Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The appropriate vehicle for all these issues, apart from what is in the simple Bill before us, is the planning process. I sometimes feel quite uncomfortable discussing the issues that we discuss, because they can pre-empt planning decisions. We have to be very cautious about what we say in this Committee.

I regret that I cannot support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in her Clause 2 stand part notice, which seeks to leave in place the existing legal prohibitions on the development of Victoria Tower Gardens. I have spoken previously about, and will repeat, the importance of the symbolism of establishing the Holocaust memorial here in Westminster, in the shadow of the mother of all Parliaments. I believe that this is an important statement of how important we consider Holocaust education to be. After all, it is our duty, as a Parliament, to protect the rights of minorities and learn the lessons of the Holocaust ourselves so that this never happens again.

Amendment 17 is very good, and I thank my noble friend Lord Strathcarron. I do not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, on this. When the Conservatives were in government, we put plans in place to limit the impact of construction on the rest of Victoria Tower Gardens, and we agree that the gardens should be protected for their existing use as far as possible. I urge the Government to listen to my noble friend Lord Strathcarron’s argument and ensure that protection for the rest of the gardens is put on a statutory footing, as the gardens as a whole are currently protected in law.

That said, I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who has long taken such a keen and passionate interest in this Bill. I know how deeply she feels about this legislation. The Government should take her concerns seriously and provide her and the rest of the Committee with reassurances, where possible.

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

My Lords, this has been another passionate debate showing the strength of feeling on different sides. Yesterday, I was at the Ron Arad Studio alongside the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and I saw the 3D model for the first time, in person. I will bring the model into Parliament, into this House, and book a space for all noble Lords to have the opportunity to look at it and question a representative of the architects’ firm, who can talk through the model. On the back of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Austin, I will also invite the historian Martin Winstone back into the House and give noble Lords another opportunity to engage with him, ask him questions and listen to his perspective. I start today by giving those two assurances.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Blencathra, for tabling their amendments. It would be appropriate, alongside these amendments, to argue that Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.

This group of amendments takes us to the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. The Act led to the creation of Victoria Tower Gardens in broadly its current form. The 1900 Act was then at the heart of the High Court case in 2022 that led to the removal of planning consent for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The previous Government, with cross-party support, introduced this Bill to remove the obstacle identified by the High Court. That was the right way to proceed. Parliament passed the Act in 1900, extending Victoria Tower Gardens and making them available for the public. It is right that Parliament should be asked to consider whether, in all the circumstances of the modern world, the 1900 Act should continue to prevent construction of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre in these gardens.

The Bill is short. It does not seek powers to bypass the proper procedures for seeking planning consent. With this one simple clause—Clause 2—the obstacle of the 1900 Act is lifted. No part of the 1900 Act is repealed. No general permission is sought for development. The only relaxation of restrictions concerns the creation of a memorial recalling an event that challenged the foundations of civilisation. That is the question posed to Parliament by Clause 2. It does not require hair-splitting over the number of square metres that should be allowed for a path or a hard standing; those are proper and important matters for the planning system, which is far better equipped to handle them than a Grand Committee of your Lordships’ House.

I would like to say a brief word about why Victoria Tower Gardens were chosen as the location for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, an issue of concern raised by a number of noble Lords. After an extensive search for suitable sites, Victoria Tower Gardens were identified as the site uniquely capable of meeting the Government’s vision for the memorial; its historical, emotional and political significance substantially outweighed all other locations. The Holocaust memorial and learning centre was also seen to be in keeping with other memorials sited in the gardens representing struggles for equality and justice.

The 1900 Act requires that Victoria Tower Gardens should remain a garden that is open to the public. We absolutely agree with that. Clause 2 simply provides that the relevant sections of the 1900 Act, requiring that the gardens shall be maintained as a garden open to the public, do not prevent the construction, subsequent use and maintenance of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am so sorry to interrupt the Minister again. He said that, after looking at 50 sites, Victoria Tower Gardens was decided to be the best of them. He has not explained what was wrong with the three sites recommended by the Holocaust Commission. Why did the Government reject the Imperial War Museum, Reuben Brothers’ offer of a site off Millbank, and Potters Fields?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

That is an issue for the competition and planning process subsequently. I cannot comment on planning matters.

Victoria Tower Gardens will remain open to the public and be home to an inspiring Holocaust memorial that will also be open to the public. Indeed, the design of the memorial was chosen because it met an essential challenge of the brief by being visually arresting yet showing sensitivity to its location and context. The winning design was further developed to meet the requirements of the chosen site and to ensure that the new features and landscaping improvements will benefit all users of the gardens. The gardens themselves will benefit from landscaping improvements that will enhance them for all visitors.

This clause will enable the Government to make progress on delivering the commitment that successive Administrations have made since 2015. Every Prime Minister since 2015 has supported this project. The current Prime Minister has restated that commitment clearly, including in his speech to the Holocaust Educational Trust last September—I was there—when he said:

“We will build that national Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre and build it next to Parliament, boldly, proudly, unapologetically … Not as a Jewish community initiative, but as a national initiative—a national statement of the truth of the Holocaust and its place in our national consciousness, and a permanent reminder of where hatred and prejudice can lead”.


I turn now to Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, which is intended to set a physical limitation on the size of any Holocaust memorial and learning centre that could be constructed at Victoria Tower Gardens. I acknowledge the desire among noble Lords to be reassured about the size of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre but, by setting a square metreage, this amendment does not provide certainty. Instead, it would open further avenues for litigation and make the proposed scheme undeliverable. The amendment would conflict with Clause 1(3) specifically, which allows alterations and extensions. More fundamentally, it would act as an obstacle to the creation of the specific scheme that this Government and previous Administrations have proposed to construct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lord, before the Minister replies, I ask my noble friend Lord Pickles one little point. He said that we cannot have Parliament decide on planning applications and that they are better left to the planning process. As I understand it, the planning process is a Minister in the department deciding either to have a round-table discussion, to submit a plan to Westminster Council or to call for written representations. That is the planning process. Does he think that a better process than Parliament deciding?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for tabling Amendments 9, 18, 19 and 20 and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for tabling Amendment 10. This group of amendments covers matters relating to the Spicer memorial, the magnificent trees in Victoria Tower Gardens and the children’s playground.

Amendment 9 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, draws attention to the Spicer memorial and to the children’s playground, both of which are very important features of Victoria Tower Gardens. If noble Lords will permit, I will come to the playground in just a moment and address that part of Amendment 9 alongside Amendments 18, 19 and 20, which also concern the playground.

The Government fully agree with noble Lords who wish to ensure that the Spicer memorial is protected and should continue to hold a prominent place in the gardens. Our proposals for Victoria Tower Gardens have been carefully developed to achieve these objectives. The Spicer memorial commemorates the philanthropist Mr Henry Gage Spicer, who contributed to the creation of the playground in the 1920s. Though not listed, the memorial is important, commemorating a generous donation and lending a degree of dignity to the gardens. Under our proposals, the Spicer memorial will be moved a short distance to the south—rather less than the changes experienced when it was relocated in 2014. It currently marks the northern end of the playground. Under our proposals for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, it will continue to fulfil that role.

The Select Committee, having considered petitions against the Bill, accepted an assurance from the Government that a review would be carried out of the arrangements proposed for the southern end of the gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors to Victoria Tower Gardens. That review is now under way and further information on this matter will be published when it is complete.

The impact of our proposals on the Spicer memorial, and on all the memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, was of course considered very carefully by the independent planning inspector. Once the process of redetermining the planning application is restarted, the Spicer memorial, and other memorials, will no doubt be considered again, as they should be. There is therefore no need to include the proposed provision in the Bill. It would add nothing to the commitments that have been given and would simply open the door to potential legal challenges, which would delay still further the construction of the Holocaust memorial. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 9.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for her Amendment 10. I recognise her great contribution to horticulture, landscaping and gardening. I fully support her commitment to protect the magnificent London plane trees in Victoria Tower Gardens. From the very beginning of the design process, protection of the two lines of trees on the eastern and western sides of the gardens has been a major consideration. The proposed design was selected from a very strong shortlist of contenders partly because of the way in which it respects Victoria Tower Gardens, including the London plane trees, which are today such an important and integral part of that place.

We have drawn heavily on expert advice to ensure that construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre can take place with as little impact on the trees as possible. As noble Lords may recall, a great deal of time was taken at the planning inquiry debating the likely impacts on tree roots, with several expert witnesses cross-examined. As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, alluded to, the inspector considered very carefully what pruning of tree roots would be required, how this would be mitigated and what the impacts on the trees would be. He was then able to consider the risks of harm against the undoubted benefits that will arise from the creation of a national memorial to the Holocaust with an integrated learning centre. Introducing a new statutory provision to prevent any root pruning would take away any possibility of such a balanced judgment. The amendment as drafted would place a significant constraint on any possible scheme and would certainly prevent the proposed scheme from going ahead in its current form. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 10.

I turn now to the children’s playground, which is the subject of Amendments 18, 19 and 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and is partially covered by Amendment 9, which I addressed a moment ago. The Government fully agree with noble Lords who wish to ensure that children are provided with a high-quality playground at Victoria Tower Gardens. Our proposals for the gardens have been carefully developed to achieve this objective. The playground will be remodelled with a high standard of equipment and carefully designed for accessibility, with suitable separation from other users of the gardens.

The Lords Select Committee gave a great deal of attention to the playground, including matters relating to level access, which are covered by Amendment 18. The Select Committee accepted assurances from the Government that the playground would remain open, with level access at all times, during the construction process, when this is practicable and safe. A separate assurance accepted by the committee committed the Government to review arrangements for the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors. Amendments 18, 19 and 20 seek to put in the Bill assurances that the Government gave to the Lords Select Committee.

It was, of course, open to the Select Committee to amend the Bill. It did not do so, which I believe was a wise decision. Using primary legislation to impose detailed conditions on a development carries significant risks. It is a blunt instrument—an approach that takes away the scope for balanced judgment after hearing all the evidence, and that risks creating unintended consequences when statutory provisions are translated into practical steps on the ground. I repeat without embarrassment that the better approach is to rely on the planning system. The impacts of our proposals on the playground in Victoria Tower Gardens were of course considered very carefully by the independent planning inspector. Once the planning process is restarted, the playground will no doubt be considered again.

As for the assurances that we have given to the Lords Select Committee, the Government will be accountable to Parliament for ensuring that they are carried out. There is therefore no need to include these new clauses in the Bill. They would add nothing to the commitments that have been given and would simply open the door to potential legal challenges that would delay still further the construction of the Holocaust memorial.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked specifically about the planning process, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on the previous group. This application is subject to the passing of this Bill. The planning process would mean that the designated Planning Minister, Minister McMahon, would consider the options. It is up to him to decide which options he would want to take forward. One would be written representations, a second would be a public inquiry and a third would be a round table based on a consensus approach. These are options for the designated Minister to consider.

I hope I have clarified noble Lords’ concerns and issues, and I therefore ask the noble Lord, for whom I have great respect—I spent a lot of time in Bahrain as a student of his diplomacy—not to press his Amendments 18, 19 and 20 requiring new clauses.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, as my amendment was an amendment to an amendment, I am having the final bite of the cherry, so to speak. My noble friend Lord Blencathra asked me a very technical question. As I have relied very heavily on a report that was done by an extremely well-qualified person and I do not have the immediate answer, I think I might take refuge in something that is sometimes done by Ministers answering questions: I will write to my noble friend having found out the precise answer.

In general terms, I am sorry to say that, despite the kindness of the Minister in seeking to answer my queries, I am not in the least satisfied with the points that he has made—not only because he rather underplayed the importance of severing tree roots but because he did not deal at all with the severe matter of compaction, which is another major issue. I will not worry the Committee with anything much longer, save to say that I seek leave to withdraw only because I really have no other choice—but I am not in the least satisfied with the result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for introducing this group and giving the Committee the benefit of his extensive expertise as a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. I hope that the Minister will take his amendments very seriously and consider allowing a further report on security as part of the process as we work towards the delivery of the memorial. However, I do not think it is correct to put it in the Bill.

Amendments 28 and 35 in the names of my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Howard of Rising are important amendments seeking to ensure that security and other risks are taken into account before the memorial is built. Security in Westminster is vital. We welcome millions of visitors every year, and endless high-profile people come to Westminster on a daily basis. We on these Benches support all efforts to ensure that the Government properly review and monitor the security measures in place in Westminster. Perhaps the Minister could look favourably on Amendment 28 in this group, which would ensure that security is properly considered through the planning process, as my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Howard of Rising suggest.

The argument has been made that Westminster is a highly protected and very secure part of our capital city, and I have some sympathy with that view. Can the Minister give us more detail on the additional security measures, if any, that the Government intend to put in place to protect the Holocaust memorial and learning centre?

Finally, I support my noble friend Lord Blencathra in his Amendment 36. He is seeking to ensure that people can continue to visit Victoria Tower Gardens without restrictions. This is a reasonable amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to explain how he intends to ensure that people will continue to have free access to Victoria Tower Gardens.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Blencathra and Lord Howard of Rising, for tabling these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I have a very strong commonality: Burnley has shaped both our lives. He has tabled Amendments 15 and 39, which require a review of security to be carried out and approved by Parliament before other sections of the Act can commence. I recognise that he has a great deal of expertise and experience in these matters, and he is absolutely right to draw attention to the need for proper security arrangements.

Security has been a central consideration throughout the development of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. We have to recognise and plan for the risk that people with evil intent will see the memorial and learning centre as a target. At the same time, we reject completely the idea that the threat of terrorism should cause us to place the memorial and learning centre in a less prominent location, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Austin, made very eloquently.

In developing the design for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, we have sought advice on security measures from the National Protective Security Authority, including MI5, the Metropolitan Police and the Community Security Trust. Based on their advice, physical security measures will be incorporated into the memorial and learning centre and landscaping which will meet the assessed threat. Their advice has also informed our proposed operational procedures, which, to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will be reviewed and updated routinely in response to the current threat assessment.

These matters are an essential part of the planning process and were given careful attention by the planning inspector. He noted that security information had been shared with Westminster City Council’s counterterrorism and crime reduction teams, who raised no objections to the security aspect of the application. The inspector sensibly noted that much of the detail of the security arrangements could not be released without compromising security. That, of course, remains true.

This amendment is unnecessary, because security matters are and will continue to be fully addressed as part of the planning process within the statutory planning framework, which is the proper forum for considering them. Security matters were considered in some detail by the Lords Select Committee, which accepted a detailed assurance from the Government on publicising the reopening of the planning process so that parliamentarians and interested parties are aware of the timing and nature of the process. The committee also accepted a detailed undertaking in relation to the evidence on security, including that we would review our security plans, consult widely and make updated information on security matters available to Members of both Houses. Through representations to the Minister taking the planning decision, we aim to ensure that security considerations continue to be regarded as a main issue in the determination of the application.

The Select Committee, after careful consideration, accepted the assurance and undertaking which, taken together, will enable parliamentarians to examine the information provided as part of the redetermination of the planning application, with the exception of any information that is confidential or should not be placed in the public domain for security reasons. It recommended that we give careful consideration to amending the Bill as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. We have given this recommendation very careful thought and have concluded that the proposed amendment would not lead to any greater expert scrutiny of security evidence. It would, however, lead to considerable delay and uncertainty for the programme. We have therefore concluded that no amendment is necessary or desirable. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press these two amendments.

Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to place in the Bill the terms of an undertaking given by the Government to the House of Lords Select Committee. It is therefore perfectly clear that the Government have no difficulty with the substance of the proposed amendment. The effect of the assurance and undertaking given to the Select Committee will be to enable parliamentarians to examine the information provided as part of the redetermination of the planning application, with the exception of any information that is confidential or should not, as I have said before, be placed in the public domain for security reasons. Ministers will also be accountable to Parliament for actions that they take in meeting the assurance and undertaking. Nothing is to be gained by including these measures in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Strathcarron for his Amendment 16, which seeks to establish a competition for the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. As I have said in our debates on previous groups, concerns about the design of the centre and memorial should be addressed in the full planning process; the Minister has given us this afternoon an assurance that that will be the case for both this and other matters.

That said, we are now a very long way along this process, and a design has already been chosen and discussed fully in the past. I have listened carefully to the concerns of my noble friend. There would have to be serious practical problems with the chosen design for it to be sensible to reopen the design question. We need to make progress on the delivery of this memorial and learning centre. I remind the Committee that it has now been over a decade since my noble friend Lord Cameron announced his plans for a Holocaust memorial. If we were to reopen the question of design for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, that could risk a further delay; we must ask ourselves whether that is appropriate given the amount of work that successive Governments have put into delivering the memorial.

I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that he is able to address noble Lords’ concerns fully.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, for bringing this amendment, which was eloquently put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. It seeks to require a rerun of the process that took place in 2016 to identify the proposed design for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, with the additional restriction that the outcome would be a figurative memorial and, perhaps, the implication that there would be no learning centre.

It may be helpful if I remind the Grand Committee that the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel after an international competition that attracted 92 entrants. The shortlist of 10 design teams was described by Sir Peter Bazalgette, the then chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, as

“some of the best teams in architecture, art and design today”.

Anish Kapoor, who was rightfully praised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in our debate last week, was part of a design team alongside Zaha Hadid Architects, which submitted a powerful and striking design. Other well-known architects and designers who were shortlisted included Foster and Partners, Studio Libeskind and Rachel Whiteread. This was a competition that attracted designers of the very highest quality from across the world.

After detailed consultation, in which shortlisted schemes toured the UK and a major consultation event for Holocaust survivors was held, a judging panel had the difficult task of choosing a winning team. The judging panel, chaired by Sir Peter Bazalgette, included the then Secretary of State, Sajid Javid; the Mayor of London; the Chief Rabbi; the chief executive of the Design Council; the director of the Serpentine Gallery; broadcaster Natasha Kaplinsky; and Holocaust survivor Ben Helfgott. Clearly, this was a serious panel of well-informed people with deep experience on matters of design, as well as on the significance of a Holocaust memorial. The panel unanimously chose the team consisting of Adjaye Associates, Ron Arad Architects and Gustafson Porter + Bowman as the winners.

In announcing its decision, the panel referred to the sensitivity of the design both to the subject matter and to the surrounding landscape. Public exhibitions were then held to gather feedback on the winning design ahead of a planning application. As the law requires, further consultation took place on the planning application. More than 4,000 written representations were submitted. A six-week planning inquiry was held, in public, at which more than 50 interested parties spoke. All the details of the planning application, over 6,000 pages of information, all of which remains publicly accessible online, were closely scrutinised. Members of the design team, including the very talented young architect Asa Bruno, director at memorial designer Ron Arad Architects, who tragically died the following year, were cross-examined by learned counsel.

There was, of course, a great deal of discussion at the planning inquiry about the proposed design of the Holocaust memorial, the learning centre and the associated changes to Victoria Tower Gardens. Many opponents of the scheme, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, took the opportunity to inform the inspector of their opinions on the proposed design. In his detailed report, the inspector sets out the spectrum of views on the design presented to him. Having heard the evidence of a very wide range of supporters and opponents, the inspector was then able to reach a balanced judgment. He recorded in his report his view that

“the proposals comprise a design of exceptional quality and assurance”.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Can I ask the Minister whether all these people knew that the design had already been put forward in Ottawa? I do not think that even I knew that then.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I will come back to the noble Baroness’s point towards the end of my wind-up.

Following the planning inquiry, the independent inspector submitted his detailed and lengthy report to the Minister, with a recommendation that consent should be granted. The Minister agreed with that recommendation.

Amendment 16, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, would simply take us back around nine years and require the design competition to be run again. There is no good reason for such a step. The Government remain fully committed to the current design, which has been the subject of detailed attention and wide consultation. Suggestions that the memorial was not designed by Ron Arad or not envisaged specifically for Victoria Tower Gardens are wide of the mark. Ron Arad’s drawings showing the evolution of the design have been displayed at the Royal Academy for all to see the originality and brilliance of his design.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

Does the noble Lord agree that a camel is a horse designed by a committee? What he has just said proves that.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, swiftly moving on, it is not realistic to suppose that a new design competition would produce a design that pleases everyone. Let me be absolutely clear: I have featured in a BBC housebuilding documentary programme and I was most suspicious of design but, by the end of the 14 months when I was running for the European Parliament, I realised the impact and the power of design. Everyone has different tastes and different suspicions of design; everyone has different views. Differences of view about the artistic merits of designs are nothing new. It is quite proper that there should be an open debate about the design of new memorials, indeed of all new public buildings.

The design that is proposed for the UK national Holocaust memorial and learning centre is the product of extensive consultation, a design competition that attracted many of the best architects in the world and a judging process that relied on the deep expertise of a talented and experienced panel. Are we simply to set all that aside and require the process to be repeated? It is right, of course, that a decision to proceed with construction of the memorial and learning centre should be taken only after all relevant voices have been heard.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred to the press reports in 2023 concerning Sir David Adjaye. Following allegations made in those reports, Adjaye Associates has said that Sir David will not be involved in the UK Holocaust memorial project until the matters raised have been addressed.

I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, was in her place when I made the following point. The learning centre will look at subsequent genocides through the lens of the Holocaust. The content of the learning centre is being developed by the leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem. The focus is to ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust. The exhibition will confront the immense human calamity caused by the destruction of Jewish communities and other groups, and the exhibition will also examine the Holocaust through British perspectives.

The noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, said that he knows nothing wiser. I was very clear in an earlier group about the next steps of the process around planning options, subject to the passage of the Bill. I made it very clear last week—and I will say it again after the confirmation of the previous group—that the designated planning Minister, Minister McMahon, will take an approach of his choosing, whether that will be a consensus round- table meeting, written responses or a public inquiry. It is for the designated Minister to decide which approach to the planning process he will take. On his very important focus on world heritage sites, I would not do justice to the noble Lord’s passion in this area if I swiftly gave the answer now, but I will come back to him, and go through this in detail, in the next group.

[Lord Sassoon (Con)]

I appreciate that the Minister does not want to repeat multiple times his definitive words on the world heritage site, and I fully accept that. On the planning, what he has just said—which I have heard him say before—seems to give absolutely no comfort about the future planning, because he says that it is entirely for the Minister. Does he accept that it would be technically possible for the Government to put amendments to the Bill that would guide the future planning process? At the moment, the Government are washing their hands of it. Would it be possible for the Government, or anybody else, to come forward with amendments to the Bill to direct in some way the shape of the future planning process, to give the Committee more comfort about what will happen, rather than just being told that it might be something or nothing?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me make it clear: it is for the designated Minister to decide the process and make the decision. If it means that, as normal planning decisions are made, there might be some conditions as part of the planning process, as is normal—for example, you cannot start building without consultation and cannot open the building without letting Westminster City Council know about security—then that is up to the Minister. I know other examples; I have just given one there. The process is totally detached from here and from me bringing the Bill forward as a supporter of it.

Moving towards concluding remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested that the memorial proposed for Victoria Tower Gardens is in some way a copy of a proposal that the architect submitted for a Holocaust memorial in Ottawa in 2014. I find this a rather strange criticism. When we consider the Buxton memorial, for example, are we to think less of its design because the architect used a similar Gothic revival style somewhere else? Should we be disappointed with “The Burghers of Calais” simply because it is one of 12 casts of the same sculpture? The topic was, of course, addressed at the planning inquiry, where the late Asa Bruno was able to point out that, while sharing a basic common architectural motif, the two proposals differ greatly in scale, material, form and proposed visitor experience, so that was clear from the public inquiry.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Can I ask the Minister why Sir David Adjaye would say that the memorial was something disruptive of the park, and specifically about this situation, if he used the same thing abroad? Is his conscience not troubled at all that, for purely administrative reasons, the Jewish community is going to be lumbered with a design by someone who has admitted sexually inappropriate behaviour? Unfortunately, one cannot include photographs in Hansard, but I have in my hand the report,

“David Adjaye steps back from Holocaust memorial after misconduct claims”.


He steps back, but we are left with the design, which is featured on Adjaye Associates’ website. Do the Government still have a contract with Sir David Adjaye, and what is the future of the association with him? Because, going ahead with this, I cannot stress too strongly how appalling it is.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, if I heard her correctly, I think the noble Baroness was asking about my conscience. This is in the national consciousness, and that is why we want to build this Holocaust memorial learning centre to reflect and learn the lessons of the past but also to be an education for future generations to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, that this can never happen again.

Regarding Sir David, I do not want to say anything further about the allegation; I have said what I have said. I repeat that Adjaye Associates said that Sir David will not be involved in the UK Holocaust memorial project until the matters raised have been addressed. There is nothing that more I can add.

Let me make an important point to noble Lords across the Committee. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit Ron Arad Studio. As I have said previously, when it comes to design, I am not the easiest to please person. Everyone has different views, as we see in the debates here, and I respect that. In addition to these proceedings, it would be very helpful to all noble Lords if I gave them the opportunity to see the proposed project in 3D form and to look at it from a design point of view. However, I repeat that it is not for this Committee to consider that; it is for planning. We are here to do two things: first, as per Clause 1, to allow the Secretary of State to spend on the project; and secondly, as per Clause 2, to disapply the 1900 Act so that we can build the project.

The planning system provides exactly the forum for a debate on this topic. That forum allows views to be heard and balanced judgments to be formed. There is no good reason for Parliament to seek to put aside the planning system in the single case of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Noble Lords will have plenty of opportunities, subject to the passage of the Bill, to be part of the planning process. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

There is a point that has not been dealt with. In January 2015, there was cross-party support for the conclusions and recommendations of the Holocaust Commission. I do not think that the Minister has addressed the argument that the Adjaye design does not conform to those recommendations. I feel that he has avoided any discussion of the differences between the design and what was recommended at that time and won cross-party acceptance, which I think is still in existence. That point needs dealing with in these deliberations.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have the utmost respect for the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and I appreciate his strong concerns and the very interesting points he has raised throughout the passage of this Bill. Let me clear: there were 92 entrants in what was an international competition, and the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel. The chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation said that the 10 teams shortlisted were,

“some of the best teams in architecture, art and design today”.

The competition attracted the highest quality designers from across the world. The decision was made through a process in which the panel chose a team consisting of Adjaye Associates, Ron Arad Architects and Gustafson Porter + Bowman as the winner.

I just say to the noble Lord that numerous Prime Ministers, with elected mandates, have supported the Holocaust memorial and learning centre—the whole project. We too will continue to support it wholeheartedly. I invite the noble Lord and others to look at the model when we bring it to the House. I found it very impressive, but that is my view.

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

I will have one more try. It seems to me that, whatever the Minister has said, it does not deal with the problem the Government have: that there was and still is cross-party support for the conclusions and recommendations of Britain’s Promise to Remember. The Adjaye design does not meet them. If the noble Lord thinks that it does, then we need a proper explanation of the way in which it does. There never was a single reference to what is now being proposed, with both the memorial and the learning centre in a single building—you cannot rely on the word “co-locate”.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, very briefly, we think that it does. I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has an amendment in group 7, when we will discuss this in depth.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I begin with a profound apology to my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, whose amendment I inadvertently stole. For some reason, when I was writing up my notes, in my enthusiasm for some of the amendments here, I assumed it was mine. I therefore jumped up today to propose it as mine—it certainly was not mine and I apologise for that. My noble friend kindly agreed to let me do the wind-up in his place.

