Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I think the whole House wishes that the Secretary of State was able to be with us. He is one of the people who has helped to move this forward, together with the junior Minister. I say to Michael: well done, not just on education, but on getting a grip of the horrors in residential leasehold.

After the Grenfell fire tragedy, people realised that those stuck with the bill not just for cladding but for every other fire defect were not the developer, the architect, the surveyors or the suppliers of components, but the residential leaseholders who by law are only tenants and own not a single brick in the building. It was when the Secretary of State came in that the action started. Actually, he was not the first. Two other Secretaries of State had to give instructions to their permanent secretaries to start giving out some compensation. I still commend to the Government having an agency to take over potential claims of all residential leaseholders, taking action against those responsible and holding a roundtable with all their insurers. That would get £10 billion in almost overnight, saving the money going to the lawyers.

To return to the Bill, there has been cross-party agreement over the past eight years that something was needed. The Law Commission produced many recommendations, most of which are in the Bill. I will not go into all the detail of the debate that I heard in another place, where some Members seem to think that people’s property rights are being harmed. I do not remember those Members of another place complaining when the disgraceful statutory instrument 632 came through in 2020, boosting landowners’ values by about £5 billion. The only people paying that were the leaseholders.

I am very grateful to the people who have supported the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform. Katherine O’Riordan has done really well on that, as have the trustees of the campaigning charity Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, Martin Boyd and Sebastian O’Kelly, together with new trustees, including Liam Spender, who has done a great deal in fighting off very bad landlords in the east end of London.

Three problems remain, on which the House will want to see the next Administration take action urgently. One is that forfeitures, as the whole House accepts, is a draconian system that must go. The threat of losing the home is one thing, but all the equity going to the landlord is totally another, and that should be stopped. In one case in which I was involved in Plantation Wharf, someone was at risk of losing £600,000 over a disputed bill of £7,000.

Secondly, the commitment to bring in a ground rent cap has not come forward but it must be introduced. I acknowledge that I have a share of a small block of leasehold flats in Worthing where I have a home, and I own another leasehold property that I let out, but I will not benefit from this because I have negotiated with my landlord that they will pay the ground rent for the next 30 years, which will see me out. We need a ground rent cap. We know that ground rent turns to peppercorn if there is a legal extension, and we ought to get to that as fast as we can. If on the way we have to stop at £250 a year, that is fine.

The last thing is that we need to recognise that a move to commonhold is the only way forward to ensure an effective housing market. We ought to stop new residential leasehold properties being sold, and we ought to find a way to help existing leaseholders avoid facing penalties from external landlords, who can go into all sorts of bad behaviour, whether on insurance commissions or other ways of taking money off leaseholders improperly. That would be in the interests of both landlords and leaseholders.

I congratulate the Government and thank the Minister for his attendance. I am very grateful to the Opposition for helping persuade the Prime Minister that this Bill could come forward in this last Session of this Parliament. I claim the credit because on the Tuesday before the King’s coronation, I was standing with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the official Opposition and I said to the Prime Minister that the Opposition would help him—Rishi looked at Keir, Keir nodded, and now we have the Bill.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

On that note, may I on behalf of the Opposition also welcome this Bill? We are pleased that the disagreements down the other end of the building have been resolved and that it can go forward. It is not perfect, as the Father of the House has pointed out, and I hope that a future Labour Government will take the next steps that we need. It is a step forward, so we are pleased to support this legislation going on to the statute books this evening.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

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

[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.

[Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)]

May I just clarify something that my hon. Friend has just said? He stated that £40 million has already been spent on a scheme that has not moved forward in any way.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I think that is the right figure, but the Minister will know. I am just a Back Bencher, and have been for quite some time, but I think that is the figure. I believe that it was between £35 million and £40 million. That could have paid for a prominent memorial and we could then have enhanced the learning and educational facilities.

The arguments against using Victoria Tower Gardens are clear. It is an area of quiet recreation for people who live locally. I live nearby. It is a place where people who work round here can quietly enjoy the open space.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I thank the Father of the House for giving way. He is making an important point about how Victoria Tower Gardens is a local park. Does he agree that there are thousands of social housing tenants, living 10 or 15 minutes’ walk away, who benefit from having the green space that Victoria Tower Gardens offers and would be concerned if it were overtaken by a memorial and an education centre?

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

My hon. Friend is right. She has the advantage of having led Westminster City Council and will not need reminding that the Government originally said that they wanted their proposal to have the support of the local authority. When they gained the impression that, on merit, the local authority was not likely to give its approval, they took the proposal away from the local authority.

On a number of occasions, the King’s counsel leading for the Government in front of the Select Committee, said that what has been considered by the Committee was not planning permission. He constantly said that planning would be dealt with in the normal way. The normal way is for an application—because the present one has been squashed—to go to the local authority. The Government can, if they choose to do so, call it in if they think that the local authority has got it wrong or it is of national importance. They should not, in this case, have regarded it as of national importance to stop the local authority having the option of considering the interests of local residents, as my hon. Friend has remarked.

Between Vauxhall Bridge and Victoria Street or Birdcage Walk, there is no other large green space open to the public. The Minister will know that. He will have walked around Victoria Tower Gardens as many times as I have. He may also have walked the extra 1,200 yards to the Imperial War Museum, where there is a big park dedicated to peace. Why was the Imperial War Museum not allowed to put forward a detailed proposal? And why did the Government then turn round and say, because it had not put forward such a proposal, it could not be considered?

We all know that massive pressure was put on the Imperial War Museum trustees, and that their chair was made a member of the foundation. I do not think that the Government have approached this in the right way. Let me put the Government’s words on the record. The United Kingdom Holocaust Memorial is seeking

“a prominent location in Central London with significant existing footfall so as to draw in and inspire the largest possible number of visitors.”

Under the present proposals, we will not be able just to walk in. We will have to be cleared by security and that, at times of heightened security, the memorial will either be closed or there will be airport-style security, which is not the point of a memorial to the victims and to the dedication that it should not happen again.

To return to the Government’s words:

“The site will support several features and activities, the number and extent of which will depend on the size of the space available. Sites capable of accommodating 5,000-10,000 sqm of built space for the UKHMF over no more than three contiguous floors will be considered.”

That is not what is being proposed, but the proposal would, in effect, take over about a third of the park regardless. The Government claim that it would be a much smaller proportion, but if we take all the associated parts of the proposal, it would be much more than the Government say.

The final sentence of that section says:

“In order to achieve the maximum benefits for the public, the UKHMF needs to allocate as much of its funds as possible to educational purposes rather than to land and construction and so the site must be highly cost effective.”

The only cost-effectiveness in this site is that the Government believe that they can get it for free. They had not factored in the additional costs of building a box by a river and by a main road, where people are trying to enjoy the park. Some estimates suggest that the park will be basically out of action for up to five years. If the Government say, “You shouldn’t believe that kind of estimate,” I will tell them that for the past 12 months it has not been possible to walk along the river walk in Victoria Tower Gardens because Ministers who are responsible for the state of repair of the Buxton memorial fountain have allowed contractors to barrier it off way beyond what was needed to stop people going over the fountain itself.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

We could have had a fantastic, beautiful, moving memorial—roughly the same size as the Buxton memorial, or the memorial to the abolition of slavery or to the campaign for women’s votes—eight years ago, if only the Government had not persisted with the crazy idea of an underground learning centre in a totally unsuitable location.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Stevenson]

Security is one of the many considerations with regard to the site, and I think it is a valid one to look at, but what we want is somewhere that is actively attended—somewhere that people go to on a regular basis, and are not hindered from doing so because of security concerns. My new clause 1 asks the Government to get a security review and bring it to Parliament. That review may well conclude that there is no issue and we should proceed, or it may suggest to Government that there are active concerns and we should respond accordingly.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I apologise if I am taking words out of my hon. Friend’s speech before he gets to them, but was it not Lord Carlile, the Government’s terrorism adviser, who made the point about security very strongly?

[John Stevenson]

My hon. Friend is exactly right—he certainly did so at that time.

I have tabled two amendments to this Bill: one is about cost, and the other is about security. Overall, the security issue must have priority, and I will certainly be looking to push that amendment to a vote, but I will just make some final comments on those amendments and, indeed, the whole project.

