Holocaust Memorial Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

Expenditure relating to a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should address the Chair not as Madam Deputy Speaker, but as Madam Chair, or, preferably, Madam Chairman. I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

“(d) educational purposes and activities related to the memorial and the centre for learning”.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Amendment 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert—

“(1A) Expenditure incurred under this section must not exceed £50 million.”

Clause 1 stand part.

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert

“in so far as those paragraphs relate to a Holocaust Memorial.”

This amendment would provide for restrictions, in relation to certain land under the 1900 Act, to be removed only for activities described in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 1(1), in relation to a Holocaust Memorial.

Amendment 3, page 1, line 18, at end insert

“subject to the total area used for such activities not exceeding 1,429 square metres (including in that total area any entrance pavilion, courtyard, ramp, associated hard standing, service access, access paths and any areas which are inaccessible to the public or inaccessible without tickets).”

This amendment would limit the area of Victoria Tower Gardens for which restrictions are lifted for the purposes of the construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre to 1,429m².

Amendment 5, page 1, line 18, at end insert

“provided that any such activities shall not cause any harm to any other memorial in the land described in section 8(1) of that Act or to the setting of such memorials.”

This amendment would permit works to be carried out on land subject to restrictions under the 1900 Act provided that no harm is caused to other memorials in that area.

Clause 2 stand part.

Clause 3 stand part.

New clause 1—Review of security arrangements—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, prior to the commencement of construction of a Holocaust memorial or learning centre—

(a) carry out a review of proposed security arrangements for the proposed Holocaust memorial or learning centre;

(b) lay before Parliament a report on the outcome and findings of the review of the proposed security arrangements;

(c) by regulations, specify the security arrangements which are to be implemented for the proposed Holocaust memorial or learning centre.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1)(c) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

New clause 2—Review of sites—

“The Secretary of State must, prior to a decision being made in relation to the site of a Holocaust Memorial or Learning Centre—

(a) carry out a review of potential sites for a Holocaust memorial or learning centre, which must include—

(i) consideration of the views of professional property consultants,

(ii) consideration of the way in which each site would meet the objectives of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission Report 2015,

(iii) consideration of the way in which each site would meet the objectives of the Search for a Central London site 2015,

(iv) consideration of estimates of costs for construction for each site, and

(v) a full public consultation on the shortlisted sites;

(b) lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review.”

This new clause would require the Government to carry out a review of potential sites for a Holocaust Memorial or Learning Centre, and lay a report on its findings, before a decision is made in relation to the final site.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

When someone asked me if there was going to be a general election soon, I thought they must have read the carry-over motion for the Bill and that had misled them into thinking we were about to have an election. Perhaps, by the end of the debate, we will know whether that was right or wrong.

In one of the explanations of the present proposal, to put a box with 23 fins in the middle of Victoria Tower Gardens, a design that was not accepted for Ottawa before it was submitted for London, we were told that people would come out of the experience looking at Parliament—at democracy. In fact, if it happens, they will come out and look at the House of Lords. Although the House of Lords is an important part of our democracy, it is not necessarily democracy itself; it has the remaining hereditary peers, as well as people who are appointed. The House of Lords will have the opportunity to consider the Bill, if it reaches their lordships’ House, and I believe it will pick up the points made in the Select Committee that considered the hybrid Bill in more depth than this House will.

In the specification in September 2015, the Government and their agency made plain they did not want most of the money spent on construction and building; they wanted most of it spent on education. In terms of education about the Holocaust, we are in difficult times. Protests in London mean the existing Holocaust memorial gets covered up for protection and, if the present proposal goes ahead, it will be quite often be closed on security grounds. Other hon. Members will speak to the security considerations that were heard in front of the Select Committee.

When the Government put forward their proposal, the indication was it would cost £25 million from Government and £25 million raised from charitable sources. Since then, my guess is—I hope the Minister will correct me—that £40 million has already been spent without anything being achieved. As the Select Committee set out, the costs go way above the £137 million plus contingencies indicated a year ago. I believe the Government should recognise that they went off on the wrong route when they considered the site options proposed by consultants that were put forward after the consultation starting in September 2015.

When the Government responded to that early in 2016, they did not co-locate the learning centre with the memorial. As Ministers and those advising them know, in the consultation and specification in September 2015, there was no mention of having the memorial close to Parliament at all. Page 10 of the specification document shows a map of what the foundation regards as the acceptable area of central London; it went from the west of Regent’s Park to Spitalfields and down to the Imperial War Museum.

In the eight or nine years since then, the Imperial War Museum has totally reordered and expanded its Holocaust Galleries, the Jewish Museum has closed and the Wiener collection is in some difficulty. If the Government were serious about getting most of the money spent on education, they would have already diverted money to the Wiener collection and the Jewish Museum, and they would have charged up the Holocaust Memorial Trust with money. Last year, the trust had an income of £5,000 and spending of £6,000, which is apparently dedicated on the presumption of getting the Government’s proposal through. If they were serious about education, the Government would not have waited to get some kind of memorial up, and possibly some kind of learning centre associated with it, before they started to get on with the educational work.

When the Holocaust Commission was set up, its purpose was to get education going now. Its work was taken over by the foundation and then pursued by Government Ministers. We have used up eight years because the Government have made mistake after mistake after mistake. The most recent one was to believe that their Bill to overcome the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 was in some way not hybrid; it clearly was hybrid. The next mistake they made, one they made both before and after, was not to say there had never been a comparison between the present proposal and the best alternative. It took me three years to discover that they had not done that. If I am wrong, the Minister can lay that on the table, and I hope that he will do so now. It is the only time in modern times when the Government have brought forward a proposal without showing why it is better than the alternatives. They commissioned consultants who came forward with 26 schemes, three of which would have been put to the Government. But in a moment not of genius or necessarily of madness, but of peculiarity, those who were making the decision chose not to pay any attention at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

My right hon. Friend is right, and most people will agree with him, even if their job is to stand up and say something different.

I will not spend much time on the planning permission, because it is not the subject of the Bill. When the inspector’s report was received by the Government and considered, this was the conclusion under the signature of the planning casework unit:

“This decision was made by the Minister of State for Housing in line with the published handling arrangements for this case…and signed on his behalf. In particular, those handling arrangements state that:

‘Christopher Pincher MP (the Housing and Planning Minister) will be responsible for exercising the functions of the Secretary of State under sections 70 and 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act’”

and so on. Who here believes that a Minister of State would, on merit, turn down an application by their own Secretary of State? I will give way to anybody who wants to make that suggestion. It is just incredible. It would not happen.

I will now change tone a bit. During the Select Committee hearings, the Government counsel suddenly switched from saying who the lead designer and architect for the proposal was. The Government’s press notice announcing the winner contained 13 references to Sir David Adjaye, now Order of Merit, four references to Ron Arad, and no references to Asa Bruno. Proper tribute has been paid to Asa Bruno. It is true that he was the one who put a number of points to the inspector. He is recognised as a leading designer, and his obituary, which I refreshed my mind on just now, showed that he was a startlingly good person. However, when the Government announced the lead designer and architect for the proposal, they named Sir David Adjaye, who could hardly be mentioned by the promoters at the Select Committee for reasons that I will not go into now. They are well known and in the public domain.

Let us turn to the points that the Government made to the Select Committee after I raised that issue:

“On 24 January, in a debate on the Business of the House (col 439), Sir Peter Bottomley MP referred to the proceedings at the seventh public session of the Holocaust Memorial Bill committee and suggested that counsel for the Promoter may have ‘inadvertently told the committee things that are contradicted by the facts…’ in relation to responsibilities for the design of the Memorial.”

I was then told that what was said was right. I think that that leading counsel, over and over again, was trying to write Sir David Adjaye out because of the embarrassment to Government. If it was Asa Bruno who was responsible for the Ottawa proposal, so be it, but that was not what Government said seven years ago in public.

I am going to go on fighting this, but not so long this evening, because my colleagues have more to say. I say to those watching the proceedings, “Look into the details of what has happened.” I commend to them early-day motions 711, tabled on 1 May, and 775, tabled on 21 May. In particular, the latter “regrets that the promoter” —that is, the Government—

“has failed to understand the justified requests for a detailed comparison of the present unsatisfactory scheme with the alternatives studied by the Government’s consultants; further regrets the continuing lack of updated costings for capital and recurrent costs; disagrees with the suggestion that planning permission and all other necessary consents were obtained in the usual way; regrets there is no known plan to spend more available resources on education rather than on construction; further regrets that known and growing security restrictions are not being adequately addressed; and believes the promoter is not meeting its obligation to achieve an appropriate memorial at a justified cost in a suitable location, associated with opportunities to learn and to understand the Holocaust and to reduce the likelihood of a repeat of the atrocities of the Holocaust.”