My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said that the only reason why the Opposition might object to it is if there were practical problems. By that, I think that she meant if there were construction, engineering or big design problems, but we say that there are practical problems because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, there is nothing Jewish about it. There is no Jewishness in the whole thing.

The Minister attempted to justify regurgitating the Ottawa failure on the basis that architects often reuse designs. Yes, that is fair game, except that this was supposed to be a uniquely British design. The design for the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, or wherever it was to be, had to be a uniquely British one. There is nothing uniquely British about something that Canada rejected.

In my remarks, I did not refer to the personal problems that Mr Adjaye experienced and the allegations against him. I simply note that he has said:

“I will be immediately seeking professional help in order to learn from these mistakes”.


The Government keep saying that it does not matter now, because Adjaye will have nothing more to do with it in future. It is too late to withdraw from it now —it is Sir David Adjaye’s design. He was praised to the heavens and his name was mentioned 12 times in the press release announcing the design. The Government were very proud to have David Adjaye then, and it is no good now trying to distance themselves from him.

I am not Jewish, so I cannot understand the depth of feeling there would be about someone who, because of sexual problems, has withdrawn from a project to design a memorial for 6 million slaughtered Jews. All I can say from my own background, with two uncles who were in the 51st Highland Volunteers, captured at St Valery and taken to Stalag Luft 14, is that I would not like a monument to them and to the regiment to be designed by someone who had these sexual allegations against them. I would hate that.

One of my noble friends said that a new monument would be completed quickly and at much smaller cost. Of course, a separate learning centre above ground would also be cheaper. My noble friend Lord Sassoon made a very good point. We can get a suitable amendment that would lead to an appropriate memorial that relates to Jewishness, is the right size and tries to get across the message that the memorial is there because 6 million Jews were slaughtered. That is the most important thing.

Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my noble friend Lord Strathcarron’s amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I clarify that these are allegations.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

A number of sectors will be negatively affected by the changes proposed in the Bill, including anchor stores, which we will debate shortly. The Liberal Democrats are seeking to protect our hospitals and our health sector, as we have heard. The Government are doing the opposite by giving to the NHS with one hand and taking away with the other. I hope the Minister will look favourably on these amendments, but if the Liberal Democrats choose to divide on this issue, we will support them.

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

My Lords, these amendments seek to remove healthcare hereditaments, including medical and dental schools, from the higher multiplier.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have explained the importance of taking a sector-agnostic approach with regard to the application of the higher multiplier. This is the fairest approach to ensure that the Government can sustainably fund the lower multipliers. In Committee I set out that of the 16,780 properties at or above the £500,000 threshold, based on the current rating list, only 350 are in the health sub-sector. Of these, 290 are NHS hospitals and only 30 are doctors’ surgeries or health centres. These numbers are rounded to the nearest 10.

This Government fully support the healthcare sector. Our great National Health Service, which has delivered universal healthcare for nearly 80 years, is something the Government are extremely proud of. We recognise that the NHS needs support and reform to ensure that it can continue to deliver world-class healthcare to all for the next 80 years and beyond. The noble Baroness may feel that I do not appreciate her point, but I assure her that I do. This Government want to create an environment in which the healthcare sector can thrive. As I have set out, the impact on this sector is limited and where it does apply, much falls to the public sector.

The noble Baroness will be aware that phase 2 of the spending review is currently under way, following the fixing of the spending envelope at the Autumn Budget. As part of setting departmental budgets at the spending review, the Government will consider the full range of priorities and pressures facing departments. This includes considering any impact of the higher multiplier.

I am sure noble Lords appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the spending review, but I reassure them that the impact of the higher multiplier on the public sector is an active consideration. The immunity of the Crown from business rates was removed 25 years ago and since then all of the public sector has been on the same footing as business. The Government are not going to reverse this position, which was intended to drive fairness between the public and private sectors and the most efficient use of property in the public sector. For these reasons, I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment and I respectfully ask her to withdraw it.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which, I am afraid, was much as predicted. I really do not know how a Labour Minister can say that the Government are agnostic about our NHS. You can be agnostic in approach, but surely not about the NHS. The Minister said that they are taking an agnostic approach to the sector, but that includes agreeing that our NHS will be clobbered by even higher rates bills than it has now, while some private hospitals have the 80% charitable relief. That will not create the level playing field that he talked about.

On these Benches, we are determined to support our NHS to enable it to push down waiting lists. Given that the Minister was unable to give me any hope that there will be a change of heart, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. I will speak to the amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.

Amendments 2 and 11 are broad amendments that seek to retain the standard multiplier for all retail, hospitality and leisure hereditaments, rather than them facing higher business taxes. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right to raise the issue of higher taxes on RHL businesses above the £500,000 threshold, as the Government’s stated policy intentions are not reflected in the reality of this Bill. We share similar concerns about the impact that this will have on high streets, which is why my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook has tabled an amendment to protect anchor stores and I have tabled an amendment on the cliff-edge effects of the £500,000 threshold.

Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, seeks to introduce a review of the introduction of a specific use class that targets businesses that operate solely out of fulfilment warehouses—the Amazon tax. The Bill does not deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to ensure that online giants are paying their fair share of business rates. Indeed, we expected this Amazon tax to be introduced through this Bill, and it is disappointing that the Government have not delivered anything close to such a reform in this legislation. As such, we will support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, should he choose to press it.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for a very constructive and positive meeting yesterday. This group of amendments seeks to amend the approach taken in the Bill regarding the targeting of the higher multiplier. They would require the removal of qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure from the higher multiplier and commit the Government to undertake a review of the merits of creating an additional multiplier and use class for fulfilment centres of retailers that do not have a material presence on our high streets. As set out at the Budget, the Government intend to introduce a permanent tax cut for qualifying RHL properties from 2026-27 by introducing two lower RHL multipliers for these properties that have a rateable value below £500,000. The Bill makes provision to enable this through secondary legislation.

In consideration of the challenging fiscal environment that this Government face, it is important that the permanent tax cut is funded sustainably, which is why the Government intend to introduce a higher multiplier to fund the tax cut from within the business rates system. It is the Government’s intention for the higher multiplier to apply to all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. This ensures that sufficient funding is raised to enable the Government to provide that permanent tax cut for RHL properties with rateable value below £500,000. I thank noble Lords here today for their contributions on this topic.

The Government recognise that a small number of RHL properties fall above the £500,000 threshold. However, the helpful information published by the Valuation Office Agency shows that this is comparatively small. As per the current rating list, of the 16,700 properties in England with a rateable value at or above the £500,000 threshold, a little over 3,000 fall into the shops subsector. There is more behind this: of those falling into this subsector, around 72% are supermarkets, large food stores or retail warehouses. That leaves fewer than 1,000 stores, of which around 600 are located in London and the south-east. For most other regions, the number of shops affected is fewer than 50.

A similar pattern is present when looking at hospitality and leisure sectors. That data also shows that 670 hereditaments fall into the assembly and leisure subsector, of which 380 are located in London and the south-east. Only 550 fall into the hotels, guest and boarding, and self-catering subsector, of which 450 are located in London and the south-east. So the impact is not widespread when it is considered that there are over 450,000 shops; over 80,000 hotels, guest and boarding, and self-catering properties; and over 180,000 assembly and leisure properties with a rateable value below the £500,000 threshold. It is imperative that any tax cut is funded sustainably, so the Government do not intend to remove any properties from the higher multiplier.

Against the challenging fiscal environment, the Government have to take tough decisions. This is the fairest approach that ensures a sustainable solution to ensuring that the permanent tax cut for RHL properties can be funded from within the business rates system. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and I respectfully ask him not to press them.

I turn to Amendment 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and I appreciate his interest in Burnley warehouses. This amendment also concerns the new multipliers and how we might target online retailers that operate from large distribution warehouses and tend not to have a presence on the high street. This matter has attracted interest not just during the passage of the Bill but in the course of several reviews of business rates over recent years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, at the beginning of his response to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, he said that there would be a permanent business rates cut for RHL businesses. Yet, the House of Commons Library briefing states that the British Property Federation said in written evidence to the Public Bill Committee that there would be an increase in total business rates liability of £2.6 billion. Can the Minister explain that?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, yes, I can explain that, because we are talking in particular about the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. The point is very clear. We cannot have a system where every year businesses do not know what their business rates bill is going to be. Over the years—I accept that there has been Covid—we have not had a long-term approach to this. This is part of a wider reform of the whole business rates system. I am sure that the noble Baroness will understand that having a multiyear approach to this will provide more certainty and stability for businesses, which will know what their bills will be. The higher £500,000 threshold properties, which amount to 1%, are supporting the retail, hospitality and leisure sector, in particular, across the country.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group—and in particular my colleague on these Benches, my noble friend Lord Thurlow, for introducing his amendment.

I appreciate that the Minister has effectively gone as far as his brief permits, but I hope he realises that there is a serious job of work that needs to be done. A reforming Government who come in with a manifesto commitment need to do something better than shuffle the chairs on the deck of a ship that appears to have a very large hole in it, as far as I am concerned.

Before I conclude, I will make three or four comments. If the full 10% supplement is applied on top of—I paraphrase —a 55p in the pound multiplier, that is getting on for 20%. Maybe it is 18%—I have not done the maths—but it is a very substantial proportionate increase. On the Minister’s own admission, it serves to disadvantage what he regards as a “very few”, for the uncertain and, indeed, undetermined benefit of what we take to be numerous smaller fry.

We do not know how that is going to work out, as we have explored in previous stages of this his Bill. It does not target the high street; it does not target it with that benefit, at least not obviously so. For all the hospitals, police stations, theme parks, offices and manufacturing units, along with the distribution network of large warehouses serving conventional retail, it will just result in higher costs to consumers, including, indirectly, via local authorities owning leisure centres and installations of that sort.

So the problem does not go away just because the Government have found the least painful strategy for dealing with these things. I think we will be seeing the ill-effects of this for some time to come, not least in the attrition of confidence of which I spoke earlier. However, with that said, I do appreciate what the Minister has done and his willingness to engage and again thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support to the important comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. The importance of anchors cannot be overemphasised, particularly in smaller towns. We all know a shopping centre near where we live, and not a brick of development for that shopping centre would have been laid if it was not for a pre-let to an anchor.

It is important to explain that. They do not just create the footfall for the retailers generally—which of course they do—but they also catalyse the funding for the developer to build it. They are the anchor. They are the golden goose for the high street. Taxing them more simply risks losing them. The damage to society locally in losing them will be difficult to restore, and social cohesion will suffer. I strongly support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and will support it if it goes to the vote.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to remove anchor stores from the higher multiplier. They also seek to expand the cohort of hereditaments that qualify for the lower multipliers by bringing manufacturing properties into scope alongside qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure.

As set out at the Budget, the Government intend to introduce a permanent tax cut for qualifying RHL properties from 2026-27 by introducing two lower RHL multipliers. The Bill makes provision to enable this through secondary legislation. In consideration of the challenging fiscal environment that this Government face, it is important that the permanent tax cut is funded sustainably, which is why we intend to introduce a higher multiplier to fund the tax cut from within the business rates system. It is the Government’s intention for the higher multiplier to apply to all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. This ensures that sufficient funding is raised to enable the Government to provide that permanent tax cut for RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this topic. As she did in Committee, the noble Baroness has set out the important role that anchor stores play on our nation’s high streets. We have heard that they are a linchpin, that they drive footfall and that they help support the broader high street ecosystem by attracting other businesses. The Government recognise this and the information published by the Valuation Office Agency shows that a relatively small number of shops fall above the £500,000 threshold. In my response to the debate on the previous group, I set out that the impact on shops is not widespread. I will not repeat those numbers here.

Furthermore, anchor stores are often part of large retail chains that will also have a number of properties with a rateable value below £500,000 and, in the case of those properties, will benefit from the lower RHL multipliers. Moreover, whereas RHL relief is currently limited to a cash cap of £110,000 per business, the Government intend to have no such limit on the new RHL multipliers to better ensure more widespread support for the high street.

On the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the impact of this Bill on the manufacturing sector has been a recurrent theme throughout its passage. In the other place, the Government heard calls for manufacturing to be included in the cohort qualifying for the lower multipliers, citing the threat of tariffs, our isolation from our neighbours and growing competition from other countries. These amendments would bring manufacturing properties with a rateable value below £500,000 into scope of the lower RHL multipliers.

Noble Lords are aware of the difficult task that this Government face. The current fiscal backdrop is challenging and, in this context, I hope they understand that widening the scope of the properties qualifying for the lower multipliers, as well as taking properties out of scope of the higher multipliers, as these amendments seek to do, is likely to dilute the support that the Government are able to provide to RHL properties with a rateable value below £500,000.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have emphasised our desire to ensure that we move to a fairer, rebalanced and sustainable business rates system. We have been clear that any tax cut must be sustainably funded. To expand the cohort and number of properties qualifying for the lower multipliers while reducing those to which the higher multiplier will apply risks this policy no longer being sustainable—a key principle that the Government have stated throughout the Bill’s passage.

As I said, against the challenging fiscal environment, the Government have to take tough decisions. This is the fairest approach, which ensures a sustainable solution so that the permanent tax cut for RHL can be funded from within the business rates system. Of course, noble Lords have made sensible points. Anchor stores are part of high streets, as is light manufacturing in some areas, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in Committee.

The Government are committed to ensuring the longevity and survival of our vibrant and diverse town centres, and there are many ways in which we are pursuing that endeavour. In December, we introduced high street rental auctions, a new power which allows local authorities to auction off the lease of persistently vacant commercial units. The new regulations will make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable for businesses and community groups, while helping to tackle vacancy on our high streets.

Through the English devolution Bill, we will also introduce a strong new right to buy for valued community assets, which will help this Government safeguard our high streets. This measure will empower local communities to reclaim and revitalise empty shops, pubs, and community spaces, helping to revamp our high streets, increase footfall and eliminate the blight of vacant premises.

Furthermore, at the Autumn Budget, the small business multiplier for properties with a rateable value of under £51,000 was frozen at 49.9p, meaning that, together with small business rate relief, over 1 million properties will be protected from a 1.6% inflationary increase. Alongside this, the Government continue to support our valuable manufacturing sector through other means.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked what in particular we are doing. At the Autumn Budget, the Government announced £975 million for the aerospace sector over five years, over £2 billion for the automotive sector over the same period, and up to £520 million for a new life sciences and innovative manufacturing fund. The Budget also saw two key programmes extended, promoting innovation across UK regions and manufacturing. The innovation accelerator programme will continue for another year, focusing on high-potential clusters across the UK. Meanwhile, the Made Smarter innovation programme will continue to be funded, empowering manufacturers to adopt digital technologies and enhancing productivity and sustainability by connecting digital solutions providers with industry.

I hope that it is clear to noble Lords why the Government cannot accept these amendments. The permanent tax cut for RHL properties must be funded sustainably. Furthermore, the Government fully recognise the importance of the British manufacturing industry, but we are supporting that sector through other avenues. It is for those reasons that I cannot accept the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I respectfully ask them not to press them.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to this debate and for their support. I would like to say something about Amendment 4, on manufacturing. It is a sector of great importance to our economy, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said. He is correct that in January GDP fell by 0.1%, which was attributed largely to a 1.1% fall in manufacturing output. Not only did manufacturing fall in January but, as the noble Lord said, it fell in the three months to January. Since it was the largest contributor to GDP shrinkage, the importance of this sector cannot be ignored by the Government. If the Liberal Democrats divide the House, we will vote with them.

Anchor stores are incredibly important to businesses on the high street, as we have heard. To lose them would be highly detrimental to the economic viability of most high street businesses. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said, it will also stop any future new anchor stores being given permission. I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 7 and consequential Amendments 15, 19 and 22 probe the Government on the definition of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. This is absolutely critical because those businesses currently receive 75% relief, which will fall to 40% in April, and the relief will be non-existent by April 2026. The Bill introduces the lower multiplier by way of reducing the impact of the removal of the Covid relief. It then becomes crucial for businesses to know which multiplier will apply to them.

The House of Commons Library’s detailed briefing stated that there is currently

“no definition in law of ‘retail, hospitality and leisure’ properties”.

It would be really helpful if the Minister confirmed that this essential definition will be determined in secondary legislation.

Throughout deliberations on the Bill, the Minister has repeated that RHL properties in the new regime are identical to those that received Covid relief. If that is so, surely the legal definition must already exist and can be shared in our debates on this group of amendments.

During the debate in the other place, Daisy Cooper MP wanted to know whether large RHL businesses that currently have a £110,000 cap on the Covid relief received will have that cap removed and benefit from the lower multiplier. If that is the case and they get the cap on their relief removed but also benefit from the lower multiplier, it will mean that smaller businesses end up subsidising the larger chain stores within this definition of RHL. Again, I feel sure that it is not the Government’s intention to let small shops subsidise larger ones. If that is not the case, can the Minister explain what is going on?

Can the Minister confirm that the new rating system being introduced in April 2026 will be fixed for three years, as he stated in earlier debates on the Bill, and that the small business relief will be uplifted in line with inflation? That is very important for small shops in villages and small towns. Currently, rateable values of less than £12,500 receive 100% business rates relief, and then a sliding scale exists. It is therefore critical that the rateable values are revised upwards to reflect property values. Otherwise, ever fewer businesses will qualify—fiscal drag for business rates. This is also the argument made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in relation to the higher threshold being introduced. Failure to increase the £500,000 threshold results in pulling more businesses into the higher rate.

In the end, as we have heard from across the House this afternoon, tinkering with the system fails to address the fundamental problem that businesses are not what they were 100 or even 20 years ago, and property taxation must change to create a fairer, more equitable approach that does not penalise traditional businesses, which end up providing a larger portion of the tax take than is justified.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group touch on a few different areas in the Bill, so I will speak to each topic in turn.

Amendments 5, 18 and 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, would require the £500,000 threshold for the higher multiplier to be increased at the 2029 revaluation in line with the average aggregate change in rateable value for the preceding three years. In Committee we similarly discussed whether the £500,000 threshold should be uprated over time. The amendments we considered in Committee would have uprated the threshold in line with annual inflation, and I explained—and I think the Committee recognised—why that was not appropriate.

Amendments 5, 18 and 20 are closer to the more appropriate considerations for changes to the threshold. As I said in Committee, the 2029 revaluation will be the next logical moment to consider whether the £500,000 threshold remains appropriate for the new higher multiplier, and at that time we will consider whether the threshold in the regulations continues to be appropriate. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the total change in the rateable value at the 2029 revaluation will form part of those considerations. But it will not be, and should not be, the only consideration.

As well as the movement in all rateable values, we may want to look at the movement in rateable value for the cohort of properties near or above the threshold. We will need to consider in 2029 the level of continued support that we should provide to qualifying RHL and, in turn, the revenue needed from the higher multiplier to fund that support. That should form part of the considerations of the threshold on the higher multiplier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I heard for the first time the Minister say “near or above” the higher multipliers. Why would that be? Are the Government assuming the amount of money that they are going to get in future years? It seems to be a new context to this debate that he used those words.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I alluded to this point in Committee. The review with stakeholders and businesses is currently taking place. We will come back as we look at the reform of business rates. In the context of the business rates review and reform, consideration is being given to hereditaments that are near, above or within a small distance of the £500,000 threshold.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Although we remain concerned regarding the increased business taxes as a result of the impact of fiscal drag, having reflected on the Minister’s assurances we will not be pressing Amendment 5.

--- Later in debate ---

My consequential Amendment 34 seeks to require that this review be published at least three months before the new business rates begin. If the Government are going to change the business rates system in this way, it is important that we know what the impact of the change is likely to be. This concern is shared across the House, as evidenced by the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox—I appreciate that he will be supporting this—which calls for an impact assessment. This is an important amendment and I hope noble Lords will understand why the cliff-edge threshold will likely have negative impacts on investments. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I hope he will accept it: if he does not, I intend to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments would require the Government to undertake various forms of impact assessment or review, either ahead of Clauses 1 to 4 coming into effect in April 2026 or shortly following their implementation. Throughout the passage of this Bill, noble Lords have raised valid questions. What properties would be subject to the higher multiplier? What properties will qualify for the lower retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers? What will be the impact on the public sector, anchor stores or manufacturing? Throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have sought to be as clear as possible. I appreciate that noble Lords may feel otherwise, but this does not detract from the fact that the Government have done what they can to provide as much information as possible.

I will reiterate two key points on the application of the new multipliers. With respect to the higher multiplier, it is the Government’s intention that this will apply to all properties with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. The VOA last month helpfully published an ad hoc data release, providing further detail on the number of properties and their rateable value that would fall above this threshold, broken down by region and by subsector, so noble Lords can see further details on the make-up of the fewer than 1% of properties that fall above the threshold. This is based on the current 2023 rating list, because the 2026 rating list is still being prepared and is not yet available.

The lower multipliers will apply to qualifying RHL properties, with the Government’s intention being to introduce one multiplier for qualifying RHL properties with a rateable value below £51,000 and one for qualifying RHL properties with a rateable value between £51,000 and £499,999. Noble Lords want to know who will qualify. We have been very clear on this, previously and today: the definition of qualifying RHL will broadly follow that currently in use for the existing RHL relief and will be set out later this year. With regards to the proposed amendments for various impact assessments or analysis, as I have explained previously in the House, tax is not subject to the requirement to undertake an impact assessment, and that has been the case for many years. However, the Treasury has committed, and remains committed, to producing analysis of the impact of the new multipliers at the Budget when the tax rates are set and when the outcome of the 2026 revaluation is clearer.

Furthermore, as I set out in Committee, my department already has established and detailed processes in place to collect and publicly report on the business rates collected by local government. My department produces annual forecasts for the coming year, called NNDR 1 returns, and then on the actual amounts collected by local government, called NNDR 3 returns. These are published on the department’s website at both national and local authority level. From the 2026-27 NNDR 1 onwards, these will reflect the new multipliers that the Bill makes provision to introduce. It would not be appropriate or prudent to pre-empt the Budget or the outcomes of the 2026 revaluation, but I hope that, in reiterating the commitments already made and setting out the information that my department already reports on as a matter of course, I will reassure noble Lords.

I note that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also seek to investigate how the £500,000 threshold the Government intend to introduce with the higher multiplier will impact on businesses that have a rateable value around that threshold. I am aware that the interest here is in particular with regard to how that may affect business behaviour around investment. I will make a couple of points on that more specific area.

As acknowledged in the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper published at the Autumn Budget, the Government are aware that some stakeholders have argued that cliff edges in the business rates system may disincentivise investment. In that paper, the Government committed to exploring options for reform in this space. We have recently completed an initial stage of engagement to understand stakeholder views and areas of interest for reform and we are open to receiving written representations in response to the priority areas for reform, until the end of March 2025.

Your Lordships will understand that transforming the business rates system is a multiyear process, and that reforms taken forward will be phased over the course of the Parliament, but I hope noble Lords are reassured that the Government have publicly set out that an announcement on reforms will be made later.

I know that noble Lords have repeatedly raised how any evaluation or analysis should consider the impact of the new multipliers on economic growth and the viability of our high streets. What is being described is what the Government do as a matter of course and as Governments have done for centuries: if a policy is not having the desired effect, it will be changed. Your Lordships should rest assured that the Government will be keeping all this under review, as we do with all tax policy. I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer and for reminding us of the central purpose of Clauses 1 to 4. However, I do not think that he addressed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, in any sense. The investment and growth effect from, literally, a £1 difference in a property’s rateable value will obviously be an issue. Without that, we cannot really understand how the Act will affect our high streets. On that note, however, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 21.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 27 and 29 are in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. Again, my noble friend very strongly put the case for dual use, both by the community and through the provision of bursaries, to allow our most talented athletes to train in what are currently the best school facilities. I ask the Minister to think again about why the Government, rather than urging independent schools to do more in terms of community work and the provision of bursaries, are choosing to pull the rug. I hope he will say that he is going to think again on these issues.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments seek to amend the definition of a private school so as to require different types of private school to be carved out of the Bill measure, or to require parts of private school hereditaments to be exempt from rating valuations. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for their contributions.

I shall speak first to Amendments 25, 26 and 27. Amendment 25 would result in the exemption of a private school if that private school catered wholly or mainly to pupils who had special educational needs, as defined under the Children and Families Act 2014, regardless of whether those pupils had an EHCP. Amendments 26 and 27 would carve out private schools that provided full-time education wholly or mainly to gifted arts students or persons in receipt of bursaries or scholarships for sporting excellence.

The Government are aware of the concerns raised in respect of pupils with special educational needs in private schools that may lose their charitable relief because the school is not concerned wholly or mainly with providing full-time education to persons for whom an EHCP is maintained. Similarly, the Government have listened carefully to representations made by all interested stakeholders more broadly with regard to the design of the policy to remove charitable relief from private schools. The view was reached that, with the exception of the existing carve-out in the Bill for private schools concerned wholly or mainly with full-time education for pupils with ECHPs, no other private schools would be carved out of the measure. That is the fairest approach, as it ensures that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is minimised.

The Bill provides that private schools that are charities that are concerned wholly or mainly with providing full-time education for persons with an EHCP remain eligible for charitable rate relief. In practice, the Government believe this will ensure that most private special schools will not be affected by the Bill measure. In fact, we expect any private special school losing charitable relief to be the exception—potentially, in single figures. In addition, private schools that currently benefit from the existing rates exemption for properties that are used wholly for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. This general exemption means that they do not pay any rates at all.

I know that some concerns have been raised about the possibility that some mainstream private schools may be just under the 50% threshold for the EHCP carve-out within the Bill. In private schools, including private special schools, just 5.7% of pupils have an EHCP, with the majority of those pupils in private special schools. We therefore expect there to be very few mainstream private schools near the 50% threshold. The majority of children with a special educational need, with or without an EHCP, are provided for in the state sector. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can be supported only in a private school, the local authority funds the child’s place. The approach chosen in the Bill is targeted to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is limited. This Government are committed to reforming England’s SEND provision to improve outcomes and are providing an almost £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding in the 2025-26 financial year.

I shall speak in more detail to Amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I set out in Committee the changes that the Government are making to the Music and Dance Scheme, which supports pupils from lower-income families to attend one of eight specialist arts schools. On the question that the noble Baroness asked, no decision has been made on the future of the scheme. I acknowledge that the scheme is not available for every private performing arts school in England, but I am aware that many performing arts schools, as well as specialist sports schools and private schools more broadly, choose to provide fee assistance as part of their business model.

Providing means-tested fee assistance is one way that charitable private schools can demonstrate public benefit, a requirement that accompanies charitable status. The Bill does not remove the charitable status of private schools, and the Government expect private schools to continue to demonstrate public benefit. It is a commercial decision for individual schools to determine how they meet any additional costs as a result of the Bill measure, but the Government do not expect activity demonstrating public benefit, such as providing fee assistance, to significantly reduce.

Amendments 28 and 29 are concerned with requiring parts of private school hereditaments to be exempt from the rateable value of that hereditament. Amendment 28 would require parts of private school hereditaments wholly or mainly used as nursery facilities, or areas primarily used by nurseries, to be exempt, while Amendment 29 would require private school sporting facilities, or areas used primarily for sport, to be exempt if those facilities are also made available more broadly to the community.

The Government have decided that where private schools provide for compulsory school-age children and have nursery classes within the school on the same hereditament, the presence of nursery-age children should not remove the school from the business rates measure. This approach best ensures consistency with the policy intent. The allocation of any additional costs as a result of the Bill measure in private schools that also provide nursery classes is a matter for those schools.

