Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Wednesday 11th June 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteePublic Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-I(a) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (3 Jun 2025)
Baroness Finn
Member’s explanatory statement
This would permit the applicant to request a review into the existence/value of the payable amount.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, our amendments in this group seek to strengthen the rights of the liable person in the review process, incorporate further consideration of the cost burden we are asking banks to shoulder and ensure that parliamentary scrutiny can be applied to any further changes the Minister makes by regulations to direct deduction orders. As has been the spirit of all our amendments, we have an ambition to work with the Government to make suggestions for improvement on the provisions they have set out. We believe that our amendments in this group are an effective way of ensuring that oversight, parliamentary accountability and collaboration with partners in the banking sector are made a firm part of the Bill, which will make it more effective in achieving our common aim.
Our Amendment 60A would leave out Clause 35(5). As noble Lords will know, Clause 35(5) as currently drafted restricts the ability of an applicant to request a review into the existence or value of the amount they are said to owe. This amendment seeks to remove that restriction and, in doing so, restore a basic principle of fairness and accountability in the administration of public funds.
It is an established principle of public law that individuals should have the right to challenge the basis of a financial demand made upon them by the state, not just how it is enforced but whether it is rightly due at all. Yet, as things stand, Clause 35(5) precludes that possibility. It denies the applicant the right to request a review of either the existence of the debt or the amount allegedly payable.
Let us consider the potential consequences of this. An individual could be told that they owe a significant sum without any meaningful opportunity to question the underlying calculation or whether the liability even exists. That is not the mark of a fair or just system. It may be argued that efficiency or administrative simplicity requires limits to review rights, but this must not come at the expense of natural justice.
In matters of financial liability, particularly when imposed by the state, a person must surely be entitled to ask, “Is this right? Is this fair? Can I see how this was calculated?” This amendment simply ensures that the door is not closed on those reasonable questions. Moreover, transparency and accountability benefit not only the individual but the public authority itself. The ability to request a review can act as a safeguard against error, build public trust and ensure that determinations are robust and evidence-based. It supports better administration, not weaker enforcement.
To summarise, this amendment does not seek to open the floodgates to frivolous challenges. It simply allows a person the right to question whether a debt exists and whether the amount is correct—rights that are fundamental in any fair system. I urge the Minister and noble colleagues to support this modest but important change.
Our Amendment 61A seeks to add proposed new subsection (2A) to Clause 37. The amendment is straightforward, modest in scope but essential in purpose. It would require that any regulations made by the Minister under subsections (1) and (2) which relate to the operation of direct deduction orders be accompanied by an impact assessment. This assessment would focus specifically on the projected cost and the operational capacity of the banks tasked with implementing these orders, and would require that this assessment be laid before Parliament.
The rationale for this amendment is simple: regulatory clarity, economic realism and operational accountability. When these powers are exercised through regulations, it is vital that that is done with clear regard for the third-party organisations that will be shouldering the cost. Banks and financial institutions play a crucial role in the administration of direct deduction orders, acting as the operational arm of the enforcement process. They must identify accounts, verify balances, execute deductions and respond to any errors or disputes. These are not trivial tasks. They involve significant back-office effort, compliance oversight, system changes and, crucially, legal liability.
I and noble Lords across the Committee made our thoughts and concerns on this matter clear at the previous Committee day earlier this week, although I should reiterate that we are asking banks to dedicate serious resources to undertake functions on behalf of the public sector. If we are asking banks to do this, we must commit to working with them, not despite them. Yet, under the current drafting of Clause 37, the Government are empowered to make potentially significant changes to the rules around these orders without any obligation to assess or disclose the impact those changes may have on the very institutions expected to carry them out. This amendment does not block those powers; it merely introduces a duty to consider and explain the consequences. In doing so, it reflects good regulatory practice and ensures Parliament can properly scrutinise whether such changes are proportionate, practical and economically viable.
Let us remember that unintended consequences are often the product of insufficient consultation and opaque regulation. Requiring an impact assessment is not burdensome red tape; it is a basic tool of sound policy-making. It gives banks the foresight they need to prepare and adapt their systems responsibly, and it gives Parliament and the public confidence that the Government have weighed the risks and costs before acting. To summarise, Amendment 61A is not about resisting enforcement or shielding account holders. It is about ensuring that the infrastructure behind enforcement is fit for purpose, and that the decisions taken in Whitehall do not create avoidable burdens in the banking system, which could ultimately impact consumers as well.
Finally, our Amendment 61B proposes the insertion of a new subsection (6A), requiring that the outcome of the consultations carried out under subsection (6) be laid before Parliament prior to the coming into force of any regulations made under Clause 37. This amendment seeks to strengthen parliamentary oversight and transparency in the regulatory process. Currently, Clause 37 allows for regulations to be made following consultation but does not explicitly require that the results or finding of those consultations be presented to Parliament before the regulations take effect. This risks creating a situation whereby Parliament and, by extension, the public have limited visibility into the views expressed by stakeholders during consultation and how those views have influenced the final regulatory decisions. The amendment would ensure that Parliament is fully informed of the consultation outcomes before regulations are implemented.
This is vital for several reasons. First, it supports the principle of accountability. Parliament should have the opportunity to scrutinise not only the content of new regulations but the process by which they were developed, including the concerns, evidence and recommendations raised by those consulted. Secondly, it promotes transparency. Stakeholders, including financial institutions, consumers and civil society, can see how their input has been considered and can hold the Government to account if the consultation appears to have been perfunctory or to have ignored key issues. Thirdly, this measure will encourage better-quality consultations by ensuring that the Government give proper weight to responses before finalising regulations. In short, this amendment is a commonsense safeguard to enhance democratic oversight, improve policy-making and build trust in the regulatory process concerning these important financial regulations.
These amendments collectively serve to reinforce fairness, transparency and accountability at every stage of the process, from ensuring individuals have the fundamental right to challenge financial liabilities to safeguarding that banks are neither overburdened nor overlooked, and guarantee that Parliament exercises proper scrutiny over any regulatory changes. The amendments embody a commitment to responsible governance and collaboration with all parties involved and improve the Bill’s effectiveness in delivering its goals while protecting the rights of those affected. I respectfully urge all noble Lords to support these sensible and necessary amendments so that this legislation can proceed, strengthened by clarity, oversight and justice. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Finn, particularly on Amendment 60A, because as we go through this process it feels as though the Government are trying to be judge and jury on whether the existence of an order should apply at all. I am conscious that it is important that the Government be allowed to get on and have this more straightforward way of collecting money that they are due, but it strikes me as pretty draconian that the question of whether a debt exists cannot be challenged—it cannot go for review. I appreciate we are debating the amendment, but I say by the way, in reference to the Explanatory Notes for Clause 34 on the process for review, that the legislation does not point to the fact that it is supposed to go to a higher-grade person; I am sure that it will be set out in guidance, which I hope will have statutory standing. It strikes me as odd that, having not been able to even challenge whether the order should exist, you cannot go to a tribunal about it, either. Ministers will know that I wish that parts of the Bill would go further in trying to get money back from people in a variety of ways, but in this area I do not agree with the approach of the Government and certainly agree with that of my noble friend.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, proved the other day, Amendment 60A is not necessary because Clause 12 sets out clearly that these orders can be used only where there has been a final determination of the amount owing by the court or where it has been agreed.
However, I support Amendment 61A. Frankly, it is becoming a bit of a weakness in an awful lot of areas that the impact assessments that come with legislation are regularly quite poor. It is incredibly important that, when we make regulations that will have impacts on people, we understand what those impacts are.
I have one other question that I probably should have dealt with by means of an amendment, but I have only just spotted something. Why are regulations made under Clauses 37(2)(c) to (f) subject to the negative procedure and not the affirmative procedure?
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, raise important considerations about procedural fairness and transparency in the implementation of the Bill. Amendment 60A, which would allow applicants to request a review into the existence or value of the payable amount, would provide a valuable safeguard, ensuring that individuals have an accessible means to challenge decisions where there might be uncertainty or dispute. This aligns well with the principle of natural justice and could help prevent errors going uncorrected.
Amendments 61A and 61B focus on the mechanisms surrounding direct deduction orders, emphasising the need for accountability and parliamentary oversight. Requiring an impact assessment to accompany any changes to the processing of these orders, as proposed in Amendment 61A, would encourage transparency about the potential costs and effects on banks’ operational capacity. Similarly, Amendment 61B’s provision that consultation outcomes must be laid before Parliament prior to implementation would ensure democratic scrutiny. Together, these amendments would contribute to a more open and considered approach, balancing the efficient recovery of public funds with the need for oversight and due process, and I support them.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a helpful and constructive debate. I shall just clarify some points that have been made and respond directly to some of the questions. I think I can answer them all; if not, I will reflect on Hansard.
Amendment 60A would enable the liable person to appeal against the existence and value of what they owe as a result of fraud or error as part of the appeal process for direct deduction orders. I remind noble Lords that direct deduction orders are used only if a liable person has opted not to come to the table and negotiate. This is not the first way in which we would have engaged; it is at the end of a process.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. As we draw this discussion to a close, I will return to the core principles that underpin the amendments: fairness, accountability and proper parliamentary scrutiny. We are dealing here with significant powers that affect people’s financial lives and impose responsibilities on third-party institutions. They must, at all times, be exercised with care and transparency. These amendments are about balance—ensuring the systems that we design to serve the public also protect the public.
Amendment 60A restores a basic yet essential right to question whether the debt exists and whether the amount is correct. However, I take note of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that this is potentially duplicative.
The Minister referred to Clause 66 and the authorised officer of a higher grade carrying out a review. The clause does not stipulate the level of the higher-grade official. I know that that is possibly nitpicking, but I think that it is still relevant.
Amendment 61A asks that, when regulatory powers are used to place operational burdens on banks, those impacts are first assessed and made transparent. It is a modest ask, but an important one. Banks are not silent agents of the state; they are commercial entities with obligations to their customers and regulators. As such, they deserve clarity, predictability and due regard from the institutions asking them to take on these roles. I disagree with the Minister that this is duplicatory, as the consultations with the banks are still ongoing. Therefore, we cannot say that we have reached any firm conclusions on what is going on.
Amendment 61B ensures that consultation is not merely a procedural check box but a meaningful process, the outcomes of which inform Parliament and shape decision-making. If we are to legislate well, we must know not just what is proposed but what has been heard and how that has shaped the result.
Together these amendments promote a better Bill that is robust, yet fair, efficient and accountable. They do not add unnecessary bureaucracy; they add safeguards. I end where I began—in the spirit of constructive improvement. These are reasonable, carefully framed proposals that aim to strengthen the legislation, not frustrate it. I hope that the Minister will reflect on them with that spirit in mind, and I urge the Committee to support the principle of these amendments as practical measures to ensure that the Bill works not just in form but in fairness. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.
“Deputies(1) This section applies where a person (a “deputy”) acts on behalf of an account holder (including a liable person) in relation to their account by virtue of—(a) a power of attorney, or(b) an appointment by, or an order of, a court.(2) The following provisions apply in relation to the deputy of the account holder as they apply in relation to the account holder—(a) section 17(7);(b) section 19(5)(b) and (c);(c) section 19(9);(d) section 19(9A);(e) section 21;(f) section 26(1);(g) section 28;(h) section 29(3), (6) and (8)(b);(i) section 30(3);(j) section 31(3);(k) section 32(2);(l) section 34;(m) section 35.(3) Section 29(7)(a) and (b) applies in relation to the deputy of the account holder instead of the account holder.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause, together with my amendment to clause 27, page 17, line 12, ensures that the provisions about direct deduction orders in Part 1 of the Bill operate effectively where a person acts on behalf of an account holder by virtue of a power of attorney or an appointment by, or an order of, a court.
Baroness Finn
“(4A) The decision reached by the Minister under subsection (4) must be communicated to the liable person, with the reason given by the Minister provided in writing, as soon as is practicable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would ensure that the liable person is provided with the outcome of the review of their representations by the Minister in writing.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the amendments that we have tabled in this group seek to ensure greater clarity and communication between the liable person and the Cabinet Office; to ensure that costs are determined in conjunction with those who actually incur them; and to ensure that a suspended deduction order cannot be restarted over an unlimited period. These are principles that we outlined and argued for in our previous day in Committee, but they are important maxims and the only way in which we can construct in the Bill a system in which the public can trust.
Our Amendment 61C to Clause 40 seeks to insert proposed new subsection (4A), which would require that any
“decision reached by the Minister under subsection (4) must be communicated to the liable person … in writing”,
along with the reasoning for that decision. It would also require this to be done
“as soon as is practicable”.
This is a modest but important amendment. It would not alter the substance of the powers contained in Clause 40, nor would it constrain the Minister’s discretion. What it would do is place a clear duty of communication and explanation on the Minister once a determination has been made, ensuring that the person subject to that decision is properly and promptly informed.
This is not merely an administrative nicety; it is a matter of basic procedural fairness. If a person has exercised their right to make representations in response to enforcement action, often in situations of personal or financial vulnerability, it is entirely right and reasonable that they should be told in clear terms what decision has been reached and on what basis. Without such a provision, there is a risk of individuals being left in a state of uncertainty, unaware of whether their representations have been considered or why a particular outcome has been reached. This would not only be frustrating for the individual but could undermine confidence in the integrity and transparency of the process.
This amendment supports good administration. Providing a written decision with reasoning ensures that a decision is recorded, understood and open to further challenge if appropriate. It encourages clarity in decision-making and helps to avoid disputes or misunderstandings later down the line. It is also consistent with wider principles of public law. The right to be informed of decisions that affect one’s rights and obligations, as well as to understand the reasons for those decisions, is fundamental to administrative justice. Indeed, it is hard to see how meaningful accountability or the right to further appeal could exist without such a provision.
Let us not overlook the practical benefit. A timely written explanation provides certainty. It tells the liable person where they stand, where further action may be necessary and what their next steps, if any, might be. This amendment would not impose an onerous duty on the Minister; it would simply codify what many would consider to be best practice. It would bring clarity, transparency and fairness to the process. For that reason, I hope that the Government will consider this amendment and that noble Lords across the Committee will support it.
Our Amendment 61D is related to this principle of accountability and transparency. It would require the Minister to demonstrate in writing their consideration of a liable person’s wider circumstances upon request. At first glance, this may appear to be a procedural point, but, in reality, it speaks to a deeper principle: the right of an individual to know that their personal circumstances have been properly considered when a decision is made about them, particularly in a context where that decision could have serious financial and legal consequences.
Clause 41 rightly requires that the Minister be satisfied
“that the terms of the order … will not cause the liable person or a person within subsection (2) to suffer hardship in meeting ordinary living expenses, and … are otherwise fair in all the circumstances”
before authorising a deduction order. This is a welcome provision. It recognises that enforcement powers must be exercised proportionately and with an understanding of individual context. However, it is not enough to say that consideration will be given; there must also be a means of demonstrating that it has been. This amendment would address precisely that by ensuring that, where a liable person asks for confirmation of how their wider circumstances were assessed, the Minister is obliged to respond, in writing, setting out the outcome of that assessment.
The Minister might ask why this is necessary. The answer to that is because, without such a duty, the obligation to consider a person’s circumstances risks becoming a purely internal exercise—one that is neither visible nor verifiable to the person it affects. This undermines both transparency and trust. If the individual has no way of knowing how or whether their situation has truly been taken into account, the provision risks becoming hollow.
This amendment does not require a detailed statement of reasons in every case, nor does it impose an undue administrative burden. It says simply that, if the liable person asks, they are entitled to know how their situation was considered. That is not a radical notion; it is a matter of basic fairness, and it also supports better decision-making. When decision-makers know that they may be asked to justify their reasoning, they are more likely to give genuine and careful consideration to the facts, and when individuals receive that explanation, they are more likely to accept the outcome, even if it is not in their favour, because they can see that they were treated seriously and with respect. Moreover, it is consistent with principles of natural justice and administrative accountability. People should not be kept in the dark about decisions that affect them, especially when those decisions involve the exercise of coercive state powers over their finances.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 61C and 61D in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, seek to ensure that liable persons receive clear written communication regarding the outcomes of reviews and that Ministers demonstrate due consideration of wider circumstances when requested. This kind of transparency is crucial in practice, as it helps individuals to understand the basis of decisions affecting their finances and provides reassurance that their personal situations are being taken into account. For many people facing recovery actions, receiving clear, accessible information can make a significant difference in navigating the process and seeking further recourse, if needed.
Amendments 61E and 61F, alongside Amendments 62A and 62C, address important procedural and operational details that could impact on both individuals and employers. For example, limiting the scope of regulations as proposed in Amendment 61E may prevent regulatory overreach, providing clearer boundaries for those affected. Consulting employers on costs regarded as reasonably incurred, as proposed in Amendment 61F, encourages dialogue and can help to avoid disputes over financial responsibilities. Meanwhile, the provisions to restrict the restart of suspended deduction requirements after 24 months, as proposed in Amendment 62B, and to ensure written reasons for revocation of deduction orders, as in Amendment 62C, introduce important safeguards that promote fairness and clarity. In practical terms, these measures help to reduce uncertainty for both liable persons and employers, fostering greater trust and smoother administration. I support these amendments.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wanted to reiterate my particular support of Amendments 62A and 62B, even though they do not go as far as my amendment in relation to suspended orders. The sense of a sword of Damocles hanging over people is something that we could do with getting rid of. That would be an easy thing for the Government to accept without in any way compromising the aims of the Bill.
In relation to the other amendments, which I broadly support, I want to emphasise something that I keep thinking as I read the Bill and sit through Committee. Many aspects of the legislation can create an atmosphere of fear, uncertainty and sometimes even paranoia about what is going on if there is a sense of secrecy. This could be alleviated with the opening up of human communication to explain reasoning. These are difficult situations. We are talking, in some instances, about people who have committed wrongdoing of some sort, but it is important that liable persons have a sense of understanding the process. Very often, the way that the process gets stuck behind closed doors has created all sorts of problems in parallel situations.
I want to emphasise how, if things are left to internal processes, it can reduce them to hollow box-ticking. Civil servants or whoever knowing that they can be answerable will ensure that better work is carried out. It will also help to smooth the way for people to take this Bill seriously and not see it as some grand state surveillance conspiracy. It is important, in order to give credibility to the fraud recovery at the heart of the Bill, that the Government are seen to be as flexible as possible about all parties being held to account for what would otherwise be seen as some quite draconian powers.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, all these amendments pertain to deduction from earnings orders—or DEOs, as I shall refer to them from here. DEOs are a mechanism by which the PSFA can instruct an employer to make deductions from the liable person’s salary in order to recover the money owed as a result of fraud or error. This power can be exercised only after the amount owed has been agreed by the liable person, a court or tribunal, or if the penalty appeal period has lapsed or an appeal has been finally determined. People can avoid their employers being contacted if they simply engage with us and pay what they owe.
DEOs are an established mechanism used by the courts, the DWP, the Child Maintenance Service and some local authorities. We have sought to emulate best practice and established processes to make it straightforward for the employers that have to implement them. There are safeguards for the liable person, such as a protected earnings amount of 60% and the requirement for deductions to be affordable and fair, as set out in Clause 41.
Before an order is made, the liable person will have the opportunity to make representation on the proposed terms. Amendment 61C would create an obligation for the PSFA to provide the reasoning behind its decision to proceed with a DEO following these representations. Amendment 61D would create a similar obligation for the PSFA to demonstrate that it has taken the liable person’s wider circumstances into account when determining the level of affordable and fair deductions. Both these amendments are duplicative as the PSFA would be doing this anyway, as a matter of good public law. As I outlined previously, guidance will also be published detailing what information will be supplied to the liable person as part of the wider decision-making processes.
Amendment 61E would limit the regulation-making powers in Clause 41(7) to establishing affordability considerations. We have striven to put as much detail into the Bill as possible, but there are elements where it is valuable to have a degree of flexibility so that further conditions or restrictions can be added to the measures to reflect wider societal, economic and technological changes. This amendment would severely limit the Government’s ability to adapt to these changes and impact the efficacy of this recovery method, thus potentially reducing the money lost to fraud that could be recovered in the future.
Amendment 61F would require that the PSFA consults with employers on the level of admin costs that they can charge the liable person for implementing a DEO. There are standard charges of £1 per deduction period allowed by the courts and other organisations that use DEOs. It is not for the PSFA to set up a different regime single-handedly, as it will be following established processes already used across government. If it is felt that changes to this charge should be made, they would need to be done in conjunction with the other bodies.
Amendments 62A and 62B would prevent a suspended DEO from being restarted after 24 months. We discussed the same matter on Monday, in relation to direct deduction orders. I confirm that I am still reflecting on the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Finn, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which also apply to DEOs, and I am having meetings with officials on them. It is important that the PSFA has discretion in how it can react to individual circumstances counterbalanced against its duty to recover money lost to fraud and error in the most appropriate way. There is a balance to be struck and I shall report back on my reflections in due course.
Finally, Amendment 62C would require that, when the PSFA revokes a DEO, it provides the reasoning to both the liable person and their employer. In practice, this would be shared with the liable person as a matter of good public law to safeguard the public law duty of fairness in decision-making for the individuals subject to the orders. However, there are serious privacy considerations that could be undermined by providing such information to the employer. Upon the establishment of a DEO, the employer is not told anything about the DEO other than what is to be deducted from the liable person’s salary. This is the only information of relevance to the employer. Any other information would be a breach of privacy.
Regarding some of the other points raised, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I think it would be helpful to your Lordships if I assist them with some more information on safeguards. Regarding the safeguards in place for the use of DEOs, including preventing hardship, the Public Sector Fraud Authority has committed to the following safeguards: vulnerability assessments, maximum deduction amounts, opportunities for representation, reviews and appeals, and the ability to notify a change of circumstances. The PSFA will continue to utilise best practice from across government.
On the question of who determines the amount of debt owed, the Public Sector Fraud Authority’s investigation will calculate the debt owed to the Government as a result of fraud or error following an investigation into suspected fraud. The liable person will be notified of the recoverable amount. If they do not agree, a firm and final determination will be sought by a court or tribunal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked what is meant by “among other things” in Clause 41. Clause 41(6) gives the Minister powers to
“make further provision about the calculation of amounts to be deducted”
in respect of DEOs. To be clear, to make further provision would not allow the Minister to qualify or change the provision, only to add specific conditions or restrictions that can be taken into account when calculating the amount to be deducted. As given as an example in Clause 41(7), the key consideration will be hardship and defining what constitutes hardship. It is important that the definition of hardship is not fixed, as what constitutes hardship today may look very different in, say, 10 years’ time.
The term “among other things” could also include other items that can be taken into account when calculating DEOs that are not so immediately obvious. For example, the regulations could be used in allowing for a different deduction rate around the Christmas period, when the liable person might have other outgoings that would not be reasonably foreseeable when the order was first given.
I hope that goes some way to assuring noble Lords about our safeguards and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I listened to the Minister, and I listened to her the other day on the same subjects regarding DDOs. A question occurs. In many cases, the amount owed is set by the court. Why, then, does the court not decide how that amount should be repaid? Why do we have to go through all these processes and decisions by the departments rather than the court?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point, on which I will have to reflect and come back to him, if that is okay.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the Minister and look forward to her reflections. In closing, I return to the core principle running through each of the amendments in this group: public confidence in enforcement powers depends not just on the ability to cover funds but on the manner in which those powers are exercised. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was also emphatic in this regard.
Whether they concern ensuring that decisions are properly communicated, that personal circumstances are demonstrably considered, that employers are consulted on the burdens placed on them or that enforcement is time-bound and proportionate, our amendments seek to build a framework that is seen as being as fair and accountable as it is effective.
We have not sought to unpick the intent of the Bill or to weaken the Government’s ability to recover what is owed. But we have sought to refine it responsibly and constructively, so that those affected by its provisions are treated with clarity, respect and procedural justice. We have argued, with these amendments, that decisions should be explained in writing, circumstances must be considered and shown to be considered, and powers must be bounded by purpose, not open-ended phrasing. I take the Minister’s points on “among other things”, but it is a rather clumsy way to write legislation. The fact that she introduced “among other things” and gave some examples shows that this should be more tightly drawn.
Baroness Sherlock
(a) the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the day on which the liable person was notified of the outcome of the review, or(b) such longer period (if any) as the Tribunal considers reasonable in all the circumstances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that the tribunal can extend the time limit for bringing an appeal in relation to a deduction from earnings order.
Baroness Finn
“(2) “Help” is defined in this section as the provision of any information, advice or support which could reasonably be assumed to be intended to acquire payments which are, or, if the payment was not made, would have been, a recoverable amount, or with the result that a public authority is entitled to claim any other recoverable amount.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that those seeking to aid fraud through the provision of any information, advice or support could be subject to a penalty.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, our amendments in this group seek to clarify definitions with a view to combating those who seek to encourage and facilitate fraud, and to incorporate further checks on the exercise of powers in this part of the Bill. Our Amendment 63A seeks to define “help” for the purposes of this clause, clarifying that it includes the provision of any information, advice or support that could reasonably be assumed to be intended to obtain fraudulent payments from the public purse.
This amendment may appear, at first glance, to be a matter of drafting, but it goes to the very heart of a growing, pernicious challenge that we face in safeguarding public funds—namely, the rise of individuals and groups who use online platforms to encourage, facilitate or instruct others on how to commit fraud against public bodies. These individuals do not necessarily commit the fraud themselves but they profit from or promote the circumvention of rules, frequently offering guides, tips or templates for making false claims for benefits, grants or other forms of public support. Some go further still by sharing videos, creating paid content or selling advice designed to enable abuse of the system. This is organised dishonesty masquerading as financial empowerment, and it is costing the taxpayer dearly.
Yet, as the law currently stands, there is a grey area around the liability of such actors. If they do not physically submit the fraudulent claim themselves, their role in enabling or encouraging fraud can be harder to pin down, unless we are clear about what constitutes help in this context, and that is precisely what this amendment would do. It defines “help” broadly and practically as
“the provision of any information, advice or support which could reasonably be assumed to be intended to”
secure a fraudulent payment or assist in one being made. Crucially, it also covers situations where the advice or support would, if acted on, result in a recoverable amount being owed to a public authority.
This is a necessary clarification—one that would put would-be facilitators of fraud on clear legal notice that their conduct is within the scope of enforcement. It would help to bring the architecture of the Bill into line with the realities of modern digital fraud, where facilitation often takes the form of social media content, forums or online transactions, rather than backroom collusion. It would also serve as a strong deterrent function. By defining the provision of such support as within the scope of a penalty, it would allow for enforcement against not only those who commit fraud directly but those who empower others to do so, whether for financial gain, notoriety or both.
Fraud against the public sector is not a victimless crime. It deprives vital services of much-needed resources and undermines public confidence in the integrity of our welfare and support systems. Tackling this threat requires more than good intentions; it requires clear definitions, enforceable powers and a willingness to adapt to new forms of criminality. This amendment would deliver precisely that by ensuring that Clause 50 is not hampered by ambiguity and that those who seek to game the system from the sidelines cannot hide behind the veil of plausible deniability. I urge the Minister and noble Lords to support this amendment as a practical, proportionate and targeted step toward a more robust framework for defending the public purse.
Amendment 63B is based on the simple principle that there should be a balance of oversight and determination when it comes to the exercise of these powers. We propose that the decision to impose a penalty under Clause 52, specifically in cases where no payment has in fact been made, should not rest solely with the Minister but should instead be made by the First-tier Tribunal. This amendment is founded on a straightforward and essential principle: where the Executive are empowered to impose penalties of potentially significant financial consequence, there must also be a mechanism of independent oversight. Determination and discretion must be balanced with transparency and accountability.
Clause 52(2) allows for a penalty to be imposed where no payment has been made based on what the Minister believes the person would have received had the conduct not been intercepted. In other words, the clause enables a financial penalty to be levied on the basis of a hypothetical amount determined solely in the opinion of the Minister. That is a considerable power. It allows for punitive action on the basis not of actual harm or financial loss but of a projection—that is, a judgment from the Minister as to what might have happened under different circumstances.
This is precisely where judicial oversight is most important. If a penalty is to be imposed based on counterfactual reasoning on what could have occurred but did not, surely the case for an independent expert body to assess that reasoning is overwhelming. This amendment would simply substitute the First-tier Tribunal for the Minister in this context. The tribunal already has competence and infrastructure to assess evidence, weigh intention and determine appropriate sanctions. It is an established part of our administrative justice system and is well equipped to adjudicate in complex or borderline cases where intent, probability and public harm are at issue. It also has a legitimacy in the eyes of the public that the Minister does not possess.
Such an approach has several benefits. First, it enhances procedural fairness. Individuals who face serious penalties, especially in cases where they did not actually receive any funds, should be entitled to a hearing before an impartial body rather than be simply the recipient of a notice based on ministerial opinion. Secondly, it promotes consistency and accountability. Tribunal decisions are subject to precedent and scrutiny. Ministerial discretion, by contrast, may vary from case to case and lacks the transparent reasoning that accompanies judicial decisions. Thirdly, it safeguards public trust. The public must have confidence that enforcement powers are being used fairly and not arbitrarily. Independent oversight gives legitimacy to the exercise of those powers.
This is not an argument against penalties, nor against enforcement; it is an argument for fair process and proper checks. The power to punish, even when no actual loss has occurred, must be subject to more than internal ministerial judgment. In short, where the Government propose to act based on what might have been, we must be particularly careful. The wider the discretion, the stronger the need for oversight. This amendment achieves that balance. It leaves the Government able to pursue wrongdoing but does so in a way that is consistent with our traditions of fairness, due process and independent adjudication.
Amendments 63C and 63D work together to incorporate the principle that the Minister sets out in writing the reason behind a decision reached, following a review. As we have stated several times, this mechanism is vital in ensuring that we establish clear lines of communication between the Cabinet Office and the liable person, allowing them to access information which they are legitimately and reasonably entitled to. It also allows the Minister to be held accountable for the reasons behind his decision when reached. These are principles that I have emphasised in earlier remarks, but this is a simple but important mechanism that would ensure clear communication, clarity and accountability at a minimal cost. I hope that the Minister and noble Lords consider this a reasoned improvement to the Bill as it stands.
Finally, our Amendment 64A seeks to incorporate greater parliamentary oversight of any changes made to the appeals process—a fundamental safeguard in the Bill that must be protected through proper oversight. Our amendment seeks to strengthen the safeguards around how changes may be made to the appeals process relating to penalty notices issued under the Bill. As the clause currently stands, subsection (6) provides the Minister with the power to make further provision about appeals against a penalty notice through regulations made at the Minister’s own discretion. Our amendment would remove that sweeping discretion and instead require that any further changes to the appeals process may be made only following an independent review and with the approval of a parliamentary committee of any recommendations arising from that review.
The justification for this change is both principled and practical. The power to levy financial penalties under the Bill is significant. Given the potential consequences for individuals and organisations, the integrity of the appeals process is absolutely central to the fairness of the regime. It is vital that those who are subject to penalties under the Bill feel confident that the means of challenging or appealing those penalties is robust, independent and protected from politicisation or erosion. That confidence depends in part on ensuring that the rules governing the appeals process are not liable to unilateral change by the very Minister responsible for enforcing the penalties.
This is not about casting doubt on the current Minister’s intentions but about future-proofing the system. Power should never be unchecked simply because we trust those who currently hold it. This amendment would put in place a sensible and proportionate safeguard whereby, before changes are made to the appeals framework, an independent review must be carried out and Parliament must have a meaningful role in assessing and approving those changes. When the state is empowered to impose penalties, it must accept the responsibility of making sure that appeals are independent, accessible and fair, and that the framework governing them cannot be rewritten without scrutiny. This amendment helps to ensure just that. It does not prevent change but ensures that change is evidence-based and democratically accountable. I therefore urge the Minister and noble Lords to support this amendment as a modest but essential safeguard for one of the most important pillars of any enforcement regime: the right to appeal.
In conclusion, the amendments we have brought forward in this group are united by a common theme: the need to balance effective enforcement with clarity, fairness and oversight. We recognise the importance of rooting out fraud and protecting the public purse. We support the Government’s efforts to ensure that those who abuse public funds, whether through direct claims or the encouragement of others, face appropriate consequences. However, our concern and the focus of these amendments are to ensure that, in pursuing that goal, we do not sacrifice the core principles of accountability, due process and democratic scrutiny.
Amendment 63A ensures that we face the modern reality of fraud facilitation head on, by clearly defining what it means to “help” to commit fraud. In doing so, it brings much needed clarity and enables enforcement agencies to act against those who profit from spreading dishonest tactics.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I have a lot of sympathy with most of the amendments in this group, apart from Amendment 63A, which fills me with dread. Fraud facilitation sounds as though it is a new crime, but I do not think this is the right place to bring it in. I appreciate that it does not necessarily have a criminal penalty, but it is also not entirely clear what it is.
I know that the Opposition have been pushing the problems of “sick influencers” in another Bill—this is a bit of a theme—but I get very nervous about requiring the authorities to trawl through people’s social media accounts yet once more to see what they are saying, then to blame them for things that happen. When I think of examples that I have been shown of “sick influencers”—but there are others—there is a thin line between people who are trying to give hacks to individuals on how to fill in labyrinthine forms and cope with the welfare system and people who show them how to cheat. I therefore urge against this: it is a can of worms, which I would keep well away from.
There is also a danger that you will allow individuals to abdicate responsibility by saying, “I did it only because I was told to by the influencer who I saw on Instagram”. This goes against the spirit of due process and of taking responsibility.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 63A addresses the important issue of those who facilitate fraud by providing information, advice or support. It proposes that such individuals could be subject to penalties. I believe that this measure helps to close potential loopholes and hold accountable not only primary offenders but those who enable wrongdoing. From an individual’s perspective, this could strengthen the integrity of the system and act as a deterrent against abuse.
Amendment 63B seeks to prevent the Minister from unilaterally determining penalties for persons who have not received a payment, which is crucial to protecting individuals from unfair or arbitrary penalties that could cause undue financial or reputational harm.
Amendments 63D and 64A focus on transparency, accountability and procedural fairness—elements that directly affect the experiences of those subject to the Bill. Providing written reasons for decisions following a review, set out in Amendment 63D, would ensure that individuals fully understand the outcomes and the rationale behind them, enabling them to respond appropriately, or seek further recourse if necessary. Amendment 64A would remove the Minister’s sole authority to change the appeals process and would instead require independent review—we have discussed in previous sittings what “review” and “independent” mean—and parliamentary oversight. It would introduce vital protections for individuals and guarantee that any changes to how appeals are handled are thoroughly scrutinised, preserving fairness and maintaining public confidence in the system’s impartiality. On that basis, I support these amendments.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments all pertain to the scope, application and oversight of the civil penalties measures. The measures have been designed using established cross-government best practice so that the PSFA may effectively deter and recuperate money lost to fraud and include numerous safeguards for individuals and businesses.
I find myself in the unique position, so far in this Committee, of agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, although maybe not for the reasons that she set out, on Amendment 63A, which would unnecessarily extend the legislation by adding a definition of “help” to Clause 50. The Fraud Act 2006 establishes the fraud offence, which includes an individual making
“a gain for himself or another”.
The Fraud Act does not define “help” in terms of making a gain for another. This is because the Act focuses on the “dishonest intent” of a fraudulent act. Under Clause 70(1)(c), the offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud is already punishable under the Bill. Clause 70(1)(b) includes and covers Sections 6 and 7 Fraud Act offences. This allows for penalties to be issued against the fraud “influencers” we have already discussed during the Bill’s passage. The offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud is also already included in our definition of fraud. It is therefore unnecessary to define “help” in order to use either the Fraud Act or this Bill, although I was very tempted to quote Beatles lyrics—that may just be the time of day.
Amendment 63B would amend Clause 52 by replacing the Minister with the First-tier Tribunal in cases where a fraudster attempts to take public money but is stopped before they receive the payment. There is existing precedent for not using the First-tier Tribunal as the first-instance decision-maker: for example, in the Home Office for the employment of illegal workers. The legislation also includes the right to appeal a decision to the appropriate court following the receipt of a final penalty notice—I will come on to that.
Amendment 63C seeks to broaden the requirement of Clause 58(4) beyond Clause 58(2)(c) so that it may apply to Clause 58(2)(a) and Clause 58(2)(b). This is unnecessary, as Clause 58(3) already requires the Minister to give notice to an individual if the penalty is upheld. While I recognise its intent, it is unnecessary to include Amendment 63D in the Bill. While there is no obligation under common law to provide an explanation for a positive decision—that is, to amend or cancel the penalty—authorised officers will do so as part of the review process. They will also provide an explanation for a decision to amend or cancel the penalty as part of the review process. The civil penalties code of practice and further guidance will support authorised officers.
Amendment 64A would add additional unnecessary complications to the legislation. It is the intent of the legislation not that regulations may be made to reduce or abolish the appeals provisions for penalty notices but that any further regulations may improve, streamline or make the appeal process more efficient. For example, appeals for civil penalties may be heard at the same time as appeals against debt recovery notices.
I turn to the specific points raised by noble Lords. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I remind the Committee that the tribunal appeal is already in the process at a later stage, that of determining the penalty. Bringing the tribunal in earlier would add time and burden. I think that I have covered the other points in my speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, will remind me if I have not—she may be about to—but I hope that my explanations reassure noble Lords and that the noble Baroness will therefore withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving answers to most of my questions, even if they were not entirely to our satisfaction. In closing, I return to the central purpose of this group of amendments: to ensure that the enforcement powers granted under this part of the Bill are clear in scope, fair in operation and subject to meaningful oversight.
Before I continue on to the other amendments, I will address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The Minister states that the existing law is sufficient, but there is quite a lot of evidence, and anecdotal evidence, that sickfluencers, as they are called—sick influencers—are active and busy. How many people have ever been pulled up or—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
This is a point where I should say that there are two parts of the Bill. I am sure that, as Committee progresses, we will discuss sickfluencers. This part of the Bill is making sure that the PSFA has the powers to deal with similar online influencers—I do not think we can call them sickfluencers in relation to fraud—who are leading the charge. Obviously, the PSFA is seeking new powers and we hope to be able to use them. Therefore, I cannot provide the noble Baroness with the data for what prosecutions may or may not have been made up until this point. But we hope that, with new powers for the PSFA, that will be part of the work going forward.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. When we were seeking to introduce this definition of “help”—I take on board the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—we were trying to presage the fact that this would come up in a later part of the Bill. I deliberately, in my opening remarks, did not reference sickfluencers, but the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, obviously understood where I was going with that. I am just not convinced about how effective the law currently is in this area.
Our other amendments respond directly to the challenges posed by modern forms of fraud and the expanding reach of administrative enforcement. Whether we are seeking to define what it means to help commit fraud in an online age, requiring that penalties based on hypothetical harm are assessed by an independent tribunal or ensuring that decisions and processes are explained clearly to those affected, these are not procedural niceties; they are essential guarantees of accountability and trust. We cannot afford to leave grey areas for those who seek to exploit the system from the sidelines and we also cannot allow the exercise of significant powers, particularly those that impact people’s livelihoods, to proceed without checks, explanation or independent scrutiny.
This group of amendments does not frustrate the aims of the Bill; it strengthens the Bill. It ensures that public funds can be protected in a way that is not only effective but proportionate, just and transparent. We are asking for three simple things: definitions that are clear so that enforcement can be targeted where it is needed most; penalties subject to oversight, particularly when no actual loss is concerned; and decisions and appeals processes that are robust, explainable and open to democratic scrutiny. These are reasonable, moderate and constructive proposals. They do not undermine the Bill’s purpose; they help it to stand on firmer constitutional and ethical ground. I urge the Minister and all noble Lords to consider them seriously and to support a set of changes that would not only improve this legislation but help to secure public confidence in the integrity of its application. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
(a) the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person is given the penalty notice, or(b) such longer period (if any) as the appropriate court considers reasonable in all the circumstances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that the tribunal or court hearing an appeal against a penalty imposed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office under Chapter 5 of the Bill (penalty relating to fraud or penalty for failing to comply with requirements) can extend the time limit for the bringing of that appeal.
“Report on public sector fraud during COVID-19 pandemic(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report evaluating the extent of public sector fraud that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.(2) The report must include—(a) an account of fraudulent or erroneous payments made by or on behalf of public authorities, including but not limited to the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England,(b) a review of how public procurement practices in place between March 2020 and December 2021, including—(i) the use of high priority and expedited contracting for suppliers, and(ii) the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions, may have contributed to fraud against public authorities,(c) the cost to the public purse of fraud against public authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, and(d) an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities.(3) Where the report finds or concludes that there were—(a) failings in Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities, or(b) any action or inaction by the Government which enabled fraud against public authorities,the Minister must make a statement to the House of Commons acknowledging these findings and setting out actions planned to ensure any failings are not repeated.”
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 65 in my name would require the Minister for the Cabinet Office to,
“within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a”
comprehensive
“report evaluating the extent of public sector fraud that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic”.
The Liberal Democrats have long championed transparency, accountability and robust oversight of public funds. This amendment aligns with those values by ensuring that Parliament receives a clear, detailed assessment of how fraud had an impact on public resources during an unprecedented crisis. Without such transparency, we risk missing critical lessons that could inform future safeguards and improve the resilience of our public sector. The pandemic presented unique challenges that, unfortunately, created opportunities for fraud on a scale not previously seen. It is only right that we fully understand the scale and nature of the issue, not to assign blame but to strengthen our systems and protect taxpayers’ money.
This amendment reflects the Liberal Democrat commitment to evidence-based policy and open government. By requiring this report, we would promote accountability and ensure that future emergency responses are better equipped to prevent fraud, protecting public trust and ensuring that resources reach those who genuinely need them. There will be other events; we want to set the scene so that they can be dealt with. That is what this amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment because I was at the Cabinet table when Covid-19 hit this country. I am very conscious of the arduous activity that went on among brilliant civil servants but, of course, mistakes were made, as well as successes.
It is interesting to try to understand why the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, wants to go into this matter further, recognising that, in Parliament, there have already been several Select Committee inquiries; one was specifically done on fraud. Of course, we also have the public inquiry that is under way, to which the Government are contributing. I am trying to understand the purpose of this amendment and this extra report, recognising that the Government will in no way make any comments until the inquiry has concluded.
My understanding is that the inquiry is still going to take evidence in 2026. For what it is worth, as I am sure the Ministers here will be relieved to know, I am absolutely convinced that this Bill will become an Act of Parliament well before the end of 2025. So there is something here of an odd overlap. I understand that this will continue to be a subject of interest.
This is quite a wide ranging-element. I know that fraud happened. There is no doubt of that. However, we also averted fraud in the DWP. We managed to stop £1.6 billion going out on one particular weekend by intervening. There were plenty of attempts at fraud and, unfortunately, there were successes. Some of those people who committed that fraud are now in jail, thanks to the endeavours of the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, talks about resources that the country may have been deprived of when addressing the issues of Covid. I can honestly say to your Lordships that no resources were set aside at all. This is one of the reasons why there have been considerable challenges on aspects of needing to repay the debt that may have been acquired due to spectacular extra financing, whether that was through businesses or about people who had never claimed benefits in their life before, making sure that they got the money that we believe they were entitled to. That was while recognising that some of the easements initially may have been subject to some fraud, but we also made every effort to try to stop it. I have already given an example of where, in one weekend, £1.6 billion was averted.
For that purpose, the amendment genuinely is unnecessary. The statutory inquiry, I hope, will not be the longest-running statutory inquiry because that is not what the country needs to consider. It would not be the best use of government resources to initiate their own further inquiry and honour this amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am slightly torn. Yes, we have the Covid inquiry but we also have a country that faces ongoing risk. I was, entirely coincidentally, speaking this morning to someone who was expressing concern about stocks of medical supplies that the Government were holding or not holding. They are being told that the Government were waiting for the Covid inquiry to report and then would look at what might happen. I am afraid that the reality is, of course, that we do not have an influenza virus out there saying, “Just wait until the Covid inquiry has reported and then we can think about attacking Britain”. I am not sure that this is the right way forward, but we need to hear from the Government more generally—I understand that that may not be within the Minister’s portfolio—and maybe the noble Baroness could write to me at a future date. However, we need to think about being ready, in this age of shocks, for all the threats that could potentially hit us—particularly health threats. We should learn from the mistakes that were undoubtedly made under the previous Government. That is an important issue. We need to see more urgency from the Government. The answer of waiting until the Covid inquiry reports really does not hack it in this age when we are facing so many threats.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, it is important to stress, when thinking of prevention of issues and being ready for them, that I am quite confident that the Government have continued a lot of the activity of the previous Government. I will give an example. Although it was for a short time, when I was Secretary of State for Health and Social Care we were being asked to write off hundreds of millions of pounds on Covid vaccines because we had, in effect, anticipated what could have happened. In the end, thankfully that was not needed. That is not a case of fraud, but the noble Baroness was stretching us into preparedness for the future. That is still a key module of the statutory public inquiry now under way. But it would be worth looking at some of the Select Committee investigations that happened, perhaps much more quickly, and some of the government responses that had been provided to them.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, while I recognise the concerns that underpin this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, it is both unnecessary and potentially duplicative, given the extensive scrutiny already taking place through existing and robust channels, as my noble friend Lady Coffey made clear. First and foremost, we must acknowledge that a comprehensive public inquiry is under way into the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. That inquiry, established under the Inquiries Act 2005 and chaired independently, has broad terms of reference, including examination of procurement processes, ministerial decision-making and the use of public funds. The amendment risks pre-empting, duplicating or even undermining that process by imposing a parallel and more narrowly framed exercise before the formal inquiry has concluded its work.
Let us be clear: the Covid-19 pandemic presented an unprecedented national emergency. Ministers, civil servants and public bodies were called on to make swift, high-stakes decisions in the face of an unfolding crisis. They did so with little warning, under extraordinary pressure and with the primary objective of protecting lives and livelihoods. In that context, decisions were taken at pace to ensure that vital supplies were sourced, support was distributed rapidly, and services could continue to operate. Was the system perfect? No—but to assume that those who contributed to the effort to tackle Covid were doing so for malign reasons is inaccurate. However, that is not to say that we should not seek to recover money where errors were made, and it is of course right that we take steps to realise this outcome, which has been the guiding principle of all our engagements with the Bill: public money should be recovered.
We should therefore make full use of the mechanisms that already exist to assess and recover losses. The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and internal departmental review bodies have all examined pandemic-related spending and made a series of recommendations, many of which are already being implemented. Indeed, the Public Sector Fraud Authority continues to track and pursue recoveries on this matter. To impose an additional reporting requirement through the Bill, especially one that compels Ministers to publicly acknowledge failings before the full picture is known, would not serve the cause of accountability; rather, it risks creating a politicised and partial process, which may generate more heat than light and overlap confusingly with the broader inquiry now under way.
Let us not lose sight of the bigger picture. The Bill is about strengthening the framework to combat public sector fraud going forward; it is not the right vehicle for relitigating decisions taken in the darkest days of a national emergency. The public inquiry will give us the full breadth and depth of insight that is needed, with the benefit of time, evidence and impartial examination. In the meantime, let us not cast unfair aspersions on public servants and Ministers who, in the face of enormous uncertainty and unimaginable pressure, acted on the whole with integrity, urgency and a profound sense of duty.
I urge noble Lords to recognise that the proper process is already in place and that we must allow it to do its job without prejudging its conclusions. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose the amendment.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I find myself agreeing with the sentiment behind the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. The Government are committed to investigating and combating cases of fraud and error in Covid-19 spending. If I touch on some of the things that the Government are already doing, perhaps he will be reassured that we are already taking this seriously.
The Bill will give the Public Sector Fraud Authority powers to conduct investigations, levy civil penalties and recover money. It also doubles the time limit for civil claims against Covid fraud from six to 12 years to ensure that we can continue to investigate. Although the proposed amendment to mandate a report on public sector fraud during the Covid-19 pandemic underscores the importance of accountability, it is unnecessary given the existing frameworks already in place. The question is whether appropriate reporting processes on Covid-19 spending have already been established—and I would argue that they have.
