High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, it is a privilege to stand before the Committee today to address the important topic of high streets and the findings of the Built Environment Committee. I thank the committee for raising this debate and for its insightful report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for his opening remarks, and congratulate him on his appointment, replacing the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and filling what I see as big shoes. I thank the noble Lord for the work that he did in his role as chair.

This Government are committed to rejuvenating our high streets. We recognise the shifting tides of online and out-of-town retail, as well as the decline of local government funding by the previous Government, which have left our town centres depleted. However, like the committee’s report, the Government do not support a narrative of unmitigated decline, which serves only to sap confidence further. Instead, we should see the opportunities to reimagine high streets and to empower local places to deliver the right plan for their area. We must also recognise that high streets are symptomatic of wider issues in the economy and in society. To boost our town centres, we must address these root causes by investing in a stronger economy and in safer streets, as well as by empowering local leaders and communities to help town centres adapt to a world no longer dominated by physical retail.

That is why this Government are committed to transferring power out of Westminster and into local communities. The English devolution Bill will give local leaders the tools to kick-start their economies, as well as empowering communities to transform their neighbourhoods and high streets. We are expanding and deepening the powers available to mayors and strategic authorities. This includes integrated funding settlements for mayors who have a strong track record of delivery, as well as new powers over strategic planning to give all strategic authorities autonomy to plan for housing growth. Densified housing in our towns can address the need for homes, build new communities and support high street footfall.

We are also providing powers to help local leaders and communities take action to regenerate their area. One in seven high street premises currently stands vacant, yet our communities remain unable to retain vital assets. Community assets such as shops, pubs and community spaces have a significant role to play in developing social networks, encouraging community and promoting civic pride. Our “community right to buy” will empower local people to bring pubs and other important spaces back into the hands of the community, tackling the deep feeling of powerlessness felt by many in our society who care profoundly about preserving communities.

In addition, we are taking action against the familiar sight of shop fronts being boarded up and left empty for too long with high street rental auctions. The powers enable local authorities to tackle decline by bringing vacant units back into use, auctioning a lease to interested bidders and helping to make the high street more accessible and affordable for tenants, including small and medium enterprises, local businesses and community groups.

We recognise that businesses are vital to high street success. It is key that we create an environment in which they can flourish. To that end, we are making progress on reforming business rates. Parliament has now approved an Act enabling permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from next April. This permanent tax cut will ensure that these properties benefit from much-needed certainty and support. We have also established a licensing policy task force to make recommendations to reform the licensing framework in order to foster a vibrant hospitality and night-time economy.

We will also take action to address the rise of anti-social behaviour, which can be so damaging to businesses and off-putting to residents. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee and the creation of new offences in our Crime and Policing Bill, we will restore order in our town centres and empower the police to act against unacceptable behaviour. We will also provide more than £7 million in funding over the next three years to support the police in tackling retail crime.

I turn to the points made by noble Lords in the debate. I start with the points made by my noble friend Lady Andrews in relation to the plan for neighbourhoods. The Government recently announced the plan for neighbourhoods programme as a successor to the long-term plan for towns, which noble Lords referenced. The prospectus was published in March 2025; I commend it to noble Lords.

We are putting power into the hands of local people with our plan for neighbourhoods; the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, touched on this. This will address deprivation, regenerate local areas and unleash the full potential of places that have been overlooked for far too long. Neighbourhood boards are bringing together residents, businesses and grass-roots campaigners to draw up and implement plans for how they will spend up to £20 million of funding; this could be on repairing pavements in high streets, setting up community grocers that provide low-cost alternatives when shopping for essentials or establishing neighbourhood watches to keep people safe. We want to empower boards to tackle the root causes of disengagement and division, to bring people together so that they can feel proud of their area and safe in their neighbourhood, to restore a collective sense of belonging in their community.

My noble friend Lady Andrews asked me about the high street accelerators programme. This will now end in June 2025, at which point the Government will carry out a review of the programme to help inform future interventions on the high street. We hope that the current partnerships will evolve into sustainable teams that are embedded in the local area and continue to work on projects that help high streets to thrive.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, talked about high street rental auctions. We are proud to roll out this fantastic new tool to enable councils to reduce vacancy rates and the visual blight of empty shops. These powers are available to all councils to use right now, and we encourage them to do so.

To help with the initial implementation of the high street rental auctions, we have set aside a new burdens payment to cover costs, such as those borne through the notice and auction processes. Over £1 million of funding has been made available to support delivery for all local authorities in England to create high street vacancy registers and to support the cost of refurbishing vacant premises.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, talked about accessibility and physical well-being. Accessibility is an important issue. I fully agree with the need for inclusive design embedding physical well-being into high streets. The plan for neighbourhoods offers communities the option to invest in measures to improve access and physical health.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott, talked about transport accessibility. Effective transport is key to regeneration and plays an essential role in driving footfall to our towns and high streets. We have provided long-term funding to improve the transport network in local areas to transform and unlock regeneration opportunities. Local leaders will be empowered to choose the bus operating model that works for their area through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which was introduced on 17 December 2024. This includes several options to improve bus services, such as franchising and establishing new local authority-owned bus companies.

On the point about funding support for local services, local government is vital for the delivery of the Government’s missions and it delivers more than 800 services to local people every day. This is the front line of public services; it deserves a government working alongside it, as equal partners in power.

Taken together, the additional funding announced by the Chancellor at the Autumn Budget and through the 2025-26 local government finance settlement will provide over £5 billion of new funding for local services, beyond local council tax. This includes an additional £2 billion in grants through the settlement, a guarantee that local authorities in England will receive at least £1.1 billion in 2025-26 from the new extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme and a further £233 million for homelessness services. We are delivering a settlement that aims to strengthen the foundations of local government by providing significant investment and redirecting funds to the services and places that need it most.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, about funding, we will set a refreshed approach to local growth funding at the spending review in the spring. This will include more integrated settlements over the longer term, with less central direction and more local choice. This is a point that the noble Baroness asked me about.

On public services and amenities, when it comes to new government services, we already consider broader benefits where appropriate and will keep further options for provision under review. Departmental spending proposals must follow the principles outlined in the Green Book, which is the government guidance on appraisal.

I move on to another point raised in my noble friend Lady Andrews’ comprehensive contribution, and by other noble Lords, about a small business strategy. This year, the Government will bring forward a small business strategy that will set out our plan to support SMEs, including consideration of how best to support our high streets to make sure that they are providing vibrant places for our communities and fertile environments for our businesses. The small business strategy will also boost scale-ups in growing the co-operative economy, making it easier to access finance, opening up overseas and domestic markets, building business capabilities and providing a strong business environment.

We also have a programme called Experience on Main Street, which promotes UK creative businesses that specialise in placemaking to decision-makers responsible for high street regeneration projects; these include retailers, local and regional government, real estate owners and urban planners. This is all to encourage the reimagination and revival of high street spaces by using creative services and products.

The noble Lord, Lord Mair, made some very interesting comments about markets. I agree that markets are an institutional part of the high street and provide local areas with a valuable community space. The Government recognise the role that markets play in providing access to good-quality, healthy and affordable food and in providing local people with opportunities for social engagement and inclusion. They can also help to build the local economy by boosting footfall and providing opportunities for entrepreneurs and start-up businesses to test new and innovative products. It is for local authorities and other market operatives to decide how best to operate and manage their markets. We encourage local authorities and market operators to continue to support market traders as they consider the best path forward to help markets thrive.

My noble friend Lady Andrews asked about business rates. The Government are looking at business rates reform in the round. We have already legislated to reduce tax rates on the high street, and the Chancellor will announce further plans for this in the autumn.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Lord, Lord Mair, discussed the use classes for planning. The commercial, business and service use class—known as use class E —groups together various uses, such as shops, gyms, restaurants, offices, and medical or health facilities, which means that planning permission is no longer required to switch between those uses. This change enables premises to respond quickly to how communities want to use their high streets, giving business owners and landlords the freedom to adapt swiftly to changing consumer demand. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mair, and my noble friend Lady Andrews, we will continue to keep planning use classes under review, to ensure that they meet the needs of our communities and businesses.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked for more clarification about parking. We know that the practices and behaviours of parking operators need to change. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 places a duty on the Government to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities. This Government are determined to drive up standards in the private parking sector and will announce their plan for the new code in due course. Parking is the responsibility of local authorities, and this Government are keen to empower them to make decisions about their local areas, since they are best placed to consider how local needs can be effectively met through their local transport plans.

