Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(3 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a person to mutually agree a tenancy with a landlord which requires them to pay up to six months of rent in advance.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the payment of rent in advance can provide significant benefits to tenants that go beyond simply avoiding late fees or demonstrating financial security. Many tenants choose to pay rent in advance for financial planning, to ease the stress of monthly payments or to manage upcoming financial burdens. Amendment 43 in this group recognises and affirms this choice, firmly rooted in mutual agreement between tenant and landlord.
We did consider introducing a 12-month period proposal at Committee stage. However, in a spirit of compromise, and having listened carefully to the views expressed in Committee, we have instead brought forward a six-month proposal. We hope that the Government will recognise this as a reasonable and constructive step, and we hope that noble Lords can support this.
If a tenant does not wish to pay rent in advance, they would be under no obligation to do so. However, there are particular groups who would benefit from this flexibility, including overseas students and those with poor or limited credit histories. Many tenants with lower credit ratings face barriers to securing housing that are often no fault of their own. By paying rent in advance, these individuals could demonstrate responsibility and financial reliability, improving their chances of obtaining a tenancy.
Similarly, overseas students often lack a UK credit history and therefore require UK-based guarantors, which is not always possible. For those students, paying rent up front for a term or even an entire academic year is a practicality and a common solution. I ask the Minister to clarify what impact these amendments might have on overseas students’ ability to secure accommodation and whether the landlord will maintain incentives to rent to those tenants despite their limited credit history.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, allowing tenants, where mutually agreed, to pay rent in advance of up to six months provides an important option for many, particularly those who may face barriers such as a poor credit history, overseas students without a UK credit record or those who simply wish to manage their finances proactively. This choice should be respected and preserved, not restricted by over-prescriptive regulations.
Housing is a personal and often complex matter, and we acknowledge the complexity of balancing landlord protections with tenants’ rights, particularly regarding initial payments such as deposits and the first month’s rent. However, it demands legislation that is flexible enough to accommodate different circumstances without sacrificing fairness and stability.
I know the hour is late but we believe that this is an important amendment for the freedom and flexibilities that tenants require in this sector. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 43.
Renters’ Rights Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(3 days, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. As we begin the first day on Report, I would like to start by thanking the Minister for the meetings she has held with me and my noble friend Lord Jamieson on the Bill—we really appreciate those meetings.
I suspect that, since Committee concluded, few days have passed without Members of your Lordships’ House receiving a steady stream of questions, concerns and comments about the Bill, because despite the Government’s amendments, it remains, in our view, a flawed Bill. It is a Bill that uses the powers of government to tell two consenting adults that it knows best; a Bill that fails to acknowledge the realities of the rental market and the consequences it may bring. We are united in the belief that tenants deserve safe, secure and decent homes at a fair price, but to deliver that, we must ensure a functioning rental market with enough good quality homes to meet growing demand. That means building more homes in the right places and encouraging investment in this sector.
Regrettably, this Bill puts that at risk. Rather than increasing supply, it threatens to drive landlords out of the market, reducing the number of available homes and pushing up rents even higher. If we get this wrong, it will be the renters who pay the price. Balance is essential, and we on these Benches do not believe the Bill strikes the right balance. The Government should have brought forward a Bill that targets rogue landlords—those who break the law, put tenants at risk and undermine the proper functioning of the rental market. Instead, we have this Bill, which risks driving out good landlords while allowing the rogue ones to continue operating completely unchecked.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for leading on this group, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Diversity, choice and a range of tenancy contracts all contribute to a housing sector capable of meeting a wide variety of needs, as we have heard. In that context, it is reasonable to ask the Government why they are pursuing a one-size-fits-all approach through the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies. Having listened to the contributions in Committee, it is clear that there is widespread concern about this element of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is right to challenge the blanket removal of fixed-term tenancies and to reintroduce much-needed flexibility into what is currently a very rigid clause.
Industry stakeholders share these concerns. Propertymark has warned that abolishing fixed terms could destabilise the position of tenants with lower incomes or poor credit histories. Many of these individuals rely on guarantors, who, in turn, require the legal certainty of a fixed term. Without that structure, these tenants may find themselves excluded from the market entirely, excluded from finding a home, and excluded from getting on with their lives. These tenants include students without parental support, young adults leaving care, and individuals with health conditions or irregular employment. They often rely on guarantors to access housing, but those guarantors understandably require the legal certainty of a fixed-term contract. Without that assurance, the door to the rental home quietly but firmly closes.
The Government’s rebuttal is by now well-rehearsed. They claim there is no cause for concern because tenants will have the ability to give two months’ notice, thereby shaping the tenancy to their preferred timeframe. But this argument is weak and raises serious questions. How can it be right to require landlords to fundamentally alter the contracts they offer? How is it reasonable to expect a landlord to accept a tenant who cannot demonstrate their ability to pay, particularly in the absence of the legal structure and certainty that fixed-term agreements provide. Equally, why should tenants be denied the option of a fixed-term tenancy if they believe it best serves their interests? Removing that choice is not empowering, it is restricting. Tenants, like landlords, have diverse needs and circumstances. Many actively seek fixed-term arrangements because they offer clarity, stability and peace of mind. For tenants in transitional phases of life, that assurance is vital. A fixed-term tenancy can provide security that their home cannot be taken away, even within the grounds of possession remaining. This is particularly important for those on temporary contracts, such as nurses relocating to hospital placements, families seeking to remain within a particular school catchment area or individuals from overseas who require time-limited accommodation.
To remove fixed-term tenancies is to ignore the lived realities of both tenants and landlords and to strip the sector of the very flexibility it needs to function effectively. For landlords, fixed terms provide the certainty required to plan and manage their properties effectively. Removing that certainty could prompt many to exit the sector, and already is, further reducing the already strained supply of rental housing. Ironically, this supposed flexibility could leave both tenants and landlords facing greater instability.
