Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I begin with a few words of thanks, first to my honourable friend in the other place, the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, who has worked very hard in bringing this important Bill through the other place and to this noble Chamber. I also extend thanks to my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. His introductory speech has made clear the benefits of the Bill, and his commitment to working to support it through this Chamber is clear.

I thank all noble Lords for being here today to discuss this important legislation. Postal and proxy voting is an important enabler of democratic participation, one we are proud to champion, and I am pleased to see there is interest across the Chamber in these measures.

The Government share my honourable friend’s commitment to the Bill. At this moment in time, voters in Scotland and Wales can use the online absent vote application service to apply for postal and proxy votes, but only for reserved elections, such as to the UK Parliament. If those same voters in Scotland and Wales wish to use the new online service to apply for an absent vote for a devolved election, then they will find themselves unable to do so. This means any voter in Scotland or Wales who wishes to apply for a postal or proxy vote in a devolved parliamentary or local election still needs to complete a paper application form.

The Bill creates a legal framework to give voters in Scotland and Wales an equal choice in how they apply for their absent voting arrangement for use in Senedd Cymru, the Scottish Parliament and local elections in Scotland and Wales. The Bill also includes some changes to align application procedures, as my noble friend has outlined.

To bring these services online, further regulations will be designed and delivered by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, who have responsibility for devolved elections. There are clear benefits to introducing the online absent vote application services to voters in Scotland and Wales for devolved elections, for both electors and administrators.

By introducing these services, people in Scotland and Wales will get the choice to apply online for a postal or proxy vote for devolved parliamentary and local elections, as well as retaining the existing option for electors to apply using a paper application, if they wish to do so. One such clear benefit is the removal of the need for duplicate applications to be made by electors if they desire an absent vote for both devolved and reserved elections. This means that electors will spend less time making applications, and administrators will spend less time processing them. The Bill has been welcomed by the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, and those working in the Scottish and Welsh electoral sectors.

I will now quickly respond to some of the points that noble Lords have raised. In particular, the noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord Hayward and Lord Mott raised consolidation of electoral law. While we understand the calls for consolidation of electoral law, major reform would require careful consideration and an extensive amount of time. A full-scale consolidation and simplification would require an in-depth review and modernisation alongside consolidation; to achieve this would be the job of more than one Parliament.

This Government have an ambitious agenda to improve our elections, including giving 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote in all elections and strengthening the rules around donations to political parties. We are focused on delivering that agenda. However, we are cognisant of the challenges facing elections teams and will continue to look at areas which help to modernise and improve electoral process and delivery.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, made a point about automatic registration. We are taking action and laying the foundations to make the registration process simpler and more automated in the coming years. Moving to an automated registration system will happen gradually and will take time. We intend to actively explore and test new and more automated methods of registration. For example, in Wales, the Welsh Government are already piloting approaches to automatic registration, and we will eagerly await the results of those pilots.

The point about a national registration day in schools and colleges is an important one. I assure the noble Baroness that I will take that away to my colleagues in the Department for Education to make that representation and see what more they can do to promote registration among 16 and 17 year-olds, and even 18 year-olds, in the future, so they have more awareness and education of this.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, is right to remind me of what I said about the policy and guidance statement, and my voting record. However, I say absolutely clearly to the House that an independent Electoral Commission which discharges its duties without fear or favour is vital for public confidence in our democracy. The Electoral Commission remains operationally independent, with electoral commissioners and the commission’s executive leadership responsible for determining how the commission should discharge its duties, including its strategic priorities and day-to-day operations.

The action we are taking to strengthen enforcement of the political finance framework will mean significant new powers and responsibilities for the Electoral Commission as a regulator. In light of these new responsibilities, the Government intend to designate a new strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, to reflect the Government’s priorities for elections and the commission’s increased roles and responsibilities.

To conclude, as my noble friend has mentioned, the Bill requires further legislation to be made through the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. The Scottish and Welsh Governments alone have the responsibility to make any decisions relating to implementation. We recognise the drivers behind any decision that the Scottish and Welsh Governments may make, including the importance of communicating clearly with electors, and maintaining the Gould principle as much as possible, to reduce the risk of critical errors undermining electoral integrity.

Regardless of the implementation timetable, the Bill lays the essential foundation for this service to come online for future devolved elections. We will continue to work closely with the Scottish and Welsh Governments moving forward, including on technical aspects of the Bill’s implementation.

I very much hope that all noble Lords will support this important Bill before us today.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the development and implementation of local area energy plans. The proposals raise important questions about the role of local authorities in our transition to a decarbonised, secure and efficient energy system. We have heard some thoughtful contributions about the tensions between local and central government, but also of the enormous potential when the right balance can be struck between the two.

Let me begin with Amendment 90, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which would require all local authorities to prepare and publish local area energy plans. These plans would outline current and future energy needs and the decarbonisation pathways to meet them. The underlying intent here is one we can all recognise. The energy transition cannot be delivered only centrally; local authorities must have a clear understanding of their energy demands and the means to meet them sustainably. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made a number of good points, reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on which we might all agree in principle.

However, while we acknowledge the ambition behind this amendment, we would caution against placing an additional statutory duty on all local authorities, particularly at a time when many face stretched resources and competing priorities. A blanket requirement risks creating a burden of compliance that may prove challenging for councils already struggling with core service delivery. We must ensure that our expectations of local government are realistic, proportionate and backed with adequate support.

Amendment 177, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, seeks to define the consultation and approval process for local area energy plans and mandates the provision of guidance to assist local authorities in their preparation. We recognise the positive intention here to provide clarity, consistency and technical support to authorities seeking to engage with this important agenda. This amendment also aims to widen the uptake of such planning and to define better the role of local authorities in delivering the future energy system. Those are commendable aims. While we must avoid onerous procedural hurdles or risk diverting local effort away from practical delivery into process-heavy reporting, we hope the Minister will consider this amendment carefully.

In conclusion, these amendments rightly draw attention to the importance of empowering local authorities in the energy transition. I welcome the debate and the ideas put forward, but urge a cautious, pragmatic approach. I look forward to the Minister’s response and any reassurances he can give on the Government’s direction in this space.

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

My Lords, I start with Amendments 90 and 177, which relate to local area energy plans. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Ravensdale and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for tabling these amendments.

Amendment 90, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require all local authorities and combined authorities to produce a local area energy plan. The Government are committed to working in partnership with local government, in recognition of the essential role that local places play in accelerating to net zero and supercharging our mission to deliver clean power by 2030. We recognise that, in support of this role, some local authorities have already produced local area energy plans and have used them to plan for the investment they need to support the energy transition and deliver net zero in their areas. We welcome the work that many local authorities have undertaken to develop and deliver their local energy plans. Local authorities may well be considering how planning their future energy needs may form part of their local growth plans or help contribute to Ofgem and NESO’s work on regional energy strategic plans.

However, this is not the right time to place further burdens on local authorities, while the approach to energy planning is still under development. We are considering how these plans might align with a range of regional and national plans, including the regional energy strategic plans, the warm homes plan, heat network zoning and Great British Energy’s local work. With that in mind, we continue to consider the potential benefit of local net-zero plans, working with partners across central and local government such as the local net-zero hubs, Great British Energy, NESO, Ofgem and Innovate UK.

We are also learning from the work of several local authorities in England which have already undertaken to develop their own plans, in recognition of the important lessons that can be learned from local authorities. In the meantime, local authorities that wish to assess whether energy planning fits with their wider strategic plans can access a range of support to help them develop local plans, including the tools and advice available on the Net Zero Go digital platform, supported by the department and the advice and support available to them from their local net-zero hubs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s response to my amendment and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. However, I am hearing from the Minister that this is not the right time to do this stuff. I understand that the Government are actively drawing up different strings and bits of policy and bringing them together. However, if now is not the right time, when might be the right time?

The Minister says that the Government are drawing together policy but also that there are loads of policy guidance available for local authorities that want to do this. The two statements are almost contradictory. Now is not the right time for the Government to give guidance, but guidance is available to any local authorities that want it. My worry is that this leads to guidance that is much more open to interpretation, which the Government do not have proper control of and which could be followed in multiple different ways without the Government having control over it. I strongly ask the Minister to think again on these matters. These are really important issues. I recognise that the Government are forming policy, but forming policy and working with local authorities are not contradictory things. These are everyday matters of government.

I thank the Minister for his response but call on the Government to think again.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Earl’s contribution, but I politely disagree in that there is a lot of advice and support from local net-zero hubs funded by DESNZ. I understand and sympathise with what he is saying. We have all said today that we want to get moving as fast as we can, in a speedy manner, and to grow. This is all part of the agenda. We want to make sure that we get things right, be concise and have the right level of engagement and consultation, to ensure that when we have the clear plan moving forward it is well understood and implemented and does not have unintended implications or consequences.

[Lord Ravensdale (CB)]

I want to complement what the noble Earl just said. A couple of years back, when I raised this as part of the Energy Act 2023, I remember being given a similar response: this was still being considered by the Government as part of how it would fit into the bigger picture. But I think the Government need to recognise the real importance of that governance-level flow-down from national to regional to local, the importance of local understanding in this picture and the real priority that needs to be placed on developing this guidance and strategy for local areas to take it forward. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I take note of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, complementing the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I recognise that there is a lot of work to do. I appreciate that the noble Lord has raised this before, but now we actually have a Planning and Infrastructure Bill which will very much fix the foundations of the whole growth to net zero and clean energy 2030.

My final and important point on this is that now is not the right time because we do not want to put further burdens on local authorities while we are still developing and finalising our energy planning. That is still under development, but I reassure the noble Lord that we are on it. We want to make sure that this happens as fast as possible, and this Bill will help us to change a lot of the infrastructure, thinking and systems in place in order for our country to grow.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee, in particular the issue of concentration of power supply and potential implications. This amendment would limit the consent for electricity infrastructure within a 50-square mile area where the cumulative capacity is more than 10% of the country’s total. This raises several important questions for the Government. What assessment has been made of the cumulative impacts on a local area already hosting significant infrastructure? Additionally, how will fairness between different regions be measured and maintained? What mechanisms are in place to prevent overconcentration in certain areas at the expense of others, given, as my noble friend mentioned, the potential strategic risks to the country? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 94C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would create a new local area test, designed to limit the consenting of electricity infrastructure by reference to a percentage of the national total. In other words, it is addressed at the overconcentration of infrastructure in particular places.

The Government agree with the noble Baroness that the siting of electricity infrastructure should be considered carefully. While the Government are taking a strategic view, they are doing so via the strategic spatial energy plan and the centralised strategic network plan, due for publication by the end of 2026 and 2027 respectively.

It is unclear how exactly the amendment is intended to work in practice, given the complications of concepts such as cumulative capacity. It is not in the national interest for individual applications to be assessed or prevented by reference to a subjective threshold. They must be judged on the need case for the infrastructure weighed against local impacts, and that is precisely what the current system achieves. For projects designated as nationally significant, known as NSIPs, there is already a national policy statement, approved by Parliament, which sets out in detail the need case for this infrastructure and all the considerations that must be applied when consenting it.

This amendment would add further complexity to the consenting system, which could lead to a slowing down of the decision-making process for low-carbon and electricity infrastructure projects, which are crucial for this country—although, in practice, the threshold of 10% of the entire country’s electricity capacity is so high that it is highly unlikely that any project would in fact reach such a threshold.

The Government agree that infrastructure planning should have a special element. The strategic special energy plan will support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure across England, Scotland and Wales, land and sea, between 2030 and 2050. It will do this by assessing and identifying the optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage to meet our future energy demand with the clean, affordable and secure supply that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to talk to Amendment 94D, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. This amendment concerns constraints on grants delivered by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority. I simply ask the Minister whether he can clarify how the Government intend to ensure that such grants are awarded in a way that is both transparent and consistent across different technologies. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 94D tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to prohibit the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority—GEMA—from granting or considering early construction funding or accelerated strategic transmission investment unless planning consent has already been secured.

While I understand that network companies should not be given excessive funding for projects where procurement or construction costs are not yet incurred, I must urge noble Lords to consider the unintended consequences that this amendment would have for our energy infrastructure and our collective ambition to deliver a net zero-ready grid.

Let us be clear: the mechanisms in question, early construction funding and ASTI, are not blank cheques. They are carefully staged investments, including stages designed precisely to support the preparatory work that enables planning consent to be sought in the first place. This includes environmental assessments, route design, stakeholder engagement and technical feasibility studies. These are not luxuries; they are prerequisites for any responsible and successful planning application.

To deny access to funding before planning consent is granted creates a paradox. Planning consent cannot be obtained without preparatory work, and preparatory work cannot be funded without planning consent. This amendment risks trapping vital transmission projects in a bureaucratic cul-de-sac.

We are not debating theoretical infrastructure; we are talking about the backbone of our future clean energy system—projects that will connect offshore wind, solar and other renewables to homes and businesses across the country. These are the arteries of our economy. Delaying them risks not only our clean energy mission and net-zero commitment but the security and affordability of our energy and wider economic growth as grid capacity is needed to power new investments.

Moreover, GEMA already operates under a rigorous framework of accountability and oversight. Funding decisions are not made lightly; they are subject to scrutiny, cost-benefit analysis and alignment with strategic national priorities. To impose a statutory constraint at this stage would not enhance that process but hinder it. I therefore kindly ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for bringing Amendment 94F to the attention of your Lordships. It would ensure that the duty relating to environmental principles was published in full. I ask the Minister: how are the Government going to monitor compliance in relation to environmental principles? As importantly, how will Parliament be kept informed of progress in this area? I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for tabling her amendment and allowing us to ask those questions, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I was beginning to feel a bit of déjà vu before the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, spoke in place of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.

Amendment 94F, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to ensure that where an energy infrastructure project requires an assessment in relation to the environmental principles policy statement by the Secretary of State or the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, this assessment and any advice provided and considered as part of that assessment is published.

As highlighted throughout today’s debate and in earlier discussions on the Bill, it is essential that we press ahead and deliver the critical infrastructure that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 and to achieve a clean power system by 2030. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling this amendment and for the opportunity to set out both how the environmental principles policy statement and the environmental principles more broadly are given due regard by this Government.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seeks to require the Secretary of State to designate certain electricity network upgrade works as permitted developments within 12 months of the passing of this Act. I refer the Committee to my register of interests, including as a developer of solar and wind energy generation infrastructure.

The amendment is detailed and specific, covering a range of necessary and often routine upgrades to our distribution network. These upgrades are not exceptional; rather, they are part and parcel of the essential modernisation of our grid. As demand for electricity grows, driven by electric vehicles, heat pumps, an increasing shift to electrified systems and the construction of new data centres, so, too, does the need for a distribution network that can meet that demand safely and efficiently.

