Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I knew my love-in with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, could not last, having got on so well with him on our first day in Committee on Monday. I want to come to the defence of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott because I do not think that she was talking about a disaster. It is common ground that the Local Government Pension Scheme—by some measure, the fourth-largest or fifth-largest scheme in the world, although it is in 89 separate pots, all of them aggregated—is a strong British success story. There is wide alignment on that on all sides of this Committee.

Having defended my noble friend, I shall part company slightly with some of the points she made—but only in one small regard. My noble friend spoke of a council—we do not know which one it is, but that does not really matter; it is illustrative—whereby the numbers were fixed in time, and that led, as the result of a revaluation, to an exceptionally high contribution rate. I do not want to trespass on the next group of amendments, but I will return to this idea. My noble friend almost came to a point where she wanted to deny—she did not say this, but I took it this way—that we should have some sort of stabilisation. I want to talk for stabilisation in the periods between revaluations in the LGPS.

We have done this in our scheme in Norfolk, so you avoid the peaks and the troughs. There is a stabilisation method whereby you take, if you like, a floating average over a number of things to give stability in the public finances. I accept that, as my noble friend said, if you have these huge differences—and it is not small change; you have to find lots of money—if it is overly variable every three years, that is not conducive to the public good. So I shall speak in favour of stabilisation, which is partly to do with longevity risk, which is referred to in Amendment 16.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, accurately stated that the LGPS valuation that is currently under review was dated 31 March 2025—10 months ago. I am sure that noble Lords do not need reminding that, on the very next day, the President of the United States announced a whole load of trade barriers and the stock market fell like a stone. You might say that the LGPS got away with it. Had the President made his announcement just one day earlier, those reductions in stock market values would have been crystallised in a much less favourable outcome than we hope will be the case, or are expecting, for this current valuation.

Given the vicissitudes of all of these varied changes and events, it is important that we have attenuation and stabilisation between things. I do not think that my noble friend quite made that point, so I want to make it. The further points made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be covered in our debate on a later group, but I want to talk for stabilisation as a counter, if you will, to the case made by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 14 and 15; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her explanation of the thinking behind them. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that on this occasion I find it difficult to agree with much of what he said.

I agree that these schemes have been a success. I do not see these amendments as suggesting that there is a massive failure, but I am frightened that we could be about to snatch defeat from the jaws of the victory that these schemes have so far been able to provide. It is vital that there is a cost and sustainability review, as well as a review of the actuarial valuation methodologies. I do not feel that this issue can be swept under the carpet; to some extent, there is, or has been, a desire to do just that.

Excessive prudence and hoarding of excess assets are not, in my opinion, good governance. At least part of the surplus belongs to the employer, who is the council tax payer. This series of amendments, and indeed the whole Bill, need to be approached with the view that defined benefit pension schemes are no longer a problem that needs solving. We had that mindset for so many years that it seems we cannot easily get away from it but, actually, these funds have turned into a national asset, which needs to be stewarded responsibly. It can help to deliver both good pensions and long-term support for the economy, if we just use the opportunity that is presenting itself now.

The LGPS has very much changed position, especially because the needs of local and national economies have also changed. Council tax should be used responsibly and not to keep putting money into pension funds that already have more than they need. The risk of non-payment of these pensions is extremely low anyway, but the risk of council failure has been rising. The same is true for some other employers that are contributing here, such as special schools, academies, care homes and housing associations; a number of authorities and groups that are really important to our national well-being have also been caught up in this situation.

I must thank Steve Simkins of Isio, who has been helping me to understand some of what is going on at the local authority level. I have found his insights extremely valuable. Although the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that we had the 2013 review under the local authority regulations—I think he quoted LGPS Regulation 62. That is in place but, as the years have gone on, the review and its terms have been used as a smokescreen for super-prudence. I have something of a problem with the argument about stability, because we were not as worried when we thought there were massive deficits in schemes, but we do not seem to want to take even a temporary respite from the ongoing contributions, which actuaries say are not needed, when things have become better.

I support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, about the need for these regulations. They are meant, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggested, to help review contributions in the interim, but it is not clear what the definitions on which the review is based mean. The word “desirability” is so vague: desirable to whom? Even the word “stability” can be interpreted differently, depending on whether you are talking about stability immediately or over the long run. Does “long term cost efficiency” include the cost of holding too much money? Is that efficient? We also have “solvency”, of course; on what basis is that measured?