A dedicated Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner has already been appointed to review losses of public money to fraud, error and underperforming contracts during the Covid-19 pandemic. Working collaboratively with departments and agencies such as the Public Sector Fraud Authority, His Majesty’s Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Care, the commissioner is focused on public funds lost to fraud, error and underperforming contracts during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The commissioner’s remit includes: assessing recovery efforts to date to determine where additional recoveries can be made and ensuring they are vigorously pursued; ensuring that maximum recovery efforts have been made and providing assurances on this to the public and Parliament; reviewing individual contracts to provide additional attention and reassurance on spending that is disputed; and, from this work, generating lessons and making recommendations for the future. By placing this responsibility with an expert dedicated commissioner who reports directly to the Chancellor and works in close co-ordination with key departments, the Government have ensured a clear and strategic approach to addressing pandemic-related fraud.
Given the breadth and focus of this work, introducing an additional ministerial reporting requirement would be duplicative and could divert resources away from ongoing recovery efforts. It risks creating unnecessary bureaucracy and delaying outcomes. We genuinely believe that the outcome the noble Lord seeks is already in place within government.
To touch on the debate, which was about the wider lessons to be learned from the Covid-19 pandemic, the Bill is specifically about fraud, but I am more than happy to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to discuss resilience in the round and the work that the Government are currently doing, as I believe a private meeting would be a more appropriate forum. I hope that that these assurances reassure the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and that he therefore feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, let me say that Tom Hayhoe, is, I think, six months through his contract. Do the Government intend to extend it beyond the fixed one year, and when does the Minister anticipate that he might share reports—he may already do that with Ministers, but when they will be shared with Parliament?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this is what I can say currently, but if there is additional clarification, I will come back to the noble Baroness. Mr Tom Hayhoe’s appointment is a fixed one-year appointment. He will be required to provide a report to Parliament, which will present lessons and recommendations for procurement in future during a time of national crisis, so he will be reporting on his efforts outside and within the Treasury.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I have a rearguard action on this amendment, because it seems strange to me—and it may seem strange to anybody among the public—that we can have a Bill called the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, but we do not recognise within that Bill one of the biggest efforts of fraud that occurred in this country during Covid-19. Those still rumble on—those billions of pounds. For a Bill called the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill not to include those is a grave error.
There may be some crossover and duplication, but if there is, it does not matter, because it is in the Bill and the Government will not have to pursue things if they are being dealt with elsewhere. They may be dealt with elsewhere, but there has to be a backstop, and the backstop should be in this Bill. It will do no harm in future to have it in the Bill, even if other things may address the problems that occurred and could, sadly, occur again when another event takes place. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finn
“Annual reporting: use of powers(1) The Minister must prepare and publish a report on the use of powers conferred on them under this Part within 12 months of the day on which sections 1 and 2 come into force, and annually thereafter.(2) Any report published under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within seven days of its publication.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Minister to publish an annual report on the use of powers conferred on them by Part 1 of the Bill, which must then be laid before Parliament within seven days of publication.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, our Amendments 67 and 68 in this group work together to introduce new clauses on annual reporting obligations under the Bill: first, on the use of powers conferred by Part 1 and, secondly, on the extent of fraud against public authorities. These are, on their face, modest amendments: they do not alter the structure of the Bill; they do not restrict the powers being granted; and they do not place unreasonable burdens on Ministers or departments. They are grounded in a principle that is both simple and fundamental to good governance: that Parliament and the public have a right to know how powers are being used and whether those powers are making a measurable difference.
Amendment 67 would introduce an annual reporting requirement on the use of powers conferred under Part 1. This part confers significant powers: powers to impose penalties, to recover funds, to compel the provision of information and to act across a broad range of public authorities. These are substantial tools in the Government’s arsenal against fraud and error, and we all agree that public money must be protected and those who exploit or defraud the state must be held to account.
But power must always be accompanied by oversight. The public has a legitimate interest in how these tools are used, how often, in what context and with what effect. An annual report will provide that vital lens of scrutiny. It will allow Parliament to see whether the powers are being exercised proportionately and effectively and whether any patterns or concerns are emerging that warrant further attention. Without such reporting, we risk creating a system where power operates behind closed doors: not necessarily abused, but unexamined; not necessarily misused, but not explained. That, over time, can erode public trust not just in anti-fraud enforcement but in the fairness and accountability of public administration itself.
This amendment would simply require the Minister to prepare and publish an annual report on the use of the powers granted under Part 1, beginning within 12 months of the commencement of Clauses 1 and 2 and continuing annually thereafter. The report must then be laid before both Houses of Parliament within seven days to ensure that this information is not only collected but promptly placed in the public domain.
This is not bureaucratic clutter; it is democratic hygiene. It provides Parliament with the tools that it needs to track the implementation of this legislation and to hold the Executive to account. It allows Select Committees, Members of both Houses and the public to ask informed questions and pursue necessary follow-up, where appropriate.
The second amendment, Amendment 68, complements the first by requiring an annual report on the estimated scale of fraud against public authorities, based on the Government’s internal estimates. We have heard repeatedly, both in this Committee and outside it, that public sector fraud is a serious and growing challenge, yet it remains notoriously difficult to quantify. Estimates vary, methodologies differ and the scale of undetected fraud, by its very nature, is hard to pin down.
Nevertheless, if we are to take the fight against fraud seriously, we must begin by being honest about the scale of the problem. This amendment would compel the Government to do just that—to report annually on their internal estimates of fraud against public authorities and to lay those findings before Parliament. Without a clear sense of the scale of fraud, we cannot effectively assess the return on investment in anti-fraud measures, we cannot identify which sectors are most at risk and we cannot hold departments to account for their own controls and responses.
Just as importantly, regular public estimates create pressure for improvement. When departments know that the levels of detected or suspected fraud will be publicly disclosed, they have a strong incentive to strengthen internal controls and to invest in fraud detection systems. The result is not only transparency but improvement in practice. This principle speaks to the heart of another one of our goals: that public authorities take increasing responsibility and ownership for identifying and tackling fraud internally. This amendment is a mechanism that would promote this.
It is worth emphasising that this amendment does not require, unfortunately at present, perfect precision. It does not ask the Government to do what is not feasible; it asks for a summary of internal estimates informed by the Government’s data, audits and risk assessments. That is both reasonable and achievable. However, I take this opportunity to call out that data should be improved. The variances in the estimates currently produced by the Government are massive, and it is clear that the Government themselves do not have a particularly accurate view of the challenge that we face. The Government must achieve more accurate data reporting in this area and make this available. We need to strive for a situation in which good, accurate data is provided to Parliament, not the wildly varying estimates that we currently see.
Ultimately, we cannot allow the state to hide behind averages, yet that is precisely what it does. It is all too easy for the Government to delay publication of the annual fraud landscape report; when it does appear, it risks being only the most convenient version of the truth—aggregated figures, smoothed-out estimates and numbers stripped of detail with no departmental breakdown, timeline or accountability. That is not transparency; it is evasion. A Government who lose billions to fraud cannot be allowed to drip-feed the facts on their own terms.
Together, these two amendments serve a broader purpose. They ensure that this legislation not just empowers the state to act but commits the state to account for how it acts and to explain whether its actions are having the intended effect. They are not burdensome or oppositional; they are the kind of clear, regular reporting obligations that should be part of the design of any legislation that grants wide-ranging enforcement powers and seeks to solve systemic problems. Let us remember that the effectiveness of anti-fraud efforts cannot be judged solely by the strength of powers on paper; it must be measured by their use in practice and by the visibility of that use to those whom the powers are ultimately meant to serve—the taxpayer and the public.
Transparency is not a hindrance to enforcement; it is an essential condition of its legitimacy. These amendments would not hinder the Government’s ability to act. On the contrary, they would enhance its credibility in doing so. They would signal to the public that the Government are not only determined to tackle fraud but willing to be open about their efforts and accountable for their progress. They would allow Parliament to play its rightful role in monitoring implementation, asking the right questions and proposing further refinements when necessary. In an age when public trust in institutions must be earned and re-earned, these small acts of transparency are the building blocks of that trust.
I urge the Minister and noble Lords across the Committee to support these amendments as practical, principled and proportionate contributions to a more transparent and effective anti-fraud regime. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, these amendments are very close to my party’s heart. I warmly welcome Amendments 67 and 68, which would place an important emphasis on transparency and accountability by requiring the Minister to publish annual reports on the use of powers under Part 1 of the Bill, as well as on the estimated scale of fraud against public authorities. Too often, no one knows about the scale.
These measures represent a vital step forward in ensuring that Parliament and, by extension, the public, receives regular, detailed information about how these powers are exercised and the ongoing challenges faced in tackling fraud. Such openness is essential because it is openness that solves these problems, builds trust in the administration of public funds and allows for informed scrutiny and debate. From my party’s perspective, these amendments align closely with our long-standing commitment to open government and evidence-based policy-making. By mandating annual reporting, they would help to illuminate the practical impact of the Bill and provide the data that is necessary to assess whether these powers are effective, proportionate and fair. This ongoing oversight will be invaluable in refining approaches to fraud prevention and recovery and ensuring that public authorities are both empowered and held accountable.
I look forward to supporting these amendments as the Bill goes forward, as well as to continuing to work to strengthen transparency and public confidence in this important area.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for raising the important issue of the annual reporting of the PSFA on both the use of the powers conferred on it in the Bill and the extent of fraud against public authorities.
Under Clause 64, an independent person will be appointed through the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments as a regulated appointment to oversee the use of the powers that this Bill conveys on the PSFA. We will appoint someone with the right skills and demonstrable independence. The independent person will proactively review the PSFA’s investigative functions and use of powers, which will culminate in regular reports being produced on an at least annual basis for the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
I know that the noble Baroness cares about ministerial oversight and accountability. The powers granted to the Minister for the Cabinet Office will be delegated to trained authorised officers; I can assure her that there will continue to be strong and regular ministerial oversight of their safe and effective use. Once the Minister has reviewed the report, it must be laid before Parliament. Reports will both provide assurance on where powers are being used appropriately and challenge where improvements could be made, ensuring that civil servants are using the powers in this Bill as intended. They will provide assurance that suspected cases of fraud are being investigated in accordance with the legislation, codes of practice and guidance; and that that is being done effectively in the pursuit of the intentions of the Bill.
The findings or summary of any and all independent oversight, including the independent person’s report, will be published on an annual basis in the interests of transparency. External oversight bodies will also report on the use of powers by the PSFA following inspections. These reports will be made publicly available. With regard to annual reporting on the extent of public sector fraud, the PSFA oversees the counterfraud performance of ministerial departments and public bodies. It already publishes a report on the extent of fraud against public authorities: the Fraud Landscape Report. I hope that that reassures noble Lords.
I want to address one point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on how the Government estimate the level of unknown fraud and error. The best available evidence suggests that the level of fraud and error in unexamined areas of government activity is between 0.5% and 5%. This is based on a Cabinet Office review of around 50 fraud and error estimates that includes every major department. Methods used across government to estimate the extent of fraud and error include statistical sampling, modelling and benchmarking. More detail can be found in the NAO report.
There are already provisions to review the use of powers the Bill conveys on PSFA and reporting relating to counterfraud activity across government. I hope that this explanation reassures noble Lords and that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, will withdraw her amendment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Baroness might expect one of us to intervene. I understand where she is coming from in terms of reports, because these amendments are basically focusing on the laying of reports. However, outside the Room I have asked in the past about the current level of fraud. The noble Baroness alluded to it, but perhaps she could confirm that at the moment, the estimated level of public sector fraud stands at £55 billion. I know that I have asked for this before but it would be very helpful to have a breakdown of how much public sector fraud there is when it comes to the DWP aspects of the Bill. I think I am asking about the same issues, but it would be extremely helpful to know where we stand right now as a base, in terms of the level and quantity of fraud, and any breakdowns.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am more than happy to write to the noble Viscount.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. In closing this group, I return to the central theme that underpins Amendments 67 and 68: that transparency is not an optional extra in the fight against public sector fraud but an essential condition of legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. We are granting significant powers under the Bill, powers to recover, to penalise and to compel, but the exercise of those powers must not exist in a vacuum. The public, and indeed Parliament, must be able to see how those powers are being used and whether they are making a real, measurable difference.
Amendment 67 would ensure that the use of these new powers is reported on annually. It would allow us to track how these tools are deployed, where they are having an impact and where further improvement or scrutiny may be required. It would give Parliament, committees and the public a vital feedback loop, not to micromanage but to hold the system to account and ensure that it continues to serve its intended purpose.
Amendment 68 would complement that by shining a light on the scale of the challenge itself. If we are to treat fraud with the seriousness it demands, we must start by being clear-eyed about the extent of the problem. I am sure that internal estimates are already being produced within government; this amendment simply asks that they be published regularly and in good faith, so that we can judge our progress, measure impact and direct resources more intelligently.
I take the point the Minister made about the estimates ranging from 0.5% to 5%, but I am sure she will agree that, given the enormous amounts of these figures, that that 0.5% to 5% is a rather wide range of figures of billions of pounds. Would she like to expand on that and give me what the actual amounts in 0.5% to 5% might be?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
It is suggested to me that the actual amount, as touched on by the noble Viscount, is at least £55 billion, but I will be writing to all members of the Committee who are present.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her answer. Is that the 5% or the 0.5%? Anyway—
These amendments would not add bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. They would build confidence, encourage departmental responsibility and improve operational performance. They would not be constraints on ministerial power, but a scaffolding of legitimacy around its use. Crucially, they would reflect the truth that we have heard echoed throughout the passage of the Bill, that public trust is hard won and easily lost. If we are to strengthen that trust, we must show not only that we are serious about tackling fraud but that we are equally serious about demonstrating how we are doing so and being accountable for the results.
Once again, these are reasonable, proportionate and practical amendments, and I hope the Minister will reflect on them not as additional burdens but as meaningful opportunities to improve the transparency, responsiveness and long-term success of this legislation.
I emphasise that I am not being a total nuisance in pushing on the quality of data. It is not a new phenomenon; I spent many years in the Cabinet Office tearing my hair out about the quality of data. The one thing that I learned when I was working for the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, when he was the Minister in the Cabinet Office, was that the quality of the data improves by greater transparency. I just make that point; it is not a criticism of the Government, but a criticism of the data process within government.
In conclusion, I urge noble Lords across the Committee to support the principles in these amendments and, in so doing, to support the kind of open and accountable government that underpins any effective public policy. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Finn
“(A1) Investigatory and enforcement powers under sections 3 (information notices), 7 (entry, search and seizure powers), 17 (direct deduction orders), and 38 (deduction from earnings orders) of this Act shall not be exercised except as provided for in this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with others to this Clause in the name of Baroness Finn, would ensure greater ministerial and parliamentary oversight when the powers provided for in this Bill are exercised by authorised officers on behalf of the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, our amendments in this group seek to ensure accountability, oversight and the responsible exercise of powers under this part of the Bill. We have heard a great deal about the importance of tackling fraud, but powers alone do not constitute a policy. What matters is how those powers are used, by whom and under what form of oversight. In the current draft of the Bill, those questions are either ignored or answered in ways that place too much discretion in the hands of too few officials with too little scrutiny. It confers far-reaching authority: powers to compel private financial disclosure, to seek warrants for entry and seizure and to deduct directly from earnings or bank accounts. Yet these powers are not tethered to ministerial decision; they are to be exercised by civil servants of no higher rank than that of a higher executive officer, without public record or the consent of Parliament.
Amendment 68A seeks to begin to correct this. It would draw a clear line in statute that no investigatory or enforcement power of this kind may be exercised unless the conditions set out in the new clauses are met. This is the legal threshold that the original Bill failed to define. It would prevent the casual use of extraordinary authority and ensure that the powers granted are used only under procedures that meet the standards expected in a democratic state. Indeed, this amendment goes to the heart of a fundamental principle: where Parliament grants the Executive new and significant powers, particularly powers that interfere with individuals’ rights, privacy or property, those powers must be subject to robust oversight, clear safeguards and direct ministerial accountability.
Clause 66 deals with authorisation—that is, how investigatory and enforcement powers conferred by this legislation are to be exercised and by whom. But, as currently drafted, the clause does not go far enough to ensure that these powers are exercised only within the bounds of proper oversight and democratic legitimacy. Our amendment would make that explicit. It states that:
“Investigatory and enforcement powers”,
specifically those under Clauses 3, 7, 17 and 38,
“shall not be exercised except as provided for in this section”.
In other words, Clause 66 would become the gatekeeper. The amendment would make it clear that powers cannot be exercised by default; they must be authorised and controlled in line with the procedures set out by Parliament.
These are substantial powers. In the right hands, they may be justified to combat fraud, but without proper controls they are powers ripe for misuse or, at the very least, for eroding public trust in the system, and that is why this amendment is necessary. It would draw a clear line in statute that these powers must not be exercised outside the confines of Clause 66. It would anchor the use of those powers in a transparent and accountable framework, where Parliament and Ministers remain answerable for how they are applied.
Furthermore, it would ensure that responsibility for these powers remains with the Minister for the Cabinet Office—a Minister of State answerable to this House and the other place—and that they are not simply delegated indefinitely to a body of authorised officers operating with limited scrutiny or constraint. This amendment would not obstruct the Government’s efforts to recover public funds lost to fraud. It would ensure that, in pursuing that goal, we do not short-circuit the vital checks and balances that underpin good governance.
We have seen in other contexts what happens when enforcement powers are granted without sufficient parliamentary guard-rails: mistakes are made, trust is lost and legal challenge follows. This amendment is designed to avoid that fate by ensuring that Parliament retains a hand on the tiller and that those acting in the name of the state do so under lawful, accountable and proportionate authority. It is a modest and constructive amendment, but it speaks to a bigger principle: the rule of law demands not only power but control, not only action but accountability.
Amendment 68B works in the same spirit as Amendment 68A in locking in ministerial oversight and a clear line of accountability when these powers are used. It requires that the most serious powers—those involving seizure of property, disclosure of personal finances or deductions above £10,000—must be explicitly authorised by a Minister of the Crown. That is not bureaucracy but responsibility. It makes Ministers answerable for the exercise of power in their name. For lesser powers, the amendment requires sign-off by a senior civil servant—no longer a junior official, invisible and unaccountable.
The amendment then goes further still. It compels the Public Sector Fraud Authority to maintain a public register of every instance that these powers are used: who authorised them, when they were used and why. The register must be laid before Parliament. The result is not an illusion of scrutiny but real institutionalised oversight. This amendment seeks to introduce three essential safeguards. The first is ministerial sign-off for the most intrusive or high-stakes enforcement actions. The second is senior Civil Service oversight for all other investigatory powers under this legislation. The third is the creation of an annual publicly accountable register detailing when and how these powers are used.
Let us be clear: the Bill grants significant new powers to officials, including the ability to compel disclosure of personal financial data, to enter and search private premises, and to order the direct deduction of funds from individuals’ bank accounts or wages. These are not powers to be taken lightly; they go to the heart of personal privacy, financial autonomy and, potentially, due process. We have mentioned this a lot during these days in Committee, but we must always remember that these are real powers that will be used against real people in the near future.
Under this amendment, certain especially intrusive powers, such as requiring disclosure of personal financial records, applying for search and seizure warrants, or imposing deduction orders above £10,000, would require explicit approval from a Minister of the Crown. That is not bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake; it ensures that decisions with the potential to impact individuals lives in a profound way are not made lightly or by junior officials acting in isolation. This is a proportionate safeguard. It does not stop these powers being used, but it ensures that they are used only when a Minister is satisfied that the action is lawful, necessary and justified—and, crucially, is willing to stand behind that decision in Parliament if challenged. This line of accountability is vital for proper oversight, but it also protects the Minister.
Given the extent and scale of the powers we are discussing, civil servants operating in the name of the Minister but without their knowledge or explicit authorisation is not a responsible set-up. When decisions of this influence are being made on behalf of the Minister, it is also, for the Minister’s sake, vital that they have oversight of what is being done in their name. With this amendment, we avoid the possible scenario of a Minister being hauled before a committee or inquiry and being asked to justify actions of which they had no knowledge. This is important for oversight and accountability, but it is also surely a protection that the noble Baroness would welcome.
For all other enforcement powers, the amendment would require authorisation by an official at senior Civil Service grade or above. This ensures that decisions are taken not at a junior level without experience or understanding of the risks involved but by someone who can weigh up the public interest, the risks of error and the rights of the individual. This is a safeguard that ensures that decisions of this gravity are, rightly, taken by those with experience, and it prevents junior civil servants from falling victim to genuine mistakes that, regardless, have life-altering impacts for those affected.
The third part of this amendment proposes something equally important: a transparency register maintained by the Public Sector Fraud Authority. This register would document the use of these powers, who authorised them, when and on what grounds, and it would be laid before Parliament annually. This is not just an administrative measure but a mechanism of democratic scrutiny. It allows Parliament and the public to see how often these powers are used, by whom and with what justification. It helps to ensure that the powers are used proportionately, not indiscriminately. It provides a deterrent against misuse and it strengthens the legitimacy of the very fraud prevention system we are seeking to bolster.
I support the Government’s ambition to tackle fraud and error in the public sector but, in doing so, we must never forget the old truth: power without accountability breeds mistrust. If we are to ask the public to accept stronger enforcement powers, we must meet that with stronger transparency and oversight. This amendment does just that. It enables action but ensures that action is always tied to accountability. It protects individual rights while enabling the state to recover public money. Above all, it reflects the principle that, where significant powers are exercised by officials, someone at the highest level must be answerable for their use.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I consider these three amendments as probably three of the most important amendments that have been tabled so far. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for explaining why so well. They reflect a number of other concerns—it is not as though we have not heard them before—and articulate well the sense of responsibility that we should all have in this Room, as we scrutinise the Bill, in terms of the enormous amount of power that this legislation gives the state. It is why ministerial and parliamentary oversight is important and cannot, in any way, be neglected.
An astounding amount of power has been created in the name of tackling fraud. I sometimes think that it is disproportionate. Regardless, one would be much more reassured if there was at least the knowledge that this was always done by and answerable to Ministers and Parliament. Parliamentary oversight of something as powerful as this is essential and has been reflected in a number of amendments.
I have some other quick points. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, made a compelling argument for the Covid inquiry. It is true that, when I tell people that I am working on a fraud Bill, without exception they say, “The Covid stuff?” I say, “Possibly not; it is not there”. I listened and heard what the noble Lord said about why it is not appropriate, but I wanted to note that.
Of course, it was an extraordinary period for all the reasons that have been explained, but it has become almost impossible since to work out who said and did what to whom. In other words, there is little in the way of tracing accountability and being clear about ministerial sign-off, so I think the transparency register is a brilliant idea. It is clear; if you have these powers, let us see who signed off. No Minister should be frightened of that, because it is important for public accountability and, as has been said, is a way of ensuring that you are not held accountable for things that you did not sign off. It is a much clearer way of understanding it.
I am rather bemused by the final amendment, Amendment 68C. In my background reading, I have read a lot about the crisis in people who are sceptical about the Bill, who are worried that there are no people who are suitably qualified to see its powers through, so the way that this amendment has been posed seems sensible to me.
It is ironic, because there is an argument familiar to those who have been following the schools Bill about whether everybody who stands in front of a group of pupils needs to be qualified or not. “Not always” is my opinion, as somebody who was a teacher for many years. We should not be too rigid, because that is the nature of teaching. I was qualified, but that did not necessarily guarantee that I was a brilliant teacher. I know that qualifications do not necessarily guarantee anything but, in an instance like this, it seems absolutely right that the people entrusted to carry out these powers have the appropriate qualifications for what are complicated, complex financial matters. I therefore support all three amendments, which I think are very important.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I am also pleased to express support for Amendments 68A, 68B and 68C, which collectively strengthen ministerial and parliamentary oversight of the powers exercised under the Bill by authorised officers on behalf of members of the Cabinet Office, as other noble Lords have said. Ensuring that robust oversight mechanisms are in place is essential to maintaining public confidence in how these significant powers are deployed. By enhancing scrutiny, these amendments help to guarantee that such powers are used appropriately and proportionately, reducing the risk of misuse or error.
Amendment 68C, which requires investigators to hold professional qualifications comparable to those of officers in the Department for Work and Pensions Fraud Investigation Service is particularly welcome. They need professional qualifications. This commitment to professionalism and expertise safeguards the integrity of investigations and reinforces trust in the system. From our perspective, it is crucial that those entrusted with such important responsibilities are properly trained and qualified, ensuring fairness and consistency in enforcement. Together, these amendments produce a more transparent—we always come back to transparency—accountable and professional framework for combating fraud within public authorities.
Let it see the light and, when it does, there is a way of controlling it. Too often, whoever are in government think they know best and ask, “Why do we have to make ourselves open to scrutiny?” But it is that scrutiny, that existence of light from beyond, that makes the legislation fit for purpose. I support these amendments.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group relate to Clause 66, which defines an authorised officer. It would be a fair assessment of the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that she does not trust that, in her words, “junior civil servants to use these powers appropriately”. I will reassure her and the Committee that, first, it is not seniority that is key; it is professionalism and experience. The PSFA has already committed to training its authorised officers, who will utilise powers as set out in Clause 66, and authorised investigators, who will use the PACE powers in Clause 7, to predefined standards as set out by the government counterfraud profession investigator standard guidelines. This will align the PSFA with those using similar powers in other government departments such as HMRC and the DWP.
The team at the PSFA are serious people. Current members of the PSFA’s enforcement unit include former police officers and civil servants who have worked in investigatory roles across a number of government departments. They have experience of conducting counterfraud investigations and bring with them a wealth of relevant experience, skills and knowledge. I was tempted to get all their CVs to read out, but I thought that that may prolong Committee a little.
First, the powers in Clause 7 can be used only by authorised investigators specifically authorised to use the PACE powers and not authorised officers. The amendment requiring that those powers can be exercised only as provided in Clause 66 would render Clause 7 unusable.
Secondly, although the Minister will delegate the operation of these powers to authorised officers, the Minister will retain accountability and strong oversight. There will, of course, be strong ministerial interest in the effective, safe and value-for-money use of these powers. Noble Lords will know that I cannot speak for all future Ministers, but the current Minister meets individually with the chief executive of the PSFA very regularly.
Thirdly, the proposed delegation of powers in this Bill to authorise officers follows precedent elsewhere, including in HMRC and the DWP.
Fourthly, the amendment also calls for records of decision-making. In criminal investigations, the PSFA is already bound by legal obligations to record decisions and will do so through a dedicated case management system and the internal review process. The PSFA will have similar processes for civil cases.
Finally, the powers in the Bill are subject to review by an independent person as specified under Clause 64, and will be subject to inspections by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. Inspection reports will be publicly available and those by the independent person will be laid before Parliament.
I think it would be helpful if I gave some additional clarity on some issues raised by noble Lords. The Civil Service grade that an authorised officer would be required to hold has been a theme of some debate in your Lordships’ Committee, so I think some clarity will be helpful. The Bill does not stipulate a grade that an authorised officer needs to hold. The grade is less critical than the training they undertake. However, the PSFA anticipates that, in practice, all authorised officers will be of at least HEO grade. This is comparable to other organisations such as HMRC and the DWP. Clause 66 does, however, stipulate that a review must be conducted by an authorised officer at least one grade senior to the officer involved in the initial decision.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her response. In closing, I will return to the core proposition that underpins the three amendments that we have brought forward in this group, that the legitimacy of power lies not in its breadth but in its accountability. The Bill seeks to equip the Government with the means to tackle a serious and evolving threat to the public purse, but the scale and sensitivity of the powers it confers demand that we legislate not only for action but for responsibility. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.
I will correct one thing before I continue. I did not mean to imply that I do not trust relatively junior officials to exercise these far-reaching powers properly. The nature of what I am concerned about, and what these amendments seek to address, is the accountability of those civil servants for their actions to the Minister and therefore to Parliament. I am concerned that not enough direct accountability is built into the PSFA. I know we referenced the independent reviewer, but the independent reviewer is looking at the actions afterwards and is not directly accountable to the Minister for the actions of the officials. We are all aware of what happened with the Horizon scandal, and it is that sort of that scenario that we are seeking to avoid.
Amendment 68 would establish a clear statutory foundation for the exercise of investigatory and enforcement powers, ensuring that these are not left to broad discretion or quiet delegation but are explicitly bound by the structures and intentions set out by Parliament. That clarity matters. It protects the integrity of the system but also protects those within it from the charge, or the risk, of acting beyond their mandate.
Amendment 68B would strengthen that structure by ensuring that certain intrusive or high-stakes decisions are subject to senior oversight, and that those decisions are visible to Parliament and, where appropriate, to the public. It is a safeguard for the individual, but also a protection for Ministers, who ought not to be asked to account for actions they neither authorised nor even knew of. The transparency register it proposes is not simply a record-keeping tool but a mechanism of democratic accountability and a signal to the public that these powers will not be exercised in darkness.
Amendment 68C would complement both previous amendments by insisting on professionalism. It asks, quite reasonably, that those entrusted with powers to investigate, search, seize and compel be qualified to do so. These are serious, often life-altering powers; they must be wielded by people who understand not just the legal thresholds but the ethical and human responsibilities that come with them.
Together, these amendments would provide the structure and safeguards that the Bill so plainly lacks. They do not remove powers; they make those powers defensible. They do not oppose the work of the Public Sector Fraud Authority but would give it legitimacy. If Parliament is to authorise intrusion into personal records, entry into homes, seizure of property and the imposition of financial penalties, it must be satisfied that those powers are used lawfully, proportionately and by people who are properly trained to use them. These amendments are not decorative; they are the minimum requirement for a just and serious law.
The state must be equipped to confront fraud, but it must do so in a way that preserves trust in the institutions it seeks to defend. That trust is not automatic; it is earned through transparency, proportionate action and clear lines of accountability. These amendments offer a constructive, proportionate and carefully designed way to embed those principles into the fabric of the Bill. They do not oppose the Government’s aims; they reinforce them by ensuring that enforcement is not only strong but legitimate in the eyes of those it affects.
When we grant the Executive the tools to act on our behalf, we also assume the duty to ensure that those tools are used wisely, lawfully and with proper scrutiny. These amendments are our opportunity to meet that duty, and I urge the Minister and noble Lords across the Committee to support them. I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Finn
“Fraud risk management duties for public authorities(1) This section applies to public authorities responsible for spending schemes or programmes involving total annual payments or disbursements exceeding £100 million (“relevant spending schemes or programmes”).(2) A public authority to which this section applies shall—(a) register each relevant spending scheme or programme with the Minister for the Cabinet Office via the Public Sector Fraud Authority before the start of each financial year;(b) conduct and submit to the Authority a fraud risk assessment for each registered scheme, detailing identified fraud risks and planned mitigations;(c) prepare an annual fraud measurement plan specifying the methods by which fraud rates will be determined, including representative sampling or comparable statistically valid methods, to ensure robust estimation of fraud and error rates.(3) The Authority shall—(a) independently verify each public authority’s reported fraud rates annually, employing rigorous audit, sampling, or comparable statistically robust methods;(b) publish annually, in a dedicated report laid before Parliament—(i) the fraud rates reported by each public authority;(ii) the independently verified fraud rates determined by the Authority;(iii) an assessment of the accuracy and effectiveness of each public authority’s fraud risk management measures.(4) Each public authority shall publish in its annual accounts—(a) its submitted fraud risk assessment;(b) the fraud rates as determined independently by the Authority;(c) an evaluation rating (Red-Amber-Green) assigned by the Authority reflecting the public authority’s compliance with and effectiveness of its fraud risk management duties.(5) The evaluation rating assigned by the Authority under subsection (4)(c) shall assess—(a) adequacy and accuracy of fraud rate measurement methodologies;(b) effectiveness of implemented fraud risk mitigations;(c) compliance with statutory duties set out in this section.(6) Where the Authority finds significant discrepancies between reported fraud rates and independently verified fraud rates, or otherwise finds significant inadequacies in the public authority’s fraud management practices, it shall issue a notice requiring the public authority to—(a) submit within 30 days a detailed action plan specifying corrective measures;(b) implement corrective measures as directed by the Authority within a timeframe specified in the notice.(7) Compliance by public authorities with their obligations under this section shall be subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the findings shall form part of their reports to Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to impose stricter fraud risk management duties on public authorities that oversee spending schemes exceeding £100 million annually, by requiring these authorities to register schemes, conduct fraud risk assessments, measure fraud using robust methods, and publish findings. The Public Sector Fraud Authority would verify reported fraud rates, publish comparisons, assign performance ratings, and enforce corrective actions for poor performance. Compliance would be subject to independent audit and parliamentary scrutiny.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, if Amendment 68 demands that the Government publish the scale of the fraud, Amendment 68D goes further. It would require public authorities to understand where fraud risks actually lie. Without that, any national figure is a guess: unverified, unanchored and easily manipulated.
The reason that this matters is not theoretical. It has already gone wrong. HMRC once claimed that just 3.6% of R&D tax credit claims involved error or fraud. After proper scrutiny, the truth emerged: 16.7% of all claims were in fact fraudulent or incorrect, costing the taxpayer over £1.1 billion a year. This was not an isolated failure. The National Audit Office found that of 63 official fraud and error assessments conducted since 2014, nearly half were unreliable. That covered £224 billion of public spending. No Government can claim to be serious about fraud while tolerating this level of ignorance in their own accounts.
Amendment 68D would stop all that. It would impose specific legal duties on every public body that spends more than £100 million a year. It would introduce a new clause placing clear, enforceable fraud risk management duties on public authorities responsible for major spending programmes. It would set out a practical and proportionate framework for improvement in the Bill, improving fraud risk management in public authorities and allowing clearer oversight of how departments are working to counter fraud in their own operations. This builds on the principle that we made clear on the first day in Committee: that the Bill should encourage public authorities l to develop their own counter-fraud capabilities and cultures. The PSFA should be a mechanism through which this process is facilitated, not offloaded.
Our amendment seeks to further incorporate this purpose in several ways. First, it would introduce a registration requirement. All public authorities overseeing schemes with annual disbursements over £100 million would be required to register those schemes with the Public Sector Fraud Authority at the start of each financial year. This would ensure visibility and that large, high-risk schemes do not fall through the cracks. Secondly, it would require each public authority to assess fraud risks involved and submit those assessments, which would be a detailed analysis, to the Public Sector Fraud Authority. This practice would work to further a public authority’s appreciation for the risks it faces and the measures it is obliged to take, and would share out the workload of the PSFA by allowing risks to be identified early and early intervention to occur.
Thirdly, the amendment would require authorities to prepare an annual fraud measurement plan, using statistically valid methods, not guesswork or unverified assumptions. If we are serious about reducing fraud, we must be serious about measuring it properly. What gets measured gets managed.
Fourthly, and crucially, the amendment would give the Public Sector Fraud Authority the power to independently verify each public authority’s reported fraud rates and to publish its findings side by side with the authority’s own figures. That transparency is vital. Parliament and the public deserve to know not only what departments say about their fraud levels, but what an independent review actually shows. It must evaluate the quality of the public authority’s fraud risk controls, and then assign them a green, amber or red rating. These ratings will need to be published annually in each authority’s accounts. This drives accountability and allows Parliament to see at a glance where strong practice is in place and where urgent action is needed. When there are significant discrepancies or poor performance, the amendment would empower the authority to require corrective action and brings in the Comptroller and Auditor-General to provide independent audit and scrutiny.
This is about embedding a whole-system approach to risk, from the point of registration to external audit. This holds public authorities to account not only for the fraud they suffer, but also for the action they take to identify and prevent it. These are clear and reasonable demands, and they should be welcomed by the Minister as a complementary system which would make the work of the PSFA easier and more effective.
This is not red tape; this is basic stewardship of public money. If a private sector organisation with £100 million in outgoings failed to properly assess risk, measure loss or independently verify results, we would call it negligence. Why should the public sector be held to a lower standard? This amendment offers a road map to real improvement, not through centralisation or command and control, but through transparency, accountability and independent oversight. It would create a clearer line of sight from fraud risk to fraud response, helping us to target prevention, improve data and strengthen public confidence.
In conclusion, Amendment 68D seeks to deliver something that the Bill must ultimately be judged by—not the breadth of powers granted to central government but the clarity and strength of the systems we put in place to prevent fraud in the first place. This amendment is not about adding burdens; it is about embedding responsibility. It would ensure that public authorities responsible for large-scale spending schemes take ownership of their fraud risks and are held accountable for how they assess, monitor and manage them.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I warmly welcome Amendment 68D, which proposes a comprehensive and rigorous approach to fraud risk management for public authorities overseeing significant spending schemes. The amendment reflects a proactive commitment to safeguarding public funds by requiring authorities managing more than £100 million annually to register their schemes, conduct thorough fraud risk assessments and use robust methods to measure and report fraud. Such measures are vital to identifying vulnerabilities early and taking meaningful action to prevent loss, which aligns closely with my party’s values of transparency—which I keep coming back to—and responsible stewardship of public money.
Moreover, the role assigned to the Public Sector Fraud Authority in verifying fraud rates, publishing comparisons and enforcing corrective actions would introduce a much-needed layer of independent oversight and accountability. The requirement for independent audit and parliamentary scrutiny would further strengthen this framework in ensuring that these responsibilities are not only carried out diligently but openly reported and reviewed. The amendment offers a significant opportunity to improve fraud prevention at scale, protect taxpayers and build public trust in how government spending is managed.
I fully support this proposed step forward. I relate this to my time on Barnet London Borough Council, when I chaired the audit committee. The idea that audit can make things work better and that scrutiny and bringing things into the open will form better department management as well as better control of finances was the premise of the world I lived in when I chaired the committee for eight years. I therefore support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, tackling public sector fraud is a foremost priority for this Government. Amendment 68D raises interesting points. It seeks to put some of the work that the PSFA does with departments and public bodies to improve their management of fraud on a statutory basis, and to explicitly have it cover all government schemes or programmes over £100 million.
While we have been debating the fraud investigation activities of the Public Sector Fraud Authority, for which we believe there is a very strong case, we have understandably not given as much time to the wider responsibilities the PSFA already holds, as detailed in its published mandate—which is wonderful bedtime reading, as per my theme; I like to give bedtime reading on each day in Committee. This is not part of the Bill, but it might be useful for noble Lords if I spend a moment to update the Committee on the other work of the PSFA.
The PSFA works with departments to improve their understanding of fraud and to improve their action on the risk of fraud through a range of modern techniques. Fraud investigation is, of course, only one part of this. Alongside this, public bodies need effective capabilities to understand and reduce the risk of fraud, through tools such as fraud risk assessment and fraud measurement, which this proposed amendment covers, and also through intelligence, fraud prevention, deterrence, process design, the use of data and analytics, fraud detection and the shaping of an organisation’s culture.
I would like to set out some key principles around how the Government approach fraud risk. Accounting officers within departments are responsible for managing public sector organisations’ risks, including fraud. Each organisation faces a range of fraud risks specific to its business, from internal and external sources. Managing Public Money—also a fascinating read—already sets out that, for any new major area of spend with high fraud risk, departments shall assess the risk of and impact from fraud at the outset. This identifies the potential for fraud and the different impacts that fraud could have for the spend area.
In high-risk areas, once spending is approved, this results in the development and continued maintenance of a detailed fraud risk assessment. High-risk areas would be the highest areas of government spending where fraud measurements are not yet in place and which have been identified as high risk by a mandatory initial fraud risk assessment process. The PSFA was introduced with a published mandate that openly sets out how it will work with departments and public bodies and what is expected of all parties. Government departments and public bodies must comply with this mandate. The mandate sets out that public bodies must use initial fraud impact assessments, in line with Managing Public Money, submit quarterly data returns on the levels of fraud and error they find and report on their progress against their action plans and key metrics.
Departments and public bodies are also required to ensure that they adhere to the counterfraud functional standard. This is independently assured by the Public Sector Fraud Authority on a rolling basis. The functional standard outlines the expectations for managing counterfraud, bribery and corruption activity. It clarifies the basics that public bodies should have in place, promoting efficient, coherent and consistent management across the public sector. The PSFA’s published mandate enables it to conduct expert reviews on public bodies’ fraud work. To date, the PSFA has reviewed 31 public bodies against the counterfraud functional standard. The PSFA’s mandate also requires it to publish a report on fraud across government annually. This includes the levels of detected fraud and corruption and associated error in departments and public bodies—excluding tax and welfare, as these are published elsewhere. Fraud measurement exercises are used as a tool to understand fraud risk in the highest areas of loss.
The Government have also created a high fraud risk portfolio, in line with the PSFA’s mandate, that details the highest risk areas of government spending where there are not yet fraud measurements in place. The Government decided that schemes on this portfolio should undertake fraud measurement exercises and report these to the centre. This is currently being tested with the current schemes on the portfolio, where it is operating on a “comply or explain” model, enabling us to assess the burden and impact of this approach. The PSFA will continue encouraging and supporting departments to do more targeted measurement. Just last year, the government counterfraud profession launched its first qualification for fraud measurement practitioners.
The amendment also recommends that all the findings are reported to the National Audit Office, in the form of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The PSFA’s mandate already enables the PSFA and the NAO to work very closely to share information on public body performance in dealing with fraud:
“The PSFA will openly and regularly update on its activities and the data it holds to the National Audit Office (NAO). This will include performance data and the compliance with mandatory processes and data requests”.
In addition, this is an area that the Public Accounts Committee has paid keen attention to, and the PSFA has committed to share the high fraud risk portfolio with the committee on reading-room terms.
I hope that the collective measures I have outlined reassure noble Lords that the Amendment 68D would serve only to replicate responsibilities and duties that already exist and that the noble Baroness will therefore withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, as we close the debate on this amendment, let us return to first principles. Public money must be protected, not just recovered after it is lost. That protection starts not with more powers but with stronger systems—systems that encourage responsibility, enable scrutiny and reward transparency.
Amendment 68D would be a practical, proportionate step towards that goal. It sets out a clear set of duties for public authorities that manage major spending schemes—duties that mirror the kind of basic risk management we would expect from any serious organisation handling significant funds. It is not, as I have emphasised, about adding layers of bureaucracy but about lifting the standard of governance across government. It is about saying to departments and public authorities, “If you are entrusted with large sums of public money, you must also be prepared to demonstrate how you protect that money from fraud, and you must do so in a way that is transparent, measurable and independently verifiable”.
This amendment is not just good policy; it is good practice. It would ensure that those with front-line responsibility for major schemes understand and own their risk landscape. It would support the PSFA by creating a consistent baseline of risk information and freeing up its capacity to focus on oversight and intervention, rather than firefighting. It would give Parliament and the public a clear view of where fraud controls are working and where they are not.
The red/amber/green system offers not just transparency but motivation. It highlights good performance, surfaces areas of concern and gives departments an incentive to improve. That is how you change behaviour: not by wishful thinking or ministerial Statements but by law. If a department reports low fraud rates and the authority finds something very different, it must act. It must issue a notice, demand an action plan and ensure that changes are made. If no action is taken, the Comptroller and Auditor-General can audit compliance and report to Parliament. That is what proper fraud prevention looks like. It does not wait for the scandal; it creates a system that sees the risk before the damage is done.
Amendment 68D is not an optional refinement; it is the core of the Bill’s purpose restored. Without it, we will once again be left with false confidence, unreliable data and billions lost in plain sight. In short, this amendment is a road map for better practice—one that I believe both Parliament and the Government should support. I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Finn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the Government’s openness to specifying that the chair of the Public Sector Fraud Authority should be independent.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, our amendments in this group seek to probe the Government on how the PSFA is constituted; they will, we hope, allow some greater clarity on what sort of body the Government are trying to construct. We seem to have a halfway house between an arm’s-length body—an ALB—and an internal team, which fails to meet established appointment practices and to incorporate clear lines of accountability and oversight. I emphasise at this stage that these are probing amendments because I am perplexed about the status of the PSFA—that is, whether it has the status of an executive agency, an ALB or what—and about what the definition might be.
Amendments 68E and 68F seek to clarify that the chair of the Public Sector Fraud Authority should be not merely a non-executive member but an independent non-executive member. This touches on a question that goes to the very heart of the authority’s credibility: who watches the watchdog? The Public Sector Fraud Authority is being established to play a leading role in detecting, deterring and recovering fraud against the public purse. It will hold a range of enforcement powers and a remit that spans across Whitehall and beyond. For such a body to command confidence, not just among Ministers and departments but in Parliament and with the public, it must be seen to operate with integrity and impartiality, and that starts at the top.
This amendment probes the Government’s willingness to state, in the Bill, that the chair of this powerful body must be independent. Here, independence does not mean hostility to government, nor an automatically dissenting voice; it means freedom from internal departmental influence and the credibility to challenge poor practice where it may occur, including within the Cabinet Office itself.
As currently drafted, Schedule 2 states that the Minister is to appoint non-executive members, but that does not guarantee independence. By inserting the word “independent”, this amendment would send a clear signal that the Government recognise the importance of public trust and that scrutiny is not a threat to good governance but a precondition of it. Other public oversight bodies set a useful precedent: the National Audit Office, the office for Budget Responsibility and the Financial Conduct Authority. All of them understand that independence at the top is essential to their authority. If the PSFA is to live up to its remit, particularly when it may need to challenge entrenched practices or politically sensitive departments, then it, too, must have that independent leadership accountable to a Minister who is accountable to Parliament.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sikka very much regrets not being here today, for totally understandable personal reasons.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Could the noble Lord wait, please?
As the noble Lord has reminded me, my noble friend’s amendments are in the next group. My noble friend Lord Sikka will not be here and the lead amendment will not be moved; however, the issues raised in those amendments are directly relevant to this group. In order for us obtain further clarification, it would be helpful to the Committee if my noble friend the Minister could, in our discussion on this group, give a broad indication of the response that would have been made to the following group so that those Members who are interested can consider what has been said and take a view on whether the specific issues that would be raised in the next group, but are germane to this group, should be raised on Report. I think that it would be helpful to have the matter that would be raised in the following group clarified in answer to this group because, to be honest, they totally overlap.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak now, as I think it is probably the appropriate moment; I am sorry if I have jumped in over the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. On the next group, I was going to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and say that I would have signed his amendments had I seen them and organised myself in time; however, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is absolutely right that the two groups fit together.
There are just a couple of things that I want to say in relation both to the amendments addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and to those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. Independence is absolutely crucial but I am not sure that writing in the word “independent” is quite the right way to approach this. I am not a lawyer but how you define whether someone is independent strikes me as a difficult task; it might exclude someone who has donated a large amount of money to a political party in order then to be appointed to that job, for example, but there are a lot more finer cases than that. This is why I preferred the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, which would allow a review by the Treasury Committee; to me, that is genuinely independent oversight of a body to ensure that it is independent. None the less, I will address this group of amendments, together with those from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn.
I will pick up the points made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who is not currently in her place, about the level of public distrust that has arisen since the situation with Covid procurement. I was recently on LBC television talking about defence procurement—a subject that is very much in the news at the moment—when I was quite surprised to see, across a broad political spectrum of people, the level of distrust that there is around government defence procurement and the issues that have arisen in that space. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said, these are really important issues of public trust. We know that we have a huge problem with public trust in our institutions at the moment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to support these amendments, which, once again, seek to enhance the independence, transparency and accountability of the Public Sector Fraud Authority. By probing the Government’s openness to specifying that both the chair and the non-executive members of the authority should be independent—whatever that means—Amendments 68E and 68F reinforce my party’s commitment to ensuring that public bodies operate free from undue political influence. Independence at these levels is crucial for maintaining public trust and guaranteeing impartial oversight of fraud prevention and recovery efforts.
Furthermore, Amendments 69A and 71A, which seek to clarify and limit ministerial powers around appointments and eligibility criteria, would strengthen the governance framework of the authority, promoting fairness and transparency in its leadership. The requirements in Amendments 74A and 74B for timely publication of annual reports and controls on authorising authentication would help to ensure openness and proper organisational integrity.
Finally, Amendments 74C and 74D would confirm that the Minister retains responsibility for functions even when extended to the authority, which would balance operational independence with necessary political accountability. Collectively, these amendments embody my party’s values of good governance and robust oversight, which are essential to protecting public funds and enhancing the effectiveness of fraud prevention. I heartily support these amendments as part of the transparency to which we are committed.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for raising the important issues of independence, recruitment, reporting and powers should the PSFA become a statutory body. The purpose of creating a statutory body is to place individual enforcement decisions at arm’s length from Ministers, but we have been clear that, while the PSFA enforcement unit is small, creating a new statutory body is not proportionate, so the Government will not commence Schedule 2 in the immediate future.
