Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, while agreeing with the noble Lord who has just spoken, I would also like to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in her tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for all her work on this Bill—right up to 1.15 last Thursday morning, and all the work that she put in at Second Reading and in Committee in the Moses Room.

I do not want to be disrespectful to the two Front Benches but, following the noble Lord who spoke just now, I have to say that I could argue that both Front Benches are like ostriches who have got their heads stuck in the sand. But I am getting a long frown from my Chief Whip and will not progress that argument further, but I ask all Members of the House to have a thought about that, because the consequences of this Bill are so adverse and destructive that I can only hope that the noble Lord on the Conservative Benches is right and this Bill will be lost.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I should declare my interest as president of Historic Buildings & Places. I congratulate the Government and all those who took part in the Bill. It was a learning process.

I have over the last 50 years earned my professional qualifications, worked as a professional and worked in other things, and the theme of my life has been land, land use, law and planning. I have to say to the House that, the more the Bill progressed, the more I became convinced that this proposal was overdevelopment and in the wrong place. I do not wish to say any more, other than, with sadness, that this Bill, the Holocaust Memorial Bill, will no doubt shortly be going on the statute. In my view. it is not properly named: it is the Victoria Tower Gardens Destruction Bill.

[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?

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene very briefly, as I have in Grand Committee previously, as the Minister and shadow Minister are aware, to make clear my position on this proposal. I am strongly in favour of a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. I am strongly in favour of a learning centre of good, adequate size that can be of a standard that we would like to see ensured.

All of us sitting here know, as does anyone who has discussed this seriously, that it cannot be done if you try to do it underground in Victoria Tower Gardens. I have great sympathy for the Minister and the shadow Minister because they are both committed; they are obliged to present this. I am sure they believe in it genuinely, but it is the reality that, in the times of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when it was put to him merely to have the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, it was originally proposed that the learning centre would be somewhere else. Then a problem arose over where that somewhere else was, so somebody approached the noble Lord again and he agreed for it to be put into Victoria Tower Gardens, which was not the original proposal.

We understand perfectly well that both the previous and present Governments desperately fear that they might be accused of antisemitism. In the very emotional circumstances that exist at the moment, with all the horrors of Gaza, the two-state solution and the whole Israel situation up in the air—today the Government announced the sanctioning of two senior members of the present Israeli cabinet—this could not be a more emotional and difficult time, and people are very concerned not to be accused of antisemitism. But it is quite clear that the people who will be guilty of antisemitism in the end are those who are proposing this arrangement, because it will never happen.

I have some personal involvement in construction issues in London, and there is no question but that the construction industry has some real problems, including a shortage of skilled people. It is not necessarily going to be the most attractive place to work, with the risk of the sort of demonstrations and other things that will take place. I have not had an answer to the question of whether anybody has yet undertaken to be prepared to quote for this job. If they have agreed to do it, will they in the end be able to honour it, having found some of their employees and skilled men not keen to carry it out?

It is a tragedy, because I think I am right in saying that this has now been going on for nearly nine years. I want to see a memorial and a learning centre. It is my belief that those who have got completely committed and stuck feel it is their duty to stick to where they are and press on. I think it will not happen, and they will then have to bear the responsibility for that. I am not going to get into it, because the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has explained some of these things extremely clearly and well. We know the problems they might run into if they did decide to go ahead with it.

I make one guarantee: if somebody is willing to do it, whatever price is quoted will not be the price at the end. It will keep coming back, and then somebody will get excited about the flood risk and who is going to take responsibility for the people in the learning centre running the risk of drowning if a crowd in there cannot get out. These are all variants on a most unhappy proposal.

I stand firm that we must have a memorial and a learning centre. If we agree not to proceed on this basis, and go ahead independently, it would be possible to do it quite quickly. My understanding is that a number of possible locations for the learning centre are available now, and if we went ahead it would save a lot of public money and mean that it actually happens. I understand the difficulties that the Government Minister and the shadow Minister face, but I believe this very sincerely.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly endorse some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, about building costs. He has much more experience in the world of construction than I do, but it is a matter that is both of interest to people and very important more generally.

We all know that since Covid there has been huge cost inflation in the building industry, partly because of the difficulty in assessing specialist forms of construction. This project falls into a category where generalised prediction is really not very helpful, for all the kinds of reasons that the noble Lord mentioned about the site and the nature of the processes involved in developing it.

When we think about this—it is a relevant consideration to us all—it is worth our while thinking about some well-known parliamentary projects. I think it was the case that the Scottish Parliament overshot 11 times its original budget. This—I am glad to be able to say—was worse than Portcullis House, which in 2000 was estimated to be £80 million over its original budget. That was only roughly half the overshot per square metre of the Scottish Parliament. We need to be very cognisant of the problems that are faced in the financial aspect of all this.

The Government assure us that they have been advised by experts, although, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, we have not seen any detail about all this, as the Government say that they cannot disclose commercially sensitive information into the public domain. Well, fair enough, but no doubt the Government were advised by similar—if not the same—experts on those other two projects, which seem to have been rather inaccurately valued at the outset.

Frankly, as far as costs go, I can see no reason to have any confidence in the amounts that we hear for this scheme, which, after all—as I think has been mentioned already—have gone up from £50 million in 2015 to £137 million now. Like the noble Lord, Lord King, the only thing that I am confident about is that if this project were to go ahead, that will turn out to be an underestimate.

The reality is that with projects of this kind, it is invariably a matter of “build now, pay up later”. It is not a fiscal rule; it is a rule of experience.

[Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation, as I have been for nearly a decade, and a resident of Westminster who walks my dog in the park.

I remind us all that this is Report, not Second Reading, and I will attempt to resist the huge temptation to remind noble Lords that the foundation considered more than 50 sites and that there is huge value in collocating the memorial with the learning centre—I could go on. Instead, I would just like to focus on this actual amendment.

We all know that putting the costs in nominal pounds in the Bill is a bad idea. It does not matter what the building is or what we are trying to do: putting costs in a Bill makes for bad legislation. Each of the speeches we have heard today has been a Second Reading speech, because this is really an amendment designed to wreck the memorial. I think we should be honest about that.

We should not put costs in the Bill. It is not surprising that the costs have escalated over the last decade—we have been living through a period of very high inflation. We have not put a spade in the ground precisely because of the planning process that has taken so long. This is not unique to the Holocaust memorial; sadly, it is a fact of life for every major building project in this country, which is a subject for a much broader debate.

It is not surprising that fundraising has not been started, because it cannot be until there is planning permission to build something. So I am afraid that the arguments being used in favour of this amendment are actually arguments against a Second Reading of the Bill, and therefore we should dismiss them.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, I support both amendments in this group. If the Holocaust Memorial Learning Centre were to be placed in Victoria Tower Gardens, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, correctly warns, there is the risk of terrorism attacks, whether by state-sponsored or self-initiated terrorists. As he has indicated, that is because of its proximity to the Palace of Westminster. Thus, in association with whatever political controversies in general, not least particularly those currently surrounding the situation in Israel and Gaza, these amendments therefore give Parliament the opportunity to make the final decision on whether to put HMLC in Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere, based on proper evidence on where it makes best sense to put it without compromising national security.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Carlile, whose knowledge and expertise in the field of security and associated matters is way beyond mine. My conclusions are aligned with his.

What was interesting to me was the judgment by Mrs Justice Thornton in the High Court case dealing with the application for the Victoria Tower Gardens proposal. It was quashed, which means of course that legally it never existed, and there is therefore no planning consent for anything of the sort in Victoria Tower Gardens. She said at paragraph 76(5) of the judgment:

“As was common ground by the end of the hearing, the advent of the modern planning system has no bearing on the obligations in the 1900 Act”.