I have enormous sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in imploring the Committee to have supreme confidence in the actuarial profession’s conclusions about these funds—I have to declare an interest in that my daughter is an actuary, although I stress not on the pension side. Of course, actuaries are a very professional, well-educated group, but the issue for me is not so much with the wording of the regulations but the mindset that is behind what is done with those valuations. The LGPS, the scheme advisory boards, the MHCLG and even the LGPS officers, advisers and investment managers themselves seem to want to interpret everything in the most negative way, so I think that the noble Baroness has done the Committee a service in raising these issues.

We will talk more about this in the next group, but I urge the Minister to consider carefully, in the context that councils are running out of money and cannot afford basic services, that 20% to 25% of council tax goes on employer pension contributions into schemes that do not, as I say, seem to need the money. Could we be stewarding this national resource, and even the local authority budgets, far better and use the opportunity of the pension success to drive better growth and better local well-being?

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I must first remind myself to declare that I am a member of the Local Government Pension Scheme: I could not fail to be, having been 28 years on the London Borough of Barnet Council, but I tend to forget about it because it is quite a while ago. A payment does come monthly into my bank account, so I must declare that I am a recipient. I also served on the pensions committee of the London Borough of Barnet, so I have some knowledge of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has been very eloquent about.

These amendments propose reviews of the Local Government Pension Scheme, and I think we have to get back to exactly what these amendments are asking for, which is sustainability and actuarial practice. We on my Benches support both, in principle. The Local Government Pension Scheme is a long-term, open scheme with unique characteristics, and pressures on admitted bodies, including housing associations, merit careful examination.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke eloquently about the profession of actuaries. I have always found that actuaries do not have a unified view. There are different actuaries and different views, and as a chartered accountant I have always thought they were impressively prudent with what they said the funds needed to be protected against.

Similarly, actuarial practices such as desirability, stability and solvency are not always applied consistently, despite our applause for actuaries as a profession. Greater clarity would help employers plan and would reduce disputes. Reviews, which is what these amendments ask for, are not admissions of failure; they are tools of good governance. We on these Benches therefore see these amendments as constructive and not critical.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, spoke very eloquently about stabilisation and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, talked about cost and stabilisation review. Excess prudence, or super-prudence, is not sensible, and it is so easy to be prudent as the easy way out. There is an argument for temporary respite. All these come into the question of review, which is what these two amendments ask for. Our question is whether the Government can accept the value of structured, evidence-based review in strengthening confidence in the Local Government Pension Scheme. Review is not a question of failure; it is a question of prudence, which I would have thought actuaries would be in favour of.

--- Later in debate ---

If the Government wish to defend the current position, they should do so explicitly by explaining why ever-increasing prudence, trapped surplus and rising employer costs represent good value for taxpayers and a sustainable future for local government. I suggest that these amendments represent a proportionate, reasonable and necessary attempt to restore balance to the system. I hope and expect that the Minister will provide detailed explanations of the points and questions that I have raised, but for the moment, I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and I have added my name to Amendments 19 and 20, which deal with issues around surpluses and distribution.

There are important issues in all these areas, in particular when there is a surplus and councils are considering how to spend the money that they have under their control or will be receiving from council tax payers. We have to ask: where is the balance of interest between national and local taxpayers? Who picks up the tab if council tax cannot cover the costs of the local authority and its expenditure needs, whether it is on social care, filling potholes, providing housing or whatever? These are vital national services.

It is important when we are discussing this Bill that we seriously consider these issues, because there is a mindset within local government that seems to ignore the principles of accountability, openness and good governance when it comes to their pension funds. I do not quite understand why, but that seems to be the case. In Amendment 18, when we are talking about the use of the LGPS excess funds, I would like to understand whether the Government object to the idea of having a review or a report into whether and how contributions can be reduced or offset against other employer spending needs. What is the balance between prudence, affordability for the employer and the council tax payer interests—and indeed the national taxpayer interests? National taxpayers underwrite the schemes.

On transparency around actuarial assumptions, as the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, said, there is no proper transparency around how any of the assumptions feed through to the conclusion on contributions. Would the Government object to the administering authorities being required to publish statements showing the actuarial assumptions; comparing them between now and previous valuations; providing justification for the changes and for any prudence level; or explaining the impact and showing that they have considered the impact on the various scheme employers? These employers are struggling in the current environment because there is not enough resource to cover the commitments that these important bodies are being required to make.