The proposed abolition of fixed-term tenancies may lead some homeowners who currently let their properties on a fixed-term basis to withdraw from the market altogether. Faced with the uncertainty of an open-ended tenancy, some may even choose to leave their properties empty rather than risk loss of control over future use. Why are the Government not listening to landlords, the very people who maintain the foundations of the private rented sector? They are not just participants in the market; they are the backbone of the market. We on these Benches support choice and the freedom to decide a contract that works for both the tenant and the landlord, and I hope the rest of the House agrees. We will support the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, if he tests the opinion of the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking for his very kind comments and—with slightly less enthusiasm—for this amendment, which would retain a form of fixed term, during which the landlord could not use a number of “landlord circumstance” grounds, including selling. My noble friend referred to his role as a landlord, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill: I am sure he is a very good landlord. Good and honest landlords have nothing to fear from the Bill; it is not them we are dealing with here
The issue of fixed terms is one we have debated at some length and on which I know there is great strength of feeling on both sides of the House. For many noble Lords, this is an issue of free will. They believe that the Government should not interfere in a tenant and landlord’s ability to agree terms between them, and that both parties should have the choice between a periodic or fixed-term tenancy. In my view, however, that argument mischaracterises the balance of power between tenant and landlord in any negotiation. Here, I agree very strongly here with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Landlords have the choice of many tenants, all competing to offer the most favourable terms, while tenants have far less opportunity to choose between properties. Tenants cannot simply walk away if they do not like a landlord’s terms—a choice between homelessness and a fixed term is no choice at all.
To speak to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, it has been symbolic of that imbalance that, until this Bill, landlords have been able to issue a Section 21 eviction notice and remove tenants through no fault of their own. Not only does that cause distress to families; it also places a huge burden on the state as our beleaguered local authorities pick up the cost of over 100,000 families in emergency and temporary accommodation. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure that tenants do not lose out. We must step in to ensure that tenants are not forced into agreeing unfavourable terms that act against their interests and remove fundamental rights to move when needed.
I accept that fixed terms have some benefit for tenants under the current system because they offer some respite from the awful threat of Section 21, which hangs like the sword of Damocles over tenants’ heads. With Section 21 gone, that advantage will be extinguished, so there is even less reason why a tenant would agree voluntarily to a fixed term. Even if freely agreed, there is nothing equal about a fixed term. Under the current system, landlords can rightly seek possession during a fixed term if a tenant breaches the terms of their rental. Possession grounds are available if a tenant misses rent payments, damages the property, commits anti-social behaviour or indeed breaches any term of their tenancy.
Noble Lords would then imagine that, in a fair contract, a tenant could also terminate the tenancy if the landlord failed to fulfil their responsibilities during the term, but in almost all cases tenants do not have this choice. Landlords can allow properties to fall into disrepair, leave properties unsafe to live in, and still tenants must pay rent month after month. This is fundamentally unbalanced. It is critical that we act to reset the scales.
“unless the tenant meets the student test when the tenancy is entered into.(1A) For the purposes of this section, a tenant who meets the student test when a tenancy is entered into has the same meaning as in Ground 4A in Schedule 1.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow student tenancies to remain as fixed tenancies to provide the certainty that both student tenants and student landlords require.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, at the heart of the Bill is a duty to protect young people, because it is primarily young people who rely on the private rented sector. Students are no exception: many are leaving home for the first time, stepping into higher education with courage and ambition. For them, the need for clarity, stability and fairness in housing is especially pressing.
Fixed-term tenancies for students, as proposed in Amendment 2, are not a loophole; they are a solution that works. They have brought order and predictability to a cyclical market. The Government recognise this, having already made concessions for purpose-built student accommodation, but that exemption applies only to the most expensive end of the market. What if the student cannot afford a glossy new block with a gym and a neat working space, and instead shares a modest flat in a converted home? We urge the Government to take a consistent approach and extend this provision across the board, because there is a great student migration and a releasing and re-letting of homes at the end of each academic year. It is a finely balanced cycle, and if we tamper with it blindly, we risk breaking it altogether.
That cycle is already under pressure. Student towns and cities are seeing a decline in student-appropriate housing. If we continue down this road, we will put higher education out of reach for many, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds who rely on affordable shared housing.
That is why my Amendment 5 is so vital. The current restriction on ground 4A, which limited it to properties with three or more bedrooms, is both arbitrary and unfair. Many students, in particular postgraduates, international students and mature students, live in one-bedroom or two-bedroom properties. In Committee, the Minister said:
“Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 589.]
The Minister is right: it captures the bulk, but not all of them. When housing is scarce, we need all available options. When choices are limited, we must protect every viable home. Let us be clear: ground 4A is not about throwing students out of their homes, it is about ensuring that landlords can confidently re-let for the next academic year and that students can confidently plan their lives.
Amendment 6 rightly asks why six months has been chosen as a cut-off point for ground 4A. This blanket time limit could disrupt rental cycles, discourage landlords from letting to students and ultimately shrink the student housing supply even further.
The Government worry that students may rush into housing decisions too early. That may be true for some, but many students want to secure accommodation early to avoid the stress during exams. Many student tenancies begin in late summer, and students typically start looking well in advance. Limiting searches to up to six months before an August move-in means starting in February. Under the current proposals, properties may not be listed until much later in the year, forcing students to house-hunt during their final exams. That is not necessary, fair or workable. The Government should let students decide when they wish to sign the contract.
Without fixed terms and a workable ground 4A, students will face prolonged uncertainty, and it will be harder for them to plan, budget and study. We must also remember that eviction proceedings are exceptionally rare in this market. The problem is not landlords turfing students out but students facing unnecessary delays and stress when trying to secure accommodation. The current proposals simply do not address this reality.
Finally, Amendment 7 seeks to include apprentices in the definition of students. Like university students, they would benefit from a fixed-term tenancy aligned with their training periods, offering much-needed stability. I hope, having listened to the Government’s arguments in Committee, that they have reflected and that we can agree that it is only fair that apprentices and their landlords have access to the same arrangements as university students.
The Government have already made partial concessions, but now we need a principled and wholehearted attempt to preserve a functioning, fair and inclusive student rental market. Amendments 2, 5, 6 and 7 are constructive and proportionate. They reflect what is already working, they address what is currently broken, and they would help ensure that going to university remains a viable choice for young people across the country. I urge the Minister and the House to support these amendments. We would be minded to test the opinion of the House, for the reasons that I have underlined. I beg to move Amendment 2 in my name.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I declare once more my interest as a landlord who rents properties, often to students. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that I will not be jumping up and down on every group today, but I do want to challenge the quite obstinate prevention of fixed tenancies for students—and, importantly, groups of students—many of whom will be moving into their first home outside hall.