The noble Lord, Lord Mair, talked about arts and culture and about adding colour to our town centres and high streets, which shape and reflect society and are enjoyed by people in every part of our country. We announced over £270 million of investment for our arts venues, museums, libraries, and heritage sector. We also recently announced an £85 million creative foundations fund to help arts and cultural organisations, with varying scales of need, to resolve urgent issues with their infrastructure.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, discussed parish councils. We absolutely recognise that town and parish councils have an important role in improving the quality of life and well-being of their communities, and in creating places where people are proud to live. They are close to the communities they serve, know their communities’ needs and can champion the priorities of local people and design the right services that work for their places. The Government are committed to building stronger communities where people feel proud of their neighbourhoods and actively contribute to their development.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised money laundering. To be profoundly clear, I assure him that we take this very seriously. That is why we are building up local enforcement capacity and smashing the gangs. We will continue to look at what more we can do in this area.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. High streets arouse strong emotions. This Government recognise the challenges that high streets face and welcome the spotlight shone by this report. With the right actions and the right leadership, we can make a different future for our town centres—a future that is more sustainable, more resilient, more connected and more aligned to the way we live our lives today. How will we achieve that? I have outlined some of our policies, but let me summarise them.

From Burnley to Pendle, our town centres need a purpose and a vision, linked to jobs and amenities and tied into a wider local growth plan. This Government are making this possible by pushing powers and funding out of Westminster, delivering the devolution that is required to transform the prospects of our towns. Alongside this, we are fixing the fundamentals: boosting local government funding; giving a permanent business rates cut to retail, hospitality and leisure; deregulating our cumbersome licensing laws; and investing in skills, jobs and infrastructure up and down the country.

We are also wasting no time in showing people real, visible improvements now. That is why we are putting 13,000 neighbourhood officers on the streets, making new laws to tackle anti-social behaviour, giving councils new powers to force open vacant shops and giving communities a right to buy valued assets such as the local pub. Through the plan for neighbourhoods, we are giving the most deprived places funding to clean up their high street or give it a makeover.

In summary, we are committed to fixing the foundations of the economy on which our towns depend, while giving local people the tools to revitalise their communities now. This is an exciting agenda which the Government are so proud to be delivering. My noble friend Lady Andrews referred to “imagination, leadership and innovation”, and that is exactly what the Government are providing.

I thank the Built Environment Committee again for an excellent report, and all noble Lords for their wise contributions to this important debate. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who I know will do a brilliant job because he is from a smashing part of the country—Lancashire; he is my neighbour, in Pendle. It is great to be responding to him, as he is chair of the committee.

Climate Change: Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the increased risk of wildfires caused by climate change; and when they will publish a Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan.

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

My Lords, outdoor fires, especially wildfires, are expected by many academics to increase in frequency and impact, predominantly driven by climate change. The Home Office, as the former lead government department for wildfire, worked closely with Defra, its agencies and other stakeholders to identify policy options to enhance our resilience and response to wildfires. The outcomes of this work are currently being considered following the transition of fire functions to MHCLG on 1 April.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we are having a bad wildfire year, with 439 wildfires and 95 square miles burned already. By mid-April, the total burned area will be the second worst on record. Wildfires are devastating to people and property, and brutal to our biodiversity and net-zero efforts. I push the Government to do more. I ask the Minister to review our wildfire resilience plans for the rest of this year, to respond to the NFCC’s urgent calls for dedicated funding and specialist equipment, and for further action to improve public education.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl is right to raise this important issue. The numbers he highlighted are worrying. We are working closely with the NFCC. We continue to fund the national resilience wildfire adviser, who is tasked with reviewing capability and approaches across the fire sector. We are also providing proactive public safety communications on barbeques, cigarettes and open fires, in collaboration with the National Fire Chiefs Council.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that there are three key ingredients to a wildfire: ignition, oxygen and fuel load? As most of the owners of our treasured landscape do not look after the fuel load, they are complicit in the wildfire problem. Would the Minister check that Natural England has the right scientists on board to advise these NGOs and other owners, and that it is taking account of the latest science on wildfire?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl made an interesting point and spoke about the ingredients that contribute to wildfires. On his request to check with Natural England, I will go back and check with colleagues on this particular area. We work with stakeholders across the country, in particular local fire and rescue services and fire authorities in relevant areas. I will come back to the noble Earl with some assurances of the work Natural England is doing.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I encourage my noble friend the Minister to talk to the devolved nations and regions, particularly the Northern Ireland Executive. In Northern Ireland, there has been considerable prevalence of wildfires over the last months and the last few years. Could the Minister discuss with the devolved nations and regions causes and mitigation measures to ensure the protection of natural wildlife habitats?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to highlight that wildfire is a devolved issue. The national resilience wildfire adviser covers the whole United Kingdom. My department has a very strong relationship with the devolved Governments across all areas, but I will have conversations with relevant counterparts within the devolved departments—those in Northern Ireland in particular—and find out more about how we can do things more collaboratively, as this issue affects all our nations.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

Would the Minister look at the policy on moorland and the selective burning of firebreaks? Some of the policies, which do not allow any burning at all, mean that, if it does catch, the whole thing goes up and it is much harder to control. In the old days there was selective burning for producing firebreaks, which meant you could control fires much more easily.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Earl made an important point. I highlight that the responsibility for land management policies sits with my colleagues in Defra. I understand there are a number of methods that land managers may use to mitigate wildfire risk. Defra recognises that, in certain circumstances, prescribed burning may be the most important tool. Defra encourages landowners and land managers to adopt good-quality wildfire management plans and to use sustainable methods to manage habitats.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right to describe climate change as the driver for the wildfires. Mitigation is always good in land management plans and so on, but what about the initial point of climate change? What more can the Government do? Can they go further and faster on various issues?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right. I have said before about climate change. I understand the Met Office predicts that the UK will experience more frequent and intense weather extremes. It is widely believed that the impact of climate change is likely to increase and intensify fire incidence. We are already doing so much. We are the leading department for wildfire response and own wildfire risk in the national risk register. We are looking at relationships and co-ordinating across government between key wildfire stakeholders. We have already appointed a national resilience wildfire adviser, who we will work closely with, and are working with the NFCC on the very important issues the noble Baroness outlined.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, we have just seen quite a devastating fire on Beeley Moor in Derbyshire. Everybody would want the Government to do as much as they can to help educate adults. Have the Government considered banning disposable barbeques?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my thoughts are with the people affected by the fire in Derbyshire. The noble Lord makes a strong argument, and I will take that away with me to reflect upon.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I think we are all aware of the devastating recent fires in Los Angeles. If we understand correctly, part of that was due to underinvestment and lack of planning locally. I do not think the Minister quite answered the Question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, so I ask again: what are the Government going to do, particularly in rural areas, to make sure we have adequate equipment? That includes the availability of planes and helicopters for bringing water in, and training our firefighters to respond effectively to the risk of wildfires, which we are increasingly seeing.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government understand this issue. Officials have undertaken extensive consultation with stakeholders to consider current challenges and policy options, host workshops on prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, and produce a comprehensive policy scoping report to inform Ministers of the next steps on this important issue. Since the transfer of functions on 1 April, the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Local Growth has been working hard to meet key partners and understand the challenges facing the fire sector, including wildfire. I know he is committed to leading this work and continues to support our fire and rescue services to provide the best possible service to help keep our communities safe.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, could my noble friend take this opportunity to praise the work of our brave fire and rescue service operatives, who have to deal with these sorts of fires on a daily basis? Does this topic not emphasise the fact that, despite the great reduction in domestic fires in recent years, we still need a fully effective, well-staffed and well-trained fire and rescue service to deal with the modern challenges we face?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I praise all those brave people for serving our country by dealing with fire and rescue. I will make a particular point about resourcing: overall, fire and rescue authorities will receive around £2.87 billion in 2024-25, and stand-alone fire and rescue authorities will see an increase in core spending power of up to £65.5 million in 2025-26, which includes the national insurance contributions grant. This is an increase of 3.6% in cash terms compared with 2024-25. Decisions on how their resources are best deployed to meet their core functions are a matter for each fire and rescue authority. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders across the sector to ensure that fire and rescue services have the resources they need to protect communities.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, as we face this problem, the two most important things are prevention and mitigation. Will the Minister tell his department to review the current policy that prevents landowners creating firebreaks, as it currently does more damage to the climate rather than save it?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a really important point. As I said previously, fire functions have been transferred from the Home Office to my department. I will work very closely with officials and push them, particularly on the point the noble Baroness raises. I will also have a meeting with the designated Minister to scope the options, reports and approaches available here; we will make sure that her point is considered and reflected on in our discussions.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.