The concerns raised by the noble Earl in bringing forward this amendment have merit. Local electricity distribution is hampered by regulatory delays, planning burdens and procedural hurdles, which can slow down or increase the cost of what are in many cases necessary infrastructure improvements. We understand the motivation to streamline these processes and provide industry with greater certainty. However, there are important questions around local engagement, visual impact and environmental considerations, which would need to be worked through. Permitted development rights by their very nature bypass certain planning safeguards, and we must take care not to undermine public confidence in the system by extending them too broadly or too quickly. I ask the Minister whether there are other ways of simplifying the decision-making on such upgrades.

Amendment 94E in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to extend permitted development rights to include the installation of floating solar panels on reservoirs. At a time when we are seeking every opportunity to expand renewable energy without placing additional pressure on land, utilising existing bodies of water in this way may present a pragmatic and low-impact solution. My noble friend makes an important and timely point about the potential of underused spaces to contribute to our energy goals. I hope that the Government will look closely at how permitted development rights can help facilitate the responsible deployment of floating solar technology.

In a similar vein, Amendment 185B in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas seeks to expand permitted development rights for small-scale onshore wind turbines up to a height of 30 metres. This, too, is a proposal worthy of consideration. Enabling more local generation of renewable energy, particularly where there is community support, can play a valuable role in decarbonising the grid and improving energy security.

I look to the Minister to provide clarity on the Government’s current thinking in this area and to address the important questions raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Lucas. Specifically, I hope that he can reassure the Committee that the Government recognise the need for timely electricity network upgrades and are actively considering how the planning framework can support that aim while balancing the interests of local communities and the environment.

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

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising this important issue through Amendment 77. The Government fully recognise the need to accelerate electricity network upgrades to support the transition to net zero. We agree with the intent behind this amendment and with many of the specific proposals that it contains. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill at this time. The amendment proposes exemptions from the consent process under the Electricity Act 1989. These are technical and regulatory matters that are generally best addressed through secondary legislation, following proper consultation.

The Government launched a public consultation on 8 July; it closes tomorrow. It includes proposals that closely reflect those in this amendment and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders, including network operators, landowners and local authorities. The Government must undertake a thorough evaluation of consultation responses to understand any stakeholder concerns or unintended impacts ahead of implementation. Introducing changes now, whether through primary or secondary legislation, before that work has been done would pre-empt the consultation process and risk undermining the careful balance that we are trying to strike between speeding up delivery and protecting landowners’ rights. We are committed to acting quickly once the consultation process is complete, but we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sound. For these reasons, I kindly ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for raising the important issue in Amendment 94E. The Government are committed to achieving clean power by 2030. We will need to see significant increases in the development of all types of solar, whether sited on land, rooftops or water, to achieve this mission. The Government are therefore supportive of floating solar and consider it a technology ripe for development, especially considering the increased efficiency of solar panels on water and the wider benefits of preventing algal blooms and reducing climate-related evaporation. An effective planning system is pivotal to delivering our clean power mission. The system must work in a way that supports both new infrastructures, such as floating solar, and more established technologies.

The noble Baroness may have seen that the Government published their first ever solar road map on 30 June; it commits to more than 72 ambitious actions across several areas, including planning. The road map includes a section on the opportunities of floating solar and identifies the needs both to provide clarity on the planning requirements for what is a relatively new technology in the UK and to ensure that these measures are proportionate. In the solar road map, the Government made a clear commitment to explore how planning levers could further support floating solar projects. This work will be overseen by a new government and industry solar council, which is being set up to assist in driving forward and monitoring progress on solar road map actions. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill. I believe that it is only right that we conduct further work to ensure a strong evidence base on potential proposals and ensure that we have considered the breadth of benefits and impacts. I hope that the noble Baroness is content with this response; I kindly ask her not to press her amendment.

Amendment 185B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to classify some small-scale wind turbines as permitted development, provided certain conditions are met. I am grateful to the noble Lord for this amendment. He may have seen that the Government published their first ever dedicated onshore wind strategy on 4 July; it commits to more than 40 ambitious actions across several areas, including planning. One of the opportunities identified in the strategy regards small-scale deployment. The Government recognise the importance that small-scale onshore wind developments could play in achieving our wider decarbonisation goals and want to consider changes to the planning system to better support it—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the rules that determine whether a turbine can be classed as permitted development and not require a full planning application have not been updated for over a decade. With advances in technology and increased demand for small-scale generation, there may be opportunities to update these rules. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that the Government committed in the onshore wind strategy to publish a consultation this year on whether existing permitted development rights are fit for purpose and could support other forms of small-scale onshore wind deployment. I believe it is only right that we conduct a full consultation to gather views, insights and evidence on potential proposals, and ensure that we have considered the breadth of the benefits and impacts.

I hope the noble Lord is content with this response. Before I ask him to withdraw his amendment, I will respond to the very important point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. The Government recognise the urgency of reform and have already taken action. We have published the 8 July consultation; we will gather views on proposals and we are committed to bold and effective reform, but it is essential that we understand the full impact of these changes on all those involved. We will move at pace to bring forward any necessary legislation once the consultation analysis is complete. I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Coming back to Amendment 77, I mention one word: growth. We are trying, with cross-party effort, to reform the planning system and speed it up. I hear some good ideas from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Lucas and others, yet we are having another consultation and another quango—doing something “in due course”, at some time, somewhere else. This is the flagship planning Bill, and I want the Minister to consider whether there is more we can do in it to set a better tone on speed and growth, and to get local authorities to move forward on the things which, as many agree, are bureaucratic and unnecessary.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, can the Minister give us some idea of a timetable for this, given that there is total unanimity that we are not in a sensible position and we need growth and to move this whole proposition forward? The consultation is about to end. Will we get this fixed by the end of the year, for instance? Could we be revolutionary and have something ready for Report? I am interested to hear from the Minister.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

We all share the opinion that we need to get this Bill on to the statute book speedily and to ensure that we have the growth to which the noble Baroness alludes. However, we need to do this by reflecting on and responding to the consultation, and for that to happen, we have to wait for it to finish—which is tomorrow, by the way. We will look diligently and carefully at the responses and ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose, growth and development, so that this country grows. This Bill will play its part, but there will be secondary legislation following consultation. We hear noble Lords’ desire, which is also the Government’s; we are all on the same page, and we want to move robustly and diligently in considering the consultation that we launched.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments. It has been a very useful group, and I note the unanimity around the House on these issues.

I thank the Minister for his response. I note that there is a consultation, which is closing tomorrow, on some of these matters. I would be interested to know which bits of my amendment are not in the consultation and how the Government plan to take those forward. I also press the Minister to take them forward as quickly as possible. If there is any scope for having conversations between now and Report, I would welcome that. If we can collectively take action on these matters where we agree, and make progress, that would be welcomed across the House. A government amendment on Report would also be greatly appreciated.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her important amendment. It is important that floating solar is not excluded. As she said, it is a nascent technology, subject only to the issues of not taking up water and leisure space, and perhaps that of drought. I absolutely welcome her amendment and hope that it can progress as well.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his amendment. I am not certain I can promise him a bonfire of regulations from my party hierarchy, but I support the amendment he has put forward, subject only to that one drafting issue. It is in exactly the same spirit as my amendment but comes from a different place, looking at what we can do to provide permitted development for such things.

Across these amendments, there is some interesting uniformity and common purpose on getting these things done, and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 77.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I just want to welcome that speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. It was excellent in its tone and entirely different from that of her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Offord, when he spoke from the Front Bench. I congratulate the noble Baroness.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to her place on the Front Bench. I look forward to the exchanges ahead.

I turn to Amendments 78 and 79A, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I thank them both for tabling these amendments and for their interest in and commitment to improving grid capacity and electricity distribution infrastructure.

Amendment 78 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on and implement measures to grant distribution network operator powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land, with the aim of accelerating electricity distribution network infrastructure build and maintenance. The Government are fully committed to achieving clean power by 2030. It is clear that a rapid expansion of the electricity network is essential to delivering that mission. Although we agree with the intent behind this amendment, we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate on these matters through this Bill.

As previously outlined, the Government launched a public consultation on 8 July; it closes tomorrow, on 2 September. That consultation includes proposals on land access and rights and seeks views from a wide range of stakeholders, including network operators, landowners and local authorities. Once the consultation closes, the Government will undertake a thorough evaluation of the responses to understand stakeholder concerns and to assess any potential unintended impacts ahead of implementation. Introducing changes now, before that work has been done, would pre-empt that process and risk undermining the careful balance that we are trying to strike between speeding up delivery and protecting landowner rights.

We are committed to acting quickly once the consultation process is complete but we must do so in a way that is informed, proportionate and legally sound. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is reassured by this response; I kindly ask him to withdraw his amendment. I will take his offer forward with my officials and look forward to meeting the noble Earl, alongside my noble friend Lady Taylor, on the issues raised in this area.

I move on to Amendment 79A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. This amendment would introduce a statutory presumption in favour of undergrounding power lines. It would require developers to demonstrate that undergrounding was their preferred and initial option, and that it was infeasible on cost or engineering grounds, before overhead lines could be approved. We understand that some communities hold strong views in favour of undergrounding, particularly due to concerns about the visual impact of overhead lines. We are aware that the support is partly driven by examples seen internationally, where undergrounding is used in certain contexts.

The Government’s position is that overhead transmission lines should be the starting presumption for electricity network developments except in nationally designated landscapes, where undergrounding is the starting presumption. That is because overhead lines are significantly cheaper, as undergrounding can cost up to four and a half times more, with costs ultimately passed on to bill payers. Overhead lines are also quicker to build, cause less environmental disruption and are easier to maintain and connect to existing networks.

That said, we totally understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I reassure him that neither I nor my noble friend Lady Taylor answered the Question that he asked in relation to pylons, but we look forward to speaking to and working with officials to get more detailed examples of costs and how they work in different ways in different combinations. The noble Lord asked a question that I did not previously answer on whether the network permitted development rights proposals in the current consultation cover compulsory purchase. I can confirm they do not, but there will be a huge debate—well, hopefully not a debate, but a huge discussion—on compulsory purchases in due course.

Strategic network planning is critical to ensuring that transmission infrastructure is designed and delivered in a way that meets system-wide needs. The National Energy System Operator, NESO, through the forthcoming centralised strategic network plan, will assess technology options against key criteria—including cost, deliverability, operability and community and environmental impact—and recommend optimal solutions. Developers will then apply those recommendations at a project level, refining routes and designs within existing planning and regulatory frameworks.

Accepting the amendment would move us away from a strategic, co-ordinated, system-wide approach to grid development and towards a more fragmented process. While undergrounding is already used on a case-by-case basis where justified, the amendment could lead to more frequent project-level decisions, undermining strategic system-wide planning. That risks creating inconsistency, reducing efficiency and ultimately slowing down the delivery of the infrastructure. We need to meet our clean power 2030 and net-zero targets. Further, the amendment would shift the burden of proof onto the developer, which would add complexity, legal risk and delay to an already lengthy consenting process. Given the significantly higher costs and technical complexity of underground lines compared with overhead, the amendment is unlikely to increase the use of undergrounding but would add additional time to the planning and delivery process.

Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would require that electrical or communications cables under land in active agricultural use must be buried to a minimum depth of two metres from the surface level, and deeper if required. Existing legislation for electrical cabling is contained in the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2022. They require that:

“Every underground cable shall be kept at such depth or be otherwise protected so as to avoid, so far as is reasonably practicable, any damage or danger by reason of such uses of the land which can be reasonably expected”.


This legislation is supported by industry codes that provide the specific standards for the relevant minimum burial depth, considering different factors and use cases. These industry codes must comply with the legislation that forms the quality standards that network operators must legally operate within.

For agricultural land, the minimum recommended depth for electricity cables, set out in the Energy Networks Association’s engineering recommendation G57 for cable laying on agricultural land, is 910 millimetres. This is intended

“to provide sufficient depth to safeguard against damage from deep ploughing and cultivation, and from the mechanical installation of drainage systems”.

Recommendation G57 says:

“This depth requirement takes account of the wishes of the National Farmers’ Union”.


Agricultural activities including deep cultivations, subsoiling and mole draining rarely extend deeper than 700 millimetres below the soil surface. Installing cables at depths greater than 910 millimetres can introduce engineering and environmental constraints, such as increased heat generation from the cables, which may require additional mitigation measures such as increased pole spacing. Deeper installation would necessitate a wider and deeper trench, raising the risk of potential detrimental impacts on the soil resource due to soil handling and storage. The existing legislation is supported by detailed industry standards, ensuring an agile framework whereby the relevant standards can be flexibly updated and refined in line with evolving circumstances such as innovation while minimising potential impacts on agricultural land.

To conclude, similarly for communication cables, the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 include a requirement that code operators must install apparatus such as cabling at a depth that does not interfere with the use of the land. This ensures that the land can continue to be used for the purpose that the landowner wishes, even where there is electronic equipment buried in the ground. Introducing a new requirement for the depth of communications cables could increase digital infrastructure deployment costs substantially, slowing network build and potentially preventing the Government’s ambition of a nationwide coverage of stand-alone 5G and gigabit-capable broadband.

For the reasons outlined, I do not think that these amendments are necessary and I therefore kindly ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting group of amendments, and I thank everyone who has tabled an amendment or taken part in the debate. I thank the Minister for responding so thoroughly and welcome his commitment to work with me between now and Report in relation to Amendment 78.

My only real concern is that I am aware that renewable energy operators are not included in the Government’s consultation. Equally, they were not included in my amendment, but they are an important part of the picture. If we could work together to try to find a solution so that they could be included in the process, preferably prior to Report, it would be appreciated.

I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, to her place and recognise the point that she made on parliamentary scrutiny in relation to my amendment. I will take that on board. It was not my intention to exclude it.

On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, it is important that these issues are raised. I welcome the fact that this was put forward as a probing amendment. These are difficult issues that need to be balanced. I do not think that anybody knows the true cost of burying cables, because it depends on what you are burying them in, so I do not think there is an absolute answer. It seems clear that some of these costs are coming down. That may be something that the Government want to look at again.

There is an important need in this debate to balance the cost, which ultimately goes to consumers, with the need for the Government to be open, able to listen, to vary plans in response to communities’ concerns and to be able to persuade and hold the energy companies to account to take more expensive options where there are particular impacts. To that end, I also welcome that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Swire, would be against the EN-1, the overriding energy policy statement. I ask the Government to be open to the idea. I know that there are legislative conditions around areas of outstanding natural beauty, but the Government should be open and mindful of community concerns and make sure that budgets are available for burying cables where communities raise particular concerns or there are particular types of landscapes. I welcome the news that we had yesterday of the cable from Norfolk going south. In response to the consultation that took place with communities, bits of that have been buried. I think that is the right approach. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise, as my noble friend on the Front Bench said a moment ago, to speak to my Amendments 85A, 88B and 88C, which seek to effect the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member, on this Bill. I shall speak to them briefly.

The amendments fall into two parts. The first part refers to benefits that shall arise for people who live in homes near electricity transmission projects—a very good principle and one which I am sure that we all agree. The question then follows: who should be eligible for this scheme and who should be eligible to receive these benefits? The Government say that that should be decided by regulation—and, again, that seems perfectly reasonable.

