Social Housing

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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 Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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 Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

We have had the advantage of getting advice from the CST, a former commissioner and existing senior police officers. It is not unreasonable to look at the balance of those things. I do not think that voting against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is voting against the legitimate questions he is asking; I just feel that we can arrive at this through a different route.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

Elections: Political Party Spending

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I would not take quite such a harsh view as my noble friend. On how the Government respond to the industry, there is a big industry here and we know that, as a result of the national code having to be withdrawn, it produced an update to the industry code, so the industry is trying to do something towards regulating itself, which we should commend. We will take account of that industry code when we draw up the national code to deliver better protections for motorists. My noble friend is quite right that we must make sure that the worst practices are dealt with, and the code will aim to make sure that they are.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister outline the Government’s primary objectives for yet another consultation on private parking? What specific insights and further evidence do they hope to get from this? As she said, we have had two consultations on this already by the previous Government, and this seems to be another just waste of time, rather than getting this thing settled.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I understand Members’, motorists’ and the parking organisations’ frustrations, but the legal challenges that came forward in June 2022 relied heavily on the fact that there had not been proper consultation. That is why we need to make absolutely sure that we do it properly this time.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey raises an important and timely issue: the need to revisit and update the designation of rural areas for the purposes of the right to buy. The proposal is clear. It would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act passing, to revoke rural area designations for parishes where the population now exceeds 3,000 people, based on the 2021 census. The rationale is that, as we have heard, some areas that were once small villages have grown significantly and may no longer meet the criteria originally used to justify rural protections under the scheme.

We recognise the logic behind this approach. Designations made years ago may no longer reflect the current character of certain parishes, and it is only right that we review such classifications to ensure that they are based on accurate and up-to-date information. However, while we understand the intention behind the amendment, we believe that a more considered and locally informed approach is needed. First and foremost, this should be done in consultation with local authorities, which are best placed to assess not just the population figures but the broader housing context within their communities. A numerical threshold alone does not tell us whether a parish still functions as a rural settlement, nor whether it has the capacity to replace any lost social housing.

Indeed, we would argue that the conversation should be based not solely on population size but also on the number of homes in the settlement, specifically the number of affordable or social homes available, and the prospects for building more. In many villages, even those with more than 3,000 residents, the opportunity to build new homes, let alone new affordable ones, is extremely limited. Planning constraints, infrastructure challenges and community sensitivity all contribute to a situation where, once a home is sold under right to buy, it is unlikely to be replaced. That is why the protection of the existing social housing stock is so vital in these areas. Without it, we risk hollowing out rural communities, pricing out local families, draining the workforce and diminishing village life.

While we support the principle of ensuring that designations are kept up to date, we believe that any such change must be grounded in a wider understanding of rural housing dynamics. This means not just reviewing census data but supporting councils to update and verify housing data and allowing for flexibility where a parish may meet the population threshold but still faces acute rural housing pressures. This is not simply a technical matter of numbers; it goes to the heart of how we preserve the character and sustainability of rural communities. Let us ensure that any change to rural designation is made with care, with consultation and with full awareness of its consequences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, before I make my comments on the noble Baroness’s amendment, I hope that the House will indulge me for a few brief moments as we start our final day in Committee on the Renters’ Rights Bill. First, let me say how noticeable it has been that, while we may have debated and occasionally had our differences on the detail of the Bill, there has been a great deal of consensus across the House on the need to improve the renting landscape for tenants and for the vast majority of good landlords. Those landlords who choose to exploit their tenants and game the system not only make their tenants’ life a misery but undercut and damage the reputation of others. It is time that we took the steps in this Bill to put that right.

The Bill has shown the best of our House, with noble Lords providing their expertise, knowledge, wisdom and thoughtful reflection to improve the legislation before us. I am most grateful for the engagement before and during the passage of the Bill. We have had some unusual and difficult sitting hours on the Bill, largely because of other business of the House and in no way because of unnecessary or lengthy contributions to our deliberations. I therefore thank all noble Lords for their patience and good humour during late sittings. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, on the Opposition Front Bench, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, not to mention noble friends on my own Benches for a deal of passion and enthusiasm.

I thank the Bill team, my private office and the doorkeepers and staff of the House, including the clerks and catering staff, who have stayed, sometimes into the early hours, to make sure we are all safe and looked after, and the Hansard team, of course, doing their brilliant work. I thank the usual channels, which have been negotiating to make sure we complete Committee in good time. Last, and by no means least, I thank my Whip, my noble friend Lord Wilson, who is not in his place today but who has sat patiently beside me, sometimes carrying out extreme editing of my speeches. I forgive him for that—he did not get his hands on this one—and I am very grateful to him.