I end with words from the Holocaust survivors who gave evidence at the Committee, who said, in summary, that the proposal is too big for the gardens and too small for its purpose.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Wera Hobhouse.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Excuse me, Madam Chair, but I wish to speak only on Third Reading.

[The Chairman]

Certainly—I was calling the hon. Lady because she is the only Member on the Opposition Back Benches who had indicated she wished to speak, but there is no need for her to contribute at this stage. We will save her contribution for Third Reading and continue with the Committee stage, with the Chair of the Committee that has examined this Bill, John Stevenson.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

Thank you, Dame Eleanor. I wish to speak to amendment 1 and new clause 1 and take the opportunity to speak to some of the other amendments. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for his contribution and his dogged determination, and for covering many of the issues that are relevant to this discussion.

Before making my other remarks, I would also like to say that I fully support the idea and concept of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre; indeed, I voted for it on Second Reading. I recognise that this is an incredibly important project, and one that is probably as important now as it ever has been in the past. The idea of a specific memorial is entirely appropriate, but the concept and idea of a learning centre is in many respects vital and, in my view, the most significant part of the project. It is coming up to 80 years since the end of world war two and there are fewer people who have a direct link with that time or indeed with what happened during the second world war. Therefore, it is even more important we do not forget and that we ensure that we learn from what happened then and educate for the future.

Please be in no doubt, therefore, of my support for an appropriate memorial and a worthwhile learning centre—something that I am sure the whole House will support. However, having had the privilege and responsibility of being part of the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee, I have concluded that there are some serious issues that need to be properly addressed before this specific scheme potentially proceeds—if it does at all. My advice to Government would be to take a step back and pause. Is this really the right scheme? Is it really the right location? What about the appropriate costs involved?

We all want to see a successful scheme. We want to see it constructed in a timely fashion, and arguably too long has already passed. We want it to be built in the right location, and at a cost that is realistic and fair. If I may be so bold, I would suggest that such a scheme could be built quite quickly at the Imperial War Museum and fulfil all the ambitions and wishes of the original Committee and everybody in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

I speak as a practising Christian in support of other people of faith and tradition. I speak about the vital importance of continuing to stand up for the freedom of a group of people to live their lives in this country without fear of being persecuted for the actions of a foreign Government. I speak as someone who is appalled and deeply concerned by the rise in Holocaust denial—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is dealing with a highly emotive subject, and I think that we would all agree with most or all of what she has just said, but this is the Committee stage of a Bill about a particular structure in a particular place. It is not a time for general speeches about the geopolitical position of the world in general, and I would be grateful if she would confine her remarks to talking about this Bill, which is short and to the point.

[Rachel Maclean]

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate and value your guidance and I will absolutely abide by it. I hope that the House will see that the reason I make these remarks about the general geopolitical situation is that I wish to show my support for the importance of the memorial in this place at this time, but I will bring my remarks to a conclusion in line with your guidance.

I wish to make it clear that I believe that this Holocaust memorial should be placed in Westminster, next to our Parliament; that is, of course, the matter under consideration, as outlined by the Select Committee. That is because this is where we debate foreign and domestic policy. And of course it is right that we look at all the considerations that have been highlighted by other Members. I would like to ask the Chair’s permission to make one final comment, which is that the safety of the Jewish community is the canary in the mine, so let us build this lasting memorial with the education centre next to our Parliament, to focus on the existential threat to our Jewish brothers and sisters.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the next hon. Member speaks, I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024. The Ayes were 395 and the Noes were 50, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

[Anthony Mangnall]

I rise to speak to the amendments that stand in my name, as well as on a number of Government amendments. I feel that I should start by thanking both the Minister and the shadow Minister for their conversations over the last five months on this topic.

I should be clear about my position in leading a number of amendments to the Bill. At no point have we ever sought to stop section 21 coming in, and I hope that I will be able to make that clear in the course of my remarks. What we have sought to do is to stop the ending of fixed-term tenancies—something I believe would have a dramatic impact on the supply of properties, including long-term rental properties. That, to me, is the concern. I believe that it will cause far greater upset in the short and long term in respect of whether people can have the houses that they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Mangnall]

The Minister will find in this part of my speech we will be agreeing vehemently, although the latter part of my speech might not be so agreeable. I am grateful to him for his intervention; I always welcome the opportunity to work with him.

Likewise, in the case of rent arrears, it cannot be acceptable to have a system that allows rent arrears to continue to build for seven months. The amendment would make good on the Government’s commitment that the justice system is fully prepared for the impact of the end of section 21. Again, I am grateful that the Government have decided to accept the point in principle and introduce proposed Government new clause 30, which mirrors my amendment 9, which was supported by so many colleagues. I therefore withdraw amendment 9.

Proposed new clause 1, the repeal of requirement for selective licensing, under my name, would remove the ability of local housing authorities to designate areas as subject to selective licensing. The Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to develop a new property portal that all landlords would have to join to demonstrate to prospective tenants that the properties they rent meet all required standards. It would be effectively a national licensing scheme. As selective licensing deals only with management quality and not property standards, the changes in the Bill are likely to do more than selective licensing to improve properties.

Since councils will be able to use the portal to access information on all private rented properties and landlords operating in their area, and in view of plans for a decent homes standard for the sector, local selective licensing schemes will be made redundant. In Wales, the introduction of landlord registration led to the end of almost all selective licensing, so it is unlikely that local authorities would pursue costly and complex schemes in future. I take on board the Minister’s comments in his opening remarks.

Selective licensing is an additional cost to landlords, in addition to the property portal and redress scheme. Landlords should not have to be regulated twice and pay twice for much the same thing. Proposed new clause 1 would scrap selective licensing schemes for private rented housing when the property portal goes live. Having both would not enhance protections for tenants, but merely be a duplication. Scrapping them would remove an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and cost for landlords. I am grateful for the Minister’s opening remarks. I will take the Government at their word that the Dispatch Box commitment to conduct a review of selective licensing will take place at the earliest opportunity.

My new clause 3 would enable courts to consider hearsay evidence during the course of proceedings for possession on the grounds of antisocial behaviour. It is vital that, when section 21 ends, swift and effective action can be taken against tenants committing antisocial behaviour who cause misery for so many neighbours and fellow tenants. To support this, the Government have changed the wording of the discretionary ground to repossess a property due to tenant antisocial behaviour—ground 14. They clarify that any behaviour “capable” of causing “nuisance or annoyance” can lead to eviction. Previously, it was behaviour “likely” to cause a problem.

However, that is not the true problem. The current problem, which is not dealt with by the Bill, is that the main evidence of nuisance is provided by neighbours, as they are closest to the person involved. The changes to the definition of nuisance do not alter the fact that evidence of behaviour needs to be provided, and that will still come from neighbours. However, in so many instances, neighbours are reluctant to attend court and give evidence, in part because the slow speed of the court system means that they will be forced to live near the person that they have reported or helped to evict for several months afterwards.

A better solution would be to allow landlords to use evidence of problematic behaviour that is provided by neighbours complaining by text or email to the landlord or the letting agency. This evidence is not currently admissible, and the courts cannot give sufficient weight to it when deciding whether the tenant is committing antisocial behaviour. This amendment would allow for such evidence to be used by the courts.

In the negotiations and discussions that we had in the run-up to this debate, the Minister’s Department and his civil service team were extremely helpful in highlighting Civil Procedure Rule part 33.3 in relation to

“circumstances in which notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence is not required.”

Again, the comments made by the Minister are welcome, although I hope his Department will follow this up with the Ministry of Justice. I therefore withdraw new clause 3.

Amendment 5 covers houses of multiple occupancy relating specifically to students. This would mean that the ground for possession for student properties could also be used for properties occupied by one or two students, which would not otherwise have been considered as HMOs.

Ending fixed-term tenancies will be problematic for the student housing market—it would be problematic for the whole Bill—which operates on a yearly cycle, from one academic year to another. Although the Government have recognised that by allowing fixed-term agreements to continue in purpose-built student accommodation, it will not apply, as I understand it, to traditional off-street private-rented housing, often rented to those in their second or third year of studies. This is a concern shared by many in the industry and, indeed, by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, which has noted:

“Currently, the proposal is to include this part of the PRS in the tenancy reform, but we conclude that abolishing fixed-term contracts could make lettings to students considerably less attractive to private landlords, as the student market mirrors the academic year and benefits greatly from 12-month fixed tenancies.”