I want to outline some of the adverse consequences of this Bill if enacted unamended. It will reduce the supply of rental properties by discriminating against private landlords. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, speaking in the earlier group, seemed to fail to understand the dynamic effect: if landlords leave the market and there is lower supply, costs will rise and students will pay more.
It will reduce the choices of property available to students, because this Bill allows student tenancies only in halls of residence. This will not suit everybody. It reduces the choice of landlord. It favours the monopoly supplier—the institutional provider of halls of residence —rather than the private landlord. In my personal experience, my wife has become “mother”, so to speak, in particular to foreign students who have rented with us on their first time overseas. All that will be swept away, because institutional providers of student accommodation do not have that in their ambit.
It will create an overheated market in September, that is for sure, and—guess what?—that will cost more for students. It will also cause massive inconvenience for second-year and third-year students at university. I agree with my noble friend that this should not be just about universities; those with apprenticeships should also benefit from these amendments. But it means that second-year and third-year students will have to fly back. They may have got a work placement overseas. They will have to fly back early to try to secure a home when they could have sorted it out well before, in February or March.
The consequences of this Bill mean that it will be harder for friendship groups to get the certainty of a house with their friends. I have mentioned issues around clearing. The Bill will prefer established students from good backgrounds, with parents with sharp elbows, who understand and are able to transact draft contracts more quickly. It will aggravate the difficulty of getting guarantors lined up at pace.
It introduces protections for the current students— I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said in the previous group—but we need to balance that against the disadvantage to students one year behind, who also have rights and who also want to secure a place in their following year.
Students will be forced into these new student blocks. Some of them are really luxurious. There are cinema rooms and pizza places—the whole thing—but it is costing a fortune, and not everybody wants to go to that expense when they can make savings in the private market.
I spoke earlier about the importance of the fixed tenancy, which is a discipline that keeps everybody together and protects everybody’s interests. It is important that we dwell on this, particularly for students. Unlike in the wider private rented sector, where family relationships or other stronger forms of relationship exist, friendship groups at university can be more transient. We have spoken a lot already about the balance of power between tenant and landlord, but we should also consider the balance of power when someone in a friendship group in a house wants to cut and run, leaving his former friends high and dry. That is a real perverse situation that runs against natural justice and good order.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on students, and all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. As noble Lords will be aware, the proposals on student accommodation have been subject to great consideration and debate both inside and outside this Chamber and in the other place. I thank all those who have written to me, and I am sure to other noble Lords, on this subject.
Amendment 2 seeks to retain fixed-term tenancies for students living in private rented accommodation. I can only repeat that fixed terms serve only to lock tenants in. They oblige them to pay rent even if the condition of the property is poor, or if their circumstances change and they need to move out as a result. In the current system of fixed-term tenancies, we often hear of students who have dropped out of university but are still obliged to pay rent for their accommodation— I could mention some examples, but it is probably not appropriate to do so. This is not the right approach. We want all tenants, including students, from whichever demographic group they come from, to benefit from the increased security and flexibility that the Renters’ Rights Bill provides.
Students pay the same rent—often higher rents—as other tenants and so should have the same rights as everyone else. We have introduced a new possession ground to allow the cyclical nature of the student market to continue and to provide landlords with confidence. I recognise that the noble Baroness is trying to create parity between students in the private rented sector and those in purpose-built student accommodation, as their tenancies will be exempted from the assured system and landlords will be able to offer fixed-term tenancies. However, we have exempted purpose-built student accommodation from the assured tenancy system due to its unique business model. Often, PBSA cannot be let to non-students due to its location or the services it provides alongside accommodation.
We have also exempted this sector from the protections of the assured tenancy system because we are satisfied that the Unipol codes of management practice provide an alternative route to ensuring that tenancies are at a high standard. There is no such code for private student landlords, and it would be wrong to mirror the exemption.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who asked about monitoring—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt, but does the Minister accept that purpose-built student accommodation is for the more wealthy? Young people who are struggling to go to university will go with the private rented sector and not the expensive specific accommodation. Has she done any work on that, and does she realise that that is what is happening out there?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Students who take up accommodation should have the same rights as anybody else who is taking up accommodation. That is why we do not want to exempt from the benefits of the Renters’ Rights Bill students who want to rent in the private rented sector.
To come on to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about monitoring, we will monitor this element of the Bill, along with all aspects of it, and I will give noble Lords more detail about that—it comes up under a future set of amendments, but as he has asked the question, it is important to respond to it. We will evaluate the process, impact and value for money of the reforms in line with the department’s published Housing Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. The evaluation will involve extensive data collection through interviews, surveys and focus groups with a range of stakeholders, as well as trusted data sources. We will talk to tenants, landlords, letting agents, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the court service and government officials. I will say more about the court service later on, because, to some extent, that needs a much more immediate and dynamic monitoring process.
The primary data will be supplemented by monitoring data from existing surveys and new data produced by the reforms. Reports will be produced for publication approximately two and five years after implementation, in line with commitments made in the Bill’s impact assessment to publish findings. Therefore, they will be available for parliamentary scrutiny. It is important to say at this point that we want to make sure there is a process by which we can review the provisions in the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies to the noble Lord; that was probably my speedy reading rather than an omission on the part of the information I have—so, yes, I agree with him that this is part of the monitoring process.
Amendment 5 seeks to expand ground 4A, which allows students living in HMOs to be evicted in line with the academic year. It seeks to address the concerns of some noble Lords that the scope of the ground needs to be expanded to all student properties. It would remove the HMO restriction and allow students living in self-contained accommodation—one and two-bedroom properties for example—to be evicted each year. We have thought carefully about the design of ground 4A, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for also giving it great thought. We want to ensure the cyclical nature of the typical student market is maintained. We therefore believe limiting it to HMOs achieves this by capturing the bulk of typical students—that is, groups living in a house share. Meanwhile, students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with their children, or post-graduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area, will be protected.
The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A. Self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are also easier to let to non-students than student HMOs. I do not agree with the conspiracy theory that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, spoke about, but if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year, they are more likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants. That gives another way through for landlords.