1C: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B to F. Motions A to D and Motion F ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B, 8B and 15B to 15E. The other place disagreed to these amendments on the basis that they interfere with the public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is sufficient.

Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B and 8B seek to allow the Treasury to exclude healthcare and anchor stores from the higher multiplier through regulations. As set out in this House previously, these amendments are unnecessary as the powers they seek to create already exist in the Bill.

The measures set out in Clauses 1 to 4 deliver on the Government’s commitment as set out at the Autumn Budget. Furthermore, they represent the first step of this Government’s work to transform the business rates system. It is essential that the Government are able to progress this work by taking this first step.

Further reforms will come, as the Government have made clear, and further information on this will be set out in the coming months. We want to start our journey with the Bill. Therefore, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments.

Amendments 15B to 15E would move the decision to remove charitable rate relief from private schools from one being made by Parliament in the Bill to one that would be made by the Secretary of State through regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure. I have already stated the Government’s view that this is a matter for Parliament to decide, which is why we have invited Parliament to do so through the Bill. For these reasons I ask that noble Lords do not insist on these amendments.

Motion E asks the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, not to insist on his Amendment 13B. The other place disagreed to this amendment on the basis that the Government have already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary. The first part of Amendment 13B is concerned with a review that would consider the impacts of Clauses 1 to 4 on properties with a rateable value close to £500,000. I understand that this is seeking to further understand the way that the multipliers in business rates operate and whether the thresholds within the system serve as a disincentive to invest. As previously set out in this House, the Government have already committed to looking at this question through the broader transforming business rates work, and therefore to stipulate this in legislation is not necessary.

The second part of Amendment 13B seeks a review of the merits of a new use class within business rates and an associated multiplier for online fulfilment warehouses. As I have set out previously, this question has arisen over recent years and is something in which the Government have an interest. First, I should be clear to the House that the Government’s intention at this time is to have only one higher multiplier and for that to be applied to all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. However, I understand that the noble Lord’s amendment is more concerned with the ability to target online-focused warehouses. I assure the noble Lord and the House that the Bill already provides the Government with the ability to introduce additional higher multipliers in future if required.

The noble Lord’s amendment explored how these online warehouses can be identified in business rates. We have looked at this again, and I remain sure that the best place to tackle this is through the digitalising business rates project. This project links together HMRC and VOA data from which we expect to be able to identify online businesses operating distribution warehouses separately from businesses that operate on the high street. I hope I can give the noble Lord some further reassurance on what we have found. The project will create opportunities to better target business rates policy in future by having access to more comprehensive data. Using this data, the Government could target particular types of businesses within the warehousing sector. I believe this is what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. Such an approach will do that systematically, using the latest data and technology, and give us the best prospect of a solution that can be fully integrated into the business rates system.

We are confident that this approach is preferable to one that looks to categorise how individual warehouses are being used on the ground, especially given that one warehouse used by one type of business may in practice be used in much the same way as another used by another type of business. Attempting to categorise warehouses by how they are used as opposed to who they are used by, without more accurate data on the businesses using them, risks capturing warehouses used by businesses that we are seeking to protect, creating a far higher burden on high street retailers. I am aware that the noble Lord feels that this is valuable, and I recognise that. I hope he can understand why the Government cannot accept the amendment. However, we are prepared to keep engaging with him on this matter, be that directly with him or with the three professional bodies he mentions in his amendment. On this basis, I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to insist on his amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The Bill not only fails to deliver on the Government’s manifesto but is far from the reform of the business rates system that was promised and will be a damaging blow to our high streets. We have debated the numerous issues present in the Bill a number of times, and I remain exceptionally concerned about the higher multiplier that will undoubtedly hit anchor stores in town centres; the impact of the blunt £500,000 threshold on businesses with values close to that margin, which will affect their decisions about investment; and the Government’s decision to place a tax on education. We have urged them time and again to rethink, but they remain unmoved by our arguments and, more importantly, by the views of people and businesses across the country. I hope that anchor stores will not leave the high street and that this will not result in the destruction of our town centres, but the Government are making it more difficult for those businesses with this blunt tool, which will hit larger stores with higher business taxes.

The Government have rejected even our amendments that would have allowed the Secretary of State to exempt certain businesses if this proved to be damaging, but they are so confident in this increase to business rates that they do not need that power to reverse these decisions. Only time will tell whether that confidence was misguided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few words about independent schools. Throughout, the Government’s position has been in essence that we have to take away—they say—some of the resources of 7% of our country’s schools to enable 93% to make improvements. State schools will gain little or nothing from Labour’s tax raid, which will simply harm independent schools. Throughout our debates, I have tried to provide a voice for small independent schools, as president of the Independent Schools Association, whose 720 members are, for the most part, cherished small local schools. As I have said several times, 40% of independent schools have under 100 pupils. Their future is now in jeopardy, thanks to this Government. Ministers will be held to account here in Parliament and in the country at large for the damage their policies will do to these schools, which contribute so richly to our communities in spheres such as special needs, music, the arts and sport, as I and a number of noble friends have shown in these debates. Labour’s discriminatory tax burdens threaten their very survival.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short debate, as well as all those who have dedicated their time and efforts to scrutinising this Bill. I am especially thankful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott of Bybrook, the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Jamieson, Lord Thurlow, Lord Moynihan, Lord Lexden, Lord Black of Brentwood, Lord Storey and Lord Shipley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. The time and consideration noble Lords have given to this Bill are greatly appreciated and, while I acknowledge that it is not always possible to see eye to eye, I hope they understand the appreciation I have for their efforts and expertise. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for their agreement not to insist on these amendments.

Through the Bill, we are beginning to deliver on our ambition to transform the business rates system. In taking our first vital step on that path, we are ensuring a sustainable, funded, permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties that will be provided from April 2026. Furthermore, the Government are delivering on their commitment to break down barriers to opportunity by removing the business rates charitable relief from private schools, to help raise vital revenue to support the delivery of the Government’s commitments to education and young people. I am aware that the noble Baroness does not agree with the Government on this matter, but I hope she understands our position, and that it is vital that we take the tough but necessary decisions to ensure that the same opportunities are afforded to all children, regardless of where they come from or their financial background.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, invited me to write a letter on a question. I am going to reject that invitation because I have the answer for her now. She asked specifically about the powers to exclude classes of properties from the higher multiplier if we wanted to in future. We have the powers in Clause 3. Specifically, the powers referred to in that clause allow us to exclude classes of hereditaments from the higher multiplier.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for his remarks. I am aware that he is concerned about the timetable for the digitalising business rates project. The solution to that problem lies in the linking of business and property data, and in the project itself. I look forward to engaging with the noble Lord, along with officials. Once again, I thank him and all noble Lords for not insisting on their amendments.

Motion A agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2C.

2C: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7C.

7C: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8C.

8C: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 13B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 13C.

13C: Because the government has already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary.

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15F.

15F: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, to follow on a little from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I want to say that I think most of us would be delighted to see a decent memorial and learning centre to the victims of the ghastly Holocaust, but not here. I am afraid it is a completely bonkers idea—and I want to put that clearly, because it is a bonkers idea. I would love to see Yad Vashem in London—and those who have not been there should go. It is one of the most moving places I have been to, and I have been three times altogether. It is absolutely extraordinary, but it could not possibly be in the space we are talking about. Perhaps it could be in the grounds of the Imperial War Museum, which wanted this learning centre in the first place.