I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has sought to find a middle ground following the Committee debate, but to exempt parts of hereditaments is challenging. This is also applicable to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that seeks to exempt sporting facilities. My remarks are applicable to both circumstances.

Noble Lords will recall that I said in Committee that I would take away the question of exempting parts of private school hereditaments, particularly in the context of sport. I have done that, so I hope noble Lords present will acknowledge that this has been looked at carefully. There are a very limited number of circumstances in rating where part of a property is exempted entirely. These exemptions are the most generous forms of support in business rates and are currently reserved for cases such as agricultural land, places of public religious worship and property wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people.

To exempt—to totally remove from rating—parts of hereditaments within private schools used as nurseries or for sports would not be proportionate. Stand-alone nurseries and sports facilities, whether they are charities or not, do not currently receive the same benefit, so to exempt them when present in these particular private schools would create a broader inconsistency in the rating system.

Furthermore, whether part of a hereditament can be rated differently is not straightforward and depends on the facts on the ground. The key principle is that a property at the same site, in the same occupation and used for the same broad purpose is treated as one hereditament. That is why nursery classes and sports facilities on the same site as a private school, and operated by that school, do not have their own rates bill. The Government have carefully considered this and are of the view that to treat separately parts of private school hereditaments used as nurseries or for sports would not be merited in this case.

Business rates are a property tax and, to clarify the position for the noble Lord, Lord Weir, are applicable only to England, as devolved Administrations have their own approach to business rates. Where a property is being used as a private school, even if that school may have nursery classes or sports facilities, it remains a private school property. Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools can retain their charitable rate relief in the way these amendments propose would undermine the Government’s intention to remove tax breaks for private schools in order to raise funds to support the more than 90% of pupils who attend state- funded schools.

Before I finish, I want to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and give my best wishes to Lord Coe in his bid to be elected the first British president of the International Olympic Committee.

I hope I have reassured noble Lords regarding the reasons why I cannot accept the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Moynihan. I hope they can take from my remarks that the Government have considered the cases they made carefully, and I respectfully ask them not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has heard three very strong arguments from across the House. The first is that the principle of not taxing education should be respected and upheld. Secondly, there is the principle that charities should not be subject to any kind of political overreach. Thirdly, the Government should not introduce a two-tier system, punishing charities that do not conform to their views. I think we have heard across the House that this sets a very unfortunate precedent.

Finally, there is the point that this policy will not deliver but rather will impact children, particularly vulnerable children, who attend some of the small schools that serve them and their communities all around the country. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, we have a right of reply.

Amendment 30 would remove Clause 5 from the Bill, and therefore the measure that removes the eligibility for charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities. Amendment 31 would require the Government to undertake an assessment of the expected and observed impact of Clause 5. Furthermore, that amendment seeks to ensure that any assessment has regard to impacts owing to any other tax change that have affected private schools since 1 January 2025, effectively seeking to create an all-encompassing review of the Budget tax changes and their effect on private schools, and the resulting impact on the state sector. I am unable to accept these amendments.

This Government committed in their manifesto to raise school standards for every child, to break down barriers to opportunity and to ensure that every child has the best start in life, no matter where they come from or their financial background. As part of that, the Government committed to removing the VAT and business rates charitable relief tax breaks for private schools, to help to raise revenue to help to deliver on their commitments to education and young people.

The Government carefully considered their approach in designing the policy to remove charitable rate relief from private schools. On 29 July, they published a technical note on removing the VAT and business rates charitable relief tax breaks for private schools. The Government received over 17,000 responses to this note, from a range of tax specialists, private schools, bodies that represent private schools and others. A detailed government response to this was published at the Autumn Budget. Furthermore, at the introduction of this Bill, the Government published a note setting out analysis of the impact of the business rates measure. This is available on the Bill page. A tax information and impact note was published in relation to the VAT change at the Budget and is available on GOV.UK.

The removal of business rates charitable relief from private schools that are charities will apply to all charitable private schools, with the exception of where a private school is wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education to persons for whom an education, health and care plan is maintained. As I set out in a debate on an earlier group today, under the carve-out in the Bill, the Government believe that this will ensure that most private special schools will not be affected by the Bill measure.

At the Budget, the Government announced a real-terms increase in per pupil funding, with a £2.3 billion increase to the core schools budget for the financial year 2025-26, including an almost £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding. This funding increase needs to be paid for; to help to do that, the Government are ending tax breaks for private schools, including, as this Bill delivers, ending charitable rate relief for those private schools in England that are charities. Taken together with the policy to remove the VAT exemption, these measures will raise around £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30.

I know that there have been concerns with regards the impact on the state sector caused by this policy. The impact note that I mentioned set out that, in the long run—by 2030—the Government estimate an increase of 2,900 pupils in the state sector. Based on average 2024-25 per pupil spending in England, the Government expect the revenue costs of pupils entering the state sector as a result of the business rates measure in England to steadily increase to a peak of around £20 million per annum, after several years. Overall, the expected revenue from the measure will substantially outweigh the additional cost pressures.

The Government have undertaken analysis of the policy and provided that publicly. Furthermore, they undertake a range of monitoring, data collection and publication of data as part of usual processes, and will continue to do so when the Bill measure comes into effect. For example, the Department for Education monitors place demand and capacity as a matter of course, and works closely with local authorities to meet any demand pressures to ensure that there are sufficient school places for children who need them. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place.

Pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons, and the school funding system in England is already set up to manage that. For individual schools, the Government therefore expect changes in pupil numbers caused by these changes to be managed in the usual way. Data on the number of school pupils is published every summer, providing information on the number of pupils at different types of schools, so anyone can see how pupil numbers in both state and private schools have changed.

Part of the assessment that the amendment would require seeks to understand any impact on partnership working between private and state schools, as well as the capacity of private schools to provide fee assistance. I understand that there is concern that private schools will reduce these activities. We understand from data published by the Independent Schools Council that a lot of private-state sector partnerships relate to the hosting of joint events or providing access to facilities used by private school pupils. In many of these partnerships, the activity undertaken benefits the pupils that attend private schools, so it would not be in the interest of the private schools to stop this activity either.

Integration and Community Cohesion

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I extend my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for initiating this important debate and for such a passionate and eloquent speech detailing her personal journey and that of her family. Successful integration and social cohesion are the pillars of a strong and resilient society. I also thank my noble friends Lord Raval and Lord Rook for their valuable and thoughtful maiden speeches in this House. On the evidence of their excellent contributions, the House will be richer and enhanced by their presence. I think today is the first time that a Minister can say that he supported at their introduction all those who have made their maiden speeches. I also thank my noble friends for their work on faith and for advising and supporting me in my work as a Minister with responsibility for faith.

Integration is the foundation on which social cohesion is built. Effective integration ensures equitable access to resources, opportunities and support, while social cohesion fosters trust, shared values and collaboration among different groups. Together, they strengthen social stability, reduce inequalities and promote a sense of belonging, which is essential for a thriving and harmonious society.

Integration is not about assimilation: we do not want individuals to feel that they have to give up their identity and heritage. Instead, it is about ensuring that every individual can succeed and feel represented, accepted and at home in the community they live in, so long as they respect the UK’s fundamental values—which I believe is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was alluding to.

For generations, people from across the world have come here to start new lives. In the past decade alone, the UK has provided safe and legal routes for over 600,000 people from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine. My noble friend Lord Rook mentioned the Syrian refugee scheme, which he was involved in. In August, I met Rola, who arrived in the UK in 2017 with her husband and two children through the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. Rola and her husband Emad now both speak excellent English and have settled into life in Newark. Rola works as an employment adviser, providing support with interview skills, CV writing, job searches and applications, while Emad has opened his own mobile phone and computer repair shop, which is doing really well.

Like Rola, the majority of people who come here are welcomed into communities and settle well into life in the UK. Over the years, their presence has made the UK an immeasurably richer and more diverse place. Successful integration has led to cohesive communities. Backed by research, we know that the UK is one of the most open and tolerant places to live in the world. For example, in a recent survey, 98% of people stated that they are comfortable living next door to people of a different race.

Yet integration in the UK can also come with challenges. Adjusting to a new language, finding stable employment and navigating public services is not always easy. Cultural differences and social isolation can also take time to overcome. When people do not feel connected to their communities, we see hatred and divisions form. Seeing the disturbances in my hometown, Burnley, the unrest in Leicester and, more recently, the violent disorder across the UK following the events in Southport last summer, I know just how much effort it takes to rebuild communities.

The Government are supporting Leicester as it seeks to address its challenges, build on its strengths and work through the difficult events that took place in 2022. The independent review, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Austin, will establish what happened, the factors that contributed to those events and what could be done differently in future. I have had great conversations with the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about that. This Government are determined to strengthen the structures that promote integration and, by extension, social cohesion.

I will now address some of the specific issues raised today. I know that I have limited time, and I do not have the luxury of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, who has earned many credits over the years. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, talked about ensuring that English is available to everyone. The Government remain committed to the manifesto commitment to boost English language teaching. We know that language skills are crucial to help people integrate into life in the UK as well as to break down barriers to work and career progression. That is why we want to support all adults in England, including refugees, to secure the English language skills they need.

The Department for Education also funds ESOL provision for adults aged 19 and over in England through the adult skills fund, supporting 168,000 learners in 2023-24. The Government recognise that the ability to speak English is key to helping people integrate into life in the UK, as well as supporting people to access education, employment and other opportunities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, also asked what we are doing in relation to digital skills. In February, the Government published their digital inclusion action plan, setting out our first steps, including a definition and principles that will guide our work to address it. This includes partnering with the Digital Poverty Alliance and launching a new digital inclusion innovation fund and a digital inclusion action committee—an expert advisory group—to monitor our progress.

The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, mentioned the plan for neighbourhoods and our recent £1.5 billion announcement, which will deliver £20 million of funding and support over the next decade for 75 communities across the UK, laying the foundations to kick-start local growth and drive up living standards. The programme is developed to work across the UK Government as well as devolved Governments and will demonstrate the breadth of interventions possible.

My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, in his excellent speech, talked about Dame Sara Khan’s review. To reassure my noble friend, I have reached out to Dame Sara Khan and hope to meet her soon to discuss in detail the recommendations in her report. I understand there are some valuable lessons to be learned from that piece of work.

Britain is an open, tolerant and compassionate country. We have welcomed people from all over the world to be part of our British society, whether coming to work or study or fleeing conflict and persecution. Schemes such as Homes for Ukraine, the Afghan resettlement scheme, and the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) visa have provided important routes for those seeking sanctuary. People come to the UK for a variety of reasons, and this requires a tailored approach. The Government are committed to working in partnership with local authorities to understand the integration needs of new arrivals and how we can work together to ensure positive integration outcomes in local communities—which the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and my noble friend Lord McNicol mentioned in their contributions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, talked about the high levels of immigration. The Government are clear that net migration must come down and are committed to tackling skills shortages and labour market failures here in the UK. They have set out a new approach to end overreliance on international recruitment and boost economic growth by linking the UK’s immigration, labour market and skills systems and training up our domestic workforce. Building on the Prime Minister’s statement on 28 November, the Government will publish a White Paper later this year that will set out their approach to reduce net migration.

My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, talked about social cohesion. We have increasing diversity in the UK—I recognise the stat that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, talked about—with 18% of the population being from an ethnic-minority background. We are proud to be a country that embraces difference and encourages people to celebrate their individual identity, but we are not complacent and must do more to build a stronger and more united country. This Government are committed to taking a longer-term, more strategic approach to social cohesion, and my department is leading cross-government efforts on this—this is important, as my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn said. It is not just for MHCLG; we have to work across government, and in partnership with local communities and stakeholders, to rebuild, renew and address the deep-seated issues.

I extend my gratitude to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield for talking about the recovery fund and some of the local initiatives that it was being used for. That is the start of our progress, and of course we have added 75 areas since the announcement of the plan for neighbourhoods. I hope that we can expand that, subject to the spending review.

The Government support recruitment to teacher training in religious education by offering a bursary of £10,000, but I take the point made by the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords about making sure that PSHE, citizenship classes or religious education classes are not taught by people who do not have the skills and expertise. I am having conversations with the Department for Education, including recently with Minister Morgan, on this issue.

In relation to the Communities and Recovery Steering Group, I sit on that alongside many Secretaries of State. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, its terms of reference are on the public record. It is a cross-government group led by the Deputy Prime Minister and includes representation from the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Cabinet Office and many others, working together to support all communities and places to thrive, grow and be resilient to face future threats that could divide them.

The Government have set a long-term ambition to achieve an 80% employment rate, aiming to reverse a trend of inactivity, raising productivity and improving living standards while enhancing the quality of work. Backed by £240 million of funding announced in the Budget, the Government’s Get Britain Working White Paper sets out our ambitious reforms, outlined in three interconnected parts, including a new jobs and careers service, a new youth guarantee for all 18 to 21 year-olds and up to £15 million to support the development of local Get Britain Working plans for areas across England.

New arrivals to the UK can access various employment support services, including Jobcentre Plus, local council programmes, refugee employment schemes, ESOL courses and sector-specific initiatives.

Many noble Lords touched on the summer disorder. I set out our cross-governmental approach earlier. We launched a £15 million community recovery fund to support the 20 areas affected. That, as was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, is being utilised now by local communities, but more needs to be done

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, mentioned deprivation. There is evidence that deprivation, poor housing, low civil participation and poor community cohesion leave communities more at risk of cohesion issues—a point very eloquently made by the noble Baroness. For instance, seven of the 10 most deprived areas of England witnessed disorder over the summer—Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Liverpool, Hartlepool, Hull, Manchester and Blackburn all experienced violent disorder and are ranked in the top 10 most deprived local authorities in England. My department is undertaking work to understand how social and economic factors may play a role in harming social cohesion and is developing a more strategic approach to supporting communities and developing societal resilience more broadly.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and my noble friend Lord Katz mentioned the high levels of anti-Semitism and religious hate crime. Of course, this is unacceptable and the Government will ensure that this is a priority. We continue to work closely with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, our anti-Semitism adviser, and on anti-Muslim hatred we have just announced a working group chaired by the former Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve. According to the Home Office, 71% of all religious hate crime is aimed at Jews and Muslims. We should ensure that we work across all religions to tackle this scourge in our country and we will continue to focus on this issue.

I thought my noble friend Lady Hazarika was very brave in outing her father as attending pubs. I just hope that the local imam does not read Hansard tonight. She raised a very interesting point about tackling the issue of political language. When you are the Minister for Communities as well and get the opportunity to go round the country, especially after the violent disorder, communities tell you exactly how it is. One issue that came through was the language of politicians and that needs to be dealt with.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, made a very important point about working from home and loneliness. That can affect us all at any time of our lives, with a negative impact on community and individual well-being. The Government’s current work to tackle loneliness includes supporting a range of organisations through the Tackling Loneliness Hub, an online platform for professionals that is working to reduce loneliness. It will work to improve the evidence base around loneliness and provide evidence through the Better Health Every Mind Matters campaign advice pages.

I will spend a few moments on education, which was a theme of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. We know that socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils are more likely to fall behind and face barriers which hold them back from the opportunities and life chances they deserve. We are focused on driving high and rising standards in every school, delivered through excellent teaching, a high-quality curriculum and a school system which removes the barriers to learning that hold too many children back.

The opportunity mission will break the link between young people’s backgrounds and their success by helping all children achieve and thrive, wherever they are in the country. High and rising standards across education are at the heart of this mission and a key to unlocking stronger outcomes and a better future for children and young people.

I will finish on two points. One is women’s equality, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised. From making work pay to keeping our streets safe, women are central to all our missions. We are making the changes needed to make sure that women’s equality becomes a reality. It is an ambitious agenda and we are putting women’s voices at the heart of it.

There is evidence that deprivation, poor housing and low participation leave communities at greater risk of cohesion issues. We continue to work on that in particular. We recognise that integration and cohesion do not happen in isolation; they must be embedded in the policies that shape our towns and cities, in our education system and in our public services. We are preparing to launch a competitive process to continue our support for Ukrainians and Hong Kong British nationals overseas, providing intensive English language lessons and employment support for up to 4,000 individuals. Following that competitive process, we anticipate that the programme will begin later this summer.

Furthermore, we have recently renewed a contract with the International Organization for Migration, which is responsible for delivering pre-departure cultural orientation for people coming to the UK under the Afghan resettlement scheme. We have been working with the IOM to deliver enhanced messaging on self-sufficiency, with a view to improving integration and behaviours. A new curriculum started on 10 March, aiming to support on average 500 people per month.

We have also placed a renewed focus on fostering social cohesion, ensuring that we are reinforcing this work through strategic and collaborative initiatives, through the recently established cross-government communities and recovery steering group led by the Deputy Prime Minister. We continue to engage actively with local people and partners up and down the country in order to understand how best to support local integration and cohesion efforts.

I pay tribute to the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, when she was a Minister. On her point about having meetings up and down the country, I have already had over 80 engagements with faith and belief communities in the UK. I have had dozens of other engagements on resettlement and cohesion more broadly since taking up my post as Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement. As my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn mentioned, it has been a very busy period. My focus is to reset the relationship with the faith communities, rather than seeing them in a transactional way as a fourth emergency service and going to them whenever there is a crisis.

It is also important to say that we will support our communities holistically. We launched a £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods, which will provide funding into the next decade. Cohesion measures will form a key part of our offering, bringing people together so they can feel proud of their area, and restoring a collective sense of belonging. If I can steal a phrase my from noble friend Lord McNicol, the journey is important. It is all about the journey, and the destination may not always be the important point. We need to ensure that we get to the destination and celebrate the journey.

As colleagues have said in their wonderful contributions, we are one of the most amazing multi-ethnic countries in the world, but there is much work to do. Based on my experience of living in Burnley, and having seen what happened in 2001, it takes time; there are no quick fixes. There is a long-term approach, and it will take time to get there. But debates like this are helpful in raising awareness of the key issues and challenges that we face as a country.

I am confident that, in the work we are embarking on, we will be able to bring our country together, fix our systems and public services and ensure that people can take pride in their local communities. I pay tribute again to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for bringing this debate forward today and for all she does in promoting community cohesion across our country.

Tell MAMA: Funding

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare that, while I chair the Equality and Human Rights Commission, I am speaking in a personal capacity today.

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

My Lords, funding for Tell MAMA has not ended. We have made £1 million available for Tell MAMA this year, subject to it signing the grant funding agreement. I had a constructive meeting with Tell MAMA yesterday. It would be remiss of me to disclose the details of that conversation, but I am hopeful of a swift resolution. Combating hate towards Muslims is a priority for this Government. We will soon open a call for grant applications to provide a comprehensive service to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and support victims. We encourage Tell MAMA to apply.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the Minister, but does he agree that, when Ministers have meetings with parliamentarians to discuss government policy, this should be done in good faith and with candour? Last week he had a meeting with parliamentarians to discuss his Government’s advisory group on Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred. I asked him a direct question about Tell MAMA and its lack of inclusion in the Government’s advisory group. He was evasive at best, so I am delighted that he has confirmed to the House today that he has not ended funding for this moderate group that does vital work in the community. Will he also confirm that the funding will be forthcoming immediately, as Tell MAMA had the grant confirmation letter in September and is running out of money? Will he also reassure the House that moderate Muslim groups are as worthy of the government support as the others that they have hand-picked for their advisory group?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me clarify that the meeting we had last week was a drop-in for all Peers and parliamentarians, where I spoke specifically about the work we are doing to define anti-Muslim hatred and the commission that has been set up, chaired by the former Attorney-General, the right honourable Dominic Grieve.

On the question that the noble Baroness asked, all organisations must sign a standard government agreement before receiving government funds. Following extensive negotiations, we reached agreement with Faith Matters on its grant funding agreement, but the organisation has yet to sign it. As soon as it is signed and returned, we will instruct payment. Following yesterday’s meeting, I am confident this will be resolved soon.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister is able to say, given the current situation. I understand that there are two concerns about this organisation. First, there is a lack of community engagement: they seem to be self-appointed spokespeople. Secondly, there were concerns about financial irregularities. This is a sensitive area. What can the Minister tell the House about those two concerns around this organisation?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord made an interesting point, but it would be remiss of me to comment on negotiations we are having with Tell MAMA. I had a very productive meeting with Tell MAMA and its legal representative. It was very productive and hopefully everything will be resolved soon.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, would the Minister be prepared to let us know, and publish and put a letter in the Library about, the terms, conditions and criteria that are applied not only to this group but to similar organisations? The Community Security Trust does similar work for the Jewish community. It might be helpful to have some clarity on that, so there is no risk of other organisations finding themselves in the same situation.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, because this is a competitive bidding and an open-ground process, that will be published as we open that process for people to apply for government services. Everyone is welcome to apply. The service is going to continue and everyone is invited to apply, including Tell MAMA.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister said. Could he confirm—he has probably said it already, but just to make it quite explicit—that, first of all, there is a commitment from the Government that they want to see an independent third-party reporting system for anti-Muslim hate, in which members of the public can feel confident? Secondly, could he confirm that the Government are seeking to ensure—as any sensible Government would—that they are getting the best value for money from a bidding process that ensures that the services are effective and highly respected?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an excellent point. We remain steadfast in our dedication to delivering comprehensive monitoring of anti-Muslim hatred and providing support for victims of it. We are committed to providing a comprehensive service to monitor anti-Muslim hatred and provide support. We will soon be opening a call for grant applications for future work in this area. Further details will be provided in due course. Moving away from directly awarded grants to an open, competitive grant process will ensure greater transparency and value for money in our grant partnerships.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the decisions on funding for third parties can often be very challenging. Obviously, the Minister cannot give us details of what is being discussed at the moment. I am very pleased to hear that discussions are still going on with Tell MAMA. What concerns me about the Government’s new way of working with third-party funding is that there could be a period of time when these services are not being provided, as you move from one provider to another. Tell MAMA measures and monitors anti-Muslim hate crime very well. I would want to know that the Government are still doing that, if there is a period of time with nobody there. More importantly, I would want to know that the support that Tell MAMA gives to the Muslim community and victims of hate crime is still there.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can reassure the noble Baroness and the House that the service of monitoring and reporting of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred will continue. I understand the point the noble Baroness made. Of course, I cannot predict the future of applications. The process is going to go live and open for a competitive bidding process to secure the best value for public money.

The world has changed since 7 October and the Southport disturbances. It is only right for us to have the opportunity to go out to the market and find the best value for money. But I can confirm that there will be a continuous service of reporting and monitoring of anti-Muslim hatred.

[The Lord Bishop of Lichfield]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s launch of a new working group to provide a definition of Islamophobia. I ask the Minister: whom does this group plan to consult, both within and beyond the Islamic community, to inform that definition and ensure that it accounts for the lived experience of the Muslim community?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate asks a very important question. It is an independent group chaired by the former Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve KC. It is for him to decide, but it is pretty clear that any definition of anti-Muslim hatred or Islamophobia should have multiple perspectives from multiple communities and absolutely uphold our fundamental right of freedom of speech.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, first of all, I thank the Minister for attending the launch of Muslim Heritage Month earlier this week. I also commend the Government on starting the work on the definition of Islamophobia, or anti-Muslim prejudice.

I am really glad that the Tell MAMA funding has been reviewed. I had been raising red flags and concerns about the Tell MAMA project for one year, with a 10-page letter and 30 questions—Oral Questions and Written Questions. I am glad that has now resulted in an open bidding process. By the way, it is not a charity. Can the Government provide assurances that whoever is selected has community buy-in? Hopefully, it will be several organisations, because the Muslim community is very diverse and large.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an interesting point. I confirm that we will set out further details soon on the open bidding process.

I congratulate the noble Baroness on launching her Muslim Heritage Month. We appreciate the work Tell MAMA has done. It is a providing a very important service and it is welcome apply to the open grant process.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, the press reports that the police have expressed alarm about this cut. Could the Minister confirm this will be taken into consideration when the Government are looking at the matter in the future?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot comment on particular press reports, but the question of police views is a very important point. Any monitoring or reporting of hate crimes for any religion should always have a good relationship with police forces across the country, wherever that occurs. To add to the point that the noble Baroness made, it is important that the community feels confident during the whole process to report any instances of hate crimes. We want to protect everyone, whichever religion they are from. Everyone should be safe and made to feel safe.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will make that ask of the Minister in our debate on a subsequent group; if he does not answer now, I will repeat it.

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

My Lords, this has been another passionate debate. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their Amendments 5, 22 and 23. With this group of amendments, we are in essence considering the future of Victoria Tower Gardens as a place where all members of the public can enjoy free access to a green space in the very heart of Westminster.

From the beginning of the design process, the importance of maintaining access to Victoria Tower Gardens has been a high priority. The design that we are taking forward was selected from a long list of exciting and high-quality proposals partly because it showed a great deal of respect for the gardens, positioning the memorial at the southern end and leaving the great majority of open space to the public; I will not get into the debate on the size of the project because that will be discussed in our debate on the third group. Our proposals also include a high level of investment in the gardens themselves: we will improve the quality of the paths, the planting and the grass lawn; and we will provide new boardwalks, enabling better views of the Thames, with paths and seating made more easily accessible for all.

Amendment 22 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans would impose a statutory limit on the number of closures of Victoria Tower Gardens for commemoration events related to the Holocaust. As I have said—I will say it again now—it has always been our intention that Victoria Tower Gardens should remain open to the public, with only a small area taken for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre when it is built. We are well aware of the value placed on the green open space by local residents, nearby office workers and visitors to Parliament, not to mention parliamentarians themselves; that is why the Bill ensures that the requirement to maintain Victoria Tower Gardens as a garden open to the public will remain.

Assurances were given to the Lords Select Committee on various points, including commitments relating to the management of Victoria Tower Gardens; these were mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. Ministers will continue to be held accountable for those public assurances by Parliament in the normal way.

Closures were discussed in some depth by the Lords Select Committee. The result was that the committee’s special report directed a recommendation to the Royal Parks—which manages the gardens on behalf of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—to consider this matter going forward. A number of noble Lords, in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned the closure of Victoria Tower Gardens for the Yom HaShoah event on Sunday 5 May. This was requested by the then Culture Secretary because the gardens’ location made them more accessible for frail Holocaust survivors than the usual venue in Hyde Park. Contrary to claims by petitioners at the hearing on 20 November, our understanding is that the partial closure was for one day only, with the playground remaining open until midday—not the three days that have been mentioned. No decisions have been taken on future closures of the entirety of Victoria Tower Gardens to facilitate Holocaust-related commemoration events once the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is built.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, why, then, is a commemoration event—I nearly said a closure; it will no doubt involve closure—being advertised right now, for April? People are being invited to buy tickets for it.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am not aware of that event, but I am happy to have a conversation with the noble Baroness on this issue. I remind noble Lords that it was because of the frailty of Holocaust survivors that it was deemed appropriate for them to attend here, at Victoria Tower Gardens next to Parliament, rather than Hyde Park.

