Political Donations: Cap

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to cap donations to political parties.

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

My Lords, the Government have committed to reforming political finance rules. We are considering changes that will help protect our system from foreign interference, such as tighter controls on donations. For example, the Electoral Commission has pointed to a need to consider the rules on company donations. Details of these proposals will be brought forward in due course.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, people are absolutely astonished when they discover that there is absolutely no limit whatsoever to how much money can be given by one individual to a political party. This week, Transparency International has produced analysis showing how dark money from dodgy sources can infect British politics, and Unlock Democracy has produced an excellent Democratic Integrity white paper. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that his department properly considers these reports? Is it not high time that the Government accepted the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that there should be a £10,000 maximum cap on the sum any individual can give to a party?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me first address the noble Lord’s question about reports, in particular that of Transparency International. The Government are committed to safeguarding the integrity of our democratic processes and, as I am making clear today, we will be taking steps to strengthen protections against foreign interference in our elections. We are seeking and remain open to evidence from stakeholders, particularly on threats to our democracy. Our primary concern is reducing the threat of foreign interference.

Political parties play a vital role in our democracy, and it is important that they be able to fundraise effectively and communicate with the electorate. My department is currently developing proposals to give effect to these commitments. We are engaging with key stakeholders such as the Electoral Commission and the Committee on Standards, and we will update the House in due course.

[Baroness Hodge of Barking (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is vital that the new Government take every step to clean up our politics—on political donations and beyond? Does he agree that, as well as a cap, we need greater transparency in respect of political donations? For example, for all donations over £200, we should know the identity of the donor. Does he also agree that we need to ban all foreign donations, cutting off the infiltration of Russia and China into our politics, and that we need to strengthen the remit and powers of the Electoral Commission to ensure both the integrity and legitimacy of our donations?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a number of excellent points. To summarise, I agree that there is a lot more we have to do as a Government. We committed in our manifesto to protecting democracy by strengthening the rules on donations to political parties. While it is clear that foreign donations to political parties are not permitted, the Government recognise the risk posed by malign actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democratic processes. We will take the necessary steps to make sure that effective controls are in place, in order to ensure that democratic processes are safeguarded.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, the largest ever donation to the Liberal party was made by a convicted fraudster, Michael Brown. In looking at any changes in the law, will the Government consider forcing political parties that, like the Liberal party, have received money from fraudulent sources to return it to the victims of the fraud?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point; however, it is not for me, as a Minister, to consider, but for other parties. This is a decision for political parties on how they operate.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a key point in a democracy is that donations and the sources of them are transparent? Therefore, I urge him to look at unincorporated associations and change the rules. This has been used by the Conservative Party on an industrial scale to make it very difficult to know where large sums of public money affecting our elections are coming from.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very interesting point. I reassure him that we are going to look at the whole issue of electoral reform, and we will bring legislation forward. There is nothing timetabled in this Session, but it is difficult to specify a particular date. We will take away the issues my noble friend raises and consider them when we bring legislation forward, looking at not just political donations but wider electoral reform.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, if His Majesty’s Government intend to cap donations to political parties, can the Minister confirm that this cap will also extend to clothes and glasses?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, all I can say is that the point the noble Baroness makes is not relevant to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, will the Minister look again at the backdoor loophole whereby foreign donations to political parties find their way to Northern Ireland through the Irish Republic? In 2022, over $1 million was raised by Sinn Fein, and before the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in May 2022, money from that source found its way to Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister undertake to look again at that issue—it was raised in the other House many years ago—and take action?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for making that point. I assure him that I will contact colleagues in the Northern Ireland team, and we will revert back to him.

[Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)]

My Lords, I think the Minister accepts that there is an urgent need to tackle foreign donations, malign actors and donations funnelled through companies that may not, in reality, actually operate in the UK. This is an extremely serious issue, notwithstanding comments from the Conservative Party.

The secondary issue, however, is the one raised by my noble friend: the substantial donations made within the UK. Limiting donations in the UK to small figures would not just democratise the process but would get parties to focus again on membership, which has been in spectacular decline in the UK as parties focus their efforts on just a handful of seats and very major donors. That is not healthy for democracy. Incidentally, if we were to cap that, it might make an interesting change to the representative nature of this Chamber, too.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a number of points. I reassure him that we want to ensure that the Government’s focus is on our manifesto commitment to strengthen integrity in our democratic process. Democracy is precious, and we want to make sure that no malign actors can contribute to it and that any foreign interference is stopped. However, it is for political parties themselves, under law, to ensure the nature of the donation and the background of the company or individual making it.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister is aware of my long-standing concern about the use of anonymous opinion polls and other forms of campaigning, either in a general election or prior to one. Will the Minister please ensure that he talks to the excellent new chief executive of the Electoral Commission to establish that it uses all the powers it currently has available to check on the issues I have identified, and, if it does not have the necessary powers, that it is given them through changes in legislation where necessary?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord and I met the new chief executive of the Electoral Commission, and we will continue to have those conversations—together, if need be, given the noble Lord’s expertise in this area. The noble Lord is quite right: the Electoral Commission plays an important part in the UK’s democratic system, promoting public confidence in democratic processes and ensuring their integrity. On his question about anonymous donations, I will take it away and ensure that we come back to him with some more facts and information.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Does my noble friend recall that the last Government thought it wise, and legislated accordingly, to ensure that people who had lived abroad for more than 15 years and had no intention of ever living in the United Kingdom again should be enfranchised? Can he tell us, in the light of material gathered since the last election, precisely how many more people were given the franchise as a result of that? I have heard estimates of around 2.5 million. What have been the costs involved in ensuring that these people are identified and known to be bona fides residents at whatever residence they last lived at in the United Kingdom? Finally, can he tell us what proportion of the 2.5 million actually exercised their right to vote? He will not be able to answer all of that right now, but will he please send me an extended reply?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

To the noble Lord’s surprise, I can answer his question. The total number of overseas voters registered was 191,338, according to the Electoral Commission’s recent report on the 2024 general election. The noble Lord made a very interesting point. Overseas voters have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, including the right to donate to the parties or candidates they support. However, foreign money is not permitted, and it is a criminal offence to facilitate an impermissible donation. Political parties can accept donations only from registered electors. Overseas electors are subject to the same counter-fraud measures as domestic electors, including having their identity confirmed as part of the registration process. On his other questions, I will write to him.

Shared Prosperity Fund: Wales

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards giving decision-making over the allocation of the Shared Prosperity Fund to democratic representatives in Wales, as set out in the Labour Party Manifesto 2024.

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

This Government are committed to restoring relationships with devolved Governments and showing the utmost respect to the devolution settlement. We are working closely with the Welsh Government to discuss our commitment to restore decision-making on structural funding to representatives of Wales. My noble friend will be pleased to hear that my colleague, Minister Alex Norris, will meet his ministerial counterpart in the Welsh Government this week to discuss this very important issue.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, because the era of doing things to Wales, rather than with Wales, is surely at an end. When will proper devolved decision-making reflect both our distinct Welsh needs and UK-wide objectives? While I am on my feet, let me say llongyfarchiadau mawr—many congratulations—to the Wales women’s football team on reaching the Euro 2025 finals and making history.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Wales women’s football team on reaching the Euro 2025 finals.

My noble friend makes a very important point. Having worked alongside her for many years, I have deep respect for her passion for the prosperity of local government in Wales. This Government know that uncertainty about local allocations is causing concern for our partners in local government. My department is working tirelessly to confirm local allocations and we intend to publish them shortly. I am pleased that we have been able to announce that the fund will continue for a further year. This transitional arrangement will provide a period of stability in advance of wider local growth funding reforms beyond March 2026, when we will work with the Welsh Government to honour our manifesto commitment to return decision-making on these funds to representatives of Wales.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, llongyfarchiadau i chi on bringing football into this Chamber—a rare event these days, of course. The shared prosperity fund was a central part of the Conservatives’ levelling-up agenda, which involved the allocation of funds to elected local authorities, which know their communities best. Given that the shared prosperity fund already works with local authorities throughout Wales, what benefit will be achieved by extending decision- making powers to Senedd Members, who are not always known for their sensible financial decision-making?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I politely disagree with the noble Baroness. The previous Government funded many local growth programmes, including the UK shared prosperity fund. However, they did not make adequate provision in the Budget to do so. This Government have been clear that they will take the difficult but responsible decisions to ensure we fix the foundations of our country’s finances and, more importantly, meet the commitment in our manifesto. From March 2026, we will work with our Welsh Government counterparts to ensure that the allocation of that money is decided by people in Wales.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the previous Government announced a levelling up fund, but we saw a lot of words but no funding. Will this Government’s attempt to level up be more successful in getting more resources to the regions that need them?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an important point. Many aspects of levelling up did not work, not just in Wales but across the United Kingdom. The Government are having a transitional year, during which we will work with our Welsh Government counterparts to ensure what is best for local projects and local communities. As for the future, the answer is yes: we will ensure that the Welsh Government have enough time to plan and decide on structural funding so that they have the best ability to put the money into their local communities.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

Llongyfarchiadau mawr i dîm merched Cymru o’r beinciau yma hefyd—congratulations to the Welsh team from these Benches as well. I draw your Lordships’ attention to my registered interests. I thank the Minister for his announcement. It will bring some clarity about what will happen to the voluntary sector in Wales in the next 12 months. There has been uncertainty, added to which the third sector will be hit by the NICs rise, which will lead to higher costs that will need to be covered in any follow-up funding. Will the Minister ensure that the input and involvement of the third sector is sought through the NCVO and the WCVA, and that multiple-year funding agreements are in place to ensure the continuation of vital projects?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. The short answer is yes: we will ensure that our counterparts in Wales have those discussions. I will pass the message on to my honourable friend in the other place so that the third sector is also a part of his discussions with the Welsh Government on how we can work closely together as central government, devolved government and the third sector.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, at present, Wales gets 23% of the shared prosperity fund. If the SPF is included in local government funding in England, this risks money being redirected through the Barnett formula. Will the Minister agree that a needs-based formula is better than a population-based formula for funding?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I understand the noble Baroness’s point. However, we have to recognise that there were no plans from the previous Government for the funding going to the devolved Governments. We have brought in a transitional year to prepare for post March 2026. All these conversations are yet to be had. I cannot make any particular comment on them, but I will come back to the noble Baroness once we finalise our proposals for after March 2026.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister give a definition of shared prosperity? Can he enlighten the House on what role private sector business will have in that shared prosperity in Wales?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we are having discussions with all counterparts. However, it is important to recognise that people in Wales will have a huge say on how that money will be invested in terms of local growth, businesses and working together in partnership.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I associate myself with my noble friend Lady Wilcox’s question, including her congratulations for our magnificent Welsh women footballers. Does the Minister agree that the previous Conservative Government penalised Wales massively, including by pretending that the shared prosperity fund could somehow substitute for European Union economic funding? Taken together, the £243 million loss of rural EU funding and the £772 million shortfall in EU structural funds add up to more than £1 billion. So much for making Brexit work; for Wales, it has been absolutely disastrous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The previous Government made no plans for the UK shared prosperity fund past March 2025. We will extend the fund for a transitional year. Many local growth programmes, including the UK shared prosperity fund, were funded by the previous Government despite them not making adequate provision in the Budget to do so. This Government have been clear that they will take difficult but responsible decisions to fix the foundations of the country’s finances.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a business owner in Wales. You cannot have prosperity without good infrastructure. Since 2023, the Welsh Government have cancelled all roadbuilding projects. I have asked this question before: will the Minister seek to have discussions with his Senedd counterparts about getting some of those roadbuilding projects going again?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I have great admiration for and friendship with the noble Lord from the previous Government, when I was an Opposition Whip and he was a Whip. These are the conversations that my honourable friend Alex Norris MP is currently having, so I would not like to pre-empt them. I will also be visiting Wales to meet my counterpart in my portfolio, and I will raise that particular point.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