On Amendment 6, noble Lords may remember that, in the Committee evidence session in the other place, it was highlighted that students are often pressured into signing contracts for the next academic year very early in the term, before they have had a chance to form stable friendships or assess a property’s proper condition and location. To discourage this practice, we amended the Bill to prevent landlords using ground 4A if they had agreed a tenancy more than six months in advance of tenants gaining the right to possession. This amendment seeks to extend this six-month limitation to allow landlords to sign tenancies up to nine months in advance. I am not convinced that this would be the right approach.
As I have highlighted, in many cases students are expected to commit to properties within just months of arriving at university, before having the opportunity to form lasting friendship groups or evaluate whether a property meets their needs in terms of condition or location. The purpose of this measure is to act as a strong disincentive to this practice, while striking the right balance. It avoids pushing students into signing tenancies before Christmas—when students are still settling in—but continues to allow flexibility for students who prefer to secure accommodation in advance of the summer period and does not interfere with typical exam periods. Extending this limit to nine months would undermine that balance and risk reinforcing the practice that this measure is intended to discourage; for example, tenants in a competitive market may be forced to search for tenancies starting in September during their January exam period.
Amendment 7 seeks to expand the student ground for possession, so that it can be used to evict a tenant undertaking an apprenticeship. While I understand the support for apprenticeships and share the noble Baroness’s wish to support people undertaking them, I do not believe that this would be the right approach. Ground 4A was created in recognition of the unique, cyclical nature of accommodation for those in traditional higher education. Those in other types of education, such as apprenticeships, are less likely to live in cyclical accommodation and need the security of tenure that the Bill gives tenants. Those on apprenticeship schemes, for example, earn a wage and tend to hope to stay at their company once the apprenticeship is completed; they live lifestyles much more akin to the working population than to university students. They will therefore benefit from all the increased security of tenure that the Bill will give them. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who have spoken; they have considerable interest in and knowledge of the sector. Having listened carefully to the debate, and given that the House has rejected the principle of fixed-term tenancies for all, I intend to withdraw Amendment 2.
On Amendment 6, concerning the timing of student tenancies, and Amendment 7, on expanding the definition of students, I recognise that there is sympathy for the concerns I have raised. However, I do not believe that there is enough support in the House to carry them; I will therefore not move those amendments.
Over the past number of months, we have listened to student organisations and universities across this country about the supply of student housing and the types of housing that students—of many different types—want to be made available in the sector. I have listened on the issue of monitoring, but I am worried that, when we eventually find out that it will have a detrimental effect on the sector, a cohort of young people will have suffered during that period of time. We do not think that is correct.
The other issue is around taking out certain types of accommodation from the sector. What will happen then? The rest of the accommodation will become more expensive for the students who need it. That concerns us as well.
There is an issue of capacity and supply in the market, and that remains very pressing. We believe that the Government’s response could have been better; it is pretty unconvincing. Therefore, we will test the opinion of the House on Amendment 5.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the restriction of Ground 4A to accommodation of three or more bedrooms only.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of the young people looking for student accommodation in the future at a reasonable rent, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the agricultural sector of this country and its workers are without doubt the lifeline of the nation. I therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his proposed amendments that make provision for agricultural landlords and workers, bringing the welfare of the agricultural sector into overdue consideration.
Today, the British agricultural industry contributes £14 billion to our economy and puts food on our plates three times a day. Agricultural landlords lie at the heart of this. They provide the means for this essential lifeline by providing on-site housing for workers who are required to be at hand to fulfil their duties 24 hours a day. From milking cows daily at three o’clock in the morning to delivering lambs throughout the night in the spring, on-site and proximity housing ultimately facilitates workers’ ability to produce the food on which we all depend. It is therefore crucial that we consider the effects of the Renters’ Rights Bill on these agricultural workers and, in the case of the Bill’s failure to protect their livelihoods, consider proposed amendments so that the Bill does not obstruct one of Britain’s lifelines.
As drafted, the Bill clumsily allows for occupants to remain in a dwelling house even if they no longer work for the landlord, which is usually the requirement for the occupancy of such housing. Similarly, as my noble friend Lord Roborough stated on 12 May, the wording of this Bill also does not allow for the possession of a house dwelling as long as the occupant remains in agricultural employment, with no indication as to the specific type of agricultural work that the occupant carries out, or whether proximity to certain facilities or animals is necessary.
This ultimately risks the deprivation of housing for current full-time workers, who may depend on the occupied dwelling house to be able to fulfil their duties, not to mention simultaneously risking the inability of the agricultural sector to function effectively, due to an inefficient proximity to work that this lack of provision may cause.
Amendments 8, 9 and 11 to 16 therefore ensure that such damage may be averted by allowing an agricultural landlord to possess their property for the use of their own full-time agricultural workers, and thus retain the efficacy that fuels this industry. Amendment 11 is particularly important, because our country’s modern agricultural industry is changing. One of those changes is that many of the employees are self-employed, particularly in jobs in the dairy industry and the sheep industry, where milkers and shepherds are often self-employed. So we will support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, if he moves his Amendment 11.
As previously emphasised, it goes without saying that the agricultural sector serves to provide for every one of us, and it is in the same vein that proposed Amendments 10 and 12 also serve. In the Bill’s current form, the absence of provision for service occupants overlooks the reality that many agricultural workers’ contracts express: the worker must live in a particular residence where they can better perform their duties. This is of particular relevance to the contracts of agricultural workers who, out of both duty and British custom, are often housed by their employer, who is also the landlord.
By allowing possession to be made for service occupants and key workers, in Amendments 10 and 12 the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rightly seeks to uphold the implements and customs that facilitate effective and key agricultural operations, and the welfare of agricultural employees. However, with the more comprehensive inclusivity entailed by service occupants and key workers, the amendments also make provision for workers in other vital sectors where similar contracts exist. These include, but are not limited to, the NHS, healthcare, education professionals and emergency service workers. With Amendments 10 and 12 in place, whether one of those key workers needs to rise in the early hours in the lambing season to check the ewes, or provide immediate care for an elderly person, or is putting out a fire, their crucial duties can be carried out only with the due expediency granted by their proximity and not if they are hindered by the limitations put in place by the Bill.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 8 and 9, et cetera, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about treating self-employed agricultural staff as full-time staff members on a farm for the purposes of the Bill. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill—probably the only time I am going to speak on the Bill—I declare my interest as a farmer and someone who has a dairy, because it is about dairies that I want to speak.