I hope that I have quoted the Select Committee report accurately.

A Government amendment to the Bill made at Committee stage established a new ground for possession—ground 4A—to protect the student housing market. This is to be welcomed. It will ensure that landlords can guarantee that most student properties will be available for each academic year, but it will not protect all student housing. The new ground will cover only houses of multiple occupation; it will not apply to those properties occupied by one or two students. This oversight would be rectified by my proposed amendment. Again, I thank the Government for recognising this and introducing their own amendments 226 and 228, which have addressed that problem.

As I come to my concluding remarks—at last—I wish to make some comment on amendment 10, which has not been selected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. He has a range of amendments and it is perfectly in order for him to speak to those, but it is not in order for him to speak to amendment 10, because it has not been selected. Not only has it not been selected for a Division, but it has not been selected for debate. There might be a general point to which he could make reference, but he may not speak to amendment 10.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being so generous in your explanation on that.

The problem that I see with this Bill is that, while the intent to remove section 21 is a good and necessary one—yes, it has taken time to get to this point—it is not one that those who have signed my amendment have ever objected to. The principle that explains why the amendments have been so widely supported is that there must be some leeway around ensuring that fixed-term tenancies can remain. Indeed, they still remain in certain instances within the student market.

Local Government Finance

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

I beg to move,

That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2024–25 (HC 318), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this we shall consider the following motions:

That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2024–25 (HC 319), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.

That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) Report 2024–25 (HC 320), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.

[Lee Rowley]

Today, we are confirming the major parts of the settlement announced in December, as well as reiterating the £600 million additional funding boost announced in January. Local government has welcomed the extra money as important in offering the ability to provide further support to children, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities, while also being mindful of the increased demand for social care. Governments always need to take tough decisions, and despite the suggestions of some in this place, there is always a balance to be struck: infinite worthy demands, but finite resources. None the less, we recognise that it is important to support local government in the face of increasing demands for services and the rising inflation and costs that are the legacy of the war in Ukraine and instability in the middle east. That is exactly what we are seeking to do.

In recognition of those challenges, I am pleased to announce a settlement totalling nearly £65 billion for local authorities in England for the next financial year. The settlement includes an increase in core spending power of up to £4.5 billion compared with 2023-24; a £1.2 billion uplift to the social care grant, which can be used for children’s or adult services subject to individual local priorities; an increase in the funding guarantee, which will ensure that all authorities see a minimum increase in core spending power of 4% before any local decisions are made on council tax rates; additional support for rural councils through a £15 million increase to the rural service delivery grant; funding worth £3 million to support authorities experiencing significant difficulties because of internal drainage board levy costs; and additional funding for the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly, in recognition of their circumstances and their physical separation from the mainland. As a result, available funding for local government in England will rise by 7.5% in cash terms for 2024-25.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare]

This is a benign statement, supporting the commission in its work, addressing the changes introduced post the Elections Act 2022 (Commencement No. 7) Regulations 2023. It is all part of our process to ensure that our electoral system is resilient, open, transparent, secure and has the maximum access to all who have the eligibility to cast a vote on whichever election day it may happen to be. How they vote is entirely up to them; how the commission sets its priorities is entirely up to it. Mr Speaker and his Committee will hold the commission to account, not Parliament. There is no mandate in the statement that the commission has to provide a statement or report, annually or quarterly, to my Department or to the Secretary of State. The usual communication channels between the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Commission remain.

Given the fragility of our democracy and the outside pressures facing most western democracies today, I suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that, in trying to ascribe ill intention, Machiavellian motivation and some sort of surreptitious purpose of undermining democracy to this benign statement of good will, they demean themselves and they demean and weaken democracy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction. I have a lot of respect for the Minister, but I struggled to listen to him. Through gritted teeth, he tried but failed desperately to justify why this statement is needed. You cannot flog a dead horse, and if something ain’t broke, it doesn’t need to be fixed.

In 2000, the previous Labour Government set up the Electoral Commission to act as a guardian of our democratic system. At the heart of that decision was the need for a central pillar of independence within our politics: a body that the public could trust that would not suffer interference, not just from the Government of the day but from future Governments of any shade; that would not fear the consequences of taking on major parties when they broke the rules; and that could provide information about our system from a trusted sources, free of political interference. Over 20 years later, the commission’s independence has become a cornerstone of public trust in our democracy.

Let me put the strategy and policy statement into context. Sadly, 14 years of Tory failure have left many people feeling powerless at the decline under this Government. People have seen their hard-earned money go to Tory friends and VIP donors. People who followed the rules to protect the NHS saw those who made the rules breaking them. I grew up not far from this place, on a council estate in Brixton, just a bus ride away. What annoyed and angered me was seeing decisions being made about my community by people who did not feel the ramifications. The Government need to reflect on that—I hope the Minister will—and realise why trust in our politics is at a record low after so many scandals from this place. During this time, the independence of the Electoral Commission has acted as a bedrock in our system against declining trust. While we have seen recent drops in confidence and satisfaction in the system, a majority of people remain satisfied with the voting process.

I agree with the Minister that there are always things we can do to improve our democratic process, but this statement is setting a political agenda for an independent watchdog. That is completely wrong, Minister, and you know it, and that is not just me saying that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, but I beg of her, would she please call the Minister “the Minister”, not “you”? I am not blaming the hon. Lady; bad examples have been set by senior Members of the House calling other Members “you” or “Minister”. Phrases such as “and you know it” are exactly why we do not have that way of doing things here, because that refers to the occupant of the Chair. I apologise for pulling her up on this, because she is far from being the first person to get it wrong, but if we do not start to put it right, people will not understand the reason for the rule.

[Florence Eshalomi]

Thank you for highlighting that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I totally agree with you; I will refer to “the Minister”.

It not only me saying that there are issues with the statement; The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, and even the Electoral Commission itself, have all highlighted problems with the statement. These are not random bodies. In fact, they are so respected that the Government themselves made it mandatory to consult them prior to bringing the strategy and policy statement to the House. Yet when all three raised the same concerns, the Government simply railroaded the statement through. Madam Deputy Speaker, you would expect a Government who disregard the powerful points made by these respected bodies to have a clear evidence base for their actions. For the Minister to repeat what the Electoral Commission is doing fantastically well is not the basis for the statement.

In announcing the statement, the Government said:

“This guidance addresses the concern raised in Lord Eric Pickles’ independent review into electoral fraud, that the current system of oversight of the Electoral Commission is not fit for purpose.”

Given that, we would expect to find a robust justification for this statement in what the Minister outlined. However, all we get on the system for oversight is three buried lines on page 50 of that seven-year-old report—no detail, justification or evidence. Wow.

When the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee found it was

“not aware that any of those concerns remain current”

from the relevant section of the Pickles report, and when so many respected bodies are saying the statement is unnecessary, surely the Minister must see that the very basis for making the statement is simply not good enough.

Under this Government, trust in our politics and democratic institutions is at an all-time low. We all need to work hard to restore that trust, give people belief that their voice matters and that decisions are made with them, not to them—this is another example of decisions being made to them. Instead, the contents of the statement completely undermine the Electoral Commission, representing a dangerous threat to the independence of a vital watchdog. MPs from all parties have condemned it and respected bodies have rejected it, which is further proof that we need a new approach to a democracy that works for everyone. I urge hon. Members to join us in voting against this dangerous politicisation of our independent elections watchdog.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. Let me say in a respectful tone of voice that I am glad to see the depth of work that he has done on this, but I hope that he recognises that there are many of us on the Conservative Benches who have also spent very many years focusing on this area. My answer to him would be that there are partial similarities and there are partial differences. I think that he is wrong and that some of his colleagues are unwise to throw quite so many accusations in such a tone today. In part, there are good reasons why it is reasonable to set out in one place the Government’s priorities, which, as the statement sets out, are adjacent and relevant to matters to do with the regulators. That is what today’s document does. He is right that that is somewhat different from the more detailed work that is done by the regulators of water and electricity and so on. He is also right, of course, to point to the essential independence of the Electoral Commission. I am glad that he has done so, because it gives me the opportunity to add my emphasis to that as well.

There is nothing to be concerned about from this statement in respect of the independence of the commission. We have heard those assurances from the Minister today. It is extremely important that he has set that out, and I am glad that he has done so, and I add my voice to the essential nature of that. But I want briefly to go back to the need for wider participation in the work of the Electoral Commission. We are able to spend, periodically, a few minutes of question time on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, and good work is done through that mechanism, but it is perhaps somewhat indirect. It is important for the whole Chamber to be able to look at the important issues that sit behind our constitution and our electoral system.