We look forward to welcoming the Minister to Wales. Can he say, more broadly than the fund, what action the Government are taking to spread growth and prosperity more evenly across Wales?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point. The UK Government are committed to addressing regional inequalities and supporting growth across the whole of the UK. Through the Council of the Nations and Regions, we will address this, working with devolved Governments. As well as the shared prosperity fund, we are taking other initiatives. For example, we will continue to support the four city and growth deals which cover the whole geography of Wales. Through the freeports and investment zones programme, we are delivering significant economic interventions into each corner of Wales, with freeports established in the north-west and south-west of Wales, and great progress has been made on establishing investment zones in north-east and south-east Wales. When I visit Wales, I promise that I will learn a few words of Welsh.

Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) Regulations 2024

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 28 November.

Motion agreed.

Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) Regulations 2024

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) Regulations 2024.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, the Elections Act 2022 amended the parliamentary election rules set out in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. This set out the requirement for voters to show photographic identification when voting in person in a polling station in Great Britain. The list of accepted forms of photographic ID is set out in rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Act. It includes: passports; driving licences; various concessionary travel cards; identity cards bearing the Proof of Age Standards Scheme hologram, such as the Young Scot card or the NUS TOTUM card; blue badges; and the defence identity card.

As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to improving how voter ID works by addressing the inconsistencies and ensuring that legitimate electors are able to vote. We are carefully and thoroughly reviewing the voter ID rules and evaluating how they impacted citizens during the general election. Work is already under way on this evaluation, using data gathered at polling stations along with public opinion surveys and qualitative research with electors and the electoral sector.

The Electoral Commission has also conducted a thorough review of the 2024 general election. It published an interim report on voter ID in September, and a final report on the wider conduct of the polls earlier this month. We will, of course, carefully consider the findings and recommendations of the Electoral Commission as part of our own review of the voter identification policy and will respond formally to both commission reports in the new year. If, in our assessment, we find that changes are necessary or appropriate, we will bring forward further proposals on the wider voter ID policy in due course. I do not wish to speculate today on what they might be, but I will of course keep noble Lords informed on the outcomes of our work.

However, there is a clear gap in the existing provisions, which we can and should address now: the absence of His Majesty’s Armed Forces veteran card from the accepted voter ID list, which is why we made its inclusion on the list a manifesto commitment. The veteran card is a recognition of the service and dedication of our veterans to our country. This is just one of the things this Government are doing to honour their contribution. We should not allow the need for fuller consideration of the policy in the round to stop us making a necessary change that will support veterans to exercise their democratic rights.

I know that noble Lords opposite were supportive of this change when in government, and I hope that consensus remains. This instrument makes changes to the current legislation that sets out the accepted forms of voter ID and will result in the veteran card being added to the list of accepted forms of ID for the purposes of voting in Great Britain. It will mean that holders of the veteran card can use it to prove their identity when voting in person in polling stations for all elections from May 2025 onwards. The veteran card was fully launched in January this year and is now available free of charge to all veterans. This, alongside the already accepted defence identity card, will bring parity between veterans and serving armed services personnel when voting.

The regulations also make two further small changes, which are technical clarifications to support the smooth and consistent application of the law. They have been highlighted by electoral administrators operating the policy in practice. First, they provide clarification regarding the entry relating to Commonwealth passports by updating it to refer to the specific list of Commonwealth countries in the British Nationality Act 1981. This will make voter ID legislation consistent with electoral registration legislation. In particular, it will allow Zimbabwean passports to be used as identification at the polling station from May 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations before the Committee. As we have heard from my noble friends Lord Mott and Lord Hayward, the timeliness of these changes is welcome. My noble friend Lord Hayward is right: it would be preferable to have any other changes come to us all at one time. I would also like to hear the Minister’s views on the possible changes to the May 2025 elections.

To go back to the SI, we on these Benches welcome the inclusion of the Armed Forces veteran card for use as voter ID. This is a sensible policy that allows our veterans to use a well-respected form of ID to exercise their democratic rights. I note that these regulations also allow for the national entitlement card issued by local authorities in Scotland to be used as voter ID. I also noted all the relevant changes to the forms required and the small changes outlined by the Minister.

These Benches’ primary concern is that the integrity of the ballot box is maintained. I therefore again seek the Minister’s assurance that this integrity will be paramount in any future changes that the Government may make.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. I will respond to some of the points raised.

I thank first the noble Lord, Lord Mott, for his support for these regulations. I will tackle the issue he raised about additional documents being added to the list, as he asked for more clarification. On the subject of accepted documents at polling stations, I recognise that there have been calls from the public and noble Lords to include various additional forms of documents since the original voter ID rules came into effect. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, also touched on this. We are pleased to bring forward this legislation to include the veteran card on the list of accepted documents, as this has been frequently called for since the card was fully launched.

I understand that many people would like further forms of identification to be added to the list. As I mentioned, we are continuing to review the voter ID policy. If further changes to the list of accepted documents are found to be necessary or appropriate, we will bring forward proposals in due course. I look forward to discussing them with noble Lords at that time. I make that point in particular. I have had really healthy discussions with all noble Lords who have spoken and want to ensure that I continue to have that conversation with them.

Many noble Lords touched on the theme of increasing democratic participation, as did the noble Baroness on the Benches opposite. The Government are committed to encouraging democratic engagement among all electors, including young people. We will help to encourage the engagement of young people by legislating to give 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote in all elections.

The Government are carefully assessing the postal voting process as part of our wider review of electoral conduct and the registration processes. We have begun work on this and will work closely with stakeholders from across the sector to gather their feedback, analysis and ideas. The Electoral Commission has published its final report on the general election. We will carefully consider its findings and recommendations. Once we have completed our review, we will bring forward firm proposals for changes and improvements to our electoral system. I look forward to discussing this with noble Lords in due course. On the point about when the review will end, we expect to have a report on it in spring 2025.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, raised a number of important issues on Electoral Commission reports and our report in particular. I thank the Electoral Commission for its ongoing research into the running of our elections, and for its feedback and advice on potential areas of improvement. The commission published its interim report on the 2024 general election in September, focusing on the impact of the voter ID policy. Officials are already considering its recommendations. Two weeks ago, the commission published its full report on that election. This draws on the full suite of evidence and data, including surveys of candidates, returning officers and polling station staff, and feedback from charities and civil society organisations.

We will be carefully reviewing the commission’s findings and recommendations from both reports, and providing a formal response to both reports in due course. We are very cognisant of the need to ensure that the foundations of our electoral system are robust and secure, which the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked about, as we introduce further reforms to the way in which elections are run.

We are undertaking a strategic review of electoral registration, conduct and funding processes, looking at the biggest challenges and the pain points in the current system. We are working in partnership with the elections sector to understand how we can address these challenges in a practical and pragmatic manner. I will provide noble Lords with an update on the Government’s overall strategic approach to elections and electoral registration, including the outcomes of this review, in due course.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Should I assume, since the Minister is saying that we will have nothing from the review until next spring, that there will be no further changes for the May 2025 elections?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am sorry for any miscommunication, but what we are saying is that we want to get everything ready for the May 2025 elections. The focus is on getting the review and I am sorry if I confused noble Lords on that point. It depends what comes out of the review: depending on what it tells us, we can act on that. That is our focus.

The noble Lord. Lord Hayward, talked about the IFF research and the point that the Minister in the Commons made on this. The Elections Act 2022 included a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish an evaluation of the implementation and impact of the voter ID policy on the first local and the first two UK general elections after the Act came into force. We have therefore contracted IFF Research, an independent research organisation, to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the July 2024 general election—we would have waited much longer for an evaluation of two general elections. It is essential that we understand how the policy has operated in practice, what has gone well and where there are any areas for improvement in the future. We expect that report summarising the work on the voter ID policy in the spring of 2025.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. I seek further clarification on that point: will the political parties be consulted as part of the IFF research, so that they as well as other organisations can have input?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. The research is independently contracted, so that is something for IFF to consider. I reassure noble Lords that I will consult across the House on any concerns they may have around ongoing work on the report or its publication.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, raised a number of important issues. On the voter ID policy, he reminded me and my colleagues of how we voted when in opposition. I note the concerns about the policy requiring voters to show identification when voting, which is why this Government are conducting a thorough review of the voter identification rules. This will include evaluating their impact on the 2024 general election. I, too, am waiting for that review. A number of noble Lords have raised concerns, and it is right to raise concerns about all new policies to make sure that they are working in practice, promoting democracy and helping people to turn out and vote at elections. I say to all noble Lords: let us wait for that review to take place. We will carefully consider the findings and recommendations contained in both the report we have contracted and the Electoral Commission report and will bring forward a proposal in the future.

The noble Lord talked about the voter authority certificate. There is a big issue in that approximately 210,000 people applied for a voter authority certificate between January 2023, when it was launched, and 26 June 2024, which was the deadline for the UK election, but around 26,000 certificates were used as a form of ID on 4 July. It is not clear why so few electors used the VACs they applied for, so we want to conduct a review on that point of the voter identification rules, which will include the impact in 2024 of the VACs, and any changes or improvements will wait for that review to take place.

If I have not addressed any issues, I am happy to meet noble Lords about them, as we regularly do. An important point to make before I finish—I know the noble Lord will want to come back in—is that the Government are committed to improving electoral registration and addressing lower registration rates among all groups in society. Officials are working with their counterparts in the Welsh Government to learn in particular from automatic registration pilots under way there and to see how they are taking place. We will examine different approaches and use experiences from other countries to inform our decisions. My only point here is that we are waiting for the review. The Government are working on a number of improvements in this area, and that will take a bit of time as we set out our position.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I apologise for intervening again, but I seek quick clarification on a point that I raised at the end of my comments in relation to the county council elections next year. Is the Minister in a position to indicate whether all the county council elections currently scheduled will actually take place?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I apologise; that point was also raised by the noble Baroness opposite, and it is very important. I have just been handed a clear answer—it is exactly what I was going to say noble Lords, since I have not been informed of any plans—which is to reassure the Committee that there are no plans at the moment to cancel any elections, but if anything happens I will communicate through the usual channels of government machinery to ensure that noble Lords with a particular interest, expertise and passion in this area, over a number of years, are consulted.