Cows have to be milked twice a day. It is not only from the point of view of the welfare of the farmer, and perhaps his or her bottom line, but from the point of view of the welfare of the cows. The cows have to be milked twice a day or they really suffer. Cows can actually die from not being milked, so it is really important that they are milked twice a day. Most dairy farmers now employ their dairymen or dairywomen— I am pleased to say there is a considerably greater number of women who are dairy farmers these days than in the past—through an agency, because it is the duty of the agency, if the dairyman suffers a heart attack or gets run over, or something terrible happens, to produce a dairyman literally the next day so the cows can continue to be milked. It really is very important for the welfare of the cows and the farm.
These staff, who are self-employed through an agency, are treated on the farm as part of the farm team. Although technically they are self-employed, they must be treated as being employed members of the farm for the purposes of the Bill. They usually occupy a vital house, probably close to the dairy. There is not only milking twice a day; a good dairy person has to spend two or three hours a day, in addition to the milking, watching their cows, seeing that their welfare is okay and they are in full health, and that their feet do not need treatment, and whether they are on heat. It is a really important role.
Although I am only speaking about dairy people, I am sure the same applies to herdsmen in a beef herd, or shepherds looking after a flock. The point is that these people are employed through an agency, therefore they are self-employed. It would really not be at all right—and I am talking about the welfare of the cows, apart from anything else—if these people were excluded from being treated as ordinary members of staff for the purposes of the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, on self-employed workers in the agricultural industry, has MHCLG discussed this issue with Defra? Defra would know how the industry has changed over the past years and how critical it is to have self-employed workers on specific jobs in agriculture. It is going to be very difficult for farmers, particularly livestock farmers, to manage in certain circumstances on the farm, as we have heard from the noble Lord opposite.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have not personally discussed the issue with Defra, but I am sure that officials in MHCLG will have done so, and—
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment retains the status quo, allowing landlords to begin recovering rent arrears after eight weeks—rather than thirteen—where rent is payable weekly or fortnightly, helping to reduce the build-up of rental and mortgage arrears.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to group 6 and to Amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name. These amendments concern the point at which rent arrears become a valid ground for possession, an issue of considerable importance to landlords and tenants alike. The most recent English Private Landlord Survey shows that 45% of landlords own a single rental property and a further 38% own between two and four. That means over four-fifths of landlords operate on a very small scale, far from the image of institutional landlords with deep financial reserves. These are individuals and couples, often retirees, who rely on rental income for their own stability. They form the backbone of our rental sector.
With that image in mind, I turn to the amendments in this group. Under the proposals in the Bill, landlords will be prevented from initiating possession proceedings for 13 weeks of arrears in the case of weekly or fortnightly rent, or three months where the rent is paid monthly. That is a significant extension from the current thresholds of eight weeks and two months, respectively. Amendments 18 and 19 in my name are not about undermining tenant protections—far from it; they are about retaining the status quo, which has for many years struck a workable balance between supporting tenants through temporary difficulty and allowing landlords to respond promptly when rent is not being paid. When landlords are prevented from acting until arrears have been built up to such a degree, the financial consequences can be severe, not only for landlords themselves but for tenants too, who may find the ultimate possession proceedings more inevitable and more traumatic as a result. Early intervention can help avoid escalation.
Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is fundamentally right in principle. Landlords who provide a private service in an open market in exchange for a fee should not be penalised for government failure. If the Government fail to make payments, that is not the fault of the landlord, and they should not be made to suffer as a result. Therefore, if the noble Lord was to test the opinion of the House on this issue, we would support it.
These amendments speak to a broader principle that must underpin this Bill—balance. Yes, we must protect renters from unjust eviction, but we must also enable landlords to operate viably, to maintain confidence in the sector and to continue providing the homes that so many people depend on.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendment 20 in this group and declare an interest as a former landlord. Amendment 20 was tabled in Committee, but I have retabled it because I do not feel I have had an adequate answer from the Government. The amendment would continue to permit rent arrears which arise from non-payment of universal credit to be taken into account as a ground for possession. Not to do so is unworkable and unfair.
Taking unworkable first, since this is the point which must surely concern the Minister, I suggest that it is unworkable because, unlike in the social sector, private landlords are not allowed to know, under data protection rules, whether a tenant is in receipt of universal credit. The Department for Work and Pensions is not allowed to tell them. As such, the landlord will have no idea whether rent arrears are due to a non-payment of universal credit and, unbeknownst to them, will be legally prevented from taking enforcement action. A landlord might discover that rent arrears were due to a delayed universal credit payment and therefore unenforceable only once the case reaches court, thereby piling yet further quite unnecessary pressure on the justice system. This creates significant uncertainty and risk for responsible landlords, particularly smaller landlords. Disregarding non-payment of universal credit is therefore completely unworkable. It will lead to unnecessary enforcement action, which is surely the last thing this new system needs.
Turning to why it is unfair, I ask why the landlord should be penalised if the non-payment of universal credit is the fault of the universal credit system breaking down in some way. This is especially problematic for landlords renting out just one or two properties who rely on timely payments to meet their own financial obligations. If the Government are serious about sustaining tenancies, then addressing the root causes of delayed benefit payments would be more effective. In other words, protecting tenants from administrative delays should be the job of the welfare system, not landlords. Otherwise, the upshot could well be that landlords will be much more cautious about taking on tenants on universal credit. Is that what Ministers really want?
In response to this amendment in Committee, the Minister told your Lordships on 24 April:
“It is important that tenancies that are otherwise financially sustainable should continue, with tenants protected from one-off financial shocks. For example, it is feasible that a tenant who lost their job and had to apply for universal credit could breach the arrears threshold while waiting for their first payment. Evicting that tenant and potentially making them homeless would not help the situation, whereas giving them chances to resolve the arrears would ensure that the tenancy could continue, benefiting both them and the landlord and ensuring that the landlord was able to claim the arrears once the payments were made”.—[Official Report, 24/4/25; col. 842.]