Given that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is intended to be the national focal point of Holocaust remembrance, it is expected that it will host annual events to mark Holocaust Memorial Day and Yom HaShoah. The Government would expect the Holocaust memorial and learning centre operating body to work closely with the body responsible for the wider arrangements of the Victoria Tower Gardens to agree arrangements for any other proposed or required closures associated with the Holocaust memorial and learning centre.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked the important question of who will be responsible for the project: who will be charge? It is quite straightforward: it will be the Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister. It is clear in Clause 1. One of the big reasons we have put the Holocaust memorial in a Bill is for Clause 1 to give permission for the Secretary of State to spend on the project.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

On that question, given the number of bodies on the sheet of the National Audit Office, will the Minister write to Members of the Committee to say, “These are the people involved in each of those bodies, and this is what they cost”? As my noble friend Lord Eccles said, there is a huge range of people and possibilities for cost. I do not expect the answer now, but it would be helpful for our future deliberations if we knew what the current structure costs and, therefore, the urgency to move to my noble friend’s proposed change.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, makes an excellent point. In response to his request, I am absolutely happy to provide all the details on the structure and the associated issues that he raised. We will write not just to him but to the wider Committee.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I think the Minister said that the Secretary of State will be in charge. Do I take it, therefore, that the delivery body will be the Secretary of State and the department? The Secretary of State will draw up the design for the architects, after the planning permission, and she and her officers will let the contract and put in its terms and conditions, the cost overruns and all that sort of thing, so that by the time the NDPB is set up to run it, the Minister’s department will be managing the delivery of this contract. Is that right?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is responsible for the delivery of the project.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

That is reassuring.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I want to move on because there are a lot of points to come on to that I am pretty confident noble Lords will ask about, but I assure them that I will come back to the points raised.

In our response to the Select Committee’s report, we have said that we will seek to work with the Royal Parks in taking forward the recommendation. That said, I believe it would be completely wrong to set a formal limit on Holocaust-related events and not on other types of event. The Bill should not pre-empt the discussions we will have with the Royal Parks at the appropriate time by setting an arbitrary statutory limit on closures. We will work proactively with the Royal Parks to find a suitable solution that properly respects the rights and interests of all parties.

Amendment 33, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to set out the future management responsibilities for different parts of Victoria Tower Gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, although these matters are important and need careful attention, the Bill is not the place to deal with them and it would be premature to attempt to do so. Decisions on the precise form and function of the operating body for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre have yet to be taken. However, I can assure the Committee that we have no plans for the operating body to take on responsibility for the management and maintenance of Victoria Tower Gardens beyond that part of the gardens occupied by the memorial and learning centre. We were pleased to give an assurance to this effect to the Lords Select Committee when it scrutinised the Bill.

Victoria Tower Gardens is Crown land for which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible. The Royal Parks charity manages the gardens on behalf of DCMS under its overall contract to maintain London’s Royal Parks and other plots of land, including Victoria Tower Gardens, which do not have royal park status. We fully recognise the importance of close co-operation between the body responsible for operating the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the body responsible for managing Victoria Tower Gardens.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will seek to ensure, through sponsorship and contracting arrangements, that the two bodies co-operate within a framework which enables each to pursue their distinct objectives. I am sure that both bodies will recognise the importance of consulting local residents—a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—as well as amenity groups in advance on any changes that will affect their access to the gardens.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord King, about the cost, the figure of £138.8 million was published in 2023 and is based on the advice of professional cost consultants. At no point will we seek tenders for construction until we have planning consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the infrastructure authority did not say that the only reason this project is undeliverable is that we did not have a Bill. It listed a whole host of reasons why it was undeliverable: no plan, no proper costing and no one really in charge. I do not want to go on at length about it, but I can certainly look out the exact quote for the Minister.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, finally, I turn to Amendment 5 from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, which would require the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be managed by a non-departmental public body. The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission report included a specific recommendation for the

“creation of a permanent independent body”

with responsibility for implementing the commission’s

“recommendations to commemorate the Holocaust and ensure a world-leading educational initiative”

in the long term.

The noble Viscount talked about the learning centre. We envisage an ambitious programme of educational activities. Some will be delivered on site and many will be delivered by working in partnership with other organisations, such as the Holocaust Educational Trust. The commission’s vision, which the Government accepted, was that such a body would guide, sponsor and facilitate ongoing commemoration and educational initiatives to ensure that the memory of the Holocaust and its lessons remain vibrant and current for all future generations.

A range of options are being considered for operating the memorial and learning centre. As a significant public investment, responsibility for managing the centre will need to rest with a body ultimately accountable to Parliament. The cost of running the memorial and learning centre will be met through a mixture of fundraising and grant funding, as with many other government-sponsored organisations.

As no decisions have yet been taken by the Government on the right model for operating the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, it would not be right to tie our hands by including a statutory requirement that it be a non-departmental public body. Indeed, it would be premature to do so, given that we do not yet have planning permission for the centre to be built.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked about future planning permission. It is for the designated Planning Minister to decide what he will do and what approach to take to planning.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, raised numerous examples of the creation of Holocaust memorials and museums across the world. I want to talk about the one in the United States, which I visited in 2018. The proposal to create a Holocaust memorial museum in Washington was announced in 1979, yet the memorial did not open until 1993. It was announced by the Administration of President Carter and opened by President Clinton. The site chosen, next to the National Mall in Washington, DC, generated considerable opposition, including on the grounds that it would lead to anti-Semitism because Jews would be seen as having privileged status, that injustices in American history were more deserving of memorials, that it would be used to whitewash America’s responses to the Holocaust or not do enough to celebrate its responses, or that the Holocaust was not relevant to American history.

All these reasons for opposition were given; another was that it was the right idea but in the wrong place. By 1987, the final architectural design was agreed but criticism and demands for changes to the design continued. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum was opened by President Clinton in 1993.

I understand that there is opposition and that there has been delay, but time is of the essence. I want to echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We want to ensure that Holocaust survivors are, we hope, present and alive to witness this being built and completed. I hope my explanations will enable noble Lords to understand why I am unable to accept their amendments. I request that the noble Viscount withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

May I just make sure that the record reflects accurately what the Infrastructure and Projects Authority actually said? On 16 January this year, it 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 project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed”.


Never once did it mention that it was undeliverable because we had not got a Bill yet and I would like the record to reflect that accurately. I am afraid that the Minister may have been fed a line.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Before we round up the debate, these generic arguments are not relevant to the Bill. Let me remind the Committee, in the kindest way, that the Bill has two main functions. One is in Clause 1, which allows the Secretary of State to spend on the project; the other is in Clause 2, to disapply the 1900 London Act for the project to be built. I appreciate the noble Lord’s reflections but we are speaking to amendments here. However, there is an opportunity for discussion during the planning process.

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, that was a very interesting but not particularly easy debate to sum up and comment on. If I may, I will stay rather tightly focused on the management of the project and I need to ask the Minister some questions. I think he is saying that there will be a public body to manage the project, but now is not the time to set it up. I disagree with that, of course, because it seems that there is a whole raft of things on which it would be better to give the new management body the time to work it out and to do some important things.

The Minister has also said that if anything needs to be done and it is not at all clear who is to do it, the Secretary of State would be responsible for doing it. My experience, which is considerable, is that that is completely impractical. It amounts to a non-answer, because the Secretary of State is so far away from the front line of the battle that it is just impractical to maintain that she can sort it out. I insist that it would be better, and much more workmanlike, to have a body properly authorised by Parliament, accountable and up for being asked all the detailed questions.

Let me give a few examples. When the construction starts, is the Minister saying that only 7.5% of the park will be involved? It would be very interesting to have, in the middle of the letting of a contract for the basement box, an answer to the question about what percentage of the park will be involved and what rules will be needed.

As my noble friend Lord Blencathra says, at the moment there does not seem to be a decision-making process that can deal with, for example, the relationship between the project and its promoter and the park. If we had a non-departmental public body, what its chairman would say, if he took my advice, is that we need the best possible relationship we can foster with the park. We need an agreement. We need a pretty detailed memorandum of understanding. We cannot work without having some rules, whereby we know what you are doing and what I am doing, because we are being made jointly responsible for the future of this great park.

When it comes to improvements, on what authority is the Minister saying that his department will be responsible for improvements? Has he got an agreement with the DCMS, which is responsible for the park, or are we going to have a parliamentary turf war about it?

Quite honestly, all the comments that have been made relate to the need for clarity and certainty, and the need for us to be able to see who is in charge, who is accountable and, if something happens, to whom we go with a prospect of getting an enforceable answer. We have not been comforted—and I have not been comforted in the least.

I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. Given the time and the importance that I attach to the need to have a clear management structure, I will leave it there, but we will come back to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for explaining so well the reasoning behind why we should wait for the planning system. I was going to say something very similar, but now I do not need to because of the timing. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could take the opportunity to give this Committee more detail about the process and the legalities, and about the reasons why we are doing what we are in this Bill, and where it should not then have anything to do with the planning system. That is an important thing to do and I ask that we have it in writing, to clarify this well in time for Report.

I was going to say something about all the other amendments in this group, but I feel that they would be much better discussed within the planning system and not within this Bill.

I will mention something about tea rooms. Interestingly, when I came in today, I was very much in support of not having them, but, having listened to the evidence and thought about it, it is actually not a bad thing to have that in a park that is used by all sorts of people for all sorts of different reasons. I certainly will not be supporting that proposal any longer. As far as I am concerned, all the other amendments should be dealt with in the planning system, so it is not worth my taking up any more of the Committee’s time.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sassoon (Con)]

The noble Lord did not address my point about UNESCO. This has nothing to do with planning processes. Under the World Heritage Convention, state parties—in this case, the UK Government—

“are also expected to protect the World Heritage values of the properties inscribed”.

Will the Minister confirm that the undertakings to UNESCO are not part of any planning process and answer my question about how the Government regard their obligations in this case to UNESCO? Do they know better what is not appropriate in a world heritage site?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

We will discuss UNESCO on a later amendment. It will need a bit of explanation, and I would like to discuss it in depth. If he could wait for that group, I will discuss that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought I was quite clear in saying that an existing planning application has gone in. This Bill is to disapply the 1900 Act to allow the project to proceed. The designated Minister will have a number of options, from which he must decide which is the best way forward for the planning process, but every option will include an opportunity for representations to be made.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, there are three options and we do not know which the Minister is going to choose. Is that right?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, that is the norm and to be expected. It is totally independent from the whole process. It is for him to decide how we will proceed with planning on this particular point; that is the normal process when Ministers are calling decisions. That is how these options work.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

This will be my last comment of the evening. Is there anyone in this Room who seriously believes that the Minister will pick the option of a fresh planning application to Westminster City Council? Of course he will not.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Can the Minister explain what would happen to his three options in this scenario? On the day this Bill receives Royal Assent—if it does—what is there to stop the Minister saying within 24 hours, “The only obstacle that existed against giving planning permission last time has been removed, and I am giving it here and now”?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me be absolutely clear. I understand that noble Lords have lots of concerns, strong views and opinions on this matter, but there is a process in place in which the designated Minister is totally independent from the whole planning process. I cannot stand here and speak on behalf of an independent decision made by a Minister who is detached from this process. It is up to the Minister to decide how to take this forward and how to look at the application. My job here, in promoting this Bill in the Lords, is to look at these clauses and to ensure that we discuss and debate the clauses in front of us. I understand that there are lots of various concerns around the statutory planning process, but it is not for me to move forward with those. I have to look at the remit of the clauses ahead of us. The Minister will make his own decision—that is as it should be.

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed. This has been a really interesting and, as always, passionate debate, with lots of great opinions on all sides.

I am aware that it has taken us four hours to discuss two groups, and we have not yet got on to the juicy subjects of security, how this project relates to restoration and renewal, and indeed the whole design. To save time, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for summing up the amendments that we heard about on flooding, security and the kiosk. Afterwards, there were some very useful contributions on planning from the noble Lords, Lord Sassoon and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Laing.

I find myself in agreement with the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, to reach out. It seems to me, from what I have heard over the past two days, as we are nearly at the end of the second day in Committee—this is just my opinion; I am not speaking for anyone else—that there is an acceptance that there should be a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. What is in dispute is its size, scale, ugliness and whatever else—those are subjective things—but my hearing suggests that the fact that there will be a memorial in the gardens has acceptance. The problems all relate to the learning centre: I cannot find anybody, except for the proposers, who are for it.

Last week, I was talking about this outside the Committee with one of the proposers, who said that there is no practical alternative. I was quite flabbergasted; this learning centre may or may not be many things but one thing it certainly is not is practical. We have yet to hear—I am sure that we will at some length—about the problems around traffic, security, restoration and renewal, and about the fact that this proposal is totally inadequate. It is far from practical.

As for there being no alternatives, there are loads of alternatives, and all of them close by. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested one that I personally found very acceptable: Richmond House, next to the Cenotaph —crane a slight neck there and you can see the Houses of Parliament. This would seem to satisfy every consideration, including the cost aspect, which we debated slightly on day one. I will not come back to it but I remind the Committee that we signed off the Elizabeth Tower at £29 million and it ended up costing £81 million. Let us face it, no one has the faintest idea what this memorial and learning centre—in particular the learning centre, which is where the construction costs will be—is going to cost.

I hope that, as we do not have much more time today—at this rate, we are going to be here for another 10 days or two weeks—the Government will show some flexibility and acknowledge the feeling that, yes, there should be a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, and we can then discuss the scale and all those other things. Can we please consider seriously moving the learning centre to somewhere more appropriate, where it can do real justice to the purpose it is meant to have? With that, I would like to withdraw my amendment.

Plan for Neighbourhoods

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I have relevant interests as a councillor in Kirklees, which includes Dewsbury, one of the towns on the list. I am also a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I welcome investment in towns across the country that have higher than average levels of deprivation. I hope that the Minister will agree that the regeneration needed by so many towns reflects the many years of neglect by previous Governments in funding and supporting long-term regeneration programmes by local councils for their areas.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked, can he confirm that this programme is a continuation of the long-term plan for towns fund, which was introduced by the previous Government? As far as I can tell, the list of towns is precisely the same. Secondly, can the Minister provide detail on the selection criteria, given that, as the Statement says, the towns in the list were all in the bottom 20% of the index of multiple deprivation? Of course, the list does not include them all—it is not an inclusive list—so which towns, under those deprivation criteria, have been rejected and why? If the Minister does not have an answer to that question, which I accept is quite detailed, I would be happy for him to give me a written response.

It is positive that the Government have extended the list of potential uses of the funding, compared with its previous iteration. However, each town is to get £2 million a year for the next 10 years. Does the Minister agree with me that making a sea change in a town will require more than that level of funding? That is not to decry the funding, which will be helpful, but simply to note that this will not make a strategic and long-term difference for those towns as a whole. There will be improvements, given the money available, but that level of funding is inadequate for a major uplift.

I will give the Minister an example. Dewsbury in Kirklees is included in this list. The swimming pool and sports centre that served the town, and which were run by the local council, had to be closed due to RAAC. The council said that it will not rebuild or further provide either a sports centre or a swimming pool, so there will be no other provision of those facilities in that town of, say, 80,000 people, which suffers from considerable deprivation. Replacing them would be a major investment in the health and future of young people, yet the funding provided in this plan for neighbourhoods will not go anywhere near meeting that.

Can the funding available be used as match funding, or provision towards capital spending or revenue spending, for such long-term investment? The funding available is split 75% capital and 25% revenue. Is there flexibility within that? Perhaps the first five years could be capital funding, with revenue at the back end of the scheme. It would be worth knowing from the Minister whether there could be some flexibility there.

Finally, it is good that each town has to create a town board to make funding decisions and that those who serve on that board are committed to the town’s future. However, can the Minister explain the reasoning for excluding local councillors elected to represent the town in making those decisions? Can he say what accountability mechanism there will be for all the funding? Will there be annual reports to the House on the progress being made? Overall, the plan is good, but there is more to do.

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

My Lords, I appreciate the support from both Front Benches.

I believe that I speak for us all when I say that promises made to the people of this country ought to be kept. We have a duty to mend the broken physical and social infrastructure of this country. That cannot begin without first turning our attention to rebuilding trust in our democracy. That is why, through the plan for neighbourhoods, the Government have made good on what these 75 places were promised by the previous Administration, but on which they had no idea as to how they would follow through. Now communities can breathe a sigh of relief, before once more rolling up their sleeves and getting on with the job at hand.

Through our three strategic objectives of creating thriving places, building stronger communities and empowering people to take back control, the decade-long plan for neighbourhoods will both drive down deprivation and kick-start growth. The Deputy Prime Minister’s foreword to the prospectus notes that

“deprivation … for too long has been tackled with sticking plaster politics”.

The need for a long-term, holistic, grass-roots programme could not be greater. That has been underscored by the points raised today.

Last week, the Minister for Local Growth announced the plan for neighbourhoods in the other place and first made the Statement we are discussing today. I thank him and his officials for their hard work, which has helped to ensure that we can make good on the promises made to these places, while launching a new programme aligned with the missions of this Government. Places will not be left in the dark at any level. We will shortly also publish further technical guidance, outlining details of the requirements of the neighbourhood boards’ governors, and launch the associated submission process, so that places can swiftly reconfirm their board arrangements and boundaries.

The Government’s plan for neighbourhoods marks a major step in delivering their wider plan for change, with a relentless focus on economic growth to raise living standards. Through the plan for neighbourhoods, the Government will work in partnership with residents, businesses and grass-roots campaigners, alongside local authorities, to deliver for local people.

If we are serious about rebalancing the economy, nowhere can be left behind. As the Deputy Prime Minister wrote in the programme’s foreword,

“everywhere has a role to play in our national prosperity”.

This is just the start—no more sticking plasters, no more short-term fixes. Through the plan for neighbourhoods and the wider plan for change, this Government will fulfil their promise of change and a decade of national renewal.

As to the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Byrook, this is a new programme that puts communities at the heart of making these changes. The money will be spent on a broadened set of interventions, and it has completely different objectives. The locations and funding remain the same, because we are delivering on what places have been previously promised. It is the repeated breaking of promises that undermines trust in our democracy. We have doubled the number of interventions that communities can spend the money on. We are focusing on three long-term aims: building thriving places, strengthening communities and empowering people to take back control, instead of sticking-plaster politics.

We are giving local people their say by strengthening our consultations. It is not misleading to claim that this is new money. The long-term plan for towns was an unfunded commitment for which the previous Administration had no plan as to how that promise would be delivered. Our plan for neighbourhoods programme delivers on the Chancellor’s confirmation of funding at the Budget. This Government are committed to making good on what places have previously been promised. It is the repeated breaking of promises that undermines trust in our democracy.

The noble Baroness talked about levelling up. Levelling up failed because it asked communities to beg for funding and then tried to micromanage how it was spent. This is about the transfer of power and investment, so that communities can drive change themselves. In particular, the noble Baroness talked about economic growth in relation to the issues that she raised about tax changes. I cannot talk about tax changes as they are outside my remit, but on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised, we want to make it clear that we are putting power in the hands of local people to address deprivation and regenerate their local area. We are unleashing the full potential of places that have for too long been overlooked.

Neighbourhood boards, bringing together residents, businesses and grass-roots people, will draw up and implement plans for how they will spend up to £20 million of funding, whether for repairing pavements and high streets, setting up community grocers, providing low-cost alternatives or for neighbourhood watches to keep people safe.

On accountability, the relevant local authority will act as the accountable body for the funds, with responsibility for ensuring that public funds are distributed fairly and effectively. A monitoring and evaluation strategy will be published in the summer. This will set out the framework for assurance and accountability expected from grant recipients.

On the noble Baroness’s point about match funding and potential borrowing from local authorities, yes, there is clearly the opportunity for neighbourhood boards to make that decision. But the point is clear: no more top-down approach; this is bottom up, with local authorities leading the way and local people deciding what they want most for their communities.

On the places that will get funding, all 75 towns across the UK that were originally selected to receive long-term plan for towns funding will receive the plan for neighbourhoods package. The long-term plan for towns programme was never fully funded. The money was supposed to come from the government reserve, which has been spent three times over. That is why we are making good on those commitments, giving each of the 75 places certainty that they will receive up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for ensuring that we get the chance to speak on this Statement and to ask questions. I am name-checked in the Statement because, in my previous life as a Minister, I introduced the new deal for communities along with my boss, John Prescott. It has been evaluated as the most effective neighbourhood and regeneration programme in the last 45 years.

I now chair the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, and I am reliving all that. We are changing what we are looking at, which involves asking how we ensure that the poorest neighbourhoods in our country get the opportunity to develop, find opportunities for the most disadvantaged and build effective partnerships with government, local government, civil society and, very importantly, local people, but also with public services in those neighbourhoods.

Does the Minister see this as the first step, as I hope? We in the independent commission have identified 613 neighbourhoods across the country which are the most deprived but where we know that change can happen. They are the areas that most need the five missions of the Government. With the right support and development, they will be able to bring real growth because they will be able to link economic and structural development with social development and the building of social capital. These are the essential elements to ensure that neighbourhood policy works right across the board. I understand why the Government have made sure that the commitments made to the 75 towns have been respected. However, we can do much more by investing and working with the neighbourhoods that I am talking about.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I extend my appreciation to my noble friend for all the work that she does in this area. She speaks with great experience, skills and depth of knowledge.

I do not want to pre-empt the upcoming spending review by making any commitments to expansion, but I recognise that other places want to join the plan for neighbourhoods—this was raised also by several Members in the other place. While I cannot make any commitments, the Government welcome correspondence from interested parties. We have taken inspiration from the new deal for communities, the work of John Prescott that my noble friend was talking about, which provided the stability of long-term funding, backed by the support of central government. We have learned what has worked well in the past and are utilising that same methodology.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the Statement, which builds on initiatives from previous Administrations. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, referred to her pioneering work at the beginning of this century. Going back even further, I was a Minister in the Department of the Environment in the 1980s. We had inner-city partnerships, where the Government provided two-thirds of the money and the local authority one third. We funded a range of projects exactly the same as the projects that are hoped for under this programme.

I can see a range of bids coming to the neighbourhood boards. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned improved recreation facilities. Looking through the Statement in the other place, I see there were demands for community shops. People may want to rescue a theatre. However, the first priority listed in the Statement is the modernisation of social housing. I am all in favour of social housing being modernised, but there is a mainstream programme to do that. To what extent will the smaller projects that I have been referring to and which the programme is aimed at be swamped by the modernisation of social housing? Is that really one of the objectives, or is that put in to patch up a deficiency in another mainstream government programme?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very interesting point. My only answer at this time is that, of course, as a country, we want to see the modernisation of social housing. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced that 1.5 million houses are to be built in this Parliament, and that is still the ambition, but the specifics of what the money can be spent on are entirely up to the local regeneration neighbourhood board—the people. They need to look at what the priorities are for their area and work out how they can put this £2 million a year into various projects. If that means putting some money into modernising housing, it is a decision for them to reflect upon. As central government, we have our focus and manifesto commitments on housing overall, but whatever is needed in the local area is for the board to deliberate and decide upon.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with this Statement that, in the former Government’s levelling-up programme, the Tories’ instinct was to “hoard power”, and that “inflexible restrictions” were placed on how this money could be spent. I entirely welcome what the noble Lord just said: that it is up to the town’s boards and the local communities to decide how money will be spent, which appears to be the opposite of what the Tories were doing. Except that is not what the Statement actually says. It talks about the broadened objectives, which I think are the three long-term aims elsewhere in the Statement:

“These new, broadened objectives will give communities the tools to make informed decisions, with a list of interventions aligned with this Government’s central missions”.


So, which is it? Do they have to be aligned with the central missions—the famous five pillars we have all heard about many times—or with the long-term aims in this Statement, or is it that the communities can decide for themselves what to spend the money on?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken about our three main objectives and what we want to do, but it is ultimately up to the local people to decide what they want to do. It is not mutually exclusive for local people to decide areas of improvement in their local communities which are not in our missions. The whole idea is to drive growth, to have safer streets and to have neighbourhoods that people take pride in. That is the focus of this announcement: to ensure that people can feel pride in their area but can also take control and decide for their future.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I like the idea of the structure very much, as I did with the previous Government, but how do this Government propose that local people will hold the boards accountable for the choices that the boards make? As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, there is great potential for all the money to disappear into the local swimming pool because that is what the councillor on the board likes. Is a structure being produced that will allow local people to influence the board’s decisions?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

To reiterate a point I have made before, local authorities are part of the whole process. They will work with central government and my department in particular to have regular, continuous monitoring of how the work is going. That is how we will communicate, but local authorities are heading part of this and they are signing off the board.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

As usual, I will have to talk about my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Unfortunately, no one in Central Bedfordshire received the money so I do not have the interest that the noble Baroness has. I just wanted to understand the accountability and the structure. We are going to have community boards. Who will the money, and the decisions on it, lie with? Will it be the board or the council? Who will be the accountable body for the money? Who will determine who will be on that community board? Several noble Lords have mentioned democracy and who the representatives of the people are, so can the Minister please clarify that?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The relevant local authority will act as the accountable body for the funds, with the responsibility for ensuring that public funds are distributed fairly and effectively. A monitoring and evaluation strategy will be published in the summer. This will set out the framework for assurance and accountability expected from grant recipients, so watch this space.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I apologise, I should have declared that I am vice-president of the Local Government Association and the NALC before that last question. I am still looking for a bit of clarity, so perhaps I can come at this question another way. If a local community decides that it wants to prioritise public health, improving its green spaces, or tackling child poverty, then none of those things, without a great deal of verbal gymnastics, appears to line up with the Government’s five missions. Focusing on public health and improving green spaces can be made to look as if they are good for growth, but they are not clearly directed at it. Can the Minister confirm that the Government would consider any of those things entirely appropriate to spend this money on?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot pre-empt what local authorities and local neighbourhoods will want to do in their particular areas. The whole idea behind the exercise is to give more power to local people. However, on the point that the noble Baroness is alluding to, there will be a plan called the regeneration plan, which will be submitted to central government. More guidance and a framework will come out on this. The regeneration plan will set out the board’s vision for the next decade, alongside a more detailed investment plan for the first four years of the programme. The submission window for regeneration plans will open in spring 2025 and close in winter 2025. Further details as to the content, form and submission timetable for the plans will be set out in the forthcoming guidance.

We know that places have worked hard to engage their communities and develop their long-term plans for the previous Administration’s long-term plan for towns. That progress is not for nothing and should not be undone, nor should places undo their governance arrangements. Communities should feel empowered to build and adapt their existing plans. Our reforms seek to build on and improve the previous programme with a new set of strategic objectives aligned to this Government’s plan to kick-start growth to be delivered by a broader range of policy interventions.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, in my area, Eastbourne, the process of going unitary will mean that Eastbourne Borough Council is abolished, and we currently have no town council. Which council will be involved with our neighbourhood fund? Will it be the East Sussex unitary council or some new council created in place of Eastbourne Borough Council?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord asks in particular about an issue of devolution. I say again that whichever council is established through negotiations as per the usual channels, it is up to the local area and the neighbourhood board to establish whether it is to be the recipient of funding. I cannot comment on any individual examples—it would not be appropriate—but it is for whichever area has received the funding to decide how it wants to move forward its proposals. There are boundaries as well, and there is clarification that it can receive about what is and what is not its boundary.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will follow on from the questions about the membership of the neighbourhood boards. The Statement says that they

“will include representatives from social housing and workplace representatives and, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the representative in the devolved legislature”.