I hope that the Minister can help the Committee understand the Government’s view on how these pension schemes should be run in future—including, perhaps, a mindset change away from how we have been thinking about them up to now.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

There is a phrase, “esprit d’escalier”—is that how you say it?—for when you are walking down the stairs and you suddenly think of the thing you wish you had said in a previous discussion. Well, this group of amendments provides an ideal opportunity to avoid that very problem.

I do not want to delay the Grand Committee unnecessarily but I feel forced to say something. In essence, these amendments are fundamentally misconceived. I do not object to these questions being asked, but have the two previous speakers ever looked at a Local Government Pension Scheme valuation report? All the information for which they are asking and more is set out in those reports, in accordance with the professional standard that all actuaries must meet.

It is worth saying that that professional standard is set not by actuaries but by the Financial Reporting Council, which sets technical standards for the actuarial profession. The profession looks after professional standards but technical standards, and specifically what should appear in a valuation report, are set by the Financial Reporting Council, which is not part of the actuarial profession. Obviously, there is big actuarial input, but the final decision is made by the council, and all the information called for by the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness is in those reports. Of course, there may be cases where it does not appear in those reports, in which case that is a case of technical malpractice and the Financial Reporting Council should be told.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I apologise for intervening, but I feel that there is a bit of misdescription here. Yes, it is true that Regulation 64, for example, includes this information, but the FRC does not have the authority to insist on these issues being fed through. Indeed, there is non-statutory guidance that seems to override all this. For example, it says that you should not consider changes in contribution rates on the basis of liabilities that have changed due to market changes, so the interest rate environment, which has changed so fundamentally, is supposed not to feed through to the conclusions on contribution rates. That is part of this mindset which, I feel, it is so important for us to try to adjust as we go forward, given the fundamental changes that have happened.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I apologise, but I do not understand what the noble Baroness is saying. Actuaries have to comply with these professional standards; any valuation report they produce has to meet them—that is not a question for debate. If a report does not meet those standards, it should be pursued on its merits. To claim that this information is not available is simply untrue: it is there in the valuation reports. I always have problems with the word “transparency”, because to me it looks like something you can see through and you cannot see it, but I take it to mean that a full explanation of the degree of prudence, a wide evaluation of the assumptions chosen, what effect different assumptions would have and the outcome in terms of the contribution rate all have to be set out. They are publicly available.

The second point is that actuaries do not decide on the valuation assumptions; the management committee decides, on actuarial advice, what the assumptions should be. The local, democratically elected representatives take the decisions, including about what the contribution rate should be. We are currently in an odd state where lots of information on the situation is becoming available, but that is because we are at the end of a three-year cycle of valuations. By the end of this year, all these issues will have been resolved. Not everyone will be pleased; it is entirely possible that some admitted bodies will find that their contributions go up. Perhaps they had significant changes in their workforce—who knows? But the mere fact that some contribution rates go up while the overall move is a reduction does not in itself mean that the system is broken.

I find it difficult to understand what exactly these amendments intend to achieve. The information is available, the decisions are made by the local government bodies involved, and they take the decisions based on their democratic responsibility. What more could we want?

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Perhaps I could assist the Committee. These amendments are asking for a publicly available report that clarifies and sets out all this information on a basis that council tax payers, for example, whose money is being used, can see with clarity: it is provided to them. With all due respect, they will not read the actuarial report, but having a properly set-out review that explains all this clearly, in language that people can understand, would have huge value.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will give our view on the generality of these amendments. I have one small question that I want to put to the noble Viscount in respect of Amendment 16.

Broadly, I am in favour of clarity of investment function, and I suggest that any well-run fund has a very clear statement of its objectives that everybody can see. My question is simply about the use of the phrase “risk elimination” in subsection 3(a) of the proposed new clause. This goes to the heart of one of the problems of discussing surpluses and everything else: it seems to me that anybody making investments who is seeking to eliminate risk is in the wrong industry. They really ought to be doing something else, because you cannot have any reward without risk. I humbly suggest that it should refer to “risk appetite”. It is perfectly correct for any set of investing trustees or any fund to have clarity as to the risk appetite that they wish to have to achieve the investment objectives that their pension fund has; I just question the use of the word “elimination”.

--- Later in debate ---

I close my remarks by commenting briefly on Amendment 20A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which aims to shine a light on the level, justification and affordability of LGPS employer contributions, enabling comparisons across schemes and councils and making how pension costs relate to council tax income clearer to the public. This amendment is welcome and speaks powerfully to some of the points that we made in our speeches on the previous group. I know that the noble Baroness will make a powerful and authoritative case for her amendment; we on these Benches will listen closely to how the Minister responds. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 20A, I shall also speak in support of Amendment 20, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for both her clear exposition and her support for my amendment.