The approach in Schedule 2 adheres to published guidance in the Public Bodies Handbook. It follows the same approach used elsewhere, such as Schedule 1 to the Victims and Prisoners Act, which established the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. Amendments 68E and 68F seek to insert “independent” before the description of the chair and non-executive directors. These are ministerial appointments, but I remind your Lordships that the Government have been clear that, should the PSFA be established as a statutory body, its enforcement decisions would be fully independent of the Minister. To ensure this, the chair and non-executives will be public appointments and will follow the Cabinet Office Governance Code on Public Appointments, which is overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This will ensure that their recruitment is transparent and includes an independent member on the recruitment panel. This is similar in approach to the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, which uses the same legislative language. Amendment 69B seeks to insert words to a similar effect in respect of the chair appointing the chief executive and executive board members, so it is linked to these amendments.
In respect of Amendments 71A and 74B, which seek to remove the Minister’s power to make regulations on the eligibility rules for members of the PSFA and to prevent the PSFA from authorising a person who is not a board member of the authority authenticating its seal, it is important to note these are common provisions in the creation of public bodies. The seal is the means by which the PSFA will be able to enter into deeds and contracts, such as leasing property, and authenticating the seal just means signing next to it to show that the deed has been approved. Although authentication would usually be done by a board member of the PSFA, we have built in a degree of flexibility so that it can be delegated, for instance to its legal officers, should the need arise. As noted, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority and other public bodies such as the independent monitoring authority, established in the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, have similar provisions. They serve to improve the efficacy and administrative efficiency of such public bodies.
As to Amendments 74C and 74D, which would see the Minister retain responsibility for the exercise of functions in the Act after they have been extended to the PSFA, and Amendment 69A, which would make the chief executive and other executive members’ ministerial appointments, I refer your Lordships to my earlier point. One essential reason in setting up the PSFA as a statutory body would be to remove any perception of potential political interference. These amendments would be counter to that policy intention.
Finally, Amendment 74A would require the PSFA to publish its annual report within three months of the end of the financial year. The Bill currently stipulates, in paragraph 12 of Schedule 2, that this should be as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year. That is for good reason. The accounts will need to be reviewed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, whom we would then need to commit to this timeline. Additionally, Erskine May, our own guidance on reporting, notes that accounts, together with an NAO report, must be laid no later than the following January. A statutory PSFA would follow Erskine May, as well as His Majesty’s Treasury’s guidance on Managing Public Money and the annual Government Financial Reporting Manual, to ensure that its report follows best practice.
I turn to the specifics of the points that have been touched on. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked why eligibility regulations under paragraph 6(1) of Section 2 are useful. The ability for a Minister to lay eligibility regulations in respect of a board’s membership is a common feature in setting up public bodies. They can be used, for example, to safeguard independence, ensure expertise at its inception, or improve public trust by excluding certain individuals or demanding certain attributes. Examples might include barriers against those who are currently politically active, or have conflicts of interest or criminal convictions.
With regard to powers being exercised on a Minister’s behalf and safeguarding, there are numerous safeguards built into the Bill, such as independent oversight of all the provisions by external bodies. There are also obligations to obtain the permission of the courts for debt recovery and rights of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Furthermore, authorised officers will be civil servants, obliged to follow the Civil Service Code, which requires that they act solely according to the merits of the case.
In response to my noble friend Lord Davies, I am more than happy, especially given the circumstances with our noble friend Lord Sikka, to write to him with all the points of the speech I would have responded with, and I am happy to share that with all Members of the Committee—that pertains to group 9.
I take the opportunity to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Will any roles be outsourced? No—we are clear that they have to be authorised officers as defined in Clause 66: they have to be civil servants.
I hope that, with those reassurances, noble Lords will not press their amendments and we can move forward to the next group.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, as I emphasised at the outset, across this group our amendments have been probing in nature, and I am grateful for some of the clarity that the Minister has given. We are seeking clarity, not confrontation. We are trying to establish whether the Government see the authority as a truly independent body with the authority to challenge where needed, or simply as a well-staffed extension of the Cabinet Office. In seeking those answers, we are also pressing for a model of governance that ensures effectiveness, credibility and accountability from day 1.
At the heart of our amendments is a simple but critical question: how do we make sure that the watchdog has teeth and is not quietly tethered by ministerial influence? Amendments 68E and 68F speak to the need for independence at the top through a chair who is genuinely independent, free to challenge, credible in doing so and accountable to the Minister. We know from other public oversight bodies that institutional trust starts at the top so, if the Government truly believe in empowering the PSFA to be a fearless voice in the fight against fraud, they should have no hesitation in embracing the modest strengthening of the governance framework.
Likewise, Amendments 69A and 69B ask fair and important questions about how the PSFA’s executive leadership will be chosen. We are not seeking to strip the chair of responsibility; we are asking whether there is a clearer, more robust process that would enhance the authority’s legitimacy and avoid the risk of it becoming either too insular or too directed from above. Ensuring that executive appointments are overseen by a group of independent non-executives, rather than a single individual, is possibly an act of good governance. I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that the independent non-executive appointments will follow the guide for public appointments.
Amendment 71A, meanwhile, takes on a different but equally significant concern: the breadth of ministerial regulation-making powers over eligibility for authority membership. In a body designed to scrutinise government spending and investigate fraud, the power of a Minister to decide who is eligible to serve—and more worryingly, who is not—is a red flag. The Government may never intend to use this power in order to silence critical voices or to manipulate the composition of the authority, but the mere fact that such a power exists could undermine confidence in the PSFA’s independence. This amendment seeks simply to close that door before it becomes a problem; it should not really be necessary if the full OCPA guidance is being followed.
The final amendments in the group, Amendments 74A to 74D, reinforce the need for clarity, transparency and constitutional responsibility. Whether it is ensuring the timely publication of reports, safeguarding who may speak for the authority with the official seal or distinguishing between operational delivery and retained ministerial accountability, these changes are about shoring up the credibility of the entire framework. Together, these amendments ask the Government to take seriously the institution that they are creating.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, did not move his amendments; I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I want to take the liberty, if I may, of saying that a lot of what the noble Lord said chimes with the need for public accountability and transparency, as well as with a number of the points that we have been making. Although we recognise the vital importance of oversight, we have concerns that some of the amendments might create an unnecessary, burdensome framework that might impede the PSFA’s operational effectiveness; for example, the requirement for all meetings to be open to the public could present a significant operational concern. However, we understand the purpose and principle behind what the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, is trying to do.
Turning back to this group, these amendments ask the Government to take seriously the institution that they are creating. If the Public Sector Fraud Authority is to succeed—we all want it to—it must be allowed to operate with genuine independence, proper oversight and clear lines of public accountability. That is not bureaucracy or delay; it is simply how we build a body that the public can trust and on which Parliament can rely. We offer these proposals not to frustrate the Government’s ambition but to strengthen it by ensuring that this new authority is not only operationally capable but constitutionally sound. I urge the Minister to reflect on the questions asked and to work with us to ensure that the governance of the PSFA lives up to the seriousness of its mission. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden
““reasonable grounds” do not include generalisations or stereotypes of certain categories of people, for example that members of a particular social group are more likely to be involved in fraudulent activity than others, irrespective of whether they are made through entirely automated, partially automated, or non-automated processes;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Lord Vaux of Harrowden, clarifies that people cannot be investigated for fraud based on stereotypes and generalisations, be this through the use of algorithms, human assessment, or a combination.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, we have been debating Part 1, which gives substantial powers to the Cabinet Office when the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, and we are about to kick off on Part 2, which gives substantial powers to the DWP. Those include police-style powers to enter private premises, search them and seize property, as well as powers to demand information. Those are potentially very intrusive powers, so it is essential that they can be exercised only when it is genuinely appropriate to do so.
The two amendments in this group cover both Parts 1 and 2, and they provide essential clarification as to how the DWP and PSFA should interpret the legal threshold for most of the investigative powers in the Bill, which is the requirement to have “reasonable grounds” of suspicion of fraud.
The amendments are intended to ensure that, when the DWP and PSFA are exercising their investigative powers under this Bill, reasonable grounds do not include generalisations or stereotypes of certain categories of people—for example, that members of a particular social group are more likely to be involved in fraudulent activity than others. Investment in data analytics and other emerging technologies, such as AI, for fraud risk detection is inevitably, and probably rightly, increasing. The Government have signalled their intention to turbocharge AI and to mainline AI into the veins of the nation, including the public sector.
The Government are, as we speak, trying to pass the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which would repeal the current ban on automated decision-making and profiling of individuals. The DWP has invested heavily in artificial intelligence, widening its scope last year to include use of a machine-learning tool to identify fraud in universal credit advances applications, and it intends to develop further models. This is despite a warning from the Auditor-General in 2023 of
“an inherent risk that the algorithms are biased towards selecting claims for review from certain vulnerable people or groups with protected characteristics”.
The DWP admitted that its,
“ability to test for unfair impacts across protected characteristics is currently limited”.
There are real concerns about the inaccuracy of algorithms, particularly when such inaccuracy is discriminatory, when mistakes disproportionately impact a certain group of people. It is well evidenced that machine-learning algorithms can learn to discriminate in a way that no democratic society would wish to incorporate into any reasonable decision-making process about individuals. An internal DWP fairness analysis of the universal credit payments algorithm, which was published only due to a freedom of information request, has revealed a “statistical significant outcome disparity” according to people’s age, disability, marital status and nationality.
This is not just a theoretical concern. Recent real-life experiences in both the Netherlands and Sweden should provide a real warning for us, and are clear evidence that we must have robust safeguards in place. Machine-learning algorithms used in the Netherlands’ child tax credit scandal learned to profile those with dual nationality and low income as being suspects for fraud. From 2015 to 2019, the authorities penalised families over suspicion of fraud based on the system’s risk indicators. Tens of thousands of families, often with lower incomes or belonging to ethnic minorities, were pushed into poverty. Some victims committed suicide. More than a thousand children were taken into foster care. The scandal ultimately led to the resignation of the then Prime Minister, Mark Rutte.
In Sweden in 2024, an investigation found that the machine-learning system used by the country’s social insurance agency is disproportionately flagging certain groups for further investigation over social benefits fraud, including women, individuals with foreign backgrounds, low-income earners and people without university degrees. Once cases are flagged, fraud investigators have the power to trawl through a person’s social media accounts, obtain data from institutions and even interview an individual’s neighbours as part of their investigations.
The two amendments that I have tabled are based on paragraph 2.2 of Code A to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, in relation to police stop and search powers, which states that:
“Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people as more likely to be involved in criminal activity”.
These amendments would not reduce the ability of departments to go after fraud. Indeed, I argue that by ensuring that the reasonable suspicion is genuine, rather than based on stereotypes, they should improve the targeting of investigations and therefore make the investigations more effective, not less so.
The Bill extends substantial intrusive powers to the Cabinet Office, the PFSA and the DWP, and those powers must be subject to robust safeguards in the Bill. The use of “generalisations or stereotypes”, whether through automated systems or otherwise, should never be seen as grounds for reasonable suspicion. I hope the Minister will see the need for these safeguards in that context, just as they are needed and exist in relation to stop and search powers. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and to speak in favour of Amendments 75A and 79A, to which I have attached my name and which noble Lords will see have rather broad support in political terms—perhaps not the broadest I have ever seen but it is certainly up there. I must also pay tribute to Justice, a cross-party law reform and human rights organisation that is the UK section of the International Commission of Jurists, which has been most determined in ensuring that these issues are raised in this Bill, in this context.
I have already addressed these issues in the Chamber in a number of amendments to the Employment Rights Bill that I tabled and spoke to. I am not going to repeat all that I said there, but I cross-reference those amendments. If noble Lords want to find out more about this issue, there is an excellent book by the researcher Shannon Vallor, The AI Mirror, which is a useful metaphor for understanding the risks whereby we live in a biased society in which those biases risk being reflected back to us and magnified by the use of artificial intelligence and algorithms. That is very much what these two amendments seek to address.
The noble Lord has already given us two international examples of where using AI, algorithms, stereotypes and generalisations in investigations has gone horribly wrong. I have to add a third example, which is the infamous case in Australia of “Robodebt”. That was an automated debt recovery and assessment programme, from the rough equivalent of the DWP, that was exercised in Australia. There was controversy before and through its implementation, and it was an unmitigated disaster. I point the Minister and others to the fact that there was a Royal Commission in Australia which said the programme had been
“a costly failure of public administration in both human and economic terms”.
I note that the House of Representatives in Australia passed a public apology to the huge number of people who were affected.
In a way, I argue that these amendments are a protection for the Government, that this will be written into law: there is a stop that says, “No, we cannot allow things to run out of control in the way we have seen in so many international examples”. I think these are truly important amendments. I hope we might hear positive things from the Minister but, if not, we are going to have to keep pursuing these issues, right across the spectrum. I was very taken: Hansard will not record the tone of voice in which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said that the Government wish “to mainline AI”, but it is important to note that a concerning approach is being taken by the Government to the whole issue of artificial so-called intelligence.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as part of the unusual alliance, I think that now is a good time to reflect on where we are in the Bill. We are now talking about powers targeted at recipients of universal credit, employment and support allowance, and pension credit. Relevant accounts that can be flagged to the Government include any account
“into which a specified relevant benefit is paid”.
Approximately 9.4 million people are in receipt of a benefit currently specified by the Bill—one in eight people in the UK. This already risks creating a two-tier society in and of itself, in which certain groups are subjected to intrusive financial monitoring by the state while others are not.
I was very pleased to see these two amendments because I worry when I consider that, last year, two-thirds of claims flagged by a DWP algorithm as potentially high-risk were, in fact, legitimate. We are now talking about the use of algorithms in relation to the group of people I talked about, so I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on Amendments 75A and 79A.
The key thing here is to stress something that has already been discussed at great length throughout our debates on the Bill, which is what we consider “reasonable grounds”. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has raised reasonability throughout. Generally, but not consistently, the investigator powers in the Bill are exercisable only when there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that, for example, fraud has been committed. Reasonable grounds are a safeguard to protect individuals from baseless state interference and fishing expeditions. They uphold the rule of law by preventing arbitrary state power but “reasonable” requires clarification once we go into the context of the role of technology, which is at the heart of the Bill; that is one of the reasons why I have put my name to these amendments and will raise other amendments in relation to algorithms later on in Committee.
These amendments are safeguards to ensure accountability; to ensure that we are clear about the basis on which algorithms are used; and to ensure that we do not allow them to become the basis of lazy caricatures and stereotypes. Examples have been given by other speakers on this group, but I anticipate that it is possible that the Government might well cite the Equality Act as a guard against such discrimination. However, it is important to note that, although the Equality Act does lots of very good things, it will not necessarily help us here because not all prejudice is reducible to protected characteristics. In fact, attitudes to people on benefits in general and sections of the white working class do not fit into the Equality Act, so it is important that we do not just rely on another piece of legislation here.
Also, if we are going to say that AI algorithms, into which a potential discriminatory nature can be built—as has already been explained—were to make mistakes and discriminate against any group that is covered by the Equality Act, we would be clogging up the Equality Act with lots of legal challenges based on this Bill. I think that using the “reasonable” test for algorithms and ensuring that there is a commitment to no discrimination on the face of the Bill is a very valuable way of countering that.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, we are moving towards the DWP elements of the Bill, although I suggest that these particular amendments are more of a hybrid between the Cabinet Office and the DWP. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, indicated, the DWP elements in scope are universal credit, the ESA and pension credit.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it does not look as though we are ending on an easy group for me. Amendments 75A and 79A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, cover the same ground in Parts 1 and 2. The amendments would add a definition of what cannot constitute “reasonable grounds” in the legislation, setting out certain factors that will not constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Although I understand the intention behind the amendments, I want to assure your Lordships that stereotypes and generalisations would not be considered reasonable grounds for starting an investigation or issuing an information notice. Under the information powers, an information notice may be sent only when an authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a relevant offence has been committed. An authorised officer must genuinely suspect that the fraud has been carried out by the individual, and that belief will be based on an objective assessment of facts, information and/or intelligence. “Reasonable grounds” are a standard test used by other organisations, including the police, and it is clear that they cannot be based on a hunch or the types of personal factors listed in the amendments.
The DWP has well-established safeguards to ensure that this test is applied properly in practice, with authorised officers documenting all reasoning for their decisions, including the basis for their suspicion, and through the Bill the PSFA will implement comparable safeguards. Management checks provide further internal assurance, and both the PSFA and the DWP intend to appoint His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services to independently inspect the use of these powers.
Finally, DWP guidance for authorised officers is also included in the new draft code of practice, which has been made available to noble Peers as a working draft prior to consultation. The PSFA will draft guidance on the lawful use of its information powers, which will cover this issue.
I will review the specific points made, especially regarding automated processes, and will probably end up writing to noble Lords on the questions I do not cover, but I will give a flavour of the Government’s thinking. Do the PSFA or the DWP use automated processes that enable generalisations and stereotypes when gathering information about individuals? No, we do not. The DWP does not use automated processes to decide whether an information notice will be issued, and the PSFA will not do so when the power is granted. An information notice may only ever be issued by an authorised officer, who must carefully consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to do so and document their reasons.
Regarding artificial intelligence in fraud and error, given what is being debated in the Chamber, I feel that we have two AI conversations going on. The DWP has a responsibility to ensure that fraud is minimised so that the right payments are made to the right people at the right time. Fraud controls are vital to reduce waste and protect taxpayers’ money. Advanced analytics, including machine learning, will play a critical role in tackling fraud, error and debt.
There is currently one fraud error and error machine-learning model in full deployment on universal credit advances, and others are at various stages of testing and development, designed to prevent fraud in the highest areas of loss. We have been careful to implement a supervised machine-learning approach and incorporate human intervention to consider the case and make further inquiries if necessary. Our use of advanced analytics does not replace human judgment. The Bill does not introduce automated decision-making.
To improve our approach and assure Parliament and the public of our processes, we intend to develop fairness and analysis assessments, which can be published through the annual report and accounts process. We will ensure that the fairness analysis assessment sets out the rationale for why we judge the models to be reasonable and proportionate, but without divulging the detail of our fraud and error controls, which would put the department’s security at risk.
The noble Viscount will know better than me that two proofs of concept were completed by the last Government on this issue. So there is proof of concept on EVM, but we are clear, especially from the PSFA side, that we will continue with a test and learn approach to this, and will report back with any other developments. As I said, DWP decisions on fraud and error will be made by a human. I will review his other questions to see whether I need to write to him. I hope that that gives a level of reassurance to noble Lords, and that the amendment can be withdrawn.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I appreciate the answers that the Minister has given. I also appreciate that there are more answers to come, but could she add to the answer in writing about the timing for the remaining proofs of concept: when they are going to be completed? I see that as being germane to the rolling out of this process.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I will add that to the list of things to write to noble Lords about, if that is okay.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
It is very reassuring, of course, to hear the Minister, absolutely correctly, insist that individual officers will not choose who to discriminate against. When I supported this, I was not thinking that the officers of the state would necessarily be wandering around with their own prejudices and saying, “nick them” or “investigate them”. I would want to imagine that that would not be the case.
What I think we are talking about here—and this is because the use of technology is so profoundly important to what the Government want to do—is the latent biases in the training data. The connections made between data points are notoriously inaccurate and can be arbitrary, so we are seeking some reassurance here, and I will come back on this in another group. In relation to the accuracy and inaccuracy of algorithms, as I said, last year, two-thirds of the claims flagged by the DWP algorithm as high risk were legitimate in the end, so this is not a foolproof method. Consequently, I am not entirely convinced or satisfied that the Minister has quite answered what the concerns were—certainly that I was raising.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
I am so sorry to have disappointed the noble Baroness, but I will be writing to all Members to answer the questions I have outlined.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sorry for the Minister’s knees: I apologise in advance. But before she theoretically sits down, in her response, she said that the DWP is essentially relying on existing practices and that this is going to be a continuation of practices that exist in the DWP. In that context, it is important to raise the fact that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has opened an investigation into the treatment of disabled and chronically ill people by the DWP, which suggests that there are real issues here. I note in this context that the EHRC had been going to come to an arrangement with the department, but then decided that the situation was so serious that it had to open a formal investigation. I guess what I am asking is: can the Minister assure me that what is being proposed in the Bill is going to take into consideration previous issues and, hopefully, correct them?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
The noble Baroness will be very aware that we now have several days of Committee before us on stage 2 of the Bill, and I look forward to discussing this and many issues with her as the Committee stage progresses.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but informative debate. I seem to be getting a bit of a track record. I thought my previous record was managing to get an amendment signed by both the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I might even have surpassed that with this one. I am not sure quite what that says.
I am partially reassured by what the Minister has said, and obviously I am sure that she and her team will follow the safeguards that she has talked about. But those safeguards are not in statutes. For example, she talked about decisions being taken only by humans in relation to putting out information requests. That is not the case. The code of conduct refers only to decisions that will affect benefits, not the information request side of things, and it is only in the code of conduct, which can be changed at will. I am uncomfortable here.
We are talking, particularly with the eligibility verification process, about very large amounts of data, potentially on 9.9 million people. Who knows how many will flag up eligibility indicators? But without a shadow of doubt, the department will be using some form of algorithmic or AI tool to decide which of those are the ones the department wants to concentrate on. If that is the case, that is where the bias can creep in. If bias creeps into the algorithm or the machine learning tool and comes up to a person, it is easy to say “computer said yes” or “computer said no” and not to question the data coming to you.
I am not totally comfortable that there really are the safeguards at the moment. We are going to come to the human interaction at a later stage of the debate, so I will not go further into that. To be honest, I suspect that the Netherlands, Sweden and Australia probably had similar safeguards. They did not work. I cannot say for certain, but most departments believe that they are doing the right thing and that the safeguards are working. But they did not in those cases, and real problems were caused to vulnerable people.
I will withdraw the amendment but this is something that we will definitely come back to. Just in passing, I also welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, to the right side of the fence with us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Online Abuse: Protection for Children
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect children against abusive online communication.
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, keeping children safe is a priority for this Government. Under the Online Safety Act, services must prevent all users encountering illegal abuse and harassment online. These duties are already in force. Services likely to be accessed by children must also protect them from content that is harmful to them, including bullying, abusive or hateful content. Ofcom recommends measures including ensuring that algorithms filter out such content, to make sure that children are protected from abusive online communications.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. A recent NSPCC report highlights how the design of social media platforms is enabling the abuse, exploitation and harassment of girls. Girls are disproportionately at risk, with only 9% of them feeling safe in online spaces. The report shows how the detailed nature of public social media accounts makes it too easy for adult strangers to pick out girls and send unsolicited messages to their accounts. Online platforms need to prevent abusive content being sent and develop a safety-by-design approach. How will the Government ensure that Ofcom is doing everything in its power to require tech companies to keep girls safe from unacceptable abuse and reaffirm the Government’s commitment to protecting girls online?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this profound issue. Ofcom’s codes go beyond current industry standards and practices. Under the Online Safety Act, companies cannot decline to take steps to protect children, including young girls, because it is too expensive or inconvenient. Protecting children is a priority. The Secretary of State has said that safety by design is one of the priorities in the statement of strategic priorities of this Government. Ofcom is required to consider those priorities in its approach to online safety regulation and will need to provide regular updates on how they are being delivered.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, why have civic groups and campaigners been told that their responses to the consultation on the children’s code will not be considered for incorporation into the code until the next round of regulations in 18 months’ time? When dealing with the rapidly evolving tech sector, does the Minister not agree that this regulatory cycle is too slow?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as part of its statutory duties, Ofcom consulted widely on the proposals in the codes and considered responses from a wide range of stakeholders, including children and civil society organisations. Ofcom has been clear that it has reflected these views in its decision. It has made a number of changes reflecting feedback from civil society stakeholders. For example, it has substantially strengthened the expectation on services that set a minimum age—often 13.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister not concerned that in present and projected legislation for online content the responsibility of those who provide the source of this material is out of proportion to that of the platforms? Is she satisfied that the platform operators are sufficiently responsible for what happens?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Ofcom has to take steps, and will do, under the illegal content codes and the children’s code against those platforms and the originators of harmful or illegal content. Indeed, I am pleased to say that as Ofcom has started to roll out its responsibilities, a number of what we would regard as inappropriate app sites have been blocked or ceased to function in the UK, because they know they cannot comply with the current legislation.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, given the grave, ever-present threat to children’s mental well-being from all online activities, what updated guidance, if any, has been issued to schools on child protection?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, schools must have a policy on this issue. They are all expected to have a policy about the use of phones in schools, for example, and we have been very clear about our expectations on that. The noble Baroness is right: the issue of mental health is fundamental, and tackling excessive screen time among children is a real priority for the Government. Nevertheless, we recognise that online activities can have benefits for children, such as helping them make connections, learn new skills and gain independence. We want to get that right and make sure that children have a balanced childhood overall, with a mixture of online and offline activities, and that will be our strategy going forward.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, following on from that last question, can the Minister say what is being done to ensure that teachers have the right skills to train children in school on the dangers of online communication?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this is already a priority. The Department for Education is making sure that teachers have the training support to tackle these issues. Teachers have been asking for this, and we have responded, because sometimes they feel that they do not have the tools to raise these issues appropriately. It is something that the department is anxious to deal with, and it is building it into future training programmes to give teachers more confidence to tackle these issues.
Lord Markham (Con)
Given that children are among the most vulnerable users online and are often disproportionately affected by online harms, it is notable that none of the eligibility criteria of the super-complaints mechanism recognise or require expertise on online safety relating to children. Are the Government prepared to address this oversight?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this is an issue that we of course take seriously. We want to make sure that we have the right spread of expertise reflected in the super-complaints process. We are still working that through with Ofcom, and we will be able to spell it out in more detail very soon. However, I take the noble Lord’s point, which is a good one. I will go back and check that that is indeed being addressed.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that too many of our regulators use consultation as a method of doing nothing? Should we not ask our regulators to be more precise, get on with the job that they have been charged with doing and protect the public?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
In this case, Ofcom can do only what legislators ask it to do or provide for it to do. It is limited in that. As noble Lords will know, Ofcom has a clear remit to implement the Online Safety Act. I know that we have discussed this several times before, but I think that as we roll out the illegal codes and the children’s safety code, they will make a profound difference to what children can see. I am confident that Ofcom has the resources and wherewithal to make that step change, which we all know is necessary.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am an ex-trustee of the NSPCC. One of the answers that the Minister gave regarded algorithms. What experience and expertise does Ofcom have to ensure that those algorithms capture the vast majority of harm that is put on the internet and on social media, because who develops the algorithms holds the key to this?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Algorithms are a real challenge, and we know some of the damage that can be done by them if they do not operate effectively. When Ofcom published its child safety codes on 24 April, it set out 40 measures that companies are expected to take to comply with the child safety duties. Measures include age-assurance technology, changing algorithms to filter out harmful content and adopting mechanisms so that parents and children can easily report harmful content. It is part of the children’s code to address algorithms. Over time, Ofcom will be able to report on how successful it has been in expecting that of platforms.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, building on the comment of my noble friend Lord Colville about the amount of time between consultation and action being taken, could the Minister draw to the attention of Ofcom the report by the NSPCC that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to? It contains no fewer than 27 specific suggestions and solutions for Ofcom to include in the illegal harms code of practice, in addition to the 40 she just named. If she could bring that to the attention of Ofcom and perhaps encourage it to get its skates on, that would be greatly appreciated.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that Ofcom has regular dialogue with the NSPCC and other stakeholders, but I will double-check to make sure that, as the noble Lord says, the issues and recommendations are being addressed.
Economic Growth
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Booth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on their economic growth mission, as set out in their Plan for Change (CP 1210).
Lord Booth (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I apologise to the House because I have only half a voice today.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s plan for change set out three metrics for the economic growth mission: first, that we will aim for the highest growth in the G7—we are currently the fastest-growing economy in the G7; secondly, higher living standards in every part of the country—living standards are now forecast to grow more than four times faster than in the previous Parliament; and thirdly, rising GDP per capita. Whereas this fell in the previous Parliament, GDP per capita is now forecast to rise by 5.6% in this Parliament.
Lord Booth (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply. On GDP growth, I doubt the 0.7% increase in the first quarter will be replicated later in the year. There is an old expression: one swallow does not make a summer. I suspect that that will be the case. Moody’s rating agency recently said that the Chancellor’s £25 billion tax raid on employers last October has already dented confidence in the British economy and it will weigh on growth very heavily in 2025. In fact, I believe that these policies which came into effect—
Lord Booth (Con)
I will get to my question in a second. I believe the policies that came into effect in April will affect the British economy like an earthquake. My question is this. I live in south Cornwall, in a small-harbour fishing village. We no longer have any fishing in that village. There is fishing in Mevagissey, Looe and Newlyn. Will the Minister explain to the House how he expects the fishing industry to grow over the next 13 years?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for eventually getting to his question, but I am sorry that he chose to talk down the economy in the way that he did. I remind him that, when this Government took office, the UK was ranked seventh out of seven G7 economies projected for 2025. We currently have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He talked about a report; let me give him another report. When the IMF last week upgraded the UK’s growth forecasts, it said that the Government’s fiscal strategy was striking a good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability, that the growth mission focuses on the right areas to lift productivity, and that our spending plans are credible and growth-friendly—spending plans that his party opposes. His party has opposed every single measure that we have taken to grow the economy.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that earlier this afternoon I had the great pleasure of being in the Peers’ Gallery to hear a brilliant speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was followed by an awful diatribe from Mr Stride, or “Baby Steps” as he is now called? Does the Minister agree that he was not just talking down the economy like the noble Lord, Lord Booth; he was talking down Britain?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I very much agree with my noble friend on every word that he said. The spending review that we saw this afternoon from the Chancellor set out capital spending that increases growth by 1.4% in the long term. Every single penny of that capital spending has been opposed by the party opposite. The spending review set out a housing settlement—the biggest investment in a generation. It set out record levels of R&D spending, the biggest ever transport settlement, and a record commitment to skills investment. Every single penny of that spending was opposed by the party opposite. It can talk down Britain, but it opposes every single measure this Government are taking to increase growth in the economy.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I might offer some Cross-Bench objectivity. Here it comes. The 0.7% growth rate in Q1 was encouraging, but the growth rate over the last three quarters, which covers this Government’s tenure, is just 0.8%. That is less than in both the eurozone and the US. Does the Minister agree that it is growth per capita that matters—not the forecast but the track record here and now? And how concerned is he that our economic growth rate continues to lag our population growth?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He did indeed show his characteristic objectivity. I will simply say that, where GDP per capita fell in the last Parliament, GDP per capita is forecast to rise by 5.6% over the course of this Parliament.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I hope the Minister will agree that to achieve growth in the UK we need a liquid and effective investor market. Despite London Tech Week, Wise plans now to shift its listing from London to New York and on Monday Spectris, Alphawave and Oxford Ionics, all key creative tech companies, announced that they would be taken over by US investors. In 2024, UK equity funds suffered £9.6 billion in outflows when most other equity funds had huge inflows—a pattern that dates from Brexit. I understand that the Government plan to press the pension sector to invest in UK companies, but what other steps are they taking to restore those key investment flows that used to come from Europe into the UK and to counter the US’s use of tariffs to incentivise the takeover of British tech?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She mentions the outflows. The outflows in 2024 were less than in any previous year over the last 14 years so, although they are not what we want to see, they are perhaps not as doom-laden as she might want to make out. The Chancellor set out extensive capital market reforms in her last Mansion House speech. She has another Mansion House speech due on 1 July, at which point we will also publish the financial services growth and competitiveness strategy. I hope that will help to answer some of the questions that the noble Baroness asks.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s tax hikes last year are believed—by the Bank of England, no less—to have reversed the frankly anaemic growth we have seen in the last couple of months, and we shall see what happens in the coming months. Since growth is the Government’s stated economic priority, which I agree with, it is unfortunate that today’s Statement by the Chancellor does so little to improve the position—for example, by boosting productivity across the economy. How do the Government plan to improve the situation, particularly in the coming months?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness says that growth was anaemic under this Government. As I said before, the UK was ranked seventh out of seven for projected 2025 growth when this Government took power but is now the fastest-growing economy in the G7. We all know what the Tory record on growth was; had the economy grown over their 14 years at the average of other OECD economies, it would have been £150 billion larger. The noble Baroness asked what was in the spending review to boost growth. I have already listed some of the measures: record investments in housing, R&D, transport and skills, more money to reduce inactivity, more money for childcare, access to finance and a record investment in nuclear. Every single penny of that her party opposes. She says she supports growth, but she does not support a single one of the measures to get it.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, do the Government not recognise that the most obvious thing they could do to improve our growth record would be to improve our trading relationship with Europe? What do the Government propose to do in that regard?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord’s point, which is exactly why we have embarked on the EU reset and negotiated a new strategic partnership with the EU that is in the national interest. I completely agree that the EU is our closest partner and biggest market. In 2024, almost half the UK’s total trade was with the EU and around 94,500 UK businesses exported goods to the EU, which is why the EU reset is so important. We negotiated a defence pact with the European Union, and we negotiated an SPS agreement with it to make exports easier. We have moved closer to agreeing closer co-operation with the EU on energy and the ETS, and we have agreed that we will work towards establishing a balanced youth experience scheme with the EU. All these things will move us closer to our biggest and most important market.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that we inherited a bankrupt economy and low growth, and that we had no prospects in the UK until we had a Labour Government? Is it not going to take more than a couple of months to turn around the mess that the last Government left?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
On a constructive note, will the Minister give an undertaking to take an early opportunity to read the report that will be produced on Friday by the Financial Services Regulation Committee of this House, which sets out a clear agenda for how the regulators can help to establish growth in financial services, which should be a matter of consensus across the board? It certainly is a unanimous report by this House of the kind of quality that this House is famed for but which does not always result in immediate action by Governments.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I absolutely will read the report as soon as it is published. I was lucky enough to serve on the Economic Affairs Committee when the noble Lord was its chair and I know he is now the chair of the committee producing this report, so I know it will be a report of incredible quality and I look forward to reading it. I know the Chancellor shares many of the committee’s objectives when it comes to financial services, and I hope the noble Lord will see much of that agenda laid out in her next Mansion House speech. I look forward to debating the report with him in this House in due course.
United Kingdom Jobs Market
Lord Hunt of Wirral
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the jobs market in the United Kingdom.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, a near-record number of people are in employment. This has been driven by a fall in economic inactivity, which is now at its lowest rate since 2023. For people in work, real earnings have continued to grow. We want to continue this trajectory and achieve our long-term ambition of an 80% employment rate by reforming employment, health and skills support, as set out in the Get Britain Working White Paper.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, 274,000 jobs have already vanished on this Government’s watch and the OBR has already warned that the Employment Rights Bill will have an additional negative impact on levels of employment. Why are the Government so stubbornly pursuing and continuing with this legislation—which can only be called the unemployment Bill—when their own forecaster is saying that the Bill will destroy jobs?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I have enjoyed debating issues around the Government’s flagship Employment Rights Bill with him during some fairly lengthy Committee sessions. Given the debate we had last night, I am somewhat surprised that he returned to this field. We discussed just yesterday evening how one of the main aspects of the Employment Rights Bill is delivering our manifesto commitment to repeal the previous Government’s failed Trade Union Act 2016. I remind noble Lords that that Act delivered more strike days: 2.7 million days were lost to strikes in 2023 and 2.5 million in 2024—the highest levels since 1989. That Act failed and that is why we are reforming it.
To pick up the noble Lord’s point on our economic record, let us have a look at it: employment has risen by 0.5 million since the general election and is now at a record high. Economic inactivity is down by more than 20%. Earnings are up and vacancies are down. We have a plan for change and a plan to invest in Britain’s renewal, and we are sticking to those plans.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, as an MP, it was an absolute pleasure to visit schools, but it was really hard to be unaware of a growing despondency among young people—a real lack of hope for the future, particularly among those who were not hopeful of a university place. Can my noble friend tell us what the Government are going to do to help young people into fulfilling jobs and give real hope to them for a decent future?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. She makes an essential point about growing young people’s aspiration and potential, as well as about the future of our economy and of our country. I am pleased to tell her that the Government are supporting more young people into work through our new youth guarantee for all young people aged 18 to 21, including young people with health conditions, to ensure they can access quality training opportunities and apprenticeships, or help to find work. This includes targeted support for young people with learning disabilities. In the other place, we heard the Chancellor set out in the spending review record investment in training and upskilling young people, with £1.2 billion a year by the end of the spending review. That is on top of a record £3 billion spent on the apprenticeships budgets for 2025-26, which is the largest spend on apprenticeships ever. All I will say is that, unlike the previous Government, we are not letting our young people down. They are our future, we have hope for them, and they will deliver for us.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the impact of artificial intelligence on the job market? What measures are being taken to reskill the workforce?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He, like me, will be waiting with bated breath for the publication of the Government’s industrial strategy White Paper, which will set out the Government’s approach to investing in eight priority sectors—those deemed most likely to drive UK economic growth. It will not surprise the noble Lord or, indeed, the House that digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, will be one of the sectors right at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy. As I have set out, we have a youth guarantee to deliver a record spend for young people. Ensuring they can take advantage of the opportunities of AI will be at the heart of making that work.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, could the Minister actually answer the Question, which is about the assessment of jobs that will be available? He has spoken about various things that are in flow, but could he give some indication as to how the Government see the various sectors of our society and the jobs that will be needed? There is always a feeling that we are waiting for some report, but there is no assessment of which sectors are in need of employees and workforce. Can the Minister indicate which sectors of society will be looked at for future employment?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am afraid I will repeat myself: a great deal of it will be delivered through the industrial strategy White Paper. We are looking at the sectors that will lead to the future economic growth of this country—advanced manufacturing, clean energy, the creative industries, digital and technologies, defence, financial services, life sciences, and professional business services. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on the previous Question, financial services will be a key part of our economic growth. These are the areas in which the jobs will come. It is our role as a Government to make sure everybody can access quality jobs in these economic sectors and that is what we will do.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the ONS data shows that job losses accelerated immediately after the Government’s national insurance increase took effect in April, with 109,000 payrolled employees lost in May. That is the biggest monthly drop since the pandemic. I spent my whole working life trying to help people who had lost their jobs get back into work. The impact on individuals is truly devastating, and we should not forget that. How will the Government help those who have lost their jobs—who are competing in a rapidly shrinking jobs market with fewer vacancies—manage their period of inactivity so that their mental health does not deteriorate to the point that they remain out of the labour market permanently and never achieve their destiny?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She is right to identify the huge personal impact of long periods of economic inactivity and joblessness, as well as the obvious deleterious economic impact. The Government’s Get Britain Working White Paper sets out a bold and comprehensive vision to tackle that inactivity and build an inclusive labour market. As well as wanting to raise the UK’s employment rate to over 80%, it aims to modernise employment support. We have set out a number of trailblazers—including the first pathfinder, launched just last week in Wakefield—as part of a commitment to create a new jobs and careers service, which will shift the focus of the jobcentre system from box-ticking to job finding. It is a sad fact that only 9% of employers currently recruit through jobcentres. That is too few; they should become recruiters of choice. Our plan in the Get Britain Working White Paper is designed to make that happen.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that, unfortunately, we have a very inefficient jobs market and there are too many artificial barriers? For example, there are requirements for work experience that prevent science graduates entering industry. There is age discrimination and paper qualifications that are not relevant to the job. Those who have criminal records, often from decades before, are prevented from entering the workforce. This applies to both the public and the private sector. Is it not time to sweep away these artificial barriers so that people can get into work, look after themselves and make a contribution to our economy and society?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. He is absolutely right: we need to do whatever we can to make sure that those barriers to work are torn down. To refer back to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, obviously we need to make sure that we have fair employment practices, that workplaces are fair, and that people get paid for a fair amount of work. We are taking steps to ensure that we ask people who face barriers to work what those barriers are. For instance, I am pleased to tell my noble friend that we have just set up a youth advisory panel of people who will provide their expertise from their experience to ensure that the voices of young people, most of whom are not in education, employment or training, are central to the design and deployment of the new jobs and careers service.
Police Service
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dobbs
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in response to concerns expressed by the leaders of the Police Superintendents’ Association and the Police Federation of England and Wales that the police service is “in crisis”.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to giving the police the resourcing and staffing they need to tackle crime. As set out in the police funding settlement, overall funding for policing will total £19.6 billion in 2025-26, an increase of up to £1.2 billion compared to the 2024-25 settlement under the Government the noble Lord supported. The Government will also publish a White Paper on police reform later this year.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I come from a family of four generations of police officers. I am proud to refer to that, as a matter of interest. The Labour manifesto promised to lower all sorts of crime, and I wish them well in fulfilling that promise. But the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents’ Association, in their joint letter, say that the police service is in a state of “crisis”, that it is “broken” and that as officers are
“battling burnout and crushing stress, it becomes a national emergency”.
These are all direct quotes from their letter sent over the weekend. This is really rather terrifying, so my Question is about numbers. The Labour Government inherited a total of nearly 148,000 full-time-equivalent warranted police officers, which was the highest level reached in two decades. But since this Government took office, the numbers have started falling. So can the Minister give a commitment that, after today’s spending review, there will be more warranted police officers in eight years’ time—that is, warranted police officers, not support staff, important though those may be? Will those numbers have gone up in a year’s time, or will they have fallen further still?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. There are always challenges in the police service, but I do not recognise the word crisis, which has been put to us after nine months in office. A crisis is when 20,000 police officers were cut from the budget after 2010. A crisis is when a halving of PCSOs took place over the duration of the last Government. A crisis is when there were two-thirds cuts in special constables under the previous Government. A crisis is when the previous Government blocked the independent recommendations on pay. This Government have accepted the recommendations on pay and put in place 3,000 extra neighbourhood police this year. We will put in place 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. This year we have put in £1.2 billion extra over what the noble Lord’s Government supported last year. We have put in money, extra in real terms, and provided an increase in policing, through the comprehensive spending review a few moments ago, and we will ensure that we meet those needs. When we meet the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents’ Association, as we have done on several occasions since the election, we will have a positive dialogue—unlike what I believe happened in the previous 14 years. I welcome the noble Lord’s support, but let us look at the facts.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest. I chaired an inquiry into the Police Federation of England and Wales, which was published in May this year and made 33 recommendations in respect of governance, campaigning and financing. Does the Minister agree that police officers, who do not have the right to take industrial action in defence of their terms and conditions, need and deserve a federation that is effective in representing their terms and conditions and that promotes understanding of the essential work that the police service does for us all?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, who has done an excellent job in the report the Police Federation commissioned her to produce on its governance structure and future direction. I was pleased to meet my noble friend to discuss the recommendations of that report. I know that the Government are giving the Police Federation, because that is its responsibility, time to reflect on those recommendations and, I hope, to act upon them. I will certainly, as will my right honourable friend in the Commons, Diana Johnson, take a keen interest in how the Police Federation responds to those recommendations. My noble friend is right to say that the effectiveness of the Police Federation is an important part of the police family.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the efficiency of, for example, police regional counterterrorism units provides evidence that the 43 territorial police offices should be reformed, and that no more than 12 forces would be likely, by economies of scale, to provide greater efficiency and better service to the public? Is it not time to reform the police structure?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord tempts me to examine issues that are potentially being addressed as part of our discussions on the police reform White Paper, which will be produced shortly. The White Paper is looking at governance and efficiency and how best we can promote resources, so that the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, can be met during this Parliament. I cannot comment on those issues directly, but the noble Lord needs to reflect on the fact that in the police reform White Paper we will discuss a range of measures, of which governance and responsibilities will be one.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
The record number of recruits who joined the police under the Uplift programme, together with huge number of resignations, is putting real strain on experienced police, who are having to manage not just their own workload but the recruits. In the meantime, HMIC has reported that child sexual abuse cases are being dealt with by inexperienced officers, which is causing real problems and definitely contributing to 40% of cases not being managed properly and 40% of crimes still being unsolved. What are the Government going to do to persuade those really experienced officers to stay in the police force while it manages dealing with public safety under a less experienced police force?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is really important that we try to retain police officers in post. Of the people who left in the past 12 months, approximately one-third were those who had reached retirement age and were going anyway. The largest group—48% of those who left the force—were people who had been there under two years. So, contrary to public perception, we are finding that people are retiring—people do retire—but the difficulty is retaining those recruited into the police force.
The noble Baroness makes an extremely important point about needing to ensure that we use that experience seriously to bear down on crime. What I want is to retain individuals who are recruited—it is a costly exercise, recruiting people who then leave after two years—but we also want to manage expectations. Again, trailing the police reform White Paper, those issues are part of the Government’s potential future plans once the White Paper is produced.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The latest Home Office police workforce statistics report includes data on officer age profiles, and it shows an ageing workforce in which 47% of officers are aged between 41 and 55. Can the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to stop the haemorrhaging of officers we are seeing on his watch, and what exactly is the department doing to recruit young police officers? I understand that the numbers are now down to 122,000 nationally.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It worries me when the noble Lord says that people are ageing when they are 55—it strikes a cold blow to my heart—but the point he makes is extremely important. We need to ensure that we recruit police officers, and the Government are committed to recruiting an additional 13,000 neighbourhood police officers during this Parliament—3,000 this year. We have put in £1.2 billion of investment this year. As I just said to the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches, we need to retain those we recruit, because 72% of the people who leave are leaving within three years and 48% are leaving within two years. That is not a good prospect. We need to retain those people and improve recruitment procedures to do that, but we also need to up the numbers, which the Government are trying to do. We need to ensure that we make effective use of resources, which is what the White Paper will be about. I look forward to the noble Lord’s help and support in achieving those objectives.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. While it is understandable that the political focus is on warranted officers, is there not a danger that this will result in them being employed in back-office roles that could be done cheaper and more effectively by non-warranted officers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Absolutely. A tremendous amount of the work done in the back-office can be done by police support staff and others, who play a very important role and are part of the police family response to crime. There has been a problem whereby police officers are doing many roles that could be done behind the scenes. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, also mentioned, the police White Paper will look at how we can maximise efficiency and the bang for our buck that we get from the investment we are putting in, as well as ensuring that we have frontline policing through neighbourhood policing, effective regional policing and improved back-office efficiencies in both procurement and staff delivery.
Lord Speaker’s Statement
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, before I call the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to ask his Private Notice Question on the recent disturbances in Ballymena, I remind the House that a number of individuals have been charged with criminal offences relating to these events. Noble Lords are free to discuss in general terms what has happened but should not refer to specific individuals who have been charged and are awaiting trial or engage in any discussion or speculation about individual cases, as all such matters are sub judice.
Disorder in Ballymena
Lord Caine
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the disorder in Ballymena.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the recent scenes of civil disorder that we have seen in Ballymena have no place in Northern Ireland. The attacks on police officers as they work to keep people safe, and on property, are wholly unacceptable. I express my sincere thanks to the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Fire & Rescue Service and the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, which have worked in difficult conditions over the past few days to keep people safe. My thoughts and prayers are with those officers still receiving treatment and with the communities across Northern Ireland who woke up this morning very scared.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. We too condemn unreservedly the appalling acts of racist thuggery in Ballymena, for which there can be not a single shred of justification. There is nothing remotely British about wrapping oneself in the union flag and attacking migrants, forcing people from their homes and scapegoating entire communities anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Like the noble Baroness, I commend the bravery and resolve of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the other emergency services, which have our unstinting support. Our thoughts are with the more than 30 officers who have been injured.
Can the noble Baroness tell the House what conversations the Secretary of State has had with the Justice Minister over levels of support for the PSNI, and what contingencies are in place for additional resources should the violence be sustained over a period or spread elsewhere? One of the most effective deterrents is for offenders to be dealt with quickly and effectively through the courts. Given that we still have some cases pending from the disorder last summer, what conversations are taking place about the need significantly to speed up the operation of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments, especially about our incredibly brave security and police personnel, who have been running towards danger, as many of us have watched on television over the last 48 hours. The noble Lord raises an appropriate point about conversations between the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly to make sure that the appropriate support is in place. Noble Lords may be aware that Jon Boutcher is in the process of submitting a request to the National Police Coordination Centre for mutual aid to support current policing operations. The Secretary of State is having active conversations with both the Minister of Justice and the PSNI, and hopes to visit Ballymena in the coming days.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we utterly condemn in the strongest possible terms the mindless violence perpetrated by a small number of people on the back of what was intended to be a peaceful demonstration. I commend the PSNI for its work in trying to contain the violence, and our thoughts are with those officers who have been injured. Can the noble Baroness say what meetings she has had with community leaders, and whether the Government intend to give additional support for community cohesion projects in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we all share the same tone with regard to current events and what is happening. The policing family are currently having to cope with a great deal, knowing that there may well be further operations in due course. I am pleased that the whole House sends its support.
