High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for securing this debate, for taking over as chair of the Built Environment Committee and for his excellent opening speech. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.

I saw the impact of a can-do council appointing a town centre development officer when I became archdeacon of Stoke some 30 years ago. He would not take no for an answer. When you saw him coming, you got out your tin hat and tried to hide, because he was absolutely determined to develop what became the cultural centre of Hanley. It was an extraordinary transformation. I left some 25 years ago, and I am sure that they need to continue to develop for whatever is required now, but I saw just what the impact of that kind of appointment could be. It was an impressive piece of work.

This report is timely and educational. It is so easy when talking about the decline of the high street to hark back to some golden past, because that is probably what we all remember from years ago. But we must not expect a prosperous high street in 20 years’ time to look the same as it did 20 years ago, and we must not try to revive some version of the high street as we used to know it. The day of the retail-dominated high street, as this report demonstrates, is at least partially over, with reportedly more than 13,000 high street stores having closed in 2024. We need to be creative, innovative and imaginative in our approach to the high streets of the future, as we pivot towards a greater mix of leisure activities, restaurants and public services in our high street offer.

It is not only retail stores that have been closing in vast numbers; we have seen a cutting back of essential services, such as local bank branches and post offices. I recently spoke in a debate on the impact of the closure of high street banking services on SMEs, and the disproportionate impact that this has on the ability to open new businesses in small towns and villages. Can the Minister provide assurances that this is an issue that His Majesty’s Government are seeking to address in the forthcoming small business strategy? I am sure he is aware that some SMEs have been having a particularly difficult time of late, and I know he understands the vital role they have to play in creating strong, vibrant local communities.

I note also that in His Majesty’s Government’s response to the report, they stated that

“a fuller policy response was in development”,

and that they would have more to say on their plans to rejuvenate high streets soon. I hope that this debate can inform and shape that process, as I know there is a great deal of wisdom and expertise here in the Room today.

I will briefly make three points about the challenges of rejuvenating high streets and town centres. First, this is often a crisis that hits rural communities particularly hard, including smaller towns and high streets that may have just a few premises. I made this point in the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on small businesses a few weeks ago, and I believe it is pertinent here too. The Government’s response to the report highlighted how the plan for change will support

“the future success of our high streets … from growing the economy to safer streets”,

as well as by devolving power away from Westminster and back into the hands of local communities through the English devolution White Paper.

However, as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, none of these policy papers or pieces of legislation has come forward with any obvious rural-proofing or evidence that the specific challenges and circumstances facing rural communities have been considered. From the National Planning Policy Framework to concerns raised about the circumstances of devolution, from rural areas subsumed into large unitary authorities to the industrial growth strategy, consideration of the needs of rural communities and businesses is being consistently neglected. This will come at a cost to the Government’s own growth mission.

I have referred in the past to the Pragmatix report commissioned by the Rural Coalition, titled Reigniting Rural Futures. It lays out an economic analysis showing the comparative underperformance of the UK’s rural economy and urban areas, compared with their European counterparts, and that the UK’s rural economy has the potential, with the proper policy framework and investment in place, to contribute a further £19 billion in tax receipts to the Exchequer.

Secondly, I want to comment briefly on the need for us to be imaginative about how we develop town centres. Here I am thinking about something that is close to my own heart: how we can maximise and use our historic buildings—among them, parish churches. Ever since I have been a bishop, I have been on a mission to try to get every one of our parish churches unlocked every day. This is not always easy. In some town centres, it is particularly difficult—you may have groups of young people who are up to mischief—but, generally, we can achieve it. Interestingly enough, Ecclesiastical Insurance, which insures most of our church buildings, prefers open churches in principle because, if a church is locked, it says that there is something valuable to pinch. We need to get people into the buildings; the more they are used, the better.

In the long term, the best solution for all our historic listed buildings is to find good everyday use. There are lots of places where churches have not only managed to open their premises but had a win-win solution, where, perhaps, some sort of glass screen has been put up in a side aisle built on in the Victorian era. I think of, for example, All Saints in Hereford and St Michael’s in Bath, which developed much-needed facilities so that they could have a small café in the back while retaining the church as a place of worship. But to do that, we need a can-do attitude from our conservation officers. Sometimes, we also need helpful pump-priming, because the issues of access and disability are often far more difficult in these ancient buildings. I believe that, if we can only find a way to work together, we can find solutions that will enhance the experience of coming to our high streets.