I have no objection to any of those, but it is a rather limited list. Does the Minister agree that these neighbourhood boards should have representatives for young people, disabled people and, where relevant, minoritised communities?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an interesting and good point about having diversity and inclusion from a cross-section of society. We will set out further guidance on this issue. I will say again that it is for local neighbourhood boards to come out with proposals that will benefit their area, and the best benefits are where everybody is included as part of the whole deliberation, discussion and finalisation of neighbourhood boards.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can I get some clarification? Are the Government going to clarify in some guidance who should be on these boards, or will the composition of these boards be something that local councils decide? That is very important. I come back to the unions: in some areas of this country there may not be any union representatives who want to be on the board but there may be in others. Will that be something that the Government say has to happen, or will it be purely a local decision?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I said repeatedly in the Statement and say again that it is for the local neighbourhood boards of the 75 places to decide who is on their board, with the guidance of the local authority. Many of those 75 places have already created neighbourhood boards and regeneration plans and, again, it is for them to adapt those. We will be giving more framework guidance—in particular, clarification on the capacity funding.

My noble friend Lady Armstrong talked about the new deal for communities led by John Prescott. It has been clear from the evidence that on the year-zero plan, where local authorities can plan before the funding is distributed, in particular on paperwork and architectural designs for capital projects, there is a lot to learn from the evaluation of the new deal for communities. We are following that plan. We have been inspired by the new deal for communities and what it achieved for our country, and we will implement this plan for neighbourhoods to make sure we give more power back to regional and local areas in the 75 places. I reiterate that it is a local-led initiative—it is bottom-up, not top-down.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Grand Committee

I regret that I cannot support the Clause 1 stand part notice proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. The Government should deliver the memorial and the learning centre, and they need these powers to deliver it. We worked on this for many years in government, and wish to see it delivered in Victoria gardens, in Westminster, and as soon as possible.

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

My Lords, the Government gratefully acknowledge the Select Committee’s report and conclusions. We thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the members of the Select Committee, who performed their task conscientiously and thoroughly, dedicating considerable time and effort to ensuring that they tested and understood the evidence presented to them. Their report is proof of the balanced approach they have taken. The Government thank them for their patience and dedication.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his amendments. It would be appropriate alongside this amendment move the Question that Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. This group of amendments deals with matters relating to public expenditure on the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The purpose of Clause 1 is to authorise expenditure on the construction, use, maintenance, improvement and operation of a new national holocaust memorial and learning centre. We want the centre to be a permanent feature of our national consciousness that ensures that the lessons of the Holocaust and the testimony of those who survived have an enduring legacy.

This clause will enable the Government to deliver the commitment, first made in 2015, with cross-party support, to deliver a fitting national memorial that meets the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. The commission found widespread dissatisfaction with the existing memorial in Hyde Park. That is why the commission recommended that there should be a striking new memorial, prominently located in central London, to make a bold statement about the importance that Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust.

Plans for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre have been endorsed by every living Prime Minister and have widespread support from leading representatives of the Jewish community, other faith and community leaders, survivors, refugees and the wider public. The proposed memorial will honour the 6 million Jewish men, women and children who were murdered in the Holocaust and all other victims of Nazi persecution. The collocated learning centre will examine the Holocaust through British perspectives, looking at what we did and what more we could have done to tackle the murder and persecution of the Jewish people and other groups.

By long-standing convention, based on the Public Accounts Committee concordat of 1932, reflected in the current Treasury guidance Managing Public Money, specific legislation is needed for funding new services that are expected to continue beyond two years. Clause 1 meets that requirement.

Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would put in the Bill a limit that would apply to both the construction and the operational costs of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Although I sympathise with the noble Lord’s concern to manage public expenditure, I think noble Lords will be aware that other mechanisms are used to allocate funding and control costs. The figure of £138.8 million is evidently taken from the Written Ministerial Statement made by the previous Government in June 2023. As a consequence of that Statement, Parliament and all interested parties were fully aware of the expected costs when the Bill completed its passage through the other House and passed its Second Reading in this House.

The amendment would use that published sum, plus an arbitrary 15% contingency, to set a cost limit for both the construction and the ongoing operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre programme. Setting a limit in primary legislation in that way would create a great deal of inflexibility in the management of the project. The project to create a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre is being taken forward in line with normal procedures and processes for government projects. As part of the Government’s major projects portfolio, it is subject to regular and transparent reporting.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, particularly as he has been so amenable to consultation throughout the process of the Bill. Is he saying that the passage of the Bill would allow the Government to raise the money, whatever the cost of the project would be? Is it not the case that all that the Bill would do is allow the Treasury to be asked, from its vote, to allow a certain sum of money to be granted? My understanding is that the Bill does not give a blank cheque to the Government without further checks and balances in normal Treasury procedures. If that is the case, please would the Minister not leave that impression?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall clarify what Clause 1 is about. Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to spend money to build the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. That is what it is about.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

With respect, the Minister is not answering my question. Of course this Bill, once an Act, would allow the Secretary of State to spend money, but the implication of what he says is “any” money. Is it not a fact, and the law, that it has to be provided from the Treasury vote? Therefore, decisions have to be made as to how much money will be permitted. Can he help us, if that is true, as to how much money it is intended to permit?

[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.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

We will deal with this issue more extensively in the third group of amendments, but perhaps it would help to quote from page 11 of the National Audit Office report, which sets out all the organisations in charge of trying to run this project. It says that the Treasury is:

“Responsible for allocating funding for the programme. Treasury approval is required at different stages as per the Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan … As a condition of the funding, the Department must seek further Treasury approval if the programme is forecast to use more than half of the approved contingency”.


Another box also says that the Cabinet Office must give approval as well.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

It is the Baldwin concordat.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I must make progress but, very quickly, we will follow the normal public expenditure rules, as I have illustrated. I remind noble Lords that Clause 1 refers to allowing us to spend the money to build the project. I understand that it does not say how much money, but whatever the Government do will follow the normal Treasury rules, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

The Minister is under a bit of flak here. This is a very unusual Bill, as he will understand. It is not like voting for huge amounts to go to defence, or whatever it might be. We in Parliament surely exist to control what public money—not our money—is spent on. We are talking here about some astronomical amount that we do not know. That is why people are asking these questions.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, but this Bill allows expenditure. Funding will be allocated through the normal public expenditure arrangements. The House of Commons passes annual appropriation Acts.

The project is also subject to review by the National Audit Office. In July 2022, the National Audit Office conducted a review and produced a report noting, among other points:

“The programme has controls to try to safeguard against substantial cost increases”.


Three recommendations made by the National Audit Office have been implemented. On the points that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raised about the management of the project, we welcome the National Audit Office’s July 2022 report on the project and have addressed all its recommendations. The National Audit Office also recognises that governance arrangements are in place. The strategic benefits of the programme have been clearly identified and specialists with the necessary skills have been recruited to the programme.

It is also important to make the point that the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which the noble Lord referred to, currently rates the project as undeliverable because the Bill needs to be passed and planning consent granted in order for it to proceed. That is why there is a red flag rating on this. The project needs planning consent. That was quashed, and it was given a red rating as this Bill needs to be passed.

The £138 million estimate is based on professional advice from cost consultants and allows for inflation.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

Are those the same cost consultants who advised on HS2?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to limit myself by saying “yes” or “no” because I do not know the answer. As you would expect, I do not have that knowledge here.

On contingency, the estimate considers potential inflation being more than expected and the risks of the site. Again, the estimate is based on professional advice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised the commitment to raise charitable donations. The commitment to raise £25 million has been given by the Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust, which is chaired by Sir Gerald Ronson. Specific donations will be agreed once planning consent has been granted.

The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised improving records. The testimony of 120 Holocaust survivors has been recorded and is being made available online for all to see before the memorial opens. We have worked with the Association of Jewish Refugees to create an online portal.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, also talked about the operating costs. These have been estimated at £6.5 million to £8 million per annum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I was responding to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on the operational costs. Operating costs have been estimated at between £6.5 million to £8.5 million per annum, and the estimates draw on comparisons with other museums and galleries of a similar size. Further detailed costs will be developed as the programme proceeds.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

If those costs have been estimated in line with other museums, do they include the extra costs that will be needed for potential demonstrations at that particular memorial, especially as it is so close to Parliament?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Yes; all the costs associated with the operation of the memorial learning centre reflect the estimation I have just detailed, but further details of costs will be developed.

On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on the Explanatory Notes and re-erection, the purpose is to avoid having to come back to Parliament to change legislation in the event of damage and related issues. We have regular discussions with the Palace of Westminster on the issue of other works, including the restoration of Victoria Tower. These will continue to take place and we expect to manage logistics, deliveries, and so on, through sensible planning. The estimated cost of the UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre has been produced in line with the Treasury Green Book guidance. Taking all that into account, the last accounting officer assessment from June 2023 concludes that the project represents value for money. The ordinary mechanisms by which Parliament allocates public funding and holds Ministers to account can apply to this programme, just as with any other programme.

The further Amendment 27, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would introduce an additional step in the process of seeking planning consent for the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. While the noble Lord is to be commended for his focus on cost control and value for money, the additional step he proposes is not necessary and would simply add still further delay to the decision-making process. Costs are regularly reviewed, and updated figures will be published in due course, in line with the Government’s major projects portfolio reporting process.

A range of options are being considered for operating the memorial and learning centre. As a significant public investment, responsibility for managing the centre will need to rest with a body that is ultimately accountable to Parliament. The Government will continue to be transparent about the costs and future arrangements for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. This should, however, not delay the separate planning determination process.

The Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be a source of pride and an inspiration to the whole of society across boundaries of religion, class, geography or political party. I have only to quote the words of 94 year-old Holocaust survivor Mala Tribich, MBE, to underline why this is so vital:

“As the Holocaust moves further into history and we survivors become less able to share our testimonies this Memorial and Learning Centre will be a lasting legacy so that future generations will understand why it is important for people to remember the Holocaust, to learn from the past and stand up against injustice”.


I just want to echo—

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I was going to echo the noble Lord’s points.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

I am sorry; I agree very much with the tenor of what the Minister is saying. He may recall that earlier I asked him to address a specific question. During his briefing, has he seen anything to suggest that the memorial centre will be about white- washing our history and praising the British Empire, and not about telling the whole truth, warts and all?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I was literally going to come on to that particular point. There will be nothing at all like that. If I can further add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, the memorial and learning centre will draw on the history of the Holocaust, and particularly the decisions made by the British Parliament, to stress the importance of tackling intolerance and hatred at all levels in our society. It will deliver this message for all the people across the UK and the rest of the world, regardless of faith and background.

I just want to remind noble Lords what we are debating. The Holocaust Memorial Bill includes measures essential for the Government to deliver the long- standing commitment to build the planned Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The Bill authorises expenditure on the construction, maintenance, operation and improvement of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Finally, the Bill also disapplies the relevant sections of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, ensuring that this legislation does not block the building of a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens.

I hope that I have been able to provide further clarity and assurance as to the purpose of this Bill to enable the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to withdraw his amendment. I also hope that my explanation of Clause 1 will enable noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, to agree that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

Can I ask the Minister something before he sits down? Does he have evidence that there are companies that are willing to quote for carrying out this construction? What is the situation over there?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the simple answer is that we will seek tenders for the main construction contracts once planning consent is secured but, to use the noble Lord’s words, we need to get on with it.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I can recall this Committee Room being so packed out with colleagues, on all sides, for such an important and controversial debate. As the Minister would say, some passionate speeches are being made here today; I am grateful to all colleagues who have taken part.

I was particularly struck by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who gave a powerful criticism of the Explanatory Notes. It is not just this Bill where I have found that the Explanatory Notes did not explain much; as a former chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I found that in almost every Bill we got. The noble Lord is right to make the points that there could be substantial changes to Parliament’s visitors centre and that that has not been taken into account here.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly praised the dedication of my noble friends Lord Pickles and Lord Finkelstein to a memorial. My noble friend Lord Pickles has for many years championed this cause; just because I think that it may be the wrong place and the wrong memorial does not take away from the fact that he has been an absolute hero. However, my noble friend said that this memorial would improve the park, but that is not what Adjaye, the architect, said. When people said that these fins are despicably ugly, he said:

“Disrupting the pleasure of being in a park is key to the thinking”


on the memorial. I thought that key to the thinking was finding a memorial that commemorated the 6 million exterminated Jews, not putting something ugly in the park. Of course, the Government never mention Adjaye now. In the press release announcing that his bid had been accepted, he was named 12 times as the greatest architect in history. Now, he is wiped out from the memory, and the name is given to the rest of his firm but not to Adjaye.

Moving on, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was so right to point out that people will come to a memorial if it is good enough, not because of where it is sited. That is a key point.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sterling. His description of his family circumstances and the Holocaust match, if in a different way, the circumstances of my noble friend Lord Finkelstein. The noble Lord, Lord King is right: let us have a decent learning centre and a fitting memorial.

My noble friend Lord Inglewood said that building in inflation, which is going through the roof at the moment, will be absolutely essential. That tied into the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, about the fact that we must have a cost ceiling. It may not be £138 million—indeed, it may be something else—but, unless there is a cost ceiling, the costs will go through the roof.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her comments and her personal statement. I appreciate that she was not speaking as a party spokesperson.

My noble friend Lord Inglewood said that he was not an accountant, but at least what he said added up and made sense to me in any case.

The shadow Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, said that no one wants to break a solemn promise. I suspect that there is no one anywhere in this Room who wants to break the promise to build a memorial, but what we all want is a proper memorial and a big, proper learning centre, as the Holocaust Commission recommended.

I come to the Minister. I have always liked him, ever since he was a Whip. I used to be a Whip in the Conservative Party. Us Whips have to stick together, in a sort of camaraderie; someone should explain that to Simon Hart. I welcome the Minister to his position—he is a thoroughly decent man and a caring, nice Minister—but he has been under some pressure today and that is not his fault. We have the National Audit Office’s report, which is devastating against his department. We have the Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s report, which is also highly critical. That same department has had to give the Minister a brief. He has had to defend the indefensible today, but I give him credit for trying.

I want to conclude by asking the Minister something. Before Report, when I suspect that noble Lords—perhaps better noble Lords than I—will wish to put down a new amendment on costs, will the Minister produce a full, updated cost for the project? Will he give detailed answers before Report, as well as full answers to the NAO’s criticisms? I should say to him that I do not think the NAO criticised this project because we have not got the Bill through yet. It said that this project was undeliverable based not on that but on the fact that there was no schedule, no budget and no quality control. For a whole range of reasons, it found it grossly inadequate.

I think the Minister said that my ceiling of a 15% contingency was an arbitrary figure. Well, the Government have suddenly bunged in an extra £50 million with no justification, and I suggest that that is also an arbitrary figure.

I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. Obviously, I will not push it today, but we will need to get some detailed answers on the costing and control of this project before Report, or I suspect that we will have to come back to this then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I will just elucidate for the noble Baroness that 50 sites were not looked at. The foundation just plumped for Victoria Tower Gardens. The thing about haste is that we are not building for the handful of survivors who are left. They do not need a memorial. If we build, we are building for the future. There is not a hurry. Survivors have said to me that they would rather it was got right; that is more important than hurrying. Even if everything went smoothly now, which I hope that it will not, there is no chance of getting it up in the lifetime of people who are in their late 90s. You have to get it right for the future, not for the handful who are left.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Blackstone and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for tabling these amendments. This group concerns the need for a learning centre, what its focus should be and how it should be funded. I believe there is a great deal of common ground on these matters. The need for a learning centre was set out clearly in the 2015 report, Britain’s Promise to Remember, published by the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission and accepted by all major political parties.

The commission proposed

“that the National Memorial should be co-located with a world-class Learning Centre. This would be a must-see destination using the latest technology to engage and inspire vast numbers of visitors”.

That remains the Government’s intention. We want to put in place a learning centre that will set the memorial in context and will be a moving and inspiring experience for visitors. Work towards this aim has begun. We are confident that our proposed scheme provides the space needed for an enthralling exhibition; I will come on to the issue of its size later. It is certain that the experience of entering the underground exhibition space through the bronze fins of the memorial will be a powerful introduction for all visitors.

Our proposal for a learning centre integrated with the Holocaust memorial is a tangible demonstration of the importance that we attach to education, which has been at the heart of this programme from the outset. The creation of the memorial and learning centre will be a further development of the significant efforts already taking place to deepen understanding of the Holocaust. Already, the Holocaust is the only historic event that is compulsory in the national curriculum for history at key stage 3, for pupils aged 11 to 14. The Prime Minister has made a strong personal commitment that this Government will seek to give every young person the opportunity to hear a recorded survivor testimony. The Government fund the Holocaust Educational Trust’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme and Holocaust Memorial Day. It is right that we should also build this Holocaust memorial with a co-located learning centre as a focal point for national commemoration to demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that the lessons of the Holocaust are never forgotten.

Taken together, my noble friend Lady Blackstone’s amendments—this amendment, Amendment 2, and Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 13—would mean that no learning centre could be constructed at the Victoria Tower Gardens; and, indeed, that the Government could not allocate any funding to the construction and operation of any learning centre in any location. The Holocaust Commission recommended that a new world-class learning centre should physically accompany the new national memorial. The learning centre will provide an opportunity to learn about the Holocaust close to the memorial and will therefore provide necessary context to the memorial. It is essential that the learning centre should be co-located with the memorial.

Having chosen Victoria Tower Gardens as the site uniquely capable of meeting the commission’s vision, the architectural design competition for the memorial tested the feasibility of a below-ground learning centre. The judges panel chose the winning design for a Holocaust memorial with a co-located learning centre because of its sensitivity to the gardens. The potential impact of our proposed learning centre was captured effectively by Professor Stuart Foster, the executive director of Holocaust education at UCL, who told the planning inquiry of his belief that

“the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre will make a profound and positive impact on teaching and learning about the Holocaust in this country and, potentially, beyond”.

I ask my noble friend Lady Blackstone to withdraw Amendment 2 and not move Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 13.

Amendment 23 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke, would similarly interfere with our objectives of establishing a world-class learning centre and strengthening Holocaust education. Taking £50 million away from the construction budget will mean no learning centre and no programme of education. The right approach is to create a powerful Holocaust memorial and learning centre that can then be a foundation for enhanced educational efforts, drawing together the wide range of impressive organisations already working in the field. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, not to move Amendment 23.

Amendments 29 and 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, call for new site searches for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Adopting these amendments would take us all the way back to 2015. An independent, cross-party foundation appointed by the then Prime Minister, following cross-party commitment to the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission, led an extensive search for the right site. The foundation included experienced and eminent property developers. A firm of professional property consultants was commissioned to provide assistance. Around 50 sites were identified and considered, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, mentioned. The outcome is, of course, well known: Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the most suitable site. The foundation was unanimous in recommending the site, which will give the memorial the prominence that it deserves and will uniquely allow the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament. There is nothing to be gained by further site searches but there is, of course, a great deal to be lost. This Government and their predecessors believe that Victoria Tower Gardens is the right site for the memorial and learning centre.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Government looked at 50 sites before deciding on Victoria Tower Gardens? Is it not the case that Victoria Tower Gardens was selected first and a search then went on to look for unsuitable sites?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly reject that assertion. That was not the case. It was a competition; 50 sites were considered and after all those considerations, it was decided.

I must make progress. I will answer the points that have been raised in the debate. There is a lot to get through as this is a big group, but turning the clock back 10 years to conduct further searches in the belief that some greater consensus will be found is simply not realistic. Moreover, one implication of these amendments is that the learning centre might be located separately from the memorial. The clear recommendation of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission in its 2015 report was that

“the National Memorial should be co-located with a world-class learning centre”.

That recommendation was accepted by the then Prime Minister, with cross-party support.

The reasons why co-location matters are clear. We want the Holocaust to be understood. We cannot assume that visitors, however powerfully they may be affected by the memorial, will have even a basic understanding of the facts of the Holocaust. We cannot assume that they will recognise the relevance of the Holocaust to us, here in Great Britain, now and in the years to come. A co-located learning centre provides the opportunity to give facts, setting the memorial in context and prompting visitors to reflect.

I have no doubt that visitors will be motivated to learn more, as I was when I visited the Washington memorial. For many, the learning centre will be a starting point. I am confident that many visitors will want to explore the subject further at the Imperial War Museum in Lambeth, at the Holocaust Centre and Museum in Nottinghamshire, at Holocaust Centre North in Huddersfield and at many other excellent institutions in the UK and abroad. If the memorial were not accompanied by a learning centre, how many opportunities would be missed? Is it realistic to expect that thousands of visitors would see the memorial and decide then to make a journey of some miles across London to search out further information? Perhaps some would; I am certain that a great many would not.

Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, making a comparison with the Imperial War Museum Holocaust galleries and the size of this learning centre, the learning centre will have around 1,300 square metres of exhibition space, which is about the same as the Imperial War Museum Holocaust galleries. I want to address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. To be clear, the great majority of visitors will come via public transport, not by coach. Our plans for vehicle access are included within a construction logistics plan which we previously shared with Westminster City Council and which we expect will need to be agreed with it as a planning condition. Visitors will have access to the gardens using the existing entrances, with the site entrance permanently manned with security and construction banksmen.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said that her offer to meet supporters has been ignored. I must politely disagree. Officials and I have met with her and I will continue to meet her whenever she wants, my diary permitting. I am always happy to meet any noble Lord who strongly wants to raise anything. I can see the passion today. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the great expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, and my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I am happy to meet at any time in relation to expertise.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I have to say to the Minister that I have met him and his predecessors but not once have they entertained any compromise. They listen, sometimes they shout, and that is the end of it. There has never been an offer to compromise or change anything, no matter what we have written or what plans we have shown.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have to politely disagree, with the greatest respect for the noble Baroness. I have always listened. We have to understand that I have two main goals with the Bill. The first, in Clause 1, is to allow the Secretary of State to have expenditure to build the project. Secondly, my job in bringing the Bill forward and promoting it is to look at the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 to disapply the condition for this project to be built. Noble Lords are passionate and the strength of feeling is clear, but there is a planning process. Planning permission is still to be granted, and noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity to raise these important and pertinent points on the planning side.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Will the Minister therefore guarantee that a new full planning permission application will go back to Westminster City Council and through all the layers of planning that are normally required, and that it will not be cut short?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot give that guarantee. I want to be clear because noble Lords must understand this: that is in the hands of the designated Minister. It is the role of the designated Minister to see how he takes that forward.

I repeat that the proposals put forward include more than 300 square metres of exhibition space, comparable to the International War Museum’s Holocaust galleries and capable of accommodating a world-class exhibition. I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 29 and 30.

Amendment 31 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who I thank for his kind words earlier, which I thought were most respectful. The amendment calls for a review of the feasibility of including the Holocaust learning centre within a Jewish museum. I want to affirm straight away that the learning centre must and will set the Holocaust in the context of Jewish history. It is simply impossible to provide an accurate account of the Holocaust without addressing the long history of anti-Semitism. For a British Holocaust memorial, that will include addressing the history of British anti-Semitism, working with an experienced curator with the advice of eminent and respected academics. That is what our learning centre will do. I know that several noble Lords may have had the opportunity to see a short presentation from Martin Winstone.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am troubled by the Minister repeatedly using the term “world-class”. Could he give us some comparators that enable him to say that what is offered in this centre is world-class? In what respect is it in the same class as the POLIN centre in Warsaw or Yad Vashem? Those centres set the standard for world-class. How can he make that claim for a small centre that will have only computerised images?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I will affirm the point. The noble Lord talked about Yad Vashem. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem. The ambition and vision is to have a quality curator with a strong academic advisory board.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I am sorry to keep interrupting, but Sir Richard Evans, who is our greatest historian of Germany, and who has been outstanding in combating Holocaust denial, said at the public inquiry that the learning centre will be a national and international embarrassment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Committee can understand that I do not agree with that point. That is a matter of opinion for Sir Richard Evans. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as we have seen in the passionate debate today.

I was making the point that several noble Lords may have had the opportunity to see a short presentation from Martin Winstone, the historical adviser to the programme, in which he provides a small insight to the work under way. For those noble Lords who have not seen it, we can arrange for Martin Winstone to come in and give them that presentation. I had a drop-in session yesterday; unfortunately it was just me and officials, but I enjoyed it.

The overall focus of the learning centre must of course remain clearly on the Holocaust, and it must be wholly integrated with the national memorial to the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust. We want to be sure that visitors are left in no doubt about the nature of the Holocaust. Having seen the memorial, they should clearly understand what it represents. For those reasons, it simply does not make sense to envisage a learning centre located elsewhere and carrying a much broader set of messages.

The history of the Jewish people is rich and deep. Jewish communities have a long history in Britain that needs to be understood, including of course the history of anti-Semitism, extending for many centuries. Telling such a story requires expertise, creativity and space. The Jewish Museum London told this story well, making excellent use of the tens of thousands of artefacts in its collection. I wish the museum well in its search for a new home. I believe also that there will be important opportunities in future for joint work between the learning centre and the Jewish Museum. We aim to work in partnership with institutions across the UK and overseas as we develop education programmes, and as we encourage greater awareness of the Holocaust and its deep roots. But I am sure that we should recognise the differences between the purpose of a Jewish museum in London and the aims of a learning centre located with a Holocaust museum. Each has a distinct and hugely important aim. Placing the Holocaust learning centre wholly within the Jewish Museum could easily mean a loss of focus and would certainly require breaking the essential link between the learning centre and the memorial.

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

Who is the “we” who will work with these other institutions? Because, as noble Lords will know, as we come on to the next group, if we do, there is no management. Therefore, I do not understand who is going to work with these other institutions.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I mean “we” as in the Government. Can I continue my final point? The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, made the very important point about rising anti-Semitism. Let me be clear. Anti-Semitism is completely abhorrent and has no place in our society, which is why we are taking a strong lead in tackling it in all its forms. The Government are particularly concerned about the sharp rise in anti-Semitism and will not tolerate this. We have allocated £54 million for the Community Security Trust to continue its vital work until 2028, providing security to schools, synagogues and other Jewish community buildings. We have been actively exploring a more integrated and cohesive approach to tackling all forms of racial and religious hatred. We continue to work closely with the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, in his important work of IHRA. Also, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, continues his work as an anti-Semitism adviser to the Government. On that note, I respectfully ask my noble friend Lady Blackstone to withdraw her amendment and not move her other amendments in this group.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in reply to this group of amendments and I have to admit that I am deeply disappointed. I did not hear any spirit of compromise whatever in what he said, and no attempt to reach out on the many points that were made by Members of the Committee.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am so sorry to stop my noble friend in her tracks but I said very clearly that I am happy to sit down with anybody, post-Committee, to look at any particular issues. I reminded her that I sat down with noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and had a drop-in session available for noble Lords to visit and see the presentation. My only focus, if we look at the Bill, are these two clauses, which I am trying to promote and make sure we can work through. However, I understand there are a lot of issues and concerns, which I think are for a planning stage of the Bill.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s offer to sit down with various Members of the Committee, but that is not compromising today, which is what I was asking for and expecting. I tried to set out as clearly as I could why what is being proposed for this learning centre is inadequate. There is not enough space for it; the proposals for a computerised exhibition are deeply disappointing; and what I hoped the Minister might say is that he would take this away, have a look at it and discuss it with his officials and others who have expertise in the provision of learning centres on this subject. There was none of that.

I can only say that I am disappointed, as other Members of the Committee will be. The Minister said at the beginning that he attached importance to education as far as this project is concerned, and I am grateful for that. But it is not about attaching importance just to education but to high-quality education that we can be proud of and that many people will want to experience. I do not believe that that is what is being proposed here, so I ask again that before we reach the next stage of the Bill, he will come back with something more positive about how to improve it.