Noble Lords will have seen, as I have, horrendous images of what has happened within the community. As we saw both last summer and at various points of community tension across the United Kingdom, this is not something that will be solved tomorrow. Community cohesion efforts will have to continue for months and years, to rebuild what has been broken over the last 24 hours. Northern Ireland Office officials have been meeting and engaging with community groups and will continue to do so. With regard to additional funding, I was pleased that the Chancellor, during the spending review, announced an £11 million pot for community cohesion products for Northern Ireland.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I live in Ballymena, and it is awful to see what happened there. It must have taken enormous courage for officers to face the petrol bombs and other missiles that were hurled at them. I salute that courage and I condemn absolutely what happened on the streets of our town.
Is the noble Baroness aware that the PSNI has only 6,200 officers? Had police numbers in Northern Ireland kept pace with those in England and Wales, and with the numbers to which the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, referred previously, we would have had 8,000 police officers. We do not have enough police officers. Officers in the PSNI still face national security risks and police them, and are still at risk of murder and attack every day.
Over the past 10 years, legacy has cost us £160 million. That would have given us at least 3,000 extra officers. The PSNI cannot recruit any more officers within the current budget. Can the noble Baroness tell us not that policing is a devolved matter but what steps His Majesty’s Government are taking to provide real ring-fenced funding for legacy costs, attributable to the long periods of direct rule, in order to allow our police service to recruit more officers, so that officers may police safely and the people of Ballymena and Northern Ireland may be safe?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness has raised this issue with me several times and, unfortunately, my position cannot change. This is a devolved matter. At the other end of the building today, the Chancellor announced a record £19.3 billion of funding for the Northern Ireland Executive. We were all delighted to see Stormont return, but it is up to the Executive how they allocate that resource. The Barnett formula has a 24% additional consequential to ensure that there is appropriate funding to recognise the special status of Northern Ireland.
However, the noble Baroness raises a genuinely important point. The New Decade, New Approach agreement announced by the Executive promised to increase the number of officers to 7,500. They are short, and efforts need to be made, which is why we have announced additional security funding of £38 million—an increase from the last Government—to ensure that that amount of money can be ring-fenced to reflect the additional security situation in Northern Ireland, so that other resources can be deployed for the rest of the PSNI.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, in supporting the request made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, we are well aware of the political situation in the Northern Ireland Executive. In view of that, can my noble friend talk to her friend the Secretary of State to ensure that ring-fenced funding for the PSNI is considered and that there is an uplift equivalent to that for police forces in England and Wales?
I deplore the thuggery and the racist violence we have seen in Ballymena over the last two days, where there were attacks on the Police Service of Northern Ireland and on ethnic minorities. It was similar to what happened when I was Minister in DSD, back in 2009, when we had to take action to protect people. Will my noble friend join me in urging local political leaders in Ballymena, and further afield in Northern Ireland, to take and show the path of real leadership, and to seek not to explain the context for the violence but to urge the rioters to stop rioting and get off the streets? Will they ensure protection for local communities, including those from ethnic minorities, and for the police service in Ballymena?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question and the work that she and the noble Baroness have done in advocating consistently for funding for the PSNI. I will continue the conversation with the Secretary of State. The Government recognise the difficult financial position that the PSNI faces, which is why we are making sure that funding is available.
On the substantive point of my noble friend’s question, the onus is on all of us, including Members of your Lordships’ House, to remember our tone and the responsibilities that we all have—that includes every single politician in Northern Ireland. I for one was delighted to see a joint statement from the Executive, signed by every political party, calling for quiet and peace and for people to come off the streets. This is not a time for politics; it is a time for peace and security on the streets of Northern Ireland. There is a responsibility on all of us to deliver it.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I join others in commending the efforts and the bravery of the police and the other emergency services in dealing with the appalling situation of the last 48 hours. I unreservedly and unequivocally condemn the violence that has taken place in Ballymena. Whatever the underlying issues in Ballymena, nothing can ever justify the thuggery that has been perpetrated there.
The noble Baroness has heard from different parts of this House that the chief constable has, for some time, been highlighting the major problems of funding. While I appreciate that the Government’s response is that, ultimately, a lot of this is a devolved issue, can the noble Baroness say what actions the Government are taking to help provide a strategic solution to the problem of the underresourcing of policing in Northern Ireland, beyond simply short-term mutual aid assistance?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that there is a responsibility on the British Government to work with police forces across the United Kingdom. That does not just include money, it is about sharing best practice and about funding that has been made available for public sector transformation works. Making sure that we are working hand in hand with the PSNI is incredibly important. The noble Lord will be as aware as I am of the ongoing comments by Jon Boutcher about the funding requirements he needs. I hope everybody is listening, but I promise the noble Lord that the Secretary of State is speaking to him regularly.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, first, I apologise for my inadvertent failure to declare an interest when asking a question a week ago of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the SDR.
As regards this particular Question, my sympathies lie entirely with the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Ritchie. I fully understand the delicacy of relationships when we are dealing with a devolved institution. Nevertheless, when the PSNI is confronted with at least two major issues that are not devolved issues but UK-wide issues—legacy and counterterrorism—it seems to me that the logic of our position should be that there may be some way of supplementing the normal grants, in view of the fact that these are UK-wide issues. I know it is not easy, but I would be obliged if my noble friend was to at least seek to inject that into the conversations with the Secretary of State.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. His experiences of bringing people from across Northern Ireland together are one of the reasons we are now in the position we are with peace in Northern Ireland. We are talking about appalling disturbances in the UK but that are not of what happened during the Troubles.
With regard to legacy, I do not doubt that there will be many opportunities to discuss in your Lordships’ House how we will fund legacy going forward, though funding is in place. With regard to funding for the additional national security impact, the Chancellor announced in the other place during the spending review that, over the course of the spending review, there will be an extra £113 million allocated to the PSNI. That is direct from the United Kingdom Government and in addition to the grant that it receives from the Northern Ireland Executive.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, noble Lords are right that there is no justification for the riots, and they are depressing to see. However, has the noble Baroness noted that commentators have, for some time, noted that local people have been raising immigration-related issues as a source of tensions—which is what the original, peaceful demonstration was about? What are the Government’s plans to tackle the specific underlying community issues that these horrible riots have thrown up?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it is very important that we understand exactly what has happened in Northern Ireland. While I cannot comment on specific cases, the original vigil was not specifically about immigration but a much wider issue, about something that had happened.
With regard to the issue of immigration, I have the statistics about the impact, or not, on this part of Northern Ireland. The reality is that what we have seen in the last 48 hours is members of the community, wherever they were born, caught up in violence and being scared. There is an onus on all of us to make sure that what we are talking about deals with some of the underlying issues, as exist across the United Kingdom, and with the specifics of rebuilding a community that has been touched by horrendous violence.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we move on to the next item of business, I refer the House to the guidance on ping-pong as set out on Today’s Lists. We have three items of very important voting business before the House today. I want to ensure that all items are considered properly and in a timely manner.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
Wednesday 11th June 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberArmed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 View all Armed Forces Commissioner Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 105-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendment - (10 Jun 2025)
16:51 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 161 - Motion A1 agreed.
Lord Coaker
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 2 and 3 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2A in lieu.
“(1A) Subsection (1B) applies if the investigation was carried out wholly or partly in response to a request made by an individual.
(1B) A report under subsection (1) must not include information which identifies the individual or enables them to be identified, except with their consent.”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1. I thank all Members, including His Majesty’s Opposition, the Liberals and others, for their careful and considered scrutiny of this landmark Bill. As we have all agreed, it is an important Bill, one that marks a significant step change for our Armed Forces and their families and delivers on a commitment upon which this Government were elected.
At the consideration of Lords Amendments in the other place last week, the minor and technical government amendments were all agreed to. These were the amendments to fully implement the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendation to change the regulation-making power to define relevant family members from the negative to the affirmative procedure, and the amendment that was consequential on Clause 3. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, also raised concerns about anonymity. We listened carefully to the points she raised and brought forward amendments to address these concerns. I shall return to that later.
This leaves only the matters of whistleblowing and anonymity, which are the issues before us today. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, were put to a vote in the other place and were both disagreed to. However, the Government had taken on board the important debates we had in your Lordships’ Chamber and proposed a significant amendment in lieu, to which the Commons agreed. This amendment picked up on the spirit of the noble Baroness’s amendments, and actually went further than her proposals in delivering concrete legal protections. However, noble Lords will be aware that an amendment to the Government’s Motion today has been tabled, offering amendments in lieu in place of the Commons amendment in lieu.
Let me first offer some explanation on why the other place disagreed with the original Lords amendments on whistleblowing before addressing the specifics of the amendments now before us. While the amendments proposed by your Lordships chime with the spirit of the Bill, the contents did not offer any additional legal protections for anyone coming forward to the commissioner. This entire Bill is already designed to create a trusted and independent route for service personnel and their families to raise concerns about welfare matters that they may personally be affected by or that they observe to affect others.
The commissioner—and this is really important—can already investigate any general service welfare matters they choose, and anyone can raise such an issue with the commissioner, including the type of person defined in the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. The commissioner is independent, sits outside the chain of command and the MoD, and reports directly to Parliament. The commissioner will be bound by data protection legislation, meaning that, for anyone who contacts the commissioner, the personal information and details they provide will be subject to stringent protections.
We all want to protect women from unacceptable behaviours. The debate between us is just about the best way of doing that. In her amendment and speech on Report, the noble Baroness raised the central issue of anonymity for a person raising a concern with the commissioner and the role this may have in building trust and confidence for people to come forward. We heard this and we agreed that this was a concrete legal protection that would add to the Bill. The government amendment—tabled and agreed to in the other place—is therefore designed to address anonymity protections for all those who raise welfare concerns to the commissioner. It has the effect of ensuring that their identity is protected in all the commissioner’s reports, should they wish. It is often said that the Government do not listen to what the Opposition say. In this aspect of this important debate, we have listened but we have also acted.
As I set out on Report, this amendment is supported by further non-legislative commitments, which, taken together, will further bolster trust and confidence in the commissioner. I will restate them now. The Government will update their current “raising a concern” policy, which includes replicating protections available to civilians under the Public Interest Disclosure Act for the military. This update will ensure that similar protections for people under this policy are applied to disclosures made to the commissioner, including provisions relating to anonymity, confidentiality and protection from unfair or negative treatment due to raising the concern.
The Government will also conduct a thorough communication campaign—another point raised by noble Lords—to ensure that members of the Armed Forces and their families are clear about the role of the commissioner and how this interacts with the existing protections and policy, as well as the types of issues that can be raised with them and how they can be dealt with. These specific concerns were raised in your Lordships’ Chamber, and we have acted on them.
Baroness Goldie
Leave out from “3” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 2A and do propose Amendments 2B and 2C in lieu of Amendment 2A—
“(aa) to investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members, and”
“340IC Commissioner’s functions in relation to whistleblowing
(1) The Commissioner may investigate any concern raised by a whistleblower of which the Commissioner becomes aware (whether because the whistleblower has contacted the Commissioner or for any other reason) but only if the whistleblower informs the Commissioner, before the beginning of the investigation, that he or she consents to an investigation taking place.
(2) The Commissioner must, when carrying out an investigation under this section, take all reasonable precautions to ensure the anonymity of the whistleblower.
(3) For the purposes of this section and section 365AA a person (“P”) is a “whistleblower” if—
(a) P is subject to service law or is a relevant family member,
(b) P raises a concern about a person who is subject to service law,
(c) the concern raised by P relates to general service welfare matters (as defined by section 340IA(2)), and
(d) the concern raised by P does not relate to the conditions of service of persons subject to service law.
(4) After carrying out an investigation of a concern raised by a whistleblower under this section, the Commissioner may prepare a report setting out the Commissioner’s findings.
(5) A report under subsection (4) must not include information which identifies the whistleblower or enables them to be identified, except with their consent.””
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, having dealt with the technicalities of process, I once again thank all noble Lords from across the House who supported my amendments to the Bill on Report, and I thank all those in the other place who also gave their support.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Official Opposition have approached it in a constructive manner: we have challenged the Government when necessary, but we have also sought to be supportive. In that vein, I have tabled my Amendments 2B and 2C, in lieu of the Government’s Amendment 2A made in the other place.
In the debate on my initial amendments in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces said that the amendments,
“while well intentioned, are unnecessary because the Bill is already designed to provide a voice for armed forces personnel and their families outside the chain of command”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/25; col. 188.]
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has just repeated that argument. I agree that the Bill provides a voice for Armed Forces personnel outside the chain of command and that is fundamental to the role of the commissioner, but this does not mean that my amendment is either unnecessary or irrelevant.
All Governments go through a black cloud and search for a silver lining. I am handing the Government a silver lining on a plate, because with my amendments the Bill puts the Government and our Armed Forces personnel in a good place. Let me explain why. As I argued on Report, and my right honourable friend Mark Francois argued in the other place, “whistleblowing” is a recognisable term. It is recognisable in law, in the Police Reform Act 2002 and in the Armed Forces Act 2006. Most importantly, it is recognisable by the thousands of Armed Forces personnel who know exactly what whistleblowing means and who would benefit from this enhancement.
If Parliament has already deemed it appropriate to give the Service Complaints Commissioner a function to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers about the military police, how can the Government argue that their new Armed Forces commissioner should not have a similar function? This is a question of consistency and fairness. This is not a two-tier system, as the Minister was arguing. I am offering a Rolls-Royce version of what is already in the Bill.
That is why I disagree with the Government in their Amendment 2A, which will place a duty on the commissioner to ensure that the reports do not contain any information which could be used to personally identify a person who requested that an investigation take place. This is a welcome first step. It is at least a tacit admission by the Government that the Bill as originally drafted did not go far enough in safeguarding individuals making a confidential disclosure. But it is just that: a first step. The Government’s amendment in lieu does not go far enough. It also does not accept the unique meaning of whistleblowing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, so eloquently stressed on Report. I thank her especially for her support.
I therefore propose a new amendment, Amendment 2C, as a reasonable compromise between what I have set out to do and what the Government have proposed. It seeks to insert a new clause which contains the same definition of “a whistleblower” as the original but with two important additions. First, in proposed new Clause 340IC(2) I have included a duty on the commissioner to
“take all reasonable precautions to ensure the anonymity of the whistleblower”
when the commissioner is investigating a whistleblowing concern relating to general service welfare matters. Secondly, in the spirit of constructive engagement, which I have endeavoured to reflect throughout the passage of the Bill, I have listened to the Government’s suggestions and included new subsections (4) and (5), which provide for the commissioner to produce a report once they have completed an investigation into a concern raised by a whistleblower, with a requirement that the report
“must not include information which identifies the whistleblower or enables them to be identified, except with their consent”.
As noble Lords can see, this new amendment therefore includes both my and the Government’s proposals for whistleblowing. I hope that the Minister can see that I genuinely want this to operate in the most effective manner. I hope, perhaps in vain, that he can support this improved amendment. His remarks this afternoon indicate the contrary. I have taken on board his previous reservations and sought to allay them.
Let us not forget how vital it is to improve the treatment of our service personnel. I have mentioned before the horrifying case of Jaysley Beck, who was sexually abused and tormented relentlessly before taking her own life. On Report, I referred to the BBC Wiltshire reports of the horrific accounts of alleged rape and sexual assault from three women. One of them was in the Navy, another was in the RAF and the third is still serving in the Army. Just last week, we saw the tragic case of Lance Corporal Bernard Mongan, who was found dead in his bedroom at Catterick Garrison in 2020. The inquest into his death heard that he was consistently degraded and undermined by his superiors, with a friend saying that bullying would be an “understatement”. Another friend told the inquest that communication is an issue and a failing—the system should have worked.
The system has not been working. It is not working. We have an opportunity to do our bit to rectify this. I hope that the House agrees and supports Motion A1. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie (CB)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s response, but I wonder if she could help me to understand a point raised by the Minister. It appears from proposed new subsection (1) that if a whistleblower is involved with the commissioner, the whistleblower controls the investigation. The whistleblower can stop any investigation by the commissioner, even if the commissioner has information from other sources. Does the noble Baroness think that that is a reasonable approach?
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I rise in support of my noble friend’s Motion A, and I will be as brief as I can. The Bill, as my noble friend said, is a landmark step in the Government’s commitment to renew the nation’s contract with those women and men in our Armed Forces, and I happily re-declare my own interest in this, as I have done at each stage of the Bill’s proceedings. It is good to see a manifesto commitment making such good progress towards the statute book.
I support the amendments in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the change in regulation-making power to define “relevant family members” from the negative to the affirmative procedure. We had some helpful and interesting discussions about that in Committee. This is not a Bill that is going to solve every problem that we have with the culture of our Armed Forces, but it does provide a route for individuals to raise concerns outside the chain of command with an independent champion, and it quite rightly extends to the UK as a whole.
I will just add one word about the Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords Amendments 2 and 3. As the House may be aware, the commission can already investigate, as my noble friend has said, any general welfare issue that it chooses. In effect, as the Minister said in another place only last week, the entire Bill is to an extent about whistleblowing, because it allows anyone to raise a matter outside the chain of command. The government amendment in lieu does, as I understand it, go further than the original Lords amendments and will ensure genuine protection in respect of reports prepared by the commissioner, preserving the anonymity of individuals who make complaints.
In a way, we are all on the same side on the purpose of this Bill, and I would be sorry if the House divided on it, even if an amendment is presented as an attractive Rolls-Royce. Finally, in the fast-changing world in which we find ourselves, with the very real threats that we now face, we are going to require a great deal of our Armed Forces, and I, for one, think this is the very least that they deserve with this Bill.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, having been in attendance for all the past stages of the Bill, I think there is no disagreement across the House, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said, on wanting to get the best out of the Bill in ensuring that our service men and women have a voice and an ability to raise complaints on issues that go wrong within our Armed Forces. I was on every single Armed Forces Bill in the other place for nearly 20 years, and I said on Report that this is yet another attempt to ensure that we have an open and transparent, but also effective, means by which members of the Armed Forces can raise serious concerns. Sadly, other attempts have failed. Some of this will need amending once the Armed Forces commissioner is in place.
I support my noble friend’s Motion A. On the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, it is a little bit like the debate we had on Report. There is nothing in the Bill which stops an individual, family members or related parties raising a complaint with the commissioner. I would think it important to ensure that the commissioner, he or she, had the ability to look at those complaints that came forward.
The Bill also gives powers to the commissioner to do thematic inquiries, not just individual complaints. I am sure that when he or she is conducting them, there will be a call for evidence and people will come forward in that process. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said about the key point being anonymity for individuals, who have to be protected from any idea that if things are raised there is going to be an effect on them or their career. However, I think that the existing processes outlined in the Bill protect that. I welcome what is put forward in terms of whistleblowing, and I accept that we can dance on the head of a pin about definitions around it, but, as I said on Report, the important thing will be to ensure that we get the information out to members of our Armed Forces that this system exists and can be used.
When I started on this journey 20 years ago, there was huge resistance to any idea of anybody crossing the chain of command, so we have made progress. Sadly, I think that because of the scandals we have had, we have had to ensure that there is an ability to look at these things outside the chain of command.
I do not feel that there is any need for the amendments as put forward, but I do not think we are far apart here. We just want to ensure that this Bill gives an opportunity for service men and women to raise concerns when they affect them or as wider thematic issues. Will this be the end of it? Will we have found of the Ark of the Covenant in terms of whether the system is perfect? I am not sure we will; I think we will have to amend it, and possibly the Armed Forces commissioner, whoever he or she is, will want to amend the process as it beds in.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and her amendment. I am not going to repeat the strong and powerful case that she made, but I want to pick up on a couple of issues. Whistleblowing and a complaints process are two different things—it is a point that I tried to make on Report. A coherent complaints process is exceedingly important, and it can rise to the level of commissioner, but whistleblowing is an opportunity to deal with things that are far more systemic and come, in a sense, from a different perspective from that of a complaint. That is why, if we look at financial services regulators or regulators in essence across the piece, we will find they all have both channels. They have a complaints channel for people who run into an issue where they have a really serious complaint that they want to raise, but they also have a whistleblowing channel so that where somebody comes across intelligence, has an awareness or sees something that they think should be attended to because it has much deeper implications, they use that whistleblowing channel to go to the investigative or regulatory body.
To me, it is extraordinary to put in place a new Armed Forces commissioner, a clearly important and independent role, and not give that commissioner the tools which you would normally give anybody else picking up that kind of commissioner role so that, through the whistleblowing route, they can receive and reach for information. Without that information, it is very hard for him or her to function in that role.
I think one of the reasons why this is not in the Bill and was not in the Bill from the start is that a change in culture and mindset is taking place. We are now seeing with many Bills coming through this House the issue of whistleblowing being raised, because the public have become aware every time there is a scandal that there have been people who have spoken out but who have not been heard, have been silenced and have suffered detriment, so now there is a search to put whistleblowing protection, almost as a standard norm, in Bill after Bill—I think it would be better to unify it in one place, but I am not going to make that argument today.
An Armed Forces commissioner needs to receive a regular and steady flow of information to enable them to carry out the role that is intended. I think the establishment of a whistleblowing channel will create far more trust among service personnel, who quite frankly understand better than we do the limitations of complaints systems. When somebody enters a complaints system, they typically see themselves as raising a specific personal issue or one among friends which they want to be resolved. In a welfare case, it may well be a situation where housing repairs have not been carried out. It is a perfectly reliable and important channel, but whistleblowing touches something deeper and more fundamental and systemic. To have that channel running parallel is not exceptional; it is the norm. In fact, excluding it is the exception, so I ask the House to seriously consider this.
As I said, if this Bill was being written six months from now, given the discussion there has been around these issues in Bill after Bill, it would automatically have been put in place. I do not want to slow this Bill down as it is important, but I do ask the Government to quickly draft something that they feel captures all these issues, with the legal expertise that they have, and not to lose this opportunity.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I want to respond to a couple of the points that have been made. I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but the purpose of the Bill is to expand the remit of the service complaints ombudsman, who can only look at service complaints, to the commissioner who, as my noble friend Lord Beamish pointed out, can also look at thematic and systemic issues—so it is a complete expansion and change of the role.
I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that we are passing legislation here. The whistleblower amendment is not connected to new Section 340IB. There are two different tiers of somebody coming to the commissioner. There is the first tier, which gives the commissioner all the powers and advantages that noble Lords want: viewing premises, observing, power of entry—all the things laid out in 340IB. That is not in the amendment for the whistleblower. If we pass the whistleblowing amendment, the powers of entry and other powers would not be made available to the commissioner. That is why it becomes a two-tier system, and I suspect that, if noble Lords had the Bill in front of them, they would see exactly the point I am making.
I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, for his point. Let us say that somebody comes forward as a whistleblower, raising a hugely important thematic issue, and the commissioner says, “I am going to investigate that”. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, pointed out, they cannot do it if the whistleblower says “No, I don’t want you to do it”, because it can be done only with the consent of the whistleblower.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I understand the point the Minister is making but, in all the years when I have met whistleblowers, I have never met one who came forward intending to speak to somebody and then closed down the issue that they had just raised. Whistleblowers are looking for investigation. But, if he were to present something in lieu that corrected that very small lacuna in the language—three or four words, as far as I can see—I am sure that no one would object.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I say to the noble Baroness that we are legislating here, not on a wing and a prayer and not on the basis of what may happen or the fact that this has never happened. We are a legislature and we are trying to legislate for things that actually may happen.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this debate, not least the Minister, with his impassioned defence of the Government’s position. I shall try to deal with the individual points that have been raised.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, asked a simple question: does the whistleblower control the process? As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, indicated, a whistleblower is indeed an individual, and implicit within that is the whistleblower’s right to withdraw consent if they become concerned. That is an inevitable consequence of an individual pursuing a complaint. What I am less clear about in that objection to the amendment is that, while at the moment an individual could complain to the Armed Forces commissioner under the terms of the Bill, I do not know what the commissioner would do if the individual suddenly turned round and said, “No, I’m very worried about what I’ve embarked upon. I want to stop”.
It is true that the commissioner can look at thematic issues, and we expect that they will do so, but as far as I can see there is nothing in the drafting of the Bill that says the commissioner cannot look at something that an individual raises. Indeed, the Government’s objection to my amendment seems to be that there already exist facilities, processes and procedures that enable an individual to raise a concern. So I am not convinced that these objections are cogent. I accept that it is legitimate to ask the questions, but I do not accept that that is a justifiable reason for opposing the amendments that I have tabled.
The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said in effect that whistleblowing was covered by the Bill but did not address the point that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised: why, if it is so good and desirable, is it the word that dare not speak its name in the Bill? That is what is beyond me, to be honest. “Whistleblowing”, as we have previously discussed, is legitimate text and terminology in other legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, made an interesting point: very wisely, he concedes that, once the Bill is being operated, there may have to be tweaks and it may have to be reviewed, because we may find that it is not working just as we intended. He made the distinction between thematic and individual. I understand that distinction but, as I have explained, there is nothing in the Bill as far as I can see that would stop an individual at the moment making a complaint under the provisions of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, again with cogent perspicacity, got to the heart of the matter. As she said, whistleblowing and complaints processes are different, so why would you not give the Armed Forces commissioner the tools to do what has to be done? She added that whistleblowing is a channel that—in her opinion, to which I am inclined to defer—would create more trust, and I think we all understand that more trust is certainly needed to reassure our Armed Forces personnel. I was struck by her observation that where we have got to in political thinking, and in parliamentary process, is that whistleblowing should almost be the norm, not the exception.
In short, I reiterate that I am glad that this debate is neither polemical nor party political, because we all want to arrive at the same destination. Where we have got to is a difference of opinion on the legal semantics. However, I firmly believe that the amendments I have tabled would enhance the Bill and help the Armed Forces commissioner to do the job better. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Wednesday 11th June 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHolocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 View all Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I(a) Manuscript amendment for Report - (11 Jun 2025)
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark)
My Lords, before we start, I remind the House that a lot of people will be watching this debate, and of the importance of being mindful of the tone of contributions. This Bill, understandably, stirs passionate and strongly held views across the House from different perspectives, as has been seen at earlier stages. I am sure that noble Lords will continue to uphold the best traditions of the House to speak and argue freely, alongside courtesy and respect for those both inside and outside the Chamber. I wrote to all noble Lords in September, alongside the usual channels, to remind everyone of those courtesies. I ask noble Lords to be mindful, in particular, of our Standing Order to
“be careful to avoid personally insulting or offensive speeches, which offend the customary courtesy of the House”.
I am grateful in advance to noble Lords, and I look forward to constructive debates.
Clause 1: Expenditure relating to a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre
Amendment 1
Viscount Eccles
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, in discussing funding and expenditure, I will consider the present funding and whether there are restrictions on how the money can be properly spent. This will entail consideration of the plans to build the Adjaye/Arad building in Victoria Tower Gardens.
The Holocaust memorial and accompanying learning centre are to be constructed in accordance with the recommendations made in Britain’s Promise to Remember, as accepted by Prime Minister Cameron in Methodist Central Hall on 27 January 2015. The then Prime Minister highlighted two recommendations. First, Britain should have a
“striking and prominent new National Memorial”
in central London. Secondly, there should be a “world-class learning centre” to accompany the national memorial. The Prime Minister also announced the creation of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, in response to the recommendation that there immediately be a permanent independent body to manage the project. He made the promise of £50 million of public money to kick-start fundraising, which was later increased to £75 million.
Page 53 of Britain’s Promise to Remember says:
“The Commission proposes that the permanent body seek to raise money from business and private philanthropy and that the government should match this, pound for pound, up to an agreed limit”.
That proposal has not been accepted; there is no permanent independent body and the Prime Minister’s kick-start has been ignored. Will my noble friend on the Front Bench and the Minister tell the House why the promoter made and maintains the decision not to implement these two recommendations from the commission?
Further, there has been no alternative effort to raise civil society money. Many memorials have been funded by civil society and the commission looked for philanthropy to show the way. Since 2019 there has been the Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust, but no money has been raised. Funding and expenditure decisions are now necessary and urgent; the only funds available are the £75 million of public money. In the present circumstances, that needs to be accepted as a limit. In contrast, for the trustees of the charity, there is no limit; depending on the public’s response, the sky is the limit. Thus for funding there is £75 million and, prospectively, an unknown sum in charitable grants. The formal position remains that these funds must be spent on the commission’s recommendations. As the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation says, it is
“taking forward the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission”.
Given what we know from previous planning application proceedings, Committee on this Bill and recent explanations of plans in this House, the memorial and the learning centre are planned to be housed in one building. Unfortunately, this combination of both under one roof is not in accordance with the commission’s recommendations. The evidence is unarguably that the memorial and learning centre are to be closely associated as two distinct organisations in two nearby places. In 2016, the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation aimed to have the memorial constructed by the end of 2017 and the learning centre built and working before the next election. There cannot be any interpretation of Britain’s Promise to Remember that means “under one roof”.
In Committee, the Minister referred to “co-located”. Unusual in its use, “co-located” has a wide meaning, and as used by the commission, it clearly does not mean “under one roof”. The formal position remains that there are restrictions on expenditure, and the Adjaye-Arad building fails to meet the test. We need to agree an alternative that enables us to get on with the job.
Fortunately, there is one. There is widespread support for a conventional, stand-alone national memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. There are many good reasons for simplifying the project in this way, and we will hear about them shortly. The world-class learning centre can be established nearby in Westminster. Because developing the centre will need both time and money, a newly established independent body may need to secure office space before doing anything more ambitious. How it develops the learning centre will depend upon charitable fundraising.
My amendment sets out on the face of the Bill the way in which a conforming compromise could be funded and how we can move ahead. I beg to move.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, bearing in mind the instructions that have come, it is the aim of all of us who oppose this project to be constructive; we want to improve it. It is not about nimbyism, or even the location, but delivering something worthy of the cause: worthy, as I say to myself, of the losses in my own family, which is what has driven me for the last nine years or so. It is in that spirit that we bring forward these amendments.
I support the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in drawing attention to the financial non-management of this project in an era when every penny counts, and when proper education about the Jewish community of this country is crying out for funding and reform. The costs have escalated beyond the original estimates, without even a spade in the ground. The available figures are about two years old, no allowance for inflation has been made, the contingency is far higher than usual, private funds have not been identified publicly and, as I will come to, there is no management control.
As I have said before, I am struck by the contrast with the planned expenditure on a fitting memorial to the late Queen, reportedly to be erected, together with a space for pause and reflection, in Saint James’s Park at a cost of £46 million. The project will include the replacement of the Blue Bridge and 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.
The petitioners before the Select Committee on the Bill asked that the Government 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 and operate it, before they present any new or amended proposal for planning permission. I have not seen such a financial report.
The original Government grant was £50 million; that has been raised to £75 million, and we believe the total cost will now be nearly £200 million. The latest estimate was made a couple of years ago.
There is no information about who will do the building, or indeed whether there are any builders willing to do it, given the security risks. The Commons Select Committee commented on this:
“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 … 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”.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I intervene very briefly, as I have in Grand Committee previously, as the Minister and shadow Minister are aware, to make clear my position on this proposal. I am strongly in favour of a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. I am strongly in favour of a learning centre of good, adequate size that can be of a standard that we would like to see ensured.
All of us sitting here know, as does anyone who has discussed this seriously, that it cannot be done if you try to do it underground in Victoria Tower Gardens. I have great sympathy for the Minister and the shadow Minister because they are both committed; they are obliged to present this. I am sure they believe in it genuinely, but it is the reality that, in the times of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when it was put to him merely to have the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, it was originally proposed that the learning centre would be somewhere else. Then a problem arose over where that somewhere else was, so somebody approached the noble Lord again and he agreed for it to be put into Victoria Tower Gardens, which was not the original proposal.
We understand perfectly well that both the previous and present Governments desperately fear that they might be accused of antisemitism. In the very emotional circumstances that exist at the moment, with all the horrors of Gaza, the two-state solution and the whole Israel situation up in the air—today the Government announced the sanctioning of two senior members of the present Israeli cabinet—this could not be a more emotional and difficult time, and people are very concerned not to be accused of antisemitism. But it is quite clear that the people who will be guilty of antisemitism in the end are those who are proposing this arrangement, because it will never happen.
I have some personal involvement in construction issues in London, and there is no question but that the construction industry has some real problems, including a shortage of skilled people. It is not necessarily going to be the most attractive place to work, with the risk of the sort of demonstrations and other things that will take place. I have not had an answer to the question of whether anybody has yet undertaken to be prepared to quote for this job. If they have agreed to do it, will they in the end be able to honour it, having found some of their employees and skilled men not keen to carry it out?
It is a tragedy, because I think I am right in saying that this has now been going on for nearly nine years. I want to see a memorial and a learning centre. It is my belief that those who have got completely committed and stuck feel it is their duty to stick to where they are and press on. I think it will not happen, and they will then have to bear the responsibility for that. I am not going to get into it, because the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has explained some of these things extremely clearly and well. We know the problems they might run into if they did decide to go ahead with it.
I make one guarantee: if somebody is willing to do it, whatever price is quoted will not be the price at the end. It will keep coming back, and then somebody will get excited about the flood risk and who is going to take responsibility for the people in the learning centre running the risk of drowning if a crowd in there cannot get out. These are all variants on a most unhappy proposal.
I stand firm that we must have a memorial and a learning centre. If we agree not to proceed on this basis, and go ahead independently, it would be possible to do it quite quickly. My understanding is that a number of possible locations for the learning centre are available now, and if we went ahead it would save a lot of public money and mean that it actually happens. I understand the difficulties that the Government Minister and the shadow Minister face, but I believe this very sincerely.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly endorse some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, about building costs. He has much more experience in the world of construction than I do, but it is a matter that is both of interest to people and very important more generally.
We all know that since Covid there has been huge cost inflation in the building industry, partly because of the difficulty in assessing specialist forms of construction. This project falls into a category where generalised prediction is really not very helpful, for all the kinds of reasons that the noble Lord mentioned about the site and the nature of the processes involved in developing it.
When we think about this—it is a relevant consideration to us all—it is worth our while thinking about some well-known parliamentary projects. I think it was the case that the Scottish Parliament overshot 11 times its original budget. This—I am glad to be able to say—was worse than Portcullis House, which in 2000 was estimated to be £80 million over its original budget. That was only roughly half the overshot per square metre of the Scottish Parliament. We need to be very cognisant of the problems that are faced in the financial aspect of all this.
The Government assure us that they have been advised by experts, although, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, we have not seen any detail about all this, as the Government say that they cannot disclose commercially sensitive information into the public domain. Well, fair enough, but no doubt the Government were advised by similar—if not the same—experts on those other two projects, which seem to have been rather inaccurately valued at the outset.
Frankly, as far as costs go, I can see no reason to have any confidence in the amounts that we hear for this scheme, which, after all—as I think has been mentioned already—have gone up from £50 million in 2015 to £137 million now. Like the noble Lord, Lord King, the only thing that I am confident about is that if this project were to go ahead, that will turn out to be an underestimate.
The reality is that with projects of this kind, it is invariably a matter of “build now, pay up later”. It is not a fiscal rule; it is a rule of experience.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation, as I have been for nearly a decade, and a resident of Westminster who walks my dog in the park.
I remind us all that this is Report, not Second Reading, and I will attempt to resist the huge temptation to remind noble Lords that the foundation considered more than 50 sites and that there is huge value in collocating the memorial with the learning centre—I could go on. Instead, I would just like to focus on this actual amendment.
We all know that putting the costs in nominal pounds in the Bill is a bad idea. It does not matter what the building is or what we are trying to do: putting costs in a Bill makes for bad legislation. Each of the speeches we have heard today has been a Second Reading speech, because this is really an amendment designed to wreck the memorial. I think we should be honest about that.
We should not put costs in the Bill. It is not surprising that the costs have escalated over the last decade—we have been living through a period of very high inflation. We have not put a spade in the ground precisely because of the planning process that has taken so long. This is not unique to the Holocaust memorial; sadly, it is a fact of life for every major building project in this country, which is a subject for a much broader debate.
It is not surprising that fundraising has not been started, because it cannot be until there is planning permission to build something. So I am afraid that the arguments being used in favour of this amendment are actually arguments against a Second Reading of the Bill, and therefore we should dismiss them.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am also a member of the foundation. In fact, I am one of the co-chairs and trustees. I can confirm what the noble Baroness said: we cannot start fundraising until there is planning permission.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My noble friend has been talking about planning permission. Would he confirm that Westminster Council, both Labour and Conservative councillors, rejected planning permission here? In fact, it is only because that was called in and pushed through by the Government that we have got to this stage. He talks about local democracy, but local democracy was overruled.
Lord Pickles (Con)
I remind my noble friend that, in Committee, I ticked him off by saying that, if planning permissions are taken by political groups, it is illegal. A planning authority has a right and an applicant has a right. Frankly, his objection that the political parties had a vote is entirely bogus and entirely wrong, and would be grounds for overturning the decision of Westminster Council. I say that as someone who was responsible for planning for five years.
There is a strong reason why the two buildings should be co-located. This is likely to be a memorial of not just national significance but global significance. It is the view of Yad Vashem—the Israeli Holocaust museum—of Auschwitz, and of the American holocaust memorial that this will be the most visited Holocaust museum in the world and will play an enormous part in pushing back against Holocaust distortion. That is an important reason.
I take the point that this is not a Second Reading debate. In conclusion, there is a strong reason why we should not place a figure on this. Members will recall that, very sadly, at the first meeting of the Committee, the Committee got itself into all kinds of hot water when a Member—inadvertently, I think—repeated an antisemitic trope, suggesting that the Jewish community should pay more because they were rich people. This amendment seeks to achieve exactly that. If the amount is limited, there will be a shortfall of £46 million, and by implication that has to come from the community and beyond. Given what happened in Committee, it is singularly unfortunate. I do not believe for one moment that that was my noble friend’s intention, but you do not get an opportunity to explain the motivation of noble Lords in this House when it goes out to the public. There is a grave risk, should we put this to the vote, of unfortunate motivations being ascribed to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to this amendment. As a former Secretary of State for Transport, I have some knowledge of construction projects, the time they take and the reasons why costs may escalate. There is a decision for people to make, and I strongly agree with what my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe said.
Looking at the Explanatory Notes, I reminded myself of just how long ago my noble friend Lord Cameron first proposed this project; it was when I was in government as an Immigration Minister. That seems a very long time ago, because it was. It is not surprising, given the passage of time, that the costs set out then will clearly be much larger now.
I am a great supporter of spending public money wisely, and I have listened carefully to all the comments and concerns that people have made. I will not ascribe motives for this amendment; all I will say is that the Minister needs to reassure the House that, if this Bill proceeds—and if the memorial and the learning centre are approved and constructed, as I very much hope they are—the Government need to put in place strong controls to make sure that public money is spent wisely.
Also relevant to the many construction projects for which I have been responsible in government is that costs escalate partly because it takes a long time before the design and content of those projects are finalised. In part, it is parliamentary processes—which are perfectly good and understandable—that then cause the cost to escalate. The most obvious example of that in the projects for which I was responsible—part-way down the track—was HS2. People complain about how much that cost, but part of the reason it cost so much was that both Houses of Parliament—it, too, was a hybrid Bill—altered the design and put lots of extra requirements into it. Members of the other place and of your Lordships’ House then expressed surprise that the cost had escalated. I very much want to get on and build this memorial and learning centre, and the more delays there are and the more we debate what it looks like and where it goes, the more the cost will increase.
Finally, I strongly agree with what my noble friend Lady Harding said: putting a figure in nominal terms in the legislation is unwise. We have existing processes, including the National Audit Office and the various structures that the Government have for managing major projects. They are not perfect, but we need to make sure that those structures are used. Ministers must be accountable to both this House and the House of Commons in regularly reporting and accounting for themselves, and we must be able to ask them questions. I suggest that this is an unwise amendment, and I hope that it is not accepted and added to the Bill.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to speak to this amendment, but I believe that my noble friends Lady Harding of Winscombe, Lord Pickles and Lord Harper have misunderstood—I would not say misrepresented—what the amendment is all about. I declare my interests in coming from a family in which my mother’s German Jewish family lost members in the Holocaust, and in which my great uncle, who came to this country, founded the Jewish Refugees Committee, which organised the Kindertransport. I also speak as a former Treasury Minister; that is how I look at the numbers and what the amendment seeks to do.
As I understand it and read it, my noble friend Lords Eccles is as concerned as I am and many others are that we have had no up-to-date or credible figures from the Minister, throughout the various stages of the Bill, as to what the current costs are. The latest costs, I think, go back at least two years, and we have heard what has happened to the costs since then. As a House, we need to understand what the more recent estimates are.
As I read it, this amendment puts a cap on the public contribution to this, but does not, as my noble friends have just said, or implied, cap the total cost of the project—if my noble friend tells me I have got it wrong, I will sit down. Speaking as a former Treasury official and Minister, I say that we need a bit of discipline on this project. It is not going to cap the total cost of the project and, unless the Minister is able to give us more credible figures to explain the latest thinking about the split between the private and public sector contributions, I would be fully supportive of my noble friend Lord Eccles’s amendment, because it puts some necessary financial discipline on the project but will in no way—as my noble friends have said, and they can come back at me if they want to—cap the total expenditure that could be incurred on the project.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be debating this important Bill once again. I will take a moment to just restate the position of the Official Opposition on this legislation: It has been a policy of successive Conservative Governments that we need a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre to ensure we never forget the unique suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. This project was first conceived by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2013, when he established a commission to consider measures to preserve the memory of the Holocaust.
That commission, led ably by Sir Mick Davis, recommended the creation of a
“striking and prominent new National Memorial”,
which should be
“co-located with a world-class Learning Centre”.
The Conservative Government accepted the commission’s recommendations, taking forward the plans that are continued with this Bill. As part of that process, the then Conservative Government introduced the Holocaust Memorial Bill in 2023. This Bill is a continuation of that work, and we continue to support it.
My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton summed up the Official Opposition’s view very well at the Second Reading of this Bill in September last year, when he said that
“this is the right idea, in the right place and at the right time”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1169.]
I also pay tribute to the many organisations that have written to Peers to endorse the plans for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, including Holocaust Centre North, the National Holocaust Museum, University College London, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim.
We have considered the project in the round and at length: after 11 years we cannot be said to be rushing. Now is the time to press ahead with this bold national statement of our opposition to hatred and antisemitism. Now is the time to stand up for our British values and deliver a permanent memorial and learning centre as we recommit ourselves to our promise to never forget the unique horrors of the Holocaust.
Amendment 1, in the name of my noble friend Lord Eccles, would limit the level of taxpayers’ funding for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to £75 million, requiring any spending above that level to be provided by grants from the Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust. The updated Explanatory Notes, which were published on 18 July last year, stated that the updated costs of the project were now at £138.8 million. That is due to the fact that it is 10 or 11 years down the line, due to, as we have heard, the many planning issues that have come forward.
I have great respect for my noble friend but, on this occasion, I must respectfully disagree with his amendment, because it is the view of the Official Opposition that this amendment would place inappropriate constraints on the value and manner of funding for this project, potentially risking its viability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for his amendment. It has allowed us to reflect not simply on the need for careful control of public expenditure but on the core reason why this Bill is needed. I will deal first with matters directly relevant to costs and to the overall management of the programme.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, this is not an easy debate to reply to. I thank noble Lords who have spoken but will not attempt to sum up what they said. Many things were said about what has happened so far, why we should have a memorial and what the dangers will be, but that is not my purpose, which is a narrow one.
I was 14 when the British Army went into Bergen-Belsen. I remember that circumstance very clearly: I remember what we thought about it, what we said to each other about it, and how we were held to think about it very carefully by our schoolmasters, one of whom was an Anglican priest. I have thought about that circumstance very carefully ever since; it comes back to me often.
My problem is that I do not think the memorial and the learning centre should be in one building. I have made a technical argument that simply says that if we were implement the commission’s recommendation, they would not be in one building—they would be in two buildings. I think that technical argument runs, but I do not want to make too much of it. What I want to see is a national memorial, and we have nearly all come to agree that it can be in Victoria Tower Gardens without wrecking and so altering the gardens so that they are not gardens any more.
If we were to construct an unmanned, conventional memorial in accordance with the commission’s recommendations, we would have done that and, of course, we would still have needed the learning centre. To my mind, going to the memorial to remember is very different from the research, the understanding and the learning of lessons. The commission was absolutely right when it recommended that the memorial and the learning centre should be two separate matters.
In addition—and I totally support my noble friend Lord King—there are huge problems with what is on the table at the moment, and it needs to be simplified. There is a will to construct a conventional, appropriate and, I hope, brilliantly designed national memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. We should be getting on with getting that constructed. The foundation said it needed two years—if anyone thinks the present plans will be completed in two years, they need to think again.
My noble friend Lord Sassoon talked about public money. Of course I am conscious about public money; we all are in today’s circumstances. There is no doubt that £75 million would be sufficient to build a really impressive national memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Should I ask the House to decide? It is not really very easy to be confident, given the position of the two main parties, but this is Report: there is time for noble Lords to think, change their minds and go for a perfectly conforming and satisfactory solution to the situation we are in, so I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
Member’s explanatory statement
No Learning Centre should be constructed underground in order that a Learning Centre be constructed of adequate size in line with the recommendation of the 2015 Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission Report and in order to avoid detriment to Victoria Tower Gardens.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I should start by explaining why I am speaking at all on this subject. The reason is a personal one. My grandfather, the previous Lord Russell of Liverpool, fought in and survived the First World War. He was obviously a very brave man: he won the Military Cross not once, not twice, but three times. He had a Military Cross with two bars, which made him a fairly formidable individual. He subsequently became a lawyer, and he joined the Judge Advocate-General’s office of the Army. Between 1946 and 1951, he and his team were responsible for preparing and overseeing the war crimes trials throughout that period in the British occupied zone of Germany.
As noble Lords may imagine, what he and his team saw, read and experienced was pretty searing. They visited the camps, talked to the survivors and interviewed the perpetrators. That must have been a pretty unpleasant experience. The experience was strong enough that, in 1952, only seven years after the cessation of hostilities, my grandfather, who was still in the Judge Advocate-General’s department—he was the deputy by then—became increasingly disturbed to hear that a generation of young Germans going through schools was starting to emerge who were already beginning Holocaust denial. The rumour was that this was propaganda put out by the Americans, that they had exaggerated the situation and were trying to keep Germany under control.
My grandfather was sufficiently worried about this that he decided, because he had all the material which his team had collected, that somebody needed to go on the record and write a factual account of what happened—the beginnings of proper Holocaust education, if you like. He wrote the book and, as he was still an employee of the Army, he sent it to the authorities, because he needed to get permission to publish it. He was not given permission. The reason given at that time—the early 1950s—was that, with the Marshall plan’s money coming in and the early stirrings of the European Coal and Steel Community, which ultimately became the European Union, there was a feeling that one should not rake over the painful coals of the recent past too much and that it was important to try to move on.
My grandfather disagreed with that, so he resigned. I hope he thanked the Army for that, because it resulted in such a huge amount of publicity that his book immediately became a bestseller. It is called The Scourge of the Swastika, and I am ashamed to say it is still in print. It is a factual, educational account of part of what happened during the Holocaust. That is a personal reason for why I am speaking on this amendment, which is to do with the educational part of the national Holocaust memorial.
We are on Report. I am conscious that, like me, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, as a fellow Deputy Speaker, finds one of the less enjoyable parts of the privilege of being a Deputy Speaker to be sitting on the Woolsack listening to Second Reading speeches—so I do not intend to indulge in that. Indeed, I hope this group will not take very long, because the point I will try to make to your Lordships is about the difference between what was originally hoped and envisaged for what the learning centre would be and would be capable of delivering, and the increasingly likely reality if we proceed in the way that it is currently put together.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
This is Report stage, so the noble Lord can intervene if it is on a point of fact.