The question is about the level of parliamentary procedure that the regulations in question should receive. The Government propose that only three aspects of these wide-ranging new sections, Sections 38A to 38D of the Electricity Act 1989, which this Bill amends, require the affirmative procedure, and that all other aspects of the scheme will be made by negative procedure resolutions, on the grounds that those regulations are merely of an “administrative or technical nature”. However, the committee’s view, many aspects of the regulation-making powers proposed by the Government are

“important matters of substance rather than mere ‘administrative or technical’ matters”.

I shall cite just three of them as quoted in our report. There is:

“making provision determining whether premises or works are qualifying … conferring and delegating functions in connection with the scheme”

and

“providing for payments by electricity suppliers to meet costs incurred in the carrying out of functions in connection with the scheme”.

The argument of the committee is that those matters are not merely administrative or technical but rather more substantial, and it concluded:

“The affirmative procedure should apply to all regulations made pursuant to the provisions inserted by clause 26 of the Bill, not just those matters mentioned in new section 38A(6) of the Electricity Act 1989”.


That is the first matter. The second matter is the use of forestry estate for renewable electricity, which is again a perfectly sensible aim and one with which I am sure noble Lords will agree. Clause 28 inserts new Section 3A into the Forestry Act 1967 to give forestry commissioners powers to use land in England for this purpose, and it gives the same powers to the Natural Resources Body for Wales. The Government say, in effect, that the two bodies should not worry because they will not interfere if those bodies wish to engage in small-scale projects of this kind—they will do so only if they believe that the projects that those bodies wish to undertake are significant. That is fine, but the committee noted that

“this requirement of significance does not appear on the face of the Bill”.

It went on to say:

“We do not judge delegated powers on how the Government say that they will use them but on how any Government might use them … Clause 28 should state explicitly that Ministerial consent to Forestry Commissioners’ and the National Resources Body for Wales’ renewable electricity projects should only apply to significant projects”.


In conclusion, my understanding is that the Attorney-General is of the view that delegated powers have been used by previous Governments, especially the last one, in a somewhat slipshod manner, and that this new Government will do better. If the Minister on the Front Bench is to follow in the footsteps that the Attorney-General has laid out, I look forward to him being able to give a positive response to what I have said and to the committee’s report, and I look forward to hearing from him in due course.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to Amendments 80, 81, 82, 85A, 88B and 88C, which relate to Clause 18 and consents for electricity infrastructure in Scotland and delegated powers in the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for tabling the amendments on consenting in Scotland and the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Blencathra, for supporting him. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for the amendments relating to the Bill’s delegated powers.

I turn to Amendment 80, which seeks to prescribe that any fees paid to Scottish Ministers for processing electricity infrastructure applications and for any pre-application services provided may be used only for consumer benefits or local planning authorities. Clause 18 creates a power to make regulations relating to fees to be paid to Scottish Ministers on the application for consent or anything done by them in relation to a proposed application under Sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989.

Scottish Ministers already have the power to make regulations for determining the fees to be paid on applications, with the Bill creating a power to make regulations for fees for pre-application services. This aims to allow the Scottish Government to resource their own efficient processing of electricity infrastructure applications and pre-application services. The UK Government recognise the importance that local planning authorities have in the consenting process, and that they therefore need to be appropriately resourced.

While I welcome the spirit of the amendment, the resourcing of local planning authorities in Scotland is a devolved competence. Scottish Ministers will consider the resourcing of statutory consultees and local planning authorities to ensure that they are adequately resourced and have the skilled workforce to carry out any additional responsibilities created by these reforms. It would therefore not be appropriate for the UK Government to be prescribing in statute how Scottish Ministers direct their resources.

The amendment would also provide for the directing of fees to community benefits packages. Over the past 12 months, renewable energy developers in Scotland have offered more than £30 million in community benefits. The UK Government are committed to the provision of community benefits for energy infrastructure. On 21 May 2025, the UK Government issued a working paper for public comment on proposals to mandate community benefits for low-carbon infrastructure and next steps for shared ownership. The deadline for comment has now passed and responses are being analysed which will inform next steps.

In Scotland, the provision of community benefits is already a well-established element of renewable energy developments. The Scottish Government have had good-practice principles for community benefits from renewable energy in place since 2014, and these are currently under review following the response to a public consultation that closed in April 2025. Similarly to the position on local planning authorities, it would not be appropriate for the UK Government to prescribe in statute that Scottish Ministers should direct fees received for processing consenting applications to community benefits packages.

Amendment 81 would require Scottish Ministers to hold a public hearing whenever an objection from the relevant local planning authority is received regarding an application for consent. Additionally, Scottish Ministers would not be able to make a decision on an application until at least one month after a public hearing session has taken place. The Scottish consenting reforms are intended to make the electricity consenting process in Scotland more efficient, while retaining opportunities for local communities and planning authorities to participate meaningfully in the process. A key aspect of the reform package developed with the Scottish Government is to move away from the current prescriptive methods of handling objections by local planning authorities to consent applications, which has resulted in a slower system, with decisions that can be delayed for years.

To deliver efficiencies, the proposed provisions allow for various procedures to be used in such circumstances, at the discretion of a reporter appointed by the Scottish Government. These may include holding one or more hearing sessions, or a public inquiry. Reporters are experienced specialists. In addition to considering written representations on the application, they may conduct site visits, request further written submissions from specific parties, and/or conduct hearings or inquiries. The amendment would introduce an additional requirement to the consenting process, mandating a public hearing regardless of other procedures a reporter may determine necessary, which could already include a hearing session or written representations. These reforms will bring in a more efficient consenting process that brings certainty to both applicants and communities. To achieve this, it is vital that the Scottish Government are able to examine objections by local planning authorities through the most appropriate and proportionate method.

Amendment 82 would remove Clause 18(4), which changes the way in which local authority objections to applications for consent for electricity infrastructure are managed. At present, public inquiries are required to be held in Scotland when the relevant local planning authority objects to an application under Sections 36 or 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, no matter the nature of the objection. Public inquiries tie up many electricity infrastructure consenting applications in Scotland for months and even years. This adds both time and uncertainty to the consenting process, leaving communities and applicants in limbo. It is a major barrier to the timely deployment of low-carbon electricity infrastructure when we need it most. While public inquiries have a key role to play in ensuring that there is a transparent and thorough assessment of significant objections to electricity infrastructure projects, it is not proportionate or sensible that all such objections should be referred to this process.

As noble Lords will be aware, a primary aim of the Scottish consenting reforms is to streamline the process wherever possible, while retaining the right for local communities to have meaningful opportunities to comment on and influence applications. Clause 18(4) retains the right for relevant planning authorities to object to applications for consent, while bringing in a targeted, effective process fit for a modern consenting system. This is essential to end delays in electricity consenting and put in place the infrastructure we need. The policy intent of this clause is to move away from the current prescriptive methods for handling objections by local planning authorities to consent applications, which has resulted in a slow system, with decisions that can be delayed for years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 82B from my noble friends Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Roborough would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of this Bill on the UK’s long-duration electricity storage capacity. It is both reasonable and necessary. The new clause in Clause 25 makes reference to a scheme designed to encourage the development and use of long-duration electricity storage installations, but, as with any major intervention in our energy system, it is essential that we couple ambition with accountability. That is precisely what this amendment seeks to ensure.

The case for energy storage is seemingly clear. All sides of this Committee recognise the need to address the intermittency of renewable sources, particularly wind. Storage is seen as part of that solution, but we must be realistic about the scale of the challenge. We are often told that battery storage will save us; that it will plug the gap when the wind does not blow. But let us look at the numbers. The UK’s average daily electricity demand is 780 gigawatt hours. Our current battery storage capacity is roughly 12 gigawatt hours, which would keep the lights on for approximately 30 minutes. Globally, total battery storage is around 369 gigawatt hours—enough to power the UK for barely a day. This is not to dismiss the importance of innovation nor the promise of new technologies but to say we must deal in facts. We must measure progress and we must understand whether the scheme we are legislating for is delivering results. The requirement to report to Parliament on the impact of this Bill in this crucial area is not bureaucracy; it is oversight and it is responsible governance.

I now turn briefly to Amendment 82A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fuller, which addresses the important and growing issue of fire safety in relation to long-duration electricity storage systems. However, I should say not all long-duration energy storage systems—and I think I can probably justify squeezing in another Welsh reference here to First Hydro’s schemes at Dinorwig and Ffestiniog power stations and the proposed Dorothea pump storage scheme, none of which will cause safety or fire issues.

As we move towards decarbonising our energy grid and increasing our reliance on renewable sources, long-duration energy storage is set to play an increasingly central role in stabilising supply and ensuring resilience. These technologies, whether battery-based, thermal or otherwise, are argued to be essential to the UK’s clean energy future. But with innovation comes responsibility, and we must be alert to the safety implications that accompany some of these new forms of infrastructure.

Amendment 82A rightly recognises that some forms of long-duration energy storage, particularly those involving large-scale batteries or other flammable components, pose inherent risks, especially in the event of fire. These are not theoretical concerns. We have seen incidents, both here and internationally, where energy-storage sites have suffered fires that require significant emergency service intervention and in some cases posed serious threats to nearby communities. This amendment seeks to introduce a sensible precaution that proposals for such technologies should be developed in consultation with the local fire and rescue authority. This would help ensure that any fire risks are assessed and mitigated early in the planning process and that emergency services are properly informed and prepared should an incident occur. As we roll out more of these systems in urban and rural settings alike, that reassurance will be crucial not just for planning authorities and operators but for the public.

This is a pragmatic and proportionate amendment. It reflects legitimate public concern and supports our wider objectives without compromising safety. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, I hope, his assurance that public safety and fire risk will remain at the forefront of policy and operational planning as we deliver the energy infrastructure of the future.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 82A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to require long-duration electricity storage—LDES—operators to consult local fire authorities to assess the project’s fire risk before installation. I want to assure the noble Lord that this Government take fire safety extremely seriously, but we do not feel this amendment is necessary or proportionate, and it risks unintended consequences. I personally want to say to the noble Lord that, since fire has come from the Home Office into MHCLG, I have the ministerial responsibility for fire, and the noble Lord is welcome at any time to drop me a line to discuss anything related to this point or any concerns around fire safety.

The Health and Safety Executive regulates battery-energy storage system—BESS—sites within a robust framework that mandates battery designers, installers, and operators to uphold high safety standards. Our planning practice guidance encourages developers of BESS sites to engage with local fire and rescue services prior to the submission of their planning application and to consider the National Fire Chiefs Council’s guidance, so that matters relating to fire safety can be considered at the outset. However, we are going to go further than this. The Government are considering additional measures to enhance the regulation of the environmental and safety risks of BESS. Defra recently published a consultation on proposed reforms to environmental permitting for industry, including the principle of including BESS in scope of the environmental permitting regulations. This would give further safeguards for both people and the environment.

This amendment would add burdens to local fire and rescue services. Further changes to the long-duration electricity storage cap and floor scheme would add complexity to the system, which would lead to increased cost and time for the applicant. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is satisfied with my response, and I kindly request he withdraws his amendment.

Amendment 82B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Offord of Garvel and Lord Roborough, requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of the Planning and Infrastructure Act on the UK’s long-duration electricity storage capacity within five years of it being passed. I want to assure the noble Lords that this Government are committed to monitoring the development of the UK’s long-duration electricity storage capacity, as well as our wider clean power 2030 ambitions. Ofgem is proceeding at pace with the delivery of the first window of the cap and floor regime, and expects to announce final decisions on successful projects, in both the 2030 and 2033 delivery tracks, in the second quarter of next year. Ofgem will remain closely involved in monitoring delivery of those projects, and information on their features and progress will of course be made public at the appropriate stage, as they would be for any other major generation projects.

The Government publish statistics on the UK’s electricity storage capacity annually in the Digest of UK Energy Statistics—DUKES. This currently includes pumped storage hydro and grid-scale batteries. Other types of LDES will be added to the publication when they become operational. The Government also have a statutory duty to report on their carbon budget progress under the Climate Change Act 2008. For instance, the Act requires the Climate Change Committee to provide an annual report to Parliament on the UK Government’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and we would expect future reports to include all relevant and significant developments in this regard, including those on delivery of the LDES cap and floor. The Government have a statutory duty to lay their response to the Climate Change Committee’s progress report before Parliament.

Given these existing monitoring and reporting commitments, this amendment to create additional reporting requirements is not necessary. I trust that the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Roborough, are satisfied with our responses and I therefore kindly ask them not to press their amendments.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, the news that my noble friend has given us about the further checks and balances and reports on fire safety are very encouraging. However, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised the question of the fire on top of the multi-storey carpark in Luton. There was a similar incident—just as bad, if I may say so—on a ship, somewhere between the Netherlands and the UK, which was carrying several hundred cars with these batteries. Apparently, the ship set itself on fire and the cars set each other on fire, and it was very lucky that nobody was hurt, because there was no way to put out the fires. I think the ship sank in the end.

My concern, to which I am sure my noble friend can respond, is that all these new reports are very useful, but what is missing is some transparency as to what actually happened. What happened on the roof of Luton airport carpark? We do not really know. Everybody denies that it was anything to do with lithium ion, but most people think that it probably was and that the then Government said nothing because they did not want to upset people. I hope my noble friend will agree that transparency is a very important part of the ongoing work.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Let me reassure my noble friend that transparency is absolutely important in this situation. Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, provided examples; of course, it would be remiss of me to comment on them, but I am sure there will be some investigation and learning from them. If the point is to go away and find out what lessons have been learned, and look at them as part of our transparency, it is a good one and I accept it.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, we have had an interesting, brief debate which actually had a few twists and turns. The Minister asked me whether I was satisfied with his response and I regret to say that I am not satisfied at all, for reasons I will give in a moment. Before that, I will deal with the interventions from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I was not sure whether he was for or against this amendment, but I regret that he fatally undermined the Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill, brought forward by his noble friend Lord Redesdale, which now must be pointless from the Liberal Democrats’ point of view. I would have thought he would have been standing full square behind my amendment, which highlights the dangers of lithium.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, quantified the value of battery storage in terms of amp hourage and capacity. However, the value of battery storage is not necessarily purely in the storage capacity; it is in the smoothing of voltages at an aggregate level, across a whole grid, and maintaining the hertz. It is a difference of only 0.2 hertz in the Iberian catastrophe that caused the contagious knock-on effect that brought down the entire grid in Iberia, in Spain and Portugal. So we must not look at battery storage in terms not only of current but of stability.