My last point is that I was really surprised that my noble friend would be so dismissive about Sir Richard Evans’s comments. He happens to have been the vice-master of Birkbeck throughout my time there, so we were very close colleagues. He is the most eminent historian in this country of German history of this period. I do not want to sound patronising, but the Minister should not be so dismissive of somebody of that kind of commitment and expertise. I hope he will look again at that.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Just before my noble friend concludes and, I hope, withdraws her amendment, clearly, a lot of these matters are for planning. The Committee will understand that I might not be able to satisfy the very detailed and passionate contributions made by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I did not address his point about security because we will have a whole group on security arrangements. I was not ignoring it but wanted to make sure that I brought up that point.

On the point about Richard Evans, as we see today, everyone has a different view. I respect everyone’s opinion but we see in this debate that everyone has a different perspective. As I understand it, we are all well intentioned and want to make sure that we put our case across.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

I thank the Minister. I am delighted to hear that there is to be a proper planning process. He would not give a final commitment to that happening and said it was another Minister’s responsibility. I believe that that Minister said earlier, as a shadow Minister before the election, that there should be a proper planning procedure. Meanwhile, I will withdraw my amendment, but I indicate to the Minister that I will want to come back at the next stage to discuss having a better place for a learning centre than is currently proposed.

Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, the Government are currently working to strengthen the local government finance system, a task that I am sure many noble Lords will agree is an essential course of action. However, as we do this, we must also enable councils to set budgets and provide essential services now by providing them with the financial certainty they need.

The business rates retention system is a cornerstone of the local government finance system, through which councils in England retain a fixed proportion of the business rates they raise locally. This enables them to benefit when business rates income increases in their local areas. Despite the system’s simple premise, the administrative arrangements that underpin it are unavoidably complex. This results from not just the arrangements between local councils and central government to operate the system but changes that have been implemented over time to honour the system’s original commitments.

As the Committee may remember, the rates retention system was set up, and is run, according to a suite of legislation, with the day-to-day arrangements covered by several sets of regulations. For the system to continue to run as it should, and so that councils pay or receive the correct amounts, the regulations that govern these arrangements must be regularly updated. The amendment regulations before the Committee this afternoon make updates that are needed this year and, while the changes they bring about may be technical, the reasons for making them are straightforward.

Today, we need to make changes only to the levy and safety net regulations. These regulations set out within the system a safety net that protects councils from decreases in business rates income below 92.5% of their need assessment funded through the rates retention system, and how this mechanism is partially paid for via a levy on the growth in their business rates income.

I will now explain the changes that the amendment regulations make and why we need to make them. Within the rates retention system, several councils benefit from what are known as enhanced rates retention arrangements, which, simply put, mean that they retain more than 50% of the growth in their business rates income. To prevent councils that run at the standard 50% level being disadvantaged by any additional safety net arrangements that enhanced retention councils may receive, levy and safety net calculations for all councils must be made at the standard 50% rates retention level. The amendment regulations will make sure this happens by substituting the figures of enhanced retention councils in the local government finance report with the figures those councils would have had if they were operating at the 50% rates retention level.

Secondly, each year we need to reflect in the rates retention system newly introduced measures that change business rates as a tax. Where changes amend the bills of businesses, such as reliefs, there is a consequential impact on the income that councils collect locally. This year, the only such change needed to the regulations for this purpose is to ensure that major precepting authorities—which for these purposes are primarily county councils and fire authorities—are not doubly compensated via the levy and safety net for business rates reliefs announced for 2025-26 which reduced their income.

We are making this change because major precepting authorities already receive compensation for their share of the loss of income due to the awarding of these reliefs via a grant from government. However, this does not show up in their retained rates income, which, resultantly, would appear too low in levy and safety net calculations. The amendment regulations quite simply add the value of the new business rates reliefs back to major precepting authorities’ retained rates income, therefore ensuring that the compensation they receive is accounted for and that a more accurate measure of each council’s income is fed into levy and safety net calculations.

The last change the amendment regulations make is to put right an erroneous figure, originally set out in the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2022. This figure will be used as part of calculations to ascertain how much small business rates relief to add back to North Northamptonshire’s retained rates income, on which levy and safety net calculations will be made. I confirm that we are taking the first opportunity to rectify the error, having discovered it only recently.

We are yet to perform the relevant statutory end-of-year levy and safety net calculations required by the regulations based on certified—or audited—data, as we have not yet received this data. Once we have received it, we will make these calculations. Noble Lords will understand that in cases such as these, where the required data from councils is outstanding, we carry out interim calculations while the relevant councils are waiting for their accounts to be audited. This is sensible to ensure that councils do not lose out or end up needing to provide for future payments of levy.

For North Northamptonshire, the correction of this error will not affect its levy and safety net calculation or, therefore, its payments for 2021-22 or 2022-23. This is because no levy payment is due, and it is not eligible for any safety net in respect of those years—a situation that will not change as a result of the amendment of this figure. However, due to the increase in income in the local area that North Northamptonshire has seen following the 2023 revaluation, it became a tariff authority from 2023-24. This means that from 2023-24 it is due to start paying levy on its growth, which in turn also means that adjusting the figure will have a small impact on the amount of levy paid going forward. The amendment regulations make this change, correcting the figure from 67.4% to 67.8%. My officials have engaged with the council so that it is aware of this change.

In conclusion, these amendment regulations update the administration of the business rates retention scheme and are required to ensure that councils receive the amount of business rates income they are anticipating and on which they have budgeted. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I declare that I have relevant interests in local government, as recorded in the register. I hope the Minister has understood every bit of what he has read out, because it is very complicated—that is not meant as anything more than a statement—particularly as there are no examples in front of us as to what the impact of the changes will be.

This statutory instrument needs to be understood in relation to the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, which has just completed its Committee stage. That Bill, if enacted without amendments, will change the norms for business rates income, on which local government absolutely depends for a significant part of its income. The changed multipliers that the Bill envisages will, obviously, also alter the amount that different businesses will pay in non-domestic rates. This, in turn, will alter the income that different local authorities will receive as part of the 50% business rates retention scheme.

That impact will affect local authorities in very different ways. Local authorities with many properties that exceed the £500,000 rateable value boundary set in the Bill will gain in income. These businesses are primarily in major cities and include, for example, office blocks, hotels and major premises of that sort. Local authorities that are more reliant for income from retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will see their income in the 50% retained element decrease.

During the passage of the non-domestic rating Bill, I sought—and was granted—an assurance that local authorities will not be penalised as a result of the changes. However, that is on the national, global level. This statutory instrument is, I guess, the attempt to deal with these changes so that individual local authorities do not lose income or, conversely, gain too much income. The key question is whether that can be achieved in full. Is it possible under the new system that is going to come into effect in a year, whereby the Covid relief will gradually slip away and the new multipliers implemented will change the balance of income from businesses across the country? I have been assured that the national figure of income will not change. Will individual local authorities have assurance from the Minister that they will not lose out as a consequence of the changes? I accept that this is a very complicated set of calculations, so it would be absolutely fine if the Minister would prefer to write to me.

As the Minister will know, 43% of local authorities are on the verge of issuing 114 notices, so in this instance every penny will count. That is why I am asking the question. The lack of hard examples in the Explanatory Memorandum and the Minister’s introduction makes it really difficult to judge the implications of this instrument, so any further evidence will be extremely helpful for folk like me to understand what is going on.

My other point is about the changes to the 100% retention authorities; I want to know how that is worked out and I think it needs a bit more explanation. If those with 100% retention are no longer going to be able to retain 100%, how is it going to be worked out? Those authorities will expect to retain 100%. Again, I understand if the answer needs to be in writing, because this is not obviously easy or straightforward.

Finally, the issue that these changes bring to the fore is the current inability of councils to raise local income—be that in a small tourist tax, as the Manchester combined authority is now doing, or by any other means. A bit more flexibility for local authorities in raising their own small amounts of additional income would be of enormous benefit to many councils as they struggle to make ends meet. It would be worth knowing why flexibility in raising income does not seem to be in the Government’s agenda, because it would help to stem the enormous downward pressure on local public services. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, and a written response if needed.

--- Later in debate ---

In particular, can I have an assurance from the Minister that the other proposed NDR changes that we discussed last week will not have these unintended consequences, which would mean we would be here again in six months or a year with SIs to rectify something the Government are putting through at the moment? It would be nice to get it right the first time.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their very interesting contributions, their broad support for what the Government intend to do, and their interest in this subject. I will first summarise what we are trying to do here. We make several changes to the regulations each year, so what we are doing this year is not out of the pattern. We make these changes to ensure that we update the legislative framework that underpins the business rates retention system. This is to reflect policy announcements already made that affect the business rates retention system, such as the introduction of new reliefs or the modification of existing ones. These changes usually adjust council income or the values that underpin redistribution within the system. These changes are generally uncontroversial, meaning that they are put in place practically—the result of policy decisions already taken.

All current region-wide enhanced business rates retention arrangements, including those in place in authorities in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, will continue for 2025-26. The current patchwork of business rates retention arrangements allows only certain areas to benefit from enhanced retention of growth in business rates. The Government will consider how a new model of business rates retention could be better and could more consistently support strategic authorities to drive growth, as part of the Government’s reform of funding for local government through a multiyear settlement from 2026-27.

I turn the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. These are technical regulations providing for the current operation of the system. Next year, the Government will reset the amount of income by remeasuring how much income there is. This will take into account the changes in the multipliers and the revaluation in 2026—a point on which the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also touched.

Both noble Lords touched on the top-ups and tariffs for 100% authorities’ calculations at the 50% level. The tariffs and top-ups, including the levy and the safety net calculations for 100% retention authorities, are simply the tariffs or top-ups that each authority would have paid or received if it had been operating under the normal 50% retention arrangements. By using this proxy, we ensure that any safety net payment to an authority is the same as it would have been if it had not been a 100% retention authority. We then carry out a separate calculation for the amount that is due under the 100% arrangements. If this is greater than the safety net payment calculated under 50% rates retention, we pay them the difference via a grant. In his way, central government—not the rest of local government—picks up the cost of any increased risk under the 100% arrangements. This approach was agreed with the relevant areas when these arrangements were set up.

On the changes, I want to touch on what we are trying to do. We use a measure of council business rates income, called retained rates income, to calculate levy and safety net payments for a year. Retained rates income is based on an authority’s measurement of income in that system and includes the authority’s top-up or tariff for that particular year. If we simply used 100% top-up or tariff figures, it would mean that councils that retain 50% of the growth in their business rates might end up paying for the increased safety net arrangements—a point that I have made before. For the purpose of making the levy and safety net calculations, to ensure that that does not happen, we substitute the top-up and tariff figures of councils that have enhanced retention arrangements in place for 2025-26 for the figures that they would have if they were operating at 50% business rates retention.

On the related changes to tax measures, the Government support businesses in England by providing business rates reliefs and exemptions. This year, the discretionary business rates measures that we are adjusting in relation to the calculation of small business rates relief are also for rental, hospitality and leisure relief. This has been a point of discussion and debate across two days in Committee. As I said in Committee—I say it to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, now—analysis on the impact of the policy will be done only when the rates are set by the Treasury at Budget. It would be remiss of me to try to give any assurances, particularly in terms of assessments and analysis of the impact, when—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for seeking to respond to my question about whether any local authorities will lose as a consequence of these changes, alongside the other changes that were made in the non-domestic rates multiplier Bill. So far, the Minister has not said that the Government are not able to give an absolute assurance that local authorities will not lose. Is that right? Is that what I am hearing?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

No. As far as we understand it, we are moving towards a system where business rates are the first part of the overview, and changing the whole system includes the non-domestic rates multiplier Bill—the NDR business rates Bill—to which we have referred. We have that as part of a process to make sure that the system is sustainable and continues in a fair way. Of course, we are working to ensure that we support local authorities, as far as is possible. At this stage, we think that the system and the way in which it will work will provide sustainable and fair practice where we have put in higher multipliers for a rateable value of £500,000 and, elsewhere, where we have put in lower multipliers. In that way, we are working closely with local councils and we will continue to work with them to ensure that local authorities do not lose out as part of this process. We are watching this closely. However, we—not my department but the Treasury—will publish an impact analysis when the multipliers are set.

If anything, I have not picked up on the noble Baroness’s detailed and specific questions. We will write to her, as she has invited me to write to her; it would only be kind to write back if somebody wants a letter.

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. In closing, while the changes made by the regulations are few and technical, they are important to make sure that the business rates retention system continues to operate correctly, so that authorities receive what they should. I hope that noble Lords join me in supporting them.

Motion agreed.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I will add a few words on this important group of amendments. It is not possible to do an impact assessment at the moment. This has been rushed, and the new valuation list will not be completed for another three or four months. Non-domestic rates are the third-highest cost to most RHL businesses, after rent and employment costs. The third-highest outgoing for these businesses is being discussed here and going into law as we speak before one of the critical ingredients of the P&L of those businesses is known. It will not make good law.

The amendments we have heard about in this group, and some of those to come in later groups, refer to a request for delay to the impact assessment so that these variables are known and businesses are not groping about in the dark trying to understand their profitability and do their business plans. It is not the right moment to be having this conversation, but all will be fine if we allow an extra year to do the impact assessments and the required consultations with the professional bodies that have the expertise, which can then be assessed by secondary legislation.

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

My Lords, these amendments seek to introduce a number of provisions into the Bill requiring reports and assessments of various types. They are concerned with the impact on the RHL—retail, hospitality and leisure—sector, including on local government revenues, businesses more generally and economic growth. Some reports and assessments would be required before Clauses 1 to 4 come into force, and others after.

First, I want to stress to the Committee the importance we attach to being clear and transparent about this policy—who will be affected and the impact it will have on revenue. The principles behind these amendments are sound. It is right that the impact of tax changes should be carefully considered in detail. However, there is a balance to be struck and some of these amendments would place an undue constraint on the Government that would likely delay the new multipliers coming into effect from April 2026. Others would duplicate existing reports or would require reports to be produced before we will have been able to collect any data from local authorities. Through a combination of existing reports and commitments already made, I am confident that we can give noble Lords the assurances they seek.

Amendments 48 and 73, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, seek to require the Government to undertake an impact assessment of the new multiplier arrangements on businesses, high streets and broader economic growth. Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, would introduce a very similar requirement.

Noble Lords will be aware that policies and legislation concerning tax and the administration of tax fall outside the meaning of regulatory provisions as defined in the Better Regulation Framework. Obviously, tax measures are introduced for very different reasons from other types of legislation and are therefore not under the same requirements to be accompanied by an impact assessment. This has been the settled position for many years. In fact, the exemption for tax from the meaning of a regulatory provision was captured in primary legislation passed by this House in 2015. Section 22 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 excluded a statutory provision which makes or amends provisions imposing, abolishing or varying any tax, duty, levy or other charge. That exemption now exists in paragraph 2.3 of the Better Regulation Framework.

Nevertheless, the Government understand that there is great interest in the effects of the new multipliers, and the Treasury is committed to publishing analysis of the effects of the new multiplier arrangements when the rates are set in the Budget later this year. The reviews that Amendments 50 and 52 seek to introduce are focused on the changes in business rates paid by qualifying RHL properties and other types of businesses. I believe that what these reviews seek to understand is how the business rates liabilities of affected RHL or other properties have and will change, reflecting on the provision of retail, hospitality and leisure relief since 1 April 2020 and the introduction of the permanent lower multipliers for qualifying RHL businesses and the higher multipliers from April 2026.

Noble Lords will know that retail, hospitality and leisure relief has varied year on year since it was introduced, reflecting the particular economic circumstances, including the terrible economic shock that was created by the Covid-19 pandemic. What is more important to point out, however, is that this relief’s expansion in response to Covid was a temporary, stop-gap measure that has been rolled over repeatedly, leaving businesses in a perpetual state of uncertainty until clarity for at least one more year was provided at Budgets. The new RHL multipliers are ending that uncertainty, introducing permanent lower tax rates that will help qualifying RHL businesses to plan ahead and get on with running their businesses rather than constantly worrying about what the next Budget may bring them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, could I point out that these forecasts are all going to be hypothetical? In five months’ time, the VOA will produce, or have access to, the updated new rateable values nationwide. Current rateable values will be history. Therefore, we have to anticipate what those might be. The balancing act between the larger properties subsidising the smaller RHL properties will then be reworked, but we cannot do it at the moment, which is one of the reasons why we feel that time is required for delays to the impact assessment process to take us one further year ahead.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for making that point. He also talked about delays, which I will pick up in a later group when we talk about implementation; I have not forgotten about the important points he raises. On the point he just made, the Budget analysis takes into account the 2026 revaluation, so that point is covered by the Treasury in its work in the build-up to the Budget.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I did not quite understand that point. The Minister is saying that the revaluation has already been taken into account in the figures that the Treasury is coming forward with. Does that mean he can share the revaluation with us?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me clarify this for the noble Lord. As I said repeatedly on day one in Committee, the Treasury will publish an analysis when it sets its multipliers at the Budget, but the work that is going on in providing that analysis will consider all the issues, in particular the issue the noble Lord raised about the 2026 revaluation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It seems to me that the Government have done an impact assessment; if it is not an impact assessment, it is an analysis that may or may not be an impact assessment. The Minister is saying that he has some data but is not prepared to let us have it, so we have to make this law blind.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I think I have been quite clear in stating that there is clear evidence that there is no impact assessment on taxation. However, what we are asking to do in the Bill is to set the parameters for increasing the multiplier and the flexibility for the higher rate over £500,000; and, for the lower multipliers, to support RHL, as we committed to do in our manifesto. When the Treasury works up to the announcement and makes a decision on the multipliers at the Budget, it will of course publish analysis on what the impact of that will be in 2026.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am sorry to labour the point. This may sound rude but it is not supposed to be. Given that the Treasury seems to be driving almost all of this, could we please have a Treasury Minister here, as well as the noble Lord, on Report? It would make sense to talk directly to the department that has actually made the decisions, rather than to the person who is carrying the message.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I take everything that the noble Lord says in a good spirit; I will come back to him on that point. Let me be clear on the remit of the Bill. On when the Treasury will set its multipliers, I understand the noble Lord’s point, but I will go away and see. As I said on day one in Committee, I look forward to meeting all noble Lords who have an interest and amendments. I am happy to sit down and discuss this; if I can get one of my colleagues from the Treasury, subject to availability and diary commitments, I will of course pursue that.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I too do not wish to labour the point but, if I understood him correctly, the Minister said that the ministry already has access to the new valuation list. Yet Colliers, a leading firm of rating surveyors with which I have had extensive discussions on this Bill, assures me that 1 June is when the work from the VOA will be completed. It may have been completed early but, if that is the case, can we please have that detail so that businesses can do their budgets and business plans?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I say directly again that the 2026 revaluation has not yet been completed but, obviously, the Treasury is working on it. It is having conversations with all stakeholders, of course. In fact, it is probably also looking at forward planning on the whole future of business rates. As I said on our first day in Committee, this is the start of a huge strategic focus looking at business rates; this is the first part of it. I assure colleagues that, as soon as the multipliers are announced at the Budget, noble Lords will have an analysis—not an assessment, but an analysis.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Thurlow, for their support on what I think is a really important part of the Bill. It is not about us knowing; it is about businesses knowing. We heard very strongly from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, about businesses, particularly those that are around the £500,000 and do not know now whether they are or are not, and the multipliers. They are trying to plan their businesses, hopefully for growth, if we hear what His Majesty’s Government want for them, but how can they do it when they do not know what the third-biggest chunk of their expenditure will be? We are trying to get the Minister to understand how very important that is to this sector.

I thank the Minister for his response but I still think, as can be heard from the questions, that we have a lot of concerns over the lack of clarity on this and, particularly, the full impact assessments. I am more than happy to work with the Minister and the Government to find a way around this, so that we can feel comfortable—not for us, as I have said, but so that businesses can fully assess the impact as soon as possible. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 47 addresses the issue that, despite the Government’s claim that they would reform the business rates system, the Bill does not offer that. We heard concerns from several noble Lords on the previous day in Committee that this is not a Bill that will support the high street and level the playing field, as promised in the Labour manifesto. My concern is that businesses will face substantially higher costs. These proposals are supposed to support the high street, with a so-called Amazon tax, yet this is clearly not the case. It is a blunt instrument that will substantially increase taxes on all properties with a rateable value above £500,000. As such, it risks harming the very businesses it is purportedly designed to help, such as anchor stores and other retail, hospitality and leisure facilities fundamental to the high street.

There is a second concern that we have already raised: the cliff-edge nature of these proposals. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have done some very basic analysis of this. For example, a retail, hospitality or leisure business with a rateable value of just under £500,000 would today pay rates of around £175,000, assuming a 0.2 discount and a multiplier of 0.55, whereas if it were to make a small investment and tip over that threshold, it would pay £320,000. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I allow for a little approximation in those numbers. There are plenty of examples of this. For instance, locally to me in Bedfordshire, Luton Hoo, which is currently looking at some investment, has a rateable value of £490,000. Will that investment go ahead, knowing the additional costs? Even more locally—as Members are aware, I am a councillor and I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire—near my own ward, a garden centre in Toddington faces the same issue. Again, I am aware that it is looking at some investments.

We have also touched on the impact of future revaluations. The Minister has been keen to point out that this will impact fewer than 1% of properties and only 3,100 retail outlets. He said that he wants to be clear and transparent, so can he tell us how many additional properties will be above the £500,000 threshold after the next revaluation? I note that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, refers specifically to the idea of a commercial landowner levy as a proposed tax reform to replace the business rates system. I support the sentiment of requiring government to consider genuine reform, rather than the lack of change that the Bill provides. I do not agree with the specific reform proposed by the noble Lord, but I acknowledge the need to adapt the system to ensure that online businesses that operate from out-of-town warehouses pay a fair, proportionate share of business rates. Given that the Bill has been brought forth, it seems reasonable to assume that the Government have delayed any plans they had to reform the system, which will damage businesses up and down the high street. They promised lower business rates but are reducing the relief offered to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, sending an incoherent message to our high streets. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 47 seeks to require the Chancellor to undertake a review of the measures in the Bill, once passed, on broader non-domestic rating policy and to set out what potential changes may be required and/or what alternative approaches to non-domestic rating have been considered. The Government are committed to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. The Government commenced that journey at the 2024 Budget, when we announced our intention to permanently—I say that again: permanently—introduce lower rates for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27, as well as a higher rate on properties with rateable value of £500,000 and above to ensure that the permanent tax cut is sustainably funded.

At the Budget, the Government also published the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper, setting out priority areas for business rates reform and inviting stakeholders to have a conversation with the Government on this matter over the course of this Parliament. The areas of interest for further reform as set out in the paper include: incentivising investment and growth, considering the frequency of revaluations and ensuring that the system is transformed to make it fit for the modern 21st century economy. The paper also focuses on tackling avoidance and evasion; for example, through the Government’s intention to publish a consultation on adopting a general anti-avoidance rule for business rates in England.

I am delighted to say that those conversations with stakeholders on priority areas for reform have commenced and are ongoing. I thank all those stakeholders who have been in contact to offer their valuable insights and experience of non-domestic rating. Furthermore, on 17 February, the Government published the Business Rates: Forward Look policy note, which provides an update on key milestones for the Government’s overall business rates reform agenda. As set out in that note, we are reflecting on engagement undertaken so far and the views expressed as part of that process. It also sets out that we anticipate further stakeholder engagement on specific reform options ahead of the Autumn Budget, when final decisions will be set out.

I am aware that there is support from Liberal Democrat noble Lords and Members of Parliament for the replacement of business rates with a commercial landowner levy. What is important to the Government is that we have a tax that works. It is not the first time that this House has heard suggestions for a tax on land values or a levy on landowners: it was as common a debate in the last century as in this one. What all those debates show is great uncertainty and a lack of evidence of the benefits: any benefits to the high street would be far from certain. We are clear on the need for reform but, to minimise disruption for businesses, the Government will make improvements to the existing system over the course of this Parliament.

Before I conclude, let me address the points that the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Jamieson, raised on investment. They will understand that I am unable to comment on specific examples of live non-domestic rating bills but, as part of the Transforming Business Rates discussion paper, we will look at the effectiveness of the improvement relief scheme, which helps businesses that invest in their property. I look forward to our engagement, post Committee, in more detailed conversations. For the reasons set out, I am unable to accept the amendment. I agree that the system is broken and we are trying to fix it. It cannot go on year after year on an ad hoc basis. We need certainty and sustainability so that people can have a clear and fair system. As we said in our manifesto, we will continue to support leisure, hospitality and retail, and those above £500,000 rateable value—fewer than 1% of properties—will contribute to make sure that our system is fair and balanced.

I hope I have provided reassurance as to the seriousness with which the Government are approaching our stated task of reforming the business rates system, and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for replying; I am not sure that I thank him for his reply. I thank him for acknowledging that the system is broken. When you try to fix something, there is no point in fixing the windows if the roof has caved in and you have subsidence. The scale of the brokenness means that the ambition to reform needs to be somewhat more than I detected from him.

I am grateful to His Majesty’s loyal Opposition for bringing up the cliff-edge point: we have to talk about putting in steps to avoid that cliff edge. The example given was not specific but an imagined, general example. We do not need specifics: we know that if a business is valued at £495,000 and it increases its value just a tiny bit, it is suddenly in a massive tax bracket. The Minister must be able to see that that is a huge barrier to investment. The only way to deal with that is to have not a cliff edge but a gradual approach. We should investigate that process together.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Lord touched on a point that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, made about anchor stores and valuations above £500,000. Let me be clear: many anchor stories in RHL have rateable values of properties in other parts of the country that are less than £500,000, so, equally, they will also benefit from lower multipliers in that bracket.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 5 is an interesting add-on to the legislation as a whole, which is focused on non-domestic rates as applied to business premises. Here, we suddenly have one sector of businesses being pulled out for special treatment, which is curious to me. It becomes a very strange Bill with Clause 5 added to it. However, for Liberal Democrats, as I have probably said many times in the course of my public sector career, education is the single most important and best investment that any Government can make in our children, their future and the country’s future. The clause is important to us because it relates to education.

The Government’s policy in this Bill, removing the current exemption for relief of business rates, combined with the introduction of VAT and the impact of employers’ national insurance increases, will undermine two important principles for Lib Dems. The first is that education should not be taxed. All education provided by an eligible body, including universities, music lessons and tutoring, is currently exempt from VAT, and VAT should not be imposed on these things—and, hence, neither should business rates. The exemption should not be removed from these schools. The second principle is that parents have a right to choose the education setting that they believe is the best for their children. We champion choice and believe nothing should get in the way of parents making those choices.

The best outcome of all would be that state-funded education was funded at the same level as that experienced by children in the private, or independent, sector. It is curious to me that the gamut of changes that the Government are making in relation to the costs imposed on the private, or independent, sector will not release sufficient funding to make a significant impact on children’s education in the state sector, so it is hard to understand what the Government are seeking to achieve.

It has been an interesting debate. Lots of points of definition have been raised, and I hope the Minister will be able to respond to the interesting points about the importance of having an accurate definition of the sector. I look forward to his response. But in summation: education is most important, and parents have the right to choose, as long as those choices do not have a negative impact on everybody else, which in this case they clearly do not.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 55 and 62 seek to carve out from the Bill all private schools that charge fees of less than £27,642 per year through exempting schools that meet this criteria from the definition of a private school. I am conscious that other amendments tabled by noble Lords seek to carve out other private schools from the Bill definition, and we will discuss these in more detail as part of today’s proceedings. However, it would be helpful for me to set out the purpose of Clause 5 for when the Committee decides whether to agree the clause. At the same time, I can elaborate further on the meaning of “or other consideration” as per Amendments 56 and 59, and the use of “private school” as opposed to “independent school” in response to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden.