There are millions of renters and landlords out there who are awaiting the passage of the Bill to ensure that the renting minefield is fairer, safer and more secure. As we move forward to Report in early June, I look forward to continuing to engage and work with your Lordships to make sure that this is the best Bill it can be. In the meantime, thank you for making my first time taking a Bill through the House such a collaborative and positive experience.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her Amendment 275B to revoke the designation of parishes as rural areas for the purposes of right to buy where the population exceeds 3,000 people. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to revoke the rural designation of any parish with over 3,000 inhabitants for the purposes of right to buy. It would not have any impact on the right to acquire housing association property in rural areas. I have to say that this amendment is a bit of a stretch for the scope of the Bill, but it is important that I should respond to the noble Baroness’s concerns.

Under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985, the Secretary of State has the power to designate by order certain areas as rural—typically, settlements with populations under 3,000. A landlord in a rural area may impose restrictions on the buyer of a right to buy property, to prevent the property being sold again, without the former landlord’s consent, other than to a local person or back to the landlord. The noble Baroness’s amendment would remove the ability of landlords to include resale restrictions on properties sold under right to buy in those designated rural areas where the population was above 3,000, which currently helps preserve homes for local people in perpetuity. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is quite right to say that, if we were going to make any changes to this, it would have to be done very carefully, and definitely in consultation with local people and local authorities.

These exemptions are in place to help retain affordable housing in communities where replacement can be unfeasible due to high build costs, planning limitations and land availability. We have heard much about that in the discussion on this and other Bills and the Government do not intend to remove these protections. On this basis, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 275C in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. I apologise to noble Lords that this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill. I thank my noble friend for tabling this amendment, for a number of reasons: first, as someone who, as a result of injury, has had to be far more reliant on the mobility aid that is my wheelchair than is usual; secondly, because I recognise that one’s disability and resulting need to use a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair, does not change simply because one happens to be a tenant; thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, because it gives me the opportunity to bring to the House’s attention a real-life example which I hope will underline the amendment’s importance.

I should declare an interest. The example I give concerns a person I know—an eminent solicitor with an international law firm who has become severely disabled in adulthood as a result of a condition called Stickler syndrome. For those noble Lords not familiar with this condition—I confess that I was not—common symptoms include vision problems such as near-sightedness and retinal detachment, hearing loss and joint problems such as hypermobility and arthritis. In this individual’s case, it is extremely painful and debilitating and has required extensive surgery, including within the last six months. Remarkably, she is still holding down a demanding job.

However, her suffering is being unnecessarily and even gratuitously compounded by the concerted and blatant disability discrimination she is encountering from HAUS Block Management and the right-to-manage company covering the development in which she lives. This disability discrimination relates directly to her use, as a long-term tenant, of her mobility aids in her rented dwelling, which includes a courtyard garden that she shares with other residents. The amendment refers to a reasonable request from a tenant to install mobility aids in the dwelling. Her request is undoubtedly reasonable, but the irony is that she is not asking for an installation. All she is asking for is the right to use her mobility aids in a courtyard garden, which is part of the dwelling.

There are two aids on which she depends for her mobility to live independently and get to work. Recent deterioration in her condition has necessitated the increased use of a wheelchair and increased visual impairment has required the use of an affectionate, intelligent and furry mobility aid. I refer of course to her adorable, but ageing, canine companion, without which she would immobile and could not function: her guide dog.

The amendment is so important to this individual and other disabled people in her situation—perhaps to an even greater degree than my noble friend appreciated when she tabled it—because despite my friend being a lawyer and having engaged in writing with HAUS and the RTM to explain her legal rights in relation to step-free access to the garden for her guide dog and her wheelchair, all her appeals for kindness, help and basic human empathy have been met with disdain. I know this because I have here in the Chamber a copy of her email correspondence with HAUS and the directors of the RTM. It is a damning indictment of how the rights enshrined in disability discrimination and equality legislation—on which your Lordships’ House has done so much brilliant work over the years to pass—are being traduced by organisations such as HAUS and the RTM. What a sad reflection on society that this could happen in plain sight in 2025, the 30th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act. It is heartbreaking—quite literally, in the case of this individual. Her condition is by its very nature isolating. HAUS, her RTM directors and her neighbours know that, and yet they give the impression that they are waiting for her to die, and their callous indifference adds to that sense of isolation.