My third and final point is about betting shops. Some noble Lords will know that I was the person who managed to get this House’s Select Committee on the social and economic costs of gambling, and that I am proud to be a vice-president of Peers for Gambling Reform. Our town centres are full of betting premises. It almost feels as though, every time a post office or WH Smith closes, what pops up is a betting shop; we can debate whether to call them shops as it could be argued that the only product they sell is, of course, debt. Many residents and councils are fed up with them, and the evidence shows that many of these shops are concentrated in our most deprived communities. The honourable Member for Brent East in the other place, Dawn Butler, recently raised the fact that there are more gambling premises in her constituency than there are supermarkets and schools. That is surely an extraordinary state of affairs; I find it hard to believe that such a vast number of gambling premises is in anyone’s vision of an attractive high street.

I remember being interviewed on the radio when there was some threat over the closure of betting shops. I was sitting in a mobile studio outside my house. They were trying to find people; it was in Rochdale, I think. I was surprised that everybody interviewed was against having these betting shops. Afterwards, I said to the editor of the programme, “You’re going to get criticised because you weren’t being unbiased”. He said, “We couldn’t find anybody who wanted to speak for them. We’ve tried. We keep asking people to help us with it”.

The crux of this issue is the aim in the Gambling Act 2005 to permit provision, which places a legal duty on councils to aim to permit gambling. Brent Council, along with 40 other councils, is leading a campaign to reform the 2005 Act so that we can protect our high streets from being swamped by these betting shops. If the Government are serious about devolving power to local government, councils must be empowered to act on this issue.

I would be grateful if the Minister could pass on my comments to his colleagues in the DCMS and the DHSC —arguably, this issue cuts across the MHCLG too. If we are serious about growth and regenerating our high streets, we need to tackle the unprecedented surge in gambling premises, which take money out of those local communities and send it elsewhere. The evidence is that, if you decrease the number of premises, more money will be spent locally. We need to address this issue.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, when I put down this amendment it seemed to me that we had arrived at a time when we needed clarification about who was going to manage this project. It is approaching construction and has been under consideration for a long time. We have known that there was going to be a Parliament-approved executive management, but we have not got one yet, and so that was my purpose.

If I may go back briefly into the history, the chair of the commission, Mr Davis, said this on pages 6 and 7 of the foreword to Britain’s Promise to Remember:

“To take these recommendations forward the Commission proposes the immediate creation of a permanent independent body. This body will implement the recommendations to commemorate the Holocaust and ensure a world-leading educational initiative”.


I emphasise the phrase, “world-leading educational initiative”.

It is true to say that, if you read Britain’s Promise to Remember, you find that the main emphasis is on education. That was confirmed on page 16, which said:

“The Commission’s final recommendation is the immediate creation of a permanent independent body. This organisation would oversee the establishment of the new National Memorial and Learning Centre, run that Centre and administer the endowment fund”.


The point I would like to emphasise is that it says both times, “independent body”. I take that to mean that, when the public body is formed, the people who comprise it would be entitled to make up their own minds, and, at least, to make their own presentation.

In January 2015, this was confirmed in the House of Commons by David Cameron, now my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, when he said:

“The Commission proposes a new independent body to deliver all these recommendations and wants to see … the creation of the National Memorial in 2016-17, and the Learning Centre within the next Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/15; col. 20WS.]

The thing I want to emphasise there is that, right from the start, there was an acceptance that the memorial was one thing and the world-class education initiative was another, and that it would take a very considerable time to achieve. There was no intention that they should be contemporaneous. They would be going along at the same time, but at a very different speed.

Subsequent to that, there was an appointment made by the Prime Minister, again in January, when David Cameron announced that Sir Peter Bazalgette would serve as the chairman of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, with, it goes on—although this is not a quote—the expectation that the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation would be executive. I do not want to get into an argument about “advisory” versus “executive”. I simply say that what happened while Sir Peter was the chairman included what I would regard as some executive actions: he set out to the 50 different sites to see whether he could find the best one; he was there when the Victoria Tower Gardens were agreed on; and he mounted the competition for the most suitable building.