We are all justifiably proud of our long history of democracy, but we should never take it for granted. The addition of the veteran card to the list of documents accepted as identification at the polling station will support this important community in engaging in the elections process and exercising their democratic rights. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these regulations provide for some important changes to our electoral rules, strengthening, widening and securing our democracy into the future. I hope they will join me in supporting the veteran community.

Motion agreed.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Report

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Friday 22nd November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House takes note of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report.

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

My Lords, it has been more than seven years since the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, but time has not diminished the shock and horror that we all felt when we witnessed the terrible events in west London. It was an immensely personal tragedy for the bereaved families, survivors and residents in the immediate community as 72 people lost their lives, 18 of them children. The community were failed in the years before the fire and in the immediate aftermath. I am sure I will be joined across the House in paying tribute to them and restating our commitment to ensure that lessons are learned.

We are meeting here today to debate and discuss the findings of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report, as part of the Government’s work to ensure that it never happens again. This is the least we owe to those most affected by this tragedy, a tragedy that the inquiry found to have been entirely “avoidable” and, to quote the report, was

“the culmination of decades of failure by central government and other bodies in positions of responsibility in the construction industry”.

I thank Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his team for their forensic examination of what happened on that day and why. Their report was difficult to read. The findings prompted renewed shock and horror at the lack of competence, professionalism, oversight and integrity and, in some cases, downright dishonesty in those we trusted to keep us safe in our homes.

As the inquiry makes clear, the tragedy was the result of a collective failure: the failure of the state to protect residents from harm and of those we trust to build and maintain our homes to put safety first. The inquiry uncovered

“systematic dishonesty on the part of those who made and sold”

the cladding and insulation that was used, and describes how they

“engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market”.

The Government understand the criticisms that were levelled at the state. The Prime Minister has apologised for the failings of the British state and, as the Lords Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement, I want to say again how deeply sorry I am, and this Government are, for the failures that led to the tragedy and how the Grenfell community were treated in the aftermath by those who should have been there for them. They have waited a long time for the findings of the inquiry’s report and for change. With each inquiry hearing, each news story, each government announcement and each new commitment to change over the past seven years, they had to relive the painful events of that night.

Sir Martin’s report exposes the truth in unsparing detail, but we recognise that this is not yet justice. It is imperative that there is full accountability, including through the criminal justice process, and that this happens as swiftly as possible. I reiterate this Government’s commitment to supporting the bereaved, survivors and residents of the immediate community, now and for the long term.

This Government are treating the inquiry’s findings and recommendations with the seriousness that they deserve. The Prime Minister committed the Government to responding in full within six months. We remain committed to this timetable and to providing a considered and unambiguous response that sets out how we will build a strong pathway to reform. We are committed to unequivocal reform, system-wide reform, governmental and regulatory reform and, of course, justice. Our commitment to justice remains as strong as ever and we fully support the Metropolitan Police, recognising that this is an independent and ongoing investigation.

In the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, and again after the inquiry published its findings, we have seen a disappointing lack of remorse, apology or accountability from the organisations and individuals who failed in their duties. I know that many noble Lords have raised this important issue, and they are right to do so. Many of those who manufactured, sold and used inappropriate products, and many of the owners and developers who are dragging their heels in now making their buildings safe, have not taken responsibility. This Government will make sure that they do. I can confirm that the Cabinet Office has sent preliminary letters to companies named in the inquiry. For those found by the inquiry to have been part of these horrific failings, this is the first step in stopping them being awarded government contracts.

What happened at Grenfell Tower had a deeply personal impact on those directly affected. It was a national tragedy. It shone a light on the failures of the system and how practices, priorities and culture must change. Firefighters at the scene faced impossible circumstances with courage and professionalism but were let down by poor management, inadequate training and a chronic failure of leadership. Much has changed since 2017: fire and rescue services are better trained and prepared to respond to large-scale emergencies, but there is more to do to develop high-quality leadership, equipment and training for all personnel and to develop an environment that supports continuous learning and professional excellence.

We have seen that poor culture and a lack of integrity in our fire and rescue services lead to operational incompetence and thereby risk public safety. We must also acknowledge the impact of the failures in the fire safety industry. Collective action is imperative to raise standards in key roles, such as fire risk assessors, and to ensure that there is sufficient oversight of safety-critical work.

Sir Martin’s report focused on fire safety, but it exposed wider failures in practice and culture across government and industry. There have been important reforms since 2017, but there is more to do. Culture change cannot be a long-term aspiration; it must begin immediately. The Government have an obligation to carefully consider the findings and recommendations, and to continue to reform accordingly. So too do the designers, housebuilders, contractors, specialists, professions, those who produce and market products, and those who service and manage buildings. Every constituent part of our housing sector must act.

It is abundantly clear that far too many buildings remain unsafe. Yesterday the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government published its monthly remediation statistics. They show that, of the 4,834 residential buildings 11 metres and over in height with unsafe cladding that the department is monitoring, 1,436, or 30%, have completed remediation and 983, or 20%, have started remediation. But 2,415 buildings, 50%, have still not started remediation We must go further, faster. Investment in remediation will rise to over £1 billion in 2025-26, and we have previously committed to accelerating the pace of remediation through targeted measures. I am pleased to say that more on this will be outlined imminently.

Everyone is entitled to, and should be able to access, a safe home, regardless of background or community. What we saw prior to, during and after the tragedy at Grenfell Tower was a lack of respect for residents and a community treated appallingly by both their landlord and local government leaders, who should have listened and acted sooner. Lessons have been learned, but more must be done so that the right support can be mobilised quickly to respond to major events. We will continue to carefully consider the findings on how central and local government must change, both in how they are organised and in their culture.

Social housing is a vital part of this country’s housing stock, but it must be better. That is why we have committed to a council housing revolution and to reforms that will ensure that landlords are held accountable for the quality and safety of the homes and services they provide. Routine inspections of large landlords will ensure that those who are not meeting standards will have nowhere to hide and will need to take steps to improve. Inspection results will be published, and residents can have their say about whether their landlord is delivering a good-quality service through annual tenant satisfaction measures.

Residents must be able to trust their landlords to deliver good services. We will introduce greater professionalism in the sector to embed that trust by bringing forward a new competence and conduct regulatory standard for social housing staff. We will press ahead with measures such as the new access to information requirements and the Make Things Right complaints communications campaign, so that tenants know their rights and how to raise issues.

This is not just about social housing: all residents must be heard. Our aim must be to support a more accountable, resident-centred housing system. We are putting in place stronger protections for the vulnerable, including through Awaab’s law, which will set specific timeframes for landlords to investigate and repair dangerous hazards in homes.

The inquiry’s report is a shocking story of what can happen when a system fails, when profits are put first, when the right oversights are not in place, when residents are ignored and when trusted actors are dishonest. We all witnessed the result of these catastrophic failures. Independent reforms have been made since 2017, but we must go further. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this Government, the emergency services that serve to protect us, and those who build and maintain our homes must work together to create a fully modernised fire and rescue service and an effective, vibrant, innovative and, above all, safe housing sector, not just for now but for future generations to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the interest shown across the House. The points considered and the fulsome debate on the important findings and recommendations of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry have been very pertinent.

It is clear that there are strongly held views, and passionate arguments have been made. I am pleased that an update on our progress on several of the key issues raised, including on our plans to increase the pace and quality of remediation, will be made imminently in the other place. I am in an unenviable position, in that a lot of the announcements on the progress on remediation will be made in the other place, hopefully in the coming days. But I will respond to many of the points raised across the House today.

I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, on the Front Bench. She delivered an excellent speech and has done brilliant work for many years, working closely with the Grenfell community. The noble Baroness made numerous points. Let me start by talking about the Joint Select Committee and the inquiry into the national oversight mechanism. The Government are grateful to the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee for its inquiry into the efficacy of the law and practice relating to public inquiries. The Cabinet Office is considering the findings and recommendations in detail and will respond in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, also asked for details on the delivery framework and the communication of implementation. I agree that it is vital that we carefully consider the inquiry’s recommendations and drive delivery at pace. We will not allow this important work to drift. We remain committed to tracking the performance and pace of reforms through regular assessments, data collection and analysis. We will ensure that any method of monitoring is extensive, transparent, unambiguous and accessible to the Grenfell community, as we have done for phase 1 of the report. We will set out monitoring proposals in due course, but we do take on board the noble Baroness’s feedback.

On the review of the civil contingencies mechanisms and the Act in particular, we are carefully considering all the recommendations in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report and have committed to responding within six months. We will be looking to provide answers to specific questions, but there is a clear commitment to respond to the recommendations within six months. That was made clear by the Prime Minister.

The Government are also supporting the community for the long term, an issue that was raised a number of noble Lords. The Deputy Prime Minister has already written to and met with some of the Grenfell community and is keen to continue to meet them to hear directly about the issues that are important to them. A number of noble Lords raised the issue of communication, especially talking to the bereaved, including victims’ families. We will make sure we keep that conversation and those discussions at the heart of the process.

The noble Baroness asked about the creation of one department. The Government are carefully considering this recommendation, as well as others.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in a very detailed contribution, spoke about the lack of investment in social housing. We will bring forward details of future government investment in social and affordable housing at the spending review. We will work with mayors and local authorities to consider how funding can be used in their areas, and support devolution. We are committed to delivering 1.5 million houses in this Parliament, and the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. The Government are also adding £500 million to the affordable homes programme to kick-start the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation.

Social housing reform was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Best—he was eloquent, as always, on this issue, of which he has vast experience—and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Since the Regulator of Social Housing’s new regulatory regime went live in April 2024, routine inspections of larger landlords’ properties have begun, with the first new gradings published to make clear how landlords are performing. These reforms will help drive a transformational change in culture, a theme which has run through many contributions today. A transformational change in culture and behaviour is needed across the social housing sector. It is essential that everyone working in social housing treats tenants with empathy, courtesy and respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, has met with the Regulator of Social Housing. The regulator has begun inspections and will be holding everybody to account on the new standards, applying stronger enforcement powers where necessary. I know that the noble Lord has had that conversation with her.