What is to be done? It would be so easy for the chief executive of HAUS, Gareth Martin, to facilitate the speedy resolution of this situation by ensuring that the RTM directors act in accordance with her rights and with compassion, and that a key was provided, on a permanent and unrestricted basis, to the courtyard garden—which happens to be next to my friend’s apartment—so that she could use her mobility aids in it. As Guide Dogs has explained to in an email to HAUS and the RTM directors, this is vital for the welfare of both her ageing service dog—her mobility aid—and the individual herself.

She is being undeniably persecuted for having the temerity to assert her rights, in a way that would be totally unacceptable were it to be carried out on the grounds of race, for example. Incredibly, as if to add insult to injury, the individual has also been told that a few flowerpots, which contain plants for sensory stimulation and provide her with the very few flashes of colour she can still just about discern, must be removed.

In conclusion, will the Minister meet me so that we can explore how we might persuade HAUS and the RTM to respect this individual’s rights with regard to her mobility aids, in line with the spirit of this amendment? Can directors of companies be struck off, for example, for engaging in what is obviously wilful disability discrimination? If not, how can we ensure that they are? Perhaps their appalling behaviour could be brought to the attention of the relevant regulators—I cannot imagine their clients would be impressed. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I reiterate my deep gratitude to my noble friend for tabling such an important amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling this amendment. I also pay my heartfelt thanks to my noble friend Lord Shinkwin; he always brings enormous knowledge and so much personal experience to any debate, as he has done today.

We briefly discussed support for disabled tenants in an earlier group, and we on these Benches firmly support steps to help disabled tenants access the homes and services they need. With the appropriate support, disabled people can live more fulfilled lives and thrive. We have come so far in recent years on support for disabled people to live full and happy lives in their own homes, so I am grateful to my noble friend for moving this important amendment today.

Amendment 275C seeks to prevent landlords and agents declining reasonable requests by tenants who need mobility aids to have them installed. It is a limited amendment that applies only where a tenant can arrange for the payment and installation of the aids themselves. This is an excellent challenge to the Government and we hope that the Minister will seriously consider this proposal and work with my noble friend to deliver the protections we need for disabled tenants. Perhaps this is something that we could revisit on Report.

We also wish to work constructively with my noble friend on how we might consider broader plans to ensure that the removal of mobility adaptions is deliverable, affordable and—crucially—even possible in practice. This is a vital area that demands serious attention from the Government, and the onus is on everyone across the Committee to put forward practical and compassionate solutions that recognise the real-world challenges faced by landlords and tenants alike around adapted homes. We need to look further at who would be responsible for covering the costs of restoring the changes to the original condition of the property. There is some more work to do, but I am sure that we can all do it before Report, and I look forward to working with the other parties to see whether we can find a sensible solution to the issue. We must ensure that any policy in this area supports accessibility, while remaining realistic and fair to all parties concerned.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her Amendment 275C, which seeks to prevent landlords, or any other relevant person in relation to a tenancy, unreasonably refusing a tenant request to install a mobility aid in their home. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their contributions.

We debated in detail similar amendments on home disability adaptations last week. As I stated then, I absolutely agree that we should take steps to remove barriers that unreasonably prevent disabled renters getting the home adaptations they need—a need so powerfully described by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin; I will write to him about the routes to redress in cases such as the one he raised.

However, I do not believe that this amendment is the right way to do this. The Equality Act 2010 already provides protections for disabled tenants, and that applies whether they are in social rented or private rented housing. This includes providing a procedure under which they can request permission in writing from their landlord to make adaptations, including additions to or alterations in the fittings and fixtures of the home, such as mobility aids.

Landlords cannot unreasonably refuse such requests. Creating a new specific obligation in relation to mobility aids in particular would increase the complexity of the system unnecessarily, making it more difficult for tenants to navigate. We also wish to avoid creating a two-tier system in which people with impaired mobility have different rights from people with other disabilities or impairments.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for introducing this amendment, because it gives me an opportunity to update noble Lords. There was a lot of discussion about this in the other place during the passage of the Bill. There have been some further commitments, and these were set out in a recent letter from the Minister of State for Housing and Planning to the MPs who tabled amendments in the other place. The letter stated that the Government would take the following actions to address known barriers to disabled tenants accessing the home adaptations they require.

With the leave of the Committee, I will update Members on that now. As highlighted in research carried out by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the National Residential Landlords Association, a major challenge to the operation of the current system is the lack of knowledge among landlords, tenants and agents. The Renters’ Rights Bill includes the power to require landlords to provide a written statement of terms to new tenants. It is our intention, subject to drafting and scrutiny of the secondary legislation to mandate that this statement sets out the duty on landlords under the Equality Act 2010 to not unreasonably refuse disability adaptation requests from tenants. This will ensure that parties are aware of rights and obligations in relation to adaptations when they enter into a tenancy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Perhaps I may offer the briefest of comments. At the risk of being struck by lightning: on the seventh day, the Lord rested. Let us hope we all get some rest soon.