Lord Pickles (Con)
What I said was that it was the opinion of the American museum and of Auschwitz and Yad Vashem that this would be the most visited.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the noble Lord; I will still use that as evidence. Many of your Lordships may have seen the model that was in the Royal Gallery last week. If noble Lords can envisage more than 1.5 million people being able to go through the memorial and learning centre on an annualised basis, they are much better at logistics than I am because I find that hard to envisage.
I want to point out briefly what the Levine institute, the education centre at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC, is doing and has done brilliantly, and think about comparing that with what one might be able to do with the learning centre as currently designed. The Levine institute has educated more than 272,000 professionals during the intervening years. I am not talking about children going through: I am talking about education where it matters. It has educated almost 70,000 military professionals, nearly 7,000 civil servants and 27,500 federal and state legal professionals. It has also conducted programmes on this in 45 states, and in Canada and Puerto Rico. It has delivered educational programmes to almost 170 federal, state and local law-enforcement officials across the United States. As far as I am concerned, that is that is real education. That is not simply trying to get to young people, but going to a whole variety of areas in society where people often have to make judgments about antisemitic or racial behaviour. For me, that is what education is, and really should be, about.
I just ask your Lordships to reflect on the contrast between what could be possible with a world-class learning centre, and what is going to be practical to deliver in the learning centre as envisaged. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said on this amendment. He made many important points in moving it. I particularly identify with the points he made about lifelong learning and education being not just for children, but for all of us. Whatever our age, we should go on learning more about and understanding better what has happened in our world, including the horrors of the Holocaust.
In supporting the noble Lord, I am asking for a compromise. It should be agreed to go ahead with a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, but to move away from building a learning centre there and to find a more appropriate location for it. I raised this in Committee, and I was extremely disappointed by the Minister’s reply as he rejected this suggestion. I am now asking him to think again. Governments do need to think again when confronted with sincere and well thought-out opposition that does not totally dismiss a project. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, that there is nothing wrecking about this. I do not think there was about the previous amendment, and there certainly is not about this one. It is about trying to do something better, but going ahead with many of the objectives of the project.
This amendment tries to find a way through what most of the proponents of this scheme want, removing only that aspect of the scheme that is so controversial. In a spirit of compromise, also called for by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, it accepts that the proponents of the project want the Holocaust to be remembered in a space close to Parliament. Personally, I am a bit unconvinced of the necessity of placing it bang outside the Palace of Westminster, and I am not quite sure what it is meant to convey. However, I accept that people feel passionately that this is the right location for the memorial, and I believe that it should go ahead.
It should be a small, beautifully designed monument, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, above the ground and at a reasonable cost—probably a lot less than the cost of a learning centre. It could be built in Victoria Tower Gardens quite quickly. That would remove the controversy that surrounds the present plan, including the security problems; the swamping of a small heritage park; the restrictions on current users of the park, including small children; the risk of flooding and fire; and inadequate space for an exhibition from which visitors can both learn and be inspired—inspiration is very important here. I agree with the Minister that it should not be done on the cheap. In fact, the learning centre will cost quite a lot. But the proposal for including a learning centre as part of the memorial, in four small rooms below ground with no natural light and no exhibits, just a digital display, is wholly misconceived.
As a former chair of the Royal Institute of British Architects Trust, I am, I am afraid, very puzzled as to why a distinguished group of judges selected this design. As others have said, the building is too big for this small park and too small to accommodate a learning centre of any quality. The exhibition should fully explore the historical background to antisemitism in Europe and the persecution of Jewish populations in a number of countries, followed by this persecution becoming far more extreme in Nazi Germany and in the countries the Nazis conquered. There needs to be full coverage of the ghettos and the restrictions they entailed, then of the establishment of concentration camps, the transportation of Jews to them in the most cruel conditions, the forced labour and the torture of those imprisoned, and the final solution, as the Nazis described it, in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and elsewhere. It would need to cover what was known about the existence of the camps in Germany and elsewhere, as well as the eventual liberation of those camps and what happened to the survivors, including a wide range of touching and important individual stories. There needs to be enough space to reflect on how to prevent the horrors of the Holocaust ever happening in Europe again.
Racism in all its forms is abhorrent. Antisemitism is based on extreme intolerance, vicious stereotyping and ignorance. What is proposed for the learning centre is a huge lost opportunity and, as Sir Richard Evans, Britain’s most distinguished historian of the Third Reich, said, it is “an embarrassment”. It is certainly an embarrassment compared with Washington and many other Holocaust learning centres elsewhere.
I had ministerial responsibility for museums, as well as having some background in education, so it disappoints me that we have come up with such a weak proposal. As the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, said, it would be a better solution to find an alternative location for a Holocaust learning centre that could do justice to the wide range of issues I have just described, which ought to be covered. That would make for a more meaningful and memorable experience for those visiting it, especially young people but also older people.
One possibility would be to combine it with a new Jewish museum to celebrate the enormous contribution made by the Jewish community to culture, science, the economy and the political life of this nation. A previous Jewish museum has had to close, I believe because of funding issues associated with the lease of its building. Another alternative is for the learning centre to be located at the Imperial War Museum alongside its Second World War galleries. The museum has extensive visitor facilities and ample parking space.
In Committee the Minister said the vision of the sponsors was to have the memorial and learning centre together in one place. Other speakers have questioned this. Surely this is not essential. We can do something better if we separate them. It involves awful compromises, both on what kind of learning centre is created and on the damage it will do to this small park if we put them together. Any memorial monument could signal the presence of a learning centre not too far away. The learning centre should be built above ground, not below. Others will comment on the risks of flooding and fire and the difficulty of escape for those cooped up in these underground galleries. I want to mention the extra cost of excavation, which was not covered in the first amendment we discussed today. The plan is to excavate more than eight metres down to achieve the proposed dimensions. As I have already made clear, these dimensions are too small. The total volume of soil to be removed amounts to 24,800 cubic metres. The design requires a basement box with concrete heavy construction consisting of many piles around the box. In Committee I asked the Minister whether he could say what the extra cost of building underground is. He was not able to do so in his reply. Without notice that is understandable, but given that he has now had notice, perhaps he can tell the House today.
On a later amendment I will say why the qualities of this small park on a world heritage site should not be in any way jeopardised. We must not risk damaging what is a welcome open space for those who live and work in this neighbourhood. I beg the Government to reconsider and to seek another location that allows a far better experience for visitors without the continued controversy that the current proposal involves.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I support Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, as it encapsulates my concern. I intend to speak briefly. During the debate on ping-pong on the data Bill on 2 June, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to some pre-ministerial training administered in the days before he and colleagues entered government, which included a former senior civil servant saying:
“Whatever happens, it is never too late to avoid making a bad decision”.—[Official Report, 2/6/25; col. 498.]
I believe that this Bill, heavy with good intentions, is prodigal with bad decisions, and I ask the Government to desist. When I hear the former Member of this House, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, whose sensitivity on these issues is matched by great wisdom, saying things such as:
“The hardest question for this proposal to answer, I believe, is whether we are being lured towards a grand gesture whose actual effects are so very far from clear”,
I am concerned.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I warmly endorse the amendment and the speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the right reverend Prelate. I briefly invite your Lordships to make a comparison in order to understand how we might look at this issue. It is a comparison we can make with our own eyes when we travel in this part of London every day, because we can walk past the Cenotaph.
Even before the First World War came to a conclusion, people thought very hard about how to remember it and how to pay the right tribute and get the right amount of information to preserve it with memorials and so on. The Imperial War Museum was conceived before the war ended in 1917 and the Cenotaph was erected as early as 1922, so people moved faster in those days when they thought about these matters, but they thought very hard. One of the things that people such as Rudyard Kipling, Fabian Ware and of course Lutyens were debating was: what are we trying to say? They tried to work it out very carefully before they said it, and I think we have been doing the process backwards.
In the Cenotaph you have a beautiful simplicity that is very carefully thought about. It is a monument to the dead and all it says is, “The Glorious Dead”. It does not even say, “Our Glorious Dead”, or “The Dead of the British Empire”. It says, “The Glorious Dead”, and that is it. Everybody who has walked past it ever since has thought about that. Indeed, in the days when men wore hats, they always took off their hats to it as they passed. At the same time, quite separately but with similar motives, people thought about how to commemorate it in the sense of learning and historical thought and evidence, and there you have the Imperial War Museum.
There is no reason to believe that the commemorative memorial idea should physically go with the learning idea. In this case, for all sorts of reasons adumbrated, that is physically difficult as well. I ask us to learn from that very beautiful example and to apply it to a situation and a subject that is equally important and equally tragic.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I was not aware of his grandfather, but I have made a note and I am certainly going to purchase his book, The Scourge of the Swastika. A memorial without a learning centre would fail to meet the objectives of the Prime Minister’s commission of 10 years ago in 2015. The report promised for us to remember and, as was mentioned earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said that it is
“the right idea, in the right place and at the right time”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1169.]
That was the Prime Minister in 2015. The Prime Minister for the 2017 general election, the noble Baroness, Lady May, agreed with that, as did subsequent Prime Ministers in 2019 and 2024. The Conservatives and Labour had this proposal in their manifestos.
The other place has voted on this, so now it has come to this House. This House is a revising Chamber. Some of the amendments may be well intentioned but, from listening to them, I think some of them are meant to wreck the Bill, because a memorial without the learning centre, as I say, would not work. Without an integral learning centre, the memorial would lack context. We would miss the opportunity to help millions of visitors learn the facts of the Holocaust and its significance for Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Moore, mentioned how the Cenotaph came about. As we walk past, we see “The Glorious Dead”, and, as he rightly says, those who served in the First and Second World Wars would know about that. But we are talking about the future here. The generations to come—our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren—need to be educated on what happened. That is the whole point of having this centre there. It is fanciful to suggest that a learning centre could be placed elsewhere without losing this opportunity for visitors to learn.
Abandoning the proposed design for Victoria Tower Gardens would mean setting the programme back many years. Perhaps that is the intent of the amendment. It is wholly unrealistic to imagine that a new site in any remotely suitable location would gather universal support. We would at best spend many more years facing and listening to objections from a new set of voices. I am sorry to say that, but it is the feeling that I have. The Government are right to bring this to the House as previous Governments have done, so I will not be supporting this amendment.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I am asked two questions that I always find really irritating. The first is whether I am Jewish and, if I am not, why I am interested in this. The second is, “What got you interested in the Holocaust?” I can tell the House that when I was 10 years old, in 1962, my grandfather got me as a birthday present a copy of The Scourge of the Swastika, which I read from cover to cover. It put the living daylights into me and I have always been fascinated by it. I am sorry that I had not made the connection with the noble Lord. It is a wonderful contribution not just to this country’s history but to its literature.
The noble Baroness made an important point about the loss of the Jewish Museum, which I mourn; I thought it was a really good museum. I am sure she was a regular visitor and I have to tell her that I was too. Without going into detail, there were some management problems that accelerated the problems there, but I make it clear that you can count me in for any revival of the Jewish Museum, because it is important. It fulfils the role that the noble Lord, Lord Moore, referred to in his excellent column about the importance of the POLIN museum in Warsaw. It is a wonderful museum about Polish life and about an understanding of the importance of Jewry in Poland. The hard truth is that the heart was ripped out of Poland by the Holocaust, and Poland has simply not recovered.
I hope noble Lords will not mind me reminding them that the POLIN museum is subterranean. I hope they will not mind me reminding them that the size of the Holocaust section of the POLIN museum is just fractionally larger than the learning centre proposed for Victoria Tower Gardens. I hope they will not be too upset if I remind them that the Berlin Holocaust museum, which goes along with that interesting memorial, is subterranean, and I hope they will not mind me reminding them that it is considerably smaller than the learning centre. Part of the Washington museum is subterranean and, when that museum decided to look at its country during the Holocaust, as we intend to look at ours, the size of its exhibit was smaller than ours. The proposed museum is not exceptionally small. If you look across the world, you will see that, by and large, it meets the numbers.
We have to make it clear that we have the full support of the Imperial War Museum to build it here. We have on the foundation people from the museum in Washington and from the 9/11 museum in New York. We have people who represent the Imperial War Museum. Forgive me, but I have learned throughout this debate what a distinguished historian is: it is a historian who agrees with you. We have a whole list of distinguished Holocaust historians on our academic board who support the memorial.
If we were now to say, “Let’s just build a memorial and find a learning centre elsewhere”, that would be a big missed opportunity, because we are living in a post-Holocaust world. We have just seen the election of a Polish President who has allegations against him of being a Holocaust denier. We cannot wait to do this. This would be an important global institution, and we should not throw it away.
I shall quote two small paragraphs from a letter that we have received from the Holocaust Education Trust, which each Member has received. It is from our friend Mala Tribich, the sister of the late Sir Ben Helfgott. She says:
“I was liberated in Bergen-Belsen by the exceptional British Army in 1945 and London has been my home for most of my life. It feels entirely fitting that a memorial should stand in the country that so many survivors are grateful to and have called their home. My brother and fellow survivor Sir Ben Helfgott … campaigned passionately for this national Holocaust Memorial and dreamed of seeing its opening—it saddens me that he did not live to see it come to pass. It is my hope I will be able to attend the opening and remember Ben and all the family we lost”.
Karen Pollock says in the same letter that more than 10 years ago the memorial was first proposed, and now is the time to act:
“Many survivors like Mala still dream of being present at its opening. Tragically, others—like Sir Ben Helfgott and Lily Ebert MBE—will never have that chance”.
If we split the memorial from the learning centre and do not go along with these proposals, it will be decades, or maybe never, before it is built, and that would be unforgivable.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to this amendment and I have not spoken in this debate yet.
Here are a few facts about myself. I am a secular Jew. One of my cousins was lucky to survive the Second World War in Rotterdam. I have experienced a great deal of antisemitism in my time, some of it through ignorance and some of it deliberate.
I have looked at this carefully and listened to the comments that have been made. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, that I was disappointed. I read the book The Scourge of the Swastika when I was 15 years old and it made an indelible impression upon me. The author wrote another book—if noble Lords have not read it, I can recommend it—called The Knights of Bushido, which is about Japanese war crimes and is equally horrific. So I think I know a fair amount about this subject.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, can I clarify some points that have arisen? I think many people are speaking as if there were no Holocaust memorials or learning centres in this country. We have at least half a dozen and 21 learning centres and they do not seem to have had much effect—there has never been an impact assessment. As for yet another one with an extremely narrow remit about rather recherché elements of the British reaction to or knowledge of the Holocaust in the 1930s and 1940s, if you did not know an awful lot before you went into it, you would not know much when you came out because it is not going to be able to tell you the whole story. It will be only about things such as Churchill and whether the camps should have been bombed and so on. Unless you were pretty knowledgeable at first, it would not teach you anything.
Indeed, the curator at his presentation the other day was unable to say what was going to be learned. He was unable to say whether it was going to combat antisemitism; in fact, I think he said it would not. Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, the great survivor who played the cello at Auschwitz, which saved her life, appeared before the Commons Select Committee in her wheelchair. She thumped the table and said it was rubbish. She asked what people were going to learn after 80 years—that we should not kill each other? Was that all we had to offer? In fact, the content as proposed is a sort of tribute to British greatness, British democracy, a kind of absolution: “We are not like that”. I will come back to that.
The other thing that should be clarified is about this tsunami of letters that noble Lords have received. Note that nearly all of them come from individuals. Even the president of the Board of Deputies has not been able to bring himself to put it to a vote because it would very likely be split. This comes from individuals who do not seem to know the British scene or how many other memorials we already have.
In fact, the reason the memorial has to be co-located is that this particular design is not exactly a memorial. What are you going to think if you see 23 sticks sticking up in the air? Of course, it has to have a learning centre somewhere; otherwise, people will just say, “What on earth is this?” and pass on by. Also, the model in the Royal Gallery that has been shown to your Lordships is misleading. It has little figures climbing on the mound but does not show the security buildings that will be necessary or the fences and all the other paraphernalia that are going to have to accompany it. It also seems to put the Buxton memorial in the wrong place; we will come to that.
What we are talking about tonight is largely a moral and historical issue. If ever there was an issue that merited a free vote, it is this one. Indeed, noble Lords know full well that if they have to be whipped to support this project, there is something gravely wrong with it. If it was a good project, there would be no problem at all. The other thing noble Lords have been told is that no Holocaust memorial is ever built without controversy. This is quite wrong, as is the other notion that has been put about that the project was in the Labour manifesto; it was not. The Imperial War Museum, the National Holocaust Centre in Newark, memorials in Swanage and Huddersfield and many others were all built without opposition. It is only when it is clearly in the wrong place, offering no education or commemoration, like in Hyde Park and this one, that there is opposition.
I suspect that many noble Lords have not visited the others nor learned from the 21 learning centres already existing because the debate always seems to assume that there was nothing until this project started and if it does not come about there will always be nothing. That is simply not the case. There are more than 300 memorials and museums around the world and as they go up, as they are built, so the antisemitism rises. The amendment to confine building in Victoria Tower Gardens to overground is perhaps the most sensible and achievable one of all. In a nutshell, this amendment says, if you are in a hole, stop digging.
If the Government want to get a memorial up quickly, without dissent, without limitless costs and all the other obstacles, the answer is to build a proper memorial—one that speaks to you, that says something to you—and put a learning centre close by. It is the building underground that is causing all the trouble. The POLIN Museum in Warsaw, which I have been to, has basements but basically it is a building that is overground, next to an evocative Warsaw Ghetto memorial. But building here means excavation to the depth of two storeys, with a consequent mound to dispose of the soil, which, incidentally, is not depicted in the model. There are flood and fire risks that we will come to.
The underground nature is not a virtue in itself, it came about only because the site was selected without proper research and is too small for what is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, knows, because he was Prime Minister at the time, that the space and nature recommendations that he accepted in his Holocaust Commission report of 2015 have been abandoned. Those who were involved in that, I suppose, cannot be happy with the way it has been cut down now. All they can do is put a brave face on it and try to justify it retrospectively.
The present underground plan is claustrophobic and dark. It is entered by a slope and no consideration seems to have been given to rain. We all know that when architects put up memorials they show you sun and trees and people strolling around. They never factor in rain and this one will have rain going down the slope. The idea was that there should be a place for contemplation, commemoration and prayer but it is too cramped. If you put a decent learning centre somewhere else, you would not need planning permission, you would not need this Bill. It would enable people who want to go to go without a ticket. It would not do the harm it is going to do.
As I have said, the designer’s track record is not a good one, and his current plan has not been able to proceed. You can see it online; it is just an empty site. Somebody mentioned HS2, and quite right too, because this plan has been rated by the National Infrastructure Commission thrice as undeliverable. It has been put in the same category as HS2, and not for planning reasons.
There is a compromise that we have been offering for years: a memorial quickly and a learning centre, with more spacious accommodation, in Westminster. That will achieve the basic 2015 recommendation for a campus, with offices for all of the Holocaust organisations and a lecture hall. What we have been presented with is a failure on every score. It will not be a worldwide attraction—why should it be?—and, in fact, it might not be an attraction at all.
It must be a matter of regret for the entire nation that those responsible for advancing this project have continued with a manifestly impossible plan on such a controversial and inappropriate site. It has given rise to intense opposition from local residents, and from all those who have ambitions in relation to education about Jewish history. As the late and much-lamented former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said, the Holocaust must be studied in context. That is why the POLIN Museum is so good. The actual size of the Holocaust element in it is irrelevant; it is in the context of more than 1,000 years of history of Jews in Poland. People know why they were there, what happened and what happened afterwards, which is important.
Instead of accepting the compromise that we have offered, the proposers insist on delivering a memorial that is essentially a tourist attraction, for selfies, with a visitor centre attached—a convenient stop for anyone in Westminster who wants a café and a toilet. It shows disregard for the very distinguished Jewish opponents of it. I would hardly include myself among those, but historians, professionals, writers, lawyers, some journalists and people in the creative community have come out and said that this is not good enough for our family, not good enough to teach people and not good enough for this country.
Most damaging of all is the interference with R&R and the repair of Victoria Tower, but I will come to that later. The plan to build underground will come back to haunt the parliamentary authorities if it is not abandoned.
There are many supporters who seem to be content with any memorial rather than a good memorial. It is understandable that the Government are anxious to shake off the allegations of antisemitism that were investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It is not antisemitic to oppose this project and to want to improve it. I did not want to have to raise that, but I have.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
The noble Baroness has spoken for 10 minutes. I hope she can now bring her remarks to an end, considering this is Report and not Committee stage of the Bill, and a lot of these arguments were rehearsed then.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I will conclude by saying that this needs a complete rethink, and now is the chance for your Lordships to rescue the proposal.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I have not previously spoken in the debates on this Bill and I had not expected to speak today, but I wish to say a few words in support of the observations made by my noble friend Lord Pickles.
My grandmother was killed in Auschwitz. I was partly brought up by an aunt who survived Auschwitz, but who had actually been in a gas chamber on two occasions. Like others who have spoken, I have some vested interest in this subject.
I have other experience which may be relevant. For many years, I practised as a planning KC. I am very familiar with the range of objections that are likely to be—and very often are—put forward, to any proposal. People would say, “I absolutely support the principle of this development, but it is in the wrong place”; they would say, “I absolutely support the principle of this development, but it is the wrong design”; and they would say, “I would absolutely support the principle of this development, but it is going to cost too much”. I can predict one thing for your Lordships: whatever alternative proposal is advanced to the proposal that is in this Bill, there will be those who come forward with that kind of objection.
This proposal has been before Parliament for too long. My noble friend who spoke from the Front Bench at the conclusion of our debate on the previous amendment recited a long list of those organisations dedicated to the commemoration of the Holocaust which support this proposal. Is your Lordships’ House going to go against them? I very much hope not.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. It is interesting for how many of us Belsen was part of our lives. I was born in Celle, after the war, my father being in the BAOR and working with what were called DPs—displaced persons. He arrived not on the first day of the liberation of Belsen but soon after. I grew up, albeit with a very different background from that of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, with that experience. I think those of us who were brought up in that childhood have commemorated almost every day of our lives what happened. For those of us who believed in the European Union, it grew from the same basis—I know not everyone took the same view on Europe—of “never again”. This is a part big of my life.
The desire for commemoration does not mean that one has to support the particular proposal here, with the learning centre. I thought the reference to the Cenotaph was very moving. When one walks through the park—those of us who work in Millbank use it a lot—one stops at the Burghers of Calais. I think I am right in saying that the only time Rodin came to London was to discuss and choose the site of the Burghers of Calais, one of the most memorable statues or memorials in the country. Care was taken with the story he was trying to portray, albeit a much older story.
Yes, there should be a commemoration with a statue or equivalent, but there is this idea of millions of people coming. How are we going to deal with the traffic? I think we will deal with that in a later amendment. Before we come to that amendment, which will deal with a proper assessment, let us say yes to a commemoration, but that does not mean that we have to take over the whole of that garden and put in what would be a very small learning centre, with all the disadvantages that come with that.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests as being on the Chief Rabbinate Trust and the Jewish Leadership Council, and as someone whose family was mostly wiped out by the Holocaust. My parents escaped and came here, and have always been hugely grateful for the protection of this country. I am deeply saddened at the controversy created by this proposed memorial and learning centre to support the promise to remember, which I have always believed is so important and so valuable.
I would like to put on record my gratitude for the support for this important project from both the previous and the current Government, and for the work put into it by so many Ministers, noble Lords and people who, as we have heard, have no direct interest and are not Jewish themselves. I recognise that we are a tiny minority of the population, but the work that has gone into this by so many is something that I am most grateful for. I understand the many objections and concerns that have been raised by noble Lords. I know that they are deeply and passionately held, and I do not believe they stem from antisemitism in any way, but this amendment would undermine the vision and purpose of this project.
Both the memorial and a learning centre are essential and are part of what this original project envisaged. Without the learning centre, I do not believe that it would achieve the aims. Noble Lords may or may not like the design, and I have enormous respect and admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Deech, all of whom I know have good intentions.
The Berlin museum is underground and actually, that subterranean environment contributes in some way to the power of the horrors portrayed. Not everyone will agree, but that is how it struck me. All the elements outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, can and will be incorporated into the learning centre—and she is right: they are all so important.
The bottom line is that at this stage, after so many years of such regrettably bitter controversy, I sincerely believe that if this project as proposed, with the support of both the current Government and the Opposition, does not go ahead now, there will be no memorial and no new visitor or education centre to explain what happened. In the context of Parliament, of democracy, and of moral and historical issues, the siting next to Parliament is important. I hope that noble Lords will be able to accept this now.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, may I briefly intervene? I hate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Howard, not least because I have great respect for him, but I was made to speak on this by listening to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who spoke extremely well, if I may say so. I too have read The Scourge of the Swastika—I was appalled by what I read, when I was about 15 or 16—and The Knights of Bushido. It is appalling.
Yesterday when I went to lunch, purely coincidentally, there was a man there who told me that his mother had been on the last train to Auschwitz. She was a German Jew, and her father had been killed on the eastern front. The mother, who was Jewish, put the girl in a convent, but she was found in the last few weeks of the war and sent to Auschwitz—and, luckily, survived, obviously, because this young man was there.
The point about that story is that it is not just the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and everybody else in this Chamber; there are people still alive who saw the awful things that happened in the Second World War, and we need to remember that. I know that many people here will have been to Yad Vashem. What an astonishing experience that is, to go to Jerusalem and to see that shocking display—certainly shocking to me, anyway.
I have also been to Poland, only once. I went courtesy of the Holocaust Educational Trust to Auschwitz, and thanked them for it. It was amazing. Again, it was literally tear-jerking. By the way, I would point out to my noble friend Lord Pickles, who mentioned the underground bit of the Polish war memorial, that it obviously has not had very much effect on the Polish president, whom he said might have anti-Holocaust beliefs. Is that right?
Lord Pickles (Con)
My noble friend asks me specifically, so I shall tell him that when I arranged a meeting in Milan with the curator of the POLIN museum, he was frightened to leave the museum, because if he did so, the then Government—the same party as that of the new president—were going to sack him. What my noble friend needs to understand is that there is a battle going on about Holocaust memorials, and if we are to preserve things like the POLIN museum we need to preserve the truth. This will be an important part of it.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I agree with my noble friend 100% about preserving the truth, but I do not think the truth is necessarily preserved by this particular proposed learning centre. We need something a lot better, frankly. It was said in 2015, as I understand it, that the Imperial War Museum wanted the learning centre there. I went round the galleries of the Imperial War Museum on the Holocaust—I think they are permanent—and they too are very impressive. We can enhance them. I am not a planner, but I would not object to that. The Imperial War Museum has space and can enhance the view and have an impressive learning centre. We need an impressive learning centre for this appalling crime against humanity—and, to back up what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, I am afraid that this proposal is not for an impressive centre.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, the amendment is specifically about the underground nature of this project. I have three brief questions which I would like to put to the Minister in the hope that he can answer them when he addresses the House. The first relates to what my noble friend Lord Pickles said—notwithstanding the passion with which spoke this evening and the dedication, which I am sure we all admire, he has shown to this project for many years. He told us about other memorials that are either wholly or partially subterranean, but no one has explained, no one has given a positive reason, why it is a good idea to put a memorial underground. If we are proud to erect this memorial, to invest money in it and to care about it, why would we hide it away underground instead of putting it somewhere where it can be properly admired and seen?
When I say “it”, I have to divide that into two parts, because on the one hand we have a learning centre and on the other hand we have a memorial. I am sure that most people who are paying attention to this debate today do not know what we are talking about. They think we are debating whether there should be a memorial or not. We are not. We are debating whether there should be a learning centre or not. No one is against a memorial. So my first question is: what is good about putting a learning centre underground rather than overground, which would be so much easier and more accessible for children, old people and others?
Having looked at the plans for this project, my second question is: where do people go briefly to pay their respects to those who died in the Holocaust? We are told that people coming to visit this memorial will come by bus, go through security and then go underground. That is a large project. It would be a big undertaking for anyone who was visiting London and wanted to pay their respects to the whole issue of the Holocaust. Where would you go to lay flowers? Where would you go to take a picture to send to your family back home to say, “I’ve been to the Holocaust Memorial”?
When I first knew about this project, what I imagined was a beautiful statue—a statue between the Burghers of Calais and the Buxton Memorial, which would provide, as my noble friend Lord Finkelstein movingly said in one of the sessions of the Committee on this Bill, a place to celebrate many occasions in world history when good has overcome evil. So why not have a beautiful memorial of that kind, which can be easily visited, seen and admired, and that will not cause any problems, and put the learning centre somewhere else? No one has explained why that cannot be done.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The core of the problem is that the learning centre is too cramped, small and poky. I do not think it should be underground, but the real problem is that it is too small to tell such a huge story. What we have is a site that is too small for the Shoah but a project that is too big for the site. The learning centre is what really matters.
My credentials to speak are not nearly as good as others. My father was an Army doctor at the liberation of Bergen-Belsen, but he never told us anything about it, so shocked was he by what he saw. I learned about his role there—I think he was the first Army doctor in—only after he was dead. I think that he would have said that what matters most of all is the education, and for that you really do need a lecture theatre and libraries as well as electronics and computer desks. A tourist exhibit down a hole in the gardens does not match up to what one is looking for from an education centre.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will address directly the question that my noble friend posed on why collocation is important and why this is the right location. I would just like to dispel a couple of myths in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for bringing it, and I think it is a very important and measured debate that we are having. It is an honour to contribute to it at all.
As I said, I have been on the Holocaust Memorial Foundation for a decade. That is my only lived experience of this. But what I have learned in that decade from sitting alongside real experts in Holocaust education is that it is so important that we feel this, as well as learning facts. I remind noble Lords that the leaders of all Holocaust education organisations in this country believe that this is the right place, the right size and the right way to do this as a national memorial. They know a thousandfold or a millionfold more than I do. I have watched them at work over the course of the last decade and I think that we should respect them, as my noble friend Lord Howard said earlier.
It will not be a tribute to British greatness—quite the opposite. It will ask us to think very deeply about Britain’s role in the Holocaust. There are some things that we can proud of but lots that we cannot. I would argue that, tempting though it is to believe that this is like the Cenotaph and that we would walk past and feel the pain of the victims and their families, actually the most difficult part of Holocaust education is not to think, “Oh my God, it could be my family who were victims”. The most difficult part of Holocaust education is to ask yourself “Could you have been a perpetrator?” That is the lesson that could not be more important today.
The sad thing is that, with every week that I have been on the Holocaust Memorial Foundation, it has felt more important that, as a country, we ask people to think about that. Collocating the memorial and the learning centre in the shadow of the Mother of Parliaments, where so many people have fought for liberty and freedom, is why it is the right place at the right time.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I was not going to rise in response to this amendment, but I was struck by contributions on all sides of the House from noble Lords that have drawn reference to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. In the course of this debate, I did some investigation to understand why that memorial is underground, and I reflected on the experience of the architect who created Yad Vashem. It is primarily underground, and that was done to create a powerful symbolic and emotional experience for visitors. I have had the opportunity to visit, and have done so on more than two dozen occasions. The architect, Moshe Safdie, designed the museum representing the rupture in Jewish history caused by the Holocaust. Visitors descend into the earth, moving through dark galleries that evoke the descent into one of history’s darkest chapters.
I share that reflection only because there is a good reason why Yad Vashem is underground. Noble Lords can read more about it, if they wish to understand more, but for me, having been there and visited, it is part of the experience and why I shall vote against this amendment if it goes to a vote.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I feel that I should restate, as I did in Committee, that this Bill is a free vote for our Benches. We feel that it is a conscience issue, so I make my remarks about my own opinions—and I feel very strongly about this.
I strongly support the right and honourable decision of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that we should have a national Holocaust memorial and a national Holocaust learning centre. However, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord King, that it needs to be done right and it needs to be done soon. The choices that the Government have made about how to do it are not fitting for the seriousness and importance of the issue.
It is quite possible for us to have a fitting, appropriate and high-quality memorial in the park. After all, if we can have a memorial to six burghers who voluntarily offered themselves to save their city, can we not remember 6 million Jews who did not voluntarily die at the hands of the Nazis? Yes, we could have it in the park—and it should be a compelling place where we can contemplate the horror of the Holocaust and where we can remember and pray for the dead—not only the 6 million Jews who died but the other communities who suffered at the hands of the Nazis. I refer to the Romany people, the homosexual people and the people with physical and mental disabilities who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.
We also need somewhere where we can celebrate those who resisted the Nazis and those who survived the Nazis with very great courage, and celebrate the lives that they have subsequently made in this country and around the world—the families that they have grown and the contribution they have made to our society and societies across the world. That is the sort of memorial that I would like to see and I am very happy to see it near to Parliament. It is appropriate—but I would like to see it soon.
The problem, of course, arises with the learning centre. We all remember, and it is very important that we make sure that future generations remember. I say this with great respect to all Members of the House who have suffered the pain and loss of losing members of their family to the Holocaust. I am a lucky person who has not suffered that pain and loss, so to some extent I hesitate to speak—but I feel passionately that the matter is so important that we must do it right.
The main thing about remembering is that we instil in future generations what happens if people turn a blind eye to evil. That is what happened in Nazi Germany, and it must never happen again. I want to see a compelling and informative learning centre, in a place that is adequate to the importance of the issue that we are trying to teach future generations about.
I support this amendment, and I will support other amendments that raise issues that arise simply because of the way in which the Government have chosen to take this idea forward.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, for whom I have great respect—particularly regarding his family experience—that one of the reasons why this has taken so long to go through Parliament is that it is not right, and over the years people have realised that it is not right. We all want to do it right, so let us please do it right.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I promise not to detain the House for long. I want to come back on the exchange between my noble friends Lord Pickles and Lord Robathan, because the insinuation was made that there is antisemitism in the governing party of Poland. We have been talking in this debate about the way in which the Holocaust is memorialised in Warsaw. There is a memorial on the site of the ghetto, which has been there since the late 1940s—the one that Willy Brandt famously dropped to his knees before. Then there is the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, opened in 2013, the ground-breaking having been commenced by President Lech Kaczynski of the Law and Justice Party. He was the first president to celebrate Hanukkah in the presidential palace and the first Polish president to attend a synagogue. Poland is an important ally. It was the only other country that was in the Second World War from the beginning to the end. It is still an important ally today, and it is important that we do not leave unchallenged that implication.
On the wider issue of this amendment, it is very difficult for any open-minded person not to have been convinced by the forensic speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham. I can only say that, if I am honest and put my motives under the microscope, I would have been in favour of the memorial simply because I imagine that the kind of people I do not like would have been on the other side. However, the more I have listened to the arguments, the harder it is to avoid the conclusion that if this were not a whipped vote, there is no way that it would get through this Chamber. As an unelected Chamber, able to be a check on the radicalism of the other House, we surely exist precisely because we can look beyond headlines and do the right thing, regardless of how it is summarised or misrepresented.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, as this is Report I will be brief in responding to Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. We are concerned that the amendment would undermine the current plan for the construction of the memorial and learning centre, prevent its timely delivery and risk the whole future of the project. The Official Opposition have been unequivocal in our support for this project. While specific concerns about the design of the project can and should be put forward during the planning process—which will follow the passage of the Bill—we do not feel it would be appropriate to place undue constraints on the project through statutory legislation. What we have been discussing today are planning issues, and they should be dealt with in the planning process. We therefore cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Blackstone, for their amendment. This has been a lengthy but powerful debate, with much strength of feeling. Given that there were so many lengthy speeches, I am not sure if noble Lords got the memo from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, when he pontificated on having Report stage speeches.
I remind the House of the scope of the Bill: Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to pay for the costs of the project and Clause 2 disapplies the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 so that the project can be built in the designated area. I know that lots of points have been made in this debate; I am not going to address them now because I am sure they will come up in later amendments.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. I was very interested to see this model, and we were told that it was to be here on the Monday. I forgot or failed to see it on the Monday; I went straight to the Robing Room on the Tuesday, and it had gone. That is therefore a rather shorter visit than the four days that my noble friend the Minister has just mentioned.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I thank the Minister for directly answering my questions. I have a supplementary question: can the model be brought back for noble Lords to look at again? It was a very valuable experience.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, that question is for the House authorities. I personally emailed every Member of the House of Lords to invite them to visit the model, and I stipulated which days it would be there. We had a historian, security experts and the architect on site—I do not know what more I could have done to engage with noble Lords. But what I can say to the noble Baroness—I knew that this question would come—is that I took a picture of the model, which I can show her whenever we get a chance.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, but why is the model not here today? Today is the day when noble Lords are considering this extremely important issue, so why was it here last week and not today?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
It was here last week, and I emailed every Member of the Lords to say where it would be. I do not think anyone could accuse me of lack of engagement. I have spent weeks and weeks speaking to people—I am happy to speak to anybody at any time. I took a very accurate picture, so I am sure I can talk the noble Baroness through it after this debate finishes.
I have to make progress. I say to my noble friend who asked in particular about the cost of an underground learning centre versus an overground one that the costs do not work like that. To talk about overground is a hypothetical question. We have given the cost for the whole project. Of course, we recognise that there are uncertainties, which is why our approach includes an appropriate level of contingency when it comes to costs, but it would be wrong to suggest that the cost estimates have somehow failed to take account of the underground construction.
The Holocaust Commission recognised more than 10 years ago that a learning centre should be collocated with the Holocaust memorial. By placing the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, we have an opportunity to deepen the understanding of many millions of people, from Britain and overseas, about the facts of the Holocaust and its significance for the modern world.
I want to touch on one final point before I conclude. The noble Lord mentioned Washington, as did many others. I was on the phone in the early hours of this morning to the international affairs director at the Washington museum and memorial, Dr Paul Shapiro. It was a special call because he was the person who took me when I visited the Washington memorial. It was a very moving and touching experience. I just want to share something that we can relate to today. The proposal to create a Holocaust memorial museum in Washington was announced in 1979, yet the memorial did not open until 1993. The site chosen, next to the National Mall in Washington, DC, generated considerable opposition, including points such as: it would lead to antisemitism because Jews would be seen as being given privileged status; injustices in US history were more deserving of memorials; or it would be used to whitewash the US response to the Holocaust or not do enough to celebrate US responses. Another reason was that the Holocaust was not relevant to American history, and another was that it was the right idea but the wrong place—something that we have heard today. By 1987 the final architectural design was agreed, but criticism and demands for changes to the design continued. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum was opened by President Clinton in 1993. As my friend Dr Paul Shapiro mentioned to me this morning, this month it will welcome its 50 millionth visitor.
Let us not throw this opportunity away. I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have one more question. The Minister has spoken eloquently about learning lessons. My question applies both to America and to this country, where every child at a state school gets Holocaust education and has the benefit of six existing memorials. Why, then, is antisemitism rampant in our universities, among young people who have had Holocaust education, and rampant in the States? What have they learned?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a strong point. Let me be clear: unfortunately, building Holocaust memorials does not get rid of antisemitism. That is a reminder for us all, not just the Government but society, that we should all do more. That means education, which is why the Prime Minister has promised to make sure that the Holocaust is taught right across every school, whether a state school or not. There is more work to be done.
I take this personally in the respect that I am the Minister responsible for dealing with religious hate crime. The noble Lord, Lord Mann—he is not in his place—and I have regular conversations with stakeholders in this area, but we have to do much more as this is unfortunately on the rise. I speak to colleagues from the Community Security Trust, Mark Gardner in particular, and this is something on which we need to work more collaboratively together. It is unfortunately a challenge. As colleagues have said, there is a lot of distortion, misinformation, disinformation, online religious hatred and all kinds of discrimination. We are doing more, and we will continue to do more.
On the Holocaust memorial, I will share my personal experience. In my school education I was taught a bit about it, but it was not until I visited that memorial in Washington that I was personally moved and touched and realised the grave challenges and difficulties—the horrific situation that the 6 million men, women and children faced, as well as those in other communities. That is why I say that the Holocaust memorial is an important opportunity for young people—including schoolchildren when they visit Parliament—to visit and learn from what I see as a huge, life-changing, moving experience. This is in the national conscience and this is a national memorial. That is why we are supporting it and taking this Bill through the House of Lords.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, when responding to the Minister, it is typical to begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part. I am not sure that I can entirely do that because, as I said at the beginning, we are on Report and this group has taken rather longer than I hoped or expected, and some noble Lords have strayed slightly wide of the amendment.
I will say that I am particularly glad to hear that Dr Paul Shapiro is still in his role, unlike the heads of many museums in the United States of America—the mortality rate appears to be slightly alarming. The second thought I had was in reacting to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for the Opposition. I thought it was suitably ironic—indeed, I think many Jewish comedians would particularly enjoy the irony—to describe what we are trying to do in this amendment as “undermining” the project, since it is about stopping actual burrowing underground.
We are in a situation where there is a lot of emotion around. When there is a lot of emotion around, it is quite hard to focus on individual bits, to try to disaggregate them and to try to improve a project that has clearly run into a degree of difficulty.
This debate has made it clear that there is a fissure here. The aspiration of the memorial foundation to co-locate and create, in the words of the various institutions that spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, an “important global institution” is entirely laudable. This debate has demonstrated, on the basis of what is currently proposed, that it is highly unlikely and somewhat impractical that that will be delivered, much as I wish it was possible to deliver it.
I am certainly not going to divide the House on this—frankly, it is too important an issue to divide on. However, I beseech the promoters of this project to be honest and transparent with us about what it is and what it is not. What it is now is materially different from the aspiration described in moving terms in the report from January 2015. Being realistic about what we hoped for then and where we are now would help the situation—frankly, it would be more respectful—and help some of us to manage our emotions around this issue. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 11th June 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberData (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 108-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (11 Jun 2025)
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we consider the Commons message on the data Bill, I again remind the House of the importance of applying greater discipline to ping-pong. We have now spent nearly 44 hours debating this Bill as a whole, including nine and a half hours on the last four rounds of ping-pong. This means that over 20% of the total time spent on the Bill has been on ping-pong alone. The remaining issue is entirely known to Peers and the arguments have been rehearsed at length. I ask noble Lords to minimise contributions and keep any interventions brief and to the point. I have asked the Whip to continue to monitor the House and keep it on track. Thank you.
Motion A
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49F and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 49P, 49Q, 49R, 49S and 49T in lieu.
“(e) ways of enforcing requirements and restrictions relating to—
(i) the use of copyright works to develop AI systems, and
(ii) the accessing of copyright works for that purpose (for example, by web crawlers),
including enforcement by a regulator.”
“(3A) The consideration and proposals under each of paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection
(3) must include consideration of, and proposals relating to, AI systems developed outside the United Kingdom.”
“Progress statement
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement setting out what progress has been made towards the publication of—
(a) the economic impact assessment required by section (Economic impact assessment), and
(b) the report required by section (Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems).
(2) The duty in subsection (1) does not apply where the economic impact assessment and the report have been published before the end of the period described in that subsection.”
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, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1. I will keep my opening remarks brief. The Government have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that we need to properly analyse the 11,500 consultation responses before we consider bringing forward legislative change relating to AI and copyright. For that reason, the amendments in lieu, passed by the other place, are the same as the government amendments previously tabled in this House. I understand that this is a source of disappointment to some noble Lords, but it is not fair to say—as some have outside of your Lordships’ House—that the Government have in any way been unclear about their intentions, or misled or disrespected noble Lords.
I turn to the new Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. I understand and share his desire for a quick and effective solution. I thank him for the productive and helpful meeting we had ahead of this debate. I recognise that people have not been reassured entirely so far, which is unfortunate. I want to give the House the same undertaking I gave the noble Lord: we will work as hard as possible on this issue. I can reassure him, and your Lordships, that our plan will give copyright holders as much protection and support as possible, including via transparency, enforcement and renumeration, while not pre-empting the outcomes of the important and necessary processes that we have set out and without pre-judging any future legislation. We want to ensure that we uphold our gold standard copyright regime while also adapting to the new challenges. I look forward to working with the noble Lord as part of the parliamentary working group on this issue.
In the meantime, I urge noble Lords to accept the Government’s Motion and the amendments in lieu. That is the best way to finally pass the data Bill, with the compromises the Government have made to address this issue as quickly as possible. This will speed up our work, make it more comprehensive and provide Parliament with a meaningful update within six months—a clock that only starts ticking once this Bill has passed. These steps increase engagement and accountability, but without pre-judging or pre-empting the consultation to which so many took the time to respond.
In my most recent all-Peers letter, I was pleased to share details of the cross-party parliamentary working group that DSIT is establishing to support our next steps. I take this opportunity to reassure those already on the relevant Select Committees that this group will not in any way replace or dilute their core work. Minister Bryant confirmed yesterday that we will meet with relevant Select Committee chairs in both Houses to discuss how this new group can complement existing mechanisms. I will provide an update to your Lordships’ House on the formation and progress of the working group as soon as I am able to.
Lastly, I thank Members of your Lordships’ House for their contributions to the debates on the Bill during its passage. I look forward to hearing their contributions on other matters once the Bill has passed. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
Leave out from “49F” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 49P, 49Q, 49R, 49S and 49T and do propose Amendment 49U as an amendment in lieu of Commons Amendments 49P, 49Q, 49R, 49S and 49T—
“Disclosure of use and accessing of copyright works in AI training
After section 21 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (infringement by making adaptation or act done in relation to adaptation) insert—
“21A Disclosure of use and accessing of copyright works in AI training
(1) A person who uses copyright works in the training of an artificial intelligence (AI) model for the purposes of a service with links to the United Kingdom within the meaning of subsection (2) shall make publicly available a statement identifying the copyright works used, and the means by which those works were accessed.
(2) The service has links with the United Kingdom if—
(a) it has a significant number of UK users, or
(b) United Kingdom users form one of the target markets for the service (or the only target market).
(3) The requirement in subsection (1) shall not apply where the rights holder has granted a licence to the person using the copyright works.
(4) In this section, “training” means the pre-training, training, fine-tuning and retrieval-augmented generation of an AI model, or any other point at which a data input is made to an AI model.”””
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Kidron has been inspiring during the passage of the Bill. She has inspired me to take up the cudgels on behalf of our creative industries: writers, painters, filmmakers, newspapers and composers. Indeed, almost every aspect of life today is underwritten by somebody’s good idea. I believe all sides of the House agree that they should benefit from, and own, that creativity. Noble Lords who have written a novel or an article, created a picture or produced a film will know what it is like to feel ownership of their ideas, and how they would feel if they were purloined. I declare my interest as a composer.
I do not want to divide the House, but if there is no meaningful response from the Government I will have no choice. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I told your Lordships’ House last week that we did not want to collapse—to use the Minister’s phrase—the data Bill. Indeed, we are not playing ping-pong with Amendment 49.
Rather, and in return, we are seeking a beneficial relationship with the Government. After all, many of the ideas going into AI were initially developed by the creative industries, which, like the Government, want to be at the forefront of what is to come in AI: things that are impossible to imagine and that will, I have no doubt, take our breath away.
Peter Kyle in the other place said that he did not want to deal with these issues piecemeal, but we know from experience that not putting in protection at an early stage can lead to the tail wagging the dog. Streaming would be a perfect example. In enacting new law, surely there is a duty to build in transparency in order that we can safeguard the copyright that the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has promised will remain in place.
However, for the creatives themselves to be able to enforce that copyright, they need to know who is using—and possibly stealing—their work. If you do not know that theft is occurring, you cannot do much about it. So, I am going to take a slightly different tack today. My amendment amends the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, making copyright law enforceable by requiring AI firms to make a public statement about their use of copyright works and the means by which they access those works. However, AI firms would not be required to disclose the use of copyright works if they have agreed a licence with the rights holder—which seems only fair. This removes burdens for ethical AI firms while also acting as a strong incentive to abide by copyright law.
The data used in AI training is now the key point of competitive advantage for AI firms—far more so than a model’s algorithms or architecture. Therefore, the requirement will give AI firms a strong incentive to license creative comment and avoid public disclosure. For those AI firms that persist in theft of copyright, holders will be able to identify their stolen content in the public disclosures and seek redress.
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act is enforceable via private action, as the Minister himself set out in the other place yesterday. So, this amendment is intended to respect the financial primacy of the Commons. In fact, yesterday, Minister Bryant—perhaps without realising—did away with the financial privilege argument by saying, correctly, that it was not the job of government to pursue breaches of copyright. That is why the creators need transparency, so that they can do the policing that is not—I agree with Chris Bryant—the Government’s job.