In early 2025 we will take further steps towards ensuring that all social homes are safe, decent and warm by consulting on a decent homes standard and new minimum energy efficiency standards for the social rented sector. Also in 2025, we will direct the Regulator of Social Housing to set a new competence and conduct regulatory standard, to which I have previously referred. This will ensure that all housing staff have the skills and knowledge needed to carry out their roles effectively, and that they are held to account on treating residents fairly and with respect at all times. We will also direct the regulator to set new access to information requirements for housing associations. This will enable housing association tenants to access information about the management of their social housing and to hold their landlords to account.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, mentioned whistleblowers. I agree that it is imperative that workers feel able to raise concerns when they see them. As a whistleblower, you are protected by law; you should not be treated unfairly or lose your job because you have blown the whistle. You can take a case to an employment tribunal if you have been treated unfairly because you have blown the whistle.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Porter and Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, raised the progress and the pace of remediation. We will be setting out further measures soon through the remediation action plan to increase the pace of building remediation and deliver for residents and leaseholders. The Deputy Prime Minister has had a round table with mayors, regulators and national building and safety bodies to press the urgency of this work. Further steps to increase the pace of remediation will be set out soon in the other House.

It was important for the House to hear the passionate speech of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, who clearly has skin in the game. Where low-rise buildings have been brought to our attention, we are writing to freeholders and managing agents in affected buildings to make sure that any proposed works are necessary and proportionate, and that the rights to redress are being fully utilised. A number of noble Lords mentioned this.

Following the passage of the Social Housing (Regulation) Act, we are delivering an extensive programme of reform. I talked directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, about her particular points. The Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to improving building safety, with the total spend on remediation in 2025-26 to rise to over £1 billion. This includes some new money in 2025-26 to begin to accelerate the remediation of social housing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Porter, touched on the theme of justice. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government established a recovery strategy unit to use powers in the Building Safety Act to pursue the most egregious actors who have failed to make homes safe. The unit is seeking to recover £72 million of leaseholder and taxpayer funds to pay for remediation work, impacting 1,200 homes.

On the investigation, the Met Police and courts are independent. As the Met Police has said, this will take time. It is one of the largest and most legally complex investigations ever conducted by the Met Police, with around 180 officers and staff dedicated to it. Decisions on the level of special grant funding will be made as part of the considerations on the wider police funding settlement. The Home Office is working closely with the Metropolitan Police Service finance team to understand and manage the position on funding.

We have provided over £14 million to local authorities for them to take increased enforcement action against those whose buildings remain unsafe, as well as providing regulators with the powers needed to act. The building safety regulator has extensive enforcement powers and will hold those who are not complying with their responsibilities to account.

My noble friend Lord Stevenson talked in particular about manufacturers, construction products and the need for reform. We will bring forward comprehensive proposals for system-wide reform of the construction products regime to give consumers confidence and underpin supply chains and housing delivery. We are committed to working with the sector on this system-wide reform, including examination of the institutions that play a key role in the construction products regime, so that businesses and consumers can have confidence in the products and services they purchase.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, raised a point about freeholders who do not accept culpability. Where buildings are delayed, we will work to unblock this and our enforcement team will engage with local regulators to support them in using their enforcement powers where appropriate. Where freeholders are undertaking their duties appropriately and at pace, the department works to support them in unblocking factors beyond their control.

The noble Baroness also talked about justice for those affected by the tragedy. The police were not able to take legal proceedings forward with the CPS before the conclusion of this inquiry due to legal obligations, because the report was required to be considered as a third-party disclosure.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised a number of points. The first was about personal emergency evacuation plans—PEEPs. We must ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected. Following public consultations and engagement with organisations representing those with disabilities, the Home Office will soon bring forward proposals to improve the fire safety and evacuation of disabled and vulnerable residents in high-rise and higher-risk residential buildings. This will mean that residents with disabilities and impairments will be entitled to a person-centred risk assessment to identify appropriate equipment and adjustments to aid their fire safety and evacuation, as well as a plan involving a statement that records what vulnerable residents should do in the event of a fire. The Government have committed funding next year to bring this important work forward. More information on funding will be available when the policy for the residential personal emergency evacuation plans is published. On the timescale, the Home Office is planning to lay the regulations as soon as possible, with a view to the proposals coming into force in 2025-26.

A number of noble Lords talked about the duty of candour, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill, Lady Brinton and Lady Scott. As outlined in the King’s Speech, we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to implement a Hillsborough law to place a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Bill will enter Parliament before the next anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster.

On the culture point, which was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, the Civil Service Code sets out the standards of behaviour expected of all civil servants to uphold the Civil Service’s core values, which are: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. The code makes it clear that civil servants must

“set out the facts and relevant issues truthfully”

and

“must not … knowingly mislead ministers, Parliament or others”.

The specific scope of the duty in the forthcoming Bill is part of ongoing policy development. More information will be brought forward in due course.

On the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about building control standards, making building control a regulated profession with a transparent register of registered building inspectors is just one of the steps that we have taken towards achieving improved standards in the sector, but we will continue to review the building control system to ensure that those aims are met.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about the Hackitt recommendations. The Government accepted all 53 of Dame Judith’s recommendations in her Building a Safer Future report, and work has been done to implement these since 2018.

A number of noble Lords talked in particular about parliamentary scrutiny of public inquiries, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Sanderson and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Booth-Smith. The Prime Minister has already committed to responding to the inquiry within six months and to updating Parliament annually on our progress against every commitment that we make. The Government are also grateful to the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee for its inquiry into the efficacy of the law and practice relating to public inquiries more broadly. I know that the Cabinet Office is considering the findings and recommendations in detail and will respond in due course. The Government are grateful for all the work that this House is doing on that point.

I agree that it is vital that we carefully consider the inquiry’s recommendations and deliver at pace. We will not allow that important work to drift; we will remain committed to tracking the performance and pace of reforms through regular assessments, data collection and analysis. We will ensure that any method of monitoring will be extensive, transparent, unambiguous and accessible to the Grenfell community.

The noble Lords, Lord Porter and Lord Carter, touched on the “stay put” policy on evacuation alert systems. If a building requires remediation to address issues that could compromise the “stay put” building strategy, the strategy will change to simultaneous evacuation, with interim measures being put into place to support residents’ ability to evacuate. The building will revert back to a “stay put” policy only when the remediation is complete and it no longer presents a significant fire risk. An evacuation strategy can be changed during an incident by the fire and rescue Service, which can judge from the situation whether it needs to be changed.

On the issue of sprinklers, they are recognised as an effective means of controlling fire, but they are only one of several measures. There are other measures that can make a building safe. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on Approved Document B, it makes provision for sprinklers in all new care homes, and for existing care homes some owners may choose to retrofit sprinklers as part of their overall fire strategy, while others may opt for alternative measures that may be more appropriate.

The Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government has accepted that successive years of deregulatory policy and financial constraints have impacted the ability of the department to do its job properly. Clearly, that is unacceptable, and the systems that we have today are not those of 2017. A few steps have been made to tighten regulations and enforcement, but more needs to be done. Some £16.5 million in funding has been provided to support the recruitment and training of 230 new building control surveyors, and an additional £3.5 million has been made available to support the upskilling of building inspectors in local authorities.

The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that the Government will work in partnership with local authorities to build the foundations of local government. The recently announced leaders’ council will give councils a voice at the heart of government; it will bring together local government leaders and Ministers to jointly tackle problems and deliver for communities that we serve. That approach will help to deliver recommendations from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, particularly those that have an effect on the point of the local authority-related areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised a point in relation to the construction industry. The Building Safety Act has created powers to introduce additional construction product regulations, including a general safety requirement and requirements for safety-critical products that will enable all construction products available on the domestic market to be regulated.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the Dagenham fire. Barking and Dagenham Council provided emergency accommodation in local hotels for all 31 households that needed it, with suitable move-on accommodation being secured.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, made a strong contribution and I really value the expertise that he brings. On the “stay put” strategy, which I have mentioned before, that depends upon buildings being properly constructed, refurbished and maintained to building safety regulations. If a building requires remediation to address issues that could compromise a “stay put” strategy, and therefore has not been built or maintained correctly, that strategy will be changed to simultaneous evacuation, with interim measures put in place to support the residents’ ability to evacuate.

The supply chain of skilled professionals who are able to meet the sector’s demands is delicate. Good fire engineers are in short supply, contractor capacity for remediation work may be insufficient and the rates of remediation are not rapid. We will address these issues in the plan that will be announced imminently.

In concluding, I recognise that I may not have covered all noble Lords’ points. I will write to colleagues on specific areas. What the inquiry has demonstrated, and what today’s debate has shown, is that the housing sector needs fundamental change. What happened at Grenfell Tower must never be allowed to happen again. There must be a rebalancing of power that gives voice and respect to every citizen, whoever they are and wherever they live.

But, unbelievably and unacceptably, seven years on people across the country continue to live in potentially unsafe homes. It has taken far too long to make their buildings safe. This Government will imminently set out plans to increase the pace of remediation, protect leaseholders from additional costs and ensure that those who are responsible for the building safety crisis pay to help put it right.

The housing sector must act now to fix the unsafe buildings that need fixing, to change behaviour and culture, to rebuild the confidence and trust of residents and to deliver the 1.5 million safe and secure homes that we have committed to delivering in this Parliament, which this country so desperately needs.

I am conscious that there is such expertise in this House and make clear my commitment to sit down with noble Lords across the House to have further discussions. I appreciate all the feedback from across the House in today’s very important debate and look forward to meeting a number of noble Lords on this area. My door is always open to make sure that we improve lives for everybody to live in safe, secure and prosperous homes.

Motion agreed.

Voter Registration and Participation

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase voter registration and participation.

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

My Lords, as set out in our manifesto, this Government are committed to improving electoral registration and democratic participation. We will lower the voting age to 16 for all UK elections to widen democratic participation and encourage a lifelong commitment to voting. We are also exploring options to improve registration, including using data and online services to facilitate registration and increase registration rates. Changes will be informed by evidence and user research.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, especially regarding data sharing. Can he assure me that he will give serious consideration to the Electoral Commission’s recommendation that there should be a requirement on public bodies to share data with electoral administrators? Will he also look at allowing young people to use, for example, student cards and travel cards as ID when voting, following the very welcome change to the use of veteran cards?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point. We are exploring options to utilise data held by public bodies to encourage electoral registration, including what more can be done to enable electoral administrators to obtain local data. We are working with the Electoral Commission on this. On voter identification documents, as part of our commitment to expanding the voter franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, we need to consider whether the requirements and patterns of ownership of identity documents for identification differ for younger voters. If we find that the list of accepted identification documents needs to be revised, the Government will bring forward proposals in due course.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister not acknowledge that one way to increase participation in elections is for Governments not to break the promises they make in the run-up to a general election—in particular by imposing taxes on working people, which they said they would not do?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, we are delivering on our manifesto. On voter registration and increasing participation, the Government are committed to encouraging democratic engagement among all electors, including young people. That is why we will bring forward legislation for 16 and 17 year-olds to be able to vote in UK elections. This Government believe that by building a strong foundation for democratic participation among young people, we can establish voting habits that will continue as they grow older.