I am not going to dwell on everything that has been said before. I just mention something that my noble friend Lady Fookes talked about—namely, green spaces. Every Government say that we have to have green spaces. I remember Rishi Sunak saying it, and I am sure that Keir Starmer would have said it—the Minister can bear me out if he has. We need green spaces for people, and I think I am right in saying that this is the only green space between Fulham Palace gardens and the other side of the City of London that runs along the north side of the river. That is pretty extraordinary—it is the only green space where you can walk beside the river without a road in the way and see it from a green area. It is extraordinary to want to destroy it when there are no others.

On security, to back up what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, a lot has been said, although I am afraid I missed the part on security. I do not know whether it was discussed last week—

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

It was.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I know it was discussed last week. But what do you do with all the people visiting if, for instance, the King were to die, God forbid? Did we discuss what would have happened with all those people visiting the late Queen Elizabeth? Thousands of people were in that park. Where would they go now? That is a very reasonable point. Also, I know it has been discussed at length but if we have renovation and renewal, or whatever it is called, there will have to be a slight discussion.

What I particularly want to talk about on my noble friend Lady Fookes’s amendment is the council and planning permission. I should declare as an interest that I am a resident of Westminster and, indeed, that my wife is on Westminster City Council. When it came before the council in, I think, 2019, it was turned down completely—I think, although the Minister might be able to tell me, not just by the Conservatives who were then in power but by the Labour Party as well. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think I am. It is very important that people understand that those are the views of local people. Again, I thought that not just Conservatives but the Labour Party wanted the views of local people taken into account, but they are not going to be on this.

I do not want to repeat everything that has been said. I will say just two things, to be answered by the Minister. Does the Minister believe that the views of the local people of Westminster count, or are we not going to have another planning application? Does the Minister believe in the importance of environmental and open spaces beside the river and elsewhere in London, or is everything just to be bulldozed and trampled over? If that is the case, we might as well all just give up anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have nothing further to say, my Lords.

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Fookes, for bringing these amendments. This group of amendments seeks to put in place a series of new requirements that must be met before progress could be made with construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre.

It may be helpful if I briefly remind the Grand Committee that a very extensive process has already been followed in the journey from the 2015 report of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. The commission consulted extensively before submitting its report, entitled Britain’s Promise to Remember, in January 2015. The recommendations in that report were accepted by all major political parties. An independent, cross-party foundation then 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.

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 gives the memorial the prominence it deserves and which uniquely allows the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament. The design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel after an international competition with more than 90 entrants.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Is it not true that the original commission put forward three positions, and none of them was Victoria Tower Gardens?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Yes, that is right.

After detailed consultation in which shortlisted schemes toured the UK and a major consultation event for Holocaust survivors was held, the judging panel chose the winning design for a Holocaust memorial with a collocated learning centre because of its sensitivity to Victoria Tower Gardens. Public exhibitions were held to gather feedback on the winning design ahead of a planning application. As the law requires, further consultation took place around the planning application. More than 4,000—

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister believe that the description “collocated” includes being in the same building? What the commission actually said was that the learning centre should be located in close proximity, not in the same building. If one organisation tries to tell you that in this instance “collocated” includes being in the same building, I am afraid that that is a definitional mistake and quite misleading.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can only refer back to the word “collocated” which was used about the Holocaust memorial alongside the learning centre.

I would like to make some progress and I know that I have a number of questions to answer. Please can I get through some of the background of where we are? I hope we can address the amendments, and I will take interventions, as required.

As I have said, as the law requires, further consultation took place around 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; I believe some noble Lords were there. All the details of the planning application—over 6,000 pages of information, all of which remains publicly accessible online—were closely scrutinised. The design team, and indeed the co-chairs of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, were cross-examined by learned counsel.

Following the planning inquiry, the independent inspector then submitted his detailed and lengthy report to the Minister with a recommendation that consent should be granted. The Minister agreed with that recommendation. The planning decision was, of course, subsequently quashed by the High Court, on the basis that certain parts of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 prevented development in Victoria Tower Gardens. That is why we are promoting this Bill: to seek Parliament’s agreement that the statutory impediment should be lifted for the purposes of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. However, the planning decision still needs to be retaken by the designated Minister—for the sake of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and other noble Lords in the Committee, that would be Jim McMahon—in accordance with proper procedures and in line with all relevant statutory requirements.

I turn now to Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. This would require a new planning application, which would take us back to 2018. I see no possible justification for such a step. The planning application submitted in 2018 remains current. The planning process which is under way has provided, and will provide, all the proper opportunities for consultation and scrutiny. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 21.

Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, calls for a new impact assessment. I have pointed out already that the impacts of the proposal have been studied in depth and a great deal of material has been published on the Westminster City Council planning portal. Noble Lords who wish to consider further the educational impact of the proposal could review the evidence provided by Professor Stuart Foster of the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education, who told the inquiry that the learning centre

“will offer visitors an engaging, interactive and dynamic experience … underpinned by rigorous scholarship and the advice and expertise of some of the leading academics and specialists in the field”.

It will

“offer different insights and critical interpretations of what Britain did and did not do in response to events”,

and

“will serve as a catalyst for deeper engagement and interest in Holocaust education across the country”.

For an assessment of the impacts on air quality, archaeology, soils, flood risk, traffic and water quality—and a great deal more—noble Lords could review the environmental assessment which remains available online. The expected costs of the proposal have been presented to Parliament and will be updated in line with the normal arrangements for major projects. This clause simply requires work to be duplicated, causing further unnecessary delay, so I ask the noble Lord not to move Amendment 34.

Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to insert an additional step into the process for obtaining all the required permissions and consents for construction of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens. Such a clause can hardly be justified. Both Houses of Parliament have had the opportunity to consider very carefully the case for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre at VTG; I need hardly remind noble Lords that this Bill has already received its Second Reading in this House, having been agreed by the other House last summer. It has certainly been no secret that the Government are promoting this Bill with the express purpose of enabling construction of the scheme for which planning permission was sought in December 2018.

Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords have the same opportunities as all other citizens and residents to express their opinions about any proposed development. In the case of this particular planning application, Members of this House made their views clear and spoke very forcefully at the planning inquiry. The Palace of Westminster of course has an interest as a neighbour to the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Like any other neighbour, Parliament can make its views known through the planning system and be confident that those views will be given due weight.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Does the Minister see any internal contradiction in what he says? He says repeatedly that these issues can be considered in a planning application, but at the same time he also says that the Minister can decide what to do about a planning application. As we have said repeatedly, there is absolutely no guarantee that there will be any space of any sort for these issues to be considered. Is it not important to the Minister that the original planning application was made six or seven years ago? Any politician will tell you that the world has changed—Westminster has changed, the atmosphere has changed and the climate has changed in the last seven years. How can it be right to ignore all of that, not answering the questions that have been put this afternoon, and ignoring the elephant in the room—that the project now proposed is a very far cry from that which was recommended in 2015 and accepted by David Cameron, then the Prime Minister? This is a million miles away from what was proposed and accepted then.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I politely disagree with the noble Baroness—there is no inconsistency. My job in promoting the Bill is to look at the two main clauses along with the third one, which says that the Bill applies to England and Wales. Planning permission is absolutely for the designated Minister. As a proposal of national significance, it is perfectly proper for a planning decision to be taken by a Minister rather than by a local planning authority. When these arrangements were challenged in a judicial review in 2020, that challenge did not succeed.

Perhaps I can just make some more progress. Like any other neighbour, Parliament can make its views known through the planning system.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

With the greatest respect to the Minister, if the Planning Minister is somebody different, why is he not here answering these questions today?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, that is not the way planning works. I will leave my remarks there, in the sense that it is up to the designated planning Minister how he takes this process forward, but there will be a planning process, which is right. It is not ideal for this House, through this Bill in particular, to be discussing planning applications. That is not the role of this Committee on this Bill in particular.

As I said before, Parliament can make its views known through the planning system and can be confident that those views will be given due weight. We have well-established provisions in place to allow a decision to be challenged if proper weight is not given. The Lords Select Committee considered this matter, and the Government were pleased to give an assurance that they would notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable following the reactivation of the planning process in respect of the current application.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down—I am sorry to harass him—

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Can I just make a point to the noble Lord?

