Holocaust Memorial Day

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a great honour to hear three such interesting and heartwarming maiden speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Katz and Lord Evans, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt. It is also a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay.

Today we are all here gathered in remembrance. The speeches we have heard have been heartbreaking and full of sadness on many occasions, which has moved many of us. Eighty years ago, the world bore witness to the liberation of Auschwitz—a name etched in infamy for its wickedness, a place where a million souls perished. But we must be clear: Auschwitz was not an anomaly, nor was it the whole story. It was but one in a network of extermination camps which sought to systematically eradicate 6 million Jews in Europe. We must resist the temptation to speak of the Holocaust as a horrific event that took place during the Second World War. To do so would be to diminish the full scale of atrocity which spanned nations, years, and generations of suffering.

Although today is a day of reflection, it must also be a day of reckoning, because the hard truth is this: anti-Semitism did not die with the fall of the Third Reich. It was not buried in the rubble of Berlin, nor was it erased by the words “never again”. It persists, it is alive, and it is growing. We have all heard that the Community Security Trust documented the highest number of anti-Semitic incidents in a six-month period. It is no wonder that the CST also uncovered that merely one-third of British Jews believe they have a future in this country and that a staggering 50% have considered leaving altogether. It is truly anathema to me that in the UK—a nation that has been a beacon of refuge and opportunity for Jewish people—there are those who fear for their safety, their children’s futures, and their very place in society. How can this be? How did we arrive at a moment where British Jews, who have contributed so much to our national life, feel unwelcome in their own country? Crucially, what will we do about it?

We rightly place great importance on the memorialisation of the Holocaust. It is an opportunity to educate, to remember, and to honour those whose lives were stolen, but remembrance alone is not enough if it comes at the expense of acting against contemporary anti-Semitism. What is the point of solemn words and candlelit vigils if we fail to confront the anti-Semitism of today? I put it to the House that each Holocaust Memorial Day should be a day not just of reflection but of renewed commitment to tackling contemporary anti-Semitism in all its forms. This commitment must be explicit: annual targets, clear objectives and unwavering political will. Without this, the fight against anti-Semitism will continue to be overlooked, sidelined and deprioritised on the political agenda.

Let us be honest: the pervasive nature of this problem indicates that we are beyond easy solutions. It cannot be resolved overnight, but that must not deter us. We need a patient, sustained effort—an approach that acknowledges the scale of the issue while refusing to accept it as inevitable. We have skirted around this subject for too long; it is time to take it seriously and, as we do so, we must ensure that Holocaust Memorial Day remains firmly rooted in the historic reality of what happened. We remember all victims of hatred, but let us not shy away from the fact that the Holocaust was first and foremost the attempted extermination of the Jewish people. This is not a mere historical detail; it is the very essence of why this day exists. To obscure or generalise this fact is not only a disservice to the past but a dangerous mistake for the future. Making the historical and contemporary link both honours the memory of those murdered and is the best bulwark against history repeating itself. The Holocaust was not inevitable; it was the result of unchecked hatred, institutional complicity, and the silence of too many for too long. That is why we must act now.

Today, as we remember the liberation of Auschwitz, let us also liberate ourselves from complacency. Let us not merely remember; let us resolve. Let us not only mourn; let us act. Let us ensure that when we say “never again”, it is not merely a phrase but a reality that we strive towards. I urge my esteemed colleagues to stand firm against anti-Semitism, to make Holocaust Memorial Day a moment of real commitment and to ensure that British Jewish people can live in this country with the same security, dignity and confidence as any other citizen.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I offer my thanks to both the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, for their enthusiastic and energy-driven speeches, which were very infectious. They will help to drive me along and give me the energy to do all the things that will come along to all of us. They are both very welcome.

I must declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a part-owner of rented property in Bingley, west Yorkshire.

The renters Bill aims to ensure that those renting homes from landlords across the nation have a safe, secure place to live, managed by a landlord who is reasonable, responsive and reactive when problems in their rented home occur—something I am sure that we all wish to see. However, I do not believe that this Bill will necessarily achieve that. I have spoken with a range of stakeholders in the rental market prior to the debate, including those in the built-to-rent sector, which has the potential to deliver up to 10% of this Government’s overall housing targets. The built-to-rent sector—if it is given the policy environment to deliver new, net, additional, high-quality, long-term rent homes—would do a great deal to achieve the housing targets that we need.