I say to the Government—now, after all, led by a musician, a flautist, and how welcome it was to find that we have a musician at the helm—that we feel that the traffic so far has all been one way. However, the essence of creativity, as the PM must know, whether on the stage or the concert hall, whether in research and development studios or the laboratory, is the ability to listen and to exchange ideas. That is how curiosity and intelligence come together to create a better world that respects the ideas of our creators, whether it be Elton John—just think how much he and his colleagues have brought in to the Treasury—or, as he said himself, the young, impoverished artist sitting in a garret and bursting with the great ideas that just may be the next thing to take the world by storm. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the Government’s Motion A. The timing of this debate and the pretence that these are in any meaningful sense amendments in lieu are more process and nonsense. I will leave other noble Lords to reflect on the Government’s stunning rebuke of your Lordships’ House, but to the Minister I say that it is disrespectful to millions of people to bring back amendments as if they had not been resoundingly rejected already.
I explicitly left the protection of the property and livelihood of millions of British workers, the UK AI industry and the UK’s creative and IP-rich companies in the Government’s hands. Despite actively acknowledging that creative work is being stolen at scale, the Government chose once again to remove transparency provisions your Lordships provided, allowing the tech sector to continue to rob the creative industries blind. It is as cynical as it is bewildering.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I rise to support the noble Lord’s Motion A1. I declare my interest as per the register.
It is with deep sadness that, once again, I am speaking on this issue, which continues to feel like a horror movie—a bad dream in which creators are being victimised. Just yesterday, a friend of mine in the advertising industry told me that his sector will be wiped out by AI in under five years, due to loss of revenue. The same can be said of numerous other creative sectors. This is morally wrong. The Government have promised not to introduce an exception without proof of an effective opt-out mechanism, but there is no effective system available for this. Such technologies are far from being developed, and they do not even work conceptually. A transparency-first approach to AI is essential. AI developers should be required to keep accurate records of all the training material they use and the web crawlers they employ. This is critical to ensuring that creators can identify when their works have been used for AI training, potentially without their consent.
Although everything that needs to be said about this woeful and sad situation has already been eloquently and passionately expressed in this Chamber by noble Lords from across the House—especially the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—for the sake of clarity, I would like to ask the following questions, so that it is absolutely clear to the many thousands of people in the creative industries exactly where the Government stand on this issue: taking their lifeblood.
Do the Government accept that the creative industries need transparency and assurances before considering changes to copyright law, and, if so, why not prioritise it now? Do the Government believe it acceptable to ignore theft in the creative industries when such inaction would be unthinkable in sectors such as retail and manufacturing? Do the Government agree that creatives are working people and should be fairly paid for their labour? If so, how do the Government expect this to happen without transparency for AI training? How do the Government intend to ensure that AI companies receive high-quality content to train on if creatives are not being paid for their work by AI companies? They are doing it for nothing. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these important questions.
It is unprecedented for a UK Government to weaken intellectual property laws for British citizens and businesses, to the advantage of large overseas corporations. We should think about that. It risks undermining confidence in the whole creative sector, which plays a crucial role in the Government’s industrial strategy and the UK’s soft power. The whole of the industry urges and pleads with the Government to prioritise the long-term sustainability of the British creative sector over short-term benefits for AI developers, and to put an end to this unbelievable AI nightmare.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, I have kept my contributions to a minimum during ping-pong, and I will do so again today. However, I must voice my frustration at hearing the Government, here and in the other place, oppose our calls for transparency about AI training data by saying that a data Bill is not the place for it, and that they want to consider transparency about training data as part of their consultation on copyright. Meanwhile, they also say that
“transparency is absolutely key to our ability to deliver the package that we would like to put together”,—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/25; col. 850.]
despite refusing to accept any timetable for delivering this fundamental aspect. Until we have transparency over the use of data, data owners—copyright holders—cannot use the existing copyright laws to bring cases around current violations of those laws. The longer the situation goes on, the harder it will be for data owners—copyright holders—to bring legal cases. There is an urgent need here, and there is an opportunity to address it in this Bill.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I think I am right in saying that it is approximately 25 years since I joined this House, so perhaps I have been here too long, but I do not recall any occasion when ping-pong has been done in the dinner-break hour. I sympathise with the complaint that the Government Chief Whip made about the amount of precious parliamentary time that has been spent on ping-pong; I do not know how long it has been exactly, but it must be more than eight hours.
Anyone listening to any of the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, could not fail to be impressed by her arguments. It is extraordinary that the House of Commons has been so tone-deaf and tin-eared to those arguments. That is why we have spent so long on this and why we are here now. I am conscious that my Chief Whip is in her place and, understandably, we are whipped on the issue of principle that we do not challenge the House of Commons over and again. However, I argue that that depends on the other place actually showing respect for this place and the arguments put here. It has not done so.
I feel sorry for the Minister—she is unable to do anything because of the view that has been taken in the other place—but, frankly, to keep coming back, saying the same thing over again and expecting things to change is an act of political madness. I do not understand the politics of this. The Government are alienating some of their traditional key supporters.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has come forward with an ingenious amendment to continue the process. I suspect that many of my colleagues are thinking, “Do we really want to extend this?” I am sorry that more noble Lords were not present to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It is devastating in its impact, and what the Government are doing is devastating because of the implications. The noble Lord said that he was delighted that there were now musicians in the Government. Well, we must have a few pipers, because he who pays the piper calls the tune. The fact that, as the noble Baroness said, the Prime Minister entertained at Chequers over the weekend the people who want to put their hands in the pockets of our most creative and productive people, without any opportunity to make recompense, is pretty extraordinary.
I say to the Government Chief Whip that we have reached this position because of the Government’s recalcitrance and the foolish way this has been handled. I am sure that I speak for many noble Lords in saying that even a modest concession would have prevented us getting into this continuing ping-pong position. It just will not do. To put it in the dinner hour—many people might think that the dinner break is limited to an hour but we can go on for as long as we like, although I think we might upset a number of our colleagues if we did so—is just not right. I suspect that the Government Chief Whip might say, “Oh, well, I thought there weren’t going to be any more amendments”. I say in response: I thought that at the very least, after such substantial defeats, there would be some give.
There is a big principle here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, touched on at the end of her speech. Today it is the creative industries, but what will they come for next? They will come for our health data. Where will they be on the protections for our children, for which we fought so hard and on which the noble Baroness played such a leading role? Will we really go all the way with these big crony capitalists—that is what we are seeing now in the United States—at the expense of some of our most precious industries and values?
That is why, if the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, presses this matter to a vote, I will go through the Lobby in support of his Motion, feeling that I should not have been driven to that position by a Government who show no proper respect to this House or its arguments. It is not enough for them to have a majority and to do anything they like; that is the road that the previous Viscount Hailsham described as leading to elective dictatorship in a democracy. The elective dictatorship is looking to those who have substantial financial means instead of the interests of the people of our country.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
I support the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS.
It is no secret that Governments have built AI policy around the views of those with the deepest vested interests: companies whose business models rely on opacity. The noble Lord’s amendment is modest, but it is a line in the sand. If we want a fair digital economy, we must start by listening not only to shareholders and Silicon Valley lobbyists but to creators, researchers and small businesses. Transparency is not a threat to innovation; it is the precondition for accountability.
I will explain the reasons behind that. First, this amendment aligns perfectly with established IP disclosure requirements. Under Regulation 16 of the collective rights management regulations, copyright users must already provide information to collecting societies about works used. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would simply extend this proven principle to AI companies to ensure they disclose what copyright works they use in training. This would create consistency across our IP regime, rather than carve out special exemptions for big tech.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has already said, the amendment involves no financial burden on the Government.
Finally, disclosures benefit everyone, including AI companies themselves. When both rights holders and AI developers can see what works have been used, they can properly assess whether legitimate exceptions exist under copyright laws and whether they apply. This legal clarity reduces litigation risks and encourages proper licensing arrangements. I hope that the House will support this amendment.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, like many others, I am extremely sad to see that we have reached this stage. Sadly, I was unable to attend the other stages of ping-pong, so I feel that I need to add my support to the extraordinary work that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has done on the Bill. She has achieved something that, certainly in my short 10 years here, is very rare: real unanimity across all sides of this House that we are engaged in doing something that is very wrong.
I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I too will support him if he chooses to divide the House.
I offer noble Lords one small crumb of comfort. We are united, across all sides of this House, in saying that we need to sort this out. We keep being told that AI will change everything, which, I am afraid, means that we will discuss this during debates on every Bill. There will be an opportunity to do that, and we will prevail in the end. This House has faced these dilemmas with technology transformation before, and I am determined that I will not, in my lifetime, participate in the protection of an industry in the name of economic growth, when what we are actually doing is destroying society and people’s lives.
It is very sad that it took 100 years for seat belts to become mandatory in the back seats of cars after the seat belt was invented. I feel confident that after the passage of the Bill, it will not take that long for us to protect the precious copyright of the British creative industries. We will keep fighting even if we lose.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, there is another little problem, pointed out to me by a senior member of a publishing company, World Wide Publishing. It has a lot of research material and things for students, as well as books and things such as that. At the moment, if the AI comes to take it, it is probably going to use the fair use or the small excerpt exception, because that protects it. When it falls back, it is quite possible that the copyright holders could have a claim against the publishers. If they start ganging together and going for the publishers, we are possibly going to see bankruptcies among some of the big publishers, that publish and hold all our research material that is so valuable. I am not thinking about the arts thing as much, but we need to worry about that because that could destroy a lot of useful information for our future.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, of course the Government have the right to do what they intend to do, but that does not make the Government right to do what they intend to do.
As a mark of our cross-party determination, we have pushed this in this House up to the limit—some would argue, perhaps, beyond—but the Government have ignored us because the Government know best. We have amassed extraordinary majorities in this House that have delivered warning after warning, but the Government have not listened or budged because the Government know best.
I follow up on the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about Downing Street. It was not so long ago that the door of Downing Street would be thrown open wide and Government Ministers would go down on their grazed knees to welcome the likes of Elton John, Paul McCartney, Dua Lipa, Sir Ian McKellen, Ed Sheeran, Richard Curtis and thousands of others. All those thousands have spoken out in anger about what the Government intend to do. But in response, there has been nothing. The official record is stuck in the groove: the Government know best.
The US Vice-President has spoken openly about what he wants from the UK on copyright, but the Government assure us that no word or whisper has been exchanged with anyone in the White House and that this plan to do away with our copyright protection has been all their own thinking—bless them. I am sure this Government really do know best.
Creative people are people of passion, they are remorseless and have the ability to reach out to millions of ordinary people. Those who live, work, toil, sweat and go through their working lives and retirements relying on their copyright—2.4 million of them and their families and their friends—with the dreams of what they still might do and the sweet memories of what they have already done. I suspect they will not forget what is being done, which I know is silly and misguided of them because, as we know, the Government know best.
Ministers could have given just a little, and they would have gained such a lot. Perhaps it is still not too late, and there is something to admire in the Government’s determination to turn their back on the cheap applause that is so readily available, were they to do so. Forgive me, but in this instance, I shall leave any expression of admiration to others.
It is not so much a horror movie; it is more like “The Charge of the Light Brigade”. We have been participating in that charge—a most noble, historic and important endeavour. The guns have spoken in their heedless way. I think Lord Tennyson would have written some very fine verse in praise of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and all the tenacity and principled effort she has shown, with all the others, including the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, this evening. We ride on.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I address my comments to the Government Benches, particularly the Government Front Bench.
If one looks at Commons Hansard from yesterday, from the last round of ping-pong, several things stand out. First, although we have been through many rounds of ping-pong, yesterday was the first time ever in ping-pong that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was named and acknowledged. This is the same noble Baroness who was accused by a spokesman for the department of trying to bully the Government because she is an activist. This was the first time that the Front Bench mentioned the noble Baroness’s name, which I find extraordinary and slightly disrespectful.
Secondly, yesterday, Sir Chris Bryant, who was obviously on fine form, managed to annoy no fewer than three chairs of Commons Select Committees. He managed to annoy Dame Meg Hillier, who is the chair of the Treasury Select Committee and the Liaison Committee, by the lastminute.com manner in which the department suddenly landed the culture and science Select Committees with this idea of a parliamentary liaison group with no prior warning whatever—they and the House more broadly knew absolutely nothing about it until an email went out early on Saturday morning.
This is not the way to manage this issue. Certain Back-Benchers on the Government side have spoken during the course of ping-pong to make clear their discomfort and the uncomfortable position they are put in between their loyalty to their party and Government and their clear concern about the manner in which the Ministers involved are currently managing this process.
I would just like to encourage all members of the governing party to try—and if anything I have said or that we have heard here rings a bell with them—to please find a way of getting the message through so they understand that it is not simply we who are not members of the governing party who are concerned, but that noble Lords and Members of another place are also deeply concerned. Frankly, we want and expect a change of attitude and pace, much greater focus and a much clearer demonstration to all these people who are so concerned about their future and their livelihood that the Government are on their side, are on the case, and will defend them in any way they can.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for the very gracious way he introduced his amendment, particularly given the history of this inter-House discussion.
Whether it is betrayal, disrespect, negligence, bloody-mindedness, a bad dream or tone-deafness, whatever the reality, we find ourselves once again in this Chamber debating an issue that should have been settled long ago. I share the profound anger and frustration expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and admire her unwavering determination, even if she, for very honourable reasons, will not be voting today. As she pointed out, the Prime Minister, who entertained the tech industry at Chequers and Downing Street, is complicit in the situation we are in today.
We are here today because the Government have point-blank refused to move, repeatedly presenting the same proposition on three occasions while this House, by contrast, has put forward a series of genuine solutions in an attempt to find a way forward, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, pointed out. The only new element seems to be a promise of a cross-party parliamentary working party, but what is so enticing about merely more talking when action is desperately needed?
Amendment 49U, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and designed to amend the 1988 copyright Act, is a reasoned compromise. It requires identifying the copyrighted works and the means by which they were accessed, unless the developer has obtained a licence. That seems to be a fair trade-off. The noble Lord also pointed out that Minister Bryant has rather inadvertently made it clear that today’s amendment does not invoke financial privilege on this occasion. The Government argue that legislating piecemeal would be problematic, but the historical precedent of the Napster clause in the Digital Economy Act 2010 demonstrates that Parliament can and should take powers to act when a sector is facing an existential threat. There is an exact parallel with where we are today.
This is not about picking a side between AI and creativity, as we have heard across the House today. It is about ensuring that both can thrive through fair collaboration based on consent and compensation. We must ensure that the incentive remains for the next generation of creators and innovators. Given how Ministers have behaved in the face of the strength of feeling of the creative industries, how can anyone in those industries trust this Government and these Ministers ever again? Will they trust their instincts to appease big tech? I suspect not. I do not regard the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as personally liable in this respect, but I hope she feels ashamed of her colleagues in the Commons, of the behaviour of her department and of her Government. In this House we will not forget.
There is still time for the Government to listen, to act and to secure a future where human creativity is not plundered but valued and protected. If the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, chooses to put this to a vote, on these Benches we will support him to the hilt. I urge all noble Lords from all Benches, if he does put it to a vote, to support the UK creative industries once again.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, as everybody has said, it is deeply disappointing that we once again find ourselves in this position. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has brought the concerns of copyright owners to the attention of the Government time and again. Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government have declined to respond to the substance of those concerns and to engage with them properly. As I said in the previous round of ping-pong—I am starting to lose count—the uncertainty of the continued delay to this Bill is hurting all sides. Even businesses that are in industries far removed from concerns about AI and copyright are waiting for the data Bill. It has been delayed because of the Government’s frankly stubborn mismanagement of the Bill.
I understand completely why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, feels sufficiently strongly about how the Government have acted to move his very inventive amendment. It strikes at the heart of how this Government should be treating your Lordships’ House. If Ministers hope to get their business through your Lordships’ House in good order, they will rely on this House trusting them and collaborating with them. I know that these decisions are often made by the Secretary of State. I have the highest respect for the Minister, but this is a situation of the Government’s making. I note in passing that it was very disappointing to read that the Government’s planned AI Bill will now be delayed by at least a year.
All that said, as the Official Opposition we have maintained our position, as ping-pong has progressed, that protracted rounds of disagreement between the other place and your Lordships’ House should be avoided. This situation could have been avoided if the Government had acted in good faith and sought compromise.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I repeat again our absolute commitment to the creative sector and our intention to work with it to help it flourish and grow. This is London Tech Week. All Ministers, including me and my colleagues, have been involved in that, showcasing the UK’s rising tech talent to the world. I do not feel I should apologise for our involvement with the tech sector in that regard.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Perhaps the Minister could note that I said that of course they should be meeting. It was the fact that the creative industries did not get a response that was at issue here.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I apologise to the creative sector if it did not get a response. I can follow that up, but I was responding to a different point made by other people casting aspersions about our ministerial involvement with this sector, which is an important sector for our economy.
It is clear that several noble Lords still have concerns about the Government’s plan. I understand their concerns, even if I do not share them—just as I am sure that they understand our concerns with the proposed alternatives, even if they do not share them. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that it is a matter of fact that the Bill does not change, weaken or block anything in copyright law. We believe in transparency, protection and enforcement, and we agree with remuneration. This is our task ahead. But the Government’s firm view remains that we cannot prejudge the consultation, the technical or parliamentary working groups or the proposals resulting from these that will be brought forward in our report.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I understand the Minister’s point about not wanting to prejudge the consultation—although on other issues, such as VAT on school fees, that did not seem to apply. What I have difficulty with is why the Government were not prepared to take a power that would enable them to act at a subsequent date and does not require them to do so.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this is because we believe the powers we already have are sufficient to enable us to enact the regulations once we have finished the piece of work we are working on.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his speech, and repeat my assurances in response to his ask. Our plans will give copyright holders as much protection as possible via transparency, enforcement and remuneration. Our report, nine months from Royal Assent, will contain our proposals to put this in place. The Government are also looking at the case for more comprehensive AI legislation that delivers on our manifesto commitment. I expect any comprehensive legislation to address the opportunities and challenges presented by AI to the creative sector.
I turn now to concerns that the Government have not compromised on this issue. Noble Lords are right that we have deep concerns about pre-empting all the work that is necessary to determine what future laws should contain. It is an important principle that good government consults, respects the responses and then sets out its proposals. I expect any comprehensive legislation that follows—to address the opportunities and challenges presented by the AI sector—to encompass those principles.
However, I want to remind noble Lords of everything I am referring to when I say that the Government have compromised. The Government have compromised on the consultation with the Secretary of State, recognising concerns about the preferred option and the lack of an impact assessment, and by introducing a report that will set out proposals and which will be accompanied by a full impact assessment.
The Government have also compromised on the process. The reports will be brought forward even more quickly, with more topics included in them, and there will be a progress statement, and technical and parliamentary working groups will now be set up to complement this process.
I press my point to noble Lords: the Government have compromised many times on many issues, but where we cannot compromise is on one of the principles of good government: namely, that we cannot prejudge the outcome of these processes.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. I will come back to that in a moment. First, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, once again for so passionately embracing this issue on behalf of creative people. She has done a remarkable job. Noble Lords on both sides of the House will know that I have attacked both Governments over music for children in schools and over artists touring. There is lots of work to be done. I say to noble Lords on the Front Bench that many of the noble Baroness’s comments need to be taken seriously and there is a great deal of progress that could be made.
When I discovered that a flautist was going to be Prime Minister, I was very hopeful—and I still am—that we can make progress in these areas, because we really need to. It is not just for today’s musicians; it is for the musicians of tomorrow, as Elton John said. These will be the people who will be creating works of art in the future.
I said to the Minister in our meeting that the problem with the Government’s position is that, once AI and big tech companies start trawling, we cannot get it back. This is exactly what we saw with streaming. It is a slippery slope and that is why we are all so passionate.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was absolutely right in saying that this, with the greatest respect, is something the Government have brought on themselves, because they are possibly so far into the bed of AI and tech companies that they have no position to manoeuvre. That is very much the feeling I get.
If this Motion is at all ingenious, I owe a great debt of gratitude to the Public Bill Office for helping me work it out. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who is a perfect example of somebody who has written a book—House of Cards—and seen it put on to television and become enormously successful both in this country and in America. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who always speaks very wisely on these subjects, especially on copyright, about which he probably knows more than most of us.
Many noble Lords have spoken; I do not want to go through a long list. But I did take my cue at the end from the beginning. We heard that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is not inclined to vote tonight. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that he would come through the Lobby with me, for which I am enormously grateful, but it is tricky.
There are lots of noble Lords on the government Benches who I know feel very torn by this. I do not really want to put them through that again. I want to show the other place that we can act with dignity in this Chamber and make our point, as noble Lords have done on so many occasions and by such huge majorities. That is a huge tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and what she has brought forward.
On that note, I have decided on this occasion that enough probably is enough. I think we have made our point. I do so hope the Government will listen. I trust them to listen and to improve matters as far as the creatives are concerned. We can only do so much here. I believe we have done it. It is up to the Government and the other place now to listen. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Wednesday 11th June 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHolocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 View all Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I(a) Manuscript amendment for Report - (11 Jun 2025)
21:49 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 129 - Amendment 3 disagreed.
23:08 - Division on Amendment 4A (to Amendment 4) - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 79 - Amendment 4A (to Amendment 4) agreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, as everybody knows, we are now on Report. These issues have been debated extensively in Committee, so we do not need any Second Reading speeches. I urge noble Lords to reflect that in their contributions to the debate. This is a self-regulating Chamber, and one of the characteristics of that is discipline. I think we need to show that now.
Amendment 3
Lord Carlile of Berriew
“Report: effects of the construction, presence and use of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre on the security of the site and surrounding area(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the predicted effects on the security of the site and surrounding area arising from the construction, presence and use of any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—(a) a list of those bodies and individuals consulted before construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre (subject to redaction of names where necessitated by national security),(b) a summary of the advice provided by each body and individual consulted,(c) a full description with visual depictions of all road and traffic changes, at and near to the chosen site, proposed to be made during construction and following completion of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre,(d) proposals for the continuing assessment of the security of the site and nearby buildings, and(e) such other security information as the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.(3) The Secretary of State may delegate the preparation of the report referred to in subsection (1) to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for the tabling of a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament within 56 days of laying the report before Parliament.”
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, my amendments in this group relate to security, and I appreciate the support of noble Lords who have signed these amendments. I start by emphasising to your Lordships that I want to see the erection of a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens as soon as possible.
I have something personal to say. Nine days ago, I had the sadness and privilege of speaking at the funeral of a child Holocaust survivor called Renata Calverley. Renata was my beloved sister, literally my half-sister, her mother having died in Auschwitz. She was born in 1937, in Poland. How she survived was a miracle. Alas, in her survival, she lost her early childhood to five years of being hunted, hungry and hidden just because she was a Jewish child. She was, to be fair, a formidable memorial of the Holocaust herself, as I told her from time to time, but, unfortunately, she was ephemeral. What Renata and other survivors, and of course the dead, deserve is to be remembered in perpetuity in a memorial that is devoted solely to the Holocaust, the most horrific massacre of innocent people in human history. The reason for this amendment is partly based on my sister; that memorial must be a safe space, as free as can be managed from the threat of terrorism and other violence, and in as peaceful and accessible a setting as is possible in this city.
That is why I cannot support the erection of the planned learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, and for two reasons. The first has already been referred to frequently: it is not the right place for a proper learning centre. My noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, made that point. We heard a reference or two to the POLIN Museum. Yes, some of the POLIN Museum is underground, but the building of the POLIN Museum stands out as the most significant modern building above ground in Poland and in Warsaw. It is a competitor for style with the recreated buildings of the 18th century. It is not an underground museum. It is so big because it accommodates people who can do their PhDs and otherwise research the Holocaust properly, in a true learning centre.
My second reason is more pertinent to these amendments. I fear, and I warn, that placing a learning centre, whether small or large, so close to Parliament, that is expected to be visited by thousands of people each week and hundreds of thousands of people each year—perhaps millions—is a lure to terrorists. There are other potential sites for a much more complete learning centre elsewhere in this great city, more secure from the threat and risk of terrorism.
Our lamented friend Lord Etherton chaired the special Select Committee on the Bill, and I am delighted that there are other members of that committee here, including my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, who is in his place next to me. I welcome their presence; they all played a valuable part. Security was dealt with by the committee. It determined that it is imperative to recognise that the threat of terrorist activity here and abroad is much greater than when a planning inspector wrote his report on this proposal several years ago, and that much of what was said about security to the planning inspector in the early inquiries will now be out of date. I thank Lord Etherton and his committee for that view. None of the carefully organised flurry of letters supporting this Bill in recent days contradicts that a larger learning centre could provide for more, and more effective, learning, and that recent events have contributed to the substantial security risk that the Government’s proposal offers.
The Minister, who has always been extremely courteous and accessible to all of us—I thank him for that—has said publicly and in meetings that security can simply be dealt with by the planning process which would follow the passing of this Bill, if that occurs. I disagree with him that what is described as the planning process is adequate to deal with issues of security.
Before I come to that, I need to explain why I am so concerned about security. The proposed site is cheek by jowl with the Palace of Westminster. I and others—some of us over many years—have used Victoria Tower Gardens as a restful annexe to Parliament; we have sat there, eaten our sandwiches there, and sometimes been interviewed by the media there. It is very much part of the environment of this place, and any reconnaissance by an ill-wisher would reveal a stream of parliamentarians and journalists using the gardens, and children playing from estates with little open space near them in this part of Westminster.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I support both amendments in this group. If the Holocaust Memorial Learning Centre were to be placed in Victoria Tower Gardens, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, correctly warns, there is the risk of terrorism attacks, whether by state-sponsored or self-initiated terrorists. As he has indicated, that is because of its proximity to the Palace of Westminster. Thus, in association with whatever political controversies in general, not least particularly those currently surrounding the situation in Israel and Gaza, these amendments therefore give Parliament the opportunity to make the final decision on whether to put HMLC in Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere, based on proper evidence on where it makes best sense to put it without compromising national security.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Carlile, whose knowledge and expertise in the field of security and associated matters is way beyond mine. My conclusions are aligned with his.
What was interesting to me was the judgment by Mrs Justice Thornton in the High Court case dealing with the application for the Victoria Tower Gardens proposal. It was quashed, which means of course that legally it never existed, and there is therefore no planning consent for anything of the sort in Victoria Tower Gardens. She said at paragraph 76(5) of the judgment:
“As was common ground by the end of the hearing, the advent of the modern planning system has no bearing on the obligations in the 1900 Act”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, that is absolutely unequivocal. Mrs Justice Thornton ruled that the 1900 Act impacted on the character of the matters relevant to the determination of this planning application, and in parallel with that it is entirely within the discretion of Parliament—us—to take separate decisions on the merits of the matters under consideration, unconstrained by the precise criteria which applied in respect of the determination of any planning application.
It therefore seems to me that we are faced with two slightly separate issues, which are not those faced by a planning authority. First, we are legislators acting in the wider public interest, and secondly, we have been granted by the 1900 Act a right of veto on what goes on on the land immediately adjacent, which is in our curtilage. This is uncommon these days, but it is the kind of control over land that was relatively normal in the era of the 1900 Act. It seems to me that we have to exercise our powers in good faith, but that has nothing to do in itself with the law that relates to planning provisions.
We are faced with a series of woolly assurances from the Government on what will happen going forward and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, in terms of security matters they need very substantially tightening up. After all, what is our role in this? Obviously, it is the security and safety of Members, staff and visitors. It is up to us to decide what is appropriate to do for us as employers and hosts to people in this building. I do not believe that we can somehow put this out to commission to somebody else. That is why I strongly support the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because it brings to us the information we need properly and responsibly to carry out our duties in respect of our occupation of this building. This is quite separate from our approach to a whole range of other matters that may be discussed later this evening.
Finally, I am a trustee of a number of landed properties, and it seems to me that we cannot simply wish away responsibility for this. In my view, if I as a trustee were to take the approach to security matters here being advocated by the Government, I would be guilty of professional negligence. It is as simple as that. We have to know and be confident ourselves in what is being proposed. Looking at it from a different perspective, if we simply somehow put out to commission the responsibilities we have, we are imposing on the legislation something very much akin to a Henry VIII clause, and that, as we know, is very alien to the way we look at public business.
I do not want to go on any further, but it is up to us to decide what we think is right from the perspective we have on these matters.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment so I would like to speak next, if noble Lords do not mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said, this is no ordinary planning application and I will say why I think that is. The proposer is the Government. The Government are in a special position of being able to remove an important barrier to doing what they want to do, and Clause 2 removes the 100-year-old protections for the park. Most proposers of planning applications cannot do that. But guess what? It is even worse, because whoever decides on the planning application, yes or no, is the very same person as the proposer. It is the Government. It is a junior Government Minister. It was called in by a junior Government Minister when it first came before planning. That makes it a very unusual planning application.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
There are four gates to the park. Thank you for that correction. One of them is very near the playground. We feel it necessary to put horse guards on horses in Whitehall outside Horse Guards and at various other buildings around Westminster and this city. Are we going to have armed guards outside this centre? That is not really very appropriate when you are trying to remember the horrible deaths of so many millions of people.
As I said earlier, I am absolutely in favour of an appropriate memorial, but the learning centre is a government choice. For the actual implementation of the wish that we all have to have a good learning centre, it is the Government’s choice to do it like this and it is wrong. It is not good enough and it should not happen.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would require further reports on security to be prepared and debated in both Houses before any proposed memorial or learning centre can proceed. But it is already being debated at great length in the House of Commons and has overwhelming cross-party support. This is a revising Chamber, so we can discuss revising it.
The noble Lord is saying that there has not been a sufficient amount of time on security, but I beg to differ. From the very beginning, security has been an important consideration in the design of the memorial and learning centre. It was made clear, including in the planning inquiry nearly five years ago, that the threat of terrorism or violent protest was recognised. It has never been the approach of this country to abandon the legitimate activities of free society simply because of the threat of terrorists and violent protesters. The noble Lord is right to point out what happened recently with the protesters outside the entrances into Parliament, and everybody agrees with that. But that is not necessarily a reason to block this proposal.
The memorial and learning centre have been designed be safe and secure. Advice from the National Protective Security Authority and the Metropolitan Police has led to significant measures, including the above-ground pavilion and the hostile vehicle mitigation measures protecting the gardens. My understanding is that there will not be blockages or security at the entrances to the park, but at the entrance to the actual memorial there will be airport-style security. You will not be able to just turn up; you will have to book in advance online.
The chosen site within the government security zone is better protected than any other plausible sites that have been mentioned. The proximity of the Holocaust memorial will make no difference to the scale or nature of the threat to the Palace of Westminster, nor to the security measures required. The Palace is very well protected, notwithstanding what happened the other day. Security matters have been and will be fully considered within the planning process.
The amendment would achieve only a delay, and would signal a weakness, telling the world that the UK was not prepared to place a Holocaust memorial next to Parliament for fear of attack. Consider who would be most pleased with that sort of message. Perhaps I might quote an expert in such matters:
“In conclusion, while it is impossible to eliminate all risks, the security measures planned for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre are comprehensive and have been developed with the highest standards of safety in mind. The Memorial’s location next to the Houses of Parliament should not be seen as a vulnerability but rather as a testament to our commitment to remembering the Holocaust in a prominent and respectful manner”.
That was written by a Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I greatly respect the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in reviewing terrorism legislation, but I think that on this particular issue he is wrong. I come to that judgment from having had some responsibility in the past, both as a Home Office Minister and most recently as Secretary of State for Transport, where I had responsibility for the security of aviation, maritime and our transport systems, including here in London.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord’s speech. First, on the planning process, clearly the design of the learning centre is, appropriately, taken account of in the planning process. As my noble friend has just said, advice was taken from the appropriate authorities in the design of the learning centre, and that was appropriate. Protecting it on a day-to-day basis would rightly be the responsibility both of the Metropolitan Police and of our other agencies. Having worked closely with them, I have enormous confidence in their ability to do that.
As to the noble Lord’s point about any change in the threat to the Palace of Westminster, first, he drew attention to the large number of visitors that would be expected to go to the learning centre. I draw to his attention the fact that around 1 million people a year visit the Palace of Westminster, whether as visitors or to meet their Members of Parliament. So a very significant number of members of the public already visit this part of London.
One of the challenges that all our security authorities have in a democratic country is balancing the necessary protection of your Lordships, Members of the House of Commons and all those who work in this building, with maintaining the appropriate access to a democratic institution for members of the public. A number of public servants work in this building, on the estate, in our security services and in the Metropolitan Police. They work every day—sometimes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referenced, at great personal risk to themselves—to keep us safe, but also to enable members of the public to have access to their democratic institutions. I have every confidence that they will continue to do that job. I do not think that that is an appropriate subject for a report for us to consider. Those threats are monitored and dealt with on an ongoing basis.
My final point is a slightly more worrying one. The logical conclusion of what both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, is that we would not have a learning centre anywhere. Even if there is such a threat in having a learning centre that it would be, as I think the noble Baroness said, a “lure” to those who wish people ill, in a democratic country we have to say at some point, “We have values and we want to build such a centre”. The correct thing to do is to make sure that it is properly protected, not to say that, because people might threaten it, we are not going to build it. That would be the wrong conclusion to draw.
The subsequent point is this. The fact that the noble Baroness said that having such an education centre would provoke this sort of reaction demonstrates to me the absolute necessity of building one, and of building it next to this democratic institution. If building a centre that reminds us of the Holocaust, and of our wish for nothing like that ever to happen again, truly provokes the worst in other people, that demonstrates to me the necessity to do it and to get on with it—and there is no better place to locate it than next to the democratic institution that represents this country. I urge noble Lords, if the noble Lord chooses to divide the House, to reject his amendment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the promoters of this project have said over and over again that they interpret our objections as being, “You can’t build a Holocaust memorial anywhere”, but that is not what it is about. The point is that you build it but you have to take into account the consequences on the immediate surroundings and the visitors of where and how you build it.
I do not share the absolute confidence of the promoters on the security. We know, for example, that for over a year those who care about security have asked the authorities to move the police from their comfortable spot at the foot of the escalators to Portcullis House out into the Tube, and they have not done it—after repeated requests. We have heard of other instances.
What noble Lords have not taken into account is protests. The Metropolitan Police and other police have not done well in balancing the right of protest against security. One end of the park is going to be wide open, and you can well imagine the hundreds or thousands of protesters, as has already happened, entering and waving flags, with their cans of red paint. There will be no one to stop them; they can go right up towards the mound and throw something or sail along the river and throw something. The police, to judge by their lack of action against protesters in Jewish areas of London and elsewhere, will say that the right of protest is more important than the need for the memorial to be quiet, sacred and respected.
We should also remember the children, unfortunate little ones, playing in the playground exactly where people queue. It is also well known that queues are a vulnerable spot for terrorists. There will be queues of people waiting to get in—sitting ducks, along with the children in the playground, which will be most unfortunate. There will be off-putting armed guards at one end, and free entry at the other. The record of the police and this Government on protecting Jewish people and Jewish students on campus since 7 October has been dire, and this cannot mean safety for gatherings in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to contribute to this debate until the noble Lord, Lord Harper, spoke. First, I should make my credentials known, since everyone else seems to have done it. For 40 years I have been a member of Labour Friends of Israel. I am married to a Jewish lady. My first interest in history and politics was provoked by that book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, and the horrors of Nazism. I feel sorry that I have to say that, but there is occasionally an imputation that anyone who opposes the present plan is somehow unsympathetic to Jewish people or to the commemoration and the memory of the Holocaust. I say that because nothing could be further from the truth in my case.
The objection that some people have to the present plan, including me, is that it is unviable. It increases insecurity, breaches all environmental guidelines, overrules all local democracy and increases the danger, not only the physical danger of the present plans but the danger of a backlash against forcing through this plan against all local democracy and common sense. That is my worry. Incidentally, it is the worry of many of my Jewish friends and my wife, to be quite truthful. If I was not to contribute tonight, I would be facing something even more dangerous than the Whips—potential divorce.
Let me correct a couple of things that have been said. As far as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is concerned, it is quite untrue to suggest that she said we cannot have a memorial anywhere. It is possible to have a separate memorial to the Holocaust established next to this Parliament, while having a genuine learning centre elsewhere. I declare an interest in that my PhD was on slavery. If you wanted to build a huge monument next to this Parliament, it would be about slavery—which was instigated and demolished by this Parliament. The terrible irony is that this plan suggests that we remove the only present monument in the gardens, which is to slavery.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
I said “move”.
My second point is on the comments that were made about the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who I have known for many years. I do not speak with the authority that others have—I have only been Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, Northern Ireland Secretary and Armed Forces Minister—but let me say one thing about the noble Lord, Lord Carlile: he is not just a lawyer or an expert on legislation. If I had to pick anyone outside the Armed Forces and the constabulary who had an understanding of the risk of terrorism, I would pick the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. You may not agree with him—or, even worse, you may agree with him privately but, because you want to build the present project, dismiss his claims—but think of the consequences in the long term.
In conclusion, if we want a genuine memorial to the Holocaust to remind us of the terrible things that happened, not just from 1933 when Hitler took control but for 1,000 years when antisemitism built up in Europe through philosophy and the religions, both Protestant and Catholic, and if we want a memorial to the horrible things that were done because of antisemitism—first, ghettoising and excluding from society and then the ultimate: excluding from life—then build a real learning centre that is not two stories underground, not in a confined space and not confined to 10 years. Let us put a memorial there to remind us, and then let us go and learn about the real history of antisemitism that has been current in Europe for 1,000 years and is still there.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Carlile was kind enough to mention that I was a member of the Select Committee that looked into the whole matter of the Holocaust memorial, and security in particular. As the Minister will recall, the Select Committee said:
“We recommend that the Secretary of State gives serious consideration”
to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—or something similar—and the promoter, that is the Secretary of State, agreed. Furthermore, and I would very much like the Minister’s reply to this point when he comes to make his final speech, we followed that part in our report by narrating three important recommendations that the promoter accepted. Are these recommendations still accepted?
Going back to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we understood that the decision is to be taken under delegation—not by the Secretary of State himself but by a Minister. The recommendations were what the Minister was to do should the planning application come back for decision.
These are important recommendations, because they require a good deal of consultation with people who really know what they are talking about, including the National Protective Security Authority, the Metropolitan Police, the Community Security Trust and others. The next recommendation says:
“The Promoter will make available to MPs and to members of the House of Lords the Promoter’s representations to the Secretary of State”,
and deposit them in the Library of both Houses. Of course, the recommendations fall far short of what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, recommends, but it is very important that the Minister assures us that those recommendations, which the Secretary of State accepted before us in our inquiry, are still to be respected. I hope that he will do so.
I come back to the Buxton memorial. Of course, it was moved; it used to be in Trafalgar Square, I think. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, is perfectly right that it was moved and taken into the gardens. Under the plan before us, the Buxton memorial is to remain where it was placed. It is not to be moved, but its appearance would be greatly affected, because it would be very close to all the uprights that mark the entrance to the underground memorial. The whole appearance of the Buxton memorial will be completely framed by this new development. It is not a question of moving it; it is concealing it. That is a very important point when we consider the importance of that memorial and what is has to tell us about slavery.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want very briefly to take on a couple of inferences in what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Harper. The sentiment was that we must show courage and face down terrorist supporters. Some of us have been arguing that for some time and, to be honest, there has been an almighty silence from many people in Parliament. I just did not like the inference that, somehow, the movers of this amendment were cowering when, in fact, they are the very people who have argued in many instances for fighting back against the antisemitism that has been on our streets. That was my first point.
I also thought that the suggestion that we in Parliament are so brave and can protect the learning centre next door in the park was slightly ill judged, given that Parliament seems increasingly like Fort Knox. We are, in fact, not in a situation where we are all wandering around freely and bravely, yet we are suggesting that we open up the park to the public for a learning centre and that they can just wander in, whereas we need armed guards, big barriers everywhere and so on. It is an unfair and ludicrous comparison.
There will be, and there should be, a memorial in the gardens—everybody agrees with that. It will be a hugely important symbol. The idea that anyone who does not want the learning centre to be there therefore does not want a learning centre misses all of the hours and hours of debates in which we explained where we did want a learning centre—a fitting learning centre—to be. To be honest, the plan for an underground learning centre is rather insulting, in my opinion. We should recognise that the people putting forward this amendment are doing so in good faith, not because they are frightened of terrorist supporters but because they are being sensible about the real consequences of what we are deciding here today.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I do not doubt that those people are acting in good faith; they just happen to be wrong. I can give noble Lords an assurance that my noble friend will not go home to a divorce tonight if this amendment is not agreed. I respect that he has been a Minister in more senior positions than I can ever aspire to.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
I just want to make sure that the record is correct. I did not say that I faced a divorce if the Bill passed. I said that I would face the divorce if I did not vote for the amendment.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My apologies; I have to be careful with my words on this issue.
I oppose the amendment. We have heard these arguments before, quite frankly. I oppose it not because I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has great experience of planning, as do others who support it. I am just puzzled; we are saying that a memorial centre is okay and we can deal with the security for that, but somehow we cannot do the same for a learning centre. I do not understand.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
No, I am not going to give way because I have not finished developing my argument. I had to listen to quite a few minutes from the noble Lord; I will not give way until I have finished, then the noble Lord can tell me that I am wrong, which I am bound to be because I have only ever been a junior Minister.
I do not accept as a valid argument that the learning centre is impossible to protect. Of course it is difficult to protect Parliament; people are not just going to wander in and out. We have already heard that you have to make appointments online. Of course there will be significant security. It is not that I think that those who tabled the amendment did so in bad faith or because they want to undermine the proposal. I just happen to think they are wrong in their analysis in suggesting that we cannot provide a safe and secure environment.
Will the learning centre undermine the Buxton memorial? No, of course it will not, because it will be done sensitively. I see noble Lords shaking their heads as if we are going to reduce it to something insignificant—no, we will not do that. We want to make the whole complex something to be admired and respected. Have we got the planning capacity to do it? In my opinion, we have. Have we got the security ability to do it? I believe that we have.
What would the amendment really do? Once again, it says that Victoria Tower Gardens is not the right place, and even it was we could not provide the security. My reason for opposing it is not to doubt the genuine intent and sincerity of those who support the amendment, but to say that, in my view, I think they are wrong.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I have not so far taken part in this debate, although I did in Committee. I simply want to say that I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but I want to get down to the nitty-gritty. Perhaps the Minister can help by answering my questions. I am trying to envisage what the memorial will look like with the security in place. How many police officers will be at each entrance? How many will be involved in its security? Will they be armed or unarmed guards? Will they be there 24 hours a day, or will the park shut so we will not then need them? I ask for a few simple answers.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness. I am not getting at anybody here, but we talked about a policeman dying for us. I made a vow that whenever we talked about him, we would remember that he was called Keith Palmer. His name is on a plaque at the gates to remind us. I knew him, and he was a brave man.
I am a bit concerned. I think that people are picking on the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. While I would not have the temerity to run as chairman of his fan club, I certainly could be a member. He has performed a very useful role. One or two people who have arrived late to this debate seem to think he has caused a degree of bad feeling. He has performed a very valuable role, because he has asked some difficult questions and has forced the Minister and me, and others, to address that.
We need to be assured that a process has been set up to answer the questions the noble Lord has asked. Through that process, the decision is made on whether we should have a Holocaust memorial and a learning centre—a decision which is not ours, but that of the planning process.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for bringing his considerable experience of security matters to Committee and now on Report. I know he brings his amendment forward with the best of intentions.
With all due respect to the noble Lord, we cannot support Amendments 3 and 10, which would prevent commencement of the Bill until such time as the security report required by Amendment 3 has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, again delaying what we want to be delivered as soon as possible. Security is of paramount importance and Ministers should consider security concerns very carefully, but we believe that this issue can be adequately addressed through the planning system, which is the proper way to deal with it. This has been through the planning system before, security has been dealt with, and the High Court agreed that this was the correct way to do it. It would set a huge precedent if we were to make legislative changes to this Bill in respect of what is actually a planning matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Laing, for Amendments 3 and 10. I was saddened to hear the news of the passing of the noble Lord’s sister, Renata. May her memory be a blessing.
I also offer my thanks for the work done by the late Lord Etherton on the Select Committee, and thank all the other members of the Select Committee for their work.
These amendments would require a report to be produced on the security impacts of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and would require both Houses of Parliament to approve the report before work on the memorial and learning centre could proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has been a strong advocate of the need to give careful consideration to the security impacts of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I am grateful to him for his persistence in bringing these matters to the forefront of our debates throughout the passage of the Bill, and for meeting me several times to discuss the security impacts—as well as the performance of Burnley Football Club this year. The noble Lord and I share a history of being brought up in Burnley.
The noble Lord was kind enough, as he has already indicated, to provide me with a set of questions for discussion with security advisers. I was glad to take the noble Lord’s advice, and I did exactly as he proposed. The questions were shared and discussed with the UK Government security services and the Metropolitan Police. I have written to the noble Lord with the responses I obtained from our security services, and I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. I know that noble Lords across the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for formulating his questions, and I believe they will be reassured by the answers. If noble Lords will forgive me for taking a little time over these important matters, I will set out the main points from my discussion with security experts.
As a starting point, let me immediately acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is quite right to point out that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will face threats. Protestors with a range of motivations, including some who will be prepared to use violence or terror, will see the memorial and learning centre as a potential target. This sad truth has been recognised since the inception of the project. In response, the Government—both this Government and its predecessors—have done what I know the great majority of Members of this House would expect to be done. We have sought to ensure that the memorial and learning centre is designed and planned such that it can be operated safely and securely. In other words, we have sought to ensure that the proper, legitimate activities of our free, democratic society can continue. That is the approach the experts from the Metropolitan Police, UK Government security advisers and the Community Security Trust have all told me is the basis of their work.
On the design, acting on the advice of those experts we have incorporated features, including carefully designed barriers to protect the gardens against hostile vehicles. There will be an above-ground security pavilion and appropriate CCTV infrastructure, with a security control room.
On operations, we will make sure that the staff are trained to the highest standards, including in ways of working with the police. The advice of UK Government security advisers and the Metropolitan Police has been hugely valuable in developing our proposals, and we will continue to follow that advice as we construct and operate the memorial and learning centre.
Many noble Lords have questioned whether the threats would be lower if the memorial and learning centre were constructed in a less prominent location. We have to acknowledge—again, with sadness—that the advice from security professionals is that a Holocaust memorial would be seen as a target wherever it is located. From a security perspective, as my conversations have confirmed, placing the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens brings significant benefits. Within the government security zone, the memorial will benefit from many additional layers of security, including a police rapid-response capability.
Some have questioned whether the memorial would bring additional risks to the Palace of Westminster. When I have put this point to the security services, the clear response has been that the palace, by its very nature as the seat of government and a symbol of our democracy, faces potential threats. Establishing a national Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens would not significantly change the nature or severity of those threats, nor require additional measures in response. I fully recognise, of course, that the security implications of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre demand to be considered carefully. It is right that noble Lords should insist that proposals are developed in the light of the best available advice and the clearest understanding of threat.
I am immensely grateful to the police and our security services for the detailed advice they have provided over several years on the development of our scheme, for the meetings and discussions held with me in recent weeks, and, of course, for the tireless ongoing work of those organisations keeping us safe. To clarify, at the meeting to which the noble Lord alluded, the question that was asked of the security advisers and the Met Police was whether the security experts agreed with this amendment. Of course, you would expect the security advisers not to get involved in the political procedures of Parliament.
No scheme for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre could or should proceed without full recognition of the importance of security and full consideration of the best available evidence. I am confident that the arrangements for obtaining planning consent already ensure that security will be given proper consideration. The views of the UK Government security advisers and the Metropolitan Police will be sought, and any reservations or objections would be very apparent to the decision-making Minister and must be taken into account.
I will clarify some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on the planning application arrangements. The situation in which a planning application needs to be decided by a Minister in the department promoting the application is by no means unique and arises also in local government; the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, alluded to some examples he was involved in. The special arrangements for handling the planning application were subject to a High Court challenge in 2020. The court required the department to make some minor adjustments to reflect specific relevant provisions and to publish the handling arrangements, which were of course done. Otherwise, the court was content that the handling arrangements were proper and lawful.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Can the Minister tell me whether the precedent he cited was also a situation where the proposer was in a position to remove a major barrier of protection to the site where they wanted to put the proposed development? The Government can do that as well, under Clause 2.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The purpose of Clause 2 is to disapply the London county Act of 1906. That is why we want to push forward with the project. I reassure the noble Baroness that, subject to the Bill passing, this will be treated as a serious issue. The entire proposed project will be subject to full scrutiny and accountability, and will go through the full planning process that the designated Minister will determine. There will be plenty of opportunity for noble Lords to raise points about a number of issues, including security. Many points about planning were raised tonight, but I believe that this is the wrong forum for them.
