security is national security; because the demands we now have to make of Britain must come alongside a new foundation of security for working people.
The tough choices that we made last week are not done. We must use the process of getting to 3% of our national income spent on defence to fundamentally rebuild British industry, using our investment in military spending to create new jobs and apprenticeships in every part of our country. That is why, last night, I announced a deal that perfectly symbolises the new era: a partnership with Ukraine that allows them to use £1.6 billion of UK Export Finance to buy 5,000 air defence missiles, manufactured in Belfast. That means UK jobs, UK skills and UK finance pulling together for our national interest, putting Ukraine in the strongest possible position for peace, and protecting innocent civilians from the terror of Russian drones.
My efforts continued on Thursday, when I met President Trump in the White House to strengthen our relationship with America. Now, what happened in his subsequent meeting with President Zelensky is something that nobody in this House wants to see. But I do want to be crystal clear: we must strengthen our relationship with America. For our security, for our technology and for our trade and investment, they are, and always will be, indispensable. And we will never choose between either side of the Atlantic—in fact, if anything, the past week has shown that idea to be totally unserious. While some people may enjoy the simplicity of taking a side, this week has shown with total clarity that the US is vital in securing the peace that we all want to see in Ukraine.
I welcome the opportunity for a new economic deal with the US, confirmed by the President last week, because it is an opportunity that I am determined to pursue. I welcome the positive discussions that we had on European security, including his clear support for Article 5 of NATO. I welcome the understanding, from our dialogue, that our two nations will work together on security arrangements for a lasting peace in Ukraine. I also welcome the President’s continued commitment to that peace, which nobody in this House should doubt for a second is sincere.
I now turn to the events of this weekend and the moving scenes that greeted President Zelensky as he arrived in London on Saturday. I saw for myself that he was taken aback when the crowd in Whitehall cheered at the top of their voices. They were speaking for the whole of our country—a reminder that this Government, this House and this nation stand in unwavering support behind him and the people of Ukraine. We resolved together to move forward the strong cause of a just and lasting peace for Ukraine.
Then, on Sunday, I hosted European leaders from across our continent, equally committed to this cause, including President Macron, Prime Minister Meloni, the leaders of NATO, of the European Commission and of the European Council, and the Prime Minister of Canada—a vital ally of this country, the Commonwealth and Ukraine, responsible for training over 40,000 Ukrainian troops. I also had the privilege beforehand of speaking online to the leaders of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, each of whom, close as they are to the front line with Russia, stressed the urgency of the moment.
It was a productive summit. Together, we agreed a clear strategy: that the UK, France and our allies will now work closely with Ukraine on a plan to stop the fighting, which we will then discuss directly with the United States. It is a plan with four clear principles, which I will now share in full with the House. First, we must keep the military aid to Ukraine flowing and keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia. To that end, alongside our partnership on air defence, we are doubling down on military aid. Already this year, we have taken our support to record levels. On Saturday, we also agreed a new £2.2 billion loan for Ukraine, backed not by the British taxpayer but by the profits from frozen Russian assets. Secondly, we agreed that any lasting peace must guarantee the sovereignty and security of Ukraine, and that Ukraine must be at the table when negotiating its future—that is absolutely vital. Thirdly, we agreed that, in the event of a peace deal, we will continue to boost Ukraine’s defences and Ukraine’s deterrence. Finally, fourthly, we agreed to develop a coalition of the willing, ready to defend a deal in Ukraine and guarantee the peace.
After all, the Ukrainian position is completely understandable. For them, the war did not begin three years ago; that was merely the latest and most brutal escalation. They have signed agreements with Putin before. They have experienced the nature of his diplomacy and the calibre of his word. We cannot accept a weak deal like Minsk again. No, we must proceed with strength, and that does require, urgently, a coalition of the willing. We agreed on Sunday that those willing to play a role in this will intensify planning now, and, as this House would expect, Britain will play a leading role—with, if necessary, and together with others, boots on the ground and planes in the air. It is right that Europe must do the heavy lifting to support peace on our continent, but to succeed this effort must also have strong US backing.
I want to assure the House that I take none of this lightly. I have visited British troops in Estonia, and no aspect of my role weighs more heavily than the deployment of British troops in the service of defence and security in Europe. Yet I do feel very strongly that the future of Ukraine is vital for our national security. Russia is a menace in our waters and in our skies. They have launched cyberattacks on our NHS and made assassination attempts on our streets. In this House, we stand by Ukraine because it is the right thing to do, but we also stand by them because it is in our interests to do so. If we do not achieve a lasting peace, the instability and insecurity that has hit the living standards of working people in Britain will only get worse, and Putin’s appetite for conflict and chaos will only grow.