I mention two words: equilibrium and scramble. Equilibrium is what we all seek, but it is a fact of life that one woman’s equilibrium may be different to another woman’s equilibrium. The perpetual life of politics is trying to find an equilibrium between different viewpoints. Regarding scramble, there will be a scramble whenever this comes in, and that is not a reason to put it off.

We touched on the database yesterday. There are bits of the Bill that will come in more slowly, but Section 21, to echo the point from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, will definitely go. If the Bill achieves nothing else, Section 21 will go.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who, as always, so passionately opened this group. I thank him for all his knowledge and particularly the passion that he brings on anything to do with homes, homelessness and vulnerable people.

The noble Lord’s Amendments 278, 286 and 291, along with others in his name, would bring the majority of the Act into force on the day it receives Royal Assent, save for a few areas requiring further regulation or consultation. We on these Benches have consistently urged the Government to not take this approach. We have called on them to reaffirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This is essential to protect both tenants and landlords from abrupt and potentially unfair changes.

A phased approach would allow landlords, tenants and letting agents time to understand and adapt to the new legal framework. Commencing the Act immediately upon passage does not provide sufficient time to do this. We simply cannot expect landlords to react and comply with significant new requirements on day 1. Indeed, the evidence bears this this out. In a recent survey conducted by Paragon, 57% of landlords said they had heard of the legislation but did not fully understand its implications, and a further 39% said they knew little about it. Those statistics point clearly to a knowledge gap in the market—one that we must not ignore. Therefore, we believe that a clear transition period is necessary.

Amendments 281, 287, 288 and 289, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, present a credible and constructive challenge to the Government’s current position. They propose a model that echoes the approach taken by the predecessor to the Bill—an approach grounded in prospective lawmaking. Phase 1 in that Bill would have applied the new rules only to new tenancies with at least six months’ notice, and phase 2 would extend the rules to existing tenancies no less than 12 months later. This two-phase model provides a reasonable and practical path forward, allowing time for proper education, preparation and implementation. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on these proposals and to recognise the importance of a fair and orderly transition.

We all agree that tenants deserve safe, secure and decent homes at a fair price, but to deliver that we need a functioning rental market with enough good-quality homes to meet growing demand. We need more homes in the right places. This Bill, regrettably, puts that in danger. Rather than boosting supply, it risks driving landlords out of the market, shrinking the number of available homes and pushing rents even higher. If we get this wrong, renters will pay the price. Balance is essential. At present, we believe this Bill does not strike that balance.

Before I sit down, I thank and congratulate the noble Baroness on how she has conducted the first Bill that she is taken through Committee, and all noble Lords who have taken part in excellent, well-informed debates over the past seven days. I look forward to Report.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and my noble friend Lord Hacking for their amendments relating to the commencement of measures in the Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Cromwell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, for participating in this group.

I turn to Amendments 278, 282, 286, and 291 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I add my tribute for all the work he does to tackle homelessness. He is a great hero of mine, and it is a great privilege to work with him. The noble Lord rightly notes the importance of ending Section 21, which is a major contributor to homelessness levels in England and a major cost to councils, which now spend more than £2 billion a year on temporary accommodation. That was the last full year’s figure. I heard that £4 million a day is currently spent on homelessness in London. Much of that is driven by Section 21 evictions. As well as the misery created for individuals and families, these evictions put pressure on the public purse and costs that would be much better spent on other public services.

These amendments seek to bring most of the measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill forward to Royal Assent. The Government agree with the noble Lord that the measures in this Bill are urgently needed, which is why we moved swiftly to introduce it early in our first legislative programme for government. To end the scourge of Section 21 evictions as quickly as possible, we will introduce the new tenancy for the private rented sector in one stage. On that date, the new tenancy system will apply to all private tenancies. Existing tenancies will convert to the new system, and any new tenancies signed on or after that date will be governed by the new rules. There will be no dither or delay, and the abolition of Section 21, fixed-term contracts, and other vital measures in the Bill will happen as quickly as possible.