In April 2018, as we know, Sir Peter resigned and the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation became, as I would say, advisory. I just add that I do not think that you would name a body in the way in which that body was named if you intended it to be advisory—it does not sound right to me.

The matter of how this institution was to be managed went on for a long time, with discussions and thoughts, but it rose to the surface again only when the National Audit Office did its investigation in 2022. That report says in terms that the department had studied what sort of a permanent, independent body there should be and had come to the conclusion that its recommendation was that it should be a new non-departmental public body. That recommendation stands, and no doubt we shall be told during these proceedings what has happened to it subsequently, but it seems to me to be high time that some action is taken. After all, Parliament must come into the process, and that always takes time. We are only about a year away from lots of action on the ground. Surely if a chair and a chief executive were to be appointed following the creation of an NDPB, there would be plenty for them to do. They are not going to be bad value for money. When construction starts, there will be many things to do: they will have to study the building and see what they think about how they will run it and how it will deliver the best value for money.

On the subject of the building, I want to make one point. People may ask the question that I would ask, because in my amendment I am talking about the management under Clause 1(1)(a) to (c). Clause 1(1)(a) refers to “a centre for learning”. In the headline, of course, it is called a learning centre. If I understand it correctly, I do not think that what is proposed to go into the building at present can possibly be described as a learning centre.

Learning centres came from America. They are institutions that are normally attached to other institutions, in particular to schools and universities, and—this is a definition—they provide

“a dedicated facility where people can come to learn at a time that suits them in a comfortable and supportive environment”.

If noble Lords want an example, the British Library—the ex-chair of which, the noble Baroness, is not here —does entirely what that definition says. It seems to me that the parliamentary draftsmen must have had some reason for putting “Learning Centre” in the heading but “a centre for learning” in the text. I will be very interested to know why that difference is there, as will, I guess, anybody appointed to manage the institution.

There are many other things. The Treasury will, I think, be quite difficult on occasions during the progress of this project. It will be influenced by how much money is coming from private sources, in particular the charitable trust. The relationship between the chair and chief executive of the new institution and the charitable trust will be of great importance, as will the relationship with the management of the gardens and the Royal Parks. Of course, we have a different ministry above the Royal Parks: DCMS. Anyone who has experience of public bodies—I have been chief executive of one, CDC, and chairman of another, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew—knows that all these things take a lot of time and careful negotiation, so there is plenty of work to do. If there was a worry about the cost of having them on the books, the ministry would probably be ready to disband part of its special team that it has put together so far. It is urgent that we move to form this management. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for opening this group. I will speak to my Amendment 22, which seeks to limit the amount of time that Victoria Tower Gardens can be closed to the public as a result of events linked to the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre to three days a year.

The protection conferred on Victoria Tower Gardens by the original Act of 1900 was put in place to ensure access to the park as a park in perpetuity. This is particularly important to residents in the locality, many of whom live in flats and would not otherwise have access to green spaces. We cannot discuss this Bill without giving due consideration to them and what protections will be in place for them. I note that, in responding to these concerns, the Select Committee report states that limiting the closure dates of Victoria Tower Gardens is a “reasonable request”, as it particularly affects residents who use it on a weekly basis.

There are a number of reasons why the Select Committee’s recommendation 2 and the promotor’s assurance 10 are inadequate to address this and why I suggest that protections need to be enshrined in the Bill, which is what my amendment is designed to do. First, the recommendation by the Select Committee is that this be taken forward in by-laws by the Royal Parks, as the body responsible for maintaining the parts of Victoria Tower Gardens that fall outside the perimeter of the proposed memorial and learning centre.