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Of course.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am not anywhere near sitting down for a while yet, because I have a number of points to make—but I will take the noble Lord’s intervention then.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, raised this point in his amendment. The Government were pleased to give an assurance that they would notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable, following the reactivation of the planning process in respect of the current application. The planning process, put in place by Parliament and regulated through the courts, is the proper place for considering developments such as the proposed national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. There is no justification for seeking to add further steps into the approval process, which can only cause unnecessary delay and uncertainty. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 38.

Finally in this group, Amendment 42 from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, proposes that an additional approval should be required before the Bill could come into effect. This is a convenient place for me to respond to the questions put to me earlier by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, who I regret to say is not in his place today but who talked passionately about UNESCO—so it is ideal that I now talk to the points made by the noble Lord previously.

The Government’s obligations with regard to UNESCO were asked about. In brief, those obligations rest on Articles 4 and 5 of the world heritage convention. That convention initiated the world heritage list, which identifies the cultural and natural heritage across the globe considered to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. I need hardly say that the Government take those obligations extremely seriously.

The Government’s statutory adviser on the historic environment, including on world heritage sites, is Historic England, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said. There is a great deal of helpful information on Historic England’s website relating to the world heritage convention and its significance for the 35 UK sites currently on the world heritage list. In practical terms, as Historic England explains on its website:

“Protection for World Heritage in England is provided by a combination of the spatial planning system and national designations (for example, listed buildings, scheduled monuments, sites of special scientific interest … that cover elements, if not the whole, of the site. The heritage significance of a World Heritage Site (its ‘outstanding universal value’)”—


which the noble Baroness referred to—

“may be reflected, at least in part, in the significance of any listed building, scheduled monument … or other heritage asset that forms part of it where this relates to its”

outstanding universal value. It continues:

“The provisions and protections under the planning system that apply to any such elements within a World Heritage Site are an important element, ensuring that the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site is recognised and taken into account”.


Having addressed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on the general context, I turn to the specific example of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and its potential impact on the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey, including St Margaret’s Church, a world heritage site. In line with the provisions and protections of the planning system that I referred to a moment ago, the potential impact of the memorial and learning centre on the world heritage site and its settings has been properly considered and fully taken into account.

Historic England, in its role as statutory adviser, provided pre-application advice on the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Its written advice was in front of the independent planning inspector, who considered the planning application—as indeed a further statement from a highly qualified representative of Historic England was considered. That statement reminded the inspector of Historic England’s role

“in advising Government in relation to World Heritage Sites and compliance with the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage. It is the lead body for the heritage sector and the Government’s principal adviser on the historic environment”.

On the specific question on the impact of the proposal, the statement confirmed the view that Historic England has set out in its pre-planning advice, following a detailed consideration of the proposal. The view was that

“the proposals would not significantly harm the Outstanding Universal Value of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site”.

The planning inspector did, of course, have the benefit of hearing other opinions on this matter, including opponents of the scheme who took a different view from Historic England. The inspector, having heard all the evidence, was able to come to a fully informed view about the potential impact of the application on the World Heritage site. His assessment was that the proposed UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre

“would not result in compromise to the”—

outstanding universal value of the world heritage site—

“because it does not harm it or its setting, thus conserving it”.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Why, therefore, has UNESCO continued to reiterate its

“serious concerns that the proposed location of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre … would have a significant adverse impact on the OUV of the property, and therefore requests the State Party to refrain from any action which would allow the current proposal to proceed, and to seek alternative locations and/or designs”?

UNESCO has said that, I think, four times now.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can talk only about how the inspector, in his decision, has taken different views—opposing and supporting views—and has taken evidence from Historic England.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister—I know he wants to get on—but perhaps he could respond to my questions. What discussions have taken place between those who propose this project and the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO? It has a committee that has pronounced, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said. Why have the Government not taken into account its views—or, if they have, when did they, and did they persuade the committee to change its mind?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will have to come back in particular detail on the noble Baroness’s specific question. If she is asking whether the Government are talking to the DCMS, I say that of course our officials are speaking to colleagues in DCMS. That is an earlier question that the noble Baroness asked.

I remind my noble friend that this is not a planning committee. We are here discussing the particular provision of the clauses of this Bill. I apologise to noble Lords that I have to go into some detail on these matters. I hope the answer that I have given responds to the earlier questions from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, about the Government’s general approach as well as the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about UNESCO designations. I hope it reassures the House that the potential impact of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre on the Westminster world heritage site has been fully and properly considered.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, would have the effect of elevating the views of two eminent bodies, one British and one an international committee, above the views of the Minister designated to take a decision on the planning application. In effect, it would mean that the balancing exercise intrinsic to planning decisions could not be carried out. There is no good reason to make such a radical intervention in the normal planning procedures for this particular proposal. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 42.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I am sorry to harass the Minister. He is doing extremely well. My brief question is one that I asked beforehand, and it is encapsulated thus: does the proposal to build this memorial centre—not the memorial itself but the centre—override the Government’s proposal to keep open spaces, particularly green space, for families and particularly for children in Westminster?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My answer to that is that there will be green spaces. Some 90% of the park will still be green spaces. The whole project is 7.5% of the park. This has been discussed extensively in previous groups. There has been no lack of analysis, consultation and scrutiny in the process that has led us to this point. I accept, of course, that the process has not brought a complete consensus, but are we really expected to believe that, by repeating the process that began all those years ago, we would find a solution that would somehow meet everyone’s expectations? That is simply not realistic.

Our objective is widely shared, including by a succession of Prime Ministers and party leaders. Earlier this afternoon I was watching numerous Prime Ministers, from John Major to Gordon Brown, Theresa May, David Cameron and Tony Blair, all with democratic mandates and all giving strong support to this project. Numerous Prime Ministers and party leaders have shared widely their support to create a national memorial to the Holocaust, with an integrated learning centre, in a prominent location. An excellent design meeting our objectives has been put forward and awaits a decision on the planning application.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I detect that the Minister is in his peroration so I am grateful for him allowing me to intervene. He answered straightforwardly one of the questions that I posed—whom the designated Minister would be—but there are two others that he has not. He has made it clear that the designated Minister would have three options. He has been briefed by his civil servants that there are three options you can do. One is a full-scale planning application to Westminster City Council, which I believe will never happen. The second option was described by the Minister as a round table and the third was written representations to be received by the Minister. Clearly, the able civil servants in his department have invented those two other options. There must be a brief somewhere on what the round table and the written representations would do, and I would like to hear from the Minister, either today or at some time in the future, exactly what those other two options would involve.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to get involved in that. The reason why is that I am in no position to pre-empt what the designated planning Minister will do or the nature of his decision. That might require that the planning process is totally to be determined, and, within the options, he may have a particular focus on how he would like that exercised.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am sorry but the Minister may have misunderstood me. I am not asking for a decision on which option he will go for; I am asking for the details of the possible options that he could decide on. It is perfectly legitimate to ask, if the Government are saying that one thing will be a planning application, another thing will be a round table and the third one will be written representations, what details would be required in the round table. We are perfectly entitled to know that. The Minister must have had a brief on what it would be about; the department cannot pluck those three options from thin air without giving Ministers details of how they would operate in reality. I do not want to know which one he will go for, of course, but I want to know how they might work.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is perfectly reasonable of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to ask that question, but information is available on the website of the planning casework unit; the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has previously referred to it in this Committee. If it would help, we could send some more detail, in terms of where the website is and the address—as well as more details about the options that the designated Minister could pursue—to give the noble Lord more assurance around and confidence in the procedure. That would be no problem.

There is nothing to be gained by turning the clock back to 2015. All that this would achieve is to delay the creation of a memorial by many years. Few Holocaust survivors, perhaps none at all, would live to see the project completed—

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I must remind the Minister again that we are building not for the survivors, who already have something like six memorials and 21 learning centres in this country, but for the future. The survivors themselves would say that it is a mistake to hurry just because there is a possibility that it will be built in their lifetimes. That is not the issue.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can give noble Lords absolute confidence that the many Holocaust survivors I have spoken to are looking forward to seeing this Holocaust memorial built. It might not be so for everybody, but I speak in the context of my numerous heartfelt conversations with Holocaust survivors.