I believe the amendments to the Bill are sensible and appropriate, and sadly, I feel that unless the Government take a step back and give serious thought to the proposed project, there can be only two ultimate outcomes. Either at some point in the future, someone will have a lightbulb moment, reassess the whole matter, review where we are going with it and maybe draw back from the ideas that are being put forward, or we will press on and potentially create a very expensive white elephant, which will defeat the worthwhile aim of creating the memorial and learning centre that I believe we all want to see. I hope it is the former, rather than the latter, that prevails.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank the Minister once again for that very clear steer and clarification.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It may be too late for a manuscript amendment to the Bill to be accepted by Dame Eleanor—or Madam Deputy Speaker, if we get to the next stages—but would it be possible for the Minister to offer the House an assurance that when the Bill gets to another place, assuming it does, the Government will move an amendment to make plain what he said here?

[Nickie Aiken]

I thank my hon. Friend, the Father of the House, for his intervention. He makes a very clear point. Perhaps that could be taken through in the Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill in its entirety and against the amendments, which I think will only delay through prevarication getting the Bill on to the statute books. I declare my interest as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, as well as an ambassador for Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. I think there is universal agreement that there is a need for a Holocaust memorial and that there should be a learning centre as well. It appears to me that the debate today has centred around where this should be located, what conditions should be imposed and the funding for it, which is the subject of the amendments.

We in this country are deeply involved in Holocaust education. It is a requirement on our schools to ensure that young people learn about the horrors of the Holocaust and where the ultimate destiny of antisemitism leads. But the reality is that the survivors of the Holocaust are getting frailer by the day and the Holocaust is fading into distant memory, so it is vital that we capture those survivors’ testimony and ensure they have had the opportunity to speak to as many people as possible before they unfortunately pass on. It is therefore vital that we have a permanent national institution to preserve the collective memory of the Holocaust. We have to understand the history, what went on and why the Holocaust happened. It is very difficult to contextualise the systematic murder of 6 million people because they were Jewish. It is tough to impart that.

Of course, there are memorials and centres around the world, including in Washington, Paris, Cape Town, Melbourne, Sydney, Hong Kong, New York, Boston, Berlin and, of course, Jerusalem. Although we were not occupied by the Nazis, we were part and parcel of defeating them. Tens of thousands of Jewish refugees came to this country to make it their home and, of course, our troops liberated Bergen-Belsen and discovered at first hand the horrors of what had happened to the Jewish population, but that saved countless lives.

There are concerns, of course, about Britain’s role. We should remember that children were almost orphaned by the end of the war and their parents were denied entry to the United Kingdom. Our role is not always to say how wonderful we are, and some of the decisions taken at that time need to be explored. Why, for example, were the train tracks into Auschwitz-Birkenau not bombed? We had the ability to bomb them to prevent many people from being transported. In the Channel Islands, British police officers actually carried out German policies. We have to recognise this and face up to it, and the learning centre will give us that opportunity.

There are obviously concerns about the site’s location. I take a strong view that it needs to be alongside the principal democratic institutions of our time, namely, the Houses of Parliament. It is clear that this will be a nationally significant building, and the monument will serve to remember those people who were murdered during the second world war.

The history is that the then Prime Minister, now the Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, had a report from the Holocaust Commission that recommended the construction of a striking and prominent new national memorial to be located in central London. The report recommended that the national memorial should be co-located with a world-class learning centre, so the Bill requires co-location.

There is cross-party support. Lord Pickles and Ed Balls, who chaired the commission, committed the Government to providing a site in Victoria Tower Gardens, next door to the Houses of Parliament. I remind colleagues that the 2019 Conservative manifesto committed us to delivering the construction of the planned UK Holocaust memorial.

Planning permission for the memorial and learning centre was granted in 2021, but the High Court ruled in April 2022 that certain sections of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 were an obstacle to construction and therefore quashed the decision to grant planning consent.

This Bill is specific in dealing with the restrictions to the siting of the memorial and learning centre. Importantly, it does not grant planning permission, which will still have to go through the normal process. We have heard that some colleagues are concerned about the appropriateness of Victoria Tower Gardens. The reality is that there will still be a requirement for the gardens to remain open to the public. The Bill disapplies only the relevant sections of the 1900 Act to ensure that it does not block the building of this memorial and learning centre in the gardens. I would say that no place in Britain is more suitable for a memorial and learning centre than the gardens next door to Parliament, the very institution where decisions on Britain’s response in the lead-up to, during and in the aftermath of the Holocaust were made.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The point my hon. Friend is making now was not one put forward by the commission, and it was not one put forward by the foundation. Would he agree?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the Father of the House for that intervention. It is clear that the site was chosen by the commission; it recommended this. The reality is that the development of the planning application followed thereafter, and obviously the impact on the gardens has to be considered. It is right that only Parliament can change the law, and it is right that Parliament should consider whether the unique significance of the Holocaust justifies seeking an exception to the protections it put in place more than 100 years ago.

The proposals for the memorial include sensitive landscaping that will improve Victoria Tower Gardens for every user, and more than 90% of the area of the current gardens will remain fully open after the memorial is built. I understand that my colleagues are concerned about this, but local residents and workers will be able to visit and enjoy the gardens just as they do now. The Holocaust Memorial Bill lifts restrictions in relation only to Victoria Tower Gardens—no other piece of land—and in relation only to a Holocaust memorial and learning centre, and no other form of development. The Bill does not seek to override the planning process, so all the arguments about the use of the park can be properly considered against the benefits of the memorial.

Landscape improvements to Victoria Tower Gardens will ensure that this important and well-used green space, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), is made more attractive and more accessible than ever before. The new development will take about 7.5% of the site. All the mature London plane trees will be protected, and additional planting and improved drainage of the grassed area will increase the overall attractiveness of the gardens. Alongside the riverside embankment wall, new raised boardwalks will be constructed, helping to make the seating more accessible and making it easier for everyone to enjoy views of the Thames. New pathways will link existing memorials and monuments within the gardens, and additional seating will enhance the visitor experience. The playground will be improved. The objective is to ensure that all current uses can continue after the memorial is constructed. All these matters are fully considered as part of the planning process. During his consideration, the planning inspector produced a detailed report with a careful assessment of the impacts on trees, traffic, gardens, playground and all other relevant matters, and then recommended that planning consent be given.

The construction phase of the UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre is expected to last around three years. The project team aims to make phased closures and reopenings of different sections of the park to ensure that as much of the park as possible is available for all users while the work carries on to produce this important memorial.

The learning centre will include a powerful exhibition that will provide context for the memorial and encourage reflection on the relevance of the Holocaust for Britain today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I do not want to be nit-picking, but the southern part of the park is a children’s playground. Although some people say it will not be reduced in size, others think it will be reduced in size by 30%. The 7.5% figure is challenged by very many people, but it is probably not the time to go into ground plans.

[Bob Blackman]

We can debate whether the figure is 7.5% or 10%, but the key point is that more than 90% of the park will be preserved. The plan for the memorial is that it will be no higher than the Buxton memorial and its bronze fins will step down progressively to the east, in visual deference to the Buxton memorial. The memorial was designed by Ron Arad specifically for Victoria Tower Gardens.

Some suggestions have been made about the Imperial War Museum. To my knowledge, the Imperial War Museum supports the memorial being situated in Victoria Tower Gardens and has no wish for the memorial to be built in its grounds. A detailed flood risk assessment was prepared as part of the planning application. It concluded that Victoria Tower Gardens is heavily protected by the River Thames flood defences, significantly reducing the risk of flooding on site.

On the issue of antisemitism, I do not think anyone would claim this memorial will be the answer to solving more than 2,000 years of antisemitism. However, it will be a reminder to those in the Houses of Parliament of the potential to abuse democratic institutions to murderous consequences, in stark contrast to the true role of democracy in standing up and combating racism, hatred and prejudice wherever it is found.

Some hon. Members have suggested that certain members of the Jewish community do not support the proposed site. As everyone knows, the Jewish community is not a homogeneous group and there will be multiple differences of opinions, as within any community. Supporters of having the memorial on this site include the Chief Rabbi, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the chair of the Jewish Leadership Council and chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, to name but a few, plus many Holocaust survivors. The funds assigned to the project are for a Holocaust memorial. The funds have not been diverted from educational budgets and there is no reason to think that abandoning the memorial would mean funds being reassigned to any other project.