Parks owned by local authorities usually rely on by-laws. However, for the Royal Parks there is a succession of Acts of Parliament substituting for these by-laws. Usually, decisions on how to apply these regulations are delegated by the Secretary of State for DCMS to TRP management. However, the Secretary of State has the power to overrule the Royal Parks, as happened in May 2024 when the gardens were closed for three days to the public over a bank holiday weekend for an event. It is worth noting, too, that the Royal Parks remain reliant for 60% of their annual income on DCMS. As a result, it is extremely unlikely that the promoter or the authority subsequently created to run the HMLC would be refused permission to close the parks by DCMS or the Royal Parks if it requested it. That is why there must be protections in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Without all the measures I have outlined, it is against public safety to allow this underground development to go ahead in the proposed location. The measures needed to protect users from the flooding risk are extensive, will cost an unknown amount of money to protect against and would change the design completely, requiring a new planning application. Will the Minister ensure that the issues I have mentioned will be raised with the Planning Inspectorate? I assure him that these matters are relevant to Clauses 1 and 2. I hope your Lordships will approve Amendments 25 and 40.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 26. First, I add that, living in Hertfordshire, I am in touch with the distinguished Buxton family of today, one of whom is about to become our high sheriff sometime soon. They have expressed to me in correspondence something of their great concern.

Amendment 26 seeks to prevent the establishment of refreshment kiosks or static outbuildings in Victoria Tower Gardens. The first thing I want to mention relates to the preservation of the atmosphere of the park, which provides a valuable place of rest and relaxation to so many. Hot dog stands, souvenir stalls, litter and crowding would significantly change the character and experience of the park. If this project is as successful as it is planned to be, it will attract large numbers of people and potentially long queues. I believe that it would be proportionate and necessary to protect the park from this in the Bill. It has already been questioned whether it would be appropriate to have snacks, crisps and drinks for sale at the site of a memorial that is reflecting on the extraordinary suffering of so many people.

Further, the plans proposed for the centre show a new kiosk at the southern end of the garden, near the children’s playground. The Select Committee reported significant concerns regarding large crowds of visitors to the proposed centre at a kiosk immediately adjacent to the playground, raising child safety issues. Its recommendation 1 is that the kiosk be removed from present plans. Significantly, in response to this recommendation, the promoter stated only that they would look carefully at the design and location of the kiosk, not that they would remove it. The promoter has given the Select Committee an assurance that a review will be carried out with the design team of the arrangements proposed for the southern end of the gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors to the gardens, including visitors to the proposed centre.

My concerns around the enforceability or account-ability of the assurances given by the promoter, which I mentioned earlier with reference to Amendment 22, also apply here, and give rationale for my seeking to enshrine these restrictions in the Bill.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in support of the excellent presentation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, of her Amendments 25 and 40.

I would never accuse the Minister of being predictable—I would not offend him in that way—but I think I hear a little echo in my ear of him making a speech in response to the noble Baroness, saying that all these things could be dealt with at the planning proceedings. If he is going to say that, I just remind the Committee about the reality of planning proceedings.

First, they are very large and expensive on an issue such as this. Every aspect of the planning is considered at those planning proceedings. I hope, in a few minutes, to move my Amendment 15, which relates to security, and a similar point arises here. If we can discover at an early stage, through the mechanism that the noble Baroness suggests in Amendment 25, that this site is too dangerous, for flooding reasons, for planning consent to be given, let us discover that now and not during planning proceedings on the 47th day of the 78-day hearing—if we are lucky that it is that short. All that the noble Baroness is suggesting is that there should be a report, but that report would define whether this site was fit for the purposes expressed in Clauses 1 and 2.

I suggest that some aspects of this issue are, for obvious reasons, of genuine interest to Parliament, not least its proximity to Parliament and the fact that, for example, flooding in Victoria Tower Gardens because of the construction of this underground edifice—if that is not a contradiction in terms—could affect our enjoyment, as people working here, and the enjoyment of those who work for us, of what goes on in this Parliament.

I just remind the Minister of what happened last Saturday. A quite small incident occurred in which somebody managed to get through security and climb up the Elizabeth Tower. I promise that I will say nothing that is sub judice—nothing to do with the perpetrator or the case. If that had happened on a Monday when we were here, Parliament would probably have had to be adjourned for two days for that issue to be dealt with, on grounds of safety and security. One of the ways that we can deal with such issues, before a lengthy planning appeal, is to allow the sort of measure proposed here.