It appears to me that the built-to-rent sector is particularly susceptible to the clauses in the Bill, in its current form, that pertain to open-ended tenancies with two-month notice periods, where renters can serve notice to leave their home on day one. This is because built-to-rent homes can be moved into quickly, as they benefit from shared amenities such as wifi and concierge services, among others, that make them very attractive places to live. Renters can move in with just their suitcase and some groceries, and without the need to set up the water meter and internet provider, or deal with the utility providers.

The Government have put on record their support for bringing more institutional investor landlords into the rental market and driving up standards across the market, both of which are laudable goals, alongside the building of new homes. However, allowing renters to immediately serve notice to leave their rented home on day one of their tenancy will have a detrimental impact, particularly on the build-to-rent sector’s ability to secure investment, both domestic and foreign, to deliver the homes that this Government want to see built.

To reiterate, this measure increases the risk of short-term renting by those looking to take advantage of the legislative issues that the Bill creates, and prevents those who truly want to put down roots in the area where they rent their home doing so, while also having an impact on future housing supply. That is not what this Government intend, I am sure, and is certainly not supportive of the Government’s growth agenda or housebuilding targets.

I want the Bill to put in place the ability for renters to serve their two months’ notice only after they have rented their home for a minimum of four months, thereby discouraging those who would use the Bill in its current form to take advantage of the facilities and high-quality homes that build-to-rent landlords provide. I am well aware of the need to ensure that renters are not trapped in unsafe, mis-sold, damp or mould-ridden rented homes, and such exemptions should of course be included in any amendments made to the relevant clauses in Committee.

An additional potential consequence of the Bill that has been raised with me and that warrants consideration in this place is the impact on housing supply due to the incentive the Bill presents to renters to challenge their landlords’ rent increase when served a Section 13 notice. I add at this point that the fact that Section 13 notices have not yet been digitised is an issue that, in this day and age, needs urgent attention. Section 13 notices being challenged by any and all renters simply to delay a rent increase will serve to achieve only one goal: discouraging landlords looking to provide rental homes and investors looking to create new rental homes. These delays in landlords being able to achieve reasonable increases in their rent from renters will mean that less investment is available for these landlords to build the new homes we need.

The Government cannot expect institutional landlords and investors to deliver new high-quality, sustainable homes if they face so much uncertainty and delay about the rent they might reasonably receive. I strongly support an amendment to the Section 13 clause of the Bill to ensure that legitimate rent challenges from renters are progressed through the courts at speed—we have heard a lot of attention being drawn to the difficulties of the court process at the moment—while rent challenges that have no legitimacy and are being lodged simply to delay fair and reasonable rent increases are deterred.

Some opinions that landlords should focus on are the ability for a failed rent challenge in the court to bring the date of the original rent increase back into effect with a payment plan put in place that is achievable for the renter to pay off over a reasonable period, or giving the courts the ability to increase rents past the point proposed on the Section 13 notice if the increase is below market rate and is subsequently challenged by the renter.

The Government have some laudable ambitions, and improving the lives of renters while delivering new homes are clearly two that many in this and the other place will rightly support. However, the Bill as it stands leaves too many loopholes open for some to exploit, at the expense of those who the legislation is being put in place to protect.

Local Government: Funding

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The review that we are undertaking as part of the spending review in the spring will do just that. We made some steps forward in this year’s settlement; we need to take further steps in that regard, and the local government funding formula will be reset to take account of need.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. With Labour’s increase in employer national insurance contributions, LGA analysis confirms that the cost to local government will be around £1.7 billion next year. The provisional local government finance settlement confirms that councils will be compensated to the tune of £515 million for 2025-26, well short of the £1.7 billion. Can the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box whether this compensation funding is a one-off, or will it be continued in future financial settlements? How does she expect local authorities to compensate for the shortfall?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I said, the decision that we took around national insurance contributions was to fill the gap from the £22 billion black hole that was left by the Government of the Benches opposite. We continue to work on fixing those foundations and making the economy stronger. The noble Baroness asked specifically about the £515 million of support that we have provided to local government. That is in addition to other sources of funding that we gave to local government. Whether that will continue into future years will be the subject of the spending review in the spring. We will look at all aspects of local government funding so that we continue to fix and sort out the mess that we were left with.