I wish to move on to the contents of the strategy and policy statement. I am working in particular from the points that we see in paragraph 19, where it is emphasised that this regulator needs to work together with others to discharge its duties. I want to emphasise that in the context of the demands being made on regulators this year with regard to artificial intelligence. Members will be very well aware of that from the White Paper on regulating artificial intelligence, which was set out last year, and on which we are shortly to have an update from a different Department.

The key point is this: it is the world’s biggest election year. Billions of citizens will be going to the ballot box, including here. These elections will be the first to happen since the significant advances in AI. There are legitimate concerns, anxieties and, indeed, evidence from our security services, for us to ask whether this technology will be used for fabrication, for manipulation and to affect the integrity of elections. It goes without saying that the integrity of elections matters, so that people’s free choice achieves what they intend.

The Government have asked regulators across their fields to set out how they will work with artificial intelligence. Clearly, the Electoral Commission is one of those regulators—and somewhat in the hotseat in this regard. It is my view that, in respect of the grand concerns and anxieties, the Electoral Commission and connected enforcement agencies could helpfully set out the preparation that they have done and give reassurance publicly about their readiness for elections this year. With reference to the substance of today’s statement, I ask the Minister what discussions he has had with the Electoral Commission on its work with other regulators, for example as per paragraphs 19 and 20 of the statement, which talk about keeping up to date with the realities of campaigning activities—I think that is a good tone to take there. I also ask the Minister in what way he expects to keep the statement itself and future iterations of the statements updated in regards to technology and national security considerations where those might be relevant.

I agree with the Minister that we here are stewards of our democracy. I have been in his particular position before. I set out the approach that we ought always to strive for our elections to be secure, fair, modern, accessible and transparent. I also agree that this is some of the most important work that we can do. None the less, I conclude by saying gently that it is a legitimate function of Government to address themselves to these principles. That is what we need the Government and Parliament to do, because we are the custodians of law as well as of those principles. We did that with the Elections Act, and we did it prior to that with the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We have also done it before then and since then, and we will continue to do so.

It is a legitimate function of Government to enact changes and updates to electoral law when they are asked to do so, perhaps through a manifesto commitment in a democratic process. We do that through Parliament, so it is good, as I have said, that we have this wider opportunity for Parliament to be able to engage in the work of the Electoral Commission while crucially respecting its design and independence, and I am glad that we are getting that chance to do so today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

Proposed British Jewish History Month

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I will make reference to Jewish politicians in my speech.

Jews have often had to come to this country to rebuild their lives, and that was brought home to me particularly when reading Lord Danny Finkelstein’s book, “Hitler, Stalin, Mum and Dad”. Danny’s family history is sadly not unique but is a clear example of how two families rebuilt their lives after suffering such trauma and whose members went on to make significant contributions to both Jewish and British history, including the establishment of the Wiener Holocaust Library.

British Jews have played key roles and made major contributions over centuries in the fields of business, science, the arts and politics. In business, perhaps the most-loved retail brand we have in this country is Marks & Spencer, established by Michael Marks and Thomas Spencer. The largest supermarket in this country is Tesco, founded by Jack Cohen in 1919. Other businesses of note are the cinema chain Odeon, Moss Bros. and GlaxoSmithKline, all of which were started by Jewish Brits and have provided so many jobs and so much prosperity for this country.

In science, Rosalind Franklin was responsible for the discovery of the structure of DNA. Sir Ernst Chain was the co-developer of penicillin. Lord Robert Winston, now in the other place, pioneered fertility treatment that is responsible for goodness knows how many children born in this country and across the world.

In the arts, Michael Balcon co-founded Ealing Studios, which is one of the most important British studios to this day. The Ealing comedies came from that studio and started the careers of Sir Alec Guinness and Peter Sellers. Samuel Wanamaker rebuilt the Globe theatre just down the river from us, which was perhaps one of the most important cultural contributions of the 20th century. Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice” was probably played there, which is another example of witnessing historical incidents of antisemitism. Monty Norman wrote the James Bond theme, which was then rearranged by John Barry.

Actors of stage and screen are absolutely part of our establishment. One of my personal favourites is Dame Maureen Lipman, an outstanding actor but also a campaigner on ensuring that antisemitism is understood. One British Jewish male responsible for bringing us all together every couple of years to sing and hopefully to bring football home is David Baddiel. Obviously, the English Lionesses have brought football home; we are still waiting for the boys to do it, but I am sure they will eventually.

Turning to politics, the first Jewish MP was Lionel de Rothschild, representing part of my seat—the City of London. Lionel first took his seat in 1847, but it was not until the Jews Relief Act 1858 that he was recognised as a Jewish MP. The first Jewish peer was his son Nathaniel.

Westminster City Council, where I was proud to be a councillor for 16 years, has been well served by Jewish councillors, both Labour and Conservative, over the decades, including council leaders Dame Shirley Porter, Melvyn Caplan and latterly Sir Simon Milton, who was a major political influence on me as leader of Westminster City Council and later Boris Johnson’s right-hand man at City Hall when he was Mayor of London.

A British Jew who is probably responsible for the start of my political career is my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), whom I met in our first week at the University of Exeter. In the first conversation we ever had, he told me I was a Conservative and I had to join the Conservative party—and the rest is history.

In my constituency, we have evidence of a Jewish presence since Roman Britain. In Threadneedle Street, the Bank of England stands on the site of the London home of Aaron of Lincoln, a Jewish banker who died in 1186. Those familiar with the city of London will have come across the street called Old Jewry, and the name is hardly a coincidence, because the Great Synagogue of London was based there until it closed in 1272, a few short years before the Jews of England were formally expelled in 1290 by Edward I. It was only in 1656, during the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, that Jews were invited to return.

While Jewish communities would subsequently flourish all over England and further afield in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I am proud that my constituency was once again the heart of the Jewish renaissance in this country. It is home to Bevis Marks Synagogue, which was built in 1781 and is the oldest synagogue in continuous use in Europe today. The first Jewish Lord Mayor was Sir David Salomons in 1855.

Tens of thousands of Jewish soldiers fought bravely in both the first and second world wars. Five Jewish soldiers have received the Victoria Cross and even now, every year the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women hold a Remembrance Day parade at the Cenotaph on the Sunday after the official Remembrance Day.

Having researched this topic, I could speak for hours on the contributions made by individual Jewish people but I want to pinpoint one person who I think has made the most significant contribution in this country over decades: Dame Esther Rantzen. She started so many incredible campaigns and has made a huge impact on my life, starting with her “That’s Life!” programme, where in the early ’80s she highlighted the Ben Hardwick campaign, encouraging more people to consider organ donation. I carry an organ donor card because of that campaign. Her seatbelt campaign saw the law changed to make sure that children would be wearing seatbelts in the back of cars; I note that the Father of the House is in his place, and I know he played a significant part in that campaign.

Perhaps the most significant campaign that Dame Esther has been involved in since is Childline, lifting the lid off the heinous crime of child abuse and giving child victims a voice. The work that she has done on Childline, which is now run by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, has changed the way we deal with child social services as well and made a significant difference to many children’s lives. She has since moved on to the Silver Line, outlining the loneliness that so many older people suffer, and is trying to help to change their lives. The new film “One Life” tells the story of the Kindertransport, set up by Nicholas Winton, and one scene in the film shows “That’s Life!”, where all the survivors stand up and thank him. One of those survivors was one Susie Lind, the grandmother of one of my closest friends, Daniel Astaire.

Dame Esther is now sadly at the end of her life, but she has not stopped campaigning, and with her assisted dying campaign she is trying to make sure we all have a good death. I pay tribute to her and thank her on behalf of the whole nation for her outstanding contribution over the past 50 years.

It is perhaps no coincidence that today is Rosh—I am going to get this wrong—[Hon. Members: “Chodesh.”] Rosh Chodesh, the new lunar month. It is an important day of renewal in the Jewish faith and the Jewish month of Shevat begins today. One of the great verses from the 15th day of Shevat, spoken by Moses, goes as follows:

“Remember the days of old, consider the years of ages past; ask your parent who will inform you, your elders who will tell you.”

It is therefore fitting to debate the merits of a British Jewish history month.