The Jewish Museum was not consulted before the joint letter from different members of the Jewish community was written, but the museum plans to reopen in a central London location in the near future, so its concerns should be noted. The aims of the memorial and the Jewish Museum are complementary, but not the same. The memorial will set the Holocaust within a context that includes the history of antisemitism, including in Britain, and of subsequent genocides.

There have been multiple consultations with members of the Jewish and survivor communities. At every stage of the planning inquiry, individuals and groups have been able to give written and oral evidence. The planning inspector took great care to allow all voices to be heard at the inquiry and he recorded all evidence in his very detailed report. After taking account of all views, he recommended that planning consent should be granted.

Some people say there is no rush. The original proposal was made in 2015; we are now nine years on. Even if the Bill makes rapid progress and the development takes place, the memorial will take longer to develop than the extent of the Holocaust. We owe it to the survivors to get on with the job as quickly as possible. The survivors themselves are asking for that. Harry Bibring spoke to Sky News back in 2017, but sadly passed away a few days after the interview. He said:

“I’m very much looking forward to the completion of the new Holocaust Memorial in the Victoria Tower Park next to the Parliament, which we’re going to have a learning centre as well as just a monument and I don’t know whether I’ll live to see it, but it’s in planning stage in Westminster Council and I hope nothing goes wrong”.

Manfred Goldberg, a Holocaust survivor said in May 2023:

“I was 84 when Prime Minister David Cameron first promised us survivors a national Holocaust Memorial in close proximity to the Houses of Parliament. Last month I celebrated my 93rd birthday and I pray to be able to attend the opening of this important project.”

Sir Ben Helfgott, a Holocaust survivor and an Olympic weightlifter, who sadly passed away last year, wrote in 2021:

“I look forward to one day taking my family to the new national memorial and learning centre, telling the story of Britain and the Holocaust. And one day, I hope that my children and grandchildren will take their children and grandchildren, and that they will remember all those who came before them, including my mother, Sara, my sister, Luisa, and my father, Moishe.”

Susan Pollack, a Holocaust survivor speaking at a parliamentary reception earlier this month:

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

I end by expressing my hope that we can complete the Committee stage of the Bill, get on to Third Reading and usher the Bill rapidly through the House of Lords, so that those brave survivors of the Holocaust will live to see the development of the memorial and the learning centre.

--- Later in debate ---

This week I sat down with students from the Union of Jewish Students, who told me of the genuinely horrific experiences Jewish students are having on campuses in this country at this time, which have manifested in Jews being afraid to wear anything that marks them out as Jewish. I am proud to be a Reform Jew and I wear my kippah in synagogue, but since 7 October I have deliberately worn it on public transit in this country, to show my pride and my lack of fear. Of course, I am a 6 feet 2 inches big overweight bloke, so I perhaps have more confidence in doing that, but I have been proud to do that at a time when very many people in the community are not.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and glad to be hearing what he is saying, both giving testimony for himself and standing up for those who might be more frightened. Does he agree that those who want to see how the Holocaust developed should go to the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum, where the displays, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) said, are very impressive and very moving?

[Andrew Percy]

They are indeed—it is a brilliant presentation. I am also very proud that every Holocaust Memorial Day in my local community, particularly in Brigg, the town council ensures that we have a display at Brigg Heritage Centre telling the story of the Holocaust and how we got there. That is really important.

However, the reason I have set out the comparison between what we had in the 1920s and 1930s and what we have today is that those parallels are genuinely frightening for Jews in this country at this moment in time. Of course, that precursor to the Holocaust involved the marching of people through streets in Europe, holding banners and signs singling out Jews for special treatment, demanding boycotts and othering the Jewish community, and that is exactly what we have seen in these past few months.

That leads me on to another argument that has been put in this debate about security. I made some reference to this when I intervened a little earlier, but the idea that we should not build this memorial and learning centre next to Parliament because of security concerns is something I have a real problem with. That is effectively saying to those people who have sought since 7 October, and in many cases well before then, to demonise, frighten and scare Jewish people, that they have won. It is saying that we are so cowed as a people, as a nation and as a democracy by people who shout loudly and aggressively on the street that they get their way and we will put it somewhere else—we will stick it over in Lambeth. I do not think that is an appropriate or credible argument against putting this facility next to Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

There are two sides to this issue, one of which people will accept that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about sensibly: we do not make all details about security available to the public. The second is whether the necessary security arrangements will inhibit the use of the park by local residents, children and others. The Government continually give an assurance that that will not be interrupted, but everybody believes that it will be. That is why it is important to debate and, if necessary, vote on new clause 1. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with us that the impact on the use of the park is the thing that matters for the purpose of this Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank the Father of the House for his intervention. I certainly agree that that is one of many considerations that need to be taken into account when determining the application, but many of the contributions to this debate have raised matters that engage planning considerations, and this Bill does not engage planning considerations, even though it will affect the ability to submit a planning application in future. However, those are matters that should be rightly dealt with by the local authority, and by the Planning Inspectorate if the application were to be called in by the Secretary of State.

I turn lastly to those amendments that concern expenditure relating to the memorial and centre as authorised by clause 1 of the Bill. The Select Committee is right to highlight that the true cost of the project has not been established and to emphasise the need to consider the appropriate use of public money when progressing it. Concerns about expenditure have also been highlighted by the National Audit Office, which has made it clear that there is a risk that the contingency is not enough to cover further cost increases. Perhaps most worryingly, the Government’s own Infrastructure and Projects Authority has red-rated this project. In other words, the Government themselves are clear that—I quote here from the definition associated with a red rating—as things stand,

“successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable”

and that it may, to quote further from that definition,

“need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.”

While the Opposition would not support the imposition of expenditure caps as proposed by amendment 1, it is clear to us that the Government need to do more to ensure that the project will deliver value for money and to provide appropriate assurances in that regard, in respect of both capital and recurrent costs. As such, I would welcome a robust assurance from the Minister when he responds that the Government have accurately estimated the cost of the project, will apply proper cost control throughout the construction period and will ensure that running costs are sustainable.

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

Today in this Chamber, we have been united on the welcome return of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), and the House has been united on security measures on pub licensing for the Euros—probably not the most contentious piece of legislation before the House—and now on this Holocaust Memorial Bill. For all the debate that we have had on the Bill, I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Friends and Members who have contributed to it.

We have been discussing how, we have been discussing where and we have been discussing when, but the House has never been discussing why. For reasons more than tellingly amplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and others, the why is clear and demonstrable. That is a sad fact, but it is. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who speaks for the Opposition, for his support, as I am to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). I shall reserve my general thanks for the Third Reading debate.

Let me turn to the amendments. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members to reject any of the amendments that might be pushed to a vote, for reasons the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich ventilated extremely well. Let me set out why I think that is the case. I might just pause here, if I may, to remark that I think—I am not necessarily an expert on these matters—that this is probably the last substantive piece of innovative business that this Parliament—this 58th Parliament of the realm—will be discussing. It is an honour for me to be taking part in it on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, because it allows me to pay fulsome and personal tribute to three right hon. and hon. Friends on my side who will not be seeking re-election to this place.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who I did not know before I came here in 2015, has been a stalwart friend and colleague, and he will be hugely missed across the House, more than he will probably know because he is too modest to even consider that assessment. Likewise, I did not know my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, but his wit, his humour and his ability to cheer up any situation have warmed many a moment. Again, he will be missed.

I save for last, but by no means least, my hon. and darling Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). We have known each other since we were 18 or 19, and it was the joy of my life to see her join us here at the 2019 election. She spoke today, in possibly her last contribution on the Floor of the House, in the same way that she has spoken from her maiden speech onwards, with knowledge, passion, clarity and certainty on behalf of all her constituents.

My three retiring colleagues have served their communities well. They have run the race to the finish, and I hope that they enjoy the next chapter of their lives to the full, whatever it offers them.

Education is key to this proposal, to make sure that subsequent generations do not repeat the past. As so many Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole, have noted, that is why the symbolic juxtaposition of the memorial and learning centre and this place is so important. There is an emotional and romantic intertwining of Parliament, freedom and democracy, and how dimmed those lights were during the period of the Holocaust.