Voting at 16

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government will introduce legislation as soon as time allows during this Parliament to give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote in all elections. We recognise that too many young people are not currently registered to vote. We are committed to improving voter registration and supporting young people to register. We believe that, by building a strong foundation for democratic participation among young people, we can establish habits that will continue as they grow older.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, the proposed change is welcome, and unless we change the voting age soon, young people may continue having to wait until they are 20 or 21 to cast their first vote in a general election. But would it not make sense to have the same age for voting in all elections across the UK, starting in 2027? In any event, will the Government now implement the unanimous cross-party recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee and automatically include 16 and 17 year-olds on the electoral registers at the same time as they are given their national insurance numbers? That would put them in readiness to be able to vote whatever the age was.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me first say that the Government were elected on a clear mandate, which included lowering the voting age to 16 for all elections in the UK. This is a major change in the electoral franchise and we need to get it right. Changes of this magnitude to the electoral law require careful planning and should not be rushed. On the question about national insurance, we are looking at different options to ensure that young people can be easily and accurately registered to vote, including enabling people to register when they interact with other government services. The noble Lord keeps pushing, and I give him the good news that we are looking at that.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords, this policy is very welcome. It is always good to extend the franchise, particularly after the voter ID fiasco of recent years, but education is going to be incredibly important, so that young people can use this new right. What plans do the Government have to improve discussions around political education and literacy, media literacy and information and misinformation, because the next election will have a very heavy focus on social media?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an excellent point. We are confident that, with the right education and support, young people will participate meaningfully. Young people are the future of our country and it is only right that they have a say over it. We know that education and engagement are a vital part of implementing this policy and we take empowering and equipping young people with the knowledge and skills they need seriously. We want to break down barriers and drive participation. Teaching about democracy and elections already forms a central part of the national curriculum for citizenship at key stages 3 and 4 and can be taught as a non-statutory topic in primary schools.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has addressed the issue of the registration of young people. May I encourage him and the department to give very serious consideration to encouraging online registration? It is simple. We are talking about a generation which is used to using computers and associated forms of social media, and many of them will find online registration to be the best and easiest way of registering for their future votes.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me say first that I always welcome encouragement from the noble Lord, and I will take that back. To address his question directly, we intend to actively explore and test new and more automated methods of registration, including better use of data to identify people who are eligible and integration with other government services to make it easier for people to register. Online registration for voting has been a resounding success, particularly for postal voting. I will take that back and I hope that I can come back to the noble Lord with some meaningful outcomes as a result of our strategy.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, in light of the Government’s want for more young people to be registered to vote, will they consider a national “Register to Vote Day” for schools, when young people are encouraged to register to vote online in their registration classes?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very strong point. I will take it away, because ultimately we want to get more people registered and able to take part in our democracy. We anticipate that there are between 7 million and 8 million eligible individuals who are currently unregistered or incorrectly registered to vote. We want to make sure that our policies identify and engage underregistered groups, and we will take all measures to ensure that that people can participate comfortably and positively.

[Viscount Brookeborough (CB)]

My Lords, I have the privilege of being a Lord Lieutenant and therefore presiding at oath-taking at citizenship ceremonies. We always make a point of telling people getting their citizenship that they should register to vote, since otherwise they cannot play a full part in our community life. Can the Minister tell us whether children are actually told, at school or in later education, that this is one way they can take part in our community life? I do not believe that they are.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am going to repeat the answer I gave to my noble friend. Education in our schools is a vital part of implementing this policy. In relation to knowledge and skills, we will work with all stakeholders, including schools, colleges and universities, to ensure maximum participation. I never thought I would see the day when I would be advising a Lord Lieutenant.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister clarify at what age the Government consider someone to be an adult? Is it 17, when a person can apply for a provisional driving licence? Is it 18, when they can marry, stand for Parliament or get a tattoo? Is it 21, when they can adopt a child or apply for a provisional HGV licence? Or is it 16?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am just going to repeat the fact that there are places, both across the United Kingdom—Scotland and Wales, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey—and other places such as Austria, where they have successfully lowered the voting age to 16. Let me repeat this very important point to the noble Lord: evidence from these places shows that those who vote at a younger age are more likely to continue voting as they get older. We have 16 year-olds serving in the British Army. Regardless of the difference in ages that the noble Lord cited, we want to make sure that we get long-term habits enabled and established with young people, since the evidence shows that, later in life, they will be more focused on taking part.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, earlier this month, there was an absolutely inspiring event in the House, with lots of 16 and 17 year-olds and, indeed, younger students who were very keen, engaged and interested in voting. This was run by the Democracy Classroom network, the Politics Project and others, and it set out a road map to votes at 16. We need lots more political education right across our society. Most of the 16 year-olds I meet are as well prepared to vote as the 60 year-olds are, which is not to say that both cohorts do not need much more education. One point that was made at this event that I thought was really useful was about the importance of youth clubs and other informal organisations. We often talk about education in schools, but are the Government planning to ensure that resources are available also to youth clubs and other more informal organisations?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, more widely, a programme of work, including engagement with the Electoral Commission, local authorities, think tanks, academic and civil society organisations, is being done to identify the barriers to participation, along with potential interventions to tackle those barriers. This programme of work addresses issues around participation in our democracy, including participation in elections both by those not on the register and those registered but not voting. I am happy to speak to various stakeholders and listen to the views of young people, who are the most important in this aspect.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, the last Government introduced a number of measures to reduce participation, including photo ID and renewal of postal votes after three years. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that the only way we are going to get young people and others on the register is auto-enrolment. That is done in many other countries in the world and, if we are to get maximum participation, the Government will have missed an opportunity if they do not do it.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very interesting point. In relation to this, my department is working with the electoral administration sector and those in the further and higher education sector to explore approaches to help people register. We will, I hope, take steps to move towards what my noble friend wants to do, but it is not straightforward, because electoral law is quite complicated. We do not want to rush this, we want to do it right and it is an important piece of work. On voter ID, my noble friend will be happy to know that we have added bank cards to the list of acceptable voter ID. Bank cards are held by the overwhelming majority of the electorate, and this change will significantly reduce the proportion of legitimate electors who are unable to meet the identification requirements.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, I would first like to extend my thanks to the many noble Lords with whom my noble friend Lady Taylor and I have already spoken about the Bill. I know that there is consensus in this House that the country could and should be better served: better served by more decent housing, with a better, faster process for agreeing what infrastructure is needed to support the communities we build; better, greener infrastructure to help the country meet its climate targets; a better deal for nature, which we know the public deeply cares about. Britain deserves better than the status quo, and it is for that reason that we have brought forward this Bill.

We have already delivered significant changes to our planning system in a revised, pro-growth National Planning Policy Framework. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that these changes will increase our real GDP level by 0.2% by 2029-30—the equivalent of £6.8 billion in today’s prices. We are creating a system that is not only fit to address our present challenges but agile enough to respond to our future needs.

For too long, the approach was a mismatched tapestry of ill-fitting, short-termist reforms that tinkered around the edges rather than resolving our problems. In the process, layers of bureaucracy and gold-plating have been created rather than genuine improvements. This House should not mistake the Government’s ambitions or the speed at which the Bill has been taken forward for a lack of careful consideration. The situation is stark, and these issues merit prioritising.

The time it takes to secure planning permission for major infrastructure projects has almost doubled in the last decade to more than four years. Home building has also fallen from already insufficient levels. There are simply not enough homes. The number of new homes built is estimated to drop to around 200,000 this year, which would be the lowest year for net additional dwellings in England since 2015-16. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will help turn this around, sending us on our way to building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England and reaching planning decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects in this Parliament.

The Bill will further support the Government’s clean power 2030 target, enabling essential clean energy projects to be built as quickly as possible. As a key component of our Plan for Change, this ambitious package of reforms will unblock the planning system to secure the infrastructure this country needs. Upgrading the country’s critical infrastructure is essential to boosting economic growth and improving the quality of life that Britain has to offer. That is why the Bill introduces a range of reforms to the consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects to create a faster and more certain system. These changes have been informed by feedback from developers, planning and technical experts, ENGOs and local authorities.

Reforms brought forward by the Bill include ensuring that national policy statements, which are the cornerstone of the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, are kept up to date. New powers will allow for projects to be directed out of the NSIP system where they can be better served by another consenting route. We are replacing overly prescriptive statutory consultation requirements, which encourage risk aversion and gold-plating, with guidance that will encourage the development of high-quality applications through meaningful engagement.

The Government still expect that development proposals are fully scoped before submission to the Planning Inspectorate. These measures will tackle the huge volume of inaccessible paperwork that slows the process without adding value to communities. This could reduce consenting times by up to 12 months and pave the way for new roads, railways and wind farms to bolster the country’s connectivity and energy security.

Building on recommendations proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, KC, the paper permission stage for judicial reviews of national policy statements and development consent orders has been removed, as has the right of appeal when cases are deemed totally without merit. Taken together, these changes will address the biggest barriers to delivery. They are targeted specifically at fixing elements of the system that slow down applications, decisions and, ultimately, development.

On top of these overall changes to the NSIP regime, the Bill will also deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for transport infrastructure projects. Boosting transport connectivity will support economic growth across the country, tackle congestion and keep Britain moving. Measures brought forward in the Bill will streamline the Highways Act and the Transport and Works Act process to ensure that it is proportionate, is fit for purpose and supports the effective and timely delivery of transport projects.

Additionally, the Bill will introduce a number of changes to speed up the delivery of our energy infrastructure. It supports vital reforms to the electricity network’s grid connection process. The current first come, first served connections queue prevents viable projects from being able to connect to the grid ahead of slower-moving ones. The Bill will ensure that projects that align with the Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan are prioritised. This move to a first ready, first connected approach will avoid delays in connecting viable and needed projects to the power grid. These reforms enable strategically important energy projects needed for clean power to be prioritised for grid connection.

Reforms to the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland will also make the system more efficient and look to reduce overall consenting timescales. These have been developed jointly with the Scottish Government.

The Bill enables the launch of a discount scheme for certain communities that live nearby new or significantly upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. The introduction of a cap and floor scheme for long-duration energy storage will support investment in this area and help to decarbonise the electricity system. A cheaper and more efficient energy system is a key driver of growth.

I turn to Part 2. The Bill will make further changes to streamline decision-making in the planning system to ensure that the system operates as effectively and efficiently as possible. A national scheme of delegation will be introduced to set out which types of applications should be determined by officers and which by planning committees. The Government have published a technical consultation in which we propose splitting planning applications into two tiers, providing certainty about what decisions will be delegated to expert officers and at the same time ensuring that councillors can continue to focus on the most significant proposals for housing and commercial developments. This change will not undermine the important role that planning committees play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. Instead, it will ensure that planning committees play their proper role in scrutinising development to the best standard possible and without delay. In fact, 96% of planning decisions are already made by officers. Introducing a national scheme of delegation will simply create greater consistency of decision-making, ensuring that planning committees have the time to deal with the most significant or contentious applications.

Some in the other place have argued that this measure represents an attack on local democracy, framing the Bill as an attempt to diminish community voices. I disagree. This reform will improve the effectiveness of local democratic oversight. There will be no more grandstanding debates about the merits of a fence or extension; instead, the committee’s focus will be on those development proposals that matter most to local communities.

Our changes, combined with further reforms in the Bill to allow the local determination of planning fees, will help to ensure that local planning authorities and wider organisations have the resources they need to deliver change for communities across the country.

We cannot meet this country’s needs without planning for growth on a larger than local scale. The Bill will enable the Government to introduce a system of strategic planning across England. Areas will be required to produce spatial development strategies, closely modelling the system which has been in place in London for over 20 years. This will help to address key spatial issues such as meeting housing needs, delivering strategic infrastructure, growing the economy and improving climate resilience and nature recovery by taking a subregional view of how growth needs can be sustainably met. It will also enable more efficient and timely production of local plans, which will provide the detail and site allocations to support the special strategy set out in the SDS.

On Part 3, I think we can all agree on the important role that sustained economic growth plays in ensuring the prosperity of our country. However, we are clear that nature cannot be an afterthought and must be placed at the heart of our reforms. The nature restoration fund will accelerate the building of homes and infrastructure, while unlocking the positive impact that development can have in driving the recovery of protected sites and species. This will move us from a system that simply offsets impacts to one that actively supports the recovery of protected sites and species. The more strategic approach to nature recovery brought forward by the Bill will be delivered through the creation of environmental delivery plans. EDPs, made by the Secretary of State and delivered by Natural England, will set out a package of conservation measures sufficient to address the environmental impacts of development and, crucially, secure an environmental uplift. Rather than being limited to addressing the impact of a single development, an EDP will pool resources and deliver conservation measures at scale to maximise the positive outcome for the environment. At the same time, developers will benefit from a streamlined process and simple user experience for development in England and up to 12 nautical miles into its territorial waters.

The Government have constructed the legislation to include a range of safeguards to ensure that the new system delivers on the ambition to go further for nature. An EDP can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the conservation measures are likely to outweigh the negative effects of development. This will ensure that our reforms will not reduce existing levels of environmental protection, with this new approach delivering more for nature, not less. It is for this reason that the Government are confident that the nature restoration fund is a progressive intervention, as supported in the Section 20 statement that accompanies the Bill. That is not to say that the Government are not listening to the views of stakeholders who have indicated areas where they may wish to strengthen the Bill. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage and I take the views of the Office for Environmental Protection seriously and continue to engage with it and environmental NGOs. We look forward to hearing and engaging with the views of noble Lords today and throughout the Bill’s passage.

Of course, the NRF is not the only measure in the Bill that will make a meaningful difference in our ongoing battle to support nature and address climate change. Measures in the Bill to prioritise network connections are a prime example—we cannot afford to delay the benefit the Bill will have on the environment as a whole.

The Bill will also strengthen development corporations to make it easier for central and local government to deliver large-scale new communities. It creates a clearer, more flexible and robust legislative framework for the operation of development corporations. These are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. Ensuring that we have up-to-date and clear legislation on their remit, duties and powers will allow development corporations to unlock more housing across the country, co-ordinating that with infrastructure and transport for sustained economic growth.

The Government are keen for authorities to make greater use of their compulsory purchase powers to support the delivery of housing, growth and the regeneration of their areas. Measures introduced in the Bill will enable more effective land assembly, which will speed up and lower the cost of housing and infrastructure delivery. The Bill will ensure that the process for acquiring land with a hope value direction is more efficient. It will reduce the administrative cost of making a CPO and streamline the CPO process, including by allowing notices to be served electronically.

The legislation will also expand the power to remove hope value where land is acquired by a parish or town council when the relevant project facilitates the provision of affordable housing This will reinforce the principle that landowners should not receive excessive compensation where compulsory purchase powers are used to deliver schemes in the public interest. These changes have been brought forward to make the system more efficient and fairer. The Government are clear that there must always be a compelling case in the public interest for the use of a CPO.

It is in our national interest to make the planning system better, because sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. In making these changes, we can tackle some of the biggest issues facing the country today. I believe the measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill are sufficiently comprehensive, robust and, crucially, balanced to meet these challenges head-on. I know that the subjects to be debated today are matters dear to many across the House. I have no doubt that, in the weeks and months ahead, Members will approach this Bill with the rigour and scrutiny that embodies the very best that this House offers. I beg to move.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That the Bill do now pass.