We rightly already celebrate the achievements of many minorities in this country, and continue to educate future generations, through Black History Month, LGBT History Month, Pride and Islamophobia Awareness Month. The United States established Jewish American Heritage Month nearly two decades ago, and I believe it is now time we reminded ourselves of the remarkable contribution that the Jewish community has made to our nation, often after suffering the greatest hardships, and to celebrate the value of difference. It is time we used the achievements of the British Jewish community to remind ourselves of the values we all share and remind ourselves that this small minority is British. I hope the Government will take that on board and consider introducing a British Jewish history month.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We will start with a time limit of six minutes but that will rapidly decrease to five minutes. Anyone who wants to complain can ask their colleagues to leave, because that is the only way they will get any more time. I call Fabian Hamilton.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate, which was opened so well by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). I thank her and her colleagues for securing the debate.

I am proud to represent the constituency with the largest Jewish population in Yorkshire, and indeed on the entire east side of the United Kingdom. For over 150 years, Jewish people in Leeds have contributed so much to our city’s culture, economy and society. They stood at the frontline of the battle against Oswald Mosley’s fascists in the Battle of Holbeck Moor in 1937, and have often been at the forefront of our local political history across the city.

The Jewish community in Leeds has a fantastic history, and it is going from strength to strength in 2024. That is thanks in no small measure to the hard work and dedication of everyone in the community, but I thank in particular the Leeds Jewish Representative Council and the Jewish Leadership Council for their work to strengthen and represent the Jewish community in my constituency, as well as for the fruitful relationship that we have enjoyed for many decades, especially under the current leadership of Simon Myerson KC and Laurence Saffer, who have done a brilliant job.

In Leeds, we have Reform and Orthodox synagogues, flourishing kosher bakeries and butchers, and the world-renowned Marjorie and Arnold Ziff community centre. For more than 100 years, the Leeds Jewish Welfare Board and the Leeds Jewish Housing Association have supported at least 20% of the Jewish community in Leeds, providing mental health support, residential care for people with learning disabilities, practical help for struggling families and much more. Given the current cost of living crisis, that work could not be more important than it is today.

I want also to reflect on the legacy of a woman I had the privilege of knowing as a close friend for many years: Sheila Saunders, who died nearly 10 years ago. She was chief executive of the welfare board and the housing association, and, along with her friend Elaine Grazin, helped to found in the 1980s the Leeds Jewish Women’s Aid, the only specialist organisation in the United Kingdom supporting Jewish women and children affected by domestic abuse and sexual violence. I still miss Sheila every single day.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned Danny Finkelstein’s book, which I am proud to be reading at the moment having been given a copy of it. It reflects in many ways the story of my own family. I hope the House will indulge me as I use my last three minutes to tell a little about my family’s history, which, in many ways, sums up the history of the Jewish people in this country—the British Jews, as the hon. Member said earlier.

My father, Mario Reynaldo Uziell, came to this country in 1934 to escape the increasing persecution of Jews across Europe. At the time, his family lived in the Hague, but they moved very quickly to Paris. They lived in several major cities throughout Europe, and my father himself was born in Vienna. When, at the age of 12, he arrived at Brentwood School—a boarding school in Essex—he could not speak a word of English, but he mastered it very quickly. So much so that, by 1942, when he had been in the country for only eight years and still had Portuguese citizenship, he volunteered for the British Army.

However, because his first language was French, the Special Operations Executive nabbed him and said, “You’re a French speaker; we need you to help the resistance in France.” That was dangerous for a Jewish man, but he volunteered to do it none the less. I do not know what part he played in the resistance. I know about his training, but he never spoke about his experience in occupied France—probably for very good reason, and certainly because he had signed the Official Secrets Act.

I still have the document that my father signed in 1948 pledging his allegiance to King George VI so that he could become a naturalised British citizen. There is an example of somebody who started his life as a continental Jew speaking French, whose family originated in Bulgaria, the Ottoman empire and Thessaloniki—then known as Salonika, where my grandfather was born—but who proudly became an Englishman. He never had an accent—he learned English early enough to avoid speaking with any accent, unlike both of my grandparents, one of whom had a French accent and the other a German accent. On my mother’s side of the family, we have a very proud connection to the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, whose Aunt Rose was also my Aunt Rose—Rose Goldberg. She lived until the end of her life—she died only about 15 years ago—in Brondesbury Park, which is very near where I grew up in Willesden.

Finally, before my time is up, I want to pay tribute to some of the holocaust survivors who found their homes here in Britain, especially three of my constituents, one of whom is no longer alive. One of them is Trude Silman, who is 95 this year. Trude escaped from Bratislava to come to the city of Leeds, and she because the first woman to qualify with a biochemistry degree from the University of Leeds. She is still as clear and articulate as she ever was—a very active mind. The second is Arek Hersh, who was in the Polish ghetto in Łódź and was taken to the concentration camps, and was finally released from Auschwitz when he was 16 years old. The third is Iby Knill, who wrote two excellent books but sadly passed away just two years ago. Along with the many holocaust survivors, they contribute to our collective knowledge of Judaism here in the United Kingdom. They were proud British Jews.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

After the Father of the House, the time limit will go down to five minutes, which we will have to enforce strictly, or else not everybody will have the chance to speak.

Long-term Plan for Housing

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)]

I apologise on behalf of the Department for the points you have just highlighted, Madam Deputy Speaker.

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s commitment to house building and the planning policy reforms we are making today.

This Government want to build more homes in the right places, more quickly, more beautifully and more sustainably. We know that the right way to deliver this is through a reformed planning system. Today, the Secretary of State and I are laying out our plan for that reform, and we are clear that it is only through up-to-date local plans that local authorities can deliver for communities, protect the land and the assets that matter most, and create the conditions for more homes to be delivered.

Having plans in place unlocks land for homes, for hospitals and general practitioner centres, for schools, for power grid connections and more. It lays the foundations for our economic growth and the levelling up of our communities. The first change we are making today is to update the national planning policy framework. We consulted on a series of proposals last December and received more than 26,000 responses, which we have worked through in detail.

The resulting update builds on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 and delivers on the intent set out by the Secretary of State last year, and it does so in a way that will promote building the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure, which will ensure that the environment is protected and give local people a greater say on where and where not to place new, beautiful development.

I will now summarise the key changes being made to the framework today, and hon. Members should refer to the consultation response and the framework itself for the published policies. First, the standard method for assessing local housing need figures has sometimes been difficult to apply in some areas, and has been blind to the exceptional characteristics of local communities. The new NPPF makes it clear that the outcome of the standard method is an advisory starting point in plan making for establishing an area’s housing requirement.

The revised NPPF also now provides more clarity on what may constitute exceptional circumstances for using an alternative method to assess housing need. The framework is also clear that the urban uplift should be accommodated in the urban areas in which it is applied, and should not be exported unless there is a voluntary cross-boundary agreement in place. New homes are most desperately needed in urban areas, so it is essential that city councils plan properly for local people.

Secondly, given the importance of the green belt to so many, the new NPPF is clear that there is generally no requirement on local authorities to review or alter green belt boundaries. Unlike Labour’s plan to concrete over the countryside, we will not impose top-down release of green-belt land against the wishes of local communities. Where a relevant local planning authority chooses to conduct a review, existing national policy will continue to expect that green-belt boundaries are altered only where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, and this should only be through the preparation or updating of plans. The Government are making no changes to the rules that govern what can and cannot be built on green-belt land, but we are clarifying in guidance where brownfield development can occur on the green belt, provided that the openness of the green belt is not harmed.

Thirdly, the Government are clear that the character of an existing area should be respected, particularly in the historic suburbs of our great towns and cities. The new NPPF therefore recognises that there may be situations in plan making where significant uplifts in urban residential densities would be inappropriate, as they would be wholly out of character with that existing area. In these cases, authorities need not plan for such development. That will apply where there is a design code that is adopted, or will be adopted, as part of the local plan. I know the shadow Minister will sympathise with this change, given that he recently opposed 1,500 new homes in his constituency due to the impact on Greenwich’s local character.

Fourthly, where an up-to-date plan is in place—a plan less than five years old—and contained a deliverable five-year supply of land when examined by the inspector, authorities will no longer be required to update that supply annually. This change provides those authorities with additional protection from the presumption in favour of sustainable development. We are also fully removing what are known as the 5% and 10% buffers, which could be applied to an authority’s housing land supply. A transitional arrangement will ensure that decision making on live applications is not affected, thus avoiding disruption to applications in the system. For authorities that have not yet passed examination but are either at examination, regulation 18 or regulation 19 stage, and have both a policy map and proposed allocations, there will be a two-year grace period in which they need to demonstrate only a four-year housing land supply for decision making. That is a strong incentive for councils to now do the right thing and agree a local plan.