Many have rightly mentioned security, which is a key issue. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is right to say that it would not be sensible or prudent to put into the public domain either the security assessment or, indeed, the remedies for what it throws up. It is slightly analogous to having a burglar alarm installed in one’s home and posting the deactivation code on social media, so I will resist that amendment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and others have spoken to a key issue. The security and peace of mind of those who work in the centre, of those who visit the centre, of those who merely walk past and, crucially, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referenced, of those who just use the park as a park is paramount.

The overriding point is that the argument that we cannot have the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens because of security fundamentally undermines a key tenet that supports the proposition. Given the issues surrounding both the Holocaust and the fairly fluid and dynamic situation in the middle east, security will always be an issue for such an institution. Security would be an issue were it to be located at the Imperial War Museum, in the middle of Hyde Park or on the third floor of Harrods. Security will always be an issue, but I entirely take the point, which I echo from the Dispatch Box.

If security concerns, a fear of the mob and a fear of those who seek to disrupt and intimidate suddenly become the trump card that is used to determine where and how we locate such a facility, the mob will have won and we might as well all pack up and go home now, raising the white flag. That is why I think all of us in this House, and particularly the two Front Benches, although we are absolutely concerned about security, are not prepared to bend the knee to bullies, thugs and anti-democratic mob rule.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I doubt the Minister intends to be the first to accuse me of waving a white flag on anything. I put it to him that the Government said that the use of the park would not be interfered with by the proposal. Were there to be just a memorial there, that might be true, but the proposals are for a memorial and a learning centre that will try to bring in half a million people a year, when we know now there are greater threats —we have had the parliamentary bookshop barricaded, and, as I say, the memorial in Hyde Park covered over. Can Government say that, with the present plans, the use of the park will not be interfered with? Where is their assessment? Who knows about it, and is it true?

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

My right hon. Friend raises a valid point. That is absolutely at the kernel of the plans on which this vision rests. It is, of course, a planning matter, and I am not the Minister responsible for the planning process. It is a planning matter to be looked at. I think I have said all I can say on that.

I would like to correct one or two things. There was a review of alternative sites, and the comparisons were published. The Imperial War Museum was included in that analysis process. The square footage of the development represents just 7.58% of the overall surface area of the park; the park is 18,848 square metres, while the development is 1,492 square metres, which includes the memorial. Issues relating to air quality, traffic management, changes in policy and water table, among others, are in the purview of the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley).

It is worthwhile quoting, if I may, an extract from the inspector’s report. As we know from cases in our own constituencies, the inspectorate is independent of Government. The inspector said that

“the development of the UKHMLC proposals since the publication of the HMC’s report”

has been

“very thorough. This has involved site selection, a public architectural competition, and after initial selection, a very detailed preparation of the proposals and their presentation,”

with formal public consideration by Westminster City Council and

“ultimately the more detailed evidence presented before the Inquiry.”

I concur with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) that to describe the process as flimsy, or say that Government and others seek to railroad a proposal through within five or 10 minutes of the idea being in somebody’s mind, stretches the definition—

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Simon Hoare]

Will my hon. Friend allow to make this important point, knowing the seriousness with which he takes the Buxton memorial? I do not want to stray too far into the planning issues, but he will know that the Buxton memorial is listed. As a result of being a listed structure, it is a material planning consideration when any new proposal to set something alongside it is taken into consideration. The design and the layout are entirely set out to ensure that the memorial is subservient to the Buxton memorial, given both its heritage and listed status.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I do not dispute what the Minister has just said, but previously he quoted the planning inspector. The inspector did not see the comparison between the top three sites recommended by the consultants or the light-bulb moment when someone involved wrote to a member of the Government saying, “Have you thought about Victoria Tower Gardens for the memorial?”, not for the learning centre as well. The inspector did not see that, I have not seen it and the Minister has not seen it—it did not happen.

[Simon Hoare]

The planning inspector did the work that statute places upon them, to allow them to make a clear recommendation back to Government on how this application should be determined. The inspector saw all documentation that was germane to that appeal process and, of course, could have called for additional documentation if they so wished. I say gently and respectfully to my hon. Friend the Father of the House that I appreciate he does not like the outcome of the process and that he never will, but trying to cast a whole variety of assertions about how we arrived at the outcome, using questions about procedure and process, is not particularly helpful on an issue that clearly commands the support of the majority of the House. My advice to the House would be to tilt at windmills where they exist, of course, but where they do not exist, do not seek to create them.

I reiterate what I said in response to the invention by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Setting aside the relevant section of the 1900 Act is necessary to bring forward, in land use and planning terms, the proposal that will eventually be before us. It does not—let me say that again, it does not—establish a precedent for any public body or Government Department, nor does it create a precedent that can be relied upon in law, at judicial review or elsewhere, for private sector developers or joint venture partners with the public sector to base their argument on the proposal. They will not be able to say, “Ah well, this portion of Victoria Tower Gardens was allowed for this purpose, therefore the Government have opened up a Pandora’s box.” To mix my analogies, this does not create a Trojan horse either. It is not a Trojan horse bearing a Pandora’s box. Any application would need to be judged on its merits. I want to make that abundantly clear, because I know that it is an important point for my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster.

Many questions have been raised around costs, which are not necessarily an issue for this Bill per se. I will not test the patience of the House by saying that the public sector is tried and tested and reliable, with its letters of contract and contract managers, but everything seems to overrun. I say politely to the House that, of course, costs have gone up over the past nine years, since this idea was first mooted. And, of course, costs will go up still further the longer that we delay.

May I make two philosophical points, Sir Roger? First, whoever is monitoring the delivery and the budget management on this will, with due and proper cognisance to the public finances, be as resolute as they can be to ensure that proper contractual obligations are followed and that budgets are met and not exceeded. One would expect to see a contingency on something such as this, and, indeed, those costs will ebb and flow as the cost of materials rise and fall, and the cost of labour changes and the like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

rose—

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

I am going to give way to a Tory.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. There are only two minutes left, and I had hoped to wind up the debate.

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I just wanted to point out that I was listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) carefully, and thought that he made an absolutely brilliant speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

If the figure spent already is £18 million and not £40 million, I accept that from the Minister, but I wonder whether it is actually higher than that. If people say that it is only 7.5% of the park gardens that will be used, it is 27% or more of the green space; those who use the 7.5% figure should revise that and ask who is giving them that advice. If people say that those who want to protect the gardens are in some way giving way to vandals, we are not. If people want to put things right, the Government should compare the present proposal with the best alternatives from the consultants and then have a proper consultation on the alternatives before the planning process starts again. I thank the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for saying that there should be a new planning application to the local authority; we will all agree with that.

Question put and negatived.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I know that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) will need to get in, so I will try not to say as much as I had intended to.

I suggest that those who read this Third Reading debate, particularly those in another place who may be considering the Bill after the election, look at early-day motion 711, which spells out a number of the issues. I hope they will look with kindness on what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Minister, although there are other interpretations in respect of a number of issues.

Those who think there should be a memorial do not necessarily think the learning centre should be with it, while those who think there should be a learning centre do not think it should be squashed into what I described as a box under a memorial. There are many who think that the memorial could be better than the design that was not chosen in Ottawa, and I think it is a continuing embarrassment to the Government that the name of the person who was mentioned 13 times in the announcement of the winning design, Sir David Adjaye, is one that Ministers cannot say today.

I refer Members to the transcript of the Select Committee hearing on 5 February. Let me quote from paragraph 25:

“Many people will know Sir David Adjaye’s statement that ‘disrupting the pleasure of being in a park is key to the thinking’, but fewer people have heard the first part of that quote which is, ‘We have the opportunity to activate the entire site’”,

or what he had said previously:

“‘There has been a kind of picture painted that this is a public garden...It moves from being just a kind of public park to being much more ceremonial, much more kind of ordered’.”