My point stands: few Holocaust survivors, perhaps none at all, would live to see the project completed. In those lost years, how many more opportunities to spread and deepen understanding of the Holocaust will be missed? How many millions of visitors will pass through Westminster who might otherwise have been prompted to reflect on the murder of 6 million Jews? How many visitors, young and old, will be denied the opportunity to learn objective facts on a topic of such profound importance? We should not be creating new hurdles, setting new tests or extending legitimate processes. Our aim should be to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre of which the nation can be proud, and to do it soon. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I am not surprised by the line that the Minister has taken. I may be allowed to express disappointment, but certainly not surprise, because it seems to me that, despite previous discussions in this Committee—particularly this afternoon—we have heard many and varied reasons as to why the situation has changed markedly from what it was six years ago or more, and that these should have been taken into account.

I am particularly concerned that we are overriding an Act of Parliament set up by somebody—originally as a gesture of good will and philanthropy, which was then endorsed by the 1900 Act—whose objectives, far from being over, are if anything more important now than they were before because it is a valuable green space in an area served by many people, often those without great assets or gardens of their own. We are now far more aware of the importance of the environment than we probably were in 1900. So, far from being old hat, this remains extremely important. That is where I start from.

However, I also look to the fact that the commission set up—it gave its verdict in 2015, I think—outlined the kind of memorial and learning centre that it wished to see. Clearly, that cannot be carried out fully in this very small space, so there is a great gap between what the commission said it wanted and what is now possible on a very restricted site. That is where I take my stand.

Sadly, I feel that the Minister has not been listening to the many and varied arguments put with considerable force, knowledge and eloquence by people serving on this Committee. I am sorry indeed about that, and I am particularly sorry that we seem to be getting nowhere fast. In those circumstances, I cannot see that any lengthy speech by me— or anybody else come to that—will change the Minister’s mind and, because we cannot have votes in this Committee by reason of the way it is set up, I can do nothing but seek leave to withdraw my amendment, but I do so believing that I am right about this. I am disappointed that we are not getting anywhere, so I seek leave to withdraw my amendment, but with a very heavy heart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, both amendments in this group seek to delay plans to deliver the memorial and learning centre unless it can be shown that the works will not negatively impact the process of the restoration and renewal. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his clear explanation of the timescales and the importance of continued discussion between the two projects. When I was Minister in the department, that was happening regularly, as were discussions on security and other issues, and it is important that those things continue. With respect, however, what we have here is one long-planned and undelivered project and another long-planned and undelivered project, and I feel it is now time just to get on with the important delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. It is not going to be as long a project as the restoration project, and we should get on with it and deliver what is important.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 24 and 41 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, deal with the important matter of co-ordination between the programmes to construct a Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the programme of restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. It is of course essential that care should be taken when planning these projects.

The House of Lords Select Committee gave a good deal of attention to this matter and addressed it in its report. It recommended that we should give detailed consideration to how the construction and operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the restoration and renewal programme will interact with each other, and accommodate the use of Victoria Tower Gardens by nearby residents and their children. We made clear in our response to the Select Committee that we agree on the importance of the interaction between the two programmes and that the interests of users of the gardens need to be considered. We will continue to work with the restoration and renewal programme to make sure that we understand those interactions and potential impacts.

It is worth noting—as the Select Committee made clear in its report—that the evidence presented to the committee was that the main restoration and renewal works would not begin before 2029 at the earliest. I also remind noble Lords that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is to be constructed at the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens—in other words, the opposite end of the gardens to the area which may be required during the restoration and renewal programme.

With all that in mind, we do not believe that there is good reason to expect any major practical conflict between the two programmes, and there is no reason that the construction and operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre should be contingent on certification by the authorities of both Houses of Parliament. It would be even less sensible to delay the entire project until the restoration and renewal programme is complete. The commencement of the construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is a matter for the statutory planning framework that Parliament has put in place to determine planning matters.

It is very important that I say this. I want to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, in particular, and I want to make sure that, after the great, eloquent contribution from the noble Lord, we pay due respect and have regard to the points he makes. I am happy to arrange a meeting to discuss it in detail and to show how seriously we want to see interaction between the programmes. The two programme teams already meet regularly to share information and co-ordinate plans to reduce potential impacts. Rest assured, they will continue to do so.

I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to withdraw Amendment 24 and not to press Amendment 41.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

We were presented, in the committee, with a plan that showed that, during construction, the whole of the garden area would have to be regarded as subject to works—in other words, the whole of the grass area, up to quite close to the memorials at the north end. Has the Minister taken into account the fact that the underground works may have to be dealt with by opening up the surface of the ground to construct the works underneath? It is not quite right to say that the effect of the Holocaust memorial is simply at the southern end of the grassy area; that is not what the plan showed. I simply ask the noble Lord to take account of that from now on in considering the interaction between the two, because the promoter’s plan showed that it would have to occupy the whole of the grass area, right up to the public path at the north end. That is a very important point, because it is one thing to say that it is at the southern end and the grassy area as a whole will not be touched, but that is not what the promoter’s plan showed. That is why there is more to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, than perhaps the noble Lord suggested.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I had hoped for an answer from the Minister about the atmosphere to surround a memorial. Can one imagine, for example, the Cenotaph or any other dignified war memorial in this country being right in the middle of a building site with, as I said, concrete mixers, builders drinking their cups of tea, and the dirt, dust and noise? Why is that okay for a Holocaust memorial when, I submit, it would not be contemplated for a moment in relation to any other holy commemorative or significant religious site anywhere else in the world, let alone in this country?

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will add to what the noble Baroness has just said. The Minister made clear that he wants the experience of visiting this Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be valuable from an educational point of view. I do not think that any teacher would be particularly happy about bringing their older primary school pupils or younger secondary school pupils to an environment like this. It is not a good learning environment. There are obviously so many other much better places for this to happen than a small park that will be used—not for ever but for quite a long period—as a base for building a renewed Palace of Westminster. It just does not make any sense. Will the Minister take this issue back and discuss it again with his colleagues to see whether some change of mind can result from it?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have finished my contribution and just want to ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I have no option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords on all sides for their many powerful and often moving speeches throughout the whole of this Committee.

Amendments 32 and 38A seek to require the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to focus solely on the Nazi genocide of Jews and antisemitism, and to be in conformity with Britain’s Promise to Remember: The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission Report. My understanding is that this is the Government’s intention, and I hope the Minister can confirm this.

This is the final group that we will debate in Committee. I conclude, as I began, with a clear statement of our support for the Government’s plans to deliver the Holocaust memorial and learning centre as soon as possible. As the Committee knows, I have worked on this as a Minister and will continue to work with the noble Lord opposite to support the delivery of this important project.

As I have said before, a Conservative Prime Minister made this solemn commitment to the survivors of the Holocaust, and we will stand by that commitment, made 11 years ago. This is not a promise to be broken. Eighty years on from so many liberations of concentration camps, we must get on and deliver the Holocaust memorial and learning centre right here in Westminster, at the heart of our democracy. We must do this so that the survivors who are still with us can see it open to the public. It is our duty to renew our commitment never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust. We support the Government in making good on that promise.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this final group take us to topics at the heart of the Government’s reasons for seeking to establish a new national memorial and learning centre.

Amendment 32 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would restrict the learning centre to providing solely

“education about the Nazi genocide of the Jews and antisemitism”.

The proposed new clause is well intentioned but overly restrictive and may have unintended consequences. First, it is unnecessary. The Bill—the clue is in its name—clearly refers to a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust and a centre for learning related to the memorial. This Bill is about a memorial to the Holocaust, not to all genocides or crimes against humanity. The learning centre will focus on the unique crime of the Holocaust and aim to set the historical facts in the context of antisemitism. No Holocaust memorial and learning centre could exist without a clear understanding of the roots of antisemitism.

The clause may also have unintended consequences. It may discourage the learning centre from exploring the context and complexity of the Holocaust, missing an opportunity to create an educational offer that would benefit visitors. From the start, we have been clear that, to understand the devastation of the Holocaust on European Jewry, it is crucial to also understand the vibrancy and breadth of Jewish life before the Holocaust.