Fifthly, local communities that have worked hard to put neighbourhood plans in place should not be penalised for the failure of their council to ensure an up-to-date local plan. The new NPPF therefore extends protection for neighbourhood plans from speculative development from two to five years, where those plans allocate at least one housing site. The updated framework also gives greater support to self-build, custom-build and community-led housing, and to encouraging the delivery of older people’s housing, including retirement housing, housing with care and care homes.

Next, the NPPF cements the role of beauty and placemaking in the planning system; it now expressly uses the word “beautiful” in relation to “well-designed places”. It also now requires greater “visual clarity” on design requirements set out in planning conditions and supports gentle density through the promotion of mansard roof development. Finally, the new NPPF also strengthens protections for agricultural land, by being clear that consideration should be given to the availability of agricultural land for food production in development decisions. The NPPF also supports the Government’s energy security strategy, by giving significant weight to the importance of energy efficiency in the adaptation of existing buildings, while protecting heritage.

With the updated NPPF now in place, the other reforms we are making today are focused on setting higher expectations for performance. Those who operationalise the system—local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and statutory consultees—must live up to their responsibilities. To support that, we are taking action on four fronts. First, we will ensure greater transparency, because exposing what is really going on in a system sparks action. So we will publish a new local authority performance dashboard in 2024, and pull back the veil on the use of extension of time agreements, which in too many instances are concealing poor performance.

Secondly, we have been providing, and will continue to provide, additional financial support. That includes the increased planning fees that went live a fortnight ago, as well as a range of funds to tackle backlogs and improve capability. Thirdly, we will tackle slow processes, with Sam Richards leading a review into the statutory consultee system and a greater focus from the Planning Inspectorate where planning committees are seeing their decisions overturned on appeal.

Finally, we will intervene where we need to. The Secretary of State has issued a direction to seven of the worst authorities in terms of plan making, requiring them to publish a plan timetable within 12 weeks of the publication of the new NPPF. Should they fail, we will consider further intervention. We are also designating two additional authorities for their decision-making performance and we will review the thresholds for designation to make sure to make sure we are not letting off the hook authorities that should be doing better.

We are also taking action in London, because the homes needed by the capital are simply not being built and opportunities for urban brownfield regeneration go begging as a result of the Mayor’s anti-housing policy and approach. A review launched today will identify where changes to policy could speed up the delivery of much-needed homes. If directing change in London becomes necessary, this Government will do that.

In designing these reforms we have aimed to facilitate desirable development, constrained only by appropriate protections. That is a balance I am confident we have struck.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his comments, which I will address in turn. He started by saying that this is the fourth time we have updated the guidance in the last few years. If his criticism is that we are willing to listen, be flexible and adaptable, and recognise the differences between his constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich and the constituencies of Government Back Benchers, then he is correct. We are willing to be flexible and adaptable, but we also recognise that we need to build more homes; we just want to ensure that they are built in the right places, which is exactly what today’s update seeks to do.

The difference between my party and that of the Opposition spokesperson is that we recognise the nuance in the discussion. Within the NPPF, we are trying to accommodate the fact that different areas and parts of the country have to be approached in different ways. While the policies of the hon. Gentleman’s party move backwards and forwards on different days of the week, we will continue to ensure that we build more homes—in the right place, with the right infrastructure and with the support of the community. In the long run, that will ensure that we make progress on housing in general.

The hon. Gentleman asked a question about freedom to plan. The housing needs assessment will be made by all councils, but councils can make a case if there is an exceptional circumstance that applies in their local area. If that were not possible, there would be no exceptions for any council, local authority or community anywhere, which would be completely unnuanced. However, on a macro level it remains the case that we will seek to build more houses. When councils have plans in place, they tend to deliver more houses than when such plans are not in place, so if we can get more plans in place, we will have the opportunity to build more homes that have the consent and support of the community in which they will be built.

The hon. Gentleman asked about urban uplift and the removal of co-operation with neighbours. We uplifted the targets and expectations on the basis that those houses would go into cities and would not be exported into the countryside near cities, because the whole point was to acknowledge the infrastructure in those cities. There are schools in London that are closing because insufficient numbers of children are using them. We do not want to export housing elsewhere; we want to use that infrastructure—including transport links and educational establishments—as was intended when it was built.

This is not about whether we believe in a plan-led system or not—we clearly do. It is about the fact that this Government are getting on with the hard job of striking a balance, recognising the nuance and ensuring that more progress is being made, versus the Opposition stating that they want to build houses, but then voting against that happening in relation to nutrient neutrality. If they put their money where their mouth was and did what they say they will do, they would have the ability to stand up and make such arguments consistently. They do not and, as a result, I will not listen to them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Before talking about the general policy, may I mention one small point? In paragraph 22 of his statement, the Minister talks about energy efficiency in heritage buildings. In Ambrose Place in Worthing—including at the house of one of my neighbours, where Harold Pinter lived—people are being told that they can have only secondary glazing, not double glazing, because it is in a conservation area. I hope that the Minister will talk with experts and say that double glazing is acceptable in reasonable circumstances, when people want to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

On the general point, the Minister mentions the green belt. According to one calculation, there are 16 green belts in England, none of which is in East Sussex or West Sussex. I interpret his words as meaning “green gaps”: an expression used by the Secretary of State when he commented on the problems of Worthing, where every single bit of grass—the vineyards, the golf courses and the green fields—between Worthing and its neighbours to the west is subject to a planning application. It is important that the inspectors in his Department do not come along, as they did over the land north of Goring station, to Chatsmore Farm and the Goring Gap and say that even if Worthing built on every bit of lawn in town, it would not meet the full target, and yet give permission to build on that farm, which distinguishes Worthing from its neighbours.

It is also important to follow up the Minister’s words about intense development in the centre of villages, towns and cities, so that there are homes in high-density accommodation that elderly people can choose to live in, so that their family homes can be freed for families. The idea that most of the development on our green fields is for families is for the birds—it is for people on their second or third homes. I think people who are my sort of age ought to have the choice to live securely in high-thermal efficiency apartments, with services that do not require cars, and where they can live more easily and happily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

The footnotes to paragraph 61 use as an example

“areas that are islands with no land bridge that have a significant proportion of elderly residents.”

I hope my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that that sounds very much like the Isle of Wight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The prize for patience and perseverance, with the last question of the year, goes to Nigel Mills.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a privilege, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Five years ago, the export of houses from Derby made a local plan in Amber Valley impossible, but there is no reason for delay now. Does the Minister agree that there is no reason for the Labour-run council not to have made more rapid progress with the pretty reasonable plan it inherited in May? Will he also confirm what the consequence will be if the 12-week direction he has issued today does not result in rapid progress, to ensure that residents in Amber Valley get a local plan sometime soon?

Oral Answers to Questions

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young]

I would be happy to meet the hon. Member.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

The Resolution Foundation’s report on economic stagnation, published today, shows how levelling up simply is not happening under this Government. One of the speakers at the event this morning was Andy Haldane, the chair of the Levelling Up Advisory Council, who said that greater financial devolution was needed in all areas, not just in the favoured few. It sounds like he has been taking inspiration from our proposed “take back control” Bill. Does the Minister agree with him that more economic devolution is needed in all areas of the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jacob Young]

I can confirm to the Chair of the Select Committee that I met the relevant Minister in the Ministry of Justice just this morning to discuss that point. We are working at pace to ensure that the courts are ready for the biggest change in the private rented sector in over 30 years. The hon. Gentleman talked about local government funding. We are conducting a new burdens assessment for local government to ensure that any additional burdens that are placed on local government are funded properly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

In the festive spirit, I extend my sympathies to the Secretary of State, who seems to spend his time haunted by the ghost of Christmas past. In 2019, a Tory Prime Minister promised to ban no-fault evictions. Since then, households have been put at risk of homelessness because of a section 21 notice nearly 78,000 times. In 2017, the fifth predecessor of the Secretary of State pledged action to end the medieval practice of leasehold, but just last year another 207,000 homeowners became stuck in that expensive nightmare. All the while, the Secretary of State has been beavering away drawing up what can only be described as Alice in Wonderland legislation: a Bill to ban no-fault evictions that will not ban no-fault evictions, and a Bill to ban leasehold that will not ban leasehold. Is he too scared to stand up to his Back Benchers, or has he truly fallen down the rabbit hole?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