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

My Lords, it has been my great privilege to steer this Bill through the Lords. I thank all noble Lords who have dedicated so much of their time to scrutinising the Bill. I hope I have demonstrated my personal commitment to seeing it passed through my engagement with noble Lords from all sides of the House. Through this Bill, the Government are moving a step closer to delivering on the long-standing commitment to build a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre next to Parliament, where it rightly belongs.

As has often been repeated throughout the Bill’s passage, this commitment has cross-party support and the endorsement of every living Prime Minister, as well as the support of leading representatives of the Jewish community, other faith and community leaders, survivors and the wider public. The most important group of supporters is, without doubt, the Holocaust survivors, who have dedicated their lives to sharing their testimony so that the truth of what happened in the darkest, most appalling period of history is understood and remembered. I was delighted to see the Holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg, whom I met in February and who is a firm supporter of the memorial, receive a well-deserved MBE in the King’s Birthday Honours List. We owe it to survivors to ensure that there is a permanent memorial to honour the 6 million men, women and children who were murdered in the Holocaust, together with a learning centre, so that they can be confident their testimony will live on for decades and centuries to come.

The Bill has been amended to include a new clause on the purpose of the learning centre. As I said on Report, I am sympathetic to the intentions of this amendment, but it will now be for the other place to consider the amendment and respond. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her unstinting support for the Bill, and the many noble Lords—I will not mention them all—who have spoken so passionately throughout its passage. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, for his unwavering support. I cannot mention every civil servant, but all my officials have been instrumental behind the scenes.

I finish by quoting the words of Dov Forman, the great-grandson of Lily Ebert, a most remarkable Holocaust survivor. His words encapsulate what we want to achieve by creating the new national memorial and learning centre:

“With education comes remembrance—this memorial will give people somewhere to remember and reflect. When we no longer have survivors like Lily among us, this memorial will help to ensure that their experiences are never forgotten. We can create the next generation of witnesses”.


Lily has since sadly passed, in October 2024 at the age of 100. We now need to get this memorial and learning centre built so that we can indeed create the next generation of witnesses. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courtesy during the passage of the Bill and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on her leadership of those of us who felt there were problems with it. I thank all those who pointed out the risks and drawbacks of the choice the Government have made about the location of the learning centre and express a hope that, on reflection, the Government may in time make a different choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise at Third Reading of this important Bill. I will not restate our position at length, but the Official Opposition support the Bill, which will take us another step closer to delivering on my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton’s historic commitment to build a lasting national memorial to the Holocaust.

We have made a solemn commitment never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust and to work to ensure that it will never happen again. Holocaust education is an essential part of our efforts to make good on those promises. It has been the policy of successive Conservative Governments that we need a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. This has the support of the Holocaust education organisations, including the Holocaust Centre North, the National Holocaust Museum, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust.

We were very pleased that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, was successful on Report. We feel strongly that the noble Lord’s amendment not only improves the Bill but is actually helpful to the Government. It is designed to ensure that the intentions of successive Governments are honoured once the memorial and learning centre have been established. We hope the Minister will be able to reassure us today, although we have heard no reassurance, that the Government will carefully consider the amendment. Can the Minister perhaps go further and tell the House whether he will make the case to his colleagues in government that the amendment should be accepted?

Finally, I would like to thank the Minister for his continued engagement throughout the progress of the Bill. It is a controversial piece of legislation and I am grateful to him for his approach when working with the Official Opposition Front Bench. I would also like to thank his officials, the House authorities who have supported an extremely long Report stage and all noble Lords who have contributed to the scrutiny process of the legislation. On something very personal, I would like to thank Henry in the Opposition office, who has so ably supported me through the passage of the Bill.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that I am not going to respond to all the contributions from the noble Lords. I think there are still some outstanding concerns, but let me reassure noble Lords who have them that, subject to the passage of the Bill in the other House and on to the statute book, there will be a process for people to put their representations, views and ideas forward about prospective future planning. I look forward to meeting in particular with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, to look at the nature, technicality and wording of his amendment.

Finally, I will make one last point to my noble friend Lord Hacking. I thought I would take it as a compliment when he described me as an ostrich. The noble Lord may not know that it is the fastest bird on land, with speeds of up to 70 kph; I wish we had used that speed in the passage of the Bill.

Cladding: High-rise Buildings

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on removing cladding from high-rise buildings.

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

My Lords, over half—57%—of all 18 metre-plus buildings identified with unsafe cladding have started or completed remediation. For 18 metre-plus buildings with aluminium composite material—ACM cladding—like that in Grenfell, 96% of identified buildings have started or completed remediation. We have been clear that those responsible must make swift progress or face action. We will update on the remediation acceleration plan this summer.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Many blocks still to be done contain the same panels as Grenfell. Can we be assured that the companies identified in the Grenfell report as using dishonest strategies and making false claims, such as Kingspan, Celotex and Arconic, are not involved in any replacement work? The companies are reported to have manipulated test data and manipulated the market. The Minister and other noble Lords will have read the exposure of the crooks running Arconic in a devastating article in the Sunday Times two days ago. Why are these people not behind bars?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Cabinet Office announced investigations into seven organisations, a few of which the noble Lord mentioned. These organisations were named in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report, enabled by the Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February 2025. The Cabinet Office is considering options under this Act. This is rightly independent. While this process must run its course, further actions outside the debarments regime against those involved in this tragedy have not been ruled out.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, eight years after the Grenfell tragedy, the Public Accounts Committee in the other place reported that 3 million people are still living in unsafe buildings, unable to sell their properties and move on with their lives, facing high service charges and high insurance premiums, and in some cases facing repossession. The Minister’s own department says that this ordeal will not be completed until 2035, 10 years away. These leaseholders are the innocent victims of negligence and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said, of greed. Do they not deserve a better deal?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great expertise and makes a very important point. This Government have been taking decisive action to address the building safety crisis so that residents do not need to wait a day longer than necessary to feel safe in their homes. We continue to work closely with industry, local authorities and residents to accelerate remediation efforts while ensuring that those responsible for unsafe buildings cover the costs. On the important point of insurance, work has been ongoing to reduce building insurance premiums for leaseholders. On lending, we have seen improvements for leaseholders who previously found themselves unable to sell or remortgage their homes, but we will remain vigilant and continue to hold the 10 major lenders to account following their commitment to lend on properties even if remediation is not yet complete.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the divergent opinions of fire safety remediation standards under what is known as PAS 9980, and in particular the undefined metrics of proportionality and tolerable risk which still leave residential blocks such as Meath Crescent, Bethnal Green, and Royal Artillery Quays in Greenwich, and thousands of others, with combustible elements which should never have been included under the building regulations applicable at the time of construction. What is his department doing to address the resultant long-term degradation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, but also the basic failure to meet construction standards in regulation at the time of construction? What is happening about that?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, as part of the work set out in our remediation acceleration plan, we intend that by the end of 2029, all 18 metre-plus high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding in a government funded scheme will have been remediated. Our intention is that every building of 11 metres-plus with unsafe cladding will have been remediated or have a completion date, or the landlord will be liable for severe penalties. On 26 February, the Government published the Construction Products Reform Green Paper, which sets out comprehensive proposals for system-wide reforms of the construction products regime. The Green Paper is a significant step towards a construction products regime that has safety at its heart. We welcome the extensive engagement from across the sector.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I want to focus on tenants of social housing. The Minister has referenced the remediation acceleration scheme. There was supposed to be a report specifically on social housing in the spring, which has yet to be published. What plans do the Government have to help registered social landlords, housing associations and councils, so that they have the funding to remediate their flats and social housing tenants can live in safe homes?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have some excellent news for the noble Baroness. Fresh from the spending review, we can confirm over £1 billion of new investment between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to accelerate the remediation of social housing by giving social housing providers the same access to government funding as private building owners. This will support providers of social housing to supply more affordable homes while also improving the living conditions of tenants. This Government recognise that social landlords face significant barriers to accelerating remediation of building safety risks, including access to upfront funding.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Is the Minister aware that the situation is even worse in Scotland, where money allocated under Barnett consequentials precisely for this purpose has been diverted into futile legal cases and the added costs of ferries? Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Treasury to make sure that money allocated for this purpose is earmarked in the future?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I will take my noble friend’s request forward. I am always happy to talk to colleagues across other government departments, and let me assure my noble friend that I am always happy to talk to him.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, last Saturday was the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and we send all our thoughts and prayers to the bereaved, the survivors and the communities of north Kensington. Can the Minister say when the £85 million earmarked for the regeneration of the Lancaster West Estate following the Grenfell Tower disaster is expected to be delivered—if it is still intended to be delivered at all?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Let me echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness in relation to the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The Government are committed to taking the next steps respectfully and carefully. We have accepted all the inquiry’s findings and will take action on all 58 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system to deliver safe, quality homes for everyone. I will write to the noble Baroness on the issue of funding.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, on 15 June 2017, the Metropolitan Police began a criminal investigation into the Grenfell fire. Can the Minister tell the House how many individuals and corporations have been charged and prosecuted in the past eight years?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I hope my noble friend understands that this is still a live criminal investigation, so it would be remiss of me comment. However, let me reassure him: this will take time, as the Met Police has said. It is one of the largest and most legally complex investigations ever conducted by the Met Police, with 180 officers and staff dedicated to the investigation. We fully support the police in their important work. On funding, I can also reassure my noble friend that the Home Office will provide the Met Police with up to £6.6 million in 2025-26 to support the cost of the investigation.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my tribute to the Grenfell bereaved families, who have campaigned for so long to have their voices heard, and to firefighters and emergency workers who were on the scene.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry report was damning about the role of central government in deregulating and indeed privatising fire safety building control, and the cosy relationship with the construction industry. Can the Minister reassure us today that the policy of deregulation will never happen again?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point, and I echo her tribute to the victims of the tragedy and all emergency service personnel. To be clear, companies must be held to account for their role in the Grenfell tragedy. On 26 February, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office announced that the Government will launch investigations into seven organisations—which brings me back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Rooker. It is totally wrong that construction product manufacturers have faced so little accountability. That is why we have adopted all the findings and will take forward all 58 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system to deliver safe, quality homes for everyone.

Political Parties and Elections Act 2009

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pack]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to commence the provisions in section 9 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009.

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

My Lords, the Government committed in their manifesto to protect our democracy by strengthening the rules around donations. We are currently considering a series of policy interventions, such as enhanced checks by recipients of donations and tighter controls on donors, including more restrictions around company donations. This will help enhance the protections of our system against potential risks. We plan to set out further details in our strategy for elections, which we expect to publish this summer.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, it is 16 years since Parliament passed the simple but powerful safeguard in Section 9, in response to a financial scandal over the origin of donations. Implementation does not require any time for primary legislation, nor for the Treasury to be asked for any money, but it would make our political finances that bit more transparent, ethical and trustworthy. So, what is the reason for the Minister not to go back to the department this afternoon and simply say to colleagues, “I’ve got a commencement clause. I think we should sort this”?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I know the noble Lord has done a lot of research in this area, and we welcome that research. But, as I said in my previous Answer, we are committed to strengthening the rules around donations, improving our democracy and protecting our democracy from foreign interference. That will all be laid out in the summer and I am sure that, when it is, the noble Lord will be able to have a look, reflect and feed back into the whole process.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, in considering possible future changes, will the Government take account of political parties such as the Liberal Democrats, who received £2.4 million from a known and convicted fraudster, Michael Brown, and, 20 years on, have still to pay back that money to the people who were denied those resources?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot get involved in or discuss any individual donations, but I reassure him that we will ensure that we strengthen the law around political donations.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My Lords, I know that, in my day, when I was party chairman—before I became independent—some of the biggest political donors were the trade unions. Does this review include the trade unions and the restrictions that could be placed on them?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, to the noble Lord’s question, your Lordships will have to wait until summer, when we will set out our strategy. The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely keen, in her role as Secretary of State for MHCLG, to ensure that we have strong electoral reforms ready for the next election.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, if we are talking about motes and beams in different parties, will the Government now publish the redacted elements of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report on Russian money flowing into the Conservative Party? While I am on my feet, do the Government intend to simplify in any sense the great mess of electoral law, given that the Law Commission has done a lot of work on this and that electoral registration officers struggle with the various Acts—some of which are still extant, others of which have largely been expunged—in accordance with which they have to conduct their affairs?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord can understand that I am not able to comment on any particular donations to parties. It is not for government to interfere with that. But he makes a very interesting point, so I will take a moment to let the House know that, as set out in our manifesto, we are committed to strengthening our democracy, widening participation and upholding the integrity of elections. This includes improving voter registration, extending the electoral franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, reviewing and addressing voter ID rules, and strengthening rules around donations to political parties. I can let noble Lords across the House know that we will be bringing an election Bill within this Parliament, hopefully in the very near future.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I asked a question on Monday about expenses incurred by Kent County Council in relation to DOGE investigations and the hiring of 12 accountants and systems engineers? Perhaps I might inform him that Kent County Council Conservatives will be writing to the leader of Kent County Council, a Reform councillor, to seek clarification on precisely what form the costs incurred by these people will take and whether they will be declared as donations or, alternatively, as costs on the council tax payer. They will, of course, copy the Minister and the Electoral Commission into any correspondence they both send and receive.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Lord for informing me. I know that he has great depth of experience in this area. Any suspected violations of donation rules fall under the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission or the police. The Electoral Commission has the authority to investigate breaches and impose civil penalties when necessary. As part of efforts to enhance the regulations surrounding donations, including donations in kind, we are reviewing whether adjustments to the regulator’s role and powers are needed to ensure effective enforcement across the political finance framework.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, if I am going to be pre-empted in a question by anyone, it has to be William Wallace, has it not? But he is absolutely right. Of all the disgraceful donations the Tory party has had, those it got from Russia are the worst. I support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will go back to the department and say that there is a strong view in the House of Lords that the report on donations from Russia should be made public as soon as possible.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Let me assure my noble friend that the Government remain steadfast in addressing the threat posed by disinformation and foreign interference in our democratic processes. Safeguarding the UK against such threats is and will always be an utmost priority.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concerns that excessive regulation and red tape can lead to unintended adverse consequences, as we have seen with the politically exposed persons regulations? With that in mind, can he tell the House what is the status of the review of the PEP regulations by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Government, following legislation passed by this House?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the concern about making sure that our democracy is fit for purpose in the modern world. There is a huge challenge ahead, which is why we will address in the round the whole issue of electoral reform. I will write to the noble Lord on the specific example that he mentioned.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government’s review of donations include looking at the whole issue of people making donations using cryptocurrency, given the potential for abuse and of hiding the true source of those donations?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend alludes to an important theme in terms of donations. The rules around political donations must be abided by, regardless of the type of donation made, including donations made using cryptocurrency. Those who receive donations must assess the value of the donation when they receive it and, if it is over the reporting threshold, they must report it to the Electoral Commission. Parties and other campaigners must also check that donations come from a permissible source and are prohibited from accepting donations that are not from a permissible or identifiable donor.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could take this into account. I tried to give a donation to the Democratic campaign before the last election, but I was not able to because I do not have an American passport. Can the Minister ensure that we apply the same sort of control as regards money coming into this country?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an interesting point. I would not want to talk specifically about that example, but I can reassure him that the concern he shares with the House is a big focus area for making sure that those who donate are eligible to do so, have an interest in the UK and are tied to being part of the UK system, so their eligibility is absolutely legitimate.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Does my noble friend recall that, before the last election, the Conservative Government—for reasons that slightly bewildered me and I think some others—decided to massively extend the franchise to people living abroad who had lived abroad for more than 15 years, many of whom had barely ever lived in the country and for whom it was almost impossible to establish even an address at which they were last resident in the United Kingdom? Now that we have had an election under these rules, can my noble friend at least publish for us the extent to which these newly enfranchised people exercised their vote at the last election, which could of course potentially have had an effect in individual constituencies, how much the system cost and whether there are any plans to revert to the previously very satisfactory situation?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. Just to reassure him, part of our strategy in the summer will reflect on the very issues that he is talking about, and in it we will set out our strategy on wider electoral reform, including donations and the source of donations.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for bringing his considerable experience of security matters to Committee and now on Report. I know he brings his amendment forward with the best of intentions.