I could also quote from paragraphs 26 and 27, but I will not do so. However, I will quote from paragraph 58, which states that if the learning centre is built,

“the playground is actually going to be reduced by 370 square metres. That is by 31%, not about 15% as noticed and remarked on by the inspector, or 10% in the figures given by Baroness Scott”

—the Minister in the House of Lords—

“in her 2023 parliamentary answer, or even zero reduction, as stated by David Adjaye, misleadingly”

—I would say “mistakenly”—

“to the inquiry. A 31% loss cannot possibly be said to be an enhancement or a reconfiguration of the playground. That is what Chris Pincher, then briefly Minister of State, said in support of his 2021 planning permission approval for this project.”

I refer Members to a book by Dorian Gerhold, “Victoria Tower Gardens”, which is subtitled “The prehistory, creation and planned destruction of a London park”. What we are talking about here is not particularly the memorial—having a good memorial would be better than having a bad memorial—but Victoria Tower Gardens. We have this legislation because the Government did not care about the 1900 Act.

I say to the Government that better faith would have been acknowledging that the Bill they were putting forward was hybrid, without resisting that fact to the examiners in both Houses. We now pass the Bill on the House of Lords, where I believe that people will look again, with fresh eyes and fair eyes, at how we can commemorate those who died but do the best we can to educate people so that what happened is less likely to happen again.

The idea that a particular memorial will stop it happening would be laughed at by those who are commemorating and mourning the Yazidi genocide 10 years ago, the Rwandan genocide, and one or two others I could name in other parts of the world. We have to do what is right.

Let me end by saying this. My first cousin once removed was one of the Westminster Medical School students who went into Bergen-Belsen and were able to saves the lives of about half the people who were existing there at the time. I have worked with people Holocaust survivors, and I believe that we do best by doing what is right in a good way, which is why I welcome what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) said about the normal planning process. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said and as Christopher Katkowski has said, the normal planning process will happen.

Let us look forward—if the Bill is carried over—to a planning process in which an application is made to the local authority, and the local authority makes the decision. If the authority approves the application, there is no problem; if it does not, the Minister can call it in, but the Minister should not call it in before Westminster City Council has had a chance to see any revised proposals that the Government can now put forward.

Building Safety

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Father of the House.

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

It is some years since our late colleague, David Amess, led a few of us who were interested in fire safety even before Grenfell.

We must remember that in the months after Grenfell, everyone backed away thinking that residential leaseholders would be the only people who would have to bear the £10 billion to £15 billion cost of remediation—and that was before we knew all about the other fire defects, which our building control standards and inspections had allowed to accumulate over the decades. We should all hang our heads.

The Minister rightly talked about needing more transparency. I say in passing, although it is a very serious point, that anyone who looks at page 3 of the Financial Times today, on the possible future policy on ground rents, will see an indication that people who own such buildings—the pension funds, the Long Harbours of this world, the Tchenguizes’ interests and others—ought to be looking at their own social and environmental responsibilities, getting rid of ground rents and spending their money on making buildings safe for everyone to live in.

Cladding groups and leaseholders’ groups deserve praise, as do the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the present chair of the Government’s Leasehold Advisory Service, who can point out some of the things that have not yet been done. This is an interim statement and we look forward to hearing more, whether by written or oral statements, but may I say to the Minister that the one group that seems to have been let off is the insurance companies who backed the developers, architects, surveyors, builders and component suppliers?

The Government should find a way to take together the potential claims of all the residents, tenants, leaseholders and owners of properties, and have a roundtable with insurance companies and get the billions of pounds out of them that they would have to pay if it went to court, without paying the lawyers half the money.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He has had a long-standing interest in this issue and in leasehold on a broader basis. He is absolutely right to highlight the tireless work of so many people across the country, including the groups and organisations that came together, both on the leasehold side, which he is involved in, and on the cladding side. They did not want to have to come together and spend so much time to make progress and end our cladding scandal, but they work incredibly hard to ensure that we make progress. I am grateful for all their constructive work with us. It is absolutely the case that more needs to be done, but as the statement outlined, week by week and month by month, we are making progress. I hope we can do more in the months ahead.

Finally, my hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on leasehold and highlights his thoughts very clearly. No decisions have been taken. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has been clear about his own personal views. I know my hon. Friend’s views will have been heard as a part of the discussion.

Extremism Definition and Community Engagement

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

I am glad to follow both Front Benchers, who have given a lead to the House.

It is interesting to consider whether it would have been right 90 years ago to identify as a threat Oswald Mosley’s approach, as well as the people who marched through the streets to intimidate others. More recently, when Kathleen Stock was at the University of Sussex, the students’ union and many others called her a dangerous extremist for writing a rather good book and having views that are now mainstream.

Filling the gap between what is not necessarily criminal but should be identified as wrong is important, and I hope the whole House can give support to today’s proposals.

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the Father of the House. There should, rightly, be a high bar on the use of criminal sanctions. We should always seek to encourage free speech, but he is quite right to draw attention to the freedom-restricting harassment that some people have engaged in. I completely endorse the point he makes about Kathleen Stock, who is a distinguished academic.

Leasehold Reform and New Homes

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) and to the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather). They both spoke well yesterday on Report on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) for his contribution and, if I may do so through you, Mrs Harris, I pay tribute to his late father, Rev. Roger Holloway, who got the OBE for services to whisky.

The problem of rentcharges that has been brought up matches the problem with estate management charges. Even today, in Durrington in my constituency, Terry Woodjetts has to make it a full-time job to get the developers to do what they said they would and justify their charges. I hope that the developers will co-operate fully. They say they will. They have made some progress, but why can they not get it right first time? If they do not get it right first time, why can they not get it right the second time when attention is drawn to it?

One of the issues that was rightly brought up in the debate yesterday is whether developers should lay down a bond that is available until an impartial local authority can say whether or not they have delivered. There should be ways of making it in their own self-interest to act in the interests of those to whom they sell homes.

I turn to rentcharges. The Rentcharges Act 1977 said that, except in limited circumstances, new rentcharges could not be created after 1977, and that existing rentcharges would evaporate in 2037. One of those “limited circumstances” is when a freeholder has not paid a due cost, in which case the owner of the rentcharge, who might have no other interest, can apply to a court. The court has no discretion; it must grant a 99-year lease on a freehold property. Unwinding that can be expensive because there is no limit to the charge that the rentcharge owner can make on remedying the situation. I believe it is time for the Minister and his advisers to work on what they know is a difficult problem and deal with it.

Let me read what the Government themselves say about rentcharges. Their website states:

“A rentcharge is not the same as ground rent on leasehold properties. Find out more about leasehold ground rents.

Please do not send applications to redeem leasehold ground rents as they cannot be redeemed under the Rentcharges Act 1977.

If you are not sure if your property is freehold or leasehold, you can find out by looking at your property deeds or by visiting the HM Land Registry website.

Please do not send applications to redeem estate rentcharges or rentcharges that have been created after 22 August 1977, as these cannot be redeemed under the Rentcharges Act 1977.

Please do not apply if the rentcharge has already been redeemed directly with your rentowner (known as a private redemption). The Rentcharges team cannot provide a redemption certificate where a private redemption has occurred. Contact your rentowner or HM Land Registry”—

and it goes on.

It seems to me, having read that, that it ought to be possible for the Government, with or without the help of the Law Commission, to remedy the situation. If rentcharges should not exist and the powers of the rentcharge owner should not continue, the Government should act—deal with it, resolve it—and do so now. Anybody buying a freehold home where there might be a rentcharge liability has to get their seller to deal with it or take it on, with the consent of the mortgage lender if a mortgage is involved, which it will be, either for the new purchaser or the person they are going to sell to.

When they see these problems, Ministers should not delay or regard it as NIMTOO—“not in my term of office”. They should take responsibility and deal with it. The Government should get a social survey of people on new estates to see the problems that they have with estate management companies and estate management charges, and they should do a survey of solicitors, all of whom deal on their websites with the problems of rentcharges. They should get them together, have a roundtable, work out what would be effective and act. That would make people happier, take away the risks and take away half the fun that lawyers will have in trying to sort out the problems when they eventually come to court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He and I have an active discussion about this, and possibly a slight difference of opinion about the potential impact of what we introduced. I do not wish to misrepresent him, but I think he accepts that some elements of what we brought forward yesterday, possibly those regarding the National Trust, are not controversial or contentious. There is a question about whether the measures should apply if, historically, organisations, entities or companies have agreements in certain ways. It is clear that this will be swept away; we are effectively discussing whether existing permissions on a particular type of prospectus, other than the small number of things such as the National Trust, should be swept away as well. I am sure that we will continue to talk about that, but we think that this proposition is a major intervention that honours the spirit of banning leasehold houses. Others may take a different view, but the Government’s view is that this is a significant step forward that adheres to the spirit of a ban or preclusion, and that will allow us to move forward.