I turn to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. We gave an undertaking that we would consult further on security and provide information to Parliament, and we will certainly do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned queues. I reassure her that the ticketing and checking strategy is designed to avoid queues building up in the gardens.
Moreover, we have given a clear undertaking to the Select Committee that updated evidence on security will be provided and that we will consult on security matters with the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Community Security Trust, the Metropolitan Police, the National Protective Security Authority and Westminster City Council. We have undertaken that the updated evidence and the views of all these bodies, subject only to the redaction of any information that should be confidential for security reasons, will be placed in the Libraries of each House. The proposed amendment is not therefore necessary as a means of generating information about security or as a mechanism for ensuring that security is given proper consideration. The practical effect of the amendment would be to cause delay and to create uncertainty about the progress of the scheme.
I will repeat one final point about the amendment that was put to me with great force when I was preparing for this debate. Our response in this country to the threat of violence has never been to shrink from carrying out the normal, legitimate activities of a free society. We know that there are threats. In response to those threats, we plan, we prepare and we seek to protect our citizens from harm as they go about their lives. We should not send the message—which, with respect, I believe this amendment would send—that our approach is changing, that we fear we cannot protect our citizens and that, in the face of the threat of violence, we should place a Holocaust memorial somewhere less prominent.
Are we prepared to say that, in Britain today, visitors to a Holocaust memorial next to the seat of government cannot be protected? Are we willing to concede to the perpetrators of violence that a memorial established as a lasting reminder of a time when the Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany were denied the protection of the law and subject to appalling violence and persecution by their own Government cannot be placed next to our own Parliament? I do not think that this House would want to be associated with such a message. I therefore ask noble Lord not to press Amendments 3 and 10.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to this debate. I can tell your Lordships that I have had two big surprises tonight. One was the most wonderful compliment I have ever received from a former Home Secretary and Secretary of State from Northern Ireland, who is known for his pugnacious and accurate brain, so I take that seriously. The other—if I can refer back to an earlier debate—is that I have had the pleasure, for the first time ever, of agreeing with something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, who spoke earlier in the evening. I shall look upon that as something of value.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
With great respect, I remind the noble Lord that, in deciding the fate of his amendment, it is not necessary to respond to all the points raised in the debate. It might be helpful to the House if he could proceed to a decision.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
With great respect to the noble Lord—and I do admire him—he is a relative newcomer to this place. I am not replying to all the points that were made by all Members; I am making a few comments about particular points.
I was about to say, and will continue to say, to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, that I am afraid he was not listening to my speech when I first made it, because I was not opposed to what he thinks I was opposed to.
I am grateful for the numerous other speeches that were made. The questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, were not answered by the Minister. I am one of the quite large number here who remember her as the queen of nitty-gritty when she was Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. We learned enough in that other place to reply to her questions when they were asked, or else—I see the noble Lord, Lord Alton, nodding in agreement.
I have suggested something practical and sensible, and I have had encouragement and support from Members of your Lordships’ House who I admire. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Verdirame
“Learning Centre purposeThe sole purpose of any Learning Centre must be the provision of education about the genocide of the Jews and antisemitism.”
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 4, and then I have an amendment to that amendment. I have been advised that in these cases it is best first to move the amendment and then to give my main speech on the amendment to the amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment 4A (to Amendment 4)
Lord Verdirame
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 4, as amended by Amendment 4A, is a limited but important amendment. It clarifies the purpose of the learning centre. At present the Bill says only that there should be
“a centre for learning relating to the memorial”.
The Explanatory Notes add:
“The Learning Centre’s exhibition will explore the part played by Britain’s Parliament and democratic institutions in response to the persecution of the Jewish people and other groups both at the time and subsequently. It will help people understand the way the lessons of the Holocaust apply more widely, including to other genocides”.
At Second Reading, the Minister said:
“The learning centre will also address subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1224.]
The website of the Holocaust memorial says that the learning centre is going to provide an honest reflection of Britain’s role surrounding the Holocaust as well as reflecting on subsequent genocides.
We had an interesting and useful briefing with Martin Winstone, the project historian for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I am grateful to him for his time and expertise, and I am grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, for organising that briefing and for his patient and dedicated engagement on the Bill. Martin Winstone reassured us that he and other historians involved in the project are very clear that the focus of the learning centre will be the Holocaust and, in particular, Britain’s role. I have no reason to doubt that commitment and, of course, their expertise.
I also appreciate that it is not the role of Parliament to curate the content of a learning centre or a museum, but it is the role of Parliament to tell those who will curate a learning centre created by Parliament what lessons Parliament thinks must be taught. This is particularly the case given that organisations change over time. The people who are in charge and sit on the various boards today will at some point be replaced. Organisational drift—that is, slow deviation from the organisation’s intended goals—will happen. It always does. At the moment, neither what I see in the Bill and the Explanatory Notes nor what I have heard and read from the historians reassures me that there is the clarity required to prevent this. I am particularly concerned that the various references to subsequent persecution and other genocides foretell that before too long, notwithstanding all the good intentions, this learning centre, unless firmly anchored by Parliament, will also drift.
I am not saying that Britain’s response to subsequent persecutions is not an important topic—it is—nor suggesting that it would not be important to educate people about other horrific atrocities. It would be. In fact, one of my concerns is that we should respect the historical complexity of other atrocities. My first job in academia, as a researcher at the Refugee Studies Programme in Oxford, involved interviewing Rwandans in east Africa in the aftermath of that genocide. Not only was that a harrowing experience but it was intellectually a humbling experience because after months of research on the Rwandan genocide and meeting many Rwandans, I still felt that I had barely begun to understand Rwandan society.
The point is that Rwanda, like Darfur or Cambodia, has a very complex history that would have to be told properly, not as an appendix to the Holocaust and not on the false premise that there are parallels between, say, the Weimar Republic and the regime of Juvénal Habyarimana. Yes, in a legal sense, crimes under international law were committed in all these situations, but the centre does not purport to be—nor, in my view, should it be—a learning centre about international criminal law. Our amendment would give a clear and well-defined purpose to the learning centre to educate people about the Holocaust and about antisemitism. The amendment responds to a basic pedagogic rationale for any learning enterprise: knowing in advance what lessons we are seeking to teach.
In that respect, I am grateful to the noble Lords who in Committee pointed out that the first formulation for this amendment was inadequate. We have reflected on those comments, particularly with the amendment to the amendment, and we now have, I think, the right language, which includes killings by collaborators of the Nazi regime as well as the genocidal persecution of other groups, such as the Roma.
There is a profound moral rationale behind this amendment. It would address the risk of the learning centre drifting into other messages, as I have said, and it is a risk that is neither theoretical nor abstract. We have already had instances of Holocaust commemorations forgetting about the Jews or of such events being used as platforms for other messages. With this amendment, Parliament would send a clear signal that whatever the disagreements about the memorial itself might be, there would have to be none of this nonsense in this learning centre willed by Parliament and right next to Parliament.
As Stephen Pollard, who wrote in support of our amendment in the Spectator today, said:
“This is not about some contest of suffering in which the Jews are declared the winner”.
The amendment is seeking precisely to pre-empt this kind of absurd contest. The risk of losing focus and drifting into other messages is particularly acute given that, at the international level, genocide is being invoked more frequently now than ever before. Before the International Court of Justice there are disputes under the genocide convention between Ukraine and Russia, South Africa and Israel, and Gambia and Myanmar. Also, Sudan recently submitted a dispute against the UAE under the genocide convention. Every international lawyer can explain that the reason for this proliferation of genocide in international litigation and politics is that the genocide convention is often the only legal route available for submitting a dispute to the International Court of Justice. It is certainly the one with the greatest political effect.
Our amendment contemplates a lesson beyond the Holocaust about which the learning centre should seek to educate visitors. It is the most obvious lesson that should accompany Holocaust education: educating about antisemitism. The rise of antisemitism is one of the great moral failures of our times. In our country 33% of religious hate crimes recorded in the year ending March 2024 targeted Jews, who make up barely 0.3% of the British population. According to the latest Global 100 survey conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, 46% of the world’s adult population—an estimated 2.2 billion people—harbour deeply entrenched antisemitic attitudes. This has more than doubled since the Anti-Defamation League’s first worldwide survey a decade ago, and is the highest level on record since the Anti-Defamation League started tracking these trends globally.
We all know that this memorial could become a focal point for protest and controversy. The least we can do as parliamentarians is to try to nip these controversies in the bud. To do so we need the moral clarity and the moral courage to say that this learning centre, if it is to happen at all, must be about the Holocaust and about antisemitism, and to put this in law.
The fact that both Holocaust denial and antisemitism are rising—especially among the young, as we have seen—shows that our education is failing. The only point of a new learning centre is if it is ready to confront that failure and tackle those two challenges head on. There are of course many other important lessons that we can teach but this should not be the place for them. With so many in our society who still have so much to learn about the Holocaust and antisemitism, it is surely not too much to ask that the learning centre devoted to the victims of the Holocaust should concentrate on these two educational missions and nothing else. I beg to move.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 4 and 4A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame.
This has been a passionate debate. It is possible to believe that in the course of time a memorial and a learning centre will be established in Victoria Tower Gardens, they will be a great success and we will all look back and wonder what the fuss was all about, but it is also possible to believe that that will not be the case. If passions continue to run high, I suspect they will be fuelled by a single word: genocide.
I will not repeat the arguments that I made at Second Reading about how the word “genocide” is now contested—a few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, put the case more eloquently than I possibly could—but I will leave a single example hanging in the air, having made the observation that it is probably impossible to wage a modern war in which, tragically, there are mass civilian casualties without incurring accusations of genocide, as Israel is currently discovering in Gaza. What I say next, I say with no reference in particular to war in the Middle East or anywhere else, but war crimes are sometimes conflated with genocide, as are crimes against humanity. Appalling and horrendous though both are, genocide is the ultimate crime because it is the attempted extermination of an entire people. In short, I am concerned about mission creep in the learning centre over time.
I pause to pay tribute to the Minister, who I have always found to be extremely helpful. He organised the useful briefing to which the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has just referred, with Martin Winstone, the project historian. He gave a most impressive presentation—the academics who are advising the project are extremely eminent—and I understood for the first time when the briefing was being given why the Minister specifically referenced Darfur and Rwanda at Second Reading, because it is the Holocaust that set the standard by which horrors since have been weighed, both legally and in other ways, as genocides. I can see all that, and he made a very good case, but Governments change and the Minister will not be here for ever—sadly. What the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, just said about the wording of the Bill and the Explanatory Notes is correct. For all the persuasiveness and attraction of the presentation that we were given, there is as yet no actual content of the learning centre for us to be able to judge. So I would like noble Lords to think of Amendment 4A as a kind of safeguard.
Other amendments this evening, as the debate has gone to and fro, have been characterised as wrecking amendments because they seek to separate the learning centre from the memorial. I make no comment on those debates one way or the other, but the one thing that cannot possibly be said about the amendment is that it is a wrecking amendment. It accepts that there will be a memorial and a learning centre together in Victoria Tower Gardens. It simply seeks to set some guardrails around the content. Were it a wrecking amendment, my noble friend on the Front Bench would not be supporting it, as I understand is the case.
That leads me back to the Minister. I think I know where our Front Bench stands; I now want to hear, when the Minister responds to the debate, what he has to say. I think he is sympathetic to the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, put and which the amendment stands for. I am hoping that he can satisfy us. If he cannot do that now, it is possible he will be able to do that at Third Reading, but I do not know. If he cannot, and the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, seeks to move the amendment to a vote, I hope that noble Lords will vote in favour.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I do not regard this as a wrecking amendment at all; I think it is a very thoughtful one that has been on a journey where unintentional consequences have occurred. I am very sympathetic because I went through the same process myself a few years ago, after the 2017 election, when the prospect of a Jeremy Corbyn Prime Ministership was a real and present danger. I certainly could see the possibility that the Holocaust memorial would turn into some kind of genocide museum or genocide and slavery museum and be completely watered down. I spent a lot of time worrying and trying to find ways round it. I have to say that if there had there been a Jeremy Corbyn Government with that intent, I do not think there would be very much this House could have done to prevent it.
The noble Lord is right that “genocide” has been used in an almost flippant way in trying to describe things. We have had instances in which people have refused to take immunisations and have compared themselves to the Jews. We have heard noble prelates describe environmental problems as a holocaust. I think it is important to recognise why the Holocaust was unique. I think Members around the Chamber will remember our dear friend David Cesarani, sadly no longer with us, a very distinguished British historian of the Holocaust. David had this ability to put things very neatly and in 22 words he managed to sum up the Holocaust:
“The Holocaust involved the systematic use of state power, modern bureaucratic methods, scientific thinking, and killing methods adapted from industrial production systems”.
There has been no subsequent holocaust—and no prior holocausts—that would fall into that definition, except one. That is why the manuscript amendment is so vital because the Roma and Sinti genocide was identical to what happened in the Holocaust in that the individuals were selected not because of what they did, not because of what they thought, not because of their sexual preferences, but because they were Roma or Sinti. They were killed in ghettos and murdered in Auschwitz. It was an attempt to annihilate a race and the previous amendment would have ruled them out, in effect. I just wanted to make that clear because there has already been quite a bit of speculation that this was an attempt to push out the Roma and the Sinti. That is not the intention of the proposal. It would never be the intention of this House.
I am very sympathetic but I hope I will be forgiven for probing just a little. I may be wrong on this, and I would like the Minister to give a reply. As I read it, if you did a commemoration inside the learning centre without education, would that be in contradiction to this very sensible amendment? If that is the case—because I believe the amendment is an important one—is there some way that the magic of the usual channels can fix any defect? I am looking at the most distinguished member of the usual channels. I hope he will give active consideration to this should that be the case. If I am wrong, I would be delighted.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, some years ago I visited the Dachau concentration camp just outside Munich. It made a huge impression on me, as did visiting the memorial and learning centres in Jerusalem and in Berlin. One thing particularly struck me, perhaps because it touched me personally. In Dachau there was a display of the different badges prisoners in the concentration camp were required to wear. One of those badges was a pink triangle, which was reserved for the prisoners who were detained there because they were homosexual. Some 50,000 people are estimated to have been given severe life sentences by the Nazis, and some 15,000 to 20,000 were sent to concentration camps for being homosexual. Most of them died or were killed. Some were subject to horrific experiments, including castration.
I think it would be the effect of the noble Lord’s amendment that the learning centre should not provide information or education about that part of the atrocities perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Sometimes the word Holocaust has been used to include those atrocities. I understand, of course, the force of his argument and the purpose of his amendment—his wish to reserve the education centre and its focus for the appalling crime of attempted genocide perpetrated against Jewish people. If homosexuals, who were also targeted by the Nazi regime, are to be excluded from this learning centre, we should acknowledge that and be conscious of it. Perhaps alternative educational provision can be made. If they should be included—the atrocities were committed against a smaller number of people but were by the same regime with the same sort of motive—then I am not sure the amendment allows for that and should itself be amended at a later stage, should this House accept it tonight.
I do not in any way seek to belittle the crime of attempted genocide against the Jewish people—of course not. Nor do I think we should ignore or belittle what was done to people by the same Nazi regime simply because they were gay.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I think the discussion so far indicates just how ambiguous the point of this learning centre is. Still no one knows exactly what it is going to teach and what will be in it. I heard the presentation from Martin Winstone. I recall from that that he did not know what lesson was to be learned and that the centre was not going to combat antisemitism.
Over the last few years, I have asked many questions about which genocides will be included. I have had various answers from Ministers and former Ministers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and different answers to Written Questions. Sometimes we are told it is the Rohingya or Kosovo. Other times we are told it is all the people who were victims of the Nazis. This indicates to me no clarity about what is going on. Most of the other Holocaust memorials around the world address a question that is very painful for this Government and Parliament. The British Government closed the doors of Palestine in the 1930s, and even after the war. I always think of how many more people may have been saved—maybe millions—if Britain had abandoned the mandate and allowed Israel to be created in 1938 rather than 1948. This country bears that responsibility, as it did after the war, when it still would not let people into what was evolving into Israel.
These are difficult questions, but they have to be addressed. The late Lord Sacks said that today’s antisemitism had morphed into anti-Israelism. We cannot escape that question. If we want to combat today’s antisemitism, there has to be some learning somewhere about the biblical, historical and practical need for the nation of Israel, and why it came about. That lack is what is driving much of the hatred on the streets today.
The reason why this amendment is good, but maybe does not even go far enough, is this. The Jewish genocide, unlike all the others that have been mentioned, is rooted in more than 2,000 years of antisemitism—not 1,000, but more than 2,000, and some take it back 5,000 years. The other genocides were the results of tribal hatred, religion, sexual distaste and so on. The other victims, on the whole, were minorities; of all the genocides that have been mentioned, the people were minorities within states, without their own self-determination and means of self-defence. This has nothing to do with democracy, which is why the choice of Victoria Tower Gardens is not a good one. Genocide usually happens because one is a minority within a majority state, unable to exercise self-defence—and the need for self-defence needs to be explained in this learning centre, if it is to teach anything.
We also have to stop putting all this in the past. The learning centre suffers from the deficiency that it will tell people what happened in the war, and about the Nazis. Full stop. Unfortunately some of that is continuing. The learned lawyer Anthony Julius gave a speech a week or two ago in which he said that for thousands of years antisemitism had been a default position almost across the world. My generation were lucky in that this receded for the last 80 years or so, but it has come back, I am afraid to say. We cannot just talk about antisemitism in the past—“It was all Germany, it all happened a long time ago, and now we’re in a democracy and it’s all fine”. That is not the case. It is an ongoing matter.
One has to combat antisemitism with today’s weapons of explanation, which have to encompass what the survivors did after the war. That is a difficult issue for people to confront, because what the learning centre is apparently going to teach, if anything, is very odd—the British reaction to the Holocaust during the war. Did people know about it? Did they not know about it? There will be the Kindertransport, and maybe even the failure to prosecute Nazi war criminals who arrived here after the war. But what one learns from that I really do not know.
I fear that the learning centre will continue the business of globalising the Holocaust, making it a vague word that can be applied to any kind of slaughter that one does not approve of. We need to combat the terrible racism that is appearing in professionals, artists, the media and the universities today. We cannot just treat the Holocaust as another murder in the past, not to be remembered on its own. It is a continuing story.
It has been assumed too readily that learning the facts of the Holocaust inures against antisemitism. Today proves that it does not. I am afraid the learning centre will politicise and de-Judaise the treatment of Jews. We see this at national Holocaust remembrance ceremonies every year: an hour or two of self-congratulation and feeling much better. We need to overhaul Holocaust education and teach that the Holocaust did not succeed. The distinguishing feature of the Jewish community over the ages is survival against all the odds, not just death and victimhood. At every Passover celebration, the people around the table say, “In every generation they rose up to destroy us, but God delivered us from their hands”. That is a lesson that needs to be repeated today.
The learning centre as it stands is not good enough. “Never again” means concentrating on the Jewish genocide and antisemitism, and remembering the need for a safe and strong Israel—the world’s only haven for the persecuted and the survivors of the Holocaust—almost regardless of its faults. Hence the vital nature of this amendment, to secure at the very least a decent rationale for the learning centre.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, who presented them with compelling logic. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on her leadership on this Bill and her brilliant speeches.
We have heard what a deeply contentious and divisive issue the proposed memorial is. I spoke in Committee about my very real concerns about a number of aspects of this Bill. Today, I will add a few brief comments about the purpose of the learning centre, and I shall focus on antisemitism. I am not Jewish, but my husband is; his parents came to England in 1938—Sylvie from Vienna and George from Prague, young refugees, mere teenagers, who were among the fortunate few who escaped the hell of Hitler. They were grateful to Britain, but they knew that the antisemitism of British officials and politicians, as referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, prevented thousands of Jews from being saved from the Holocaust. I repeat that today because it is central to my argument.
It could be argued that when the Holocaust Commission’s 2015 report, Britain’s Promise to Remember, was published, many people were not aware of antisemitism in this country; it was seldom on our front pages. Then came 7 October. If noble Lords have not yet read the 7 October Parliamentary Commission Report, I urge them to do so. Chaired by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia, it is a definitive and utterly shocking description of Islamic-inspired horror and a deep hatred of Jews.
In spite of worldwide coverage of the events of 7 October, antisemitism became even more rampant globally. In London, antisemitism continues to be tolerated by the police and the Mayor of London. Even when the hateful slogan, “From the River to the Sea”, was projected on to the Elizabeth Tower, the police did nothing. Did the police not know the meaning—that this is a call for the destruction of Israel and the 8 million Jews who live there? Do noble Lords believe that the Met will have the will to stop antisemitic protests at the proposed memorial? They could not even stop a pro-Palestine protester climbing up the Elizabeth Tower, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
The failure to confront antisemitism in universities and public debate, including on the BBC, shows the difficulties of effective Holocaust education. The BBC is complicit in the rise of antisemitism, propagating daily the lies of Hamas. I draw noble Lords’ attention to Allison Pearson of the Telegraph, who last week described how the BBC’s Israel reporting is fuelling antisemitism. I raise this because it is really important that when we talk about antisemitism we understand what it is and why. Do we really think that a small digital learning centre can really tackle this issue?
The BBC has been captured by the anti-Israeli lobby. Has anyone been fired for antisemitism? The director-general, Tim Davie, is out of his depth, with little apparent understanding of the significance of what is happening under his watch. Can a digital learning centre really tackle the complex issue of antisemitism? No, it cannot.
The Minister has said that the memorial and learning centre is intended to be a national focal point of Holocaust remembrance, to host events on Holocaust Memorial Day. No—the memorial and learning centre will become a focal point of antisemitism.
Antisemitism is complex and deeply embedded in our society. Will the Holocaust memorial’s digital learning centre ever begin to tackle this complex issue? No, it will not. Digital displays cannot begin to foster a real understanding of the 5,000-year history, the suffering and the determined survival of the Jewish people. I am saddened by the suggestion that noble Lords who choose not to support all aspects of the Bill might somehow be antisemitic—quite the reverse. The few survivors still with us are divided. Just as this House is divided, the Jewish community is divided.
I finish by quoting a short extract from a letter that was sent to us all by the learned Rabbi Gluck, who wrote:
“I can see no value in the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre planned for Victoria Tower Gardens … The Learning Centre is too small to be useful, it will trivialise the unique nature of the Shoah and render it impossible to learn anything … about antisemitism, past and present (as was pointed out by Holocaust survivors to the Commons Select Committee).”
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am at a disadvantage because I have not seen the manuscript amendment, Amendment 4A, but I will make just a few comments. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, has already suggested that the centre should include other aspects of the concentration camps in Germany—for example, the treatment of homosexuals. I would like this centre not to be restricted. The Jewish community has a very long history in our country and of making positive contributions to our society. It also has a history of persecutions over many years in our country. I would like this centre to have a wider base so that people can see and recognise the contributions that have been made by the Jewish community in this country over 2,000 years and learn about the occasions when it has been badly persecuted by the non-Jews.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Pickles, I have considerable sympathy with this amendment, which was so well set out by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am pleased to find common ground with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that it is really important that we are honest about the responsibility that Britain bears, not just for good but, as she has set out, where we, as a country, made big mistakes. I also agree with her that it is hugely important that this is about a continuing story. However, I am worried about this amendment, because I fear that it could be a wedge for more legal action. What worries me even more is when my noble friend Lady Fleet gives a speech about rejecting the learning centre in totality in this specific amendment—which, as I say I have some sympathy with.
I therefore have a question for the Minister, who I know has been thinking deeply about this: what risk is there in this amendment? Those of us who have worked on this for a long time know that every legal avenue has been taken up to prevent this memorial being built. I may be seeing shadows, and the danger with the Bill is that we all see shadows from different sides, so could the Minister reassure us that, for all the good intentions behind the amendment, it would not create that wedge, which would create real challenges for a future curator of this learning centre, who may find themselves subject to lawfare which, unfortunately, appears to be more and more common in this land?
Lord Sassoon (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that we are getting a bit diverted from the main purpose of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, because I very strongly support it. What he and my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe had to say got to the essence of this, and I think we are straying a bit. I would like us to get back to what is really important here.
At the heart of this is not shadows but what we have heard and read from the Minister in successive debates in this House and in Committee, and what we have heard from the Government’s advisers outside the Chamber to help inform us. It shows that there is no clear definition of what this learning centre is to be about. It is clear that other genocides have been referred to in the Government’s material, so let us not talk about shadows but about what is hard fact: unless we put this amendment into the Bill, it leaves things very wide open for different interpretations over time from those who are running the learning centre. That is the central point, and I strongly support the amendment.
I have stood where the Minister stands and had to answer many times on legislation, with points along the lines of, “Well, it is called the memorial learning centre and therefore that is what it is going to be. We do not need to put anything in the Bill”. But this is a case where there is so much confusion and it is such a critical issue that we need to be clear about it.
I must say that I am very sympathetic to what my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs had to say. I was at the Imperial War Museum this morning, because I thought it would be an important prelude to this debate to go back there. I know that its galleries very sensitively use an inclusive definition of the Holocaust, so I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that topic, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has to say. I think it is right that the Holocaust can be and should be defined that way. Questions about further legal action or whether education really covers other events should not divert us this evening from the main purpose of this amendment, which is very necessary.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I too recently visited the Imperial War Museum with my two sons, not only to see the exhibition on the Holocaust but to visit Lord Ashcroft’s Victoria Cross gallery, which is, sadly, closing shortly.
The Government, their predecessors and the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation have been crystal clear that the learning centre will focus on the Holocaust. The exhibition will set out the facts of the Holocaust from a British perspective. There is no intention of relativising the Holocaust, still less of turning the learning centre into a forum for generic discussion on genocides.
I say to noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that I agree with a lot of what she said in her speech. She attended the recent presentation by the project historian Martin Winstone. He gave an open and very thorough account of the planned exhibition at an all-party event last week, on Tuesday 3 June. He explained to us all, in plain language, how the exhibition is being developed. The curator, Yehudit Shendar, is deeply experienced in Holocaust exhibitions, having played a leading role at Yad Vashem. The academic advisory board includes leading Holocaust experts, such as the UK’s only professor of Holocaust history, Professor Zoe Waxman. It will benefit from new research that deepens our understanding of British connections to the Holocaust. It falls under the guidance of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, which has always been determined that the learning centre will provide a clear account of the Holocaust, seeking to tackle distortion.
The amendment seeks to respond to misleading messages about the purpose of the learning centre. In reality, it is certain that the learning centre will focus sharply and unambiguously on the Holocaust. I welcome the amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief, because this is in fact Report, although sometimes it has not quite seemed that way.
The point in this amendment appears to me to be short, focused and unanswerable. What is the question that we are trying to answer? Why are we building this memorial and learning centre? That is the fundamental question. The obvious answer is that we are building it to memorialise the Holocaust and to teach people about what happened and the dangers of antisemitism. If that is the case, I cannot see any reason why that purpose is not included in the Bill. I see no possible answer to that at all. Of course, none of this is to dismiss other atrocities or to downplay or minimise other genocides, but that is not what this memorial and learning centre is about.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I would like to say, as someone who is Jewish, how incredibly heartwarming each and every one of the speeches tonight has been. Every speaker has spoken with compassion, affection and sensitivity to the plight of the Jewish people and other victims of the Holocaust. This proposed new clause reflects great credit on this House.
My main point was prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. He went to see Lord Ashcroft’s exhibition of Victoria Crosses at the Imperial War Museum. Lord Ashcroft very generously gave his incredible collection of VCs and £5 million to the museum, which was very grateful. However, the trustees of the museum decided, of their own volition, to close the exhibition and return the medals—but not the Victoria Crosses—to Lord Ashcroft. This is a lesson to us all about what can happen years after something is determined in good faith: trustees can change their minds or the trustees themselves change, or the mood, fashion or style can change. That is why I welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. The purpose has to be included in the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, for bringing his Amendment 4 and his manuscript Amendment 4A which I have signed. As I said during our debate on this issue in Grand Committee, it was our understanding that this amendment is in line with the Government’s intentions. When we debated the amendment to closely define the sole purpose of the memorial and learning centre, the Government then resisted it.
On the one hand, the Minister argued that the amendment is unnecessary because:
“This Bill is about a memorial to the Holocaust, not to all genocides or crimes against humanity”—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. GC 551.]
But he then went on to say later that:
“The centre is also intended to address subsequent genocides within the context of the Holocaust”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. GC 552.]
That is an inconsistent and confusing position. I therefore understand why the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has brought his amendments forward on Report today.
We share the noble Lord’s concern that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre could in future come to inappropriately shift its focus from the unique crime perpetrated against the Jewish people and the other victims of the Holocaust by the Nazis to other acts of genocide. The memorial and learning centre should be purely focused on the unique horror of the Holocaust and we must resist any attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the Holocaust, which stands out in world history, and other events.
In the words of one German historian, the Holocaust was
“a unique crime in the history of mankind”,
and, as the then Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission stated in 2015,
“It is clear that Britain has a unique relationship with this terrible period of history”.
That is why we set out to deliver this memorial and learning centre, and we must not forget that impetus.
I am also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has included antisemitism in his amendment. As my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton put it so well at Second Reading,
“We have a problem with antisemitism in this country, and it is growing. What better way to deal with this than to have a bold, unapologetic national statement? This is not a Jewish statement or a community statement; it is a national statement about how much we care about this and how we are prepared to put that beyond doubt”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1170.]
This amendment is clearly consonant with the intentions of the Bill, and importantly, it need not delay its progress. Given these amendments meet those two tests, we will support the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, in his amendments should he seek the opinion of the House. However, I hope that we will not have to do that. I hope the Minister will stand up and agree with this House that the Government will look at this and bring back their own amendments at Third Reading.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Goodman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for Amendment 4, together with Amendment 4A, which, in addition, has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook.
This proposed new clause is similar to one proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Robathan, in Committee. I note that this proposed clause has removed the word “Nazi”, taking heed of the warning of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, that the Holocaust was not perpetrated by the Nazis alone.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the objectives behind this amendment. As noble Lords will be very well aware from earlier debates, it is the strong and clear intention of the Government that the learning centre should be focused on the history of the Holocaust and of antisemitism.
The new clause is no doubt well intentioned, but it is overly restrictive and may have unintended consequences. First, the new clause is unnecessary. The Bill clearly refers to a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust. The Bill also clearly states that it is about a Holocaust memorial, not a memorial to all genocides or to crimes against humanity. No Holocaust memorial and learning centre could exist without a clear understanding of the roots of antisemitism.
From the start, we have been very clear that to understand the devastation of the Holocaust on European Jewry, it is crucial also to understand the vibrancy and breadth of Jewish life before the Holocaust. We have been very clear about the concept of genocide and how it relates to the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the lens through which we view the development of international law on genocide and on human rights.
The modern understanding of genocide was developed in the context of the Holocaust. Indeed, the term itself was put forward by a Jewish lawyer working in the shadow of the death camps and involved in the attempt to achieve justice at Nuremberg. We will focus on the impact the Holocaust had on the emergence of the concept of genocide and the associated international legal frameworks. We will not, as some have claimed, relativise the Holocaust by equating it with other genocides. The learning centre will not portray the Holocaust as simply one among many episodes of inhumanity and cruelty, nor will it aim to communicate bland, generic moral messages. The Holocaust was a unique event among the evils of this world and will be treated as such. The learning centre, integrated with our national memorial, will provide a solid, clear historical account of the Holocaust, leaving no visitors in any doubt about the unprecedented crimes perpetrated against the Jewish people.
I was pleased to offer noble Lords an opportunity to hear direct from Martin Winstone, the Holocaust historian and educator who is supporting development of the learning centre content. I appreciate the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Verdirame, and I wish we could have had our conversation much earlier in advance of the debate tonight, but, unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity. Those who were able to attend the session last week will have heard unequivocally that the focus is on the Holocaust and its devastating impact on Jewish communities across the world.
The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem, supported by an academic advisory group. With their help, we will ensure the content is robust, truthful and fearless. It will stand as a vital rebuttal of Holocaust denial and distortion in all its forms.
I hope I have shown that there is no disagreement between the Government and those who wish to ensure that the learning centre focuses very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. I am not, however, persuaded that additional clauses to the Bill are needed to achieve what we all want to see. Moreover, there are inevitably risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly what the learning centre is permitted to do.
Lord Harper (Con)
I have been listening very carefully to the Minister, and I completely accept what he is saying about his and the Government’s position on what he wants the learning centre to do, but can he address the question raised by several of my noble friends: what happens if there is a different Government and a different Minister with a different policy? Does anything in the Bill as drafted prevent a Government with a different policy—we have heard several examples of how that might come about—altering the focus of the learning centre? I do not doubt that he is sincere and in complete agreement, but it is about guarding against a future change. That is what noble Lords are trying to guarantee.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
If the noble Lord will allow me, I will address his point towards the conclusion of my speech.
I have mentioned the academic advisory group, and this is a good opportunity to tell the House who is in it: Ben Barcow CBE, who worked at the Weiner Holocaust Library from 1987 to 2019; Gilly Carr, professor of conflict archaeology and Holocaust heritage at the University of Cambridge; Robert Eaglestone of Royal Holloway College, professor of contemporary literature and thought and former deputy-director of the Holocaust Research Institute at Royal Holloway; Zoe Waxman, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who is professor of Holocaust History at the University of Oxford; Isabel Wollaston, who is professor of Jewish and Holocaust studies at the University of Birmingham; and my good friend Dr Paul Shapiro.
Before I come back to finish on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I hope I have shown that there is no disagreement between the Government and those who wish to ensure that the learning centre focuses very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. I am not, however, persuaded that the proposed additional clauses are needed in the Bill to achieve what we want to see. Moreover, there are inevitably risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly.
I suspect that many noble Lords would expect the learning centre to address, at least to some degree, the history of Jewish communities ahead of the Holocaust. I believe also that there would be support for some activities in the learning centre to be focused more on commemoration than on education. Neither of those matters is explicitly and obviously permitted by the proposed new clause. I say that as a direct answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.
We know, sadly, that the activities of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will face a good deal of opposition and hostility. I am very reluctant to provide additional opportunities for legal challenges and for inviting the courts to get involved in determining what can or cannot take place in the learning centre.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I am sorry to say that the confusion, which is becoming deeper and deeper, is of the Government’s own making: all this use of the word “genocide”, this Holocaust and that Holocaust. I understand that the Government give funding to Holocaust education bodies only if they agree to include other genocides along with what Jews call the Shoah, the Jewish genocide. It is the Government who have opened this up.
We all know that the word “genocide” is now being turned against Israel and against Jewish people themselves. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust itself, which has written in support of this project, last November invited people to a Holocaust remembrance ceremony in January that was going to include the killing of civilians in Gaza. The killing of civilians in Gaza is dreadful, but it has nothing to do with what we should be talking about tonight: the genocide of the Jews. I fear that this is the Government’s own muddle. It needs clarification by support for my noble friend Lord Verdirame’s amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness’s strength of feeling on this and many other issues. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, I have a lot of sympathy for the intention of the proposed new clause, but I am concerned about it because there is no definition in the Bill. We have to be very careful on that point. I had a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame—as I did with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—but, because of the wording being overly restrictive, I respectfully ask them, at this moment, to withdraw the amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Minister has not properly answered my noble friend’s question. It is not just about the clarification of what is in the memorial and the learning centre now; it is concern about what may happen to the memorial as the world changes, Governments change and leaders change. We have also heard from my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who is an eminent lawyer, that this will make it safer in law and less able to be challenged than it would if it were left in the slightly woolly area that it is now. Can the Minister comment on the future of the memorial?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, there will be future discussions about the governance of the learning centre—those are the safeguards. For now, because I do not want to prolong the House any longer, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who spoke. I will briefly make a few points in reply. First, I have no problem at all with the individuals sitting on the academic advisory board; they are all very eminent. I am certainly glad to hear about the involvement from Yad Vashem.
The composition of boards changes over time: different individuals will come on board with different agendas. This is an opportunity for Parliament to set the agenda, and whoever comes on board will have to stick to that agenda set by Parliament.
On whether it is unnecessary, as the Minister said, I have to disagree. It is necessary because we have already seen some drift into other persecution and genocides in the Explanatory Notes, and that is why it is necessary. I do not quite see how it can be described as too narrow. The purpose would be education about the Holocaust and antisemitism. They are two pretty big missions, and we are not doing so well in respect of either of them.
Further, of course commemorations could take place because we are building a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, so it will be possible in this building to have commemorations. In addition, the fact that the amendment refers to education, which is a broad concept, also enables commemoration as part of education.
I have a lot of sympathy, as he knows, with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, about the inclusion of homosexual victims of the Holocaust. I never had any doubt that individuals who were wearing a pink star in Auschwitz were victims of the Holocaust. I considered, with other Members involved in the drafting of this amendment, alternative versions, and as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, we went through a bit of a journey with the formulation. In the end, we thought Holocaust was the obvious term because it is what the memorial is about: it is a memorial about the victims of the Holocaust. I see that term as inclusive of other groups persecuted and taken to concentration and extermination camps. I am very glad that he raised that point.
Finally, I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, said on legal challenges, but I was a little baffled by the idea that there could be a legal challenge about the meaning of Holocaust. That legal challenge could be brought now because the Bill provides for
“expenditure … in connection with … a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust”.
If somebody wanted to bring a challenge on the basis that the Holocaust is something else, they could probably already do it now. The amendment will not in any way widen the scope for such legal challenges, but it will afford a degree of protection against the risk of mission creep and of this learning centre starting to do things that we all know it is not supposed to do. With that in mind, I have listened to the Minister carefully, but I am afraid I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Deech
“Any new planning application to consider better alternativesThe Secretary of State must ensure that any future planning process relating to the expenditure specified in section 1(1)(a) must take into account at least two alternative proposals for each construction specified in section 1(1)(a)(i) and section 1(1)(a)(ii).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that attention is given to alternative sites in order to reduce any security risks, to enable the inclusion of the Learning Centre within a new Jewish museum and to seek an alternative to the proposed design of the Holocaust Memorial.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I will be careful not to repeat what has already been said. I just want to draw attention to the availability of other sites that have been on offer for some years. The 2015 commission identified three sites: the Imperial War Museum, Potters Fields near Tower Bridge, and Millbank. There is still room on Millbank—I check all the time. A property was offered at one stage, which is no longer there, but there are empty buildings on Millbank for rent or sale. It is not necessary to build anything from scratch for a learning centre—or, indeed, for a museum, which, as many people have said, would be preferable to a learning centre.
The compromise we have offered would be a suitable figurative memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. It should not be overlooked that the designer of the current memorial and learning centre is now discredited. He has withdrawn or been withdrawn from nearly all the projects with which he is linked because of the allegations made against him, which have not been settled in any way over the past two years. Why this designer should still be considered good enough for a Holocaust memorial is very troubling and worrying. We need a new design for that.
There happens to be an excellent sculptured memorial in Gladstone Park, London, by Fred Kormis, the German-Jewish sculptor. It deserves a wider audience and could be moved to Victoria Tower Gardens, where it would fit admirably and would certainly be a lot better than the absolutely meaningless design by a discredited designer that we are given now.
The Jewish community remains divided on this matter. It is not the case that it is mostly in favour—far from it. A lot of donors and officials support the project; scholars and everyday members do not necessarily do so. The Chief Rabbi represents the mainstream, but on the left, as it were—the progressive element—Rabbi Jonathan Romain, among others, is against the project, and on the right the very Orthodox Rabbi Gluck, who should not be discredited, represents their views. There is simply no one view. Indeed, the Jewish community has not really been given the chance to consider this because many do not know the details.
Given advances in technology, the need for a physical exhibition space of this sort is diminishing. Everything that we have been told will be in the learning centre could be put on a memory stick—if that is the modern technological way of doing things—and distributed to every school in the country without necessarily having to bring people to London.
In essence, Victoria Tower Gardens as a site is not right. What we are being given is not a memorial and it is not a Holocaust learning centre; it is a political function arguing that democracy protects Jews and prevents genocide. This misguided narrative assumes that situating a memorial near Parliament enhances democratic accountability. In reality, there is no evidence that such a placement impacts antisemitism or political decision-making. Although officials claim that parliamentarians will reflect on their responsibilities while viewing the memorial, a nearly £200 million project seems an excessive way to underscore the obvious reality that political decisions have consequences.
Across the world, memorials unfortunately unintentionally serve as staging grounds for political virtue signalling, with people posing in front of them to demonstrate their commitment to remembrance while engaging in anti-Israel actions. Politicians, as we know, can stand in front of a memorial or go to a remembrance ceremony and say, “There isn’t a racist bone in my body”, but then in the afternoon shake hands with Hamas.
Victoria Tower Gardens is therefore unsuitable both practically and ideologically. Before settling on it as perhaps a last resort, we know that there are other locations that would do far better, and it is time to give the community information about what is happening. This amendment about alternatives and the others present an opportunity to make a more meaningful and lasting impact. A figurative memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens—not the current one on offer—and a learning centre of greater depth and scholarship elsewhere could be achieved quickly and more economically. The real effort should begin. I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, sites come into potential because of changes in the usage of buildings around London. Quite apart from the sites referred to by my noble friend in moving this amendment, there are at least two sites in the City of London that, in my view, could well be available if the Government would negotiate with the City of London Corporation. I believe that each of those sites, and possibly there are others, would be iconic in their own way but would not contain the risks involved in putting a learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. I heed very closely the words of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew; we have to look at the balance of risks. I will not go through the details of the substances that I looked at because I do not want to fuel any terrorist activity, but I worry that this will be a trophy for terrorists. Suffice it to say that, looking at the pharmacology of the different substances that are used in mass poisonings, it takes only two minutes to have the fatalities that you might see happen in a place where somebody is of malintent.
Having looked at the model that was here on display and asked questions about it, I remained completely unconvinced that the screening processes would be adequate to detect anything hidden in a body cavity, whether in the vagina masquerading as a tampon or put into the rectum. Highly concentrated chemical substances can be sealed and released. The other problem is that the open forum would allow for something to be lobbed into the area which is the exit route on the design at present.
I added my name to this amendment because I hope that planning alternatives will be looked at seriously, so that the proper meaning of this memorial and of a learning centre can proceed.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because it seems a brave attempt to bridge a gap between two very entrenched positions.
Having sat through most, if not all, of the Committee and through today at Report, I am reminded of the football manager saying, “I have a sense of déjà vu all over again”. One important thing we can do is try to focus on what has united us as opposed to what has divided us.
I think everybody who took part in the Committee was supportive of the key objectives of the Holocaust Commission. It is worthwhile quoting briefly what the committee said:
“The National Memorial should … be a place where people can pay their respects, contemplate, think and offer prayers … provide factual information about what happened”,
and
“convey the enormity of the Holocaust and its impact”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moore, reminded us earlier, those are two very different activities. The first is a personal thing: I go to pray and I go to pay my respects. The second may be personal but it is more likely to be collective: I am learning something. The emphases of the two parts of what is required by this Bill are quite different. Therefore, when people say that they need to be linked together, I am not sure I buy that, for the reasons I have just explained. My noble friend Lord Evans suggested it is going to be ticket-only admission. Is it going to be ticket-only admission for me to pray? That puts quite a different emphasis on the nature of the relationship between the public, Jewish or non-Jewish, and the memorial we are creating.
Part of our difficulty has been that, during Committee, although valuable points were made, it was clearly felt by both Front Benches that this was a Bill that was close to perfect and therefore amendments were unlikely to be tabled to improve it but, rather, in many cases, to impede its progress. The Minister dealt with all these amendments with his customary humour, tolerance and patience. I was grateful, and I am sure the Committee was grateful to him too. He is, I know, a proud Lancastrian from Burnley, the home of the cricketer Jimmy Anderson. I hope he will forgive me if I say that, on this occasion, at the Dispatch Box his performance reminded me of another cricketer—the proud Yorkshireman Geoffrey Boycott, whose renowned shot was the forward defensive prod, giving nothing away. The consequence of that is that we have returned to a lot of the stuff that we could have cleared out in Committee, if there had been any evidence of a readiness to reflect and consider matters in a more constructive way.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Jewish Leadership Council. I am conscious of time but very keen to speak briefly. I have a deeply personal connection to the atrocities that our discussions relate to. I lost over 100 members of my family on my mother’s side in the Holocaust and have been involved in many Holocaust education initiatives domestically and abroad over the last almost 25 years. I have visited a number of memorials and their associated learning centres across the world. I have also studied at the International School for Holocaust Studies at Yad Vashem.
Many noble Lords on both sides of the House have referred to the very serious issue of antisemitism in the debate. You do not need to be Jewish to walk in a Jewish person’s shoes, to care deeply about any form of hatred, including anti-Jewish hatred. It is perhaps worth noting that I do not think any other Members of this House have seen six people convicted in this country for the antisemitism and death threats directed towards me because of my faith.
It is in that vein that I have followed this debate very closely from the start. I am sorry that I do not share the view of the proposers of this amendment, despite agreeing with them on many other matters. I wish to speak briefly about this amendment, and in doing so speak against it, but also set out my support for the Government’s proposal for a national Holocaust memorial together with an education centre. I would have liked to set out my support before our debate today, but I was not yet introduced to this House. As I said, I will endeavour to keep my remarks very brief.
I am only sorry that we do not yet have a national Holocaust memorial and that these proceedings have already taken so many years. During that time we have lost some extraordinary Holocaust survivors, those first-hand witnesses since the pledge was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in his previous role as Prime Minister more than 10 years ago. We have lost some inspirational people, including Sir Ben Helfgott, a man I had the privilege to meet a number of times. He captained the British Olympic team twice and it is his sister, Mala Tribich MBE, who tirelessly shares her testimony to schools and businesses and who has eloquently outlined her support for the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre, as was shared before the dinner break by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles.
I am very clear that a national memorial should be placed adjacent to our Houses of Parliament at the heart of our democracy and home of our national public life as a very physical reminder to us all of the horrific and unique history which saw the systematic murder of 6 million Jews and millions of non-Jewish civilians, including Roma, the disabled, Poles, Soviet prisoners of war and members of the LGBTQ community. It is the worst example in living history of what happens when good people do nothing. If you accept the premise that we should have a national Holocaust memorial here in Westminster adjacent to our Houses of Parliament—and having listened to the debate this evening, it appears there is majority support for that—I think it is absolutely correct that the learning centre should be located together with the memorial to ensure that a visit to the memorial delivers a full educational experience.
There has to be a learning resource in its immediate vicinity in the same way that major sites such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau and Flossenbürg in Germany and the Holocaust Museum in Slovakia all have educational facilities alongside the memorials. In the USA most major Holocaust memorials are paired with museums or education centres—in Washington DC, New York, Texas and Florida and, most significantly, as we have discussed a number of times this evening, at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.
Unlike some other noble Lords, I am heartened by representations from the academic advisers—those experts to the Holocaust Memorial Foundation—who have set out in correspondence to this House that the main focus of the memorial and learning centre will be to explore the differing responses of individuals, communities and institutions, including the press, Government and Parliament, to the persecution and mass extermination of Jews by Nazi Germany.
The aim of the memorial and education centre will be to prompt visitors to reflect on questions such as: what more could and should have been done to help? It will highlight the fate of British nationals caught up in Nazi terror, and those involved in liberating camps, which many noble Lords have referred to this evening. I warmly welcome that evidence-based approach to help visitors engage meaningfully with the past, and to reflect on the very serious dangers of indifference, hatred and antisemitism—perils that we know have not gone away. Today sees record levels of anti-Jewish hatred in this country. I believe that this pedagogical approach, inspired by some of the leaders in this field, including from Yad Vashem, will make a difference.
The proposed location of the memorial and learning centre is essential. I went through all the correspondence that was shared with all noble Lords. I was struck in particular by the words of the director of the Holocaust Centre North in Huddersfield, Dr Bucci. I think he best summed it up in his letter to all noble Lords when he said that the Holocaust did not begin with violence, it began with legislation.