However, we must do this in a responsible manner, as noble Lords have mentioned. We are therefore also committed to making sure that implementation takes place smoothly. As such, it is essential that wider work around the Bill is allowed to conclude before implementation takes place. That includes the production of guidance, updating court forms and making secondary legislation. For example, the information that landlords are required to give tenants in the written statement of terms will be set out in secondary legislation. Work is already under way on these matters. We need to get it right. We will appoint the date of implementation via secondary legislation, which is typical when commencing complex primary legislation. This will allow us to give the sector certainty about when the system will come into force. Relying on Royal Assent would create significant uncertainty around the specific date, and it is important that we do not do that.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, that I was lucky enough to benefit from the post-war Labour Government’s drive to build social housing so, although I could have done, I did not grow up in the kind of housing that he described. Our social housing was built in new towns, and that was the last time that social housing was built at any scale in this country. We have promised that again, and have committed £2 billion to social and affordable housing. So the noble Lord has my personal commitment that we will move this forward as quickly as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, talked about the speed of legislation. I have been a Minister for only a few months but I am already learning the frustration of time lags. I thought that councils move a bit too slowly at times, but we certainly need to move things forward more quickly. Of course, this is not just about legislation; we are trying to move on housing at some speed. We have already provided funding to improve construction skills, funding for planning officers, a new National Planning Policy Framework, over £500 million for homelessness and the social housing funding that I have already mentioned. We understand that this needs to be moved forward quickly. We will work as quickly as we can on that. As such, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Gypsies and Travellers are an important part of Britain’s population, heritage and social fabric. Providing well-designed, good-quality, managed sites for these groups supports healthy and happy communities, and addresses wider determinants of health, education and employment. This is not solely the realm of housing. Other public services should care about this issue too, including public health, children’s services and others, because the symptoms flowing from a lack of quality accommodation end up presenting in schools, hospitals, welfare services and prisons. As a business case, the delivery of appropriate sites has been shown to save public money from being spent on endless evictions from unauthorised encampments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed. This is what makes this House so good at these sorts of debates, because expertise from all parts of this debate has been shown today.

These amendments draw attention to the housing circumstances of non-traditional tenures, in particular residential boat dwellers, mobile home residents and members of the Travelling communities. These are individuals and families whose housing arrangements, as we have heard, do not always align neatly with the frameworks established for the private rented sector.

The amendments in this group, most notably those from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, raise legitimate questions, from the proposal to classify mooring fees and site fees as rent, to calls for formal reviews on how this legislation impacts riverboat dwellers, mobile home residents, and Gypsy and Traveller communities. The amendments ask us to think carefully about the scope and reach of the Renters’ Rights Bill. We on these Benches recognise that individuals living in houseboats, in mobile homes and on Traveller sites often face unique vulnerabilities, and we must be cautious not to exclude them from appropriate protections.

At the same time, it is essential that we examine whether the legislative instruments proposed in the Bill are the right fit for these circumstances, or whether we risk introducing unintended consequences for landlords, licensing authorities, the Canal & River Trust, which manages our waterways, or even the residents themselves. One of the questions here is whether the current legal definitions, such as “dwelling house” and “rent”, are suitable for application to mobile structures or moorings, as we have heard. However, we must also consider the interests and views of different Traveller communities. Have the Government undertaken proper consultation with these communities? Do they, in fact, want to be brought into the scope of this legislation, and on what terms? We must avoid legislating for communities without engaging with them first.

As we have heard today, particularly from my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, these amendments do not seek sweeping or immediate change—rather, they propose reviews and clarifications—but even the suggestion of classifying moorings or site fees as rent could trigger significant changes to how the law treats these tenures. This could introduce unintended complexity for landlords, many of whom are small-scale, and lead to disputes where the legal framework is unclear or even inapplicable. More work needs to be done on this issue, in our opinion. As my noble friend said, that has already been promised by the Government. Finally, we must ask whether there is a clear and compelling case for bringing these non-traditional tenures within the scope of the legislation, or whether doing so risks creating unintended consequences for both the tenants and the landlords.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I first express my appreciation for starting these debates at a reasonable time today. We have been getting later and later, so I am very pleased. I hope that we finish them at a reasonable time as well.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for their amendments relating to non-traditional tenures, and all who have contributed to this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in saying that it shows the best of this House when you get expertise like that from across the Chamber, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller, Lady Bakewell and Lady Warwick, the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, herself.

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have amendments in this group for their very helpful engagement on the issues they raised. Before I give my responses to the amendments, I say that I truly understand the frustrations felt by both of them, and those on whose behalf they speak, that these issues have not been addressed by successive Governments. Although I do not believe the Bill is the vehicle to address those issues, as I expect they will have anticipated from our meetings, I will continue to work with them to seek appropriate solutions to the issues they have raised.