As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, that is absolutely unequivocal. Mrs Justice Thornton ruled that the 1900 Act impacted on the character of the matters relevant to the determination of this planning application, and in parallel with that it is entirely within the discretion of Parliament—us—to take separate decisions on the merits of the matters under consideration, unconstrained by the precise criteria which applied in respect of the determination of any planning application.

It therefore seems to me that we are faced with two slightly separate issues, which are not those faced by a planning authority. First, we are legislators acting in the wider public interest, and secondly, we have been granted by the 1900 Act a right of veto on what goes on on the land immediately adjacent, which is in our curtilage. This is uncommon these days, but it is the kind of control over land that was relatively normal in the era of the 1900 Act. It seems to me that we have to exercise our powers in good faith, but that has nothing to do in itself with the law that relates to planning provisions.

We are faced with a series of woolly assurances from the Government on what will happen going forward and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, in terms of security matters they need very substantially tightening up. After all, what is our role in this? Obviously, it is the security and safety of Members, staff and visitors. It is up to us to decide what is appropriate to do for us as employers and hosts to people in this building. I do not believe that we can somehow put this out to commission to somebody else. That is why I strongly support the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because it brings to us the information we need properly and responsibly to carry out our duties in respect of our occupation of this building. This is quite separate from our approach to a whole range of other matters that may be discussed later this evening.

Finally, I am a trustee of a number of landed properties, and it seems to me that we cannot simply wish away responsibility for this. In my view, if I as a trustee were to take the approach to security matters here being advocated by the Government, I would be guilty of professional negligence. It is as simple as that. We have to know and be confident ourselves in what is being proposed. Looking at it from a different perspective, if we simply somehow put out to commission the responsibilities we have, we are imposing on the legislation something very much akin to a Henry VIII clause, and that, as we know, is very alien to the way we look at public business.

I do not want to go on any further, but it is up to us to decide what we think is right from the perspective we have on these matters.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment so I would like to speak next, if noble Lords do not mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said, this is no ordinary planning application and I will say why I think that is. The proposer is the Government. The Government are in a special position of being able to remove an important barrier to doing what they want to do, and Clause 2 removes the 100-year-old protections for the park. Most proposers of planning applications cannot do that. But guess what? It is even worse, because whoever decides on the planning application, yes or no, is the very same person as the proposer. It is the Government. It is a junior Government Minister. It was called in by a junior Government Minister when it first came before planning. That makes it a very unusual planning application.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

I would like to interrogate the argument, which is an important one, that, to use the noble Baroness’s phrase, the location of the learning centre next to our Parliament is essential. That is not the case in relation to other Holocaust learning centres around the world, is it?

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which has been referred to—the most visited in the world—is nearly two miles from the United States Capitol. It is, of course, within the overall area where there are many memorials and government buildings, but it is not proximate to the United States Capitol. The Jewish Museum in Berlin, which I referred to earlier, is the same distance of nearly two miles away from the Reichstag. The Jewish memorial is a little closer, but the Jewish Museum is an outstanding and much visited place, with an amazing experience and building designed by Daniel Libeskind.

The kernel of the argument of those of us who have concerns about the location of the proposed learning centre—not the memorial—is that the consequence of being so determined that it should be right next to our Parliament is that will be a much smaller, less impressive and less suitable learning centre than it would be if an alternative venue was chosen. The other arguments are secondary to that. The security concerns will be concerns wherever the location is.

There will also be an impact on a very small space. We have little of that kind of green space around our Parliament building so I think it is perfectly reasonable to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment and look for alternative sites. This is not just because of the effect on Victoria Tower Gardens, but because we are going to end up with a much less optimal learning centre if we persist in combining it with the memorial in this too-small space.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, unlike most speakers in this debate—although I think I am with the previous speaker—I come at this from the perspective of being concerned about Victoria Tower Gardens. I do not suppose that that is a surprise, coming from somebody who is the president of Historic Buildings & Places and a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. It is my considered view that what the Government are proposing is overdevelopment of Victoria Tower Gardens. Earlier this afternoon I did not go to the Cross-Bench group meeting, but skived off and walked round the gardens, and I must say—let us be under no illusions—if this goes ahead, it will wreck the gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is also in this group. Amendments 6 and 7 would do pretty much the same thing, but it is typical of the noble Lord’s gift for crisp expression that his Amendment 7 is about half the length of my Amendment 6.

We are after something which I would have thought would be beyond criticism: the approval of Parliament. It happens that this is first amendment of the evening—indeed, the early morning—that is not directly about the HMLC project. We seek straightforward approval from both Houses for the planning consent, should that be obtained. Ministers would have to table approval Motions in each House within 60 days of any consent being granted, and no work on the centre could begin until both Houses had agreed.

Planning consent is one thing, but the putting of the proposition to Parliament brings in a wider dimension: the achievability of the project and the proper expenditure of public money. Those are issues on which Parliament has a right to be consulted and express a view. There are quite a few former accounting officers in this place and I must admit to being one myself. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority report in January this year is the stuff of which accounting officers’ nightmares are made. The authority said:

“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.


The authority has rated the project red and unachievable for each of the last three years.

The National Audit Office has been no kinder. In its 2022 report, it described the promoter’s failure to consider any alternative sites, or to quantify or account for risk, as an emerging risk, causing potential cost increases. The latest capital cost estimate, which was kindly given to us by the Minister in a debate on an earlier amendment, is £146 million. This must make the case for the parliamentary approval that Amendment 6 would provide.

One argument which I hope the Minister will not think of deploying against this amendment is the canard that Royal Assent to the Bill will provide the necessary parliamentary authority for the project; of course it will not. What the Bill does is encapsulated in the long title: it allows expenditure but, crucially, does not approve it.

When and if planning consent is given, we will move into the next phase. That should be of a properly costed and funded project with serious management arrangements, which the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the National Audit Office feel able endorse. It is that which Amendment 6 seeks to submit to parliamentary judgment. I beg to move.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 7 and in support of Amendment 6. I strongly reiterate and endorse the wise words from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. As he said, we are not a planning authority. We are Parliament, and we are looking at changes in the legislation contained in the Act of 1900. The criteria used to determine whatever decisions may be reached are different in the two separate cases and we must exercise our judgment independently of the rules which relate to the granting or otherwise of planning permission.

The one thing I feel very strongly about here is certainty. In 1900, the legislation incorporated a plan that was deposited with the Clerk of the Parliaments—I understand it is currently somewhere between this building and Kew, so I have not been able to see it—which shows precisely what was going to happen, and it was in law that what was in the plan was to be implemented.

We are now being asked, in repealing that piece of legislation, to rely on a series of the most generalised principles, and we do not know what we are being asked to approve. It is only right and proper, once planning permission has been granted and there is a degree of certainty about the detail of what is going to be proposed, that we then have the last word. That is consistent with the pattern of the way in which this has occurred.

Let us remember: Victoria Tower Gardens is not just any old public park. It was established by an Act of Parliament, and at the time it was established, it was agreed between the committee and the LCC—and, I think, the First Commissioner of Works—that it was a “national improvement”. Given that context, what we are seeing is both entirely reasonable and quite proper.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I added my name to these two amendments. I will add very briefly to the remarks that have already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in moving his amendment.

I referred earlier to the unsatisfactory nature of Committee, when all sorts of issues which could usefully have been dug out and discussed were put to one side. This included the fact that we were told that a large number of issues that we would have liked to have discussed in Committee were to do with planning and were therefore nothing to do with us. We did not have the competence, experience or indeed the legal position to be able to make a useful contribution.