The centre is also intended to address subsequent genocides within the context of the Holocaust, showing how the Holocaust led to the development of international law. It is doubtful whether either of these topics could be included in the learning centre under this proposed new clause. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar—formerly of Yad Vashem—with the support of an academic advisory group. They will ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I really do not understand; there are too many contradictions here. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott—presumably speaking for the Tories when they were in government—said quite plainly that it will include Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. I just do not understand what is meant by projecting the Holocaust on to other catastrophes. There are legal aspects but, as far as I know, this will not be an exhibition devoted to the legal meaning and development of the concept of genocide—although one could have a huge exhibition on that. I simply do not understand.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to repeat the arguments; I have laid them out very clearly.

Yad Vashem has been mentioned numerous times across the Committee for its excellent content. Having Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem—to be supported by an academic advisory group—will ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust. I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to withdraw Amendment 32.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for his Amendment 38A. I welcome the opportunity that it presents to draw attention to the report he mentioned, Britain’s Promise to Remember, which was published in January 2015 by the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. The commission, set up with the active participation of all the main political parties, conducted an extensive investigation into the state of Holocaust commemoration and education.

Rereading the report and its conclusion is a valuable exercise that can help remind us all of the context of our debates on this Bill. In his foreword, the chair of the commission, Mick Davis, recorded the statement of his fellow commissioner, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, who saw the commission’s work as

“a sacred duty to the memory of both victims and survivors of the Holocaust”.

The report reminded us that:

“The Holocaust was … a catastrophe for human civilisation”.


It is very clear that the commission conducted its work with a full and clear knowledge of the depth of its responsibility.

At the heart of the commission’s report was the recommendation that

“there should be a striking new memorial to serve as the focal point of national commemoration of the Holocaust. It should be prominently located in Central London to make a bold statement about the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust. This will stand as a permanent affirmation of the values of our society”.

This recommendation was accepted by the then Prime Minister in 2015, with cross-party support. Each subsequent Prime Minister has given the same commitment. The current Prime Minister, the right honourable Sir Keir Starmer MP, has unequivocally committed his Government to fulfilling that promise.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill)

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1, Motions B and B1, Motions C to F, Motions G and G1, Motions H and H1, Motions J to M, Motions N and N1, Motions P and P1, and Motion R. These Motions concern the measures in the Bill to enable the introduction of new multipliers from April 2026 in line with the Chancellor’s intention set out at the Autumn Budget.

As a reminder, it is the Government’s intention to introduce two lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and for that permanent tax cut for those RHL properties to be sustainably funded to also introduce one higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. Given the challenging fiscal context, this prudent approach is essential to ensure that the new lower RHL multipliers can be adequately funded from within the business rates system.

Motions A to M ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 1 to 12. The other place disagreed to these amendments on the basis that they interfere with public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is sufficient.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has tabled Amendments 1B and 7B in lieu of Amendments 1 and 7. These amendments seek to allow the Treasury to exclude healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has tabled Amendments 2B and 8B in lieu of Amendments 2 and 8. These amendments seek to allow the Treasury to exclude anchor stores from the higher multiplier.

We have discussed during the passage of the Bill the importance of having a higher multiplier that applies to all properties at £500,000 rateable value and above, and why this is the only fair way of raising the revenue needed to fund the lower multiplier. We have ensured that the Valuation Office Agency has published data on those hereditaments in the healthcare and retail sectors with a rateable value of £500,000 or above. The impact is very limited and, for retail, mostly limited to supermarkets and retail warehouses. I have previously provided the House with the statistics that show that, and they have been published by the VOA.

Nevertheless, I assure the House that the powers already contained in Clause 3 would allow the Treasury to exclude from the higher multiplier classes of hereditament based upon their use. The amendments put forward to Clause 1 are therefore unnecessary. Therefore, I respectfully ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott, not to press these amendments.

Motions N, P and R ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 13, 14 and 16. The other place disagreed with Amendments 14 and 16 on the basis that they interfere with public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is sufficient. The other place disagreed to Amendment 13 on the basis that the Government have already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has tabled Amendment 13B in lieu of Amendment 13 and Amendment 14B in lieu of Amendment 14. Amendment 13B seeks to require the Government to undertake a review of how provisions within the Act may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000. The amendment requires that this part of the review be laid before Parliament within six months of the day on which the Act is passed. Amendment 13B also sets out that that review must consider the merits of a separate use class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets. Amendment 14B is similar to the amendment previously tabled by the noble Lord but removes the requirement for the recommendations of that review to be implemented.

As set out previously in this House and the other place, Amendment 13, and now Amendment 13B in lieu, probe the way that the multipliers in business rates currently operate and whether this may serve as a disincentive to invest. This is something the Government have already committed to looking at through their work in Transforming Business Rates. The Government have published a forward look that shows that an announcement on reforms to be taken forward will be coming later this year. Reforms will be phased in over the course of this Parliament.

Furthermore, the objective set out now in both Amendments 13B and 14B, to identify fulfilment warehouses used by online retailers that do not have a material presence on our high streets, is something the Government believe they are already exploring through the existing digitalising business rates project. As set out previously in this House, that project will allow the Government to match property-level data with HMRC business-level data. This will help us to improve the way that we target business rates and identify property and businesses within the business rates system.

For these reasons, the amendments are not necessary as they are already being pursued through other government work. Therefore, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press these amendments. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I realise that I omitted to refer to Motion P1, which is in the same group. It is consequential on Motion N1 and will depend on the outcome of that Division.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short debate. We heard concerns that the measures in the Bill for new multipliers do not deliver on the stated intention of the policy as announced at the Budget. I do not agree with that. At the Budget, the Government announced their intention to introduce two lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties and, in particular, to end the uncertainty of annual RHL relief. RHL is a temporary stopgap measure that has been extended year on year since the pandemic, and it does not provide the certainty that businesses require. The Government, through this Bill, are taking steps to address that. It was also announced at the Budget that the permanent tax cut for RHL businesses needs to be sustainably funded. This is an appropriate and prudent approach. The challenging fiscal environment that the Government face requires this, but it goes without saying that any tax cut must be funded as part of sound financial management. To do this, the Government intend to introduce a higher multiplier for the most valuable properties, those with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. The higher multiplier will affect less than 1% of properties in England. This delivers on the policy set out at the Budget by the Chancellor. Furthermore, it represents the Government’s first step to delivering on their manifesto commitment to transform the business rates system to one that is fairer, protects the high street and is fit for the 21st century.

I have explained to noble Lords here today while the amendments tabled in lieu are not necessary. For these reasons and the other reasons I have already set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their Motions containing Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B, 8B, 13B and 14B.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response, which gave me no hope that the Government are considering relieving hospitals of the higher multiplier. We agree with him that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses should benefit from the lower multiplier in the Bill, but it should not be at the expense of the NHS. There are other ways of doing it, and I am appalled that the Minister has not sought to find alternative sources of income. So because we on these Benches wish to make sure that our hospitals do not lose a penny more in business rates to the Government, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.

3A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.

4A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.

5A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.

6A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion G

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.

7A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.

8A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.

9A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10A.

10A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.

11A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.

12A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 13, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 13A.

13A: Because the government has already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 14, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 14A.

14A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 15, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15A.

15A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion Q, I shall also speak to Motions S, T and U. These Motions relate to the measure in the Bill to remove charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities.

This Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and raising standards for every child and young person, no matter where they come from or their financial background. To do this, the Government need to concentrate on the broader picture towards the state sector, where most children are educated. That is why the Government committed in their manifesto to remove the eligibility for charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities in England to raise revenue to help deliver these important commitments.

This is a tough but necessary decision. This Government must act to restore public services and improve opportunities for all. Removing the eligibility of private schools for charitable relief will raise approximately £140 million per year. Taken together with the removal of the VAT exemption from private school fees, these policies are expected to raise £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30, which will help to deliver the Government’s commitments in relation to education and young people. The approach to this policy has been carefully considered. The Government have sought to ensure that the impact of this change on those children with the most acute needs is minimised.