With all due respect to the noble Lord, we cannot support Amendments 3 and 10, which would prevent commencement of the Bill until such time as the security report required by Amendment 3 has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, again delaying what we want to be delivered as soon as possible. Security is of paramount importance and Ministers should consider security concerns very carefully, but we believe that this issue can be adequately addressed through the planning system, which is the proper way to deal with it. This has been through the planning system before, security has been dealt with, and the High Court agreed that this was the correct way to do it. It would set a huge precedent if we were to make legislative changes to this Bill in respect of what is actually a planning matter.

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

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Laing, for Amendments 3 and 10. I was saddened to hear the news of the passing of the noble Lord’s sister, Renata. May her memory be a blessing.

I also offer my thanks for the work done by the late Lord Etherton on the Select Committee, and thank all the other members of the Select Committee for their work.

These amendments would require a report to be produced on the security impacts of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and would require both Houses of Parliament to approve the report before work on the memorial and learning centre could proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has been a strong advocate of the need to give careful consideration to the security impacts of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I am grateful to him for his persistence in bringing these matters to the forefront of our debates throughout the passage of the Bill, and for meeting me several times to discuss the security impacts—as well as the performance of Burnley Football Club this year. The noble Lord and I share a history of being brought up in Burnley.

The noble Lord was kind enough, as he has already indicated, to provide me with a set of questions for discussion with security advisers. I was glad to take the noble Lord’s advice, and I did exactly as he proposed. The questions were shared and discussed with the UK Government security services and the Metropolitan Police. I have written to the noble Lord with the responses I obtained from our security services, and I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. I know that noble Lords across the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for formulating his questions, and I believe they will be reassured by the answers. If noble Lords will forgive me for taking a little time over these important matters, I will set out the main points from my discussion with security experts.

As a starting point, let me immediately acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is quite right to point out that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will face threats. Protestors with a range of motivations, including some who will be prepared to use violence or terror, will see the memorial and learning centre as a potential target. This sad truth has been recognised since the inception of the project. In response, the Government—both this Government and its predecessors—have done what I know the great majority of Members of this House would expect to be done. We have sought to ensure that the memorial and learning centre is designed and planned such that it can be operated safely and securely. In other words, we have sought to ensure that the proper, legitimate activities of our free, democratic society can continue. That is the approach the experts from the Metropolitan Police, UK Government security advisers and the Community Security Trust have all told me is the basis of their work.

On the design, acting on the advice of those experts we have incorporated features, including carefully designed barriers to protect the gardens against hostile vehicles. There will be an above-ground security pavilion and appropriate CCTV infrastructure, with a security control room.

On operations, we will make sure that the staff are trained to the highest standards, including in ways of working with the police. The advice of UK Government security advisers and the Metropolitan Police has been hugely valuable in developing our proposals, and we will continue to follow that advice as we construct and operate the memorial and learning centre.

Many noble Lords have questioned whether the threats would be lower if the memorial and learning centre were constructed in a less prominent location. We have to acknowledge—again, with sadness—that the advice from security professionals is that a Holocaust memorial would be seen as a target wherever it is located. From a security perspective, as my conversations have confirmed, placing the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens brings significant benefits. Within the government security zone, the memorial will benefit from many additional layers of security, including a police rapid-response capability.

Some have questioned whether the memorial would bring additional risks to the Palace of Westminster. When I have put this point to the security services, the clear response has been that the palace, by its very nature as the seat of government and a symbol of our democracy, faces potential threats. Establishing a national Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens would not significantly change the nature or severity of those threats, nor require additional measures in response. I fully recognise, of course, that the security implications of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre demand to be considered carefully. It is right that noble Lords should insist that proposals are developed in the light of the best available advice and the clearest understanding of threat.

I am immensely grateful to the police and our security services for the detailed advice they have provided over several years on the development of our scheme, for the meetings and discussions held with me in recent weeks, and, of course, for the tireless ongoing work of those organisations keeping us safe. To clarify, at the meeting to which the noble Lord alluded, the question that was asked of the security advisers and the Met Police was whether the security experts agreed with this amendment. Of course, you would expect the security advisers not to get involved in the political procedures of Parliament.

No scheme for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre could or should proceed without full recognition of the importance of security and full consideration of the best available evidence. I am confident that the arrangements for obtaining planning consent already ensure that security will be given proper consideration. The views of the UK Government security advisers and the Metropolitan Police will be sought, and any reservations or objections would be very apparent to the decision-making Minister and must be taken into account.

I will clarify some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on the planning application arrangements. The situation in which a planning application needs to be decided by a Minister in the department promoting the application is by no means unique and arises also in local government; the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, alluded to some examples he was involved in. The special arrangements for handling the planning application were subject to a High Court challenge in 2020. The court required the department to make some minor adjustments to reflect specific relevant provisions and to publish the handling arrangements, which were of course done. Otherwise, the court was content that the handling arrangements were proper and lawful.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Can the Minister tell me whether the precedent he cited was also a situation where the proposer was in a position to remove a major barrier of protection to the site where they wanted to put the proposed development? The Government can do that as well, under Clause 2.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The purpose of Clause 2 is to disapply the London county Act of 1906. That is why we want to push forward with the project. I reassure the noble Baroness that, subject to the Bill passing, this will be treated as a serious issue. The entire proposed project will be subject to full scrutiny and accountability, and will go through the full planning process that the designated Minister will determine. There will be plenty of opportunity for noble Lords to raise points about a number of issues, including security. Many points about planning were raised tonight, but I believe that this is the wrong forum for them.

I turn to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. We gave an undertaking that we would consult further on security and provide information to Parliament, and we will certainly do that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned queues. I reassure her that the ticketing and checking strategy is designed to avoid queues building up in the gardens.

Moreover, we have given a clear undertaking to the Select Committee that updated evidence on security will be provided and that we will consult on security matters with the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Community Security Trust, the Metropolitan Police, the National Protective Security Authority and Westminster City Council. We have undertaken that the updated evidence and the views of all these bodies, subject only to the redaction of any information that should be confidential for security reasons, will be placed in the Libraries of each House. The proposed amendment is not therefore necessary as a means of generating information about security or as a mechanism for ensuring that security is given proper consideration. The practical effect of the amendment would be to cause delay and to create uncertainty about the progress of the scheme.

I will repeat one final point about the amendment that was put to me with great force when I was preparing for this debate. Our response in this country to the threat of violence has never been to shrink from carrying out the normal, legitimate activities of a free society. We know that there are threats. In response to those threats, we plan, we prepare and we seek to protect our citizens from harm as they go about their lives. We should not send the message—which, with respect, I believe this amendment would send—that our approach is changing, that we fear we cannot protect our citizens and that, in the face of the threat of violence, we should place a Holocaust memorial somewhere less prominent.

Are we prepared to say that, in Britain today, visitors to a Holocaust memorial next to the seat of government cannot be protected? Are we willing to concede to the perpetrators of violence that a memorial established as a lasting reminder of a time when the Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany were denied the protection of the law and subject to appalling violence and persecution by their own Government cannot be placed next to our own Parliament? I do not think that this House would want to be associated with such a message. I therefore ask noble Lord not to press Amendments 3 and 10.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to this debate. I can tell your Lordships that I have had two big surprises tonight. One was the most wonderful compliment I have ever received from a former Home Secretary and Secretary of State from Northern Ireland, who is known for his pugnacious and accurate brain, so I take that seriously. The other—if I can refer back to an earlier debate—is that I have had the pleasure, for the first time ever, of agreeing with something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, who spoke earlier in the evening. I shall look upon that as something of value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, for bringing his Amendment 4 and his manuscript Amendment 4A which I have signed. As I said during our debate on this issue in Grand Committee, it was our understanding that this amendment is in line with the Government’s intentions. When we debated the amendment to closely define the sole purpose of the memorial and learning centre, the Government then resisted it.

On the one hand, the Minister argued that the amendment is unnecessary because:

“This Bill is about a memorial to the Holocaust, not to all genocides or crimes against humanity”—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. GC 551.]


But he then went on to say later that:

“The centre is also intended to address subsequent genocides within the context of the Holocaust”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. GC 552.]


That is an inconsistent and confusing position. I therefore understand why the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has brought his amendments forward on Report today.

We share the noble Lord’s concern that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre could in future come to inappropriately shift its focus from the unique crime perpetrated against the Jewish people and the other victims of the Holocaust by the Nazis to other acts of genocide. The memorial and learning centre should be purely focused on the unique horror of the Holocaust and we must resist any attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the Holocaust, which stands out in world history, and other events.

In the words of one German historian, the Holocaust was

“a unique crime in the history of mankind”,

and, as the then Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission stated in 2015,

“It is clear that Britain has a unique relationship with this terrible period of history”.


That is why we set out to deliver this memorial and learning centre, and we must not forget that impetus.

I am also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has included antisemitism in his amendment. As my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton put it so well at Second Reading,

“We have a problem with antisemitism in this country, and it is growing. What better way to deal with this than to have a bold, unapologetic national statement? This is not a Jewish statement or a community statement; it is a national statement about how much we care about this and how we are prepared to put that beyond doubt”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1170.]


This amendment is clearly consonant with the intentions of the Bill, and importantly, it need not delay its progress. Given these amendments meet those two tests, we will support the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, in his amendments should he seek the opinion of the House. However, I hope that we will not have to do that. I hope the Minister will stand up and agree with this House that the Government will look at this and bring back their own amendments at Third Reading.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Goodman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for Amendment 4, together with Amendment 4A, which, in addition, has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook.

This proposed new clause is similar to one proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Robathan, in Committee. I note that this proposed clause has removed the word “Nazi”, taking heed of the warning of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, that the Holocaust was not perpetrated by the Nazis alone.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the objectives behind this amendment. As noble Lords will be very well aware from earlier debates, it is the strong and clear intention of the Government that the learning centre should be focused on the history of the Holocaust and of antisemitism.

The new clause is no doubt well intentioned, but it is overly restrictive and may have unintended consequences. First, the new clause is unnecessary. The Bill clearly refers to a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust. The Bill also clearly states that it is about a Holocaust memorial, not a memorial to all genocides or to crimes against humanity. No Holocaust memorial and learning centre could exist without a clear understanding of the roots of antisemitism.

From the start, we have been very clear that to understand the devastation of the Holocaust on European Jewry, it is crucial also to understand the vibrancy and breadth of Jewish life before the Holocaust. We have been very clear about the concept of genocide and how it relates to the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the lens through which we view the development of international law on genocide and on human rights.

The modern understanding of genocide was developed in the context of the Holocaust. Indeed, the term itself was put forward by a Jewish lawyer working in the shadow of the death camps and involved in the attempt to achieve justice at Nuremberg. We will focus on the impact the Holocaust had on the emergence of the concept of genocide and the associated international legal frameworks. We will not, as some have claimed, relativise the Holocaust by equating it with other genocides. The learning centre will not portray the Holocaust as simply one among many episodes of inhumanity and cruelty, nor will it aim to communicate bland, generic moral messages. The Holocaust was a unique event among the evils of this world and will be treated as such. The learning centre, integrated with our national memorial, will provide a solid, clear historical account of the Holocaust, leaving no visitors in any doubt about the unprecedented crimes perpetrated against the Jewish people. 

I was pleased to offer noble Lords an opportunity to hear direct from Martin Winstone, the Holocaust historian and educator who is supporting development of the learning centre content. I appreciate the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Verdirame, and I wish we could have had our conversation much earlier in advance of the debate tonight, but, unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity. Those who were able to attend the session last week will have heard unequivocally that the focus is on the Holocaust and its devastating impact on Jewish communities across the world.

The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem, supported by an academic advisory group. With their help, we will ensure the content is robust, truthful and fearless. It will stand as a vital rebuttal of Holocaust denial and distortion in all its forms.   

I hope I have shown that there is no disagreement between the Government and those who wish to ensure that the learning centre focuses very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. I am not, however, persuaded that additional clauses to the Bill are needed to achieve what we all want to see. Moreover, there are inevitably risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly what the learning centre is permitted to do.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I have been listening very carefully to the Minister, and I completely accept what he is saying about his and the Government’s position on what he wants the learning centre to do, but can he address the question raised by several of my noble friends: what happens if there is a different Government and a different Minister with a different policy? Does anything in the Bill as drafted prevent a Government with a different policy—we have heard several examples of how that might come about—altering the focus of the learning centre? I do not doubt that he is sincere and in complete agreement, but it is about guarding against a future change. That is what noble Lords are trying to guarantee.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

If the noble Lord will allow me, I will address his point towards the conclusion of my speech.

I have mentioned the academic advisory group, and this is a good opportunity to tell the House who is in it: Ben Barcow CBE, who worked at the Weiner Holocaust Library from 1987 to 2019; Gilly Carr, professor of conflict archaeology and Holocaust heritage at the University of Cambridge; Robert Eaglestone of Royal Holloway College, professor of contemporary literature and thought and former deputy-director of the Holocaust Research Institute at Royal Holloway; Zoe Waxman, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who is professor of Holocaust History at the University of Oxford; Isabel Wollaston, who is professor of Jewish and Holocaust studies at the University of Birmingham; and my good friend Dr Paul Shapiro.

Before I come back to finish on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I hope I have shown that there is no disagreement between the Government and those who wish to ensure that the learning centre focuses very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. I am not, however, persuaded that the proposed additional clauses are needed in the Bill to achieve what we want to see. Moreover, there are inevitably risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly.

I suspect that many noble Lords would expect the learning centre to address, at least to some degree, the history of Jewish communities ahead of the Holocaust. I believe also that there would be support for some activities in the learning centre to be focused more on commemoration than on education. Neither of those matters is explicitly and obviously permitted by the proposed new clause. I say that as a direct answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.