Local Government: Electoral Quotas

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We believe that everybody should have proper representation. While we are undergoing the devolution programme in the rest of England, we will not be looking at those metropolitan areas, but that is not to say that it will never happen.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, to build on that question, there is a lot of concern in rural areas that where they are to be added to a large unitary authority which is dominated by an urban area, they might miss out. What will be put into the criteria to ensure that there is fairness of services in those rural areas?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is very important that people do not lose their sense of place as this devolution programme goes forward, and they will not. The places will still exist. I have been talking to the associations that reflect the views of local councils—town and parish councils. We will support them in local areas, so they will definitely have a voice in this new system. The electorate will of course be able to decide at election times whether they are being properly represented.

Local Government Reorganisation

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The process of local government reorganisation will do that. We want to move at a pace that is right for the local authorities concerned. That is why we have set out a four-track approach, depending on where people are with their readiness to go forward. We believe that unitary councils can lead to better outcomes for residents, save significant money which can be reinvested in public services, and improve accountability, enabling politicians to focus on delivering for their residents. Generally speaking, as I said earlier, residents do not care about structures; they just want good public services, delivered at value for money.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, it looks as if the provisional local government finance settlement for 2025-26 will disadvantage rural areas, with the removal of the rural services delivery grant making the situation even worse. What steps are being taken to ensure that the needs of rural communities are being considered in the devolution process and that the strategic policy approaches developed by the combined authorities meet the specific needs of service delivery in our rural communities?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question and for his continued interest in rural communities. We believe that part of the process of devolution will mean that the people who are taking the decisions for rural communities will be people who have skin in the game in those rural areas; that is very important. Places with a significant rural population will, on average, receive an increase of around 5% in their core spending power next year, which is a real-terms increase. The rural service delivery grant does not properly account for need, and a large number of predominantly rural councils receive nothing from it. That is clearly not right, and a sign that we need to allocate funding more effectively. We are keen to hear about rural councils, as well as others, as we go through the spending review, so that we can work on what would work best for them in the new funding system.

Housing: Permitted Development Rights

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and apologise for misleading him yesterday: it is not in the NPPF but in the accompanying notes. There are powers that local government can use, including completion orders and so on, to encourage developers to build out when necessary. I will provide him with a detailed written response about all the powers that are available to local government to do that.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what steps her department is taking to ensure that enough of the homes being built under the PDR are affordable for local people in rural areas?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. PDR tends to apply where there are brownfield sites to be developed because they are conversions, usually, from existing buildings. There has been a change to introduce that principle for agricultural buildings as well. I will try to get back to him with a specific answer on whether the department knows how much take-up there has been of that provision. We have made provision in the new national planning policy framework for ensuring that planning policies and decisions are responsive to local circumstances in rural areas and support housing developments that reflect local needs. That is a more general requirement. I will get back to him on whether the agricultural permitted development has had any traction.

Housebuilding Targets

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that the Church Commissioners are keen to have discussions, and that will be the case. All land within a local plan area is ready for consideration, but I understand the point the noble Baroness is making. I know that the most reverend Primate who was on the Benches previously was very keen to encourage those discussions, and we will continue those. I hope the Church will continue to be keen to support us in our aim to deliver the housing that the country needs.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, if the potential of rural exception sites were to be fully realised, it would make a transformative change for small rural communities, not least in providing the additional affordable housing that is desperately needed. It is frustrating because just before I came in I was trying to read the NPPF response to the consultation but I could not find it. Are His Majesty’s Government committed to introducing a national development management policy for rural exception sites?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Right Reverend Prelate for that question. We understand the need for particular consideration of rural sites and rural exception sites. I apologise that he was not able to access the NPPF on the GOV.UK website. I hope it is there now and that he will be able to look at it later on today. In the spring, we will produce a long-term housing strategy that will contain detail of how we think rural sites should be considered. In order to give him a specific answer on the NDMP, I will go back and make sure he has a written answer.

