Holocaust Memorial Day

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Friday 2nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, it is humbling to speak in this debate after so many powerful, exceptional speeches, which I have been privileged to listen to, and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as well. I also pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister; to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his truly emotional speech; and, as others have done, to the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the CST. I declare my interests in connection with Judaism—I am Jewish—and Israel.

The Holocaust did not start with World War II. The Stockholm declaration, signed not that long ago, states that its aim is

“to ensure that future generations can understand the causes of the Holocaust”.

I will focus on the events that culminated in the 1940s. As anti-Semitism once again pervades social discourse, public debate, national or social media, and even supranational organisations, I feel that the threat posed to the freedoms that liberal, western countries have built during my lifetime, and of which I have always been so proud, and perhaps too often taken for granted, is serious.

My family were mostly murdered by the Nazis. My grandparents were fortunate enough to flee Berlin and Vienna in the 1930s.

We have always been proud of the progressive tolerance, mutual respect, interfaith co-operation and human rights legislation that has been built up in our country. The free world committed to ensuring collectively that the virus of anti-Semitism would never again be allowed to flourish. We have this anti-racist legislation, we have Holocaust education and interfaith dialogue, yet anti-Semitism has returned despite it all. “Never again” is an empty slogan without understanding the background and recognising that what is happening right now is a potential rerun of the very hatred that led to the Holocaust.

I must pay tribute to so many noble Lords who have stood up with us against what has been happening to demonise Jewish people again. I thank my noble friend Lord Pickles and I thank every noble Lord who has spoken, so many of whom are doing wonderful work: the noble Lords, Lord Stevens, Lord Austin, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Davies, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Baronesses, Lady Anderson and Lady Ludford. I also thank my noble friend Lord Polak, who has tirelessly worked to protect Jewish communities and to foster interfaith and intercommunity relations, and those who are yet to speak. I am sure they will make powerful interventions as well.

Something is happening to western democratic discourse since 7 October. The late Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, of blessed memory, warned that the appearance of anti-Semitism in a culture is an early warning of collective breakdown. He likened it to a virus, and he explained how, like all viruses, it has mutated. Throughout history, anti-Semitism has been justified in some way by recourse to the highest authority, as he explained it, within the surrounding society. There was religion in the Middle Ages and in post-Enlightenment Europe, there was science. Today, the dehumanising of Jews seems to be originating in human rights, the very source of our civilised world, so that the only democracy in the Middle East is being accused of breaching human rights, racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and even genocide. The ultimate weapon of this new anti-Semitism is quite simple. It goes like this: the Holocaust must never happen again; but Israelis are the new Nazis; the Palestinians are the new Jews; all Jews are Zionists; therefore, the real anti-Semites of our time are none other than the Jews themselves. Sadly, these are widespread views among many communities, and they are infecting the far left, academia, the media and political life. I pay tribute, as others have done, to our honourable friend Mike Freer who has suffered so greatly.

Having spent decades curing itself of the virus of anti-Semitism, Europe seems to be being reinfected by parts of the world that never went through the self-reckoning that Europe commendably undertook after the Holocaust. Anti-Semitism flourishes when people feel the world has turned upside down. Therefore, like the 1870s, when there was economic disruption and the rise of nationalism, today’s anti-immigration views are another warning of which we must take heed. We must not take freedom for granted. We must make sure that those millions did not die in vain and pray that we learn the lessons in time. We must not forget where prejudice, hatred and evil lead.

Let me end on a message of hope for the future: the Holocaust survivor Rose Schindler said that where there is no hope, there can be no survival, so I am hopeful that we will recognise what is happening and be able to intervene in time.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate. However, on Monday evening I went along to the very helpful briefing session hosted by the Minister. I thank her for that session. Two points arose that particularly stuck with me and caused me to say something this evening.

The first relates to the Office for Environmental Protection, which we have heard about from numerous previous speakers. When the Minister was asked why the OEP thinks this proposal will reduce environmental protection, the reply came that the OEP had not considered the matter in the round. While it is true that building extra homes adds a certain amount of pollution to water, and we can debate what percentage, this proposal says that to offset that there are mitigation measures. That is indeed what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said in her reply to Dame Glenys Stacey.