Let me be clear: I absolutely respect the planners’ competence and their experience. However, the provisions and implication of a Bill such as this go far beyond the normal arrangements. This is not like a controversial proposal to build on the green belt; it is about constructing an iconic memorial on a small piece of open space in the lee of the Palace of Westminster, itself a world heritage site.

When these plans come to fruition—as I hope they do, as I have said before—it will be really important that the then Members of the two Houses of Parliament, who are, after all, essentially the trustees of the Palace of Westminster, should take responsibility for all the decisions that are made. They should finally tick it off once we have reached that particular point in the process. That is why I support the noble Lord’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Inglewood]

8: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Matters to be taken into account in determining planning applicationAny determination involving consideration of any application to grant planning permission for any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens must take into account all relevant matters at the time of the determination.”

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

I think this will be a very short debate, because the right thing for me to do—bearing in mind that the last round in the planning process led to the application being quashed, and therefore it no longer exists in law at all, which means that it has to be redetermined de novo—is just to say to the Minister that I assume that he agrees with what I have put in the amendment.

My only additional comment is that the previous application was not quashed because of the London County Council Act; it was quashed because administrative mistakes were made.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I did not add my name to this amendment, but the point of it is that the entire circumstances in which planning permission was first granted, and the project was first mooted, have entirely changed. I will make one small point about that. My research shows that the national Infrastructure and Projects Authority rated the project red, even at a stage when it had planning permission, because it is as flawed as HS2.

If we go back nine or 10 years, what do we find? Everything is different. Today, we know that for the next 30 years or so, Victoria Tower Gardens will be the site of rubble and building materials needed to repair the Palace of Westminster and Victoria Tower and for the replacement of the Parliament Education Centre. The appeal to the emotions of the special nature of Victoria Tower Gardens and its relationship to democracy, peace and quiet has entirely gone.

The Adjaye firm design can no longer be considered to be of exceptional quality, as the inspector put it, because we now know it is a third-hand design. We know that the design of the 23 fins has been condemned by Sir Richard Evans as not representing anything historical at all to do with the 22 countries whose Jewish populations were exterminated. We know from research that abstract memorials are vandalised far more than figurative ones because the former carry no emotional weight. A fresh start would entail having a proper religious or appealing motif to the design.

The need for open space has been shown as more persuasive than ever since lockdown. That space was used for the lying-in-state of the late Queen and for the queues for the Coronation, and may well be needed again. That is a very important space to keep open. There has been criticism by UNESCO and other international bodies. The flood risk has increased, and the environmental regulations call for new consideration; in other words, there needs to be fresh consideration of a situation entirely different from what prevailed nine or 10 years ago. That is what this amendment is trying to achieve.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to ensure that a decision on any planning application must take into account all relevant matters. This amendment is unnecessary. Planning decisions must be taken within a framework of statute and regulation, which Parliament has put into place to make sure that all relevant matters are considered and given appropriate weight. These matters are referred to as “material considerations” in the planning framework.

As noble Lords are well aware, the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre is the subject of a planning application that was originally submitted in late 2018. After the original decision to grant consent was quashed by the High Court in 2022, the application is now awaiting redetermination by a designated Minister. Special handling arrangements have been put in place to ensure that a proper and fair decision under the relevant planning legislation can be taken.

Noble Lords will understand that I speak as the promoter of the Bill and, in effect, as the applicant for planning consent. Therefore, it is not for me to comment in any detail on how the determination decision will be taken. However, I feel confident in saying that the designated Minister will seek to take that decision in accordance with the law. Whatever process is undertaken, whether seeking written representations or through a new planning inquiry, the decision-maker must take into account all relevant matters. There will of course be opportunities for any decision to be challenged in the courts if interested parties believe that relevant matters have not been taken properly into account.

This amendment adds nothing to the responsibilities which already rest on the Minister designated to take the planning decision. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I assume that the Minister, when he said, “seek to take that decision in accordance with the law”, will actually undertake to take the decisions in accordance with the law. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

Strategic decisions on R&R have yet to be taken. There is no prospect of serious work on-site before 2030. It is likely the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be completed by that time if your Lordships’ House will permit it. The Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be at the southern end of the Victoria Tower Gardens, some distance from the land which the R&R programme is expected to use. With good will and practical common sense, it will be perfectly possible to arrange matters to avoid any conflicts.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, in the event of there being a conflict, which one trumps the other?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, seeks to delay the delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre until the authorities of both Houses of Parliament have certified that they are satisfied that the delivery of the project will not impede the delivery of the restoration and renewal of Parliament. Restoration and renewal is indeed a vital project, and the future of our iconic Palace of Westminster is extremely important. This is a symbolic building, a statement of our respect for British parliamentary democracy, and we must press ahead with the restoration and renewal, but these goals do not need to be mutually exclusive.

When I was working in the department and had a responsibility for this part of the work of the department, it was very clear that all these people worked together. The project teams met regularly and they knew what each other was doing, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is still going on. These projects are not being done in isolation. They are being done together and planned together, and the delivery will work because they will talk to each other. The pressure on Westminster’s infrastructure of sustaining two projects of this magnitude is something that we should rightly address during the planning process, although we do not accept that this amendment is at all necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, given the lateness of the hour and the fact that this amendment, in my name and that of other noble Lords, is rather unfortunately numbered 13—it does not bode well for this amendment, I fear—I will be as brief as I can.

I simply wish to seek the opinion of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the World Heritage Committee that they are satisfied that this unique little park will not suffer detrimentally from the building works that are planned. We have to bear in mind that this is the setting for our magnificent building. As such, it is of considerable importance. In addition, we want to see that the memorials already there are not overlooked or in any way detrimentally affected. I am also particularly keen to ensure that the green space is preserved.

I will not rehearse all the views I expressed in Committee, save to say that I believe there is a very real danger that the two avenues of magnificent planes will be at serious risk. I base this on an independent report made to Westminster City Council, which set out in detail what those risks were. I will not rehearse those now, but I ask that we take full account of the importance of this little park, both for its setting and for the people who currently enjoy the green spaces in an area not very full of them. I beg to move.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I am disappointed that, in this wide-ranging and very interesting and relevant debate, we have hardly touched on the conservation significance of Victoria Tower Gardens. We need to be under no illusions that it is a very important site, both on its own account and because it is one of the most significant sites in this country, which is of global, European and national importance.

I will not at this point in the evening enumerate the detail of the characteristics and designations it has achieved, nor the criticisms that have been levelled against what is being proposed. Suffice it to say that, from a national and an international perspective, those criticisms carry the greatest heritage value and perspective. They should not be lightly dismissed as some kind of frippery on the periphery of this debate—on the contrary, they are right at its centre.

I hope, in conclusion, that the way in which this matter will be handled will be one that will enable some of those who are bound to be disappointed to accept that a fair, even-handed decision was reached, balancing all interests involved, and that no particular pressure groups—whether they are Jewish or conservationists or anybody else—has been given priority unjustly over anyone else.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, as a botanist, I assure your Lordships that the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, is absolutely right about the extreme danger to the two rows of plane trees. I just have one question for the Minister, and I hope he can reply. Notwithstanding the text of Clause 2, can he say what measures the Government plan to put in place, if the proposed project is to go ahead unamended, to ensure the continued public benefit of Victoria Tower Gardens as a green space to the local population and to the workers in this building?

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

I shall speak to Amendment 126A and to support the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Leicester. I had not intended to speak on this, but it is a point that there is a big difference between pets in rural properties and pets in urban properties. Speaking as someone who lets rural properties, I have never had any problem with stopping tenants bringing their pets, but I would mention that cats are a particular problem in certain areas. I think that the very carefully drafted amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, makes a great deal of sense in this respect.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as entered in the register and apologise to the House for not having spoken before in Committee. I spoke at Second Reading, but the combination of the west coast main line and prior commitments has made it impossible in Committee until now.

