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.

Housebuilding: Regional Mayors

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for inviting me to Cambridge, which I visited last week. It was a good visit and I am grateful to him. I can commit to publish the NPPF before the House rises for Christmas. I will take his other point back to the department and get the noble Lord a written answer.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

Can the Minister confirm that parts of this country that do not have regional or metro mayors will be given equal and equivalent consideration by central government in taking forward the kind of subjects she has been talking about?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That subject is very close to my heart. We have already set up a leaders’ council, which meets again next week. That is our way of communicating, on housing, development and many other issues, with leaders in parts of the country that are not currently covered by mayoral combined authorities. Further progress on the devolution agenda will be announced in the English devolution White Paper, which will also be published before the Christmas Recess.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there is a certain kind of person who thinks that any piece of open land, regardless of any other consideration, should be developed—be it brownfield, greenfield, green belt or even a UNESCO world heritage site. Of course, that is not so. Ever since the earliest days of theorising about architecture, and what the French call urbanisme, it has been recognised that architecture is as much about the space between buildings as it is about the buildings themselves.

Given its location—these things are site specific— I believe that Victoria Tower Gardens is one such place. Quite simply, I reject the suggestion that a memorial and learning centre be put there, where it would interfere with the context of the west front of the Palace, which to British people, and to Britain, is so important, and where it would gobble up open public space.

As was said earlier, the trustees of Victoria Tower Gardens are trustees for the past, present and future. The state should not, without very good reason, usurp their authority, get in their way and deploy its statutory powers to promote such a site-specific project which, whatever its good intentions and merits—there are plenty of them, as numerous speakers have said this evening—cannot be said to be of overriding national importance. Frankly, it is simply spurious to suggest that it is. On top of this, let us remember that we are not talking about a planning application, where there is still these days a slightly nebulous presumption of granting consent. This is different; it is about restrictive covenants for the protection of the Palace of Westminster and open space for the public.

In somewhat similar circumstances, in the case of Lake Ullswater, which is in Cumbria, in 1962 this House threw out at Second Reading a government-supported Bill proposing that the Manchester Corporation convert that lake into a municipal reservoir. Opposition was led by that greatest of lawyers, Norman Birkett, Lord Birkett of Ulverston. His very celebrated words in this Chamber at Second Reading, found in House of Lords Hansard for 8 February 1962 at col. 229 and following, are more powerful than mine and he elaborated his arguments at greater length than I would expect your Lordships to be prepared to listen to me, either on any occasion or this late in the evening. In short, he argued that the scheme under consideration was entirely unacceptable, even though the underlying project in its widest sense had real merit. The same is true in this case. Like a number of people, I support a Holocaust memorial and learning centre, but not here. It is very simple. It is a powerful, relevant, and indeed overriding perspective.

Finally, it seems a bit ironic when we are considering something site-specific of universal relevance but of especial significance to the Jewish community that a very celebrated episode in Jewish history is very much to the point. That is 1 Kings, chapter 21: the story of Naboth’s vineyard. Your Lordships will remember that King Ahab, or more precisely his wife Jezebel, wanted Naboth’s vineyard for purely personal reasons and was punished seriously by God for improperly achieving that. I hasten to add that I would not wish any such biblical affliction imposed on anyone involved with this scheme, but in this instance the Government covet this site for reasons which, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers, cannot fairly be described as of overriding national importance. Rather, they would like to have the site because they think it important, but nothing more than that. It is a nice-to-have, not something for which there is an overriding requirement from their perspective. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley: that is not a good enough reason to promote legislation to bring the scheme about through statutory powers.