I thought it was odd that the OEP had not considered the matter in the round, so immediately after the meeting on Monday, I emailed Dame Glenys Stacey to ask her whether indeed the OEP had neglected to consider the mitigation side. As it happened, Dame Glenys was away, but Natalie Prosser, the chief executive replied immediately and said that it was not true. In fact she said that, in line with its correspondence, it has considered the matter in the round. So I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to correct what she said to us in the briefing meeting on Monday evening.

My second point—which has also been referred to by many previous speakers including the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in most eloquent terms—is about facts and evidence. I asked the Minister and her officials whether they could show us their workings that demonstrate that the increase in pollution from extra homes will be more than offset by the mitigation measures that are proposed in this amendment. No answer was forthcoming; instead, the Minister said that she believed these measures will enhance the protection of the environment. Belief has an important role in our society, particularly in places of worship, but I have never heard a conservation scientist, an ecologist or someone concerned with protecting the environment claim that by believing that we can make our waters cleaner or that by believing we can protect curlews and other endangered species. Without seeing the workings, without understanding anything about the evidence that underpins this proposal from the Government, I simply cannot see how anyone could vote for it.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly rise to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and a number of other noble Lords. I have enormous sympathy for the Government. I believe that we absolutely need new housing. We have a problem with the shortage of housing stock. House builders should not have unnecessary barriers placed in the way of them getting on with development. However, I urge the Minister to listen to the sentiments expressed all around this House about the way in which the Government are currently planning to fulfil their laudable desire to ensure we get more homes built.

As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, Amendment 247YY would give carte blanche to this and any future Government to do what they liked to override the environmental protections of which I am so proud. This Government have done more than most other Governments to implement legislation that protects the environment. However, there is a risk that we will be tearing that up.

I congratulate the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, on his amendments to government Amendment 247YY, which is asking us to ignore the science and local authorities just to assume that no pollution will happen even when they are being told it will or know that it will.

As my noble friend Lord Deben said, the “polluter pays” principle is important, but maybe what is happening here is a cart and horse problem. If my noble friend the Minister were able to assure the House that the mitigation measures that I am sure are genuinely intended to offset the pollution caused by any new developments will be in place before those developments pollute rivers, we would be able to consider that. However, there is no guarantee that any of the mitigation measures, however well meant and well intentioned, will be able to be put in place before the pollution happens.

I therefore urge my noble friend to think again about the Government’s apparently panicked reaction, which perhaps is intended to please housebuilders, who are very keen to get on with developing houses in places that they know would be of great value to them. I have enormous sympathy with my noble friend Lord Cathcart, who wants to do some development and is being blocked. However, we have to protect the environment. I am sure my noble friend would like to do that, but I hope that we can understand that in keeping this delicate balance of building new homes today but protecting our habitats and precious environment in the long run, we must try to prioritise these precious areas of the country that we as a Government have done so much to protect. As I say, I am proud of that, and we must not tear those protections up.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for this constructive debate. It has been wonderful to hear expertise from across the House on such an important issue as environmental protections.

I remind everybody that this is day seven on Report of the levelling-up Bill, which we began in January with Second Reading, and this is the first time this issue has been brought to the attention of the House. We have to ask ourselves, why? I cannot remember who raised the fact that this issue was known about five years ago. The Government have known that it has been an issue of contention for housebuilders for a considerable number of years, yet it is brought to us on day seven on Report, in a form that means we cannot have any prior discussion of it. I wonder whether that relates to a sudden rise in the share price of house- building companies.

The argument that housebuilding is jeopardised unless the Government take action to throw out the protection of our watercourses is completely false. I think it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who said that more than 1 million planning permissions are awaiting development. As my noble friend Lady Parminter so expertly said, the sites in question—it is not everywhere; it is particular sites—are some of the most environmentally sensitive in this country, if not in Europe. Why would we put those sites at risk when there is an opportunity to protect them for the future of our children and grandchildren?

Families with Children: Accommodation

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness brings forward a very interesting point, but I am not aware of any work that has been done on that issue. I will certainly go back to the department and ask whether any has been done by either the department or the Treasury; I will write to the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the earlier question, will my noble friend the Minister look into the issue of councils being able to buy housing that can then be offered for social rent to the clearly increasing number of people who need housing and are unable to find it? Will my noble friend also consider, with the Treasury, the opportunity for pension schemes to take over such properties and rent them out on social housing rents, which deliver a reliable income? In that way, we could also address some of the housing problems.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The issue of local authorities buying houses is already being dealt with through the £500 million for local authorities that was agreed by the Treasury around six months ago. As far as pension schemes are concerned, that is an interesting issue. It has been discussed many times before. I will take it back and discuss it again.