A strong peace, a just peace and a lasting peace: that has now to be our goal. It is vital, it is in our interests and, in its pursuit, Britain will lead from the front. For the security of our continent, the security of our country and the security of the British people, we must now win the peace. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The United Kingdom has long been a bastion of freedom and a steadfast defender of democracy. Ukraine has been fighting bravely and bitterly to maintain its sovereignty, its freedom and its democracy, for over three years. We salute its courage and its sacrifice, which has been immense in the face of the horrendous Russian aggression described by the Minister so eloquently. As I stated in your Lordships’ House last week, we on this side are fully committed to supporting the Government as they attempt now to forge a path towards peace.
This weekend reminded us of the influence of our nation. The welcome that President Zelensky received from His Majesty the King at Sandringham and the united front of European leaders convened by the Prime Minister demonstrated the best of British diplomacy. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his initiative and wish him well in his push for a coalition of the willing, led by the United Kingdom and France, to produce a plan to end the fighting in Ukraine. It is at times like this, when our country comes together in unity, that it makes us all in this House proud to be British.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s acknowledgement that we must not choose between either side of the Atlantic. The United States is our longest-standing and most important ally—as was said in the Statement—and that fact was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister’s visit to the White House last week. We are pleased that the Prime Minister and President Trump had such a successful and cordial meeting. This is important, and his continuing contacts with President Trump are equally important. I hope they will continue to demonstrate together the strength of the Anglo-American alliance.
The noble Baroness knows that we on these Benches support the uplift in defence spending announced last week and the difficult decisions associated with it. We welcome the further commitment to reach 3% in the next Parliament. As my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition said in the other place, we will support the Government in taking tough decisions where they are in the national interest. That is why we support the difficult decision—and it was difficult—to make the cut in the foreign aid budget to help bolster the defence budget.
In my response to the Statement in your Lordships’ House last week, I asked the noble Baroness a question to which she did not then respond—I understand, having been there, the exigencies and difficulties of those circumstances. Can she confirm that, if the deal to surrender the Chagos Islands to Mauritius does indeed go ahead, no payments in connection with that deal will come out of the defence budget? The new money for defence will be beneficial only if every penny is invested in our Armed Forces. It would be an indefensible position for money to be cut from the aid budget and moved to the defence budget to then be simply funnelled into the deal and paid to Mauritius. Can I have her assurance that this will not happen in respect of the defence budget?
I join my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition in welcoming the Prime Minister’s announcement of the use of the profits from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. Yesterday, my right honourable friend asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty’s Government have any plans to use the frozen assets themselves. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said to the House on this subject. Is she able to give the House any further outlook on how the frozen assets themselves will in future be used?
We awoke this morning to the news that the United States is pausing its military aid to Ukraine. Can the noble Baroness update the House on this? Has the Prime Minister had discussions, or will he be having discussions, with President Trump in the light of this announcement?
I reiterate the positive overall response that my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition gave to the Prime Minister’s Statement in another place. I hope that the Prime Minister will continue channelling this constructive and inclusive spirit, and demonstrating the significance of British leadership on the world stage, as he navigates the long road to peace and faces what will be many difficult decisions ahead. He will have our full consideration and support.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The adage that a week is a long time in politics has rarely been so graphically demonstrated than over the past seven days. In that time, we have seen the brutal treatment of the Ukrainian President by the President of the United States, the suspension of all US military support for Ukraine, and the beginnings of a co-ordinated European response to this new and dangerous situation.
In all of this, the Prime Minister has played a statesmanlike and positive role, and we commend him for it. No doubt we all found his presentation of the letter from the King to Trump cringeworthy, but there is no doubt that it helped to create a positive atmosphere for the talks which ensued. It was a small price to pay for a relatively positive outcome.
Nothing can excuse the new American position. It not only rips up the basis of our support for Ukraine but undermines Europe’s assumption that the US would in all circumstances be a strong and dependable ally. Today’s comments by JD Vance, which disrespect UK forces and their contribution alongside our American allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, are just the latest evidence of an arrogance and an ignorance that are chilling.