With great respect to the Minister, I cannot help feeling that this is slightly naive. Is it really of benefit to a landlord to ensure that the tenancy continues when a tenant has accrued three months’ worth of arrears and, in the process, may have seriously damaged the landlord’s financial position—for example, in being unable to support their family or unable to pay the mortgage and forced to take enforcement action? Why should landlords be penalised for the state’s failure to pay universal credit promptly?
Paragraph 24(d) of Schedule 1 should therefore be omitted. It is unworkable and unfair. If, however, the Minister continues to think that paragraph 24(d) is fair on landlords, can she at least give some assurance that they will have a way—notwithstanding the data protection rules—of finding out whether rent arrears are due to delays in payment of universal credit, so as to avoid clogging up the tribunal system with unenforceable claims?
I can help the noble Baroness here, because Section 16 of the Data Protection Act—a Henry VIII power, in fact—enables the Act to be amended so that the list of exemptions in Schedule 2 to that Act is expanded. It could be amended in that way by regulations to enable the landlord to know whether rent arrears are due to delays in universal credit. This would not deal with the fairness points I have made but would deal with the unworkability points. If the Minister were able to give the assurance that the tribunal system will not be clogged up with unenforceable claims, I would not press my amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments.
Amendments 18 and 19 seek to decrease the threshold for mandatory eviction under rent arrears, ground 8, from three months to two, or 13 weeks to eight where rent is paid weekly. I do not believe that this is the right approach. We have taken the decision to restore the threshold for mandatory evictions to the levels originally set by the party opposite in the Housing Act 1988 before they were reduced in the 1990s.
Three months, we believe, is the right balance. It gives landlords facing significant arrears certainty of possession, but allows tenants facing one-off financial shocks enough time to get their financial affairs in order and not lose their home if their tenancy is otherwise sustainable. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that ground 8 is a mandatory ground, but it is worth noting that mandatory eviction is not the landlord’s only route to possession. Landlords facing frequent arrears and late payment of rent that indicate an unsustainable tenancy can also pursue eviction via the discretionary grounds 10 and 11. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 20 seeks to remove a key protection for vulnerable tenants from the Bill. It would allow tenants to face mandatory eviction when they have breached the three-month rent arrears threshold due to not receiving a universal credit payment to which they are entitled. This would not be right. We want to protect those vulnerable tenants who have suffered a change of circumstances, such as redundancy or an accident, by helping them remain in their home. It would not be right for them to face another destabilising event by allowing landlords to evict them, potentially making them homeless because they are waiting to receive universal credit that is due to them. Not being able to pay their rent on time because they have not received universal credit they are entitled to does not mean that they are a bad tenant. It is right that these tenants are given time to resolve their arrears; it is also important that tenancies that are otherwise financially sustainable should continue. That will benefit both the tenant and the landlord.
We have heard concerns that landlords might face uncertainty in pursuing possession claims if they do not realise that arrears are caused by an outstanding benefit payment. That is subsequently used as a defence in possession proceedings. Of course, we would strongly encourage tenants and landlords to communicate; it is clearly in the tenants’ interest to explain their situation before the case reaches court. I note too that there is an element of uncertainty in any possession case, and this requirement is not unusual in that regard.
I have heard the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made about data access and I will take that back to the department. I hope he agrees that we are justified in our approach and that he will not move his amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments before us, in particular Amendments 18 and 19, seek to preserve a workable and fair framework that supports both tenants and landlords. The current thresholds, allowing landlords to begin recovery proceedings after eight weeks or two months of arrears, have stood the test of time because they offer a sensible compromise.
Moreover, early intervention is often in the best interests of tenants themselves. Addressing arrears sooner rather than later can prevent problems escalating to the point where eviction becomes unavoidable—a consequence that benefits no one. Our goal must be to craft legislation that is fair and balanced, which ultimately safeguards the rights of renters while ensuring stability for landlords.
Although it is imperative to safeguard tenants from unfair evictions, we must ensure that the protections do not inadvertently place landlords in an untenable position, thereby threatening the very housing supply we all seek. We will not put these amendments to a vote, but we think that Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, represents a very sensible improvement to this part of the Bill, and we will support him if he chooses to divide the House.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsWednesday 25th June 2025
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
We on these Benches support many of the Bill’s principles and ambitions, several of which build on work that we led in government during a period of record housebuilding. While not perfect, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act is a step forward, streamlining the planning system and focusing on local priorities. As a Minister, I recognised the urgent need for more homes, and I remain just as committed today to driving practical action to meet that need.
In 2019, the Conservative Party committed to delivering 1 million additional homes over the course of that Parliament. In 2024, before the general election, we delivered on that commitment. The Labour Party has now committed to delivering 1.5 million homes over this Parliament, and it is essential that it delivers on that manifesto commitment.
As the Bill progresses through this House, we will raise serious concerns: the removal of councillors’ voting rights on individual applications; sharply increased housing targets in rural areas, without sufficient protection for villages; the shift to strategic plans; and the questions over the deliverability of the 1.5 million homes target. That figure appears to be little more than the Deputy Prime Minister’s arbitrary aspiration. Announced in the other place without a road map, without detailed plans and, ultimately, without a credible delivery mechanism, the target lacks the very foundations required to make it achievable.
There are, quite rightly, widespread questions about the target’s deliverability, particularly in light of the February S&P Global UK Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index, which reports one of the sharpest monthly declines in housebuilding and construction on record. Furthermore, the joint report from Savills, the Home Builders Federation and the National Housing Federation estimated that the Secretary of State is likely to fall short of her target by as many as 500,000 homes.
Doubts about deliverability were only compounded by the recent spending review. The Chancellor’s announcement was heavily backloaded, with limited short-term impact; most of the uplift comes after 2030, with meaningful increases not projected until 2035-36. The headline figure, spread over a decade, goes beyond this Parliament and will have to withstand numerous fiscal events from a Government so often keen to change their mind.
There is, as yet, no formal multiyear budget commitment. It is a pledge, not a statutory allocation. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies put it, the £39 billion figure is meaningful only if future spending reviews confirm it. Even if the workable aspects of the Bill are able to deliver more homes, the Government must indicate how this funding will deliver their pledge in this Parliament.