I have highlighted the progress that has been and is being made, subject to what the other place does. I know, however, that hon. Members are very keen that we go further in certain areas, so I want to spend a few moments going through some of their suggestions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough made a powerful speech—again, he is the reason why we are speaking about this matter today, and it is important that we continue to have this conversation. We have heard some of the examples, both named and referred to, of the realities created by the system. No system is perfect—we can never design it such that there will not be some attempt to prang it in some way, shape or form—but large holes in the system have clearly built up and been exploited. Those have resulted in, for instance, the removal of trees from a tree-lined street. Unless there is some other reality behind that, there is absolutely no reason for it to happen. We have to move to a place where that does not occur, and we hope that that will be achieved in part by the changes made by the Bill. We recognise that there are further concerns, and we are considering those, but we all agree that some of the examples mentioned are not where we want to be. I hope that we may be able to say more on that going forward.

As I mentioned briefly yesterday, I also recognise this issue personally. I am not speaking today as a constituency MP, but only in the last month I have been in meetings with constituents who raised concerns about a Persimmon development and the clarity of information about service charges. So in my part of the world, I see issues similar to those raised by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend also raised an important point about GP provision. I have been in this job for only four months, but I recognise the importance of this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is particularly concerned about that, and I have spoken about it with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). It is another clear iniquity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough says, people are doing the right thing, have worked hard all their lives and are buying properties, and although the sales particulars of those properties state that new GP provision will be on or near the site, suddenly that provision disappears into thin air between the point when the ink goes on the contract and the point when they move in, or within a few years.

We have already held a meeting on that issue with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, and we are committed to trying to make further progress. A detailed discussion is needed, because a number of different issues on GP provision need to be unpacked.

First, there is the physical ability to provide bricks—places for people to operate out of—which is obviously the responsibility of the planning system or associated with it. The second issue is whether there could be some provision, but for whatever reason, the configurations, the preferred designs and so on make that cost higher than it otherwise should be. If that is the case, that needs to be looked into again, because there is no reason for making perfect the enemy of the good. Thirdly, we may have the bricks or provisions to provide the bricks, but if we do not have the people to provide the services, it does not help in any instance the people who have been sold the promise in the first place. A number of different issues will need to be unpicked, and I am working with my right hon. Friend from the Department of Health and Social Care on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough talked passionately and importantly about new homes and the related issues. As he indicated, when someone has done the right thing, it is absolutely incredible and unacceptable that there are the kind of problems that he has highlighted around sewage, snagging and the amount of time people have to take to get their homes up to the standard they thought they were buying in the first place, or to solve the problems they did not think there would be. It is also fair to say that, as MPs, we only hear about the difficult issues, and there are many thousands of homeowners who move into homes on a monthly and annual basis who do not have those issues. That is absolutely great, but we can all see in our postbags that there are significant challenges with regards to new homes. As my hon. Friend indicates, I hope that the new homes ombudsman will make progress, and the New Homes Quality Board is currently seeking to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) is no longer in his place, but he raises an important point about conveyancing. The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty made a similar point about people being encouraged to use a particular conveyancer, or a particular set of solicitors, and it may be that the output of that process, however it happened, meant they did not get all the information or certain things were not as clear as they could be. That is unacceptable. I recognise that we have to work through that issue. There is a very complicated interaction between standards, regulation and whether people are doing the right thing, even within a regulated industry. I think I should pick that up with my Ministry of Justice colleagues to see whether there is anything that we may be able to take forward.

The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty made an important and eloquent case relating to some challenges that he and his constituents have experienced. I was campaigning on one of his new estates just a few months ago, possibly for a different candidate. I will make two points. He raised an issue with regards to Harron Homes. I say this not to make any particular point, other than that I had a similar personal and constituency issue with Harron Homes on the Regents Green estate in Grassmoor in my constituency a number of years ago. It took quite a bit of pushing, but in the end, Harron Homes moved and we got hundreds of snags unsnagged. I hope he has similar success on that.

I know the hon. Member’s point was not about seeking advice on how to approach Harron Homes; it was more broadly about the reality that this should not happen in the first place, and he is absolutely right. I hope that some of the work in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, and some of the things that the New Homes Quality Board is doing on a voluntary basis and the new homes ombudsman will do in the coming years will help to address some of those problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is not just the Father of the House but the father of many of the innovations and suggestions in the Bill, given how long he has campaigned on this issue. He raised the specific issue of rentcharges, and I would say to him that I am always happy to hold roundtables, but we must make sure they have utility. We are clearly making progress with the Bill, and I hope hon. Members accept that that includes progress on rentcharges. Both I and the Secretary of State continue to be keen to have the discussion around rentcharges to see what might be possible in the future.

It is important to note that there is a complicated interaction, as there always is in such difficult areas of law, between the clear problems we see with rentcharges and the overall structure of how rentcharges are used on a broader basis—rentcharges are, for example, part of the estate management system. That is something we have to try and work through in the round, but I am always happy to talk more and to hold roundtables. We do understand that there continues to be a challenge there.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I should have said that I am a leaseholder. Let us say that one of my grandchildren was buying a freehold property where there was a requirement to pay charges. The idea that the rentcharge holder can, if there is a slip in paying the charge, turn a freehold property into a 99-year lease, which may knock hundreds of thousands of pounds off the value of a London property, is absurd. The sooner we can please have the roundtable, followed by action, the better.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the current system, and I look forward to continuing to discuss that with him and those who are interested in this area and who wish to see further progress.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford made a clear point about the importance of clarity of information for leaseholders. Given the preclusion that we are bringing forward, I hope she has seen that we have added clauses to the Bill to make it imperative that there is explicit clarity about whether leasehold houses are still being sold, in the limited instances where we think it is proportionate to do so. From a house perspective, there will be no ability for people not to know what they are buying because others choose not to make that clear.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich—we have rehearsed many of these points already, so I will not seek to detain hon. Members—raised the issue of forfeiture. As I have said, and as I will happily repeat here again, we are working through the detail of that issue. We are very serious, and we recognise that it is an important issue and one on which the House has already indicated that it has a very strong view. We hope to be able to say something more on it shortly.

After we had had a number of Divisions yesterday, I saw on Twitter—I do read Twitter—that there was quite a lot of disappointment about the choice on forfeiture. I want to assure people who may be reading the Hansard of this debate or watching online that the Government are absolutely serious about this issue. We have been clear that we are looking at it seriously, and I hope we will be able to say something more. Many of us who have been in this place for a number of years now will know that there is some arcanity—if that is a word—or an arcaneness to some of the procedures. Sometimes things do not appear in exactly the linear sequence or sequential order that people would like, but I can assure those who are interested in this issue that the Government are looking at it seriously, and I hope to be able to report back to the House on it shortly.

Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is no longer in her place, but who raised important points about leasehold. I also thank, as ever, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who highlighted the importance of reform in general. That is one of the reasons why we are bringing the Bill forward and seeking to make as strong progress as possible.

I recognise the useful contributions today, which build on Report stage yesterday and on the progress that the Bill has made in the House already. I hope that hon. Members who have been in today’s debate or been part of the process so far recognise that this is a strong proposition that the Government have brought forward. It is the biggest change to property law in a generation.

The Government and I recognise the desire of Members here, and of the House in general, to go further. We have said very clearly that we are looking at a number of areas, and my Secretary of State—my boss and the person who ultimately makes the choice—has indicated very clearly that he is keen to improve the Bill further. As I said in Committee, we will not be able to do everything, and there is always a discussion and a decision about how we prioritise the limited time of this House and the other place. However, we think that the Bill is a strong start, and we hope we will be able to improve it further. We look forward to being able to make real progress in this important area, which has needed reform for so long. Finally, after 20 years, we will be able to deliver that as part of this Bill.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sure that everybody heard Madam Deputy Speaker’s request for brevity, as a number of Members wish to get in, and we have to accommodate everybody before 6 o’clock.