To place this memorial beside the seat of our democracy is to honour that history and to serve as a lasting reminder of the weight of responsibility borne by those in power. This is especially urgent at a time when radical ideologies are finding their way into mainstream discourse. The memorial will stand as a visible permanent statement that our democracy must always be alert to the dangers of intolerance, scapegoating and division.
Noble Lords from all sides of the House attended an event a couple of months ago. It was the Yom HaShoah service held in the Victoria Tower Gardens on the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen. I and many others took footage. There were hundreds of schoolchildren from across the country who took part in the service. I thought it was a very fitting service, but it was also indicative of the memorial we can have there.
In conclusion, I do not think we need any alternative plans, as this amendment sets out. At best, this is a severely delaying amendment. I hope noble Lords will reject it and we can progress with this Bill.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
I would like to interrogate the argument, which is an important one, that, to use the noble Baroness’s phrase, the location of the learning centre next to our Parliament is essential. That is not the case in relation to other Holocaust learning centres around the world, is it?
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which has been referred to—the most visited in the world—is nearly two miles from the United States Capitol. It is, of course, within the overall area where there are many memorials and government buildings, but it is not proximate to the United States Capitol. The Jewish Museum in Berlin, which I referred to earlier, is the same distance of nearly two miles away from the Reichstag. The Jewish memorial is a little closer, but the Jewish Museum is an outstanding and much visited place, with an amazing experience and building designed by Daniel Libeskind.
The kernel of the argument of those of us who have concerns about the location of the proposed learning centre—not the memorial—is that the consequence of being so determined that it should be right next to our Parliament is that will be a much smaller, less impressive and less suitable learning centre than it would be if an alternative venue was chosen. The other arguments are secondary to that. The security concerns will be concerns wherever the location is.
There will also be an impact on a very small space. We have little of that kind of green space around our Parliament building so I think it is perfectly reasonable to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment and look for alternative sites. This is not just because of the effect on Victoria Tower Gardens, but because we are going to end up with a much less optimal learning centre if we persist in combining it with the memorial in this too-small space.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, unlike most speakers in this debate—although I think I am with the previous speaker—I come at this from the perspective of being concerned about Victoria Tower Gardens. I do not suppose that that is a surprise, coming from somebody who is the president of Historic Buildings & Places and a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. It is my considered view that what the Government are proposing is overdevelopment of Victoria Tower Gardens. Earlier this afternoon I did not go to the Cross-Bench group meeting, but skived off and walked round the gardens, and I must say—let us be under no illusions—if this goes ahead, it will wreck the gardens.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to speak at all, and I will make this very short, because I am a great believer in this project and I support what the Minister has done. This amendment is just a wrecking amendment, because it is clear that the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation put in place by the then Prime Minister conducted an extensive search for alternative sites. Fifty were considered. There should be no more prevarication: we need to get on with this.
If we look at the model, we see that Victoria Tower Gardens are not going to be wrecked; they will be enhanced. The greenery will be enhanced. I just cannot accept the argument being made. To the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to whom I am very close on so many things, I say that I think the case has been proved tonight. The Jewish community, of course, have many different views; and the Jewish community, like any other citizen in the country, had a chance to get involved nine or so years ago. If they wanted to make some comments they could, like anybody else, have done so.
The last thing I want to say is that the most important speech tonight has just been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger. The courage and bravery that she showed, and what she was put through by her own people, in her own party, leads me to say that I admire everything she did. Every word that she said tonight, everybody should read. I totally support that, and therefore I disagree with this amendment.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I would very much like to be associated with the words expressed about the noble Baroness, Lady Berger. She is a great addition to this House and a woman of considerable courage. Like my noble friend, I have enormous admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. So far as I am aware, this is the only thing I have ever disagreed with her about. But I hope she will not mind if I do so here. I thought initially that she had just misspoken, but she has repeatedly said that the historian Martin Winstone did not know what was going into the memorial. That is not true. What he actually said—
Baroness Deech (CB)
I did not say that—I said that he was unable to explain to us what was going to be learned. He told us very clearly what was going to be in there, but when we asked what the lesson was to be learned, there was no answer.
Lord Pickles (Con)
No, that is not what was said. The reason why he could not talk about learning or about what it was going to look like was that, quite properly, we suspended the use of the consultants who are going to be the curators. As the Minister said, it is Ralph Appelbaum.
There has been praise from opponents of and proponents of the Holocaust exhibition in the Imperial War Museum. That was devised by Appelbaum. There is considerable praise for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and that was designed by Appelbaum. The International African American Museum, which is extremely good, was also done by that firm, as was the First Americans Museum, as well as the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Members will be able to travel down the river to look at the Crown Jewels exhibition, which is also curated by Appelbaum.
I have to say that the descriptions we have heard of Victoria Tower Gardens do not in any way equate to the reality. The place is a dump. It has been neglected as a dump—and those who speak so eloquently about it should have done something about it. In the summer it is a dustbowl, and in the winter it is a quagmire. Who is going to look after it? The people who were selected to do the landscaping for the Eiffel Tower. The French are a choosy nation—they only go for the best, and the place is going to look so much better. It is going to have paths that water can go through and which will not choke the roots of the trees, as the current paths do. People who are disabled and in wheelchairs will for the first time ever be able to enjoy the embankment. It seems to me to be utterly wrong that somehow, for property-owning reasons, we should deny the people of London, the people who live on the Peabody Estate, something better. This is going to be considerably better, since we as a Parliament have allowed it to be neglected, and I heartily support that.
It is also quite wrong to suggest that somehow, this museum is going to be about British triumphalism. We have repeatedly said that that is not going to be the case.
We have already had a non-Jew quote a rabbi, and as a non-Jew I would like to quote, from the Office Of The Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, who is the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom but also of the Commonwealth, and not easily dismissed. He says:
“In these highly challenging times, with rising antisemitism, I wholeheartedly support the creation of this UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre. There can be no better place than Victoria Tower Gardens, in the shadow of our Parliament, in the heart of our nation’s capital, to act as our permanent reminder of the lessons we must continue to learn from the Holocaust for the sake of all in our society”.
When the Jewish community needed him, he stood up against antisemitism, and he stood up against Jeremy Corbyn. He did not suck up to Jeremy Corbyn. This is a man of great leadership, and his words should be listened to.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
I did not want to be discourteous by interrupting his flow, so I am following the normal convention. Before he sits down, can he explain something that is rather puzzling me? If there is to be this immense improvement to the site, why has UNESCO said that this makes it one of the five or six most at-risk world heritage sites on its register?
Lord Pickles (Con)
My noble friend is entirely wrong. It is not on the UNESCO site; it is outside the UNESCO site. The inspector looked at this and came to the conclusion that this would enhance the site, and that any change to the site would be an improvement. I think the heritage people have also said that there would be no significant damage. I am grateful to my noble friend, because he has just emphasised what a good thing this is going to be.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I suppose it is a bit of a clue that if we have more groups of amendments than there are clauses in the Bill, we are going to feel a bit like we are going round in circles—and this group does feel a bit like we are going round in circles.
It may be the worst nightmare of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, to have three Conservatives in a row say that they wholeheartedly agree with what she has said and how incredibly courageous she has been, but I would also like to associate myself with all her remarks. I also respect the integrity with which the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Deech, introduced this group by being very clear that she disapproves and disagrees with the concept of the learning centre.
We should have no illusions: this is a wrecking amendment. Having been on the Holocaust Memorial Foundation for 10 years, I know that we have looked at more than 50 locations and that if we go back to square one and look for new locations, we are kicking this can down the road for at least another decade. That would be a crying shame when the world really needs this now.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have listened carefully to all the debates focused on planning issues during the progress of the Bill, and we are clear that the planning process is the appropriate place for these issues to be addressed. Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, would take progress on the delivery of the landmark Holocaust memorial and learning centre backwards considerably. I have said already today that we are now 11 years on from the original commitment to deliver this. We are not rushing, and there have been ample opportunities to raise planning concerns. Indeed, a planning process will follow the passage of the Bill, and those concerns can also be addressed as part of that process.
It has been the policy of successive Conservative Governments that this project is well suited to the current planned site of Victoria Tower Gardens. A legislative requirement such as this would certainly prevent its timely delivery and risk the future of the project. We therefore cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, Lady Jones and Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, seeks to impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider alternative proposals for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre as part of the planning process, with the aim of coming up with new, better or different proposals.
I recognise and respect the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has deeply held views on our current proposals and would prefer the Government to change their mind and come up with a different scheme. However, our proposals have been arrived at over many years through a very thorough and lengthy process. It may be helpful if I briefly summarise the process of how we arrived at the current scheme.
Ten years ago, following extensive consultation, the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission submitted its report, Britain’s Promise to Remember. The recommendations in that report, including that there should be a new national Holocaust memorial with an accompanying learning centre, were accepted by all major political parties. An independent, cross-party foundation led a comprehensive search for the most fitting site for a prominent and striking memorial. Assisted by a firm of expert property consultants, the foundation identified and considered around 50 sites. The result was that Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the most suitable location, and the foundation was unanimous in recommending the site to government. As well as giving the memorial the prominence it deserves, it uniquely allows the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament, demonstrating the significance of the Holocaust for the decisions that we take as a nation.
Following an international competition with more than 90 entrants, the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel. After detailed consultation, in which shortlisted schemes toured the UK and a major consultation event for Holocaust survivors was held, the judging panel chose the winning design for a Holocaust memorial with an underground learning centre because of its sensitivity to Victoria Tower Gardens. Public exhibitions were held to gather feedback on the winning design ahead of a planning application.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, it is a matter of regret that Committee took place in the Moses Room, where there was not much room for discussion or, indeed, attendance. Now we find that the Government are still trying to steamroller this through by whipping—which is quite wrong—and keeping us here late at night in the hope that people will get tired and go home. This needs more time.
Let me advert to some misconceptions in the speeches made. We have a National Holocaust Centre already—
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Let me just say to the noble Baroness that, in deciding on the fate of the amendment, it is not necessary to respond to all the points raised in the debate. It might be helpful to the House if we proceed to a decision.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I have no intention of responding to all the points, but there were some things said that simply are not correct. Not all the survivors want a memorial, or one in this place. No one has studied the impact. There is all this talk about it having to be next to Parliament to make some signal about democracy, but there has been no study of the impact of location or visiting. No one has done a study to say, if you go and visit a Holocaust memorial museum, what you will feel like when you come out at the other end. The model that we have been given is somewhat misleading. It does not show the whole project.
As for the unfortunate little Victoria Tower Gardens, which is really a very nice place and an open space for Peabody building inhabitants and all those who live in flats, it is going to be real mess in the forthcoming years because it will be a repository for the scaffolding, the building equipment, concrete mixers, et cetera, associated with restoration and renewal. The prospect that anyone will be able to stroll around and enjoy it for the next 30 years or so is simply untrue.
As for the design, no due diligence was done at the outset, otherwise people would have realised that the design had already been presented in Ottawa. Since then, the same design has been used in Niger and in Barbados, so there is nothing in it about sensitivity or special affiliation to London, the park or the Jewish community.
Given the lateness of the hour, I can do nothing but withdraw the amendment, but the truth within it remains. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lisvane
“Planning application and report to Parliament(1) In the event of any planning consent being granted for a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, the Secretary of State must arrange for the tabling of a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament on that planning consent within 60 days of that consent being granted.(2) Construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre must not begin until planning consent has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, in the form of a motion for resolution under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause seeks to ensure Parliamentary approval of the size and design of any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in addition to planning consent, and to allow Parliamentary consideration of the implications of planning consent for Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is also in this group. Amendments 6 and 7 would do pretty much the same thing, but it is typical of the noble Lord’s gift for crisp expression that his Amendment 7 is about half the length of my Amendment 6.
We are after something which I would have thought would be beyond criticism: the approval of Parliament. It happens that this is first amendment of the evening—indeed, the early morning—that is not directly about the HMLC project. We seek straightforward approval from both Houses for the planning consent, should that be obtained. Ministers would have to table approval Motions in each House within 60 days of any consent being granted, and no work on the centre could begin until both Houses had agreed.
Planning consent is one thing, but the putting of the proposition to Parliament brings in a wider dimension: the achievability of the project and the proper expenditure of public money. Those are issues on which Parliament has a right to be consulted and express a view. There are quite a few former accounting officers in this place and I must admit to being one myself. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority report in January this year is the stuff of which accounting officers’ nightmares are made. The authority said:
“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.
The authority has rated the project red and unachievable for each of the last three years.
The National Audit Office has been no kinder. In its 2022 report, it described the promoter’s failure to consider any alternative sites, or to quantify or account for risk, as an emerging risk, causing potential cost increases. The latest capital cost estimate, which was kindly given to us by the Minister in a debate on an earlier amendment, is £146 million. This must make the case for the parliamentary approval that Amendment 6 would provide.
One argument which I hope the Minister will not think of deploying against this amendment is the canard that Royal Assent to the Bill will provide the necessary parliamentary authority for the project; of course it will not. What the Bill does is encapsulated in the long title: it allows expenditure but, crucially, does not approve it.
When and if planning consent is given, we will move into the next phase. That should be of a properly costed and funded project with serious management arrangements, which the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the National Audit Office feel able endorse. It is that which Amendment 6 seeks to submit to parliamentary judgment. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 7 and in support of Amendment 6. I strongly reiterate and endorse the wise words from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. As he said, we are not a planning authority. We are Parliament, and we are looking at changes in the legislation contained in the Act of 1900. The criteria used to determine whatever decisions may be reached are different in the two separate cases and we must exercise our judgment independently of the rules which relate to the granting or otherwise of planning permission.
The one thing I feel very strongly about here is certainty. In 1900, the legislation incorporated a plan that was deposited with the Clerk of the Parliaments—I understand it is currently somewhere between this building and Kew, so I have not been able to see it—which shows precisely what was going to happen, and it was in law that what was in the plan was to be implemented.
We are now being asked, in repealing that piece of legislation, to rely on a series of the most generalised principles, and we do not know what we are being asked to approve. It is only right and proper, once planning permission has been granted and there is a degree of certainty about the detail of what is going to be proposed, that we then have the last word. That is consistent with the pattern of the way in which this has occurred.
Let us remember: Victoria Tower Gardens is not just any old public park. It was established by an Act of Parliament, and at the time it was established, it was agreed between the committee and the LCC—and, I think, the First Commissioner of Works—that it was a “national improvement”. Given that context, what we are seeing is both entirely reasonable and quite proper.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I added my name to these two amendments. I will add very briefly to the remarks that have already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in moving his amendment.
I referred earlier to the unsatisfactory nature of Committee, when all sorts of issues which could usefully have been dug out and discussed were put to one side. This included the fact that we were told that a large number of issues that we would have liked to have discussed in Committee were to do with planning and were therefore nothing to do with us. We did not have the competence, experience or indeed the legal position to be able to make a useful contribution.
Let me be clear: I absolutely respect the planners’ competence and their experience. However, the provisions and implication of a Bill such as this go far beyond the normal arrangements. This is not like a controversial proposal to build on the green belt; it is about constructing an iconic memorial on a small piece of open space in the lee of the Palace of Westminster, itself a world heritage site.
When these plans come to fruition—as I hope they do, as I have said before—it will be really important that the then Members of the two Houses of Parliament, who are, after all, essentially the trustees of the Palace of Westminster, should take responsibility for all the decisions that are made. They should finally tick it off once we have reached that particular point in the process. That is why I support the noble Lord’s amendment.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I also added my name to this amendment. I will be extremely brief: I support it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Inglewood, for bringing forward Amendments 6 and 7. While we respect the spirit in which these amendments have been brought, we on the Official Opposition Benches cannot support the amendments. We are very concerned that both Amendments 6 and 7, which each require further parliamentary scrutiny of the progress of the project after the planning stage, would severely undermine the planning process, prevent the timely delivery of the project and risk its future. We are firmly supportive of the delivery of the memorial and learning centre as soon as possible, so we cannot support any amendments to the Bill which would delay delivery.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Walmsley, for Amendment 6, and the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood, Lord Hodgson, Lord Lisvane and Lord Strathcarron, for Amendment 7. Both amendments seek to insert additional steps into the approvals process in the form of reports and resolutions in both Houses before planning permission can be implemented and the construction of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens can begin.
These steps are unnecessary. There is already an established statutory method of gaining planning consent, so there is no need to invent an additional process for this project. The planning process—put in place by Parliament and regulated through the courts—is the proper place for considering developments such as the proposed national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. This process considers diverse perspectives, extensive documentation and expert advice to reach a decision on whether planning consent should be granted.
Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords have the same opportunities as all other citizens to express their opinions about any proposed development. In the case of this planning application, Members of this House spoke at the previous planning inquiry. I have no doubt that many noble Lords will make representations to the designated Minister when he sets out the process for redetermining the planning application. If another planning inquiry is held, I am sure that several noble Lords will take the opportunity to appear and make their views known. The Government have already given an assurance that they will notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but he has come to a point where he has just said “if” another planning inquiry is held. In Committee, he was asked on a number of occasions whether a planning inquiry would be held, and we were told that there might not be a planning inquiry, and that it could all be done by written representations or even by an exchange of letters. Can he reassure the House that a planning inquiry will be held?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me clarify my comments, because that was a slight misinterpretation of what I said in Committee. I said then that the designated Minister would decide how we would take the planning process forward. As part of a number of options, there could be written representations, there could be a consensus by having a round table—though I doubt that that would happen, on the basis of this debate—and there could be a public inquiry. That is entirely the decision and prerogative of the designated planning Minister, and it is part of the planning process, from which we are totally detached.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister’s answer is extremely ambiguous.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
With respect, I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness. The application is live. Subject to the passing of this Bill, there will be a new planning process, when the designated Minister will decide what he will take forward.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
I am now getting more and more confused. The Minister has just said that there will be a new planning inquiry, or a new planning process, but before he said that there might be only a round table or written representations. He just used the word “new”—I heard it very clearly. Can the Minister tell us on how many occasions when a planning application has been called in to a Minister has a further planning inquiry been held? I do not know what the precedents are, but it would be very interesting to hear if there are any precedents for a planning inquiry at this stage leading to a new inquiry.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly disagree with the characterisation of what I said. What I said was that the planning application was live, as it is, but that there will be a new planning process. The actual planning application has been quashed because of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. That is why we have brought forward Clause 2, so that we can disapply the powers of the county council Act 1906. I did say, as well, that the designated Minister will decide what process will be used to take the application forward; that could be a round table seeking consensus, a planning inquiry or written representations. That is a decision for the designated Minister; it is not in the remit of what we are discussing. At times, this has sounded very much like a planning committee, but that is not the remit of what the clauses of this Bill set out to do.
I will make progress. The Government have already given an assurance that they will notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable following the reactivation of the planning process for the current application. The restoration and renewal programme of the Palace of Westminster has also been considered. We will continue to work with the team responsible for the restoration and renewal programme to make sure we understand the interactions and potential impacts between the two schemes.
I will briefly clarify comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on the red rating assigned to the programme in the annual reports by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority. That rating, as has been made clear in each report since 2022, reflects the need to obtain Parliament’s approval for this Bill and to recover planning consent. Before losing planning consent in 2022, the programme was rated amber.
It is therefore unnecessary to seek further steps adding a report and a resolution in both Houses when a planning process will have been completed in accordance with the statutory requirements. These amendments would simply add further delays. I therefore ask the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane, Lord Hodgson, Lord Inglewood and Lord Strathcarron, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Walmsley, not to press Amendments 6 and 7.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I think that the intent that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and I had has been slightly misinterpreted. When the planning process—I use that general term, because, as we heard in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, it could have a number of different characteristics—has been completed, it may be that that part of the process imposes new requirements and that there is something that the planning process requires of the Government to acknowledge, to achieve or to allow for as the project goes forward. If that is the case then there will be a powerful argument for a reassessment of the achievability and affordability of the programme.
I had intended to test the opinion of the House on my amendment. However, at this late—or perhaps very early—hour, I can hear the first notes of the “Farewell” symphony being played. I do not think the House would be particularly happy if I inflicted another 12 or 13 minutes of Division upon it, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Inglewood
“Matters to be taken into account in determining planning applicationAny determination involving consideration of any application to grant planning permission for any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens must take into account all relevant matters at the time of the determination.”
Lord Inglewood (CB)
I think this will be a very short debate, because the right thing for me to do—bearing in mind that the last round in the planning process led to the application being quashed, and therefore it no longer exists in law at all, which means that it has to be redetermined de novo—is just to say to the Minister that I assume that he agrees with what I have put in the amendment.
My only additional comment is that the previous application was not quashed because of the London County Council Act; it was quashed because administrative mistakes were made.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I did not add my name to this amendment, but the point of it is that the entire circumstances in which planning permission was first granted, and the project was first mooted, have entirely changed. I will make one small point about that. My research shows that the national Infrastructure and Projects Authority rated the project red, even at a stage when it had planning permission, because it is as flawed as HS2.
If we go back nine or 10 years, what do we find? Everything is different. Today, we know that for the next 30 years or so, Victoria Tower Gardens will be the site of rubble and building materials needed to repair the Palace of Westminster and Victoria Tower and for the replacement of the Parliament Education Centre. The appeal to the emotions of the special nature of Victoria Tower Gardens and its relationship to democracy, peace and quiet has entirely gone.
The Adjaye firm design can no longer be considered to be of exceptional quality, as the inspector put it, because we now know it is a third-hand design. We know that the design of the 23 fins has been condemned by Sir Richard Evans as not representing anything historical at all to do with the 22 countries whose Jewish populations were exterminated. We know from research that abstract memorials are vandalised far more than figurative ones because the former carry no emotional weight. A fresh start would entail having a proper religious or appealing motif to the design.
The need for open space has been shown as more persuasive than ever since lockdown. That space was used for the lying-in-state of the late Queen and for the queues for the Coronation, and may well be needed again. That is a very important space to keep open. There has been criticism by UNESCO and other international bodies. The flood risk has increased, and the environmental regulations call for new consideration; in other words, there needs to be fresh consideration of a situation entirely different from what prevailed nine or 10 years ago. That is what this amendment is trying to achieve.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief, but on this side of the Chamber, we feel that these amendments are unnecessary because, as I have said so many times today, the planning process that will follow the passage of the Bill is the correct place to raise those matters. We are also concerned the amendment is not sufficiently specific and may leave the planning process open to an unnecessary legal challenge, which would, again, further delay the delivery of the memorial and learning centre. Therefore, we will not be supporting it.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to ensure that a decision on any planning application must take into account all relevant matters. This amendment is unnecessary. Planning decisions must be taken within a framework of statute and regulation, which Parliament has put into place to make sure that all relevant matters are considered and given appropriate weight. These matters are referred to as “material considerations” in the planning framework.
As noble Lords are well aware, the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre is the subject of a planning application that was originally submitted in late 2018. After the original decision to grant consent was quashed by the High Court in 2022, the application is now awaiting redetermination by a designated Minister. Special handling arrangements have been put in place to ensure that a proper and fair decision under the relevant planning legislation can be taken.
Noble Lords will understand that I speak as the promoter of the Bill and, in effect, as the applicant for planning consent. Therefore, it is not for me to comment in any detail on how the determination decision will be taken. However, I feel confident in saying that the designated Minister will seek to take that decision in accordance with the law. Whatever process is undertaken, whether seeking written representations or through a new planning inquiry, the decision-maker must take into account all relevant matters. There will of course be opportunities for any decision to be challenged in the courts if interested parties believe that relevant matters have not been taken properly into account.
This amendment adds nothing to the responsibilities which already rest on the Minister designated to take the planning decision. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I assume that the Minister, when he said, “seek to take that decision in accordance with the law”, will actually undertake to take the decisions in accordance with the law. I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Deech
“Restoration and Renewal of Parliament not to be impededThe activities described in section 1(1) may not be commenced on the land referred to in section 2 unless the authorities of both Houses of Parliament have certified that they are satisfied that those activities will not impede the approval and implementation of any restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.”Member's explanatory statement
This Clause seeks to ensure that any Holocaust Memorial and/or Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens has no adverse effect on the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster including the planning consent for this project and the consequent disapplication of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I now come to the elephant in the room. I wish to bring up the question of the impact of building a Holocaust memorial and underground learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. It will either render impossible restoration and renewal or make it more difficult and expensive. I hope that the memorial is not built at all, but if it is built before R&R, it will get in the way. It is impossible to imagine a memorial to 6 million deaths taking shape and being visited when it will be surrounded, right up to its boundaries, by all the paraphernalia that will accompany R&R. Instead of reverence and contemplation, there will be masonry, concrete mixers, builders, scaffolding, material and a jetty, and trucks roaring by and unloading.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and her Amendment 9. With the then Clerk of the Parliaments, I commissioned the first ever condition and survey of the Palace in October 2011. That reported in March 2012; its principal conclusion was that doing nothing was not an option, and that was 13 years ago. I am deeply frustrated that nothing, or very little, has been done since then. If there is some catastrophic event of fire, structure, electricity or water supply, those years of indecision will be partly to blame.
This amendment is based on the happy assumption that we finally get R&R going. But when we do, the last thing we need is for the construction of the memorial and learning centre to be a new obstacle to R&R.
I will very briefly revisit a point I made in Committee. At the north end of Victoria Tower Gardens is the Parliamentary Education Centre, which the noble Baroness mentioned briefly. It has been hugely successful in introducing young people to Parliament. As the then corporate officer of the House of Commons, I was the applicant for the planning permission for the centre. That permission ran out on 22 August last year. It has been extended to 2030, but when it runs out and the Parliamentary Education Centre is demolished, that will be a major works project in itself, and it will happen at the very time when the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is being constructed. Whatever difficulties of safety, security and access may be presented by that project, they will be substantially increased by the demolition of the Parliamentary Education Centre and the heavy traffic involved. It is all the more important that the authorities of the two Houses—in practice probably the corporate officers—should be satisfied that R&R will not be impeded. This amendment would achieve that aim.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment and I wholeheartedly support it. We, as parliamentarians, have a duty to cherish and care for this wonderful building. That is what the restoration and renewal project is about. We have a duty to preserve this world heritage site and to hand it on to future generations; whatever else happens anywhere else in the vicinity, we must never lose sight of that duty. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, have put the case very well and there is no need, at this late hour, for me to add anything further to that.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
Strategic decisions on R&R have yet to be taken. There is no prospect of serious work on-site before 2030. It is likely the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be completed by that time if your Lordships’ House will permit it. The Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be at the southern end of the Victoria Tower Gardens, some distance from the land which the R&R programme is expected to use. With good will and practical common sense, it will be perfectly possible to arrange matters to avoid any conflicts.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, in the event of there being a conflict, which one trumps the other?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, seeks to delay the delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre until the authorities of both Houses of Parliament have certified that they are satisfied that the delivery of the project will not impede the delivery of the restoration and renewal of Parliament. Restoration and renewal is indeed a vital project, and the future of our iconic Palace of Westminster is extremely important. This is a symbolic building, a statement of our respect for British parliamentary democracy, and we must press ahead with the restoration and renewal, but these goals do not need to be mutually exclusive.
When I was working in the department and had a responsibility for this part of the work of the department, it was very clear that all these people worked together. The project teams met regularly and they knew what each other was doing, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is still going on. These projects are not being done in isolation. They are being done together and planned together, and the delivery will work because they will talk to each other. The pressure on Westminster’s infrastructure of sustaining two projects of this magnitude is something that we should rightly address during the planning process, although we do not accept that this amendment is at all necessary.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Amendment 9, proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Laing of Elderslie, and the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Blencathra, deals with the important matter of co-ordination between the programme to construct a Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the programme of restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
This is an important topic. It was considered in some depth during the Select Committee as well as in Grand Committee. I had the privilege of a further discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for which I am very grateful. Evidence presented to the Lords Select Committee was that the main restoration and renewal works are not due to start before 2029 at the earliest. I think the estimate is now that 2030 would be the earliest realistic start date—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, made. On that timetable, the question of any direct overlap of the construction period seems unlikely to arise.
I understand that those involved in the planning of the restoration and renewal programme are concerned that the existence of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, once complete, could present problems for their planning. Those concerns relate not to any direct interface between the two projects but to the R&R programme need for planning consents in relation to Victoria Tower Gardens. Quite understandably, there are as yet no firm proposals from the R&R programme about how much of Victoria Tower Gardens will be required, and any application for planning consent appears some way off.
The Government, as promoter of the Holocaust Memorial Bill, made it clear in our response to the Select Committee that we recognise that the interaction between the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the restoration and renewal programme is important and that the interests of users of the gardens need to be considered. We will continue to work with the R&R programme team to understand that interaction, and its potential impacts are being considered—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, alluded to.
I know that many noble Lords will have studied the architectural model of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre last week when it was on show in Parliament in the Royal Gallery. The model helps to show that the memorial structure is at the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens while the learning centre is underground. Even if the R&R programme seeks consent for a good deal of the northern end of the gardens, there will be space available in the central area for all visitors and, of course, the playground will be available for children at the southern end.
Noble Lords may be unsatisfied with the commitment to co-operate and to seek in good faith to overcome practical challenges. The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness implies the need for more formal arrangements to ensure that the interests of Parliament are taken into account. There is already such a mechanism in place. Construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre cannot proceed without planning consent. The process for obtaining such consent, a process laid out in statute and subject to the proper scrutiny of the courts, provides the forum for the interests of neighbours to be taken into account. The authorities of the Palace of Westminster will have the opportunity to present evidence and make arguments ahead of any redetermination of the planning application. The corporate officers of both Houses have made representations in response to formal consultation by the planning casework unit, which is responsible for the redetermination process, I have no doubt that any material they wish to provide will be given proper consideration. It is quite clear, therefore, that the interactions between the Holocaust memorial programme and the R&R programme have been and are being considered at a practical level and that those interactions will be considered formally before any planning decisions are taken.
This amendment, however, seeks much more. In effect, it proposes that those responsible for the R&R programme should have an absolute right of veto over the Holocaust memorial programme. The amendment would mean that the arrangements for making planning decisions, for carefully considering different interests, and for balancing impacts against benefits—arrangements which Parliament has put in place to govern decision-making on all manner of development in all parts of the United Kingdom—should not apply in this case. I do not think such a radical departure is necessary.
I ask noble Lords to consider the practical implications too. The timetable for the R&R programme, for perfectly proper and understandable reasons, is subject to some uncertainty. It is far from clear when it might be possible for those responsible for the R&R programme to give the certification that the proposed amendment envisages. I emphasise once again that I fully understand and agree with the need for co-operation and co-ordination between those responsible for the Holocaust memorial programme and those responsible for the restoration and renewal programme. The R&R programme is a major undertaking and hugely important to secure the future of this iconic Palace. I am confident that, with good will and commitment, there need be no—
Viscount Eccles (Con)
Who is going to manage the memorial and learning centre programme?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, once planning permission has been granted and when the time is right for the project to move forward, a body will be in charge of the oversight of the project.
I am confident that with good will—
Viscount Eccles (Con)
So there is nobody appointed who can make preparations and think the whole thing through until it starts?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, once we go through the planning process, provisions will be made in due course, when the time is right.
To conclude, I am confident that, with good will and commitment, there need be no significant conflict between the two programmes. I do not believe it is necessary to make changes to the Bill to ensure co-operation and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 9.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, future parliamentarians will read Hansard and wonder why we were so careless about the progress of R&R. Everything that we have heard in response has been wishful thinking: “Let’s hope it goes okay. With a bit of luck, it will all be managed”. We have heard no detail at all about how those two projects will interact with each other—absolutely nothing. The memorial will go nearly all the way to the Buxton memorial and R&R will be coming up the other end. There is no doubt that they will meet each other or overlap. We have been told that the planning process will deal with all of that but, as earlier questions have shown, we do not know what planning process we are going to get or what it will deal with, so we have no idea what will happen.
As for those poor children in the playground, sandwiched between asbestos, concrete and dust at one end and queues of people and possibly armed guards at the other, I feel for them. I have no option but to withdraw this amendment, but I warn Members that they are treading on thin ice as far as progress of R&R goes. It is not being taken as seriously as it should be and that is a great shame.
Baroness Walmsley
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 12, which is grouped with this amendment. Noble Lords need not worry; I have crossed out most of my speech in the interest of the lateness of the hour, besides which, I am so bleary-eyed I can hardly read it, so I will deal with this important matter as briefly as I possibly can.
The current proposals for the learning centre, as we have heard at length, offer a set of rooms entirely below the ground at a depth of 8.5 metres. It would be located extremely close to the Thames and the ageing river wall. There is only one entrance to the facility and it leads to a courtyard entrance area below ground level. I am concerned that there would be a risk to life for the public visiting the facility, some of whom may be elderly, disabled or young children, from floods, fires, terrorist attacks, or any disruption that could cause panic.
Victoria Tower Gardens is in a high-risk, rapid-inundation flooding zone, which means that, in the event of a breach of the River Thames river wall at high tide—particularly if, because of climate change, the sea level has risen—the whole learning centre would be quickly immersed. Although the danger from such catastrophic flooding is remote, it must be taken into account when considering planning permission. However, the risk was swept aside in Committee with no real consideration whatever by the Minister.
The planned development is currently said to be protected by the Thames Barrier—which needs replacing and is to be improved by 2050—and the old river walls, but however small the risk, it is not worth taking. What if climate change, a rising sea level and unusual storms should cause overtopping of the wall? What if a ship, either deliberately or accidentally, were to run aground and breach the wall? What if a fire breaks out underground?
In 2019 the Environment Agency expressed in an initial letter doubts about whether these proposals meet the constraints of its own policies on flooding. Quite exceptionally, the learning centre has no floors above the external ground level that people inside the memorial could escape through, or where they could take refuge from floods. The exits from the exhibition spaces are in the same below-ground level courtyard that serves as the entrance. That single entrance/exit is also a problem in relation to the potential outbreak of fire in the centre.
My concerns are borne out by the fact that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s 21 August flood warning emergency plan for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre’s construction period provides that the whole site will be evacuated when a severe flood warning for the Thames is in place. Such warnings are regularly issued now, sometimes with little warning, several times every winter and sometimes in the summer too. Do we really want this important learning centre to have to be frequently closed? The implication of the emergency plan is that, when it opens, the visitor centre would frequently have to be closed.
I believe it is unwise and unnecessary to build the right thing in a risky place. The constraints of the place chosen by the Government make it unsuitable for such an important memorial and learning centre. That is why in Amendment 12 I have requested that the Secretary of State prepare a full report on all these matters and lay it before Parliament before the other sections of the Act, once passed, come into force. Then Parliament itself can assess the risks and make a decision. Amendment 11 is simply the enactment amendment. I beg to move.
By the way, I will not be in the least bit upset if no one else speaks except the Minister.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I will be as brief as I can.
My point relates to the design of the learning centre as it is, and the fear that it would be provoking as a trophy for terrorists. Evacuation is of great concern because there is only a single entrance. As I said previously, the type of substances that may be used are fatal within about two minutes if they are used and not detected when going through the security measures. In the event that there is some disaster—and we all hope there is not—I hope no one has to look back and say, “We should have looked at another site that would have had at least two separate exits. We should have learned from coal mines, which have two exits so that if one is blocked, people can still get out”. If that single entrance was blocked, I am not sure how you would get people in to evacuate others.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will not say very much. Obviously, in any public building, safety has to be a major concern, but once again these concerns about safety should properly be considered within the planning process.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Fookes, Lady Finlay and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendments 11 and 12. I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of the topics that these amendments raise. When constructing any new public building, flood and fire risks and the evacuation strategy must be given the most careful attention. I assure the House that these risks have been considered in depth throughout the development of our proposed design and that there is no possibility of planning consent being granted unless proper provision has been made. No building project can be taken forward unless it complies with extensive regulations relating to flooding, fire and evacuation.
Extensive information about the Holocaust memorial and learning centre considered at the planning inquiry remains publicly available on Westminster City Council’s website. Over 6,400 pages of information relating to the detailed design and the history of the project were published as part of the planning inquiry. Noble Lords interested in the fire and flood risk provisions can see the relevant documents and study them in detail.
We would not be proceeding with a design that we believed exposed visitors to an unacceptable risk. The proposal has been subject to significant scrutiny to ensure that it is compliant with all the relevant regulations. As we develop and implement operational plans, we will of course continue to draw on expert advice and make sure that those plans comply with all relevant standards. The report prepared by the independent planning inspector in 2021 provides a good account of the scrutiny to which the proposals were subjected.
No flooding objections were raised by the Environment Agency or by Westminster City Council at the inquiry. The London Fire Brigade is content with the fire safety arrangements. Let me summarise the key points that demonstrate how seriously we take this matter. Flood risk was indeed identified as a matter for particular consideration when the planning application for our proposal was called in in 2019. The independent planning inspector gave particular attention to flood risk in considering the application. He held a round-table discussion involving interested parties and covered the matter in depth in his report.
London already has significant flood defences. The inspector noted that London is well defended against the risk of tidal flooding. He considered the risk of breach flooding to be extremely remote and believed that flood risk over the lifetime of the development would be acceptably managed. Planning consent was initially granted in 2021, with specific conditions requiring the development of a strategy for maintaining the river wall and the development of a flood risk evacuation plan. I would expect that any new planning consent would have the same or similar conditions attached. I hope I have made it clear that this is a matter we take seriously but it is, as I have said, a matter for the planning application and is subject to detailed scrutiny by appropriate experts.
When it comes to safety, fire is obviously a matter of the first importance. I reassure noble Lords that fire safety has been given close attention throughout the process of designing the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The information provided with the planning application included a detailed report on the relevant parts of the building regulations and set out how the proposed structure would meet those regulations. To pick up on one detail which some noble Lords may be interested in, the proposal includes both main and secondary escape routes from the underground space.
When the planning application was initially approved, a specific condition was agreed that a fire escape plan would be agreed with the local planning authority, Westminster City Council, before the development could take place. There can be no doubt that the fire safety arrangements proposed for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be subject to proper professional scrutiny and no possibility of development taking place if those arrangements are not approved.
These are important matters which I take very seriously and I make no criticism at all of noble Lords who want to be reassured about the arrangements for mitigating fire and flood risk and wanting to ensure that the learning centre has appropriate means of escape. But I also emphasise very strongly that the statutory processes for considering any planning application and ensuring compliance with building regulations are robust mechanisms for addressing fire risk, flood risk and evacuation measures. The Bill does not seek to provide an alternative route for obtaining the authority to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
To conclude, the Government and indeed the previous Government have been crystal clear that the Bill does not remove the need to obtain planning and building regulations consent, with all the detailed and expert scrutiny that requires. Amending the Bill to replicate or interfere with the planning process is therefore unnecessary. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 11.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I hope that the future planning process, whatever it is, decided on by the proposer, of course—yes—is a good deal more robust on this matter and with a great deal more detail than the previous one. I sincerely hope I never have need to say, “I warned you, I told you so”. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fookes
“(2A) If it is decided that a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre will be built in Victoria Tower Gardens, this Act does not come into force until the Secretary of State has obtained written confirmation from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization that they are content that the proposals for any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre to be built in Victoria Tower Gardens do not adversely affect—(a) the integrity, authenticity, or outstanding universal value of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site;(b) any other memorial or the setting of such memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens;(c) the integrity of the Victoria Tower Gardens as a green space dedicated to the wellbeing of local people, in perpetuity.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to obtain the approval of heritage bodies which have expressed grave concern about the planned use of Victoria Tower Gardens; and to protect the Spicer and Buxton Memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, given the lateness of the hour and the fact that this amendment, in my name and that of other noble Lords, is rather unfortunately numbered 13—it does not bode well for this amendment, I fear—I will be as brief as I can.
I simply wish to seek the opinion of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the World Heritage Committee that they are satisfied that this unique little park will not suffer detrimentally from the building works that are planned. We have to bear in mind that this is the setting for our magnificent building. As such, it is of considerable importance. In addition, we want to see that the memorials already there are not overlooked or in any way detrimentally affected. I am also particularly keen to ensure that the green space is preserved.
I will not rehearse all the views I expressed in Committee, save to say that I believe there is a very real danger that the two avenues of magnificent planes will be at serious risk. I base this on an independent report made to Westminster City Council, which set out in detail what those risks were. I will not rehearse those now, but I ask that we take full account of the importance of this little park, both for its setting and for the people who currently enjoy the green spaces in an area not very full of them. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I am disappointed that, in this wide-ranging and very interesting and relevant debate, we have hardly touched on the conservation significance of Victoria Tower Gardens. We need to be under no illusions that it is a very important site, both on its own account and because it is one of the most significant sites in this country, which is of global, European and national importance.
I will not at this point in the evening enumerate the detail of the characteristics and designations it has achieved, nor the criticisms that have been levelled against what is being proposed. Suffice it to say that, from a national and an international perspective, those criticisms carry the greatest heritage value and perspective. They should not be lightly dismissed as some kind of frippery on the periphery of this debate—on the contrary, they are right at its centre.
I hope, in conclusion, that the way in which this matter will be handled will be one that will enable some of those who are bound to be disappointed to accept that a fair, even-handed decision was reached, balancing all interests involved, and that no particular pressure groups—whether they are Jewish or conservationists or anybody else—has been given priority unjustly over anyone else.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as a botanist, I assure your Lordships that the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, is absolutely right about the extreme danger to the two rows of plane trees. I just have one question for the Minister, and I hope he can reply. Notwithstanding the text of Clause 2, can he say what measures the Government plan to put in place, if the proposed project is to go ahead unamended, to ensure the continued public benefit of Victoria Tower Gardens as a green space to the local population and to the workers in this building?
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the plan has been condemned for about six years by UNESCO. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has said that it will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the outstanding universal value of this important site. The International Council on Monuments and Sites has condemned it. Europa Nostra has shortlisted Victoria Tower Gardens as one of Europe’s seven most endangered sites. Historic England has expressed its reservations too.
Will the Minister explain why the advice of those international bodies is ignored, especially bearing in mind the willingness of the Government, as they keep saying, to observe international law. International treaties are important to us, say the Government, but here are some they are apparently prepared to ignore. I am sure others would like to hear why they are being ignored, and what answer the Government propose to give to those international bodies.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I have seen the plans, and I know that those working on this project have gone to great lengths to make sure that they will protect Victoria Tower Gardens. They will improve the gardens—that will be the outcome of this project. From what we are hearing, it is as if nobody has taken any care about what they are doing and this has been put together in some hasty manner. This has been carefully planned and I urge noble Lords to respect the work that has gone into the planning. Nobody who is running this project would want to leave the gardens in a worse state. Everyone is intent on improving them, and adding this memorial.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
I am quite prepared to believe that the gardens will be improved, and the paths and the drainage, but this does not go to the heart of what this amendment is all about, which is preserving, among other things, the world heritage site which is Westminster. This is a very strange amendment in some senses. Why is it necessary? It should not be necessary at all, but having listened to the debates, I increasingly think that it is necessary. Why is it necessary? First, because not only have we no assurance about the future planning process, which should sweep up these issues, but we have heard from the Minister about reactivation, redetermination and a new process.
I had thought that by this stage in the passage of the Bill, the Minister might have got a clear line on what is going on. He talks about the possibility of a new inquiry, a round table, and written representations. The bottom line is that there may be a reactivated short inquiry process that takes in merely written representations, if that. So we have no insurance through the planning process. I am very disappointed in my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook’s not in any way challenging the planning process from our Front Bench, but merely parroting the Minister’s words that these matters are all for planning. That is very disappointing.
The second thing we have heard a lot about today is the model, and the improvements to the gardens. But those of your Lordships who looked at the model last week and tried to get the view of those tiny figures in front of the memorial will know that the only way you could do it was by putting your camera down there and taking a photograph. The Minister is now laughing and making faces again, as he has been doing all day. This is a serious point that I would like to make. He talked earlier about photographs of the model and offered to share them with one of my noble friends. I took photographs on my phone last week showing that somebody standing in those gardens, on the other side of the memorial from the Palace, will have the view of the south facade of the Palace entirely blocked out.
That goes to the heart of UNESCO’s concerns. My noble friend Lord Pickles, when I challenged him on this a little earlier, talked about the paths and the landscaping, and I have no doubt that those will be improved. But what is happening to the Victoria Tower Gardens is that there will be a very large memorial, which UNESCO says is putting the world heritage site of Westminster are at risk. Of course I recognise that that is not within the actual area of the heritage site as such; that goes through the northern part of the gardens—but that does not mean that the heritage site is not at risk.
So we have a situation late at night when we are getting to the heart of the issues around the planning for this proposed memorial. I go back to something else that the Minister said—that the memorial would say something important about ourselves as a nation. There are many aspects to that, but if one thing it does is mean that UNESCO decides that Westminster is no longer a world heritage site, that is a very significant matter.
I believe that my noble friend Lady Fookes’s amendment is a proportionate way of dealing with a very serious issue that goes to the heart of this Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Fookes for bringing forward her Amendment 13, which focuses on the extremely important issue of the heritage here in Westminster, one of the most historically, culturally and architecturally significant parts of our capital. Clearly, the delivery of our national memorial to the Holocaust cannot come at the cost of our national heritage here in Westminster. I know that the Minister will want to reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government will act judiciously to protect that heritage.
I understand completely my noble friend’s concerns, but I do not feel that the amendment is necessary. I assure her that we will keep an eye on what is going on to ensure that the national and global heritage in Westminster is protected for future generations.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes, Lady Blackstone and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for the amendment.
Amendment 13 seeks to delay commencement of the Bill until heritage bodies, including UNESCO, have confirmed that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will not in their view adversely affect the world heritage site, the existing memorials and the gardens. It would be a novel step to overturn long-established procedures for deciding on new development by handing a veto to certain bodies.
Planning decisions in this country are taken within a framework of statute and of policy that allows different views to be heard and that enables all arguments to be properly considered and balanced against each other. The impact of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre on the heritage assets and setting of the world heritage site is a planning matter and has been assessed in detail as part of the statutory planning process, which is the proper forum for examination of such matters.
The planning inspector examined a great deal of evidence on this matter, including representations from Historic England, as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is better known, and UNESCO. The evidence presented by Historic England was that
“the proposals would not significantly harm the Outstanding Universal Value of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site”.
The planning inspector confirmed this view in his report and concluded that the development will not compromise the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site. The planning inspector concluded that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. The planning inspector’s report still stands as a robust assessment of the proposals.
On UNESCO, the Government take very seriously our commitments and obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of the world heritage convention. Historic England has the statutory duty of advising the Government on the world heritage sites designated under that convention. I have already set out how Historic England has carried out its duty in respect of the Holocaust memorial proposal.
UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has the role of implementing the convention and has the final say on the designation of world heritage sites. The Government take the views of the committee very seriously and provide regular state party reports in response to the committee’s decisions. However, the World Heritage Committee does not hold a power of veto over planning decisions in the UK. It would be a quite remarkable step, with very significant implications, to bestow such a veto on the committee.
On Westminster alone, the World Heritage Committee has expressed views and concerns not simply about the Holocaust memorial but in relation to an extension to a children’s hospital at St Thomas’; the proposed Royal Street development, also across the river in Lambeth; and, of course, the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. There are strong reasons why UNESCO should take an interest in all these proposals.
The heritage impacts, including on the world heritage site, must be carefully considered, but noble Lords will appreciate that there are other matters to be considered too. Simply handing the decision to a body solely focused on heritage would not achieve the balanced assessment of benefits and harms on which a good decision should be based.
This amendment would have the effect of elevating the views of two eminent bodies, one British and one an international committee, above other consultees and the views of the Minister designated to take a decision on the planning application. In effect, it would mean that the balancing exercise intrinsic to planning decisions could not be carried out. In other words, if we were to say to Historic England and UNESCO that they may decide on all planning matters they consider relevant to the world heritage site, I cannot see how we could restrict such an arrangement simply to a Holocaust memorial. On what basis would we say that Historic England and UNESCO should have the final word on a Holocaust memorial that sits close to a world heritage site, but not on other developments nearby, still less those that fall within a designated site?
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My lords, I would not be seeking to invoke other bodies—one of them foreign—if the fears I expressed much earlier in the Bill’s progress had been taken more seriously by the Government. I got the impression that anything one said was always brushed away, and therefore concluded that I must seek other ways of getting my worries dealt with.
I can see that I am getting absolutely nowhere fast, and that it is the early hours. Therefore, I will withdraw the amendment, but my worries and concerns have not been diminished in any way. I beg leave to withdraw.