We know, sadly, that the activities of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will face a good deal of opposition and hostility. I am very reluctant to provide additional opportunities for legal challenges and for inviting the courts to get involved in determining what can or cannot take place in the learning centre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I am sorry to say that the confusion, which is becoming deeper and deeper, is of the Government’s own making: all this use of the word “genocide”, this Holocaust and that Holocaust. I understand that the Government give funding to Holocaust education bodies only if they agree to include other genocides along with what Jews call the Shoah, the Jewish genocide. It is the Government who have opened this up.

We all know that the word “genocide” is now being turned against Israel and against Jewish people themselves. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust itself, which has written in support of this project, last November invited people to a Holocaust remembrance ceremony in January that was going to include the killing of civilians in Gaza. The killing of civilians in Gaza is dreadful, but it has nothing to do with what we should be talking about tonight: the genocide of the Jews. I fear that this is the Government’s own muddle. It needs clarification by support for my noble friend Lord Verdirame’s amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness’s strength of feeling on this and many other issues. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, I have a lot of sympathy for the intention of the proposed new clause, but I am concerned about it because there is no definition in the Bill. We have to be very careful on that point. I had a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame—as I did with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—but, because of the wording being overly restrictive, I respectfully ask them, at this moment, to withdraw the amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Minister has not properly answered my noble friend’s question. It is not just about the clarification of what is in the memorial and the learning centre now; it is concern about what may happen to the memorial as the world changes, Governments change and leaders change. We have also heard from my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who is an eminent lawyer, that this will make it safer in law and less able to be challenged than it would if it were left in the slightly woolly area that it is now. Can the Minister comment on the future of the memorial?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, there will be future discussions about the governance of the learning centre—those are the safeguards. For now, because I do not want to prolong the House any longer, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who spoke. I will briefly make a few points in reply. First, I have no problem at all with the individuals sitting on the academic advisory board; they are all very eminent. I am certainly glad to hear about the involvement from Yad Vashem.

The composition of boards changes over time: different individuals will come on board with different agendas. This is an opportunity for Parliament to set the agenda, and whoever comes on board will have to stick to that agenda set by Parliament.

On whether it is unnecessary, as the Minister said, I have to disagree. It is necessary because we have already seen some drift into other persecution and genocides in the Explanatory Notes, and that is why it is necessary. I do not quite see how it can be described as too narrow. The purpose would be education about the Holocaust and antisemitism. They are two pretty big missions, and we are not doing so well in respect of either of them.

Further, of course commemorations could take place because we are building a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, so it will be possible in this building to have commemorations. In addition, the fact that the amendment refers to education, which is a broad concept, also enables commemoration as part of education.

I have a lot of sympathy, as he knows, with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, about the inclusion of homosexual victims of the Holocaust. I never had any doubt that individuals who were wearing a pink star in Auschwitz were victims of the Holocaust. I considered, with other Members involved in the drafting of this amendment, alternative versions, and as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, we went through a bit of a journey with the formulation. In the end, we thought Holocaust was the obvious term because it is what the memorial is about: it is a memorial about the victims of the Holocaust. I see that term as inclusive of other groups persecuted and taken to concentration and extermination camps. I am very glad that he raised that point.

Finally, I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, said on legal challenges, but I was a little baffled by the idea that there could be a legal challenge about the meaning of Holocaust. That legal challenge could be brought now because the Bill provides for

“expenditure … in connection with … a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust”.

If somebody wanted to bring a challenge on the basis that the Holocaust is something else, they could probably already do it now. The amendment will not in any way widen the scope for such legal challenges, but it will afford a degree of protection against the risk of mission creep and of this learning centre starting to do things that we all know it is not supposed to do. With that in mind, I have listened to the Minister carefully, but I am afraid I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have listened carefully to all the debates focused on planning issues during the progress of the Bill, and we are clear that the planning process is the appropriate place for these issues to be addressed. Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, would take progress on the delivery of the landmark Holocaust memorial and learning centre backwards considerably. I have said already today that we are now 11 years on from the original commitment to deliver this. We are not rushing, and there have been ample opportunities to raise planning concerns. Indeed, a planning process will follow the passage of the Bill, and those concerns can also be addressed as part of that process.

It has been the policy of successive Conservative Governments that this project is well suited to the current planned site of Victoria Tower Gardens. A legislative requirement such as this would certainly prevent its timely delivery and risk the future of the project. We therefore cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, Lady Jones and Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, seeks to impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider alternative proposals for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre as part of the planning process, with the aim of coming up with new, better or different proposals.

I recognise and respect the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has deeply held views on our current proposals and would prefer the Government to change their mind and come up with a different scheme. However, our proposals have been arrived at over many years through a very thorough and lengthy process. It may be helpful if I briefly summarise the process of how we arrived at the current scheme.

Ten years ago, following extensive consultation, the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission submitted its report, Britain’s Promise to Remember. The recommendations in that report, including that there should be a new national Holocaust memorial with an accompanying learning centre, were accepted by all major political parties. An independent, cross-party foundation led a comprehensive search for the most fitting site for a prominent and striking memorial. Assisted by a firm of expert property consultants, the foundation identified and considered around 50 sites. The result was that Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the most suitable location, and the foundation was unanimous in recommending the site to government. As well as giving the memorial the prominence it deserves, it uniquely allows the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament, demonstrating the significance of the Holocaust for the decisions that we take as a nation.

Following an international competition with more than 90 entrants, the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel. 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 an underground 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Walmsley, for Amendment 6, and the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood, Lord Hodgson, Lord Lisvane and Lord Strathcarron, for Amendment 7. Both amendments seek to insert additional steps into the approvals process in the form of reports and resolutions in both Houses before planning permission can be implemented and the construction of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens can begin.

These steps are unnecessary. There is already an established statutory method of gaining planning consent, so there is no need to invent an additional process for this project. 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. This process considers diverse perspectives, extensive documentation and expert advice to reach a decision on whether planning consent should be granted.

Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords have the same opportunities as all other citizens to express their opinions about any proposed development. In the case of this planning application, Members of this House spoke at the previous planning inquiry. I have no doubt that many noble Lords will make representations to the designated Minister when he sets out the process for redetermining the planning application. If another planning inquiry is held, I am sure that several noble Lords will take the opportunity to appear and make their views known. The Government have already given an assurance that they will notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but he has come to a point where he has just said “if” another planning inquiry is held. In Committee, he was asked on a number of occasions whether a planning inquiry would be held, and we were told that there might not be a planning inquiry, and that it could all be done by written representations or even by an exchange of letters. Can he reassure the House that a planning inquiry will be held?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me clarify my comments, because that was a slight misinterpretation of what I said in Committee. I said then that the designated Minister would decide how we would take the planning process forward. As part of a number of options, there could be written representations, there could be a consensus by having a round table—though I doubt that that would happen, on the basis of this debate—and there could be a public inquiry. That is entirely the decision and prerogative of the designated planning Minister, and it is part of the planning process, from which we are totally detached.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister’s answer is extremely ambiguous.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

With respect, I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness. The application is live. Subject to the passing of this Bill, there will be a new planning process, when the designated Minister will decide what he will take forward.

[Lord Sassoon (Con)]

I am now getting more and more confused. The Minister has just said that there will be a new planning inquiry, or a new planning process, but before he said that there might be only a round table or written representations. He just used the word “new”—I heard it very clearly. Can the Minister tell us on how many occasions when a planning application has been called in to a Minister has a further planning inquiry been held? I do not know what the precedents are, but it would be very interesting to hear if there are any precedents for a planning inquiry at this stage leading to a new inquiry.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly disagree with the characterisation of what I said. What I said was that the planning application was live, as it is, but that there will be a new planning process. The actual planning application has been quashed because of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. That is why we have brought forward Clause 2, so that we can disapply the powers of the county council Act 1906. I did say, as well, that the designated Minister will decide what process will be used to take the application forward; that could be a round table seeking consensus, a planning inquiry or written representations. That is a decision for the designated Minister; it is not in the remit of what we are discussing. At times, this has sounded very much like a planning committee, but that is not the remit of what the clauses of this Bill set out to do.

I will make progress. The Government have already given an assurance that they will notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable following the reactivation of the planning process for the current application. The restoration and renewal programme of the Palace of Westminster has also been considered. We will continue to work with the team responsible for the restoration and renewal programme to make sure we understand the interactions and potential impacts between the two schemes.

I will briefly clarify comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on the red rating assigned to the programme in the annual reports by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority. That rating, as has been made clear in each report since 2022, reflects the need to obtain Parliament’s approval for this Bill and to recover planning consent. Before losing planning consent in 2022, the programme was rated amber.

It is therefore unnecessary to seek further steps adding a report and a resolution in both Houses when a planning process will have been completed in accordance with the statutory requirements. These amendments would simply add further delays. I therefore ask the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane, Lord Hodgson, Lord Inglewood and Lord Strathcarron, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Walmsley, not to press Amendments 6 and 7.

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, I think that the intent that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and I had has been slightly misinterpreted. When the planning process—I use that general term, because, as we heard in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, it could have a number of different characteristics—has been completed, it may be that that part of the process imposes new requirements and that there is something that the planning process requires of the Government to acknowledge, to achieve or to allow for as the project goes forward. If that is the case then there will be a powerful argument for a reassessment of the achievability and affordability of the programme.

I had intended to test the opinion of the House on my amendment. However, at this late—or perhaps very early—hour, I can hear the first notes of the “Farewell” symphony being played. I do not think the House would be particularly happy if I inflicted another 12 or 13 minutes of Division upon it, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief, but on this side of the Chamber, we feel that these amendments are unnecessary because, as I have said so many times today, the planning process that will follow the passage of the Bill is the correct place to raise those matters. We are also concerned the amendment is not sufficiently specific and may leave the planning process open to an unnecessary legal challenge, which would, again, further delay the delivery of the memorial and learning centre. Therefore, we will not be supporting it.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Amendment 9, proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Laing of Elderslie, and the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Blencathra, deals with the important matter of co-ordination between the programme to construct a Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the programme of restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

This is an important topic. It was considered in some depth during the Select Committee as well as in Grand Committee. I had the privilege of a further discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for which I am very grateful. Evidence presented to the Lords Select Committee was that the main restoration and renewal works are not due to start before 2029 at the earliest. I think the estimate is now that 2030 would be the earliest realistic start date—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, made. On that timetable, the question of any direct overlap of the construction period seems unlikely to arise.

I understand that those involved in the planning of the restoration and renewal programme are concerned that the existence of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, once complete, could present problems for their planning. Those concerns relate not to any direct interface between the two projects but to the R&R programme need for planning consents in relation to Victoria Tower Gardens. Quite understandably, there are as yet no firm proposals from the R&R programme about how much of Victoria Tower Gardens will be required, and any application for planning consent appears some way off.

The Government, as promoter of the Holocaust Memorial Bill, made it clear in our response to the Select Committee that we recognise that the interaction between the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the restoration and renewal programme is important and that the interests of users of the gardens need to be considered. We will continue to work with the R&R programme team to understand that interaction, and its potential impacts are being considered—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, alluded to.

I know that many noble Lords will have studied the architectural model of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre last week when it was on show in Parliament in the Royal Gallery. The model helps to show that the memorial structure is at the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens while the learning centre is underground. Even if the R&R programme seeks consent for a good deal of the northern end of the gardens, there will be space available in the central area for all visitors and, of course, the playground will be available for children at the southern end.

Noble Lords may be unsatisfied with the commitment to co-operate and to seek in good faith to overcome practical challenges. The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness implies the need for more formal arrangements to ensure that the interests of Parliament are taken into account. There is already such a mechanism in place. Construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre cannot proceed without planning consent. The process for obtaining such consent, a process laid out in statute and subject to the proper scrutiny of the courts, provides the forum for the interests of neighbours to be taken into account. The authorities of the Palace of Westminster will have the opportunity to present evidence and make arguments ahead of any redetermination of the planning application. The corporate officers of both Houses have made representations in response to formal consultation by the planning casework unit, which is responsible for the redetermination process, I have no doubt that any material they wish to provide will be given proper consideration. It is quite clear, therefore, that the interactions between the Holocaust memorial programme and the R&R programme have been and are being considered at a practical level and that those interactions will be considered formally before any planning decisions are taken.

This amendment, however, seeks much more. In effect, it proposes that those responsible for the R&R programme should have an absolute right of veto over the Holocaust memorial programme. The amendment would mean that the arrangements for making planning decisions, for carefully considering different interests, and for balancing impacts against benefits—arrangements which Parliament has put in place to govern decision-making on all manner of development in all parts of the United Kingdom—should not apply in this case. I do not think such a radical departure is necessary.

I ask noble Lords to consider the practical implications too. The timetable for the R&R programme, for perfectly proper and understandable reasons, is subject to some uncertainty. It is far from clear when it might be possible for those responsible for the R&R programme to give the certification that the proposed amendment envisages. I emphasise once again that I fully understand and agree with the need for co-operation and co-ordination between those responsible for the Holocaust memorial programme and those responsible for the restoration and renewal programme. The R&R programme is a major undertaking and hugely important to secure the future of this iconic Palace. I am confident that, with good will and commitment, there need be no—

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

Who is going to manage the memorial and learning centre programme?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, once planning permission has been granted and when the time is right for the project to move forward, a body will be in charge of the oversight of the project.

I am confident that with good will—

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

So there is nobody appointed who can make preparations and think the whole thing through until it starts?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, once we go through the planning process, provisions will be made in due course, when the time is right.

To conclude, I am confident that, with good will and commitment, there need be no significant conflict between the two programmes. I do not believe it is necessary to make changes to the Bill to ensure co-operation and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 9.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, future parliamentarians will read Hansard and wonder why we were so careless about the progress of R&R. Everything that we have heard in response has been wishful thinking: “Let’s hope it goes okay. With a bit of luck, it will all be managed”. We have heard no detail at all about how those two projects will interact with each other—absolutely nothing. The memorial will go nearly all the way to the Buxton memorial and R&R will be coming up the other end. There is no doubt that they will meet each other or overlap. We have been told that the planning process will deal with all of that but, as earlier questions have shown, we do not know what planning process we are going to get or what it will deal with, so we have no idea what will happen.

As for those poor children in the playground, sandwiched between asbestos, concrete and dust at one end and queues of people and possibly armed guards at the other, I feel for them. I have no option but to withdraw this amendment, but I warn Members that they are treading on thin ice as far as progress of R&R goes. It is not being taken as seriously as it should be and that is a great shame.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will not say very much. Obviously, in any public building, safety has to be a major concern, but once again these concerns about safety should properly be considered within the planning process.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Fookes, Lady Finlay and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendments 11 and 12. I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of the topics that these amendments raise. When constructing any new public building, flood and fire risks and the evacuation strategy must be given the most careful attention. I assure the House that these risks have been considered in depth throughout the development of our proposed design and that there is no possibility of planning consent being granted unless proper provision has been made. No building project can be taken forward unless it complies with extensive regulations relating to flooding, fire and evacuation.