Planning Committees: Reform

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My noble friend is quite right to mention that. The Government have a stated intention of making sure that all local authorities have an up-to-date local plan in place. That was not the case when we came into government. A great deal of work has gone on with local authorities to ensure that they are making progress on their local plans. In the National Planning Policy Framework publication today, we see more enforcement steps that we intend to take if local authorities have not produced their local plans. The Secretary of State has been quite clear that, if encouragement does not work, we will use our powers to step in and do it for people. I hope local authorities will realise that the best way to make their local plans is with their councillors and their local communities.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I welcome many of the announcements from the Government today in the NPPF, especially on flooding-risk policy. However, I am concerned about the protection of agricultural land, not least around the vital need to keep the highest levels of food security in this country. Therefore, why was the decision made not to include in the NPPF explicit protection of the best and most versatile land?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

When authorities do their housing needs assessment, they will have the opportunity to state why they think that the housing numbers they have been given are too high. If one of those reasons is that they have high-grade agricultural land for food production then they can put that forward as part of their mitigation for having some reduction in the housing numbers. The process is in place to allow authorities to do that; in the same way as would be done for large areas of national landscape in an area, they will be able to put that forward as a mitigation.

Housing Supply and Homelessness

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for securing this important debate. I declare my interests as president of the Rural Coalition and vice-president of the LGA. I offer my thanks to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for his valedictory speech. During his tenure, he has been a champion of housing, and we have already referred to the Coming Home report, which is pertinent both to today’s debate and to His Majesty’s Government, with their very good and ambitious targets to build more housing. I hope we can assist the Government in achieving that.

Homelessness and rough sleeping are on the rise. Government statutory homelessness figures, released last week, reveal that 159,380 children are now homeless and living in temporary accommodation, a 15% increase in a year and the highest figure since records began in 2004. More particularly, the November 2023 CPRE report on the state of rural housing showed that rural homelessness has increased by 20% since 2021 and 40% since 2018-19.

There are a number of particular challenges around the housing crisis in rural areas which are often overlooked in national policy, and that is where I want to focus my remarks. There is an acute shortage of affordable housing, particularly in smaller rural communities. Only 9% of the housing stock in parishes with a population of under 300 is social housing, compared with 17% of the housing stock in urban areas. Between 2019 and 2022, rural local authority affordable housing waiting lists were up by 31%, compared with an increase of 3% in urban areas. There are still not enough affordable housing developments being delivered on rural exception sites. Very few affordable houses are being provided in settlements with a population of under 3,000. The impact on rural communities is immense and often overlooked.

I turn to the difficulties in planning policy that are holding back the development of rural affordable housing. In 66% of smaller rural communities, the National Planning Policy Framework prevents local authorities taking an affordable housing contribution from small sites. Will His Majesty’s Government respond favourably to the calls from many rural organisations to allow local planning authorities to seek affordable housing contributions from sites of fewer than 10 dwellings in communities with a population of 3,000 or fewer?

There is also the untapped potential of rural exception sites. The rural exception site policy, as it stands, is poorly implemented. There is a lack of consistency in its application and a number of risks and costs associated with its development. Between 2021 and 2022, only 17% of local planning authorities used the rural exception site policy. In 2023-24, 56% of rural exception site completions were in only two local authorities. There is a really great opportunity here, and we need to work out how we can develop it. Can the Minister say whether the Government will introduce a national development management policy for rural exception sites, as well as a bespoke planning passport, so we can speed up delivery?

Defra’s evaluation of the Rural Housing Enablers programme has allowed people to return to their communities, maintain support networks, provide care and support for the elderly and vulnerable, and help with childcare. RHE programmes have been supporting community engagement on housing developments, funded by Defra, for the past two years at a cost of just over £2 million annually. This was a great initiative by the previous Government, and I commend them for the work that was done. Such work has led to an increase in schemes in the pipeline, with the potential to deliver over 2,000 new affordable homes, but this is in jeopardy as the funding is due to end in March 2025. Can the Minister update us on whether there are any plans to renew that funding?

I have just one more request of the Minister. Developing rural affordable housing involves a number of challenges specific to the rural context. Will she therefore commit to ensuring that the housing strategy contains a positive rural element—rural proofing—so that we can include delivering more affordable rural housing in order to increase the level of sustainability in the countryside?