Briefly, I make just three points, in no particular order. First, in respect of Amendment 118, the nicest, cutest little puppy can turn into a horrible adult dog, and if it is impossible for the landlord, having given consent, to change that if the cute little puppy turns into a dog from hell, that would be a very great mistake. It is a matter of balance, reasonableness and judgment. Secondly, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, because that seems to be elementary sensibleness—nothing more. Thirdly and finally, having heard the very persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Black, I suddenly wondered: were they asking the Government to make it compulsory for tenants to have pets? I ask the Minister what her view about that would be.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, I speak on this group mainly in support of Amendment 124 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I wish the Committee to note my entry in the register of interests: that I am a part-owner of a large independent veterinary practice, with a significant proportion of our turnover generated from pets.

I welcome Clause 12 as it will increase the number of properties that tenants can keep pets in. With the growing number of pet owners in the past five years, it is certainly welcome. How we care for pets and how we value their companionship has changed significantly in society in the last 10 years, and that is why this clause is so important. But we must be aware that there are many in society who are allergic to pets, who find them scary and who are made nervous by them, especially children, and those who just do not like pets. Therefore, somehow, through this amendment, we need to ensure a balance between landlords, tenants and their pets, and others in society.

As previously spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the amendment gives access to all tenants, regardless of whether they are in the private rental sector or accessing social housing. This gives tenants the right to request permission to keep a pet, regardless of their landlord.

The Bill is also about improving opportunity for tenants to keep a pet; surely this simple amendment will create a level playing field between the social housing sector and private landlords. Social housing is probably the most likely first place to go for individuals on low income or who are homeless, seeking to find a home for themselves and their families, which often include a pet. This has been drawn to my attention recently by a TV advert for a homeless charity. Its website says:

“New polling from homeless charity St Mungo’s reveals new extent of the housing crisis and its impact on people sharing their lives with a pet. 50% of those surveyed reported being placed in situations where they were forced to choose between remaining with their pets or accessing housing. This situation is ever present, within the last 12 months, 43% of respondents experienced challenges in finding housing that allows pets. This is amplified for those between the ages of 18-24, where 70% experienced this”.


Therefore, to ensure that the private rental sector is not forced to take up all the housing needs of pet owners, I hope that this amendment will be considered by the Government. Surely the reasons for not allowing a pet in the home are the same for private landlords as for social housing landlords.

On the other amendments in the group, I support Amendment 118 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, which would ensure that a landlord cannot withdraw consent. If a pet is causing an issue for a landlord, that will surely be covered by other provisions in the Bill. The landlord could terminate a tenancy using anti-social behaviour as a reason, whether it was caused by the tenant or the pet. The amendment would ensure that the tenant, once the pet is allowed in the home, cannot be forced to remove the pet unless the tenant has breached a term of the tenancy agreement.

I also support Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, which would ensure that a tenant in all properties, regardless of who the landlord is, can ask for the right to keep a pet at their home. Like the social housing Amendment 124, this amendment seeks to increase the number of properties available to tenants, but also ensures that all landlords, regardless of their position in the rental housing sector, are obliged to consider the request of a tenant to keep a pet.

Amendments 125 and 126 provide some clarity for landlords and tenants, with definitions of when it is unreasonable for a landlord to reject a request for a tenant to keep a pet. This clarity can only help with negotiations between landlords and tenants with regard to keeping pets, and solutions will be found more quickly, I hope, and with less bad feeling between the two parties. This clarity will reduce the number of cases that can be referred to other authorities to decide whether a landlord’s reasons for rejection are in fact reasonable. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Grand Committee

From whatever way you look at it, it is in everyone’s interests to have an impact assessment. If there is an impact assessment, some of the issues being raised by this Committee might get highlighted and possibly dealt with.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 38. I think Members of the Committee can probably all agree about at least one thing: it is not a usual Committee stage. Apart from anything else, the Bill proposes to amend the LCC Act 1900, which confers on Parliament rights as a landowner through a statutory covenant. This, I suggest, imposes legal and fiduciary duties in respect of the adjoining land. The Bill proposes to remove those rights. This in turn, it seems to me, is reflected in the fact of the Bill’s hybridity, which is the rationale for the special provisions that apply where rights of those who are specifically affected are concerned. This includes, inter alia, the other petitioner and Parliament itself.

It is interesting, and I suggest very relevant, that the Select Committee questioned the appropriateness of the current rules as regards the admissibility or otherwise of certain evidence in front of it. There was some debate about this, and I refer to paragraph 74 of the report of the Select Committee. While the committee and clearly Parliament in the current legal context are not an alternative to the planning authority, the Select Committee, in my view entirely properly, considered matters that might be considered planning matters to the extent that they had relevance to the in-scope amendments under consideration, which I have just mentioned. In any event, once the Bill moves into Grand Committee, the scope of what may be properly debated widens.

It is very important to notice and to focus on the fact that the Select Committee sought assurances and undertakings from the promoter—I am now referring to pages 33 to 37 of the committee’s report. The Select Committee concluded that under the rules of procedure it was not in a position to bring forward amendments. However, the recommended assurances and undertakings that it sought, if honoured, would in the real world have had very similar effect to amendments to the Bill. They would also have much the same effect as planning conditions, and might be seen by some as analogous to them. But, as I have already indicated, that does not make them the same; they are different.

Let us look at the Government’s responses to the Select Committee’s report. Some assurances appear to have been accepted and a couple not, but it seems to me that, in reality, the promoter’s responses, based on the way that this project has been taken forward both inside and outside the House, are not worth the paper they are written on because of the caveats that the promoter will use his best endeavours. These are unenforceable and entirely nebulous and vague.

As I said, having seen the way in which the promoter’s case was presented, both to the Select Committee and more widely, in a strictly not improper way but vigorously and robustly, it seems completely fanciful from the facts that we know to suppose that the Government’s best endeavours have any realistic prospect of properly dealing with the Select Committee’s real concern, because they are weasel words.

Against that background, bearing in mind the rights conferred on it by the 1900 Act, which mean that Parliament is not acting solely as a legislator in this case, it therefore cannot possibly be right to leave all the detail for later consideration by others. On the contrary, in order to honour the obligations, both legal and moral, imposed on it by the LCC Act, which is still on the statute book, and more generally, it must insist on requiring greater detail on what is actually going to be done. That is not incompatible in any way with Parliament’s legislative role and, in my view, is a necessity prior to relinquishing its responsibilities under the 1900 Act.

It seems that the only way this can properly be done is for Parliament to reserve its position until after planning consent—including listed building consents as required, if any—will have been granted, because there is no certainty about to what Parliament is consenting until that is settled. After all, we know the Government cannot guarantee what the outcome of the planning process might be, because if they could do that, they would be denying their impartiality. We also know—this has been confirmed by the Minister in Committee—that even if consent is granted, conditions can be imposed that fundamentally change the substance of the application. Indeed, I might go even further and say that in any event, at any time after Parliament has passed the legislation, other planning applications can be made. There is no guarantee at all that the one currently held up by the courts will be the one eventually implemented.

I may be accused of being ignoble and doubting the good faith of the Government. All I say is that I am a farmer, and I have a certain perspective on certain undertakings that the Government have given.

It has also been suggested that such a process might rack up huge extra costs, but I do not think that can possibly be correct. As long as Parliament deals with the matter expeditiously at the last point in the process, it will make no material difference because any expenditure before the obtaining of planning permission is always speculative. So if Parliament then responds appropriately at the end of this process, that argument cannot stand up.