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on all his efforts to ensure participation from local communities in Burnley. However, what are the Government doing in rural areas, where people have to travel long distances and transport and polling infrastructure are poor. How do we get young people there to vote?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an excellent point on the difference between urban and rural participation. My department, MHCLG, is working with other government departments to explore the potential use of their data and online services to help improve voter registration across all areas. Continued collaboration is essential to deliver the Government’s electoral reform agenda. We will work with academics, civil society groups, the Electoral Commission and the electoral sector across the country, particularly with local communities.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, have we not wasted millions on a national scheme of individual registration to deal with a problem of fraud confined to only a few inner-city areas? Was not the real reason for the scheme’s implementation no more than a deliberate attempt by the then Government to suppress the vote in disadvantaged, transient communities in Labour inner-city areas? Ministers should read the debate of 8 September 2020 on the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill, where deficiencies in electoral registration were fully exposed. We need to increase the vote, not spend money decreasing it.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I note my noble friend’s important points, but I assure him that the Government are committed to improving electoral registration and addressing low registration rates among various groups in society. We will examine different approaches and use the experience of other countries to inform our decisions.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the inclusion of the Armed Forces veteran card for use as voter ID but note that there will be a further review. Can the Minister assure the House that the integrity of the ballot box will be maintained in any future changes that the Government make?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for making the point about the addition of the Armed Forces veteran card to the list of accepted documents for voter ID. On her very direct question, yes—it is in our manifesto.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, only 65% of 18 to 25 year-olds are registered to vote, compared with more than 95% of the over-65s. Will the Government now act urgently on the unanimous cross-party recommendation of this House’s Select Committee on electoral administration in 2013, and begin the process of automatically registering young people to vote when they are issued with their national insurance numbers and the DWP has checked on their nationality?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an interesting point and I have had the great pleasure of working with him on various SIs and, in particular, on the Elections Act 2022. The Government will explore all options to ensure that we increase voter participation. We believe that, by building a strong foundation of democratic participation among young people, we will establish voting habits that continue as they grow older. It is about delivering long-lasting, positive consequences for our democracy and building an informed and engaged electorate for the future. In the meantime, we are working on these issues and will bring proposals to the House.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, on voter participation, does the Minister recognise that a gross disservice to democracy has been perpetrated by all political parties—I am afraid I include my own—that base their election canvassing on so-called voter modelling algorithms and social profiling? They aim at getting only identified party supporters to turn out and leaving other voters undisturbed. Is it any surprise that there is a cynicism towards politics? Will the Government give serious consideration to adopting the STV system, in which every vote counts, to encourage inclusivity in our democratic processes?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, there was a lot stacked in the noble Lord’s question, but he makes an interesting point. I single out that turnout at the 2024 general election was 59.7%, which was the lowest since 2001. It was 7.6 percentage points lower than in 2019, so there is an issue with increasing voter participation but also an apathy with politics. The Prime Minister was very determined, as he started his premiership, to make sure that we reach out across all parts of our electoral system to ensure that people feel confident to get involved and participate in the system.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, in this digital age, is it not a disgrace that we depend on displaying rail cards, bus cards, Armed Forces cards and all sorts of other cards to combat fraud? Is the answer not staring us in the face? In this digital age, we should have digital ID and digital ID cards, without which we will not be able to tackle voter fraud, far less black employment, immigration or counterterrorism. Will the Government finally at least consider the use of digital ID?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for making that very important point. He alludes to the use of technology and the digitalisation of the process, but I remind the House that technology already plays a part in the smooth running of the UK’s election registration infrastructure. The noble Lord is talking about ID to help voting, but there is a range of ways in which technology could be part of measures to improve the whole process. The Government will thoroughly explore the viability of every avenue to achieve that goal. Any new measures will be rigorously tested and will take the accessibility and diverse needs of different groups of people into account, so that all those eligible to vote are able to register.

Social Housing: Awaab’s Law

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her tireless work under the previous Government in introducing the enabling powers for Awaab’s law through the Social Housing (Regulation) Act. I also pay tribute to Awaab Ishak and his parents, and the family’s efforts in campaigning for Awaab’s law. Their constructive work with the Government on this crucial policy deserves this place’s thanks and recognition. The Government will introduce Awaab’s law in both the social and private rented sector. This will support tenants to secure faster repairs, reducing health and safety risks. We will bring forward secondary legislation for Awaab’s law in the social rented sector in autumn.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the Government have extended the timeline for implementing the secondary legislation that will set the standards that social landlords must comply with under Awaab’s law in order to also set out the rules that private landlords must comply with under the Renters’ Rights Bill. However, given that winter is approaching, bringing colder and damper days and nights, will the Minister commit to a more urgent timeline to ensure that no other child dies because of inhumane housing conditions?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The consultation received over 1,000 responses. It is important that we consider these responses in full before confirming the requirements of Awaab’s law. We intend to publish the Government’s response to the consultation and lay the statutory instrument for Awaab’s law in Parliament this autumn. Alongside it, the Renters’ Rights Bill will ensure that we have similar legislation for the private rented sector. The noble Baroness is right that we want to get this done as fast as possible. No one should ever have to lose a child because of the condition of their home. No one should have to suffer appalling living conditions. Nor should anyone feel powerless in the face of landlords who will not listen to them or who make them feel like they are the problem when they ask for help.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Do the Government agree with me that one of the problems we have now is that many social housing associations are behaving like private landlords? Many of the problems that happen for tenants, including mould, are happening in the public housing sector. Maybe we need to think again about whether we need more council houses and fewer housing associations.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

On enforcement, seeking redress is important and tenants should challenge their landlords, whether it is a private landlord or the social housing sector. There are important ways to address this through the courts, but there is also the Housing Ombudsman. Tenants can challenge their landlord and if they do not get a satisfactory response, the Housing Ombudsman can address the issue, whether it is in the private or social sector. The noble Lord makes a valid point about the problems being widespread and not just in the private rented sector.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, only last week, the Housing Ombudsman said that damp and mould complaints constitute half of all its complaints. It named and shamed 20 social housing providers to which it had served severe maladministration orders. It is clear to me that the sector is already struggling with the timescales involved in Awaab’s law. Can the Minister assure us that all parties are ready for this? Following the comments made about speed, does he agree with me that new legislation is valuable only if it is enforceable? If it will not work, and if the sector is already struggling to make it work, do we not need to listen to the sector for a little longer before extending this legislation to the private rented sector?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, we are working with social landlord and tenant groups to consider the practical implications of the proposed requirements to be set through Awaab’s law. The Government’s response to the consultation, which will be published in due course, as well as subsequent regulations, will provide details on how Awaab’s law will work. We will issue guidance for landlords and residents on the new duties to be set by the regulations. The guidance will be published before the regulations come into force, to give landlords time to prepare and for tenants to know their rights.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that Awaab’s law is not just important to our housing policy but absolutely germane to preventing child poverty? A child’s life chances depend on having a home that is clean, safe and habitable.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend’s excellent and eloquent point. It is for us all to learn lessons from what happened. She talked about the wider societal issues and unfortunate challenges we have to deal with, and I hope that we can work together across government to address them.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, in 1997, the Labour Government inherited damp and cold houses, and they had years to try to fix them. This Government have inherited from the previous Government 13 years of neglect. I welcome the measures that the Government are taking. Can the Minister introduce them as quickly as possible?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I note my noble friend’s point. There is a challenge ahead. There is a different set of economic circumstances in 2024 than there was in 1997, but we are equally focused to ensure that we can tackle this scourge in both the private and social rented sectors. We will work hard to ensure that, after the responses to the consultation, we can move on swiftly—which was the premise of the Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, what extra resources will be made to local authorities to provide stronger investigatory powers and, ultimately, to deliver swift enforcement action?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The consultation on Awaab’s law in the social rented sector invited views on the costs of the policy. The department has considered those views and will publish an updated impact assessment alongside the government response to the consultation. As we set out in our manifesto, we recognise that councils and housing associations need support to build their capacity and make a greater contribution to an affordable housing supply. We will set out our plans at the next fiscal event, to give councils and housing associations the rent stability they need to borrow and to invest in both new and existing homes.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, the Government are right to bring some pressure to bear on the housing associations and councils to get their properties up to scratch; it is essential if we are to prevent any more incidents like the death of poor little Awaab Ishak in his damp, cold and mouldy home. But those housing associations and councils need income to keep their stock in good nick, and that means not having reductions, caps and constraints on the rental income that they receive. Can the Government assure us that rents will be allowed to rise in line with costs and not be the subject of the constraints which have kept the income down and therefore the level of repairs and major improvements at a level that is unacceptable?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and pay tribute to the excellent work he has done in this area for a number of years. To reassure him, as proposed in the consultation, Awaab’s law includes a provision for social landlords to defend themselves against legal action if they have taken all reasonable steps to comply with requirements but it has not been possible for reasons beyond their control. There is no plan by the Government to have any rent controls.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my heart goes out to the parents of Awaab Ishak and anyone whose children are living in those kinds of unacceptable conditions. Can I press the Minister on a timetable? The consultation on the social housing aspect was in January of this year. We are some months down the line, with no apparent date for the regulations. Would there not be merit in at least introducing this for social housing now, and maybe getting some of these homes updated urgently, while the Government rightly work out how to extend it to private landlords as well?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I note the point made by the Baroness, Lady Altmann, about timing. As I said at the start, we intend to publish the Government’s response to the consultation and lay the statutory instrument for Awaab’s law before Parliament this autumn. In relation to the private rented sector, which the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, also talked about, the provision will be brought forward in the Renters’ Rights Bill, subject to consultation. On implementation, we continue to work with the sector on this and will confirm the commencement date for requirements when we introduce the regulations and publish the Government’s response.

Religious Hate Crime

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to reports that religious hate crime has increased, what steps they are taking to tackle religious hate crime and strengthen community cohesion in the UK.