As many speakers have said, the Holocaust memorial and learning centre should not go ahead in Victoria Tower Gardens, although I have absolutely no objection at all to a suitable small-scale monument there, comparable in scale, character and quality to Rodin’s “Burghers of Calais”, to go with those there at present. For my part, I will support any proposal to remove the powers to enable the learning centre to be sited in Victoria Tower Gardens and support any to promote the project elsewhere for all the reasons other people have already made this evening, which require no more repetition from me.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I come from Cumbria, where I chair the local enterprise partnership. It has been described in general terms as a county where there are both pockets of prosperity and various very real pockets of serious deprivation. Taken in the round, it is a place that, on most national metrics, is probably nearer the bottom of the class than the top. It is very difficult for places such as Cumbria to compete, because much of its economic and social infrastructure is weak—for example, road and rail connections, and connectivity, which has just been mentioned—and its training, skills and education are not as good as they should be. This means that, in the context of decisions taken commercially in relation to such things as inward investment, this part of England, and others like it, have a ball and chain around their leg.

That is why I support the concept of levelling up, which the Bill is intended to promote, although, as has been said, its exact definition is perhaps a bit opaque. It is, however, extraordinary that the Government appear to make little or no effort—as touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—to see what is being done in places such as mine, where we work for free in respect of things such as natural capital and ecosystem services, from which everyone else seems to benefit. We do not get the market value of the work carried out there.

Given the nature of the world we live in, local government clearly has a big part to play and, to do this effectively, scale is required to help to pay for the capacity to do it properly. Capacity is important when we are thinking about the kind of things we are discussing this evening. Equally, local government needs more profile. Local authority leaders are far less well known than, for example, leading players in local football clubs. It is only with profile that they can become the focus of the public debate and scrutiny which are necessary around the important matters we are talking about. Hence I am a supporter of the idea of mayors. Given that the country divides naturally into discrete areas, it must be right that these units should be the basis of the way we go forward. That is why I support the idea of the variable geometry in the Bill. After all, what is right for Manchester is not necessarily right for Cornwall or Cumbria.

However, I am concerned, as a number of other noble Lords have said, that devolved activities do not simply develop into devolved delivery mechanisms. The local administration should have real discretion in financial and policy matters, even at least if to some extent they end up cutting across central government policy. If voters and political leaders are allowed to make their own bed, they should have to lie on it.

Equally, it is important that elected mayors are not captured by national politics and political parties. I remember when I was selected as the Conservative candidate to fight the European election in Cumbria, Willie Whitelaw, the then Deputy Prime Minister, confided to me, “Richard, you must always remember that the way to be a successful Conservative politician in Cumbria is to be discreetly disloyal to the Government”. I am glad that the present evidence suggests that, right across the political spectrum, this capture has not yet happened. That is encouraging.

As far as the general condition of the country is concerned, it seems unarguable that we are not in a good place and we have to do better. A combination of bad luck, bad judgment and poor decisions means that we are not as a country where we would like to be. To improve matters, we have to keep them simple, focused on what counts and creates value and not vanity projects and meretricious populism.

Physical infrastructure obviously operates within the planning system. We have to have a planning system because, if it is not based on sound intellectual principles, land use in this country will simply become anarchic. The danger will be that our laudable efforts at simplifying things and improving the way in which matters are administered will lead to the whole system imploding, which will be hugely damaging.

Clearly, housing is at the heart of the debate around this topic, but we must not forget the fact that housing is a wasting asset which always requires more money, which has to be found and then paid for. It is common to all types of tenure across all kinds of ownership. This is at least as important to the well-being of the housing stock as to any other consideration and should be treated as a discrete aspect. Furthermore, the legislative tools within our system of planning controls and housing oversight are by themselves incapable of solving the problems we undoubtedly face.