The Government believe in parental choice but are also determined to fulfil the aspiration of every parent to get the best education for their child. The removal of business rates charitable relief, as set out in Clause 5, legislates for the Government’s commitment to secure additional funding to help deliver the Government’s commitment to education and young people, including the more than 90% of children who are educated in state schools.

Clause 5 removes the charitable rate relief from private schools by amending paragraph 2 of Schedule 4ZA and paragraph 2 of Schedule 4ZB to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to exclude private schools from the rules in relation to the application of charitable rate relief. Amendments to the rules in relation to the application of charitable relief can be made only through primary legislation.

The Bill inserts new sub-paragraph (3) to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4ZA to remove charitable relief from occupied hereditaments wholly or mainly used for the purposes of carrying on a private school. Ancillary and support buildings, such as offices, will also lose their relief—for example, classrooms and sports fields that are wholly or mainly used for the purposes of a private school.

The rest of Clause 5(2) is concerned with the definition of a private school. To answer directly the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the terminology “private school” has been used because the term “independent school” includes state-funded academies, which are not in scope of this policy and therefore of the measures in the Bill. The term “private school” has been used to avoid uncertainty regarding which schools are in scope, and I am sure it is not the noble Lord’s intention to bring academies into scope of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Before he sits down, can the Minister respond to one point that I made? If he does not have an example today, perhaps he could write to me and share the letter with other Members of the Committee. Does he have a real-life example of where “other consideration” has regularly—or even occasionally—been used in practice to replace fees, either wholly or partly? I have visions of, I do not know, farmers arriving with trailers loaded with whatever it might be. If the Minister does not have an example now, perhaps he could let me know.

I also ask the Minister to confirm something. I take his point about the property value not necessarily being linked to the fees, but can he commit to considering, where a school charges less than the per pupil rate of state funding, whether this policy will still apply?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Committee will understand, it is difficult for me to talk about examples at this time, but I take the noble Baroness’s point. I would like to hear more about the examples that she has, in particular to see what examples we can discuss in depth when we meet post Committee. It is difficult to talk about non-domestic rating examples now.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

To be honest, I do not have examples, but the Bill suggests that fees might be paid by means of “other consideration”. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me about whether that has ever been used, either wholly, partly, regularly or occasionally.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am happy to write to the noble Baroness on those two points; I will also pick them up when we next meet.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, please forgive me: I forgot to make a declaration of interest at the outset. I am a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council and the current president of the Independent Schools Association, which consists of 700 schools—mainly smaller ones—that will be badly affected by this legislation and other actions of the Government in the realm of taxation.

The Committee will have listened carefully to what the Minister said in response to noble Lords. It is unlikely that the Minister’s reply will have given complete and utter satisfaction in every respect. We will return to these matters on Report. As far as my amendments are concerned, I am sorry that the Minister does not understand the reasons why the word “private” is very difficult because of its connotations. The problem with using it in legislation is considerable.

The Minister referred to the position of academies. Another way could have been found of dealing with VAT without introducing independent schools in the way that this has been done in legislation. There are many serious matters that naturally require further consideration and debate. That is why Report will be so important. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, there are some very important and interesting issues in this group of amendments. The first is about the provision of foundation courses to enable young people to move into further education or training. It is important that the Minister has an answer to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that will put us at ease that they will not be penalised in this way. Often, young people who do foundation courses do so because they missed out earlier in their school careers, for many reasons that might be associated with their family or their own health issues. I do not think the Government would want to penalise those young people by putting at jeopardy those courses available to them.

The next issue, about nurseries, is interesting because different parts of a premises can be assessed separately by the non-domestic/business rate regime. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that even in an Amazon building, the facilities for the employees will be rated at a separate value from the rest of the building. For instance, I have been looking—surprisingly—at the implications for large hospitals, which were raised in the debate on Monday. Different parts of the premises will be rated in different ways. If there is a clinic, that is one thing; the main hospital is another; the café is another; a shop is another. It is possible to assess rateable values, for business rate purposes, in the same premises in different ways, so it is possible to assess nursery sections of a private school separately from the rest of the school. Therefore, it is possible to exclude these from the proposals in Clause 5. I look forward to the Minister being able to confirm that that is the case and that nurseries can be readily and easily excluded from business rate applications, even if the Government insist on removing the charitable status from the rest of the premises.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 57, 58 and 68 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook, concern early years provision and private further education institutions. The definition of a private school in the Bill includes institutions that wholly or mainly provide education suitable to persons over compulsory school age but under 19, where such full-time education is wholly or mainly provided for a fee or consideration. This brings private sixth forms into the scope of the Bill measure but excludes general FE colleges. The Bill also includes a specific carve-out for independent training and learning providers. Due to the mechanisms whereby the Government provide funding to these institutions, it was necessary to provide a carve-out in the legislation to ensure that these institutions did not inadvertently come into the scope of the measure.

The Government’s view is that all schools that offer full-time education to children of compulsory school age and/or to 16 to 19 year-olds for a charge should be within scope of the Bill measure. This is to ensure consistency and fairness in the Government’s treatment of private schools. The Bill measure includes stand-alone private sixth forms as well as those private sixth forms that operate as part of private schools that also cater for children of compulsory school age. Amendment 57 would remove entirely this part of the private school definition, the resulting impact of which would be that all private sixth forms would be out of scope and therefore retain charitable rate relief.

The noble Baroness indicated that through this amendment she is seeking to understand whether institutions providing foundation courses would be considered private schools. Foundation courses are a level 5 qualification and as such are classed as higher education. Foundation courses are in the main provided by higher education institutions such as universities. Institutions that are focused on the delivery of higher education are not within the scope of the Bill, and where they are charities they will continue to receive charitable relief. However, any private sixth forms that provide a few higher education courses, such as foundation courses, will still lose their relief if they are wholly or mainly concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19 years old. Given that business rates are a tax on property, the Government believe that this is a sensible line to draw for when the relief is removed.

Amendment 58 would amend the Bill definition of a private school. It would remove the “wholly or mainly” requirement in relation to the concern with providing full-time education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19 years old for a fee or consideration in such institutions. In business rates, “wholly or mainly” generally means over 50%. Therefore, under the Bill definition, institutions that are more than 50% concerned with providing education suitable to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age but under 19 years old, and where more than 50% of such full-time education is provided for a fee or consideration, will be within scope of the measure and will no longer qualify for charitable relief.

The inclusion of the “wholly or mainly” test in the further education definition has been drafted in recognition that there may be some state-funded institutions where a small minority of pupils pay a fee for the courses they attend. The Government understand that these circumstances are rare but may include international students undertaking further education courses where they do not qualify for a state-funded place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked for examples of institutions that may be around 50%. Regarding these schools, which mainly provide education suitable for those over compulsory school age but under 19 years old, it will be for local authorities to implement this test. I do not think it would be right for us to say whether a particular school passes that test, but we do not expect many of them to be at the margins.

Without including “wholly or mainly” in respect of new sub-paragraph (4)(b)(i), the Bill could inadvertently capture state-funded colleges of further education, which is not the intention of the Government’s policy. Similarly, it could risk capturing fee-paying institutions that predominantly provide higher education courses if one pupil who meets the broader further education definition is present. As set out, it is not the Government’s intention to capture higher education institutions within the Bill’s definition.

I should explain that the impact of this amendment would mean that the presence of one fee-paying pupil within the age bracket as per the current definition may result in the institution being brought into scope of the Bill, resulting in it losing charitable relief. In contradiction to Amendment 57, Amendment 58 would mean that more institutions would be in scope of the Bill and so would lose their rates relief. But I understand the purpose of the amendment, which is to understand better the meaning of the words “wholly or mainly”, and I hope I have been able to clarify that for noble Lords.

Amendment 68 seeks to carve out from the Bill private schools that also provide early years provision. For clarity, private nurseries that are on their own hereditament are not within scope of the Bill definition, and where they are charities they will retain charitable relief. The Government have decided that where private schools that provide for pupils of compulsory school age also have nursery classes within the school, the presence of nursery-age children should not remove the whole school from the business rates measure. This approach best ensures consistency with the underlying policy intent.

It is for individual private schools to decide how they wish to meet additional costs as a result of the business rates measure. The allocation of costs in private schools that also provide early years provision on the same hereditament is a matter for those private schools. It is worth mentioning that government early education and childcare entitlements can be used for childcare in any approved childcare provider; this includes private school nurseries, although the numbers undertaking early years entitlement in private school nurseries are relatively small. Similarly, private school nurseries are also eligible to receive tax-free childcare funding as long as they are registered with Ofsted or an equivalent regulatory body.

Accepting these amendments would remove many private schools from the Bill’s measure. This would reduce the amount of revenue that could be raised and, consequently, may reduce the funding available to the Government to deliver on their commitments to young people and the state-funded education sector, where over 90% of pupils in England are educated. The outcome of the tax changes on private schools will have a significant impact on the Exchequer, enabling the Government to fulfil their commitments on investing in state education and young people. Together with the policy to apply VAT to private school fees, these policies are expected to raise around £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30.

I hope that this provides further clarification on the drafting of the definition, as well as on the Government’s position regarding the inclusion of private further education and private schools that also cater for nursery-age children alongside compulsory school-age children. For the reasons set out, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his remarks and for addressing the points I made in relation to each of these amendments, in particular Amendment 58. I heard the Minister say that relatively few schools or private providers will be at the margins of “wholly or mainly”. I thank him for the example of the international students who might be fee-paying.

On Amendment 68, I understand the Minister’s push-back in relation to exempting a whole school—I hope I addressed that in my opening remarks—but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her explanation of how local authorities can separate out different parts within a hereditament. I would be grateful if the Minister could take back to the department that this measure just feels really illogical. It will not be a significant amount of money that is raised by withdrawing the relief where an independent nursery is part of a school but not withdrawing it where an independent nursery is not part of a school, particularly in the light of the noble Baroness’s expert insights into how that could be achieved.

With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 60 and 61 are important, focusing on children with special educational needs and disabilities. SEND provision is in crisis across the country, whichever sector of school children attend. The reason, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has raised, is the huge delay in assessing children who may need an education, care and health plan, often because of the lack of educational psychologists. There are often very long delays getting what used to be called a statement of need but is now just an EHCP.

The consequences for schools in this sector is that they qualify only if their children have ECHPs, and because ECHPs are so difficult to access, many parents send their children to private school in desperation because their children’s needs are not being adequately met in the state sector. There is no criticism attached to that because there is huge pressure on the state sector. If you have a child with special needs then, if you are able, you look to where those needs are best met.

In the days before children with dyslexia were recognised, parents often took children with severe dyslexia out of the state sector and into one of the several independent schools set up around the country that had the expertise to help those children. I have a lot of sympathy with these amendments because we want all children to have their needs met, but schools helping young people with particular needs are in danger of having their relief removed because of the threshold in the Bill.

There is little recognition that children have special needs even without an EHCP, simply because of the huge backlog. The backlog exists because there is also a funding crisis within SEND. On all those issues, the Government really should think again, particularly on Amendment 61. I hope that the Minister will have some positive words in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 60 and 61 are concerned with the carve-out within the Bill’s measures for private schools that wholly or mainly provide education to pupils with education, health and care plans. Amendment 60 seeks to remove the “wholly or mainly” requirement, the effect of which would be to carve out from the Bill’s measures private schools that provide full-time education to any number of persons for whom an education, health and care plan is maintained.

I understand from the accompanying explanatory statement that this amendment seeks to understand the definition of “wholly or mainly”. As I have said elsewhere on a previous group on business rates, wholly or mainly generally means more than 50%. In practice, the Government believe that this will ensure that most private special schools will not be affected by the measure. We expect any private special schools losing charitable rates relief to be the exception; they will potentially be in single figures. Private schools that benefit from the existing rates exemption for properties that are wholly used for the training or welfare of disabled people will continue to do so. This general exemption means that they pay no rates.

I am aware that some concerns have been raised—the noble Baroness has raised them in clear and categoric terms—in relation to the possibility that some mainstream private schools may be just under or over the 50% threshold for the EHCP carve-out within the Bill. In private schools, including private special schools, just 5.7% of pupils have an EHCP, with the majority of those pupils in private special schools. Therefore, we do not expect there to be many mainstream private schools near the 50% threshold.

To add to that point, if there are any marginal cases, the test in law is whether the institution is wholly or mainly concerned with providing education to ECHP pupils. While it will be for the local authority to decide, this wording should avoid the need for schools at the margin to jump in and out of entitlement for charitable relief following small movements in pupils.

The majority of private special school places are funded by local authorities. The 2024 school census shows that in more than 80% of the sector more than nine in 10 pupils have an EHCP plan that stipulates that the place is funded by the local authority.

Amendment 61 would result in the exemption of fee-paying schools from the measure if that fee-paying school wholly or mainly catered to pupils who have special educational needs as defined under the Children and Families Act 2014, and regardless of whether or not those pupils also have an EHCP. The Government are aware of the concerns raised with respect to pupils with special educational needs in private schools that may lose their charitable relief, because the school is not wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education to persons for whom an EHCP is maintained. The Government have carefully considered their approach to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is minimised.

The Bill provides that schools that are charities and wholly or mainly concerned with providing full-time education for persons with an EHCP remain eligible for charitable rates relief. The Government recognise that where a private school has only a few pupils with EHCPs, it will lose its eligibility for charity relief. Mainstream schools throughout the private and public sector cater for pupils with special educational needs. Most children with EHCPs already have their needs met within mainstream state-funded schools. If an EHCP assessment concludes that a child can be supported only in a private school, the local authority funds the child’s place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, touched upon the issue of the wider problem in terms of delay, which I will address. Local authorities aim to process all education, health and care plans and the respective applications in time for the start of the next school year, so that parents can make an informed decision as to which school they send their child to. In special cases, the local authority is able to pre-pay one term’s fees if the education, health and care plan is not complete but the outcome is foreseeable. Likewise, some private schools will forgo the first term’s fees for pupils who are expected to be granted an EHC plan in the future.

The Government are committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream state schools, restoring parents’ trust that their child will get the support that they need to flourish. Private schools can provide choice, high-quality education, economic benefit and public benefit through partnerships and means-tested bursaries, but most parents cannot choose private schools. We need to improve provision for the 93% of pupils at state schools, and that is rightly our focus. The Government are also committed to reforming England’s SEN provision to improve outcomes and return the system to financial sustainability. The Government will provide an uplift of around £1 billion in high-needs funding in the 2025-26 financial year.

Mainstream schools throughout the private and public sector, as I said before, cater for pupils with special educational needs. Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are able to retain their charitable rates relief in the way that this amendment proposes would undermine the Government’s intention to remove tax breaks for private schools in order to raise funds to support the more than 90% of pupils who attend state-funded schools. As the Committee will know, the majority of children in England who have special educational needs—with or without an EHCP—have their needs met in the state-funded sector. The approach chosen in the Bill is targeted to ensure that the impact on pupils with the most acute needs is limited.

It is for the reasons cited that I cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendments, but I hope that, with this further information, I have provided satisfactory explanation as to the Government’s approach and reassurance that the approach adopted ensures that the impact on those children with the most acute needs is minimised. I request that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for the vivid picture that she painted in her remarks of the desperation of some parents whose children are struggling in a state-funded school, and who make huge sacrifices to send their child to an independent school. I also thank the Minister for his clarification, as I have understood it, in relation to my Amendment 60. I think he is saying that independent special schools are exempt in this legislation but mainstream ones will not be, because they are extremely unlikely to be anywhere near the 50% threshold in terms of EHCPs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I have not added my name to these amendments, but I feel strongly about them. This vital group, articulated so well by the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, is directly focused on those in need. I want to consider for a minute this group from a different point of view—the point of view, if you like, of the child. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, gave the example of five schools by the age of seven—or seven by the age of five, I do not remember. I was one of those children. My parents were civil servants serving abroad, and they chose to keep me at home well into my teens, whereas most in similar positions were sent back to the UK to attend an independent school and be given the continuity of education that is required at home, wherever home may be.

The price I paid was 13 schools through the course of my education. Most of those were attempts to cram or correct for the next stage, because I was always turning up half way through a term, starting on a Wednesday in a class of 25 people—having never seen any of them before—after coming 3,000 miles. Then I was off again two years later, and there was a different syllabus—and a different language in one case. I ended up here in the UK knowing a great deal about Captain Cook, the South Pacific and the Māori but absolutely nothing about English history or any of the other normal curriculum subjects.

I spent my last few years at school on the back foot in a special independent school, trying to catch up. Had I not had that opportunity, I certainly would not be proud or competent enough to stand here today and address your Lordships. It taught me some self-confidence in the absence of any sort of academic success. University was out of the question. I give this example simply because it is terribly important that those serving abroad, whether in the Armed Forces or in the Civil Service, are given the opportunity to give their children an equal start.

I am very pleased that I had the alternative, because my parents wanted to keep us at home, wherever home was. It did not really do me any harm at the end of the day, but I got no GCSEs, O-levels or A-levels, other than the odd one—usually called something like technical drawing or one of these back-door opportunities. I mention this simply to drive home, perhaps, the importance of what is being discussed, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Black, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Let us not destroy the opportunity for those young people.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that very eloquent contribution about the noble Lord’s personal journey. I will talk first to Amendments 63, 64 and 66, which seek to provide carve-outs from the Bill measure: in the case of Amendment 63, for private schools that wholly or mainly provide full-time education where at least 7% of gross income is spent on means-tested fee assistance; in the case of Amendment 64, for all private schools that wholly or mainly provide full-time education for gifted arts students, such as those attending specialist music and dance schools or performing arts colleges; and, in the case of Amendment 66, for private schools that wholly or mainly provide full-time education where at least 10% of students have at least one parent or guardian serving in the military.

The contributions that we have heard today reflect concerns about how the Bill may affect pupils from lower-income backgrounds, including those from military families, or those who are gifted arts pupils. Providing means-tested fee assistance is one way that charitable private schools can demonstrate public benefit, a requirement that accompanies charitable status. The Bill does not remove the charitable status of private schools and the Government expect private schools to continue to demonstrate public benefit. What is more, we do not think that Parliament should be putting in place incentives for charities to act in the public’s benefit in the way that Amendment 63 might encourage. Acting in the public benefit is something that a charity should inherently wish to do. Charitable private schools will continue to operate as charities and this Bill does not make any tax changes affecting their charitable status. For example, they will still be able to claim gift aid on donations and will not pay tax on their charitable surplus, as for-profit schools are taxed on their profits.

In designing the policy, the Government listened very carefully to representations and reached the view that, with the exception of the existing carve-out in the Bill for private schools wholly or mainly concerned with full-time education for pupils with EHCPs, no other private schools would be carved out of the measure. This approach was adopted because to carve out some private schools and not others would be unfair. However, the Government listened carefully to concerns raised and, in relation to pupils from military families or those attending specialist arts schools, the Government have taken appropriate steps in relation to two government schemes.

I will elaborate further. The Government offer a means-tested bursary scheme for pupils who attend any one of eight specialist performing arts private schools. The music and dance scheme provides means-tested bursaries and grants totalling around £32 million per year to enable children and young people with exceptional potential to benefit from specialist music or dance training. It is available to qualifying families if their child has a place at any one of the aforementioned eight private schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 65 is a probing amendment to understand the Government’s thinking in relation to faith schools. As we have heard on numerous occasions in Committee, our concerns about the financial viability of the sector relate to the combination of VAT, the potential increase in employers’ national insurance contributions and now business rates. This combination is potentially most acute for faith schools, for three main reasons.

First, as the noble Lord knows, they often charge lower fees than other independent schools and have less financial resilience. This is particularly true for some Muslim and Jewish schools. Secondly, for parents where choosing a faith school is really important, there will often be no state-funded alternative at all locally, in the case of smaller faiths, or, for the larger faiths, provision with spaces available for these children at short notice.

Finally, if this is the case, we are concerned that this could contribute to an increase in children who are educated at home, which is something I know the Government plan to contain through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Our concern is that the combination of pressures on these schools will cause them to close with the unintended consequences that I have outlined. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what assessment the Government have made of each of these three risks, and how they plan to mitigate them. I beg to move.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 65 would mean that a private school with a religious or other special character maintained its eligibility for charitable relief where there is no maintained or academy school of the same religious character or other special character within the statutory walking distance as set out in the Education Act 1996. It would create an additional delegated power within the Bill whereby the Government, by secondary legislation, would be able to define what is meant by a special character. While the amendment does not indicate what may constitute a special character, we understand from the contributions made in the other place, as well as from the noble Baroness’s contribution, that this could be used to carve out schools that follow a particular method of education or provide specialist tuition.

Amending the basis on which fee-paying schools are able to retain their charitable rates relief in the manner in which this amendment proposes would undermine the Government’s intention to remove the VAT and business rates tax breaks for all private schools. As we have said, removal of the business rates charitable relief is necessary in order to raise funds to support the more than 90% of pupils who attend state schools. The Government have carefully considered their approach and have decided that private schools that are charities will be carved out from the Bill measure only where they wholly or mainly provide education for pupils with EHCPs.

It would be inconsistent and unfair to exempt any other types of private schools from this Bill measure. However, the Government value parental choice and recognise that some parents want their children to be educated in a school with a particular faith, ethos or other characteristic, such as following a particular education method. Pupils who follow a particular faith, education method or other characteristic can be accommodated in the state sector. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one, and all schools must comply with their obligations under the Equality Act 2010. In addition, schools are expected to promote fundamental British values, including the values of mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs. The Government are not considering further exemptions to this policy, and therefore there is no need, as the amendment attempts, to give the Secretary of State the power to establish and define new designations of schools’ character in order to then exempt them from this measure. For these reasons, I am unable to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Minister says again that this undermines the Government’s intention, but then in the next breath says that the Government value parental choice. It is one thing to say that a child can be accommodated in a state school—the Minister knows that there are certain parts of the country where even that is not necessarily a given, where state school spaces are very limited indeed and therefore one is putting pressure on parents and children to travel further than is ideal—but there is not the ability to place a child in a school with a specific faith designation, particularly for smaller faiths, in the way that he suggests. I do not think one can say that one values parental choice and then not offer parents something that they have strived to offer to their children.

Again, as in relation to my earlier amendment, these are schools, as I said in my opening remarks, where the fees, particularly in the Muslim and Jewish communities, are often two-thirds or half of a state-funded place. We are very concerned that this will result in children being educated at home, which carries with it certainly limitations in terms of socialisation for those children, at best, and, at worst, potentially wider risks to those children.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am conscious that the noble Baroness made a strong point; it has just come to my knowledge that I did not address it in my response. We estimate the overall impact to be that business rates changes will lead to around 3,100 fewer places in the private sector. Of those 3,100 pupils, the Government expect 2,900 to move to state-funded schools. The remaining 200 pupils will be international students returning to schools in their home nations, or domestic students moving into home-schooling.

The noble Baroness talked about home-schooling and mentioned the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The Government will introduce a duty on parents to inform their local authority when they choose to home-educate their child. Measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will ensure that the most vulnerable children do not slip under the radar of the professionals who are there to protect them. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene to say that the overall impact of this transition for private schools is on around 3,100 pupils.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that additional clarification, but the reality is that it is one thing if those 3,100 pupils are spread across the country, but quite another if they are in a handful of local authorities that are already full. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, it will not surprise the Minister to know that I agree entirely with the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan to ensure fairness and clarity in the treatment of private schools in relation to means-tested fee assistance and business rates. My noble friend was so eloquent and knowledgeable about the benefits of sport to all children. I am sure all across the Committee agree that he gave brilliant examples of both the physical and the mental health benefits. As someone who avoided sport at all costs in school and came to it later in life, I agreed with him and felt slightly guilty as I listened.

By preventing these schools being classified as private schools, the amendment highlights the value of their contribution and safeguards them from financial disadvantage. As my noble friend put so clearly, it would allow them to make sure that the sporting opportunities they offer can continue to grow, since they are so vital for our communities.

Amendment 69 addresses the valuation of sports facilities in relation to non-domestic rates and would ensure that the inclusion of sports facilities, which play such a crucial role in the development of young people, does not unfairly increase the business rates burden on schools. I am worried that the Minister will say that this amendment goes against the spirit of the legislation, so I am going to try a different approach to convince him both that this may amendment be one to focus on and to accept my noble friend’s suggestion to meet in order to try to find a way through.

First, as my noble friend said very clearly, whether we are talking about grass-roots local sport for someone as untalented and unable to hit a ball as I was or sport at the highest possible level, these schools provide opportunities in a way that we do not see widely in our communities. Secondly, my noble friend was clear about the importance of dual use for both local pupils in the wider community who do not attend the school and those who do attend the school.

The last thing I would stress is that the Minister has spoken on several occasions about the importance of raising money to invest in our state schools and the 93% of children who attend them. However, if we sat down to do the maths and tried to work out what it would cost to bring our state schools up to anywhere near the standard of what they can access in their local independent schools, I think we would find that, in capital terms, it is many times the amount that will be raised from VAT and the £70 million through this Bill.

I urge the Minister to take up my noble friend’s invitation to explore this issue and see whether we can find a way through. It is entirely reasonable to raise the bar and encourage independent schools to offer that dual use to make sure that their local communities benefit. Whether you take it from that perspective or a purely financial perspective, these amendments deserve great attention from the Minister.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will now speak to Amendments 67 and 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I just let him know that I have a great passion for rowing, developed at the time of Redgrave and Pinsent. Unfortunately, I was only two years old when the noble Lord won the silver medal in Munich in 1981, so I cannot classify him as my hero, but I know that he will be a hero to many across the country and the world.

These proposed amendments seek to introduce a carve-out in the Bill for private schools where 10% of students are in receipt of a bursary or scholarship for sporting excellence. I am aware that this type of fee support can be provided to any pupil who meets the requirements set by an individual private school; similarly, it can be provided on a means-tested basis. The other amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, seeks to ensure that no part of a private school that is used primarily for sport is included in the valuation of the school for business rates.

Providing means-tested fee assistance is one way in which charitable private schools can demonstrate public benefit—a requirement that accompanies charitable status. As I have stated elsewhere, the Bill does not remove the charitable status of private schools, and the Government expect them to continue to demonstrate public benefit, whether that is through the provision of means-tested bursaries or through other means, such as sharing facilities or working with state sector schools.

Ending the VAT and business rates tax breaks on private schools is a tough but necessary decision to help deliver on the Government’s ambition to eliminate barriers to opportunity by concentrating on the broader picture and towards the state sector, where over 90% of children in England are educated. Barriers to opportunity also appear in the sporting world, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. The Government are committed to improving access to sports and physical activity for all. Everybody, no matter who they are or where they are in the country, should have access to the best possible provision of sports facilities and opportunities to get active.

These amendments would reduce the scope of the Bill measure by removing private schools from the definition and thus reducing the amount of revenue raised. This would limit the additional funding secured to help deliver the Government’s commitments on education and younger people. Furthermore, it would be operationally unfeasible to implement requiring local authorities to audit the financial operations of charitable private schools to ascertain whether they meet the threshold, as per the amendments, when calculating their business rates bill for the financial year.