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

I agree with a large part of what the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) said, and with nearly all of what my hon. Friend the Minister said. Where I disagree with the Opposition spokesperson is that I think the Bill is ambitious in what it is trying to achieve, although we would all like it to go further. It is quite remarkable that this is the first major bit of legislation to help leaseholders since 2002—although we have had the Building Safety Act 2022, the Fire Safety Act 2021 and other things, which did some things towards that.

It is remarkable how few people know much about the role of residential leaseholders. They own nothing but the right to live in a home for a period. I declare that I am a leaseholder. I have a flat in my constituency for which there have been no problems and for which the Bill will do neither harm nor good, and I also have another leasehold property. If I happened to gain from the measures, I would give the benefit to a good cause—I am not here for myself; I am here for those who have been suffering for years.

I wish I could be at the Westminster Hall debate on BBC impartiality, but it conflicts with this debate. It is now 20 years since the peace activist and photographer Tom Hurndall was shot by a sniper in Rafah. The subsequent nine months of inquiry by the Israel Defence Forces were shocking. However, I will leave that to the other debate.

On leasehold reform, I believe that we have opportunities—both in the House of Commons and, perhaps more so in the House of Lords—to make significant progress. My hon. Friend the Minister will point out to me the consultation on permitted development rights that started on 13 February. Towards the end of the consultation document, paragraphs 43,44 and 45 appear under the heading:

“Construction of new dwellinghouses on a freestanding block of flats”.

That is a reference to the inexplicable and disastrous Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development and Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020—SI 2020 No. 632.

Those emergency covid regulations, accompanied by an economic assessment of which, to put it bluntly, I would have been ashamed were I a better economist, allowed owners, landlords and freeholders of certain blocks to put an extra one or two storeys on top without consulting the existing leaseholders at all. How any Government—let alone one I support—could have done that is beyond my comprehension. There had been a consultation some years before, and the general consensus was, “Don’t do it,” so why has it been done? I hope that people will look at the consultation, which is open until April, answer questions 27 and 28, and give explanations of their own experiences.

A developer tried to put extra floors on top of the St Andrews Gardens building in my constituency. That was turned down flat by the local authority, but its decision was overturned on appeal by the Government inspector. The developer then tried again, advertising for sale flats that do not exist, even though nobody wants them as they will cause significant harm.

My new clause 25, which I am indebted to Liam Spender of St David’s Square in E14 for drafting, says that the landlord or developer will have to pay compensation to leaseholders if the effects on them are harmful. The Minister’s legal advisers may say that the clause is not perfectly drafted, although I think it is pretty good. Even if he cannot accept it now, will he go through the replies to the consultation, have a talk with Members of all parties who represent those affected, and consider whether the Government can bring forward in the House of Lords proposals that would undo the effect of 2020/632 and implement some of the preferred responses to the consultation, to which he may not have time to refer in his winding up?

--- Later in debate ---

Where people have a shared asset and are trapped by an estate management company, if their developer has failed to pay a section 106 fee, they are also on the hook for that money. I have residents in my constituency who have a charge of £30,000 over their shared area for a section 106 fee that was not paid, and other residents paying £1 million between 14 people to bring a sewage pump up to standard because it is an environmental health hazard. If those problems had not been allowed to occur in the first place—if the local authority had had to require a financial bond to be placed so that, if the development was not up to scratch when it was finished, the local authority had the money to bring it up to scratch and adopt it—those residents would not be in that awful situation. I really encourage the Government to take that away and think about how we can protect people in the future.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I draw to the hon. Lady’s attention and that of the Minister the article by Patrick Hosking in The Times today, which deals with estate management companies and estate management charges. I hope that the Government will read what he has written and see what they can do to make things better.

[Helen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his intervention.

I will conclude by saying that I support the amendments that would require professionalisation of the industry— that would be very sensible and consistent with other legislation that the House has passed. I also support new clause 5 and amendments 4 and 8, tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook); new clause 39, tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts); and new clause 25, tabled by the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). The Bill goes some way towards providing the protection that we need, but it needs to go much further to protect freeholders from rogue developers and estate management companies. I urge the Government to take that away and do more.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

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

There will be agreement on both sides of the House that reform is needed. For my part, I welcome the introduction of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to get people on to modern leasehold and commonhold, and through the Minister, I invite those who are suffering—the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) explained that her constituents are suffering—to put their points through MPs to the Department, so that when amendments to the Bill are tabled, as many as possible can be discussed and accepted.

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I and the Secretary of State have said, we are keen to improve the Bill where we can, but it is a substantial Bill that will make substantial changes for people who have needed reform of leasehold for a long time.

Proposed British Jewish History Month

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), and I thank him for what he has done. He reminds me of the book written by our former colleague Tristram Hunt about the original champagne socialist, the communist Friedrich Engels, and the lives that people had in his part of the world as well as in north London. I also commend the book by Hadley Freeman, “House of Glass”, which is three years old; it is about how her family came to survive and what their lives have been like.

Were we to be having a debate on the history of Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs in this country, I think we would have the same kind of attendance. What is different about Jewish history is what was put to me by one of my constituents after 7 October: “Why do they keep picking on us?” There are 16 million Jews in the world, of whom about a quarter of a million are in this country. Their contributions have been magnificent, and not just those who are known.

In my previous job—some time back—I put neon lights outside theatres and cinemas in the west end. One day, our painter asked whether he could have a day off. I said, “Of course” and asked why. When he said that his mother had died, I asked whether I could come to the funeral. He burst into tears, because he did not know that anybody else knew that he was Jewish, and he was overcome by the idea that someone would volunteer to come to that kind of family event. I was shocked that someone in my country could feel like that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), whom I thank for introducing the debate, mentioned Esther Rantzen. I had not actually known that Esther Rantzen was Jewish until I went to her wedding—seeing Desmond Wilcox trying to become Jewish, in terms of music, dance and everything else, was amazing.

However, it is not just the significant people we need to consider. When I went on almost a pilgrimage to Gallipoli to see the graves and names of the people from my constituency who had died, I kept coming across memorials to Jews who had served in our armed forces. The same thing applies in every walk of life, whether notable or just noticed if we keep our eyes open.

One of the reasons why I have supported the proposals of the national holocaust memorial commission to have a memorial and a learning centre, and the stipulation by the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation that the majority of the money should be spent on education, is that since that proposal first came out, I have gained by knowing how many of my grandfather’s extended family died in the holocaust. We thought it was 11, but that figure went up to 60, and it is now well over 100. That is the kind of education that matters.

I hope that my grandchildren and great-grandchildren—if there are some—will learn about our history and how inclusive it is, and how it is chance that allows some people to go on and put down roots, while others do not get that chance because of ideology or the murderous habits of too many people.

I also want my children and grandchildren to know about the way Jews have been treated in this country over the past 800 years or so, which has not been good and has not been easy. I remember every time I go to church that Jesus was not a white Englishman who belonged to the Church of England. We have to remember our shared history and try to adjust the way we work together, and I do not just want to talk about the Abrahamic faiths, because the same thing applies to other faiths that have different traditions and different origins.

Our future is together, and the sooner we learn what we can about each other and what we share, the better.

Having said that, my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster mentioned Sir Simon Milton. I have been to two—well, more than two—Jewish funerals, but I went up to the Bushey New cemetery when the bones were discovered in the Imperial War museum, and its location cannot even be shown for fear that it will be attacked, and when I went to the service for Sir Simon Milton, that also had to have strict security. At one of those funerals, a member of the Community Security Trust came up to me and said, “You’re Peter Bottomley,” and when I replied that I was, he said, in words that I can hardly say, “You’re one of the people why I believe it’s safe to remain in this country.”

If we can defend each other, we can do better together.

Long-term Plan for Housing

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about energy efficiency, which I am happy to talk to him about in more detail. He is a champion for Worthing West. I have family who live close to Worthing, and know the Goring Gap well. He makes a strong point about the importance of preserving character and ensuring communities build the right homes in the right places, while recognising that there are places where that should not be the case. I am always happy to talk to him about that.