None of this can be achieved without leadership combined with focus and realism. I look forward to seeing in Committee and at Report how the details emerge. Levelling up must not be allowed to become a cover for bureaucratic inertia and inadequate political posturing, and a smokescreen which disguises administrative shortcomings from the public gaze at national or local level.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, like others, I congratulate the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches in this debate. I will start my remarks where the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Clark of Windermere, concluded on day one of this debate on the gracious Speech. I refer to the controversy surrounding Newton Rigg College near Penrith, where I studied myself. As chair of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, I considered it inappropriate publicly to man the barricades on this matter; rather, I have been busy behind the scenes, including keeping the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, up to date with my concerns. However, now that the Cumbrian campus has publicly been placed on the market, with a view to unilaterally expatriating the proceeds to Yorkshire, I feel free to express my personal feelings and anger, shared by so many other Cumbrians.

Together with the chief executive of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, I was a witness at a hearing of the other place’s EFRA Committee on 23 March this year. In the same session, there were two witnesses from Askham Bryan College, neither of whom was either the chair or vice-chair of the governors. The committee’s questioning was skilful and forensic, led effectively by the honourable Member for Brent North, Mr Barry Gardiner. My LEP colleague and I spoke relatively little. I left the hearing stunned by the college’s evidence and its inadequacy and shortcomings, and was more or less completely bemused by it all. Since then, I have revisited the evidence, which was recorded, and have given it careful thought. It correlates with what I know has been happening on the ground and with Askham Bryan College’s behaviour, which has been evasive, disingenuous and inconsistent, including gagging its employees.

As noble Lords will know, FE colleges are charities, but they are not required to register with the Charity Commission; rather, their principal regulator is the Department for Education. None the less, their charitable purpose is paramount. However, in the face of what appear to be considerable financial difficulties, Askham Bryan College’s prime purpose seems to have morphed into one of preservation of itself to the exclusion of everything else, in a manner which specialist legal advice—which I have seen—suggests may be unlawful and certainly seems to me to disregard a number of the Nolan principles.

All this is very similar in a number of respects to what happened some years ago in the case of the Kids Company. That was a real scandal, and this is equally so. It is as simple as that.

I conclude with three pleas. First, I say to the Minister and the Government: this FE college is part of the nation’s system for delivering education and training, and the Government are the college’s principal regulator and guardian of the public interest. Their prime concern must be the integrity of the system and proper administration of the provision of FE, skills and training to everybody in this country, not just to those in Yorkshire. They should not emulate Pontius Pilate and weakly stand by wringing their hands. They should take a grip.

I say to your Lordships: one of our roles as parliamentarians is to identify abuse, bring it to public attention, place it under public scrutiny and stamp it out. As I have said, the EFRA Committee’s hearing on 23 March has been recorded and is available. I urge your Lordships to view it and form your own conclusions. I believe that something very wrong is going on.

Thirdly, I would say through the House and via Hansard to the media—I speak as an ex-Minister in the then DNH who had considerable involvement with the media, as an ex-chairman of the Communications Committee of your Lordships’ House when we produced an important report on investigative journalism, as chairman of a local newspaper group for more than a decade and now a director of Full Fact and the Public Interest News Foundation—that you the media, both local and national, because this is not a parochial issue, are part of the wider system of checks and balances in which our system of government and administration is set. I know a scandal when I see it. Go out, investigate, form your own conclusions and then tell truth to power. That is what you are for.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

Levelling Up

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, in order for there to be a reduction in economic disparity, of course that needs to touch on the issues that my noble friend raises. The proof of the pudding will be that we see those left-behind areas with large minority communities level up with those areas that are economically more successful.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, as chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership, I welcome these levelling-up initiatives. As the Minister has pointed out, levelling up is not simply a northern or an urban challenge. As has been pointed out, the headings of expenditure described in the Statement are a mere drop in the ocean of what is needed nationally, but they are a start. Can the Minister tell the House how, and in what specific ways, public expenditure and policy will be recalibrated to take this levelling-up agenda forward, at the same time ensuring that this is not done at the expense of global competitiveness?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I do not see the levelling-up agenda as being anything other than helping us to be more economically competitive at a global level. I am sure that there will be opportunities to refine the outcomes frameworks and the metrics used to ensure that we are successful in our desire to raise all boats.