Extensive information about the Holocaust memorial and learning centre considered at the planning inquiry remains publicly available on Westminster City Council’s website. Over 6,400 pages of information relating to the detailed design and the history of the project were published as part of the planning inquiry. Noble Lords interested in the fire and flood risk provisions can see the relevant documents and study them in detail.

We would not be proceeding with a design that we believed exposed visitors to an unacceptable risk. The proposal has been subject to significant scrutiny to ensure that it is compliant with all the relevant regulations. As we develop and implement operational plans, we will of course continue to draw on expert advice and make sure that those plans comply with all relevant standards. The report prepared by the independent planning inspector in 2021 provides a good account of the scrutiny to which the proposals were subjected.

No flooding objections were raised by the Environment Agency or by Westminster City Council at the inquiry. The London Fire Brigade is content with the fire safety arrangements. Let me summarise the key points that demonstrate how seriously we take this matter. Flood risk was indeed identified as a matter for particular consideration when the planning application for our proposal was called in in 2019. The independent planning inspector gave particular attention to flood risk in considering the application. He held a round-table discussion involving interested parties and covered the matter in depth in his report.

London already has significant flood defences. The inspector noted that London is well defended against the risk of tidal flooding. He considered the risk of breach flooding to be extremely remote and believed that flood risk over the lifetime of the development would be acceptably managed. Planning consent was initially granted in 2021, with specific conditions requiring the development of a strategy for maintaining the river wall and the development of a flood risk evacuation plan. I would expect that any new planning consent would have the same or similar conditions attached. I hope I have made it clear that this is a matter we take seriously but it is, as I have said, a matter for the planning application and is subject to detailed scrutiny by appropriate experts.

When it comes to safety, fire is obviously a matter of the first importance. I reassure noble Lords that fire safety has been given close attention throughout the process of designing the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The information provided with the planning application included a detailed report on the relevant parts of the building regulations and set out how the proposed structure would meet those regulations. To pick up on one detail which some noble Lords may be interested in, the proposal includes both main and secondary escape routes from the underground space.

When the planning application was initially approved, a specific condition was agreed that a fire escape plan would be agreed with the local planning authority, Westminster City Council, before the development could take place. There can be no doubt that the fire safety arrangements proposed for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be subject to proper professional scrutiny and no possibility of development taking place if those arrangements are not approved.

These are important matters which I take very seriously and I make no criticism at all of noble Lords who want to be reassured about the arrangements for mitigating fire and flood risk and wanting to ensure that the learning centre has appropriate means of escape. But I also emphasise very strongly that the statutory processes for considering any planning application and ensuring compliance with building regulations are robust mechanisms for addressing fire risk, flood risk and evacuation measures. The Bill does not seek to provide an alternative route for obtaining the authority to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre.

To conclude, the Government and indeed the previous Government have been crystal clear that the Bill does not remove the need to obtain planning and building regulations consent, with all the detailed and expert scrutiny that requires. Amending the Bill to replicate or interfere with the planning process is therefore unnecessary. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 11.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I hope that the future planning process, whatever it is, decided on by the proposer, of course—yes—is a good deal more robust on this matter and with a great deal more detail than the previous one. I sincerely hope I never have need to say, “I warned you, I told you so”. With that, I withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Fookes for bringing forward her Amendment 13, which focuses on the extremely important issue of the heritage here in Westminster, one of the most historically, culturally and architecturally significant parts of our capital. Clearly, the delivery of our national memorial to the Holocaust cannot come at the cost of our national heritage here in Westminster. I know that the Minister will want to reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government will act judiciously to protect that heritage.

I understand completely my noble friend’s concerns, but I do not feel that the amendment is necessary. I assure her that we will keep an eye on what is going on to ensure that the national and global heritage in Westminster is protected for future generations.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes, Lady Blackstone and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for the amendment.

Amendment 13 seeks to delay commencement of the Bill until heritage bodies, including UNESCO, have confirmed that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will not in their view adversely affect the world heritage site, the existing memorials and the gardens. It would be a novel step to overturn long-established procedures for deciding on new development by handing a veto to certain bodies.

Planning decisions in this country are taken within a framework of statute and of policy that allows different views to be heard and that enables all arguments to be properly considered and balanced against each other. The impact of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre on the heritage assets and setting of the world heritage site is a planning matter and has been assessed in detail as part of the statutory planning process, which is the proper forum for examination of such matters.

The planning inspector examined a great deal of evidence on this matter, including representations from Historic England, as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is better known, and UNESCO. The evidence presented by Historic England 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 confirmed this view in his report and concluded that the development will not compromise the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site. The planning inspector concluded that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.  The planning inspector’s report still stands as a robust assessment of the proposals.

On UNESCO, the Government take very seriously our commitments and obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of the world heritage convention. Historic England has the statutory duty of advising the Government on the world heritage sites designated under that convention. I have already set out how Historic England has carried out its duty in respect of the Holocaust memorial proposal.

UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has the role of implementing the convention and has the final say on the designation of world heritage sites. The Government take the views of the committee very seriously and provide regular state party reports in response to the committee’s decisions. However, the World Heritage Committee does not hold a power of veto over planning decisions in the UK. It would be a quite remarkable step, with very significant implications, to bestow such a veto on the committee.

On Westminster alone, the World Heritage Committee has expressed views and concerns not simply about the Holocaust memorial but in relation to an extension to a children’s hospital at St Thomas’; the proposed Royal Street development, also across the river in Lambeth; and, of course, the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. There are strong reasons why UNESCO should take an interest in all these proposals.

The heritage impacts, including on the world heritage site, must be carefully considered, but noble Lords will appreciate that there are other matters to be considered too. Simply handing the decision to a body solely focused on heritage would not achieve the balanced assessment of benefits and harms on which a good decision should be based.

This amendment would have the effect of elevating the views of two eminent bodies, one British and one an international committee, above other consultees and 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. In other words, if we were to say to Historic England and UNESCO that they may decide on all planning matters they consider relevant to the world heritage site, I cannot see how we could restrict such an arrangement simply to a Holocaust memorial. On what basis would we say that Historic England and UNESCO should have the final word on a Holocaust memorial that sits close to a world heritage site, but not on other developments nearby, still less those that fall within a designated site?

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be debating this important Bill once again. I will take a moment to just restate the position of the Official Opposition on this legislation: It has been a policy of successive Conservative Governments that we need a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre to ensure we never forget the unique suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. This project was first conceived by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2013, when he established a commission to consider measures to preserve the memory of the Holocaust.

That commission, led ably by Sir Mick Davis, recommended the creation of a

“striking and prominent new National Memorial”,

which should be

“co-located with a world-class Learning Centre”.

The Conservative Government accepted the commission’s recommendations, taking forward the plans that are continued with this Bill. As part of that process, the then Conservative Government introduced the Holocaust Memorial Bill in 2023. This Bill is a continuation of that work, and we continue to support it.

My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton summed up the Official Opposition’s view very well at the Second Reading of this Bill in September last year, when he said that

“this is the right idea, in the right place and at the right time”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1169.]

I also pay tribute to the many organisations that have written to Peers to endorse the plans for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, including Holocaust Centre North, the National Holocaust Museum, University College London, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim.

We have considered the project in the round and at length: after 11 years we cannot be said to be rushing. Now is the time to press ahead with this bold national statement of our opposition to hatred and antisemitism. Now is the time to stand up for our British values and deliver a permanent memorial and learning centre as we recommit ourselves to our promise to never forget the unique horrors of the Holocaust.

Amendment 1, in the name of my noble friend Lord Eccles, would limit the level of taxpayers’ funding for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to £75 million, requiring any spending above that level to be provided by grants from the Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust. The updated Explanatory Notes, which were published on 18 July last year, stated that the updated costs of the project were now at £138.8 million. That is due to the fact that it is 10 or 11 years down the line, due to, as we have heard, the many planning issues that have come forward.

I have great respect for my noble friend but, on this occasion, I must respectfully disagree with his amendment, because it is the view of the Official Opposition that this amendment would place inappropriate constraints on the value and manner of funding for this project, potentially risking its viability.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for his amendment. It has allowed us to reflect not simply on the need for careful control of public expenditure but on the core reason why this Bill is needed. I will deal first with matters directly relevant to costs and to the overall management of the programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as this is Report I will be brief in responding to Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. We are concerned that the amendment would undermine the current plan for the construction of the memorial and learning centre, prevent its timely delivery and risk the whole future of the project. The Official Opposition have been unequivocal in our support for this project. While specific concerns about the design of the project can and should be put forward during the planning process—which will follow the passage of the Bill—we do not feel it would be appropriate to place undue constraints on the project through statutory legislation. What we have been discussing today are planning issues, and they should be dealt with in the planning process. We therefore cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Blackstone, for their amendment. This has been a lengthy but powerful debate, with much strength of feeling. Given that there were so many lengthy speeches, I am not sure if noble Lords got the memo from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, when he pontificated on having Report stage speeches.

I remind the House of the scope of the Bill: Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to pay for the costs of the project and Clause 2 disapplies the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 so that the project can be built in the designated area. I know that lots of points have been made in this debate; I am not going to address them now because I am sure they will come up in later amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I thank the Minister for directly answering my questions. I have a supplementary question: can the model be brought back for noble Lords to look at again? It was a very valuable experience.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, that question is for the House authorities. I personally emailed every Member of the House of Lords to invite them to visit the model, and I stipulated which days it would be there. We had a historian, security experts and the architect on site—I do not know what more I could have done to engage with noble Lords. But what I can say to the noble Baroness—I knew that this question would come—is that I took a picture of the model, which I can show her whenever we get a chance.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister, but why is the model not here today? Today is the day when noble Lords are considering this extremely important issue, so why was it here last week and not today?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

It was here last week, and I emailed every Member of the Lords to say where it would be. I do not think anyone could accuse me of lack of engagement. I have spent weeks and weeks speaking to people—I am happy to speak to anybody at any time. I took a very accurate picture, so I am sure I can talk the noble Baroness through it after this debate finishes.

I have to make progress. I say to my noble friend who asked in particular about the cost of an underground learning centre versus an overground one that the costs do not work like that. To talk about overground is a hypothetical question. We have given the cost for the whole project. Of course, we recognise that there are uncertainties, which is why our approach includes an appropriate level of contingency when it comes to costs, but it would be wrong to suggest that the cost estimates have somehow failed to take account of the underground construction.

The Holocaust Commission recognised more than 10 years ago that a learning centre should be collocated with the Holocaust memorial. By placing the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, we have an opportunity to deepen the understanding of many millions of people, from Britain and overseas, about the facts of the Holocaust and its significance for the modern world.

I want to touch on one final point before I conclude. The noble Lord mentioned Washington, as did many others. I was on the phone in the early hours of this morning to the international affairs director at the Washington museum and memorial, Dr Paul Shapiro. It was a special call because he was the person who took me when I visited the Washington memorial. It was a very moving and touching experience. I just want to share something that we can relate to today. The proposal to create a Holocaust memorial museum in Washington was announced in 1979, yet the memorial did not open until 1993. The site chosen, next to the National Mall in Washington, DC, generated considerable opposition, including points such as: it would lead to antisemitism because Jews would be seen as being given privileged status; injustices in US history were more deserving of memorials; or it would be used to whitewash the US response to the Holocaust or not do enough to celebrate US responses. Another reason was that the Holocaust was not relevant to American history, and another was that it was the right idea but the wrong place—something that we have heard today. By 1987 the final architectural design was agreed, but criticism and demands for changes to the design continued. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum was opened by President Clinton in 1993. As my friend Dr Paul Shapiro mentioned to me this morning, this month it will welcome its 50 millionth visitor.

Let us not throw this opportunity away. I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I have one more question. The Minister has spoken eloquently about learning lessons. My question applies both to America and to this country, where every child at a state school gets Holocaust education and has the benefit of six existing memorials. Why, then, is antisemitism rampant in our universities, among young people who have had Holocaust education, and rampant in the States? What have they learned?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a strong point. Let me be clear: unfortunately, building Holocaust memorials does not get rid of antisemitism. That is a reminder for us all, not just the Government but society, that we should all do more. That means education, which is why the Prime Minister has promised to make sure that the Holocaust is taught right across every school, whether a state school or not. There is more work to be done.

I take this personally in the respect that I am the Minister responsible for dealing with religious hate crime. The noble Lord, Lord Mann—he is not in his place—and I have regular conversations with stakeholders in this area, but we have to do much more as this is unfortunately on the rise. I speak to colleagues from the Community Security Trust, Mark Gardner in particular, and this is something on which we need to work more collaboratively together. It is unfortunately a challenge. As colleagues have said, there is a lot of distortion, misinformation, disinformation, online religious hatred and all kinds of discrimination. We are doing more, and we will continue to do more.

On the Holocaust memorial, I will share my personal experience. In my school education I was taught a bit about it, but it was not until I visited that memorial in Washington that I was personally moved and touched and realised the grave challenges and difficulties—the horrific situation that the 6 million men, women and children faced, as well as those in other communities. That is why I say that the Holocaust memorial is an important opportunity for young people—including schoolchildren when they visit Parliament—to visit and learn from what I see as a huge, life-changing, moving experience. This is in the national conscience and this is a national memorial. That is why we are supporting it and taking this Bill through the House of Lords.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, when responding to the Minister, it is typical to begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part. I am not sure that I can entirely do that because, as I said at the beginning, we are on Report and this group has taken rather longer than I hoped or expected, and some noble Lords have strayed slightly wide of the amendment.

I will say that I am particularly glad to hear that Dr Paul Shapiro is still in his role, unlike the heads of many museums in the United States of America—the mortality rate appears to be slightly alarming. The second thought I had was in reacting to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for the Opposition. I thought it was suitably ironic—indeed, I think many Jewish comedians would particularly enjoy the irony—to describe what we are trying to do in this amendment as “undermining” the project, since it is about stopping actual burrowing underground.

We are in a situation where there is a lot of emotion around. When there is a lot of emotion around, it is quite hard to focus on individual bits, to try to disaggregate them and to try to improve a project that has clearly run into a degree of difficulty.

This debate has made it clear that there is a fissure here. The aspiration of the memorial foundation to co-locate and create, in the words of the various institutions that spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, an “important global institution” is entirely laudable. This debate has demonstrated, on the basis of what is currently proposed, that it is highly unlikely and somewhat impractical that that will be delivered, much as I wish it was possible to deliver it.

I am certainly not going to divide the House on this—frankly, it is too important an issue to divide on. However, I beseech the promoters of this project to be honest and transparent with us about what it is and what it is not. What it is now is materially different from the aspiration described in moving terms in the report from January 2015. Being realistic about what we hoped for then and where we are now would help the situation—frankly, it would be more respectful—and help some of us to manage our emotions around this issue. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.