Perhaps most tellingly of all—this came to me just recently as I thought about it—let us forget that we are talking about Parliament and imagine ourselves as a householder who has a house subject to various covenants that protect it and the adjoining plot of land. If a developer was to approach that householder and say, “We would like to build on this adjoining plot of land—are you prepared to release the covenant?”, what would the response be? First, it would be, “Well, tell me exactly what you want to do”. It is absolutely basic common sense and a responsible way to deal with that sort of circumstance, and it is exactly the approach that we in this House should take in response to this piece of draft legislation. Quite simply, Parliament must know the full facts of what is going to happen before deciding whether to give it its go-ahead.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I start with a reference to Amendment 38, to which my noble friend Lord Inglewood just spoke and which I support. The starting point of this legislation is that Parliament is being used by the Government as a vehicle for development to be permitted on otherwise prohibited land. To allow Parliament to be used as such a vehicle is a very significant responsibility, taken on by the promoters of this legislation. However much enthusiasm is shown by the various bodies—perhaps described in best detail in the Audit Commission’s 2022 report, which revealed many imperfections in the management of this scheme—Parliament should have the final say, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, as with many of the amendments that have been tabled to the Bill, relate to the planning process and the impact that the new memorial and learning centre will have on security and other buildings in the area.

Amendment 21, from my noble friend Lady Fookes, asks for a new planning application because of new information on security and environmental impacts. We have discussed these issues in an earlier group and I do not intend to revisit those arguments in my remarks here.

The amendment also seeks to place an expanded notification duty on the applicant. I do not support the amendment, but I am sure that the Minister will take this opportunity to reassure my noble friend Lady Fookes and her cosignatories that appropriate notifications will, as always, be sent in the appropriate manner to the appropriate persons.

Amendment 34, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to require another impact assessment before this project. I know that my noble friend’s concerns are deeply felt, but I do not feel that we need to do a further impact assessment. We need to make progress on the delivery of this landmark memorial, which was promised to this country so very long ago.

Amendment 38 seeks to give Parliament the final decision on planning. Parliament will have a say once the Bill is passed. We are not certain that bringing the proposition to Parliament once again is at all appropriate.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, the point I was arguing was about the LCC Act 1900, which completely antedates the planning system and imposes some statutory covenants. My amendment is focused on the statutory covenants, which have nothing to do with the planning system at all. If it is presented as something to do with the planning system, that is fundamentally to misunderstand the reality of the position we are in.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, but what we are discussing here should only be the covenant and we are discussing things that appertain to the planning application.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, but they are different, and they have different relevance and values associated with them, because in essence they operate in different areas of law and/or administration.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have nothing further to say, my Lords.

Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, touches on an important issue. Obviously, we would not want any proposals to damage or undermine the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey or St Margaret’s. These are sites of immense value to the British people, and the abbey is of global architectural importance. That said, again, we do not feel that this amendment is necessary, and these questions should be addressed, as always, through the planning process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord makes an interesting point, which I hear strongly. I have been studying this plan for a big part of today and I want to reassure noble Lords on it. By the way, I am happy to sit down as part of the discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that my team will arrange, because the noble Lords’ points are important, and we want to give them extra due consideration post Committee.

Rest assured that the Select Committee made clear in the report that the evidence presented to it was that the main restoration and renewal work would not begin before 2029 at the earliest. By then, we hope that we will be well on the way to completing the Holocaust memorial.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

Following up on what the noble and learned Lord said, I will paraphrase what the Minister has said: “You can rely on us. It’ll be all right on the night”. I do not think that is quite good enough in the context of the debate we are having, because the whole thing is a straight-up construct of generalities.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am sure I did not say, “Rely on us on the night”, but I did say that the Select Committee itself acknowledged that the work on the restoration and renewal programme will not start until 2029 at the earliest—that is my point. However, I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that, because of the specific interest, I am happy to sit down and understand more of their concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

I will finish on this point. We have to press forward with the construction of the memorial, and I hope I have satisfied noble Lords as much as possible. I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

I am not Jewish, as I have explained to the Committee on previous occasions. I have found what I have heard in the debates around these amendments moving and interesting, but it is important in this context that we are clear that the Holocaust is not exclusively part of Jewish history. It is part of British history—because, for example, my family went and fought the Germans in order to try to rid the world of this evil. Some of my concerns about the proposal in its current form arise from the fact of this slightly wider context. Victoria Tower Gardens are an important site for the whole of the British people, but this commemorates something that, in a different way from the Jewish community, is part of our history and our heritage. It is important that that is borne in mind.

I also think as an individual—and this may engender considerable criticism—that the greatest thing we can do in this country to honour those who died in the Holocaust is to have a country that operates under the rule of law, where Governments cannot bully and just override citizens, and that we have a proper process where all the interested parties have their interests properly taken into account. My amendment—which the Minister, I thought rather unfairly, described as being about planning consent—was about using planning consent as a kind of milestone in the process.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I ask the noble Lord to sit down. We are no longer discussing his amendment. This is a completely separate group, and the Minister has now sat down. We need to move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

I will certainly sit down.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I said at the beginning that I thought this was about the most important amendment we had; I am glad that I have, I think, been proved right. We have had a highly provocative, important debate on what the learning centre should be about. It has been stressed time and again that it should be about the Holocaust and antisemitism—nothing else.

I am grateful to all those of my noble friends who participated; to two highly distinguished Cross-Benchers, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew; and the non-affiliated Peer who signed my amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. He is a highly distinguished King’s Counsel who has led on many important cases in this country. I will forgive him for taking a brief from the ghastly Leigh Day firm; that was a cab rank thing, I suppose. He is also a professor of international law at King’s College. He rightly made the point that there will be controversy on what other groups are to be included; that point was picked up by my noble friend Lord Goodman, who supported my amendment and also made the point about there being a lot of controversy around what the other genocides are.

I think I would be right to say that probably every noble Lord in this place knows that what happened in Armenia 110 years ago, with 1 million Armenians slaughtered, was genocide. Some other countries in the world have said that, but no British Government have ever called it genocide because we are terrified that, if we call it genocide, Turkey and President Erdoğan—a big NATO member—will get terribly upset. Therefore, we do not call it genocide for wider geopolitical and military reasons; we have the same problem in trying to select various other genocides to attach here.

My noble friend Lady Fleet made a powerful speech on the antisemitism that she and her husband and family currently face. She rightly pointed out that the evil chant of “from the river to the sea” means the extermination of the Jews; she also made the point that the memorial and the learning centre must be about the Holocaust and antisemitism only.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, kept asking what the learning centre is about and what it is supposed to teach. If it is supposed to teach 2,000 years of Jewish history, you need something better than a few posters and videos in this little bunker; you need the giant campus that the Holocaust Commission proposed. Other Jewish organisations could have rooms there and you could have conferences. You would actually teach the 2,000-year history of Jewish life and the Holocaust in full detail.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, just made an intervention to say that his family fought the Germans. My uncles did as well, in the 51st Highland Division; they were captured at Saint-Valery and spent five years of the war in, I think, Stalag IV-D.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, asked: who are the beneficiaries? He rightly pointed out it would be those wandering Jews from 1,300 BC and the exodus in Egypt to the present day; that is 3,300 years of Jews looking for a safe home somewhere in the world. He also made the point that this must be about the Shoah and nothing else.