The response which the Prime Minister is adopting—to try to broker a re-engagement between the US and Ukraine while seeking to put together a coalition of the willing to defend Ukraine—is to be strongly welcomed. But I think it is a mistake to believe, as the Statement does, that under this presidency our relationship with America, at least in terms of security, can be strengthened to any significant extent.
Trump has made it clear that he does not accept a continuing responsibility for the security of Europe. We need to accept this and plan accordingly. This has major and unpalatable consequences in terms of military expenditure, but also provides opportunities for the UK to regain a leading position in Europe and for our defence industries.
In the short term, we welcome the loan to Ukraine backed by the interest from frozen Russian assets and the use of UK Export Finance to fund the purchase of missiles to be manufactured in Belfast. But these are relatively small interventions and much more is going to be needed.
One idea which is gaining traction is the establishment of an international rearmament bank, which would facilitate access to private sector capital for Ukraine’s ongoing struggles. Do the Government plan to pursue this?
Another proposal which we have discussed often in your Lordships’ House is for the seizure of Russian assets—the capital, not just the interest. In yesterday’s questions on the Statement, the Prime Minister said that this was being looked at but that it was very difficult. At the moment, this proposal seems to be being taken only half-seriously. I accept that legislation might be necessary to enable it to happen, but I am sure that Parliament would fast-track such a measure. Can the noble Baroness give us any indication of the timescale for further work on this proposal and whether the Government are prepared to legislate to implement it?
For the longer-term move to 3% of GDP for defence spending, we have suggested that the Government should initiate cross-party discussions to see whether a consensus can be reached on how this might be funded. Do the Government have any plans to do this?
Every passing day demonstrates that the UK and our European allies are going to have to accept a step-change increase in responsibilities for our own defence. The Prime Minister clearly accepts this also, and he has our firm support in moving to achieve it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments about the role of the Prime Minister. I know that the pride in how the Prime Minister has acted has not been confined to this side of the House and I am grateful to noble Lords from across the House who have sought out me and my colleagues to make that point. It is when things are at their most challenging that we see the best in those who step up to take the action that is needed. Even when that can be very difficult, it is always better to make those attempts to make things work better than to walk away or, as the Prime Minister said, to take sides on the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord True, made a similar comment and spoke of his pride in the Prime Minister and our Government. I can tell him that the Prime Minister spoke to both President Trump and President Zelensky on both Friday night and Saturday night. Both noble Lords are right that witnessing the—I do not know quite how to describe it—meeting between President Zelensky and President Trump was uncomfortable for everyone. But the first reaction of the Prime Minister is: how do we mend this breach and how do we take things forward from here? I think that is the only response that a Prime Minister should have to something like that.
On the frozen assets, which both noble Lords raised, the Prime Minister spoke about this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was, uncharacteristically, a bit churlish about it. It is very difficult: it is not a case of just bringing forward legislation in this country; other countries have to be involved as well. Indeed, there have been discussions, as you would imagine, this week, but there is ongoing work on that that will continue at pace.
On the Chagos Islands, there is no deal at present. This would be brought to your Lordships’ House as a treaty in the normal way. There is nothing to comment on regarding finances for that.
The noble Lord, Lord True, asked me to say something more about the pause. To be honest, this is so fast-moving at the moment—he will have seen President Zelensky’s statement that he made tonight, and we do not know yet if that has had an impact. We have not got any information about what that pause may engage and what it may mean at this stage. When we do, we will be happy to share that information, but the noble Lord will appreciate that, from when the Prime Minister made his Statement yesterday, I have been getting updates during the course of the day, because things are moving quite quickly, and I would not want to say anything that was wrong.
I thought the description from noble Lord, Lord Newby, of the Prime Minister’s invitation from the King to the President as “cringeworthy” was not appropriate. The Prime Minister and the King have been very clear in their support for President Zelensky, and I thought the meeting of the King with President Zelensky was one everybody welcomed. The Prime Minister said yesterday—and I have spoken to him about this as well—that, when President Zelensky came to Downing Street, the spontaneous response from the public was quite emotional. Zelensky was very moved by it, but I think the Prime Minister was as well. It is an emotional time for President Zelensky; his country and his people have been through a lot. We have seen that emotion in him and how he rises to the occasion. It is challenging, but I think all efforts must be welcomed.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, also asked about the rearmament bank. That was raised in the House of Commons yesterday, and the Prime Minister’s response then was very positive. It is one of the issues that the European leaders discussed, along with issues around what comes next. He is right: this is not the end of it; this is the start of it. It is going to be difficult. The idea that Europe has to step up and take a greater responsibility for our defence is something that everybody now recognises, and that is what we will continue to do.