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

My Lords, religious hatred is a stain on our society. Recent events, such as the domestic impact of tensions in the Middle East and the appalling violence we saw on our streets over the summer, have exposed weaknesses and divisions in our society. This Government are developing an integrated, cohesive approach to tackling these challenges, which will address racial and religious hatred and strengthen cohesion across all communities. We will say more soon.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Many of us are deeply worried; post the 7 October attacks, the dramatic rise in religious-motivated hate crime and the strain on social cohesion have been deeply worrying. Of course, at the same time they have spurred a whole range of grass-roots initiatives. I am thinking, for example, of the work that our local MP in St Albans has undertaken with local imams and rabbis, who have produced a document—five reasons for dialogue; why Jews and Muslims refuse to hate one another—which they are taking around our schools. It is making quite an impact. I wonder whether the Minister and his officials are aware of this and other initiatives and whether they are being integrated into a national strategy so that we can try to address this at the youngest age possible.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate and ask him to pass on my appreciation for the work that has gone on in different faiths to bring the community together in St Albans. I made community visits on Thursday, Friday and Saturday to discuss these issues, and tomorrow I will be in Cambridge visiting the Woolf Institute to hear from Jewish, Muslim and Christian community voices. These important initiatives are all part of a package to make sure that our country rejects hate, has unity and works together to deal with these challenges.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, recent reports have shown that anti-Jewish hate crime in London has risen fourfold and that anti-Semitic activity on campus is absolutely shocking. Jewish students go in fear at what is going on. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has issued two excellent reports on this, and his recommendations, which I call on the Government to implement, are to teach contemporary anti-Semitism. Holocaust education alone is not succeeding, because it places everything in the past. Will the Government keep our students safe? I have written on this to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, three or four times since August and have not received a reply. I hope that the Minister will encourage her to reply to me and others on the painful situation on our campuses.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the point the noble Baroness makes, in particular on the rise of anti-Semitism in our country. We intend to reverse the decision of the previous Government to downgrade the monitoring and recording of anti-Semitic hate incidents. I will pass the noble Baroness’s views across, but I assure her that I am meeting the noble Lord, Lord Mann, who is our independent adviser on anti-Semitism, and I will continue to work with him closely to tackle all forms of anti-Semitism, wherever they may be.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I know that as a child, growing up when there is a lot of hatred about really impacts on how you grow up. We are seeing every single day the rise of racial and religious hatred; it has been perpetuated by adults, and it feeds back into children. We need to know how we can work across parties to be able to make sure that, as government and opposition, we are producing an environment in which children can grow up safely, not watching the hate that is constantly on the television, which comes from adults who are magnifying the differences.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an excellent and interesting point. Today is my 45th birthday; I remember that the first time I suffered racism and religious hatred was on my fourth birthday. The noble Baroness is right: these things stay with you for a long while. Wherever we can work in different departments and different institutions, we have to ensure that we have an integrated and cohesive approach that tackles the problems that, unfortunately, too many people face.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that all racial and religious hatred is a stain on our society, but unfortunately it is on the rise significantly. He will be aware that Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate crimes have also risen significantly. The violent riots in the summer targeting British Muslims and refugees did not happen in a vacuum. Our families and communities feel worried and targeted, especially with the terrible rhetoric that we hear from some leading politicians that would not be tolerated if it were about other communities. In light of that, what steps are being taken to change the policy of disengagement, particularly with Muslim communities and organisations, and, as the right reverend Prelate said, to enhance and bring back interfaith work, particularly with women, young people and broader communities?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, on the unfortunate stats that the noble Baroness raises, she is quite right. The Question today is about how there is too much religious hatred. Out of all hate crimes, 25% are religious hate crimes. I am working and engaging with all communities, of all faiths, and she can rest assured that that includes the Muslim faith. As I said before, I am visiting the Woolf Institute tomorrow to hear from Jewish, Christian and Muslim leaders in particular and to talk about how interfaith—to go to the very premise of the Question—is playing a part to alleviate hate crime and religious hatred in our country.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister advise us as to what the Department for Education is doing in relation to advice to schools?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I will just say to the noble and learned Baroness that it is for the Department for Education to better advise her. I am sure that she does not need any advice from me, knowing her experience in this area.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister be prepared to meet with Show Racism the Red Card, the country’s largest anti-racist education charity? It has workers in schools every day, making sure that our children are exposed to anti-racist ideas, all the better to be able to confront the racism that we see in much of our press and media and, regrettably, that we have seen on our streets.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an interesting point, but let me be quite clear that we have a lot of plans moving forward. I hoped to talk about having these plans in place, but we are at the very difficult stage of finalising our plans. Rest assured that I will come back to my noble friend and the House about some of the challenges when we have our finalised integrated approach. The steps we take will be able to alleviate a lot of the issues that my noble friend raised.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, in opposition the Labour Party adopted the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia. Have the Government now adopted that definition and, if not, why not? If they are still considering the matter, what are the specifics of that definition that need clarification in order for the Government to make up their mind?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

A new definition, which the Government will work towards, must be given careful consideration so that it comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives and considers the potential implications for different communities. We understand the strength of feeling on the issue of the APPG’s definition, and we want to make sure that any definition comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives. We are actively considering our approach to Islamophobia, including definitions, and will provide further updates in due course.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, the hate crime that captures the headlines often has a political dimension where religions are involved, such as in the Middle East. Although serious, it is transitory. More serious is the hate crime of religion on religion, with claims of God-given superiority. Does the Minister agree that open dialogue between religions on the actual teachings—I do not mean just having tea and samosas, which is the usual thing—would help identify important commonalities that can strengthen cohesion in society?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Yes.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the Minister reassure us that concern about religious hate should not lead to backdoor blasphemy laws or assaults on free speech and legitimate criticism, or even ridicule, of religion? Does the Minister agree that, three years to the day after the brutal murder of Sir David Amess by an Islamist fanatic, it is not helpful when some conflate concerns about Islamism with religious hatred of Muslims? That stirs up tensions too.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said before, a new definition must be given careful consideration so that it considers multiple perspectives and the potential implications for different communities. We are actively considering our approach to Islamophobia, and that includes a definition. I pay tribute to the work of Sir David Amess. Religious hatred should not be allowed to cause violence or damage, and the Government will work to eradicate all forms of it. On the point raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I will speak to my colleagues in the Department for Education to get more clarification.

Recent Home Office statistics show that 71% of hate crimes were Islamophobic or anti-Semitic: 38% of them constituted Islamophobia, while 33% were anti-Semitism. We will look at tackling all religious hatred, and we have to make sure we work on our manifesto to improve monitoring and, I hope, help to alleviate this scourge on our society.

Anti-Muslim Prejudice and Hate Crime

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw attention to my interests set out in the register.

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

My Lords, we are absolutely committed to tackling Islamophobia. Our Government are only 10 weeks old, but in this time, I have crossed the country from Southport to Sunderland to Camden to hear directly from communities, with more meetings planned. I am deeply saddened by recent horrific scenes and hateful attacks against Muslims, causing unacceptable fear. We are refreshing our strategic approach to tackling all forms of hatred, including Islamophobia, and we will update the House shortly.

[Baroness Gohir (CB)]

My Lords, I am publishing a report today called Anti-Muslim Hate: Concerns and Experiences. I have sent a draft of it to the Minister and will send a final copy today. Will the Government formally respond to my report? Key findings included 80% of Muslims who experienced hate crimes not reporting them and 73% being very worried about their safety after the riots. What action will the Government take to increase reporting and improve the safety of Muslim communities—not just of mosques but of Muslims walking down the road and Muslims online using social media?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has raised some important questions regarding hate crimes against Muslims in our country. I am particularly thankful to her for all the important work she has done, including leading the Muslim Women’s Network UK and advocating for Muslim communities, and women especially, at the highest levels. I look forward to meeting her tomorrow. Anti-Muslim hatred is abhorrent and has no place in our society. We will continue to take swift action to address anti-Muslim hatred, and this includes safeguarding Muslim women. MHCLG is reviewing Dame Sara Khan’s advice, and we will provide updates on social cohesion work in due course.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, you cannot genuinely tackle what you dare not define and detail. In opposition, Labour adopted the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia, as did most other political parties, including the Conservative Party in Scotland. Can the Minister update the House on whether the Labour Party intends to follow through on that work now that it is in government, and what work, if any, has started?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I first acknowledge the work that the noble Baroness has done in this area; in particular, a comprehensive piece of work done by the APPG on the definition of Islamophobia. A new definition must be given careful consideration so that it comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives and considers the potential implications for different communities. We understand the strength of feeling on this issue and want to make sure that any definition comprehensively reflects multiple perspectives. We are actively engaging and considering our approach to Islamophobia, including definitions, and we will provide further updates in due course. I look forward to working and engaging with the noble Baroness and the APPG.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, the previous Government established the cross-departmental Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group, of which little was known about its membership and work. I found out about it quite by accident a few months ago. Do this Government plan to re-establish this working group, and will the Minister meet Muslim Members of this House and another place, and others if necessary, to consult on its membership and work?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Baroness that I am happy to meet any noble Lord, in particular about any concerns about religious hatred of all kinds. In relation to our approach on the definition of Islamophobia, as I just answered, we will come forward and update the House and discuss the actions we will take to tackle the problem of Islamophobia in our country.

[The Lord Bishop of Lichfield]

My Lords, some of the most valuable and effective work that is being done to improve community relations, and so to counter religious hate crime and prejudice, is at a local and grass-roots level; for example, in Walsall we have community iftars, church-mosque twinnings, multifaith drama groups, and so on. Can the Minister tell us what the Government are providing in funding and support for local initiatives and groups of that kind?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

First, I express my gratitude to the right reverend Prelate for his question. He makes the point that faith groups play a huge role in working to promote community cohesion and attacking the problems that we face in society. Moving forward, we are looking at having an approach that best supports communities. A lot of work is now being led by the Deputy Prime Minister; in the next few days we will see some measures that will take not just a national but a cross-governmental approach to social cohesion. I reassure the right reverend Prelate that we are looking at these challenges at the moment.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, there are no comparative statistics to show that Muslims suffer more from irrational prejudice than, say, any member of the Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist faiths. To borrow from Shakespeare, if a member of those other faiths is cut, do they not bleed? Will the Minister confirm that the Government will be even-handed in looking at the needs and concerns of all religions and those of no faith?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I say in response to the noble Lord’s important points that all forms of racial and religious discrimination are completely unacceptable and have no place in our communities. This Government will explore a more integrated and cohesive approach to tackling it. We are committed to protecting the right of individuals to freely practise their religion and we will not tolerate religious hatred in any form towards any religion.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the previous Government committed to spending over £117 million to protect mosques and Muslim schools and community centres in the UK from anti-Muslim hate attacks over the next four years. In the light of the unrest we saw this summer, what discussions has the Minister had with his ministerial colleagues to ensure that this money is being spent effectively to protect Muslim communities? In the light of the summer disruption, what further steps will the Government take to tackle anti-Muslim hate in the United Kingdom?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. On the latter question, the Home Office has announced a rapid response force—work which involves more security to help support mosques that are facing direct public and violent disorder against them. I have visited quite a few mosques and had discussions with communities. In relation to our £29.4 million pledge to support mosques, a lot of mosques are taking up these schemes. Their continuation is important, as it is to tackle any form of religious hatred we see, including anti-Semitism. Where there are high levels of religious hate crime, there is existing government funding to support institutions to protect themselves.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the review of the national curriculum that the Government are planning provides the opportunity to ensure that schools are places where all ignorance and prejudice-based behaviour are challenged, and where anti-racism—in this case, islamophobia—is actively taught, to try to stop these attitudes developing in our young people?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point in recognising that school has a huge role to play in raising awareness and tackling discrimination. At a very early age, young people can understand our British values. I visited Middlesbrough, and that was what the community was telling me. We should be looking at this more closely, looking at the national curriculum. That is a discussion to be had with the community and the Department for Education. We will take that forward and pass it to the relevant department.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for sharing his answers, perhaps I might make a suggestion. My noble friend on the Front Bench has already articulated the issue of funding. There is existing architecture from the previous Government—the Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group. Also, it was the Conservative Government led by my noble friend Lord Cameron that made anti-Muslim hatred a specific hate crime. There is also an issue of underreporting.