Leasehold Enfranchisement

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Earl brings up a very interesting point. Commonhold, as he knows, allows home owners to own the freehold of a unit, such as a flat, within buildings and it is commonplace in places such as Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada. Unlike leasehold, commonhold does not run out, there is no third-party landlord and owners are in control of the costs and decisions affecting the management of their buildings. Commonhold was introduced in this country in 2002, but for some reason it has not taken off and, as the noble Earl says, there are currently fewer than 20 commonhold developments. In 2020, the Law Commission recommended reforms to reinvigorate commonhold as an alternative to leasehold ownership, and the Government are looking at this and will respond in due course.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

Would my noble friend agree that, with the shortage of leasehold properties and the extensive number of good landlords that there are across the country, it is important, when we have the new legislation, to ensure that not only are tenants protected—because of course, rightly, they must have protection in their own homes—but we are careful about the balance around putting too much burden on landlords to the extent that we may drive good ones out of the market? I declare my interests as set in the register.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right: this is a balance. There are a lot of exceptionally good landlords in this country, but there are a few that are not good—in fact, you could probably call them rogue. It is important that whatever legislation we put through gets that balance right, protecting tenants and good landlords but ensuring that we get rid of those rogue landlords.

International Holocaust Memorial Day

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Pickles, as others have done, on securing this important debate. I also thank our Government for the tremendous support they have provided to Holocaust remembrance.

It is increasingly important to remember that terrible, dark time. My mother, born in Berlin, and my father, born in Vienna, fled to the UK in the 1930s but most of our families were not so lucky. In preparing for today’s debate, I spoke to my cousin Ellen, who was on the Kindertransport aged eight. She still remembers the taunts of Jew hatred before leaving Berlin, the anti-Semitism and the devastation of Kristallnacht. She wanted me to say on her behalf how grateful she is that England gave her the opportunity to live and how proud she has always been of her British nationality.

The main message she feels we need to learn is the importance of tolerance and respect for all other people, not forcing our own views on others—indeed, Jews have never been a proselytising nation—or looking at people with preconceived ideas about race, religion or colour. Will we learn the lessons of history or are we in danger of repeating them? We must not be complacent. Hatred and anti-Semitism have not disappeared, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, just said in her excellent remarks.

Despite the horrific events of the Holocaust, which we remember today, I believe that there are still memories of the anti-Semitic acts that happened in Europe in the 1930s. For example, just this week, anti-Semitic taunts were used against a Jewish football supporter and her friends in a London pub that was showing the Arsenal v Spurs match. When she asked fellow Arsenal supporters not to use the word Yid, which was one of the Blackshirt Nazi taunts against Jews, she was told to take off her Arsenal shirt and 30 people shouted this at her: “You are a dirty fucking Yid”. Findings this week, which reported the harassment, anti-Semitism and hostility towards Jews in the National Union of Students, remind us that we must not forget where hatred and prejudice can lead.

In 1940, one-third of Warsaw’s population was rounded up and forced into a ghetto comprising 2.4% of the city’s area. How could this have happened? What lessons can we learn? One lesson is that we must not stand by silently while dreadful things are done around us. Death camp survivor Simon Wiesenthal, perhaps adapting from Edmund Burke, said:

“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.”


Yehuda Bauer said:

“Thou shall not be a perpetrator”,


but above all,

“thou shall never … be a bystander.”

This is what we must remember. So today, I am trying, in my own small way, to ensure that we record what happened. We can choose evil, like our enemies have done, and create a world based on hate, or we can try to make things better. We must not take freedom for granted.

Before I finish, I will quote the last testament of Israel Lichtensztajn, writing in Warsaw on 31 July 1942:

“I do not ask for any thanks, for any memorial, for any praise. Only to be remembered is what I wish, so that my people, my brothers and sisters overseas, should know where my bones have been taken to.”


He also asked that his wife, Gele, and his 20 month-old daughter, Margalit, be remembered. Today, Israel, we remember you.