The shadow Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, said that the point was to get the learning centre built so that the survivors of the Holocaust could see in their lifetime that we were commemorating the Holocaust. If I may say so, that is not the important point. The point is not, as was wrongly said in this Committee by a colleague, that this is for the benefit of the Jews. The whole point of the memorial and the learning centre is that it is for the tens of millions of people who deny that the Holocaust ever existed. The survivors of the Holocaust do not need to be told how bad it was—

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Grand Committee

We are going into it without the slightest idea what it might cost. I have already expressed my experience of what is presently happening to construction costs in London. I am not quite clear how the original cost figure was arrived at. I have seen a figure of £139 million somewhere. I do not know where on earth it came from, how long ago it was done and what authority there is for citing it, but I invite anyone to join me in wagering that there is not the slightest chance that it will be met in the present climate. It is not at all clear, given the present political tensions that exist around this matter, that anything other than an extraordinarily bigger figure will be involved. Will the Minister confirm that, at the moment, the Government have no idea what it might cost and that they will seek tenders, as he said, and then, at some stage, confirm what the situation is?

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I want briefly to endorse, in general terms, what has been said already, but I invite your Lordships to look at this slightly differently: from the perspective of land use, in which I have had a considerable amount of experience, in various ways, during my career. The point was well made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who said that the learning centre will become the focus of Victoria Tower Gardens. When that happens, de facto, if not de jure, Victoria Tower Gardens will become the curtilage of the learning centre and will not be a distinct and important entity.

We have heard about the proposals for the management of the various elements coming to the Victoria Tower Gardens, and some of them seem to be prolix, too complicated, muddled and so on. I do not wish to go down that road. The fundamental point is that, if and when this occurs and is a great success, people will no doubt ask, “Where is the Holocaust memorial learning centre?” and the answer will be, “It is in Victoria Tower Gardens”. When land use changes, the whole character of an area changes. Perhaps the most obvious current example in London is the redevelopment, over the last decade or so, around King’s Cross. It was, frankly, a squalid, low area, but is now up and coming, and entirely different. That has happened organically. These changes happen once something gets under way in an organic way over which Governments have remarkably little control.

If what is being proposed is the great success that its advocates claim it will be, it will fundamentally change the character of Victoria Tower Gardens and the area immediately surrounding it, and there will be nothing Governments can do, through governance mechanisms, to deal with it. It is important that we appreciate that possibility in our discussions about these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, rise to support Amendment 11. As my noble friend has just said, if Amendment 11 were adhered to, it is possible that the various sides of this argument could come together with a solution that would be acceptable to everyone. I have never read any newspaper article or heard anybody say that there should not be a memorial.

My noble friend Lord Finkelstein described rather movingly the various other memorials in the gardens. They are memorials to good triumphing over evil in the development of human history. It would be totally right to have another such memorial in that place that could be revered. There would be no question of having a kiosk selling ice cream and burgers beside it. It would be a memorial. If it fitted into the description in Amendment 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, it would be an appropriate size, and we would all hope that it would be designed by an artist who would produce a beautiful memorial. The problem is that unless we adhere to Amendment 11, there will also be a learning centre underground which, as various noble Lords have said, would bring with it so many risks. The greatest risk of all is why, if we want to produce a proper memorial to a terrible period in history when 6 million Jews died and many more suffered, would we put it underground where it could not be seen or admired and simply caused problems?

Let us have a memorial, a beautiful memorial that everyone can admire, but let us have a learning centre somewhere else where it would be safe, accessible and non-controversial, a place where children could be taken and, yes, possibly have their ice-cream and burgers if they are on a school trip, a different place where it would not get in the way of a beautiful memorial. It is difficult to understand how this Government, who profess to care about green spaces, about children not being on their phones but being outside and about the preservation of the environment should want to support a plan to take away the utility of one of the very few green spaces in this part of London.

This is not about just Victoria Tower Gardens, Parliament and history. It is about the way in which families in this area live their everyday lives. Children play in that park. I had a child who played in that park every day because his mother—me—did not have time to take him any further afield, as I was constantly in the House of Commons. That park is important to families and to the welfare of children. Why on earth would we hide under that park a learning centre when we could put up a beautiful memorial which everyone unanimously supports?

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I support the last two speakers because one of the problems that we face in this Committee is that it seems we are being asked in this Bill to approve something, the details of which we do not really know. A lot of the debate has been about planning consent. The point—I am proposing to come back with an amendment later that may elaborate on it further—is that the 1900 Act imposed certain statutory restrictive covenants—I think that is a fair way of putting it—in respect of this building and Victoria Tower Gardens.

The history of restrictive covenants goes back a long time in English land law and antedates planning consent. The point about a restrictive covenant is that it is not applied against the same criteria as when planning permission is granted. We are being asked to release the restrictive covenants when we do not know what the actual proposition in front of us will be. It is a case of “Rely on me and trust me”, but I am afraid I do not. That is why we need—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I feel slightly in the position of that well-known 16th-century Spanish jurist at the University of Salamanca who was arrested by the Inquisition when giving a lecture. Fourteen years later, after he was released, he came back and said: “As I was saying before I was interrupted”. My simple proposition is that we should be entitled to know in detail what is proposed before we are asked to remove the covenants of which we are custodian. I shall leave it at that.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there is a reason why we do not know the detail. It is because it is for the planning system, and this Bill allows the planning system to deal with the memorial. As I understand it, that is the whole point. It is not for us to grant, debate or decide on planning grounds that will be dealt with by the planning system when it eventually gets there, after Parliament has completed its deliberations.

I was not going to comment on this group, but I want very gently to respond to something that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said earlier. She suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, had paraded his victimhood, which, frankly—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

The noble Lord was formerly a distinguished Minister in charge of planning. Does he not recall that, on several occasions, as a Minister, he called in planning applications and took those cases out of the hands of the local authority, where they would have been considered, and made decisions that dramatically affected the future of those proposals? Does he not agree that there is a significant difference between a case where somebody applies for planning permission to build even a memorial and a case where there is a parliamentary Bill that allows a Minister to spend money on that memorial?

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, intervened on me; I should be able to reply to him.

If I had expressed a view about a planning application, I would not have dealt with it; I would not have called it in. We are very strict. I must say that we know what is going on here, with people asking, “Will the Minister give a guarantee?” That would be predetermination. The noble Lord is a distinguished lawyer; he knows that it would be grounds for a judicial review if we predetermined it. We separate carefully, to ensure that the people taking decisions on planning have not expressed a view on it and are not subject to views expressed by either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I assured that in the past five years.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I want to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Carlile. I am a lawyer; I am also a chartered surveyor in the planning and development division of the RICS. I worked professionally in this area, a long time ago, for a number of years.

The point is that there is a fundamental difference between the covenant and the planning consent. We are not being asked to form any view about the merits of a planning application or anything like that, because were that to be the case, the draft legislation in front of us would make it explicitly clear that we were taking by statute the power to grant planning permission. The two consents run in parallel, and we should view them like that. The criteria that apply in determining each of the two are not the same.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I too wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, though I may say it less elegantly. The reason we are talking about planning in this Committee is that we simply do not trust the Government—the previous Government or this Government—not to overrule Westminster City Council. If the Government will give a cast-iron commitment that they will abide by whatever Westminster City Council decides—that they will not call it in or get an inspector to reverse it, and that the Minister will not reverse it either—then all my concerns about planning would be removed. If the Government will trust the decision of Westminster City Council, I think no noble Lords in this Committee would be talking about the planning application.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Blencathra, the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Finlay, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for bringing these amendments. This group covers a set of topics relating to the potential impact of the proposed development. As we consider these topics, it is necessary to keep in mind the relationship between this Bill and the process for seeking planning consent.

The Bill does not include provisions to grant planning consent. I am quite sure that noble Lords would have criticised the Government forcefully if we had tried to bypass the normal route for seeking planning consent by including any such provisions in our Bill, a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. The planning process, put in place by Parliament and regulated through the courts, is the proper process for considering a development such as the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre.