Religious Hate Crime

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to reports that religious hate crime has increased, what steps they are taking to tackle religious hate crime and strengthen community cohesion in the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, religious hatred is a stain on our society. Recent events, such as the domestic impact of tensions in the Middle East and the appalling violence we saw on our streets over the summer, have exposed weaknesses and divisions in our society. This Government are developing an integrated, cohesive approach to tackling these challenges, which will address racial and religious hatred and strengthen cohesion across all communities. We will say more soon.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Many of us are deeply worried; post the 7 October attacks, the dramatic rise in religious-motivated hate crime and the strain on social cohesion have been deeply worrying. Of course, at the same time they have spurred a whole range of grass-roots initiatives. I am thinking, for example, of the work that our local MP in St Albans has undertaken with local imams and rabbis, who have produced a document—five reasons for dialogue; why Jews and Muslims refuse to hate one another—which they are taking around our schools. It is making quite an impact. I wonder whether the Minister and his officials are aware of this and other initiatives and whether they are being integrated into a national strategy so that we can try to address this at the youngest age possible.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate and ask him to pass on my appreciation for the work that has gone on in different faiths to bring the community together in St Albans. I made community visits on Thursday, Friday and Saturday to discuss these issues, and tomorrow I will be in Cambridge visiting the Woolf Institute to hear from Jewish, Muslim and Christian community voices. These important initiatives are all part of a package to make sure that our country rejects hate, has unity and works together to deal with these challenges.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Bishop of St Albans Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I rise with a certain reticence to speak, partly because of my own lack of experience of family members or others being involved in the Holocaust. I am aware that many Members of this House will have personal reasons why this is so raw and important. I underline that I am not trying to speak on behalf of the Church of England or the Lords spiritual. We hold a number of differing views on the Bill.

It hardly needs repeating, but I personally know of nobody who opposes the Bill because they are against the concept of having a prominent Holocaust memorial in this nation’s capital. As someone who has visited a significant number of Holocaust memorials in other parts of the world and other capital cities, I am well aware of their importance and how moving they can be.

I agree with much of what the Minister said in his assessment of remembering the horrors of what happened and the need to do everything we can to make sure that a holocaust can never happen again, not least because so few Holocaust survivors are still with us and because of the strategic importance of learning about the Holocaust—especially now, given the ongoing scourge of anti-Semitism. It has been deeply saddening and distressing to read of the increase in anti-Semitic incidents this year, and of some of the hate-filled violence in riots across the country this summer. So it is even more urgent for us to find a way to address the division and prejudices that are damaging our communities, and we need to do all we can to highlight the great evil of these things when they happen.

It is of course deeply regrettable that the establishment of a new Holocaust memorial in London has been so long delayed, but I do not believe that rushing things through without proper public consultation is the right answer. Having said that, I do not support the proposed site of the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens and the removal of the protections conferred by the 1900 Act that the Bill seeks to enact. Surely it is unnecessary to disrupt and decimate one of the few peaceful public green spaces in Westminster, particularly for residents for whom this is their main neighbourhood park and who have a right to access green space. I have been contacted by more than one member of the Buxton family—a very old Hertfordshire family whose forebear is commemorated in the Buxton memorial—who is deeply concerned about this.

I underline what the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, said about the need for His Majesty’s Government to be absolutely clear about how much of this space will be taken up by the new memorial. We are told it is 7.5%, but this has been contested by the London Historic Parks & Gardens Trust, which claims that it is 20.7% of the total area of the gardens. I cannot see how this cannot be resolved, and we ought to be clear about what it involves.

There are further concerns, which I am sure my noble colleagues will outline in more detail and more persuasively than I could possibly hope to. There are security issues and increased costs, as well as the abandonment of many of the original recommendations for an educational centre, which came from the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission in 2015, simply due to space constraints. I note that 18 petitions have been submitted to the Lords Select Committee for the Bill, and I will follow the consideration of these closely after today’s debate. It is for the reason I have outlined here that I am minded to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.

It seems to me that the values guiding both sides of this debate are in fact rather closely aligned—an interest in the public good; public education and access for all; and a belief in the value of preservation of, on the one hand, our collective memory and, on the other, a vital shared green space at the heart of this city.