Christmas, Christianity and Communities

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I was there but not for long. I was there briefly.

[Patrick Grady]

Of course—I beg forgiveness from the Father of the House, and indeed the chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and chair of the Procedure Committee, who also appeared towards the end of that debate; although, regrettably, there were no speeches. Anyway, in a spirit of consensus, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale spoke about the historical roots of Christianity. It is pretty unlikely that Jesus was born on 25 December in the year zero AD—not least because the Jewish and Roman calendars in operation 2,000 years ago were slightly different from the ones that we use today. Indeed, as I heard the hon. Gentleman say, most historical scholarship suggests that Jesus’s birth was shortly before what we now reckon was year zero and others suggest that the date was arrived at in the early Christian church as a co-option of pre-existing Roman or other pagan festivals associated with the winter solstice. That is not necessarily incorrect, or a diminution of the significance of the celebration in any way. There is a natural human instinct to celebrate the time of year when the dark days of winter begin to grow shorter and light appears earlier. As we heard in many of the contributions today, for Christians the coming of Christ is indeed the coming of the light of the world. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) quoted from the Gospel of St John: the introductory paragraph says that

“the light shines in the darkness and the darkness cannot overcome it”.

The message that has come through in all the contributions today is that if we want to remember the reason for the season, if we want to put Christ back into Christmas, then Christians have to be that light that shines in the darkness. They have to be the example and the leaders in their communities. At this time of year hon. Members are right to draw attention to the role that churches and Christian communities play in supporting some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in our societies—and other marginalised groups. I echo much of what the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) said about LBGT Christians and the moves being made in different denominations to be more welcoming and supportive of them.

In Glasgow North, many of the Christian churches and other faith communities run important outreach programmes. St Gregory’s in the Wyndford area runs a food bank. Sadly, it sometimes struggles to cope with the level of demand. The Catholic church at the top of Maryhill road, the Immaculate Conception, and Maryhill parish church across the road, have a formalised co-operation agreement that has led to inspiring collaborations—not just for prayer and praise, but in charity fundraising, litter picking and the provision of warm welcome centres in collaboration with other churches along the Maryhill corridor, so that anyone who feels the need has somewhere warm they can go any day of the week, have something to eat and enjoy friendship and fellowship with others.

We have heard about similar examples and experiences from many other hon. Members, in their own communities. Of course, that is true of many other faith communities and organisations not connected with religious belief that provide similar outreach, especially at this time of year. I echo what the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) said about thanking all those who will be working while the rest of us—and so that the rest of us—can enjoy a holiday or break during Christmas.

Glasgow North is the home of two cathedrals: the Episcopal Cathedral of St Mary the Virgin on Great Western Road, home to one of the finest choirs in Scotland and famed for its open and inclusive approach to ministry; and the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of St Luke in Dowanhill, which is an important focal point for that community in Glasgow and the country as a whole. The city of Glasgow is also home to the historic Cathedral of St Mungo, which has a Presbyterian congregation that is, unusually, housed in a building called a cathedral; and the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St Andrew, the seat of the Archbishop of Glasgow and successor of St Mungo, currently Archbishop William Nolan. We welcomed Archbishop Nolan, along with a number of his brother bishops, to Parliament a couple of weeks ago on an historic visit which coincided with the visit of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, who comes to Westminster every year. That was a reflection of the St Margaret’s declaration which was signed by the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, outlining their shared beliefs,

“rooted in the Apostles, Christ’s first disciples”

and acknowledges a common heritage as Christians in Scotland. It also recognises the divisions of the past, apologises for the hurt and harm caused, seeks to make amends and commits to working toward greater unity. The Scottish Government collectively and the First Minister in particular have endorsed those steps towards greater collaboration and understanding between the Christian Churches and indeed between all faith communities.

In a previous role, I worked for the aid agency of the Catholic Church in Scotland—the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund—and we were very pleased to have the support of Humza Yousaf, who was then the Minister for External Affairs and International Development, and is now the First Minister of Scotland. He has spoken very warmly about the work of all the Christian aid agencies in Scotland.

However, it is difficult to reflect on Christmas, Christianity and communities at this time without considering the situation in the Holy Land. The hon. Member for Don Valley spoke about our favourite Christmas tunes. “O Little Town of Bethlehem” has always been one of my favourite Christmas carols. Bethlehem, or the House of Bread, is the place where Jesus was born, but in a stable—indeed most likely in a cave—where he was laid in a manger, because there was no room at the inn. It seems that in those days Bethlehem was full. Now, some argue that towns and cities in this country are full. The very first Christians were told that they were not welcome, and that the authorities and communities would not support them; they had to make do by themselves, somewhere else.

We have also heard from the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). Indeed, he and I were at the same meeting as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), who is also here today, where we heard from the parish priest of Bethlehem and also from the Anglican Archbishop of Jerusalem about the particular struggles of the Christian community in the Holy Land at this time of year, in this time of crisis, and the impact on their ability to worship. We also heard about the impact on others who want to come on pilgrimage.

That is why Christian leaders of all denominations, from the Pope to the Archbishop of Canterbury to the patriarchs in Jerusalem itself, have called for an immediate ceasefire on both sides, to allow aid into Gaza, refugees out, the release of hostages and the negotiation of a peaceful settlement. That has been echoed in calls that I have heard from thousands of constituents, many of them motivated and encouraged to make such calls by their faith and their faith communities.

One constituent of mine in particular, Helen Minnis, who is the professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Glasgow, wrote to me to reflect on the “Coventry Carol”, which will be heard in many carol services up and down the country at this time of year. She said that it was recently listed as one of the top 20 carols, but she also said that she had discovered that it was about the massacre of the innocents. She said that a

“few hundred years ago when it was written, it was one of those small strident voices. I keep thinking of it just now because it tells how every mother of every child being killed must be feeling”.

The “Coventry Carol” goes:

“O sisters too, how may we do

For to preserve this day

This poor youngling for whom we sing,

‘Bye bye, lully, lullay?’

Herod the king, in his raging,

Chargèd he hath this day

His men of might in his own sight

All young children to slay.

That woe is me, poor child, for thee

And ever mourn and may

For thy parting neither say nor sing,

‘Bye bye, lully, lullay.’

Thy tiny child, bye-bye.”

I hope the Minister will reflect on that powerful testimony and will perhaps draw it to the attention of his colleagues in the Foreign Office.

Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, it was the massacre of the innocents 2,000 years ago that led the holy family to flee Bethlehem and make their way to Egypt—indeed, to what is quite possibly today Gaza—as refugees and asylum seekers. What would have happened if the Egyptian authorities had decided that they were not welcome there either and should be deported somewhere else or handed back to King Herod?

That is why it is right for Members to draw attention to the profound impact that Christianity has had on the whole of humanity and on our world today, but it is also why those of us who profess the Christian faith must try to live up to the enormous challenge that that represents. We must try, and fail, as we often do—certainly, I often do—but we must try and try again. That is why the hon. Member for Don Valley is right to say that we should ask for forgiveness at this time of year and, of course, I do the same.

In all of this discussion, it is vital to recognise the importance of freedom of religion and belief, which includes the right not to hold any religious belief and to disagree with the teachings and principles of organised religion. I recognise the work of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is also here today, and I hope that the Government will look seriously at the Bill that she has brought forward about making her position as a FORB envoy a statutory role.

The Government could also take some quite practical steps to support Christian Churches and other faith communities. Church buildings and other places of worship are a hugely important part of our heritage, but repairing and maintaining them attracts VAT, which is a huge challenge. Maybe that is something that the Minister would like to think about.

Also, the reality of the immigration environment means that it is now very difficult—indeed, it is often impossible—for Churches to bring in supply ministers to cover for their own clergy during the summer or in quieter months of the year. That leads to a reduction in the number of services, or even cancellation of services, and a lack of access to precisely the kinds of support and community cohesion that we have been celebrating throughout this debate. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to that point and some others.

However, in the spirit of this debate, this time of year, and the Christian injunction to love our neighbours—even if they represent different political parties—and to do unto others as we would have them do unto ourselves, let me conclude by wishing you, Dame Maria, all hon. Members here today and across the House, all of our staff and everyone who helps us in our jobs all the peace and joy of the season and a very happy Christmas.