I turn first to Amendments 206A, 262 and 271, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I thank the noble Lord for raising concerns about difficulties faced by houseboat owners in general and the houseboat owners in Chelsea who he has talked to me about in the past. Amendment 206A would give those who own or rent a houseboat and use the boat as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. Although occupants of residential boats may benefit from some protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and some wider consumer protection legislation, the Government recognise that they do not enjoy the same level of tenure security as those in the private rented sector.

However, the Renters’ Rights Bill focuses on the law relating to rented homes, not owner-occupiers, and the tenancy reform measures in Part 1 focus on the assured tenancy regime, which applies to most private renters in England and relates to residential buildings. The assured tenancy regime does not apply to houseboats or other moveable property—an issue to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred in his intervention. Those in rented houseboats will have a licence to occupy the boat and will fall outside the assured tenancy regime that the Bill is concerned with.

Specifically on Amendment 262, as houseboats are predominantly owner-occupied—I understand that some are rented but they are mostly owner-occupied—and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, it is therefore unlikely that a review of the impact of the Bill’s provisions would provide significant new insights into the issues affecting houseboat owners. Additionally, bringing houseboats within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 271, would raise fundamental and complex issues, about which I will explain a bit more in a moment, including what security of tenure means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for moorings owners and navigation authorities might be.

The policy and legislative implications would be far-reaching and there would be a high chance of unintended consequences, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures in the Bill that are before the Committee today. On that basis, although I am very sympathetic to the noble Lord’s aims, I cannot support these amendments as they stand.

The Government will, however, continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about houseboats that the noble Lord has rightly and powerfully helped to highlight. The issues and history raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, illustrated some of the complications in resolving these issues. I will add that providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require engagement with a range of stakeholders, including more than 20 navigation authorities and the owners of land adjoining waterways, and that is just part of the complication here.

I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said there was a working group 19 years ago in which my noble friend Lady Smith took part. I can say only that we have not been in government for the last 14 years so it has been difficult to move any of this forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, referred to security of tenure. As I said, providing additional security of tenure to houseboat owners would require the engagement of those navigation authorities and owners of land, and other users of waterways will have different needs and requirements that would also need to be taken into account. Security of tenure under the Housing Act 1988 applies to tenancies of buildings and land, so would not be suitable for licences to occupy boats without significant amendment. To bring rented houseboats within the scope of the legislation would require a detailed assessment of the implications for the assured tenancy regime and the changes being introduced through the Renters’ Rights Bill and other legislation that refers to it, and, as I said before, a high chance of unintended consequences.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to unfair practice on mobile home sites. My email inbox indicates very much what some of those complications are, but I will talk about the mobile homes amendments now.

I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her work to ensure that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community has a safe and secure place to live. I have had a number of conversations with my noble friend since I joined this House, and she knows that I share her concerns about some of the issues that she raises. She and I have had many discussions about this, particularly about the standards of communal facilities provided on sites occupied by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. We understand the concerns and will continue to engage with parliamentarians and stakeholders on the complex issues about standards on those sites. For those sites owned and operated by local authorities, there is of course recourse both to the local authority’s complaints system and, if that is not successful, to the Local Government Ombudsman, although I appreciate that there are some unique difficulties for those communities in accessing those routes.

Amendment 206B would give those who own a caravan and use it as their main residence the same rights under Part 1 of the Bill as renters of residential buildings. That would include those who already have protections under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. For similar reasons to those that I have already set out in my response to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, while I am sympathetic to the difficulties faced by mobile home owners, a different approach to addressing those difficulties is necessary from that proposed by this amendment. There would be a high risk of unintended consequences if an attempt were made to extend rights under Part 1 of the Bill, which is about rented homes, to mobile home owners.

The noble Baroness mentioned that the Mobile Homes Act 1983 confers on mobile home pitch agreements the key characteristics of a tenancy, rather than merely a licence to occupy. While there may be some similarities between the terms implied by the 1983 Act and the terms of certain tenancy agreements, the fact remains that those occupying pitches on caravan sites only have a licence to occupy the pitch. They have no interest in the land, and there would still be no intention by the site owner to create a tenancy between the parties. Moreover, the pitch agreement does not relate to the occupation of the mobile home itself, just the pitch on which it stands. In that sense, a pitch agreement and a secure or assured tenancy are fundamentally different types of agreement. To bring those with Mobile Home Act 1983 agreements within the scope of the assured tenancy regime, as proposed by Amendment 206B, would raise fundamental and complex issues, including what “security of tenure” means in relation to a chattel as opposed to land, and what the potential implications for caravan site owners might be.