The Bill also impacts our natural environment and rural communities. Later in this debate, my noble friend Lord Roborough will outline why, from these Benches, we view Part 3 of the Bill as a particular cause for concern. The proposed nature restoration levy may, to some sitting in an office in Whitehall, seem like a welcome simplification of the environmental conditions attached to the planning system. But in reality it appears to water down existing protections, and that is not a solution. The Official Opposition want to see the right homes in the right place, without weakening our position on nature restoration and appropriate environmental protections.
There are important questions that the Government must answer. What safeguards will ensure that the levy is proportionate to the environmental impact and does not simply become another tax or barrier to development? What is the expected timeline for implementing the environmental delivery plans, and have the Government factored in potential delays, including the possibility of judicial reviews? We look forward to the Minister’s reflections on these points. Our assessment is that it could take some years from Royal Assent before the environmental delivery plans begin to make a real-world impact. If the Government believe otherwise, we would welcome reassurances on this.
On outcomes, concerns persist. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management has warned that this system risks the immediate loss of natural capital, with any benefits only realised decades later. We hope the Government can provide greater confidence that this approach will deliver meaningful and timely results for the environment.
If the Government are now concerned with the issue of nutrient neutrality, perhaps I might draw their attention to the amendments we tabled during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Regrettably, the Government—then in opposition—chose to vote them down, thereby defeating the proposition. I would, of course, be more than happy to assist the Ministers by returning these amendments to the attention of the House, in the hope that even at this stage the Government might now reconsider their position.
Additionally, this Bill touches on the crucial area of energy. My noble friend Lord Offord will speak with authority on this subject later in the debate. However, I will briefly set out why we see it as so vital. The UK continues to face some of the highest electricity costs in the world, an issue that poses a serious barrier to growth. We therefore welcome commitments to energy infrastructure and support any measures that aim to reduce energy costs. This must go hand in hand with proper community consultation, particularly regarding the installation of overhead cables and new pylons. Finally, we must ensure that we are developing a diverse and resilient energy mix, one that provides stability and equips us to meet the challenges of an increasingly uncertain world.
On planning, the Minister is correct that we are deeply concerned about the proposed national scheme of delegation, which would remove councillors’ ability to vote on individual planning applications. Is the Minister not concerned about the systematic removal of layer upon layer of democratic oversight? Democratic accountability matters, especially when it comes to housebuilding. Local consent, legitimacy and trust are essential to deliver not just more houses but the right houses.
When local communities and their elected representatives have a meaningful role in the planning process, housebuilding is seen as something done with people, not done to them. Strip that away and you risk generating opposition, misdirecting development and ultimately building fewer homes. We want the right homes in the right places, and the Government need to bring communities with them if they are to deliver that. When communities are engaged and can see the shape and benefit of new housing, whether through affordable homes, infrastructure improvements or environmental safeguards, public support increases and delivery becomes more achievable.
We are particularly concerned at the proposed model of strategic planning. It could be—and is being—used to shift urban housing need into our rural areas. This is especially troubling in light of the disproportionately high increases in housing targets assigned to those rural authorities. The Secretary of State has raised the national housing target by 50%. Residents might reasonably expect that their local targets have increased by a similar amount, but that is far from the case. According to the House of Commons Library, in major urban conurbations, housing targets have risen by an average of 17%. In predominantly rural areas, they have increased by 115%.
To illustrate, London’s target is down 12%, Newcastle down 15%, Birmingham down 38% and Coventry down 55%. Meanwhile, Wyre Forest and New Forest have seen their targets doubled. Westmorland’s target has increased by almost 500%. This is neither fair nor sustainable. It erodes local trust and places significant pressures on our rural services, infrastructure and landscapes.
Worse still, it undermines the very reason we need more homes in the first place. High housing costs in major towns and cities act as a major barrier to interregional mobility. For low-income houses, households and renters, housing affordability creates a form of price lock-in, preventing them accessing areas with greater employment opportunities. If we are serious about boosting growth and supporting opportunity, we need the right homes in the right places. We need homes where opportunities are, and we need local representation to be involved in the process of building those homes. We therefore urge the Government to rethink this approach and to restore a meaningful role for democratic decision-making in the planning system.
From these Benches, we warmly welcome the Government’s greater emphasis on the local plans. A plan-led system is the right approach, and we recognise the effort to ensure that communities have a stronger voice in shaping development. However, we see opportunities to build on this. In particular, we would like to explore more ambitious support for small builders and self-builders, an important part of a diverse and resilient housing sector. The current 10% site allocation for such developments is a positive step, but we support the Federation of Master Builders’ suggestion that this could be increased to 20%. We also welcome consideration of an expanded role for Homes England in supporting microbuilders, who often face particular barriers to entry.
I turn briefly to the issue of grey belt. While we appreciate the intention to make better use of underused land, concerns remain about how these changes may impact the wider countryside, particularly village identity. Although this is not directly part of the Bill, it clearly interacts with the Bill, and we hope Ministers will continue to reflect on the balance between flexibility and long-standing protection of rural communities. There is also a risk of unintended urban sprawl. This would place significant pressure on our local infrastructure and services. We should prioritise the proper use of our existing urban centres, bringing empty properties back into use and supporting densification where appropriate to make the most of the space we already have.
Our aim in engaging with the Bill is not to obstruct its objectives but to contribute constructively to its success. We will bring forward amendments that are designed to strengthen the Bill’s ability to deliver well-designed, affordable homes, particularly for those on lower incomes and first-time buyers, while ensuring that local voices, rural character and environmental safeguards remain respected.
Social Housing
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord asked me that question, because regulators fall into my part of the departmental responsibilities. I am very aware of the concerns about the impact of gateway delays on investment decisions in high-rise and other projects. We are taking significant measures to address the challenges currently faced by the building safety regulator. We are exploring all options with the regulator to ensure that it is equipped for the high demand of applications. We have already provided additional funding to improve capacity at the BSR for building control caseworkers and in-house technical specialists, and we are working with it on a daily basis to make the system a bit slicker than it is now.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
In light of the findings of the report on transforming lives and balancing budgets, can the Minister say what urgent steps the Government are taking to address the chronic shortage of appropriate community housing for adults, particularly those with autism and learning disabilities? Will the department explore partnerships with private capital providers to scale up specialist supported housing without relying on new public capital?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
That is an important question, and we will see answers on the various specialist housing provisions in the housing strategy, which will be published later this year. The noble Baroness is right to point to the particular need for supported housing, which will be included in the strategy. We made some announcements this week on the national housing bank, which includes a partnership with the private sector to deliver housing; I refer noble Lords to the Written Ministerial Statement on that subject rather than going into the detail now. The noble Baroness is right that we will work with both public and private sector funding to deliver as much of the housing as we can, and the details of specialist housing will be included in the housing strategy.