I am not aware of any plans for cross-party discussions on government budgets at present, but we are aware of the impact and implications of this. We have been clear that we are seeking to move to 3% of GDP on defence spending in the next Parliament, and that commitment remains. At the moment, we are very determined that we give Ukraine all the support it needs. Key to that support is the sovereignty of Ukraine, and any deal on its future must involve Ukraine around the table.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has shown himself, by general acclaim, to be a superlative diplomat over the past few days, but he is dealing with a moving target. Since that Statement, we have had both the pause in the supply of military equipment from President Trump and the conciliatory response from President Zelensky. The lawyers will say that one’s intention is shown by the consequences of one’s actions. Clearly, one consequence of the pause of the supply of US matériel has been a major tilt in favour of Russia in the battlefield as Russia tries to gain more territory before an eventual ceasefire. Surely this cannot be the intention of President Trump.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not sure I got the last part of the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Essentially, if the intention is shown by the natural consequences of one’s action then it is clear that the natural consequence of the pause is to give a major advantage on the battlefield to the Russians. Surely that cannot be the intention of President Trump.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I would hesitate to guess what President Trump’s intention is. We have been clear that our support for Ukraine is unwavering, but we do not know yet what is involved in the pause, or indeed whether the pause will take place. We have seen the same reports, but if I get more information, I will be happy to come back. Whether President Zelensky’s response has had an impact, we are not yet sure.
Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Prime Minister for the stance that he has taken and the work he has been doing with European and other allies; this is extremely important. The proposal to bring together a plan for a just and lasting peace, which is acceptable to Ukraine and which denies Putin a victory, is essential work. However, as we have seen from the announcement by the White House about the pause in military support to Ukraine, that work is ever more urgent. Can the Minister reassure this House that the Government are redoubling their efforts with their allies to come forward with a proposal that can be put to the United States of America? Can she indicate whether the Prime Minister has received any suggestion or indication from the Trump White House that it is willing to consider seriously any proposal that comes forward?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right: we have to redouble our efforts. President Macron and the Prime Minister in particular are working on a plan at some pace. I do not know the details of all the Prime Minister’s conversations with President Trump; I know they are frequent at present. At every stage, the Prime Minister has said that we will present this to President Trump and the American Administration, and we will urge them to support a plan. President Trump has made it clear that Europe has to stand up and that is what Europe is doing. Countries are working together. That is the start of a process and there will be further meetings of those European leaders represented there. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right; it is very important that we get a plan and then take it to President Trump to seek to get agreement for that.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I join in the praise of the Prime Minister’s performance in the last few days, which has drawn a great deal of admiration. It is clear that he is operating in very difficult circumstances, and one understands some of what he feels he has to say. Of course the transatlantic relationship is very important, not least in security, but the Prime Minister referred to President Trump’s “clear support” for Article 5 of NATO. Unfortunately, that is not something that many of us perceive. Can the Minister tell us whether the current circumstances are giving a real boost to the attempt to have a reset with the EU, including on security and defence co-operation? What news can she give us on that front, not just on the very welcome intergovernmental co-operation with our European allies but on us plugging into some of the EU defence-industrial co-operation?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness’s description of the Prime Minister’s “performance” and of him feeling that he has to say things do not do justice to the gravity of the situation. It is not a performance; the Prime Minister holds strong views that we will work with our American allies, because the most important thing here is that we work with President Zelensky to seek peace. We want a stable and enduring peace, with Ukrainian sovereignty. Yes, the President did commit to Article 5 of NATO. and yes, one of the Government’s early commitments was defence and security co-operation with the EU.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and echo other comments in your Lordships’ House about the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown in recent days. In Norfolk last week, I spent time with some of the brave Ukrainian men and women who are being trained, over a very short five-week period, by the Irish Guards and instructors from a range of international allies under Operation Interflex, learning the vital skills that they need to defend their nation in the face of Putin’s illegal invasion. Will the Minister give assurances that this commitment to Operation Interflex and to train Ukrainian men and women remains absolutely ironclad and will continue for as long as it is needed?