As you will no doubt be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, designed to ban the sale of new leasehold houses, does not actually contain any provisions to ban the sale of new leasehold houses, because the Department apparently did not have time to draft them before publication. If and when the Government rectify their mistake and add the necessary provisions, will they incorporate measures to reinvigorate commonhold by making it accessible and available to both prospective homebuyers and existing leaseholders? If not, why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady raises an important point about the formula. I am tempted to say that if the spectre of covid had not, quite rightly, taken up a huge amount of bandwidth in both central Government and local government, we might have been in a different place. We can spend an awful lot of time discussing the minutiae of the formula, and there will be a time when that needs to be done. The crucial task that we have in hand at the current time is to play the cards that we have been dealt, to deliver a settlement that works for local government and to deliver the quality and range of services that all our communities, irrespective of where they are in the country, have a legitimate expectation to receive.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We are not making terribly fast progress this afternoon. Could everyone who has their question written down cut out the bit at the beginning and just ask the question? This is not speech time; it is Question Time, so let us just have questions. If we get short questions, we can get short answers, too.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

Local government finance has been front and centre of our local news given the stark situation in Nottingham. The Minister will know about Nottingham’s unique circumstances following decades of poor decisions and mismanagement, but it will not be lost on him that the whole sector is under significant pressure. I know that he will make the case about finances to the Treasury, but the Government could help significantly by allowing more flexibility in the system. Will he work with colleagues around Government to help us to remove ringfences, particularly in areas, such as public health and transport, in which we could make better decisions if we had more freedom to do so?

[Simon Hoare]

I am not going to give a running commentary on the situation in Nottingham, save to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I keep it under close review. On my hon. Friend’s wider point about trust and liberalisation, his call falls on open ears. I am happy to work with anybody who wants to ensure that our local authorities can stand up and deliver, as long as they accept accountability and responsibility for the decisions they take. The Government have a proud record on working in a relationship of trust with our local councillors and councils in order to deliver for people up and down the land.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

In 2018, Tory-led Northamptonshire County Council issued a section 114 notice—as close as a council can come to declaring itself bankrupt. Since then, under this Conservative Government, we have seen a further eight councils from across the political spectrum do exactly the same. In September, the credit agency Moody’s warned that more local authorities will

“fail over the near term”

due to high inflation, interest rates and service demand. By the Government’s own assessment, how many more councils are at risk between now and budgets being set next year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady raises a serious point, and let me put it on record that I would be happy to meet her and the APPG to discuss their issues and concerns. We have made great strides—there is a specific workstream—in ensuring we maximise how those who have a disability can vote and do so in a free and unfettered way, and we will continue with that. I am very sorry to hear about the case the hon. Lady raises, but if she wishes to write to me on the issue, I will of course look into it in my discussions with the commission. It is absolutely pivotal that, in all we do with regard to our election rules, access to voting—freedom to vote—is absolutely at the heart of it, and as the Minister responsible for elections, I shall guarantee that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Right, I am going to issue a challenge to the House. We have 10 topical questions and others to get through, we have very little time to do it—and we have a lot of business today—and I would not like Mr Speaker to think that we are going slowly just because he is not here: short questions, short answers!

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

T1.   If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)]

At the autumn statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made available to my Department money for investment in London, Cambridge and Leeds, planning capacity and capability, the local authority housing fund, the local housing allowance, home buying and selling and the affordable homes guarantee scheme—quite a coup.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Brilliant.

[Ruth Jones]

I think I got most of that. Newport West is home to a thriving and inclusive Muslim community, and I pay tribute to the multi-faith work being done to bring our communities together after the terrible events in the middle east. Can the Minister outline what discussions he has had with the Welsh Government about supporting this multi-faith work, and about eradicating Islamophobia in Wales and the UK once and for all?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)]

Fixed-term tenancies can trap tenants into poor-quality homes, and trap landlords into long-term tenancies with bad tenants. With the abolition of section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, we no longer see such things as necessary, but I am happy to work with my right hon. Friend to ensure that the Renters (Reform) Bill works for his constituents.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

The latest Government figures highlight that a record 139,000 children—children!—are in temporary accommodation in the lead-up to Christmas, which is a 14% increase. Meanwhile, only 9,500 homes for social rent were built last year. If we take into account all the homes built since 2010, that is minus 14,000 each year. Does the Minister regret handing back £1.9 billion of unspent departmental money to the Treasury last year, given that we are in an urgent housing crisis? Why not adopt Labour’s plan to get Britain building again, with 1.5 million homes over that parliamentary period?

Renters (Reform) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

The Bill talks about the ombudsman. We need to make sure that landlords understand their obligations, and where they do not, we need to ensure that there is redress. As I mentioned earlier, that ombudsman must have real teeth, and I hope the Secretary of State understands that. While I respect the landlords who are in the Chamber and those who are listening to this debate—I know many of them do a good job and are trying their best—we have to have a minimum standard. We cannot have circumstances, as we have seen in Greater Manchester, where children are living in very poor conditions. It is really important that we have regulation and, where people are in accommodation that falls below those standards, we have redress.

After four years, the clock is ticking. There can be no more delay, but the Government’s track record does not instil much confidence. On the Tories’ watch, mortgage bills and rents are soaring, fewer people are able to buy their own home, and over 1 million people are stuck on social housing waiting lists. Those problems are only going to get worse because the Prime Minister could not stand up to his Back Benchers on house building targets. Now it appears that once again, he is caving in to them, rather than keeping his promises to the British people.

This Bill is an important step forward, supporting renters at the sharp edge of the cost of living crisis, so Labour will work constructively throughout its passage. We will not be the cause of delay—I hope the Secretary of State can say the same about his Back Benchers. If they cannot act in the national interest and support a renters’ reform Bill worthy of its name, let me make clear that our offer is to do so instead, because over the course of our proceedings today, 33 renters will have been put at risk of homelessness because they were issued with a section 21 notice and 11 will have got a visit from the bailiffs evicting them. Every single one of those people will be faced with anxiety about the future—anxiety about having to pay eye-watering moving costs and about whether they will be made completely homeless. They cannot afford to wait for the Prime Minister to find a backbone and stand up to his party. They cannot afford to wait for the Secretary of State to buy off his Back Benchers, and they cannot afford to wait yet more years for this Government to keep the promises they made to them.

We stand ready to work in the national interest, and will do so with anyone else who is prepared to join us. I urge the House not to waste this chance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious to the House that a great many people want to catch my eye. We have a long time—we have three hours ahead—but I want to be fair in the way that that is divided up, so we will begin with a time limit of seven minutes.

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

In 2014, fellow housing expert Calum Mercer and I published a then-seminal paper called “Nation Rent”. That paper challenged what was then the status quo, which was that generation rent affected only younger people and would be a passing phase. “Nation Rent” set out that it was a changing structural environment in the housing and financial markets that had occurred since 2003, which saw a rapid acceleration of the private rented sector—overtaking social rent—together with a fall in home ownership. That structural change started long before the credit crunch and financial crash, but accelerated after them.

A decade on, little has changed in structural terms, and it should concern Members of all parties that generation rent has now become nation rent. The percentage of people aged between 35 and 44 and between 45 and 54 who are renting privately has tripled over the past two decades, and has more than doubled for those aged between 55 and 64. Nation rent is now embedded, not just in the younger generation but through the generations. As I set out in my 2018 paper with the Housing and Finance Institute, “A Time for Good Homes”, that structural change towards private renting affected around 2.4 million homes, or around 6 million people.

The need for legislation reflects that long-term structural shift. The private rented sector is no longer a flex or transitory tenure: it is the main tenure for millions of people for much, if not all, of their lives. The current legislative framework—a short-term tenure for long-term living, one person’s pension pot but another person’s only home—is not fit for that purpose. That is why there is tension and strain, which is reflected in the design of the Bill and the comments that have been made about it. There is a need to find a new balance that reflects this new reality for millions of people in our country, acting in a way that is fair and responsible to those who are being housed as well as to those who house them.

It remains my view that although the principle of the Bill and its measures are very welcome, they do not go far enough in dealing with the fundamental challenges of an overweighted private sector. There needs to be a long-term plan for housing that rebalances the housing tenure mix—a plan to boost home ownership and expand affordable rented housing substantially; one that unblocks the financial and regulatory constraints on affordable home ownership and professional renting, and one that builds more homes. I continue to work cross-party and cross-industry, inside and outside of this place on those priorities, as I have done for many years and as is reflected in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Given my long-term campaigning for housing, I was pleased to stand on a manifesto to build 1 million homes this Parliament, work towards 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s, and scrap section 21 evictions. We have done well on the first, the second is a work in progress and the third manifesto commitment is why we are here today. I know at first hand the personal commitment that the Secretary of State and the Housing Minister bring to this matter, and how hard their commitment to it is.