I hope that the Minister agrees that we must focus on reporting these crimes and make that issue of education prevalent in the communities. Linked with that, we must accentuate the positive. Muslims make an incredible contribution across the piece in the United Kingdom, even in areas such as cricket, which may be the litmus test. I recall a particular ministry official saying to me that when he gets up in the morning, he hears Mishal Husain on the radio, travels on an Underground run and overseen by Sadiq Khan, then reports to a Minister called Tariq Ahmad. Let us accentuate the positive of Islam and Muslims in Britain alongside what we do in tackling anti-Muslim hatred.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I do not have anything to respond to that with. It was a fantastic point. I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord did as Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief. His points were very clearly made, and I will take them forward. I appreciate his comments.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 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, many noble Lords will be familiar with the Bill we are debating today and will remember that it was previously introduced in the previous Parliament. We have reintroduced the Bill for the same purpose that it was first brought forward by the previous Government: to help ensure the victims of the Holocaust will never be forgotten.

This horrendous crime—the murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children—was an attempt by the Nazi state to eliminate an entire people. If we are to honour those families, communities and individuals, we must constantly ask ourselves: how did it come about? What was the context within which such hatred could grow? How did it happen that people could turn with such violence upon their neighbours? What led a Government to plan and execute the murder of millions?

A new national memorial to the Holocaust, with an integrated learning centre, will enable future generations to ask and answer those questions for decades to come. It will be a focal point for remembering the 6 million Jewish men, women and children, and all other victims of Nazi persecution, including Roma, gay and disabled people. That is why we supported the Bill in Opposition and are promoting it today.

I want briefly to explain how we arrived at this moment, and pay credit to all those who supported the project until this point. In particular, I thank those involved in the work of the Holocaust Commission, launched by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, when he was Prime Minister. It was the recommendations of that commission, set out in its 2015 report, which called for a

“striking and prominent new National Memorial”,

which should be

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

In the years since, the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation has done extensive work to find a suitable location. Since Victoria Tower Gardens was identified and the design team of Adjaye Associates, Ron Arad Architects and Gustafson Porter + Bowman was appointed, the project has consistently benefited from strong cross-party support. Since 2018, that support has, of course, been led by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and the right honourable Ed Balls through the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, building on the work of the commission, which itself received almost 2,500 responses to its call for evidence.

The design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is itself the product of an international competition, with hundreds attending the exhibitions of the short-listed entries and then the winning design. A detailed planning application was then submitted to Westminster City Council at the end of 2018, with around 4,500 comments submitted online. Then, the 2019 call-in by the Minister led to a planning inquiry, chaired by the inspector, which received almost 70 oral representations. Throughout this process, views have been properly considered, and will continue to be properly considered as future decisions are taken.

In this time, the project has benefited from the support of academics, including Michael Berenbaum and Professor Stuart Foster; teachers and educators such as Ellie Olmer and Martyn Heather, the director of education for the Premier League; religious leaders, including both the Chief Rabbi and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury; and, of course, the voices of many Holocaust survivors.

I also stress that I accept there will never be universal support, and I want to assure the House that, for those who oppose the project, I will always be available to listen to, engage with and respect any concerns about this Bill. Indeed, I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has tabled a regret amendment that the Bill does not include certain provisions or deal with particular issues. This brings us neatly to an explanation of the Bill’s provisions, following which I will pick up on the points that the noble Baroness raises in her amendment.

The Bill is before the House to provide parliamentary authority for spend on the project and to address the view of the High Court, which said that Section 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900—the Act which saw the creation of Victoria Tower Gardens in more or less its current form—is an obstacle to construction. Clause 1 seeks powers to enable the Secretary of State to provide funding for the construction, maintenance and operation of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. It is a long-standing convention that Ministers should have adequate and specific legal authority to commit funds to significant new activities.

Clause 2 seeks to address the statutory obstacle inherent in the 1900 Act. I would like to spend a few moments explaining precisely what Clause 2 does and does not aim to achieve. The clause, if enacted, would provide that the 1900 Act should not be a barrier to the construction or operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The clause does not seek to repeal any part of the 1900 Act. I want to make clear that we are not seeking to overturn the guarantee that Parliament gave 124 years ago that Victoria Tower Gardens should remain protected,

“as a garden open to the public”.

The Government remain firmly committed to retaining and, indeed, improving the gardens, ensuring that all users of the gardens can continue to enjoy them. There will, of course, be some loss of space as a consequence of building the memorial, but the remaining area is more than 90% of the current space. Visitors to that 90% of the gardens will, as a result of this project, enjoy improved lawns with better drainage, more varied planting, more accessible seating and new boardwalks alongside the River Thames.

Clause 3 deals with extent, commencement and the Short Title.

In the previous Parliament, the House of Commons made clear that it wished the Bill and the project to proceed. We now have the opportunity in this House to give the same clear message. I am delighted that, as a new Government, we can also make very clear our support for this project. I confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State will continue to promote the planning application put forward by her predecessor to ensure that it is built.

It is important to note that this Bill does not provide powers to build the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Planning consent must be obtained through the separate statutory process, which takes full account of the need to assess in detail all aspects of any development and to hear from both supporters and opponents. I have already referred to the consultation carried out as part of the planning process, one of the topics the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asks in her Motion for the Bill to cover. Similarly, the process for site selection and appraisal and all matters relating to security have been scrutinised through the planning process, including at a public planning inquiry.

On project costs, a statement of expected costs was published by the then Government at Second Reading of the Bill. Forecast costs will continue to be reviewed and agreed with the Treasury in the normal way.

I will endeavour to respond in more detail in my closing speech to these and other points made by noble Lords in the course of the debate.

The proposal for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens will demonstrate the significance of the Holocaust to the decisions we take as a nation. I referenced Holocaust survivors earlier and, as I finish, I want to tell the House about a personal motivation for why I am so keen to see that the memorial is built. Throughout my life and the lives of Members of this House, we have all heard direct, first-hand accounts of the Holocaust from those who were there. They are stories which were often deeply painful to relate but were told by survivors who knew the importance of sharing their testimony. Sadly, the opportunity to hear first-hand testimony will not be available for future generations. Each year, we are losing more and more Holocaust survivors. Last year, Holocaust survivor and staunch supporter of the project Sir Ben Helfgott died, and we know that not seeing the Holocaust memorial and learning centre built in his lifetime was a great sadness to him. Earlier this year we saw the passing of Henry Wuga MBE and Hella Pick CBE, who both escaped Germany on the Kindertransport and made their homes here. For those courageous survivors who fear that attention will fade after their departure, the Holocaust memorial and learning centre provides strong reassurance.

The history of the Holocaust will always be important to Great Britain, and in an age of increased disinformation and misinformation, this memorial and the learning centre will mean that history continues to be told, and respected, long after its witnesses are no longer with us. As the great-grandson of a 100 year-old survivor, Lily Ebert, said

“When we no longer have survivors like Lily among us, this memorial will help to ensure that their experience is never forgotten. We can create the next generation of witnesses”.


I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords from across the House for their powerful contributions on this important Bill. It is heartening to hear cross-party support from across the House, but I also want to recognise the strong feelings, for and against, and respond to the concerns raised by noble Lords. Given the lengthy consultations and public inquiry that have taken place over the past decade, many of these concerns have been responded to previously, but I want to take time to go over a few of the specific points made.

On a broader point, I first draw attention to the planning inspector’s conclusion that the civic, educational and social public benefits of the proposal “outweigh the identified harms”. I also want to reference the separate process for the designated Minister to consider next steps in retaking the planning decision, which is a completely separate process from the Bill. On that, I can tell the House that arrangements are in place within the department so that the designated Minister remains isolated from the Holocaust memorial project and can make planning decisions in a fair, transparent and unbiased way.

As this is a hybrid Bill, there has also been an opportunity for those who are directly and privately affected to petition against it, and for those petitions to be considered by a Select Committee, both in the House of Lords and in the other place. In the Commons, the Select Committee heard eight petitions and decided not to amend the Bill. Eighteen petitions have been received in the Lords and will be referred to a Select Committee for consideration following this debate. Those opposed to the planned Holocaust memorial and learning centre have had every opportunity to make their comments known.

Moving on to specific concerns that were raised, the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Bottomley, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, the noble Lords, Lord Howarth, Lord Sandhurst, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Sassoon all talked about the security risk, as did the Opposition Benches. The Holocaust memorial and learning centre will have security arrangements similar to many other public buildings in Westminster. We are working with security experts, the National Protective Security Authority and the Metropolitan Police to ensure that the site has the necessary level of security measures.

Based on this expert advice, physical security measures will be incorporated into the memorial and landscaping which will meet the assessed threat. Expert advice has also informed our proposed operational procedures, which will be reviewed and updated routinely in response to current threat assessment.

Full security information was submitted as part of the planning process, but in the interest of safety and security it was not included in the public planning information. It would be completely unacceptable to build the Holocaust memorial in a less prominent location simply because of the risk of terrorism, a point made by many noble Lords. That would amount to allowing terrorists to dictate how we commemorate the Holocaust, as many noble Lords said.

Noble Lords will understand that there are good reasons why the details of security arrangements cannot be shared widely. We have relied and continue to rely on advice from the appropriate security experts. Nevertheless, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has a great deal of expertise in these matters and he is absolutely right to draw attention to the need for proper security arrangements. I will be very happy to arrange a private briefing for the noble Lord with members of the project team to discuss the security arrangements we are proposing. My office will be in touch with him soon.

A number of noble Lords alluded to the content of the learning centre, including the noble Lords, Lord Mann, Lord Goodman, Lord Blencathra, Lord Austin and Lord Verdirame, the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The exhibition will confront the immense human calamity caused by the destruction of Jewish communities and other groups. The learning centre will also address subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. The exhibition will examine the Holocaust through British perspectives, looking at what we did and what more we could have done to tackle the murder and persecution of the Jewish people and other groups. 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, to ensure that it is robust, credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into and interpretation of the Holocaust.