Housing: Cost of Living

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot say exactly when, but it remains the top priority for this Government, as I have mentioned many times before. We will bring forward that important legislation as soon as we can within this Parliament.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, looking to the longer term, it is clear that there is a shortage of housing across the economy, particularly social housing. We have trillions invested in pension funds. Rather than the leveraged LDI products, would it not be sensible for the Government to facilitate and encourage more investment by pension funds in social housing, which can deliver a reliable income as well as benefiting the housing supply over the longer term?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend brings up a very interesting point. I have looked at that in the past from a local authority point of view. I will certainly take that point back and would like to talk to her more about it.

Leasehold Reform: Forfeiture Provisions

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for some exciting policy ideas. It is important that we recognise that forfeiture is a very lengthy process, and there are ways in which we can cover debt. In fact, where there is an outstanding mortgage, you typically find that mortgage companies step in and pay off any remaining amounts, because they want to protect their financial interest in a property that is worth far more than the debt. But it is an idea that I will take back to the department.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I support fully the Government’s intentions for urgent leasehold reform; I look forward to seeing the legislation. Does my noble friend agree that it is really important to ensure that landlords are still incentivised to let their properties? With the shortage of housing that we have, it is important to balance the interests of leaseholders and freeholders. There are really important areas of reform, such as have been raised, that need attention for this market to function much better than it does.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for once again underlining that, when we reform landlord and tenant law, we need get the balance of interests right. As a Government, we have committed to a number of ways in which we try to get that balance right and, indeed, to move away from the idea of having leasehold as the tenure of choice to an era where we have full-throated commonhold, which I hope has the support of many Members of this House.

High-rise Buildings: Evacuation of Disabled Residents

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I genuinely understand the concerns and frustrations, but we have come forward with what we believe to be a sensible proposal. This is a genuine consultation with a call for evidence for examples of practical, proportionate and safe PEEPs and other fire safety initiatives. It also includes a working group with responsible persons, residents and disability groups to examine the role that neighbours and friends can play in supporting the evacuation of vulnerable residents. We are listening and it is important that we get a policy position that works.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on all the work being done and encourage him and his department to make sure that it is completed as soon as possible. May I ask for an assurance that the needs of frail elderly people, who might not be registered as disabled, are also taken into account, as they might be equally unable to self-evacuate in an emergency?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My noble friend is right that we need to capture those people who may not present themselves as disabled but who clearly have mobility impairments. That is the purpose of the EEIS proposal, which is around ensuring that we can identify those people, that we can organise person-centred fire risk assessments and have home safety visits to come up with measures that do the best to keep them safe. That applies to all mobility-impaired residents.

North of England: Investment

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, we recognise the need to unlock private investment, and the government investment is designed to do precisely that, with the £4 billion levelling-up fund; but, equally, we need to devolve decision-making closer to the people in the north of England.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their £4 billion programme and support the aims of building back better, a green industrial revolution and attracting global capital. Will my noble friend comment on the possibility of using domestic pension assets, of which there are hundreds of billions of pounds, including in local authority funds, which are currently investing only in gilts with extremely low returns and which could be put to more productive use in such building programmes?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend is right that pension assets are an important source of finance for investment in infrastructure. I note that the CPS report proposes updating rules covering UK pension schemes so that we can encourage investment in northern infrastructure.

Building Safety

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I share the noble Lord’s scepticism about the value of committeeism. I am pleased to announce that the leader of the new building safety regulator, the chief inspector of buildings, has been announced. I am delighted that Peter Baker, the acting chief inspector, has been confirmed as taking up the reins and ensuring that this new regime works. He will be accountable to ensure that that happens.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the gateway 2 developer levy and the new tax on residential building developers. I echo the calls for my noble friend to look carefully at recouping costs of remediation work from developers of past projects and not just those in the future, especially those who failed to comply with building regulations or cut corners at the time of construction, and the manufacturers of the cladding materials including ACM.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for making the point. It would be fair to say that the new tax on developers, details of which will be announced shortly, will include a number of the major developers historically responsible for high rises. She makes an important point that we should also consider the role of cladding manufacturers in this crisis. It is fair to say that, while developers have made good solid profits in recent years, the cladding manufactures have had healthy profit margins too. It is important that they are made to contribute to the resolution of the cladding crisis.