Cladding: High-rise Buildings
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I will take my noble friend’s request forward. I am always happy to talk to colleagues across other government departments, and let me assure my noble friend that I am always happy to talk to him.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, last Saturday was the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and we send all our thoughts and prayers to the bereaved, the survivors and the communities of north Kensington. Can the Minister say when the £85 million earmarked for the regeneration of the Lancaster West Estate following the Grenfell Tower disaster is expected to be delivered—if it is still intended to be delivered at all?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Let me echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness in relation to the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The Government are committed to taking the next steps respectfully and carefully. We have accepted all the inquiry’s findings and will take action on all 58 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system to deliver safe, quality homes for everyone. I will write to the noble Baroness on the issue of funding.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsTuesday 17th June 2025
(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Holocaust 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)
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I am a simple sailor, but my thoughts are that, when they start work deep in the basement, would they please not use Navy or Army divers to do the work there but ensure that the money is paid by someone else?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise at Third Reading of this important Bill. I will not restate our position at length, but the Official Opposition support the Bill, which will take us another step closer to delivering on my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton’s historic commitment to build a lasting national memorial to the Holocaust.
We have made a solemn commitment never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust and to work to ensure that it will never happen again. Holocaust education is an essential part of our efforts to make good on those promises. It has been the policy of successive Conservative Governments that we need a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. This has the support of the Holocaust education organisations, including the Holocaust Centre North, the National Holocaust Museum, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust.
We were very pleased that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, was successful on Report. We feel strongly that the noble Lord’s amendment not only improves the Bill but is actually helpful to the Government. It is designed to ensure that the intentions of successive Governments are honoured once the memorial and learning centre have been established. We hope the Minister will be able to reassure us today, although we have heard no reassurance, that the Government will carefully consider the amendment. Can the Minister perhaps go further and tell the House whether he will make the case to his colleagues in government that the amendment should be accepted?
Finally, I would like to thank the Minister for his continued engagement throughout the progress of the Bill. It is a controversial piece of legislation and I am grateful to him for his approach when working with the Official Opposition Front Bench. I would also like to thank his officials, the House authorities who have supported an extremely long Report stage and all noble Lords who have contributed to the scrutiny process of the legislation. On something very personal, I would like to thank Henry in the Opposition office, who has so ably supported me through the passage of the Bill.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that I am not going to respond to all the contributions from the noble Lords. I think there are still some outstanding concerns, but let me reassure noble Lords who have them that, subject to the passage of the Bill in the other House and on to the statute book, there will be a process for people to put their representations, views and ideas forward about prospective future planning. I look forward to meeting in particular with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, to look at the nature, technicality and wording of his amendment.
Finally, I will make one last point to my noble friend Lord Hacking. I thought I would take it as a compliment when he described me as an ostrich. The noble Lord may not know that it is the fastest bird on land, with speeds of up to 70 kph; I wish we had used that speed in the passage of the Bill.
Chinese Embassy Development
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s own cybersecurity experts, Innovate UK, have warned about the threat to the city of London from the embassy. Even the Government of the United States and the Dutch Parliament have raised concerns about the presence of sensitive telecommunications infrastructure, especially cables, beneath the Royal Mint Court. Given the well-documented history of cyber-related and infrastructure-related intrusions linked to the Chinese state, does the Minister agree that planning permission should never have been granted to a Chinese embassy, for many reasons, including that the Royal Mint Court is adjacent to the Wapping Telephone Exchange, and it carries highly sensitive information?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I answer the specific question from the noble Baroness, may I update the House? The inspector’s report was received on 10 June by the department. Parties have been notified a decision will be made on or before 9 September 2025. As the report has just been received, we have not yet begun to assess the case. The inspector’s report will form part of the final decision and will be released alongside it. Until that point, neither the recommendation nor the report will be made public. I hope that update is helpful to noble Lords.
Turning to the noble Baroness’s question, because we now have the report and we will be considering it, it would not be helpful to comment on any specific security issue raised in the application while it is under active consideration by the department. However, all decisions that come before Ministers are subject to examination by an independent planning inspector, usually through a public inquiry. The planning inspector then provides an evidence-based recommendation, setting out full reasons for that recommendation. The inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national policy, which is likely to include a wide variety of material planning matters that may include safety and national security.
On the specific issue of cybersecurity, as I have said, no decision has been made on the case. Ministers will come to a decision based on the material planning considerations I have referred to, in line with the established process that these cases follow.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsWednesday 11th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Holocaust 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)
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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, 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—
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.
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?
Holocaust Memorial Bill
Baroness Scott of Bybrook ExcerptsWednesday 11th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Holocaust 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)
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.
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.
Elections: Political Party Spending
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that this is a very important area. There are strict rules relating to unincorporated associations and the political contributions they make, including transparency requirements when making significant political donations. Currently, donations from unincorporated associations make up some 4.6% of the value of all reported permissible donations, but there is a risk there and it is very important that we take it seriously. As already stated, our department is developing policy proposals to meet manifesto commitments. As part of this, we are exploring recommendations from key stakeholders, including many that were made relating to unincorporated associations.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, during the passage of the National Security Bill, the last Conservative Government gave a commitment to this House to introduce voter information-sharing powers between relevant agencies and with political parties to help identify irregular sources of money. Why have the Labour Government done nothing to deliver on this sensible proposal? Is it not in the Labour Party’s best interests that it is given the heads-up, if it is taking money yet again from Chinese spies?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not think it at all helpful, when we are discussing an important issue concerning electoral law, to be throwing around political accusations about where the money has come from, because all parties have evidence of what other parties have done. We have to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves, and we have to work on what our strategy is. Information-sharing is, of course, a very important part of what we are doing. I can assure the noble Baroness that, when we come to the strategy in the summer, information-sharing will play a key role in that.