Let me be clear in addressing the points of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, in relation to the planning process, which a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, alluded to. We, as the applicant, stand by the current planning application. We do not intend to withdraw it. It is for the designated Minister to decide how to deal with the current application. We understand that he has three broad options: to invite written representations and then decide; to hold a further planning inquiry; or to hold a round-table discussion. All options would mean opportunities for opposing views to be considered. It is for the designated Minister to decide the approach.

The arrangements are perfectly proper. When they were challenged in the court in 2020, that challenge did not succeed. In all called-in applications, it is for the designated Minister to decide the mode of considering the application. We have given an assurance to the Lords Select Committee that we will make sure that Peers and MPs are notified when the process of retaking the planning decision starts. There will therefore be opportunities for people to make their views known. It will be up to the designated Minister to decide how to deal with those views, including whether to have a new inquiry.

The planning process requires extensive consultation, detailed scrutiny by technical experts and consideration of an extensive range of statutory provisions, regulations and planning policies. The process enables a balancing exercise to be conducted, in which the benefits and impacts of any proposal can be properly assessed. With the greatest respect to noble Lords, and acknowledging the deep expertise that can be found across the Committee, I submit that we should be extremely wary of interfering in these processes. We are not sitting here as a planning committee. I suspect that few of us here will have read all 6,000-plus pages of evidence submitted with the planning application, or the many detailed responses from experts, supporters and opponents of the programme. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for setting this point out in detail. I will now turn to the amendments in question.

Amendment 7, from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, relating to other memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, would have the effect of tying the hands of the planning decision-maker and stopping the current proposal. The amendment would give protection to those memorials above and beyond the protections they already enjoy as listed buildings. We all want to ensure that the memorials and monuments in Victoria Tower Gardens, and their setting, are respected. Our design is sensitive to the heritage and existing uses of Victoria Tower Gardens. It includes enhancements to the gardens that will help all visitors, including better pathways and improved access to existing memorials.

The planning inspector considered a great deal of evidence from all sides and looked in great detail at the impact on the gardens and on existing memorials before concluding that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. As drafted, the proposed change to Clause 2 is not necessary to ensure that memorials are given proper weight in the planning process. It would, however, act as a barrier to proceeding with the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 7.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

It is of course open to the person determining the planning application and/or the appeal—depending on the circumstances—to impose conditions that fundamentally change the scheme from the thing that is currently under discussion by us. Is that not right?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, unfortunately I did not get the gist of what the noble Lord said, but I assume he was talking about the future planning process.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My point is quite simply that the outcome of the planning process, if planning permission were to be granted, could be that the scheme would be permitted, but subject to conditions such that it would be completely different from what we are currently considering.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Yes, that could be the case. Again, it is for the designated Minister to set out the process; it is a decision for them.

Amendments 11 and 12 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, concern the Buxton memorial. The Buxton memorial provides a striking and important reminder of the role that British parliamentarians played in the eventual ending of slavery across the British Empire, a point that many noble Lords made eloquently. It is perhaps fair to point out that its design is not to everyone’s taste. I noted that in a debate in the other place in 1949 considering plans for the remodelling of Parliament Square, the then Member of Parliament for Twickenham expressed the view that the Buxton memorial had “no artistic merit whatever”. That is not this Government’s view.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I did not declare my interests. I also reference that I am a trustee of the fundraising committee. Given the enthusiasm, I shall certainly be coming round with my tin for a collection fairly soon.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise in support of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, not because I have any involvement—I have no Jewish blood in me—but because we are looking at the project through rose-tinted spectacles, as the noble Lord, Lord King, has just said. I have in the last two or three years been personally involved in two significant big construction projects. The rate of inflation in the building industry has been going through the roof. The thing that he touched on will undoubtedly make this even more difficult to budget and then to carry through on budget.

On top of that, whatever it will ultimately cost depends upon the detailed design. It is clearly a difficult site, as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said. That is why the contingencies are on the high side, and what are we faced with from the Government? We do not have any realistic figures giving any worthwhile indication of the order of magnitude of the bill that we are likely to be paying at the end of this process. It is not a matter of arguing about the detail of the morality, ethics or desirability of the project. Anyone embarking on a big project of this kind, which will incur very substantial expenditure, particularly public expenditure, ought to have a proper budget in front of them so that they can then take an informed decision on where they want to go. We do not have it. It is as simple as that. It is irresponsible to talk in grandiose terms about all kinds of things when the boring, prosaic aspects of cost and delivery have not properly been considered.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not an accountant.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, I want to add to what has been said because it is all about education. If your Lordships look back, in every educational course at state schools, as they were, there had to be education on what happened with the Holocaust and other holocausts. It was there to be done. I can tell your Lordships from my own grandchildren that over the last few years it has not come up at all. I have checked with teachers, headmasters and headmistresses in some of my other roles, and they say that one of the biggest problems is that now they are advised that it is not necessary, other than on a wider front. That is the key point in education—for it to get back into state schools. It does come up in non-state schools but not in state schools in the form that it should.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, that is correct. The appropriation Act allows us to spend the money.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

The Minister said the Government needed flexibility in the case of additional cost. Is that limitless?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, it would help if I can come on to more details about contingencies and costs, and then we can come back. If I do not answer anything specific, I can come back to the noble Lord in writing or in a further meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

It is important not to conflate the solemn nature of the memorial with the learning centre; they are two distinct but integrated matters. The Committee will always go to museums and Holocaust sites. What we want are the uncommitted: we want people who go to the learning centre and come away having learned something. They will use it as a doorway to wider knowledge. It will not be in isolation. We are going to work closely with our American friends, our friends at Auschwitz and our friends in Yad Vashem because the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and distortion do not recognise national boundaries. We have a common purpose, and part of that common purpose will be to spread it out in different languages.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as someone who is not Jewish, as I mentioned earlier, I have been very moved by the debate I have just heard about the learning centre. I subscribe to the perspective of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. As I was sitting there, I thought to myself, “Actually, there’s something that has not been mentioned”. It is—speaking as a non-Jew—the fact that Victoria Tower Gardens is a remarkable park as it stands now; that is a relevant consideration in our consideration in this place of what the future should be.

I am reminded of a story that I was told about the time when T Dan Smith redeveloped Eldon Square in Newcastle. He called in, as one of his expert advisers, Arne Jacobsen, the famous Danish architect. After the competition for the redesign of Eldon Square had been completed, he turned to Jacobsen and said, “If you had been putting in for this competition, what would you have done?” Jacobsen replied, “I would have left it just as it was before”.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, that was an extremely interesting debate from both sides of what I will call a discussion, not an argument. I thank noble Lords for it; I have learned a lot.

This is a large group covering three themes that have been discussed throughout the years of work that have been done on the Holocaust memorial. First, Amendments 2, 3, 4, 6 and 13 relate to the design of the memorial and the learning centre, seeking to prevent it involving an underground element and to separate the learning centre from the memorial. These issues have been debated at length. I do not feel that this Bill is the right place for us to debate issues relating to the planning and design of the building. I am sure that the Minister will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in detail. We urge him to listen to her concerns, but we cannot support her amendments.

Amendment 23, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St Albans, is one I do support. I do not think he spoke to it, but it has been such a long debate that I have forgotten what happened at the beginning. At a time when we are seeing growing anti-Semitism while marking the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, we need to recommit ourselves to the memory of the Holocaust, as I said earlier this year when we debated Holocaust Memorial Day. My noble friend Lord Blencathra, speaking on behalf of the right reverend Prelate, was right to highlight the need for proper Holocaust education as we work to counter anti-Semitism.