Noble Lords across the House—including the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Bottomley, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Balfe, Lord Inglewood and Lord Sassoon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—asked why Victoria Tower Gardens was chosen. Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as a site uniquely capable of meeting the Government’s aspiration for the national memorial and learning centre. It is close to buildings and memorials that symbolise our nation and its values. It is the most fitting location in terms of its historical, emotional and political significance, and its ability to offer the greatest potential impact and visibility for the project. The view of Parliament from the memorial will serve as a permanent reminder that political decisions have far-reaching consequences. It will encourage all UK citizens, and visitors of all nationalities, to reflect on the lessons of the past.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Howard, Lord Howarth and Lord Black, spoke about the adverse impact on the park, trees and playground. The design is sensitive to the heritage and existing uses of Victoria Tower Gardens. It uses approximately 7.5% of the area of Victoria Tower Gardens, while making enhancements to the remainder of the park that will help all visitors, including better pathways and improved access to existing memorials. The memorial will be positioned to minimise the risk of damage to tree roots, and great care will be taken with the trees during construction. The play area will be retained and redesigned to make better use of the space and a more attractive play environment.

Many noble Lords across the House alluded to the issue of size. The figures of 7.5% for open space loss and a 15% reduction in green space were calculated using architects’ scale drawings of the site. A detailed breakdown of these figures was published in April 2023 in response to a Parliamentary Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and supporting documents were placed in the Library of the House. It was a matter of common ground between parties at the planning inquiry, as noted in the inspector’s report at paragraph 15.79, that the actual loss of open space, principally as a consequence of the entrance pavilion and courtyard, was 7.5%. Extensive information about the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, considered at the planning inquiry, remains publicly available on Westminster City Council’s website.

On the points made about the increase in traffic, the majority of the visitors to the memorial are expected to be visiting the local area and arriving by bus or tube, with just a short additional walk along Millbank to the memorial. We estimate that there will be 11 coaches per day, using a proposed coach bay on a quieter section of Millbank, which will minimise disruption to traffic and pedestrians. Coaches will use these bays only to drop off and pick up passengers, not to park while visitors are in the exhibition.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Noakes, referred to consultation regarding potential sites. The UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation engaged with a wide range of organisations, including the Royal Parks, Holocaust commemorative and educational organisations and London boroughs, as well as directly commissioning the advisers to identify potential sites. The foundation also published a document, National Memorial and Learning Centre: Search for a Central London Site, inviting all interested parties to put forward expressions of interest. General public consultation was not carried out at the stage of recommending a preferred site because at that point, there were no clear proposals for what a memorial would look like and how it would sit within Victoria Tower Gardens.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Howell and Lord Sandhurst, mentioned the possible adverse effect on the Buxton Memorial. The planning inspector concluded that the development will not compromise the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site. The Buxton Memorial will be kept in its current position; the views of it will be preserved, and new landscaping and seating will be added to improve the setting, viewing experience and accessibility. The Holocaust memorial will be no higher than the top of the Buxton Memorial. The memorial’s bronze fins step down progressively to the east, in visual deference to the Buxton Memorial, where they are closest to it.

On cost, an issue raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane, Lord Goodman and—

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

During construction, where will the access point be for all the lorries that will take out the soil and the debris and bring in the building materials? The Minister has not answered that question.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I will address the noble Lord’s individual concern after I talk about the more specific concerns.

Updated costs of £138 million were published in June 2023, so that Parliament and all interested parties could have a complete picture ahead of important debates on the Holocaust Memorial Bill. It is deeply regrettable that delays to the programme have led to increased costs. With construction price inflation at high levels, the delays arising from the High Court’s decision to quash planning consent have inevitably added to the programme costs.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, talked about the scope of the hybrid Bill and the Select Committee. The Bill does not include powers to construct the memorial and learning centre but deals with a narrow point in the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 that was found to be an obstacle; it focuses on that in particular. Had the Select Committee considered matters that fall within the scope of the planning decision-making process, it would have risked important matters being addressed in a partial and potentially unfair manner, in particular risking that the voice of supporters of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre would not be heard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked how the design was decided. There was a competition, and 10 design teams were shortlisted, with 92 entries, in 2017. It was announced that Adjaye Associates, Ron Arad Associates, and Gustafson Porter + Bowman were the winning team. On the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the allegations against Sir David Adjaye, I note that Adjaye Associates stated that Sir David will not be involved in the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation project until the matters raised have been addressed.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, talked about public consultation not being enough. Ahead of the planning application, public consultations were held to gather feedback from local residents and the wider public. Around 4,500 responses were submitted to the planning application and, at a publicly held planning inquiry, many people spoke for and against the proposals. Planning processes ensure that all affected parties have the chance to make their views known on proposed developments, including this proposal. Consultation on the Holocaust memorial and learning centre has been extensive and thorough.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, I say that the construction phase is expected to last three years, with a further six months for fitting out. Provision has been made to ensure that as much of Victoria Tower Gardens as possible is open to users during construction works. This includes the riverside walk and the northern area of grass around the “Burghers of Calais” and up to the Houses of Parliament perimeter. The team will engage with specialist contractors from an early stage to ensure that works are well planned and disruption minimised.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, referred to the National Audit Office’s July 2022 report on the project. We welcome that the National Audit Office has addressed all its recommendations. It recognised the challenges we face in managing cost pressures in the context of inflation across the construction sector and of disappointing delays arising from opposition to the planning application. It is important to say that the National Audit Office also recognises that governance arrangements are in place. The strategic benefits of the programme have been clearly identified and specialists with the necessary skills have been recruited to the programme.

A flood risk assessment concluded that Victoria Tower Gardens is heavily protected by the Thames river flood defences, significantly reducing the risk of flooding on site. The UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre will include rainwater attenuation measures and improvements to the surface water drainage within Victoria Tower Gardens.

Our aim is for the completion of the memorial to be witnessed by Holocaust survivors—a very important point that a number of noble Lords made and that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, summarised on behalf of the Opposition. Subject to the Bill passing and planning permission being regained, we aim to begin construction in 2025 and to open in 2029. It is a source of deep regret that delays to the programme will mean that fewer Holocaust survivors will have the experience of seeing the memorial open in their lifetime.

On the impact of visitors, our projections are that, based on the number of people visiting Westminster, the maximum number of visitors to the memorial will be around 500,000 per year.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, talked about work in relation to the restoration and renewal programme team. The team met regularly to share information and co-ordinate plans to reduce potential impacts. The memorial site is at the southern end of the gardens and need not prevent the use of the gardens by the restoration and renewal programme. Subject to the Bill being passed and obtaining planning consent, we expect construction in 2025, as mentioned. Parliamentary works to the Victoria Tower are expected to start then, and more comprehensive restoration and renewal works are subject to the approval of Parliament and costed proposals in 2025.

A number of noble Lords asked why we could not build at the Imperial War Museum. Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as a site uniquely capable of meeting the Government’s aspiration for the national memorial. The Imperial War Museum has endorsed our proposal, as has been mentioned. Matthew Westerman, the former chair of the Imperial War Museum’s board, is a member of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation. We will continue to talk with the Imperial War Museum about our plans. The learning centre’s exhibition will serve a different though complementary purpose to the Imperial War Museum’s Holocaust gallery. We are confident that the project will add to the excellent existing provision on Holocaust education.

The learning centre will provide essential context to the memorial. The Holocaust Commission recommended that a new world-class learning centre should physically accompany the new national memorial. The learning centre will provide the opportunity to learn about the Holocaust close to the memorial, helping people to better understand how the lessons of the Holocaust apply more widely, including to other genocides.

The Government believe that young people should be taught the history of the Holocaust and the lessons that it teaches today. In recognition of its importance, the Holocaust is the only historic event that is compulsory within the national curriculum for history at key stage 3. Effective teaching about the Holocaust can support pupils to learn about the possible consequences of anti-Semitism and other forms of extremism. It is right that we also build this Holocaust memorial as a focal point for national commemoration and to demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that its lessons are never forgotten.

A number of noble Lords talked about the alarming rates of increasing anti-Semitism since 7 October in particular. Anti-Semitism has absolutely no place in our society, which is why we are taking a strong lead in tackling it in all its forms. Making sure that British Jews not only are safe but feel safe is one of our top priorities. The Government have committed further funding of £54 million to the Community Security Trust to enable it to continue its vital work protecting UK Jewish communities until 2028. That brings total funding for the Jewish community protective security grant to £72 million over the next four years.

Memorials alone cannot prevent anti-Semitism, but this memorial will play a part in reminding everyone where anti-Semitism can lead. It will be a reminder to us all, in Parliament and across the whole nation, of the potential to abuse democratic institutions to murderous consequences, and it will challenge us to stand up and combat racism, hatred and prejudice wherever they are found.

On the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham —I welcome him to his place—the play area will be retained and redesigned to make better use of its space and a more attractive play environment. This will allow only a modest loss because of the project.

The noble Lord, Lord Lee, talked about the views of UNESCO, Historic England and others being considered at the planning inquiry. The planning inspector concluded that the development would not compromise the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site. On the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, who said that the design was off the shelf, the memorial design was created specifically for Victoria Tower Gardens.

I just want to pick up some important points that the noble Lord, Lord Austin, talked about and the questions that he asked. Everything will be done to complete the project as quickly as possible, consistent with safety.

The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, talked about the learning centre being only digital. We will work with leading producers and designers to create a very powerful and informative digital exhibition. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, talked about making full use of digital technology to enable young people across the country to learn more about the Holocaust and take advantage of the impressive new learning centre, showcasing the excellent work of the many other Holocaust education organisations.

I want to finish off with some brief comments. The High Court quashed planning consent on the basis that the London County Council (Improvements) Act presented a statutory obstacle to building in Victoria Tower Gardens. This is what we are debating today. The Bill seeks to remove the obstacle by providing that Section 8 of the 1900 Act should not prevent construction or operation of the memorial and learning centre. The aim is to clarify the position before a new decision can be taken by the designated Minister.

The planning application remains current and a new decision on it will be taken. Arrangements are in place within the department, as I said before, so that the designated Minister remains isolated from the project and can make planning decisions in a fair, transparent and unbiased way.

I close by thanking noble Lords across the House for their contributions in this important debate and for their support to deliver on the Government’s commitment, which is long overdue. As Holocaust survivor Susan Pollack said recently:

“I am 93 years old. My dream is to see this memorial and learning centre finally built and to see the first coachload of school children arrive and ready to learn. That is what it is all about. And, hopefully, those students will learn what happened to me and become beacons of hope in the fight against contemporary antisemitism”.


The Holocaust memorial and learning centre will draw on the history of the Holocaust to stress the importance of tackling intolerance and hatred at all levels. It will be a memorial that delivers this message for all people across the UK and the rest of the world, regardless of faith and background. We must lose no more time in building a Holocaust memorial and learning centre of which we can all be proud. I repeat the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding: it is shocking that, in 2024, we do not have a national memorial. Who we memorialise matters and what we memorialise matters. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, the former Prime Minister, it is the right idea, in the right place, at the right time. I commend the Bill to the House.