Amendment 275A would commit the Government to carrying out a review of the implications of not extending the provisions of the Act to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. Again, while I am most sympathetic to my noble friend’s aims, I cannot support the amendment as mobile homes are predominantly owner-occupied and do not fall within the assured tenancy regime, which the Renters’ Rights Bill is largely focused on. However, I understand and will further consider her points about the amenity blocks and how those issues may be addressed.

In addition, as the Renters’ Rights Bill is focused on the law relating to rented homes, it is unlikely that a review of the impact of the provisions in the Bill will provide significant new insights into the issues affecting mobile home owners. The Government’s priority is to ensure the smooth and successful implementation of the measures that are before the Committee today.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

206C: Clause 64, page 98, line 22, leave out subsection (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why definitions which determine who is subject to housing laws, rights, and responsibilities can be amended by regulations.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this group contains just one amendment, Amendment 206C, which stands in my name. This amendment probes why definitions that determine who is subject to housing laws, rights and responsibilities can be amended by regulation. This is yet another part of the Bill that is subject to change at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Definitions in law are important. In this instance, the ability to change the definition of “private landlord”, “relevant tenancy” and “dwelling” for the purposes of determining which tenancies fall within the scope of the landlord redress scheme and the PRS database is a significant and fundamental power. Will the Minister say why the Government have sought to grant themselves this power through the affirmative procedure rather than through primary legislation? If the intent of these regulations is merely to clarify the position of superior landlords in certain circumstances, surely such clarification is best achieved through a full parliamentary process, one in which your Lordships’ House and the other place can explore the specifics and nuances of niche tenures such as student accommodation or temporary lets.

The Government have committed to lay these regulations as soon as possible following Royal Assent. We are aware that there are to be no transitional arrangements included in the Bill. In previous debates, we urged the Government to reconsider this approach and affirm their long-standing commitment to prospective lawmaking by providing clear commencement dates and reasonable transition periods for all new obligations. This would help protect both tenants and landlords from the risks associated with abrupt and unfair change. However, the Government were clear that they did not share this view. Despite that, can the Minister confirm when these regulations might come into force? Importantly, how are they going to be communicated to the affected parties given the absence of transitional arrangements? Like many aspects of this Bill, this provision is concerning, particularly given the lack of detail in the Bill. This is part of a growing trend from this Government, a pattern in not just this Bill but across others too. I hope we are not going into this, “We will commit now, but do later”. I beg to move.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend very strongly. I declare my interest, as I have done before, as a Suffolk farmer who has converted redundant agricultural buildings into dwellings. It is all still part of the farming operation.

I have already warned the Government that they are in danger of relying on statutory instruments, Henry VIII clauses and subsidiary legislation for what will be primary legislation. The purpose of the Parliament is to legislate, in the first instance, primary legislation. The House of Lords, with its careful scrutiny of statutory instruments, has a particular role and record in doing this. So, this particular Bill is going, in any case, to have a lot of unanswered questions. We are going to try to ask most of those questions and get the Government to face up and give us the answers because it is a very bad principle of legislation for a Government to say, “Oh, we’ll leave that to the courts”, or something like that. That is not what legislating is about. It is important that we do not unnecessarily add into potential secondary legislation what should be primary legislation.

The Government have got to take this very seriously because this is a long and difficult Bill which has many dangers in it and ahead of it, not least—and I shall probably say this again—because the private rented sector plays an important part in the provision of housing. The provision of housing was one of the objectives of the previous Government and of this Government. It is also part of generating economic growth, which the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have repeatedly told us is their priority. I beg the Government to be more rigid and dissective in their thinking before rushing ahead with this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

In response to the questions about timing from both the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I can say that, following Royal Assent, we will allow time for a smooth transition to the new system. We will support tenants, landlords and agents to understand and adjust to the new rules. In line with this commitment, we will provide the sector with enough time to prepare for the introduction of the new PRS landlord ombudsman. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Marlesford for their support on what we consider a very important amendment. I also thank the Minister, although I am surprised at her response on having a period of time to get communications in place. I will look back in Hansard but I think that, on a previous group, it was suggested that the implementation would come quite quickly after Royal Assent. If that is the case, I would quite like to know what the timings would be—whether it would be weeks or months—as and when those things are known.

On these Benches, we of course recognise that the Secretary of State should be afforded certain powers to deliver the content of legislation. However, the Government possibly have not fully considered the scale and scope of these regulatory powers, nor the level of trust that landlords, tenants and legislators must place in the Secretary of State on this issue. This is not about questioning the intentions of the Minister or others; rather, it is to suggest that significant changes should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny, and that both your Lordships’ House and the other place should be given the opportunity to fulfil their constitutional role—quite honestly, that is the reason we are here.