This is a vital piece of legislation, because it seeks to provide greater security and stability for renters. This matters—and it should matter to everyone on the Conservative Benches—because housing instability destroys wealth creation, damages life chances, restricts educational prospects and harms health. I see this in my constituency inbox, as I am sure do all Members. In my MP surgery, I had a mother who had spent hundreds of pounds of her own money over many years building a comfortable home for her and her disabled daughter, only for them to be turfed out by their landlord with nowhere to go. Recently, I had to discuss with Ukrainian refugees how someone had complained to their landlord about the heating not working, only for them to find themselves served with a section 21 eviction notice. How do you begin to explain that that is just how things work in our country? They should not work like that; this needs to change.

That is why this reform is so important, but we cannot allow any delay, and that includes the proposed delay because, supposedly, repossession is taking too long. That is nonsense. There is already clear court guidance to deal with repossession claims in a timely manner, as set out in civil procedure rule 55.5, which states that the hearing must take place between four and eight weeks from the claim. Although there have been some spikes in court hearings over the covid pandemic, the timeliness of possession claims has remarkably improved. The latest available figures from the Ministry of Justice show that the average time between claims and orders is now back to under eight weeks. The average time between claims and warrants is the same as it was in December 2019, when the Conservative commitment was made to the nation. The repossession figures have collapsed from the post-covid high of 69 weeks, and are back on track to pre-covid levels. For landlords, every single median metric—be that for orders, warrants or possessions—has dramatically improved on the latest Government data.

Therefore, this landmark section 21 reform should not be delayed on the basis that court improvements are required. That was a concern of our Select Committee, and I think it has now been met in part by the improved data. Any change to the Bill that delays the implementation of these vital reforms cannot be supported. This issue affects millions of people in our country. That is why renters reform—specifically the abolition of section 21—was in the 2019 manifesto, on which all of us on the Conservative Benches stood. It was a manifesto that put the Conservatives on the side of the people, and a manifesto that secured such a huge majority. It would be a grave mistake not to honour that commitment, or to stifle it by delay.

To conclude, the Renters (Reform) Bill will provide security and stability to millions of renters across the country. It should be passed by Parliament without any further delay, but we must also do more to continue to unlock home ownership and other housing to deliver the homes and the housing stability that our nation needs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

This is without doubt a significant Bill, which shows that the Conservative Government are serious about delivering our manifesto commitments and delivering for the British people. In my constituency, tackling homelessness and rough sleeping is a key priority. To make in-roads, we must reform the private rental market. Many of my constituents and people across the country are trapped in high rental spirals, with little or no other viable options available to them. On that basis, the Bill’s proposal to enable tenants to appeal excessive market rents designed to force out tenants could be an important step, but we need to ensure we see more detail on how that would work in practice.

On top of that, and more broadly, we must go back to these proposals and make sure that they do not let up on the delivery of more affordable housing and social housing. The Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) has heard me say that time and again. I believe there is a consensus across the House on that point. As the Bill progresses, I will be keeping a strong look-out for the appropriate protections for renters, but we cannot forget that without landlords, we would not have a rental market at all. That is why we need to strike the right balance between assurances for landlords and protections for renters. The tendency to vilify landlords is not just unhelpful to our public discourse; it is unhelpful to how we are developing legislation. We must make sure that we look after landlords in this process; they form a critical part of the housing ecosystem, and scaring them off would set us back even further, so we must tread carefully.

Through my role as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for housing market and housing delivery, and from meeting landlords and tenants in my constituency, I have engaged with a huge range of stakeholders, including professional landlords such as Grainger and charities such as Shelter. Through those discussions, I am aware of the sticking points that we need to resolve as we progress this Bill through its remaining stages.

To get into just one of the details—I know we are pushed for time—Grainger and others in the industry favour the idea of introducing the ability for landlords to request a six-month minimum tenancy length. Once that period is over, renters could issue a two-month notice. Responsible landlords such as Grainger—and many others; in fact, the vast majority of them—want to build communities and have lasting bonds with the people they house, which is an often forgotten point in these debates. Conversely, charities that I have been talking to that fight for the side of tenants and renters, such as Shelter, want to see a longer protected period for tenants, with a focus on open-ended tendencies. They want to see the protected period lengthened from six months to two years to give renters more certainty and security. In the light of proposals to introduce comprehensive possession grounds for landlords, we need to be careful that we find a compromise between the two positions.

The reforms proposed in the Bill are promising, and I think we can all accept that they are a step in the right direction. However, there is more work to be done in finding the right balance between the needs of renters and landlords and successfully integrating the rental market with our levelling-up plans and the need to deliver more affordable housing across our country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Feryal Clark—not here. That is a shock.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Just for the sake of clarity, let me say that I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker). He took the correct allotted time. There seems to be a mistake with the clock, but the hon. Gentleman has done the honourable thing, and I thank him very much for that.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Felicity Buchan)]

I thank Members from throughout the House for their impassioned and heartfelt contributions. Let me remind the House why we have introduced this legislation: we believe that we should have one foreign policy, and we also believe that BDS campaigns risk undermining community cohesion. We believe that public bodies should not be wasting time and money on pursuing their own foreign policy agendas and should instead focus on providing vital public services and delivering value for money for the taxpayer in their procurement and investment decisions.

Let me also clarify certain misapprehensions that certain Members have about the Bill. First, the Bill applies only to public authorities. It does not apply to private individuals or private companies, except if they are exercising public functions. It does not place restrictions on local councillors, except when they talk expressly on the behalf of their local authority. It does not prevent public authorities from making statements on foreign policy; it prevents them only from making a procurement or investment decision if it is motivated by moral or political disapproval of a foreign state’s conduct.

Many Members have mentioned clause 4. I reassure Members that clause 4 only prevents public authorities from making statements of intent to boycott or divest. It does not prevent public bodies from disagreeing with this legislation. The Bill does not ban ethical, religious or socially conscious funds, so, for instance, climate change funds can continue with the Bill unless there are issues that are country-specific.

A number of Members mentioned clause 3(7). I want to clarify the role of the clause. The Bill applies equally to all countries. Countries can be exempted from the ban by secondary legislation, which is what we are planning to do with Russia and Belarus—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This has been a very good-natured and difficult debate. It has been held with disagreement, but courtesy across the House. People have now come into the Chamber who have not been here during the debate and it is most discourteous of them now to make so much noise that we cannot hear the Minister. That is bad behaviour and it is bad for the way in which we do things in here, especially on a day when we have had a very well-constructed and conducted debate.

[Felicity Buchan]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Given the focus of the BDS campaign on Israel, we are simply saying in this clause that, for Israel to be exempted from the legislation, it will require primary legislation. I want to make that very clear. This policy does not affect our foreign policy position. We are not legislating for the UK’s foreign policy on Israel or on any other country in the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure a consistent approach to foreign policy across our public bodies, led by the UK Government. The Bill will not prevent the UK Government from imposing sanctions, or otherwise changing our foreign policy on any country in future.

I stress that none of the provisions in the Bill changes the UK’s position on Israeli settlements in the west bank and the Golan Heights. We are continuing to urge Israel not to take steps that move us away from our shared goals of peace and security. We support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and a just, fair and realistic settlement for refugees.

Furthermore, our position on settlements is clear: they are illegal under international law; present an obstacle to peace; and threaten the physical viability of a two-state solution. Our position is reflected in our continued support for UN Security Council resolution 2334, with which the Bill is compliant.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Eleanor Laing Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of Sir Peter Bottomley has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. From the meetings I have had with the commission and the conversations I have had with people in the Jewish community and beyond, I know they want us to proceed. They understand that we are a country governed by laws and they understand why the court came to the decision it did on the 1900 Act, but they also want the Government, as well as this House and the other place, to proceed at the fastest possible pace—giving due consideration to all the arguments that are and have been made, but at the fastest possible pace—to ensure that an appropriate memorial is established.

I would like to close by reflecting on the words of Mala Tribich MBE, who is now 92 years old, and a holocaust survivor herself. As she says:

“As the Holocaust moves further into history and we survivors become less able to share our testimonies this Memorial and Learning Centre will be a lasting legacy so that future generations will understand why it is important for people to remember the Holocaust, to learn from the past and stand up against injustice. The memory of the Holocaust cannot be left to fade when us eyewitnesses are no longer able to share our memories.”

I believe we owe it to Mala and to all survivors to pass this Bill, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.