I shall now address the other amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I understand that part of the reason for it is a recognition that some private schools share their sporting facilities with neighbouring schools or the general public. As I have said, the Government expect private schools that wish to remain charities to continue to demonstrate a public benefit, such as by making their sporting facilities available more generally. That will not change. The amendment seeks to remove sports grounds from rating valuations. Exemptions of this nature, where part or all of a hereditament is removed entirely from rating valuations, are the most general and exceptional forms of support in business rates. They are reserved for cases such as agricultural land, places of public religious worship and, as we have already heard during the passage of this Bill, certain property used for disabled persons.

Despite the clear value of shared sports facilities at private schools, I do not think that it would be right to confer upon them such a level of benefit, especially when exemptions of this nature are not available to other sports facilities or even to charities more generally. Although these facilities are being used for sports and may be shared with the community, they remain part of private schools and are clearly used for their purpose; indeed, for many private schools, such sports facilities are a vital part of their offer to parents. It would therefore hardly be consistent with the overall purpose of Clause 5 to exclude them.

This story is very personal to me because I was an aspiring cricketer and did not make it through the system. I know that that was because of a lack of facilities and support at my local clubs and my local school, so I understand entirely the premise of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is attempting to do. I say to him and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that I will take this matter away and reflect on it; I will speak to colleagues, officials and other colleagues in the Treasury.

Let me let noble Lords know that the Government are committed to improving access to sport and physical activity for everybody. Sport and physical activity are central to achieving our health and opportunity manifesto missions, with the biggest gains coming from supporting those who are inactive to move more. Everyone, no matter who they are or where they are in the country, should have access to the best possible sports provision and facilities. The Government’s arm’s-length body, Sport England, is investing £120 million between 2025 and 2029 to increase participation in sport and boost diversity at the grass-roots level in order to give more and better opportunities to all young people to explore and develop their potential. This funding will increase and enhance opportunities for talented young athletes in England to explore and develop their athletic potential, regardless of their background or financial circumstances. Through creating more inclusive talent pathways, the Government want to increase participation in sport and boost diversity at the grass-roots level in order to give all young people more—and better—opportunities to explore and develop their potential. Sport England also wants to drive greater diversity within national teams, which will in turn demonstrate to the next generation of young people that they could have the same potential to reach the Games.

The PE and sport premium is a ring-fenced grant for eligible primary schools and other educational establishments. In March 2023, as noble Lords will recall, the previous Government announced more than £600 million of funding for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 academic years. Schools must use funding to make additional and sustainable improvements to the quality of the PE, sport and physical activity that they provide.

I just want to say that this is a vital debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his contribution. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said something interesting: she was not interested in sport early on but got into it in later life. Let me be absolutely clear: I learned to swim only last year. I was taught by my daughter; my 10 year-old daughter taught me to swim. I would have loved to have swum much earlier but I did not have the opportunity, resources or means to do that, so I recognise exactly the sensitive nature of what we are trying to do. The Government are supporting this through their work and funding. In particular, I recognise that the PE and sports premium is a ring-fenced grant. We must make sure that all children are supported. I thank the noble Lord for his contribution but, for the reasons I have set out previously, at this moment in time, I am unable to accept these amendments; however, I hope to go away and reflect on what the noble Lord said. In the meantime, I hope that I have provided the noble Lord with satisfactory information in relation to the difficulties and technicalities in these amendments, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 70, 71, 72 and 72A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Lexden, are focused on the impact on state schools as a result of the Bill measure. They seek to require the Government to undertake a variety of assessments of the impact of Clause 5, covering between them: pupil movement; the impact on the state sector; partnerships between private and state schools; changes in staffing; and the availability of faith education to families which desire it. Furthermore, Amendment 72A from the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, seeks to ensure that any assessment is conducted in the context of broader tax changes affecting private schools since 1 January 2025, effectively seeking to create an all-encompassing review of the Budget tax changes and their effect on private schools.

The Government carefully considered their approach in designing the policy to remove charitable rate relief from private schools. On 29 July, the Government published a technical note on removing the VAT and business rates charitable relief tax breaks for private schools. The Government received and carefully considered over 17,000 responses to this note from a range of tax specialists, private schools, bodies that represent private schools and others. A detailed government response to this was published at the Autumn Budget. During development of these policies, the Government also met numerous key stakeholders representing schools, local authorities and, in the context of the VAT change, the devolved Governments. Furthermore, at the introduction of this Bill, the Government published a note setting out analysis of the impact of the business rates measure. This is available on the Bill’s page.

Two common themes in the amendments proposed are the impact on the state sector in pupil movements and partnership activity with private schools. As I have said previously, the Government estimate that in the long-run steady state, there will be 3,100 fewer pupils in the private sector as a result of the business rates measure. Of these 3,100 pupils, the Government estimate an increase of 2,900 pupils in the state sector in the long term. This represents approximately 0.03% of the total state sector pupil population.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in particular, talked about the important point of SEND places. The Government work to support local authorities to ensure that every local area has sufficient places for all children of compulsory school age who need them, and work to provide appropriate support where pupils with SEND require a place at state-funded schools. She raised some really interesting points about reform. The Government are committed to reforming England’s SEND provision to improve outcomes and return the system to financial sustainability. We are providing an almost £1 billion uplift in high-needs funding in financial year 2025-26.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Barran, both talked about whether regional variation with regard to pupil movement may arise as a result of the Bill measure. They said that some regions may be more affected than others. The Government work with local authorities to support place planning and ensure there is capacity in the state-funded sector to meet demand. We have confirmed nearly £1.5 billion of capital funding through the basic needs grant to create school spaces needed over the current and next two academic years, up to and including the academic year starting in September 2026.

As noble Lords know, all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place, and government support ensures that every local authority has sufficient places for children who need them. The Department for Education monitors place demand and capacity as part of its normal processes and will work with local authorities to meet any pressures. Data on the number of school pupils is published every summer. This provides information on the number of pupils at different types of school, so anyone can see how pupil numbers in state-funded schools and private schools have changed.

There have been suggestions that the cost of pupil moves from the private to the state sector will cancel out the revenue raised from the measure. Based on the average 2024-25 per pupil spending in England, the Government expect the revenue cost of pupils entering the state sector as a result of the measure to steadily increase to a peak of around £20 million per annum after several years. Overall, this means that the expected revenue will substantially outweigh the additional cost pressures.

Pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons, and the school funding system in England is already set up to manage that. For individual schools, the Government therefore expect changes in pupil numbers caused by these changes to be managed in the usual way.

I have spoken only about business rates as that is the scope of the Bill. Noble Lords may also be interested in the impact of the removal of the VAT exemption, which has been mentioned. I direct them to the tax information and impact note that was produced to accompany the VAT change, which is publicly available on GOV.UK.

During the course of the Bill’s passage, we have heard a small number of examples of schools stating that they will reduce partnership activity with local state schools or will no longer be able to provide fee assistance. It is for individual private schools to determine how they manage any additional costs arising from the Bill’s measure. However, as set out previously, the Bill does not remove the charitable status of private schools, and they will need to continue to demonstrate public benefit as a requirement of that charitable status.

Data published by the Independent Schools Council indicates that a lot of partnerships relate to the hosting of joint events or providing access to facilities also used by private school pupils. In many of these partnerships, the activity undertaken also benefits the pupils who attend private schools, so it would not be in the interest of the private schools to stop this activity. The removal of charitable relief from private schools does not reduce these schools’ obligation to show public benefit. The Government do not expect partnership activity or fee assistance to decrease significantly.

I will touch briefly on the other areas that noble Lords have suggested should be examined, starting with looked-after children. Local authorities can place looked-after children at private schools where that is in the child’s interest. We do not expect placements funded by local authorities to be impacted by tax changes, as the local authorities can reclaim VAT. As with partnerships, we do not expect charitable schools to stop supporting these pupils as part of their demonstration of public benefit.

Faith has been a common discussion point in not just this group but earlier groups of amendments. As discussed earlier, on a previous group, the Government value parental choice and recognise that some parents want their children to be educated in a school with a particular faith ethos. Do I know that? Yes, I am the Faith Minister. Many stakeholders have been speaking to me about this issue. Pupils who follow a particular faith can be accommodated in the state sector. All children of compulsory school age are entitled to a state-funded school place if they need one and, as previously stated, all schools must comply with their obligations under the Equality Act 2010. In addition, schools are expected to promote fundamental British values, including the values of mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs.

On the issue of staffing, the Department for Education annually publishes teacher numbers in private schools. Employment of staff is a matter for individual private schools. We do not anticipate that they will substantially reduce staff as a result of the business rates measure.

I appreciate that there is concern in this area, but we should remember that the removal of charitable relief from private schools will raise important revenue that will help the Government to deliver on their commitment to the cohort of the more than 90% of children who attend state schools. This will break down barriers and ensure that all have access to the same opportunities.

I am unable to accept the amendments, but I hope that the further information I have provided, in relation to the analysis and assessment from the Government that have already been undertaken and that we will continue to do, has reassured noble Lords. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

The Minister has spoken at length about the Government’s hopes, intentions and plans. Surely, having done all that, it becomes more important to find out what happens in reality over the next few years: how independent schools are affected and how many children have their education disrupted. These matters need to be clearly established, and that surely points to a proper and full impact assessment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I take the point that the noble Lord had made very strongly and passionately. In relation to this particular aspect and in contrast to the earlier part of our discussion in Committee related to multipliers, this is not a tax-particular perspective, which is why an impact note for the Bill is available. Of course, we are speaking to stakeholders and will continue to do so to ensure that we take everything into account. We have taken everything in account while bringing this Bill forward.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response. He made the case for Amendment 70 in the name of my noble friends, I think. When I moved the amendment, I cited the 10,000 children expected to move from the private sector to the state sector, and the Minister cited 3,100. That is a discrepancy. Why? It is because they are both estimates. The Minister’s estimates are based on the Government’s analysis of expectation, but so is the private school sector’s.

The second pair of estimates that were cited related to the cost to the state sector of young people moving to it from the private sector. The estimate by the private sector is £92 million a year, whereas I think I heard the Minister quote a figure of £20 million being the anticipated cost after a number of years. He is not shaking his head—maybe I did not hear that figure correctly. However, the point I am making is that, in both cases, there is a discrepancy because these are estimates, not actual figures.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I just want to clarify the point that I was making: the additional revenue to support the transition to the state sector represents substantially much more revenue than the cost to support that transition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will now speak to Amendment 74, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and Amendments 75 and 76, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook. These amendments seek to delay the implementation of the Bill’s measures. Amendment 74 seeks to delay from 2026 to 2027 the commencement of Clauses 1 to 4, covering the new multipliers. The reasoning behind this proposal, as provided by the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is to provide more time to allow for impact assessments and consultations to be conducted.

As I have set out elsewhere during the course of the Committee proceedings, the Treasury has committed to publishing analysis of the impact of the new multipliers at the Budget. To clarify, the 2026 re-evaluation of the multipliers is ongoing and is not yet completed. We expect it to be published around the Budget.

As noble Lords will remember, the Bill is the Government’s first step in transforming the business rates system, and to delay it would delay the Government’s progress in undertaking this broader ambition over the course of this Parliament. Furthermore, it would delay the introduction of the new permanent tax cuts for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, meaning that those businesses would have to wait a further year for the lower multipliers.

Amendment 75 seeks to delay the implementation of the removal of charitable rate relief from private schools, pending an impact assessment focused on access to university for pupils in private schools in receipt of means-tested fee assistance. Amendment 76 would more generally delay by one year to April 2026 the same measure in Clause 5.

I understand the concerns that the swift implementation of Clause 5 from 1 April this year does not give private schools or local authorities time to prepare for the change—a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, just touched on. However, the Government announced this change in July 2024, stating then that it would be implemented from April 2025, subject to the passage of legislation. As such, private schools have been aware of this change for some time. Private schools that are impacted by the change already pay business rates. They already have a rateable value, they do not have to register with their local authority, and it is very simple for them to calculate their additional business rates bill. As these schools are already known to local authorities, the removal of the charitable relief should also be straightforward from their perspective. The Government are engaging with local authorities to support them through this change.

Delaying implementation of the Bill would forego approximately £140 million per year in funding, delaying the Government’s intended investment to deliver their commitments to education and young people and to support investment in our state sector, where more than 90% of children in England are educated.

The amendments call for an impact assessment. As Members of the Committee know full well, tax measures are not subject to full impact assessments. I continue to say this to the Committee because it continues to be correct, as it was under previous Governments. Despite this, my department has produced detailed analysis of the impacts of Clause 5, which was published alongside the Bill, as I stated earlier.

Amendment 75 also raises the question of access to higher education. Access to higher education should be based on ability and attainment, not background. Opportunity should be available to all, and it is the Government’s aspiration that no groups are left behind. That is why we are seeking, through this Bill, funding for new investment in the state sector.

I am also aware that there is concern across the Committee that the Bill’s measures may result in private schools that are charities reducing their charitable activity, of which the provision of means-tested bursaries is one such activity. It will be for individual private schools to determine how they will meet any additional costs as a result of the Bill’s measures, but they could, for example, reduce surpluses or reserves, cut back on non-essential expenditure, increase fees or use a combination of different approaches.

It is important to note that the measure does not remove the charitable status of these schools and charitable schools will continue to operate as charities. They must continue to demonstrate that they meet public-benefit tests, and the Government expect all charitable schools to continue to demonstrate this to retain their still very favourable status as charities. No other tax changes specific to their charitable status will affect private schools. They will still be able to claim gift aid on donations and will not pay tax on their charitable surplus.

As I have said, we cannot agree to delay the implementation of these measures. I hope that noble Lords can see this and will agree not to press their amendments.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this final group, and I thank the Minister for offering an opportunity to meet to discuss this in more detail, which I will take up. I remain concerned about the unintended consequences of the rush to get this through, for both schools and businesses but, with those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire seven years ago in the most horrifying of circumstances. This phase 2 report on the Grenfell Tower inquiry from Martin Moore-Bick is an excellent analysis and provides a strong challenge to the Government for the decisions they need to make.

It is therefore disappointing that the Secretary of State’s Statement fails to be absolutely clear that the recommendation from the inquiry will be implemented in full. Instead, the words used are that the Government

“accept the findings … and will take forward … the recommendations”.

That is simply unacceptable.

The inquiry exposed a culture of greed and indifference, which must be rooted out of all the organisations associated with this wholly avoidable tragedy—I emphasise that it was wholly avoidable. The Government have a duty to ensure that all buildings with flammable cladding, and where the constructors deliberately omitted fire safety features, are fully remediated, and that the cost is borne entirely by those responsible for those failings.

Leaseholders must not be required to pay anything. Living in a building that is not safe is itself a cause of immense anxiety. Added to that is the scandal of huge rises in insurance costs and service charges, when leaseholders should not be paying anything.

The ministry’s figures show that 9,000 to 12,000 buildings of above 11 metres will need remediation, yet only 4,771 have so far been identified—of which less than half have had work started. The National Audit Office has called for the costs of this work, over and above that funded by the taxpayer, to be placed on developers. That is absolutely right. Can the Minister explain how the costs of this essential work are to be met? For information, the estimate is around £7 billion.

I turn to the 58 recommendations in the report. It recommended a single construction adviser, which the Government have accepted and will appoint. I fully support that. However, Dame Judith Hackitt’s report of 2018, made immediately following the Grenfell Tower fire, also recommended that there be a formal log of every element during construction work, including building improvements which may follow. The report recommended that that log should be signed off by the person responsible for the work. This seems to be the fundamental change that is needed. Can the Minister advise whether this particular change is to be implemented?

One of the other key changes proposed by the Hackitt report was that the overall responsibility for building control should return to the local authority for independent oversight. Can the Minister explain why the Statement simply refers to a “review” of building control? Currently, constructors can appoint their own building inspector. The failure of that system is seen in the fire safety corner-cutting in Grenfell Tower and in many other buildings. Does the Minister agree that an independent building inspector is a key change that has to be made?

The failure of the regulatory system that enabled flammable cladding to be added to the walls of many high-rise blocks is at the heart of this scandal, yet the Statement has little to encourage us to believe that essential reform is coming. The Government have published a construction products Green Paper, which is positive but long overdue. The safety of construction products partly depends on the testing regime, which was exposed in the report as being deficient. What are the Government’s intentions for the future of the Building Research Establishment?

Finally, the report refers to “higher-risk buildings”. It states that

“to define a building as ‘higher risk’ by reference only to its height is … arbitrary”,

and recommends that the use of the building is vitally important. Are the Government intending to review the definition as a matter of urgency, as required by the recommendations in the report?

What is needed now is a sense of urgency and purpose. It is more than seven years since that dreadful fire. Survivors need to see that radical change is being made. The tragedy of 72 lives cruelly ended must not have been in vain.

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

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your comments today. I know that I speak for all of us when I say that what happened on that terrible night in June 2017 must never be allowed to happen again. It was a national tragedy and an immensely personal tragedy: 72 innocent people, 18 of them children, lost their lives. The Grenfell inquiry exposed damning and painful evidence of political, corporate and individual failings over decades. I thank the inquiry chair, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and his team, for their hard work over seven years to shine a light on these failings. Yesterday in the other place, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s final report and apologised on behalf of the British state.

I want to say again how deeply sorry I am and this Government are for the failures that led to the tragedy. We accept that the inquiry’s final report must be a catalyst for a long-lasting system change. That message has been re-emphasised by the points raised today. That is why the Government accept the findings of the report and will take forward all the recommendations. Our response addresses all the recommendations and sets out wider reforms of social housing and the construction sector. Alongside this, we published a construction products Green Paper with detailed proposals for rigorous system-wide reform to address the critical gaps in how construction products are regulated.

Reforming construction products means that safety will come first. The culture that allowed the tragedy to happen will be transformed. We are focused on prioritising residents, ensuring that industry builds safe homes and providing transparency and accountability. In doing so, we will rebuild trust. The Government commit to publishing progress on implementing the inquiry recommendations every quarter from mid-2026. Also, we will provide an additional update to Parliament. The Government’s response is explicit on the need to bring about the transformational change that the people of this country deserve. As the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, to have anyone anywhere living in an unsafe home is one person too many. Yesterday I joined the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Norris in meeting the bereaved and victims of the horrible tragedy. It was an emotional and difficult experience, but they need justice.

I will now focus on the issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock. On why we are not committing to meet the inquiry’s recommendation on the single regulator, we accept the inquiry’s recommendation and will create a single construction regulator. However, we must avoid creating a conflict of interest within the regulator. We do not believe it appropriate for a single regulator to undertake testing and certification of construction products and issue certificates of compliance. This would create a new conflict of interest within the regulator. It would set the rules, test and issue certificates, and police compliances with those rules. Through our Green Paper, we are putting forward wider measures to significantly strengthen conformity assessment in order to provide the confidence and rigour that is essential as part of that system-wide reform.

We are acting now through the regulators to ensure that enforcement action is taken against safety breaches and that new buildings meet our more rigorous standards. The new building safety regime is stopping bad designs becoming bad buildings. The inquiry exposed regulation of the construction industry as too complex and fragmented. Merging responsibility for regulating construction products and professionals, and monitoring the operation of building regulations, provides the best basis for a regulatory system with clear standards, no regulatory conflict and clarity and certainty on how the industry must conduct itself. In autumn 2025, we will set out further details of the pathway to establish the single regulator.

On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made, the Government accept all the inquiry’s findings and will take action on every recommendation directed at us. There are 58 in total. Where we have accepted nine recommendations in principle, we will deliver the intended outcome in a slightly different way, to ensure that it meets the aims and is a lasting success. We want to be clear that the Government accept all the inquiry’s findings and will take forward action on every recommendation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned the remediation acceleration plan. I want to update the House. We are focused on speeding up remediation. The plan will create certainty about which buildings need remediation and who is responsible for that. The plan will make obligations for assessing, completing and regulating remediation clearer, with severe consequences for non-compliance, and give residents greater control in situations of acute harm where landlords have neglected their responsibilities. We will update regularly on that process. The legislative commitments are detailed in the remediation action plan.

On construction products, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked what action the Government are taking to address criticisms over the key institutions found culpable in their role. The Government have taken full account of the criticisms in the inquiry report, including those of identified institutions. We are addressing those criticisms through the government response to recommendations, as set out in the Green Paper, as part of the measures for system-wide reform.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the news that the Government have accepted all 58 of Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s recommendations—at least, I welcome it in principle, in the same way that the Government have accepted some of the key recommendations in principle.

Recommendation 25 asks

“that it be made a legal requirement for the Government to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations by select committees, coroners and public inquiries together with a description of the steps taken in response”.

The Government say they will establish a record on GOV.UK of all recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024, that they will consider making that a legal requirement, and that Ministers will commit to updating Parliament on progress on implementing recommendations.

The problem with this is that it is no different from what happens now. In all the inquiries that I have been involved with, we always get updates on GOV.UK, and, frankly, they do not satisfy anyone because they tend to be dry and unintelligible. Ministers come to Parliament to update us, as the Minister is doing now, but there is no mention of the suggestion that the Government need to detail the steps taken in response to recommendations. Instead, the Government talk about the recommendation of the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee to establish a new committee to deliver that accountability. I sat on that committee and the response from the Government to that was, “This is a matter for Parliament”. I am not clear what is different now and where this gets us. If the Minister could explain that to me, I would be very grateful.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the points that she has eloquently raised. I did not mention this, but I pay tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Pinnock, for the work they have done for many years on this issue, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her role as a government Minister in this area. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, for her work with the bereaved and victims’ families in this area.

On her particular points, we are taking forward the inquiry’s recommendation on oversight. There needs to be better accountability for and oversight of how recommendations are implemented. We totally accept that. Robust oversight of the Government’s implementation of the response is essential for this and for all public inquiries. The system needs to be improved, and we are taking forward the inquiry’s recommendations on oversight.

We will create a publicly accessible record on GOV.UK of recommendations made by public inquiries since 2024. We will consider making this a legal requirement as part of a wider review of the inquiry framework. My department will publish quarterly progress updates regarding the Grenfell inquiry recommendations on GOV.UK until they have all been delivered. We will report annually to Parliament, to enable Members to scrutinise our progress and hold us to account.

I say to the noble Baroness that my office is always available, and I am happy to sit down with her and noble Lords across the House if there is anything pertinent that they think the Government need to be doing more of.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, my point follows on nicely from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson. I do not find the Minister’s response totally satisfactory because, in the Government’s response to the Grenfell inquiry report, they accept the need for “robust” scrutiny of the implementation of the recommendations of both public inquiries and inquests. But transparency and accessibility by means of a public record of recommendations is not the same as robust scrutiny of implementation—they are two different things.

Both your Lordships’ Statutory Inquiries Select Committee and the Grenfell inquiry said there should be scrutiny by Parliament, and the Government’s response is silent on that crucial point. Without that, we are, frankly, no further forward. We have seen the disaster that happened at Grenfell following a failure to implement the recommendations of the Lakanal House inquest and the coroner’s prevention of future deaths report. If we had had robust scrutiny of implementation following the Lakanal House disaster, Grenfell probably would not have happened and certainly 72 lives would not have been lost. So are the Government prepared to accept that there needs to be scrutiny of implementation of public inquiry recommendations and inquest recommendations by Parliament?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that point. The Government are committed to ensure lasting transparency and accountability by creating a publicly accessible record of all public inquiry recommendations. We need to learn from past mistakes to stop them being repeated and ensure that a clear process is there on reforms. As I said in my previous answer, we will report back to Parliament annually, ensure we have quarterly updates on GOV.UK and continue to meet families and victims.

I was with victims yesterday with the Deputy Prime Minister, listening to the concerns and, naturally, frustrations. Lasting transparency is important; we also want to commit to enforcing a legal duty of candour through a new Hillsborough law. Your Lordships may recall that this is something we have talked about. We need to compel public authorities to disclose the truth, ensuring transparency in major incidents, such as the one mentioned by the noble Lord. We want to hold those responsible for failings to account, and we are committed to that.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. I thank the Minister for the information on PEEPs. When is “later in 2025”? It would be useful to know, and I look forward to seeing the detail. I remain concerned that the detail is not quite as clear as some of us with disabilities would like.

Following on from the other points noble Lords have made about the recommendations in principle, with recommendations 43 and 48 it seems that the Government are not quite doing it in full because it sounds like, first, it is onerous and, secondly, it might cost money. Yet one is dealing with voluntary organisations as first responders, and the second, and in my view much more important one, is about codifying the training required for local authorities and other category 1 responders. Why are they only in principle and not accepted in full, with the resources needed?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, on the question on PEEPs, the Government have committed funding this year, 2025-26, to begin this important work by supporting social housing providers to deliver residential PEEPs for their renters. Future years funding will be considered at the upcoming spending review. I will come back to the noble Baroness on which part of the year in particular.

The noble Baroness asked why we are not accepting those recommendations in full. I want to be clear: we accept all the inquiry’s findings and will address all the recommendations. However, we have to look at how we work through the recommendations. The commitment is clear—we accept them in principle. But there are different ways of dealing with this. As I said to her on the previous issue about the single regulator, there are some conflicts and we want to make sure that we do this, which is long-lasting, sustainable, makes a difference to people’s lives, and makes people feel comfortable and confident in the system as something they believe in.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I want briefly to highlight that the Grenfell United bereaved families and survivors group said that a single construction regulator could be a significant step forward if it was well resourced and tough on industry failure. How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that the new regulator will be totally independent and have impartial oversight?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl makes a good point. We will create a new single construction regulator to bring together oversight and enforcement. This will close gaps in regulation and ensure that those responsible for building safety are held to account. We accept the recommendations and will respond to them. That is something we are working on but, as I said earlier, we have to work through this. As we accept the recommendations in full, we need to do it in a way that does not have any conflicts of interest. It will take time, but rest assured that, for the issue the noble Earl raised, we will take that back, feed it into the system and ensure that we cover the pertinent points he raised.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, given the rigour, skill and knowledge shown by Sir Martin Moore-Bick, and taking into account the question asked earlier by my noble friend, will the Government consider inviting Sir Martin in one year’s time and in two years’ time to prepare a short report on the implementation of his recommendations? I am sure that the public and this House would deem it to be of great value.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as always, makes a very important point. We are working on the response to Sir Martin’s report. We accept the inquiry’s findings and will address all the recommendations. I will take that suggestion away and we will have conversations to ensure that we deal with the recommendations and work through all of them. We will explore the opportunity for noble Lords, if not here then in another setting, to have an opportunity to listen to Sir Martin’s recommendations and how the Government are doing.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the report from Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the Government’s Statement, but there is a legacy issue from what was put in place by the previous Government in terms of support measures for a defined range of properties considered most at risk following the tragedy. In light of the measures put in place concerning remediation under PAS 9980, which is the relevant standard, can the Minister explain what steps are now proposed to prevent that proportionate approach—bearing in mind there is an issue between critical life safety on the one hand and the safety of the building on the other hand? Those are two different risks. What does he propose to prevent that proportionate standard? There is also the issue of the lack of the Building Safety Regulator powers in relation to avoiding full remediation responsibilities where building regulation standards at the time of construction had not been met. The problem is continuing to impede remediation and to trap innocent homeowners with high insurance costs. I wonder if he could comment on that. He may need to write to me.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I kindly accept the invitation to write to the noble Earl, due to the specific nature of the very important question he raised.

House adjourned at 6.23 pm.