Motions Q and S to U ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 15, 17, 18 and 19. The other place disagreed to Amendments 15 and 17 on the basis that they interfere with the public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason was sufficient. Similarly, the other place disagreed to Amendments 18 and 19 on the basis that these amendments are consequential on Amendment 15, with which the other place disagrees for the reason stated.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has tabled Amendments 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E in lieu of her original Amendment 15. These amendments move the decision to remove the charitable rate relief from one made by this Parliament to one which would be made by the Secretary of State by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for that statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has tabled Amendments 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E in lieu of her original Amendment 15. These amendments would move the decision to remove the charitable rate relief from one being made by this Parliament to one which would be made by the Secretary of State by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for that statutory instrument.

As I have said, this Government are clear that the relief should be removed from private schools. We believe that this is a matter that Parliament should decide, and we have invited Parliament to do so through this Bill. The amendment therefore seeks unnecessarily to move this decision from Parliament to the Secretary of State. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments. I beg to move.

Motion Q1 (as an amendment to Motion Q)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches believe that there is a principle at stake of not regarding independent schools as charities. Education is not a profit-making business, although independent schools have to cover their costs—which, as I have sadly heard, Fulneck School has failed to do. We will support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, if she wishes to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their important contributions in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has stated her firm belief that no education should be taxed. She has also reminded this House of her view, shared by the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, that the Government are creating a two-tier charity system. The measure delivered through this Bill is a tough but necessary choice to ensure that the Government can deliver on their commitments and break down barriers to opportunity for all. Tough choices are difficult—the Government know this—but they are also necessary. This Government will take these tough decisions because of the financial climate out there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm clearly that, through this measure, the country will obtain, for the first time ever, a two-tier charitable system? That is what he appeared to accept. This must be thoroughly undesirable. To remove a set of arrangements that independent schools, the vast majority of them very small schools, have enjoyed over centuries and to create two tiers must be a thoroughly retrograde step. To describe the exemptions that independent schools, like all other charities, have hitherto enjoyed as “tax breaks” is deeply unfair. Independent schools have been properly treated, along with other charities, for centuries—a position that ought to endure—and it is really shameful, given that independent schools are overwhelmingly small and cannot bear these burdens, for this state of affairs now to come into existence as a consequence of this legislation.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with the noble Lord. We are putting the Bill through because we, as the Government, want to deliver on our commitments and break down barriers to opportunity for all. Ninety-three per cent of students are in the state sector. The measures are necessary, tough decisions. We know they are tough choices, but they are necessary to make sure that we can support the state sector, where 93% of students attend.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister and I think he did not satisfactorily address the points made by my noble friends Lord Caine and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which addressed, in different ways, how independent schools form part of the fabric of our society. Nor did he really address the points of principle raised by my noble friends Lord Mackinlay and Lord Lexden, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. He understandably repeats the point about tough decisions and tough choices, but these amendments do not force the Government to do anything: all they do is allow the Government to change their mind gracefully if they find that their policy actions do not raise the funding that they had hoped. With that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 16, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 16A.

16A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 17A.

17A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 18, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 18A.

18A: Because the Lords Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 15 with which the Commons disagree.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.

19A: Because the Lords Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 15 with which the Commons disagree.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Scott of Bybrook, have tabled three amendments consequential to the amendments passed on Report. As these simply refine those amendments that have already been passed, we do not oppose them.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Through this Bill, the Government are delivering on the pledges set out in their manifesto. I thank all noble Lords who have dedicated so much of their time to scrutinising the Bill and have been diligently working with the Government to ensure that their desired outcomes align with the Government’s intentions. This has kick-started a long-overdue transformation of the business rate system, so that it can be fairer, protect the high street and support investment, and that it is a system fit for the 21st century.

On top of this, the Government seek to secure additional funding to help deliver on commitments to education and young people by concentrating on the broader picture of the state sector, where most children are educated. While there have been amendments made to the Bill for the Commons to consider, the Government do not accept them. The Bill, as it entered the House, would deliver on the Government’s missions to rebuild Britain. The amended state of the Bill does not go far enough in the ambition to kick-start economic growth and eliminate barriers to opportunity.

I extend particular thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Bybrook, Lady Barran and Lady Pinnock, the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson, Lord Thurlow, Lord Fox, Lord Moynihan, Lord Lexden, Lord Storey and Lord Shipley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for their considered approach to the Bill. I am grateful for the conversations we have had throughout the Bill’s time in this House. Their passion and expertise have been invaluable. Our discussions about the issues have been reflective of the strong feelings shared by many across the country. I thank noble Lords for their advocacy and participation. I also extend my gratitude to the Bill team—Zoe Hawthorne, Nick Cooper and Chloe Horn—for their technical expertise and handling of the Bill. In particular, I am grateful to my private office and my private secretary, Daisy Brittle. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, in concluding this Bill, I first thank my noble friends who have supported me, in particular, my noble friends Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lord Jamieson, in our work to protect high streets and independent schools. I also thank noble Lords from across the House, who have spoken in support of the many sectors that risk being negatively impacted by the Bill. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their work on helping businesses up and down the high street. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for his support in protecting independent schools, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for his amendment that calls for the reform to the business rate system that the Government have failed to deliver through the Bill. I thank the Minister for the very constructive and positive way that he has engaged throughout the passage of the Bill.

On these Benches, we are pleased that a number of issues, on which the House has been united, have allowed us to encourage the Government to make changes to the Bill. Anchor stores, manufacturing businesses and healthcare hereditaments will likely face increased business rates through these proposed changes, especially with regard to the higher multiplier. I hope the other place will consider the sensible amendments that retain the current standard multiplier for these crucial sectors.

The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jamieson is key in exploring the impact of the threshold of the higher multiplier. Its cliff-edge nature is particularly concerning, and despite the Government’s insistence that they want to focus on growth, this threshold will impact the decisions many businesses will take, and not in the direction that the Government seek.

The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is right to call on the Government to consider when they will pursue a reform of the business rate system, in line with their manifesto commitment, to ensure that online giants pay their fair share of business rates. As the Government have not delivered such reform, they should indeed commit to publishing a review of when they will do so.

As I said in relation to my amendments, I was pleased to see Clause 5 removed, given that it addresses directly the principle of taxing education and having a two-tier charity system. We on these Benches look forward very much to seeing the response in the other place to these very reasonable issues.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

For my part, I too add my thanks to the Minister for his willingness to engage at all times. As he now knows, business rates is a rather niche area of activity for your Lordships. I started my professional career just over 50 years ago in the Inland Revenue Valuation Office, so I have been tied to this problem for a long time. If I have come across as a bit of a business rates nerd, I apologise to the House.

The Minister mentioned Mr Nick Cooper, whom I have known a long time through several Administrations, and I think it was he who was astute enough to observe that this might, given that my time here may be limited as a retained hereditary Peer, this might be the last occasion on which I would have to bore your Lordships on a matter to do with business rates. So there is something positive for your Lordships to look forward to.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Bybrook and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my colleague and noble friend Lord Thurlow, for their willingness to discuss matters of crucial importance.

I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that the manifesto said one thing and this is not what we were led to expect. However, for all the talk and all the policy-making, and for all the manifestos, you do not get to alter economic reality, nor do you get to alter markets very much. Therefore, I suspect that the process of partial attrition which has gone on in the business sector, particularly over issues to do with high streets, will continue, so long as the root and branch reform that is so badly needed and which successive Administrations have promised is not delivered. It is tough when you are dealing with something that is cheap to collect, but we must understand the consequences of lack of fairness and lack of balance, and what this means for business decisions made here and where moving an operation abroad is an alternative.

Finally, I thank Jerry Schurder and Simon Green of Newmark surveyors, who have been an unfailing source of useful information on the background to current business rates. I am not a current practitioner, so I pay tribute to them and to others from the Rating Surveyors’ Association and the RICS, both of which I am a member of.

With that, I wish this Bill well. I am certain that it will reappear. I am not complacent that this is the last word on the matter, but we have given it our best shot in what is a rather difficult and complicated area. I wish it well and share the views of other noble Lords in hoping that the other place has regard to the rationale behind our efforts.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

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.