Although support for the uplift of the defence budget has been shown on this Bench, we are disappointed that it has been achieved, after little debate, by taking from the overseas development budget. Building on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will the Minister accept that, if and when we go further and spend 3% of GDP on defence, we will need to have a wider public conversation about how that will be funded?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. I think that most people are not aware of the depth and breadth of the support for Ukraine. He made a powerful point on training and Interflex. The answer to his question is yes, that does continue and we are committed to it. I understand the disappointment around the cut to the ODA budget. It was a great disappointment to us as well; it was done with no pleasure or glee. The right reverend Prelate may be aware of the comments made by the Prime Minister in the other place yesterday that he wants to
“work with others … across the House … on other ways of raising money and finance for development and aid overseas”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/25; col. 29.]
He has already met with the president of the World Bank to look at some of the options. We have a deeper commitment to returning to 0.7% as we are able to do so.
I think that the public are becoming more aware of the need for defence spending. It has been taken for granted for many years. We had the dividends of peace post the Cold War. The world is changing. We have to be part of that discussion and that awareness by doing our bit to explain to the public and engage with them on why this is necessary.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, on that very point, is it not the case, if we do increase defence expenditure substantially to replace the withdrawal of American expenditure to some extent and for other reasons, as it seems we have to, that this represents a totally different situation from that which existed last July, at the time of the general election? Is it not the case that pledges given not to increase taxation in those circumstances have less relevance today? Surely it would be fairer all the way around if the cost of defence expenditure fell on the broadest shoulders that can bear it, not on the poorest people of the world.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there are two points there. First, the strategic defence review is coming up, and we will have the response of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who is not here at the moment. He has spoken already about the strategic defence review that he is leading, and the Government will be informed by that. It is probably above my pay grade to touch on the Chancellor’s toes before the next Budget. The Government are taking all these issues into account to look at how we can best do this, but we have also had quite stagnant growth in this country for some time. Increasing the growth of our economy will be crucial to looking at how we fund all our commitments overseas and public services here.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I join the unanimous support that the House has given to the efforts of the Prime Minister, and we all congratulate the Prime Minister on what he has sought to do in the past few days. Alas, however, his efforts have not yet met with success—and it is clear, is it not, that even in the few days that have elapsed since this House last responded to a Statement in the other place on this issue that the crisis has become more acute and that, though it grieves me to say so, we cannot rely on the United States under this President. I quite understand why the noble Baroness cannot say that and why the Prime Minister cannot say that, but it is, sadly, the truth. Is it not clear that, given what has happened even in these last few days, however difficult it may be, we have to have an urgent increase in the defence budget, greater and sooner than the Prime Minister indicated last week?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is right, and it is at times like these that any Prime Minister would be tested to ensure that we get the best for our country. The first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens, and we must do what it takes to achieve that. The Prime Minister, reaching out across the Atlantic but also across Europe, has taken a leadership role with other European leaders, which has been really important for this country as well. The noble Lord will know that defence spending is not something that you can turn on like a tap, and in getting to 2.5% there is a lot of work to be done, but we will be led by the strategic defence review, which will indicate where we are leading. But the Government will always take a change in circumstances into account.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I join others in commending the Government for their Statement and their actions in recent days. It is perhaps symbolic that Belfast will be at the heart of the UK support in the aid that we are providing to Ukraine, because it symbolically shows that support from Ukraine is not just from all quarters of this House but from all parts of our nation. I agree with the Government that we want to see peace, and a just and lasting peace, but the Government are also right in saying that the best opportunity for that is through strength and deterrence. In the light of the pause in support from the United States, which many of us fear will be a long-term cessation rather than simply a pause, what assurances can the noble Baroness give the House that this country and other participants in the coalition of the willing will be able to ensure that there is sufficient aid going to Ukraine and, vitally, that it flows quickly enough to ensure that a gap is not created that Putin’s regime can try to exploit, leaving Ukraine vulnerable?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is right—and I do not want to say anything more about the pause at this stage, because we simply do not know enough, and we do not know the impact of President Zelensky’s response. But we are well aware of those challenges. I mentioned the strategic defence review, and a national armaments director will be in place soon to look at those issues as well. But the security of Ukraine is not just about aid to Ukraine; it is also about the security and protection of this country. We need to be aware of that at all times. If we ignore the security of Ukraine issues, we have seen on our own shores before—as we saw in Salisbury, for example—that Russian aggression is an issue for this country, not just for other countries overseas. So we will work with Ukraine.