I believe that what the Minister was saying is that these powers are necessary, but I did not hear compelling justification for why that is the case. Perhaps at a later stage we might, as I said, have more information on this and the Minister might be able to give a better explanation and I would be very happy to have that in writing. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 206C withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly comment on two amendments in this group: Amendment 233 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and Amendment 243 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about databases. I feel that we are overlooking the need to ensure that the rogues in the system are identified and banned or punished for bad behaviour. They riddle the rented sector, I am afraid.

The database is a great attempt to give transparency and clarity to mortgagees, as in one of these amendments, to tenants and to potential tenants to check on their potential landlords. It is not responsible landlords who are the problem; it is the rogues. Rogues like to be invisible. They do not want to be detectable. They certainly do not want enforcement proceedings served against them. Enforcement must have teeth. Without real teeth, there is little point in trying to catch the rogues. The database would go a long way towards achieving that, but I fear that there is not enough determination in the Government to really punish those who are determined to cheat.

Rogues can hide their properties under the names of shelf companies. They can be registered abroad. They can have a tangled web of subsidiaries and further subsidiaries. They will make themselves as invisible and undetectable as possible. I close by simply saying that these are good amendments, but I would love to see sharper teeth in the enforceability.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for opening this group, as it marks the beginning of three vital debates on the database, which is an issue of great interest to stakeholders across the sector. There are 16 amendments in this group dealing with a range of quite complex issues relating to the database so, with the leave of the Committee, I will try to fully address the issues raised, but I might take a little extra time.

Before turning to our specific amendments and those in the wider group, I start by saying that the creation of a private rented sector database is a major change for landlords and tenants in this country. It is an opportunity to seriously improve transparency and outcomes for renters. We have expressed concerns on previous Bills about the overuse of regulation-making powers to deliver the statutory powers that the Government seek. Ministers should, we believe, set out clearly their plans in this Bill as far as is practically possible. Given the lack of detail in the clauses relating to the establishment of the database, we take this opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s plans. If she cannot answer today, we will be very happy to have it in writing after today’s debate.

I start by addressing Amendment 228A, tabled in my name. This is a simple amendment that would ensure that the Secretary of State is required to make regulations to ensure that the database entries are regularly updated and maintained. It is essential that the accuracy, completeness and timeliness of the data be maintained if it is to be a useful resource for both tenants and for landlords. This is common sense, and this should be a requirement. I hope the Minister will agree to that. If the Government cannot accept this amendment today, will she please take this opportunity to explain why the Government feel that the Secretary of State should have discretion in this area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Best, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, for their amendments on database operation and accessing the database, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for their contributions. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke to Amendment 230, which is in the next group, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, spoke to Amendment 237, which is in group 6. I will respond to them when we get to those groups, if that is okay.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I apologise. I have two lists that have different numbers in them; I think they are one before the other.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

When we get to this stage of a Bill, especially when we have three or four groups on the same subject, I am not surprised that people get them mixed up.

I start by saying that I very much share the sentiments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy, Lady Thornhill and Lady Scott, about the potential of this database to support both landlords and tenants. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, clearly set out why this is important for responsible landlords as well as tenants. I am sure that landlords who do a very good job, which is the majority of them, get incredibly frustrated by the minority of rogue landlords who certainly do not and I hope that this will help them as well.

Amendment 219 from my noble friend Lord Hacking proposes that a duty be placed on the database operator to ensure that the database be established and operational within a year of the Renters’ Rights Bill coming into force. I know the database will be a vital tool in raising standards in the private rented sector. I assure my noble friend and other noble Lords who raised the issue that we are aiming for the database to be active as soon as possible.

The database is being designed as a bespoke product to ensure that it aligns with the operational and legal details set out in regulations. We are currently focusing on getting the basic functionality right, testing with the sector and local authorities and developing guidance for users. Setting a timeframe for a database in the Bill is unnecessary and could be counterproductive. We simply cannot risk it being brought in when the secondary legislation or technology is not ready. This would make life more difficult for tenants, landlords and local authorities. For this reason, I kindly ask that my noble friend considers withdrawing that amendment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for Amendment 220, which would require the legislation to state that the database will benefit landlords, tenants, local authorities and other interested stakeholders. I assure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who spoke to this amendment, that the database is being designed for the benefit of all potential users, including tenants, landlords and local authorities. I recognise the positive intent behind the noble Lord’s amendment. However, the Government are already working towards that and we are continuing to focus on those user groups as the database is designed. I therefore do not believe it is necessary to accept the amendment and for that reason I ask the noble Lord not to press it.