Housing: Modern Methods of Construction

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Carrington for his insightful introduction to the debate, and declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The previous Government rightly identified MMC as a potential game-changer in addressing our housing needs. As their 2021 commitment to the MMC Taskforce highlighted, there was recognition that MMC could significantly improve the quality, energy efficiency and speed of housing delivery, while reducing waste and addressing the skills shortage within the sector. MMC offers numerous benefits, as we know.

However, while the recognition was there, the execution fell short. The Government’s approach to MMC was marred by a lack of co-ordination and coherent strategy. As highlighted by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee, of which I am a member, public funds were invested, but without a clear plan, measurable objectives or sufficient understanding of the challenges faced by the industry. This disjointed approach led to missed opportunities and the financial collapse of several MMC firms—firms that could have played a pivotal role in addressing our housing needs. The committee’s findings reveal a troubling picture of an industry that has not been given the support or clarity it needs to succeed, particularly in securing insurance, warranties and the necessary regulatory approvals.

Thus far, we have heard little about the detail from the Government, and I hope that the Minister, when she responds, will tell us clearly just how they will address all the particular difficulties with MMC.

King’s Speech

Baroness Eaton Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I add my welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, and the noble Lord, Lord Booth, and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Khan to his position on the Front Bench. I also declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

Local government can and will, I am sure, do everything it can to support the new Government’s growth agenda, but by no means does this give Whitehall consent to sideline local councils in the process. To highlight the point I have just made, we saw the example earlier this month of the new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero approving several solar farm applications in the shires and bypassing councils in the determination process—decisions that would normally be taken by democratically elected councillors who understand the needs of their communities best. On devolution, if the Government are truly serious about resetting the relationship between Whitehall and local government, may I suggest that making such bold decisions that impact local areas while bypassing local councils is perhaps not the best way to go about resetting the relationship? When it comes to infrastructure, it is councils that approve nine in 10 planning applications. The knowledge that councils have of their communities cannot be replaced.

I am pleased to see a commitment in the King’s Speech that an English devolution Bill will be introduced, and I hope I can outline to the House this evening some of the areas that I believe the Bill should cover. For a start, we need to end the endless bureaucratic competitive bidding processes for grants that local authorities need to go through to access funding, often spending thousands in taxpayers’ money and employee capacity in the process just to bring forward worthy bids.

The granting of further powers for local government as part of any devolution is, of course, welcome. However, further powers must come with fairer funding, with a commitment from the new Government to undertake a fair funding review for local government. We urgently need to review the formulae and data that the department uses to determine funding for councils. In addition, a commitment to multiyear financial settlements in areas such as adult social care, children’s services and highways will give local government a powerful hand to deliver alongside any new powers handed to it through the future devolution process.

To give local government more fiscal devolution over the course of the next Parliament, what quick and easy measures could the Government introduce as part of the English devolution Bill? First, if the Government are serious about growth they need to give local councils more flexibility to expand their capacity within planning departments to speed up the planning application process, allow them to set planning fees at rates that consider local demand and give them a firm hand to compete against the private sector on planning recruitment.

Secondly, if Whitehall wants local government to do more and deliver better, it must come forward with serious funding commitments to back that up. That is why I hope that the idea of 100% business rate retention can be explored again, in this Parliament, keeping business rates collected by councils inside local economies. A commitment to devolution should also mean a degree of trust between Whitehall and local government. It must be left to get on with the job without interference from civil servants in Whitehall. On that point, the Government should give an indication of what they envisage the role of the newly created Office for Local Government to be. As a Conservative, I think competition can be good for the sector. However, I do not believe it would be in the interests of local government to see a rehash of the Audit Commission.

To support a reset in the relationship between Whitehall and local government, a better understanding of how local government operates is key. To that end, I would welcome a commitment from the Government to increase the number of secondment opportunities from Whitehall departments into local government in areas of high demand with capacity issues; for example, in planning and infrastructure and related work that is undertaken by local government. I welcome commitments to devolution, but to achieve that a complete reset in the relationship between Whitehall and local government is needed, and I look forward to hearing in more detail the proposals that are likely to be contained in the upcoming English devolution Bill.