I take this opportunity, a bit cheekily, to ask the Minister to update me on what steps his department is taking to counter rising anti-Semitism in this country. I am very happy to have a letter. Also, can he confirm that the Government will, at the very least, maintain the level of support for Holocaust education provided by the previous Conservative Government? I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for all the evidence that he provided showing the need for this continued education.

Finally, Amendments 29, 30 and 31, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, all seek to re-open the question of an alternative site for the memorial or learning centre. While I understand the arguments made by many noble Lords on the question of where the memorial and learning centre should be located, I cannot agree that re-opening this issue, when in the past we have looked at more than 50 sites, would be a constructive step forward and would deliver that centre in anything like a timely manner.

I said in my opening remarks that it has been 11 years since my noble friend Lord Cameron made that solemn commitment to the survivors of the Holocaust. I feel very strongly that we should not take steps that will hinder the delivery of that commitment any longer.

English Devolution and Local Government

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

First, I share the noble Lord’s concern about mistrust in politics, but local government is the most trusted part of the political system, far more trusted than national politicians. I make that point to him. Of course it is right that the sizes of ward boundaries or divisional boundaries are appropriate for councillors to fulfil their need, but it is also important that those sizes are appropriate for the area that they represent. I am sure that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England will be taking great account of whether areas are majorly urban or rural and all the issues that it normally takes into account.

On mayoral accountability, it is not the case that the mayors will just be accountable to the Government. The White Paper sets out very clearly that there will be local public accounts committees in place and that the constituent parts of the combined authorities—the unitary authorities that sit within them—will have all the usual accountability mechanisms for those local authorities. They will have scrutiny and overview committees, they will explore the decisions of the Executive and the mayor will have a similar process at their level. So accountability will sit at the heart of the system. We will also mend the very broken audit system that has been left as a legacy from the previous Government and which has not worked for a number of years. The Government intend to address that and that is set out in the White Paper as well.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we know, because it is spelled out in the second sentence of the Statement, that the number 1 mission of this Government is to unlock growth in our regions and put money in the pockets of working people. Does the Minister not agree that the first way to take that forward is to stop sucking money out of the regions and then, secondly, provide additional resources and launch initiatives to catalyse growth-creating activities on the ground? I declare that I too am a resident and council tax payer in Cumbria.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Well, it very much seems that Cumbria is our happy place this afternoon.

I worked very closely with the politicians in Cumbria to get to where we are and am very pleased to see what they are doing. The noble Lord is quite right about local people taking decisions. The Government set an overall framework around these things, but this is absolutely right. Economies are different in every area and their needs, in terms of skills and training and infrastructure to support those economies, are different across the country. Therefore, it is very important that those decisions about strategic growth are taken locally. I agree that it is time that we got those powers, and the funding to enable that, out to the areas where they can do the best job.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, like a number of other speakers, I begin by referring to my entry in the register of interests. I declare that I am a landlord of some rented properties on my own account, and I am a landlord in a capacity as trustee for quite a lot more.

At the risk of stating the obvious, but I think this is rather important, houses are wasting assets. They always need refreshing and maintaining, and that is a predicament that affects everyone in this country in one way or another. They are also, and I think this is also significant, a crucial part of our national infra- structure. While we have heard a lot recently about the failures to properly maintain our national infrastructure —the railways, roads and water systems—we do not really think about housing in that context, but of course it should be thought of that way. If you want to look at an example of what happens if you do not carry out proper maintenance on buildings, you need go no further than the building where we are this evening, which is an absolute scandal.

Although we sometimes might have thought to the contrary today, the private rental sector is not homogenous, and there clearly has been abuse, which the Government are right to address. Nevertheless, as is also clear, the private landlord/tenant process is an essential element of our housing scene in this country and, as the previous speaker has just said, quite distinct from owner-occupation. Getting it right as much as we can in the real world—I say that because I want to contrast it with the kinds of desktop studies that sometimes accompany debates of this sort—is crucial for individual families’ well-being and the wider provision of housing in the country taken as a whole. We must not throw out the metaphorical baby with the bathwater.

However, we cannot do that unless we start from the presumption, which has to be based on realism about the real world, that both landlords and tenants are not scheming crooks. Still, there must be usable mechanisms that can cut in quickly and unequivocally against tenants and landlords if roguery is suspected. It is a question of balance. Some of the changes in the Bill seem desirable and move in the direction of improving that balance, while others perhaps go in the opposite direction. As we shall be discussing those in more detail at later stages, I will not go into them now. All I will say as a landlord is that if the rent is not paid, it has the same effect as opening a wallet and taking cash out of it, and trashing a house or flat is the same as trashing someone’s car. They are not victimless activities —on the contrary.

From the tenant’s point of view, security of tenure is clearly an important aspect, and I have considerable sympathy with the proposals to end no-fault eviction. However, market rent is a very slippery concept, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, touched on. Where I live, in the north of England, rent levels in Cleator Moor are very different from those in Chelsea. That has a considerable bearing because, where landlords are being expected to improve houses at the behest of the Government, you find that building costs have recently been increasing, as far as I can see, way ahead of inflation, so the whole thing gets into a muddle if we are not careful. There is an important question for the long run: if the code by which private landlords are expected to operate turns—de facto, not necessarily de jure—into some kind of housing benefit, what are the consequences and implications of that?

It is one of the mysteries of the world we live in that the land and housing market does not appear necessarily to follow the rules that are generally thought to apply under the wider laws of economics; we have to look only at the Government’s recent experience with calculating profitability in agriculture to see that. When there is a conflict in this sort of context between experience and theory, the experience of the real marketplace must always be right.

Simply repeating historic mantras is not very helpful in this context. What is needed is a complete rethink from first principles about a whole range of both the subject matter of the Bill and the inexorably connected flanking measures. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, has been doing a bit of that, as did the noble Lord, Lord Best, earlier in the debate. If we do not do that, we will end up simply going down a cul de sac.

As I have said already, the whole housing sector, just like other infrastructure, is a wasting asset. That has to be at the centre of our thinking and has to be understood by Governments—not only this Government, but Governments of all political persuasions—and the private rental sector is an integral component of that. My belief is that the only way it can function in the national interest is if it works for both landlords and tenants. That depends as much on the balance within the legislation as it does on the specificity of each and every element of it. If the arrangements—taken together with the Government’s involvement outside but having a bearing on this market—do not achieve that, the Bill will simply become an Act that fails.

English Devolution

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that comment. It is important that we get development moving as quickly as possible. The New Towns Taskforce will make recommendations to government on the best delivery approach when it reports in July next year. The appropriate delivery vehicle will always be place-specific, and we expect development corporations to be used in most cases. Mayors, local authorities and government can establish development corporations, and we look forward to engaging local partners to understand what will be the best delivery approach for them to support future growth. If these need to come forward sooner rather than later, we will work with local areas to make sure that we facilitate that as best as possible.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, if I understand the Minister right and the policy, there is to be no financial disincentive for authorities that do not wish to go in this direction. That being the case, will any other inducements and/or sweeteners be offered in order to try to take this forward? If not, what incentive is there for an area that does not have a mayor to do this?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, there are two absolutely key incentives to this programme of going forward with a mayor. Mayors will get new powers, devolved from Westminster, in a number of areas of competence. With the patience of the House, I will repeat those again: transport and local infrastructure; skills and employment support; housing and strategic planning; economic development and regeneration; environment and climate change; health, well-being and public service reform; and public safety. We are already setting out integrated budgets for the more established mayoral authorities to enable them to do that. There is a huge incentive to do that, as well as a seat around the table of the Council of the Nations and Regions. I hope local areas will see that as a positive opportunity. If they want to take more time to get there, that is fine, but it will be a great opportunity for our local regions.