The point was made, which I reiterate, that the Prime Minister has brought together the coalition of the willing across Europe. One thing that has been a problem in the past is that we tend to move as slowly as the most reluctant member, and the Prime Minister is saying that we have to lead from the front and ask, “Where are the willing?” So we have the coalition of the willing so that we do not delay in any way at all and do as much as we can as quickly as we can.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships’ House of my interest as a member of the Army Board. I welcome the Government’s commitment to spending £3 billion in military aid until 2030, but my plea is that we are smart in how we spend it: first, that we ensure that we use it to re-energise the land industrial base in the UK, which we have allowed to atrophy over many years; and, secondly, that we recognise that the nature of warfare has changed. Historically, in the land domain, the depth of the battlefield was 80 kilometres; it is now 800 kilometres, and capabilities need to change to adapt for that. Can we ensure that we use this money as a catalyst to develop our own capabilities so we can then use those capabilities to ensure that we meet the Chief of the General Staff’s aim of doubling the lethality of the British Army by 2027?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. It is the purpose of the strategic defence review to look at all those issues and bring them to government. There is also an issue around defence procurement and always ensuring that we get the best value. I used to represent a constituency that had a defence industry and I am well aware of the problems that have existed with procurement. By reviewing procurement and being informed by the strategic defence review, we will do our best to get these issues right.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I warmly welcome the tone of the Leader of the Opposition Benches tonight, and what the noble Baroness, Lady May, said. The Prime Minister’s measured public tone deserves applause; I join those who say that he is handling this crisis very well. The measured public tone entitles him to send private messages, and the bit of his statement that I most liked, I think, was that the Ukrainians must be at the table when their future is negotiated.
Thirty years ago, American peacekeepers negotiated at Dayton, very successfully, a solution to the Bosnian war. Richard Holbrooke was brilliant. All parties were there in Dayton, Ohio. We were there—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, who is not here tonight, was there. The warring parties accepted US mediation: there was an understanding among them that the US and its allies would be there to enforce the deal and ensure that all parties respected it. That was what enabled parties to come to an agreement. It would be very good if the Prime Minister would encourage the President of the United States to maintain open channels of communication with Kyiv. That is rather important. We should not criticise the President for talking to Moscow. That is a perfectly sensible thing to do. What he said to Moscow, of course, I do not know.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his experience of these issues; we would all do well to heed him. He is right: a peace negotiated without Ukraine at the table will not endure and be sustained. He is also right to refer to a security guarantee, which has been part of the issue in negotiations. The important thing is that everybody strives for peace. It is clear that there are different ways and different views on how that can be achieved. The two crucial points that the noble Lord mentioned—Ukraine at the table and a security guarantee—are the only way to have something that will endure.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Prime Minister’s comments on President Putin’s appetite for chaos. I assume that the Government believe that he should not be rewarded for that. I should like to ask the Leader two questions. First, there are other countries in the near neighbourhood of Russia which are very anxious because the UK has been a critical supporter in resilience to the interference of Russia, whether it is in Moldova or the Baltics. That has been under UK’s ODA. Can the Leader ensure that the UK’s ODA support, which is up to £500 million under the integrated security fund, will be protected from the cuts to ODA that are proposed to fund defence expenditure?
Secondly, on the assets that we are seeking to use the interest of, I am assuming that the Government believe that Russia and the Kremlin’s apparatchiks should not have that money back. In that case, we should be receiving, as my noble friend Lord Newby said, the capital interest, with the capital itself going towards funding the Ukrainian recovery.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point. The security of the Baltics and Moldova is extremely important, which is why the Prime Minister has had long conversations with those countries recently. He has also spoken to them about how they can be better engaged and we can ensure that we have wider engagement when we talk about Europe as a whole. That will be very important. He has assured them in these conversations that we will look again at the configuration of meetings with those states and other allies to ensure that they are properly represented and their views can be heard, particularly because of their vulnerable position.
The noble Lord will understand that I will not make commitments on particular areas of ODA. My noble friend Lady Chapman talked today about how important the ongoing work is; it is not just a case of pulling the rug out from under people—there has to be a proper discussion and we must look at the impact. It will take some time to work this through carefully. I will draw his comments to her attention.
On Russian assets, we are using the interest now and there are ongoing discussions about that. If it were easy, it would have been done already. It is not through reluctance that it is not being done. It is being actively pursued.