Amendment 20A seeks to benchmark the Local Government Pension Scheme’s employer contributions rather than just the liabilities. It asks the LGPS to

“report publicly the employer contribution rates being paid by each scheme and establish a benchmark for employer contribution rates”

as a proportion of, for example, salary. It also asks the LGPS to

“collect and publish data from each local authority council employer in the scheme, to report the percentage of council tax receipts that are represented by employer pension contributions”.

I have struggled long and hard to compile some information that would give us a picture, across local authorities, of what proportion of council tax receipts is spent on pension contributions in each area. I have to say that I ended up coming back to a national average, because that was the only figure that I could readily find.

I thank Steve Simkins at Isio, who told me about a council where the actuarial valuation implied an employer contribution of zero but the council was asking for a 15% contribution anyway. Unless you have a benchmark for this kind of information, you would not know it. Before the noble Lord, Lord Davies, asks me about this, let me say that I will have to seek permission to let him know which council it is; if I am able to do so, I will, of course.

The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, have suggested that those of us who are laying these amendments are somehow concerned about the surpluses. I do not believe that there is concern about the surpluses; the concern is around how the surpluses are dealt with. We have concerns that there have been significant overpayments, amid pressure on both local and national taxpayers, while urgent local and national expenditure has had to be either cut or not made, and while councils remain underfunded and government borrowing keeps rising. Those are the consequences of not allowing the surpluses to feed through to the expenditure on the employer contributions—and that, I think, is the concern that this suite of amendments is trying to address.

When we are talking about these pension schemes, we are talking about a funding level that is an estimate. The assets make no allowance for future returns, for example, even though they are invested to earn future returns, as would be expected of any long-term investment. However, the liabilities fully build in assumptions— expectations—of what the future liabilities will be over the very long term. The money for the contributions is required now and has to be paid today, but a one-year or two-year cessation of extra contributions surely does not undermine a scheme that is already overfunded for the next 50 years, never mind the next two years. And of course it can improve local well-being.

I hope that the Minister will consider accepting these amendments on the basis on which they are proposed, which is in seeking not to cause problems but to help both local and national funding. Yes, it is true that local authority employers pay varying percentages of salary into the different schemes, but it would help the public and councillors themselves to have some kind of comparison of the rates that they are paying and of the funding level of the scheme and the implications that that might have for future funding, rather than to continue with the current range. I am told that councils such as Avon pay rates of between 15% and 40%, depending on the employer, into a scheme that, based on all conventional funding measures, does not require that money at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I just wanted to say that I completely agree with my noble friend. All these amendments are asking for is a level of transparency that we do not currently have. Obviously, if an employer needs a different contribution rate from another one, we would not expect everybody to pay the same rate. But at the moment, I do not think the general public know what the rates are—and I am talking only about rates for local authorities, not for the charities and so on; it is up to them whether they produce that. If you look at Amendment 20A, it is talking about the local authorities specifically rather than the other employers in the scheme.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I was coming to a conclusion anyway, so I will not detain your Lordships any further. I have made the points that I wanted to make.

London Boroughs: Financial Support

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope my noble friend has been in the Chamber when I have spoken before about the £39 billion investment that our Government have made into social and affordable housing. We look forward to working with our partners in local authorities to deliver that housing. I hope that that, along with other adjustments that we are making, including changes to right to buy, will help to improve the situation for those who are currently sitting on housing waiting registers.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think the general feeling in the House is that funding for local government is in urgent need of reform but any reform will take some time. I suggest to the Minister that an option that could be available in the shorter term is to use the fact that there are huge pension fund surpluses in local authority pension schemes as a reason to have an employer contribution holiday or significant reduction in the £10 billion put into these schemes every year, so that some of that money can be redistributed to the urgent needs of the local populations.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There is much to be done in looking at local authority pension funds—I agree with the noble Baroness on that. We are working through that process. Of course, there is a balance to be struck between how you might use that for capital spending, which would be an investment that there may be a return on, and using it for some of the pressures that we are experiencing on revenue spending, which is the real pressure for local authorities at the moment. It would not be a long-term solution for that, but the noble Baroness makes a very good point. We are exploring what more can be done around the pension funds and using that money for local spend.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I put my name to Amendment 106 because of my experience in representing the Armed Forces in a previous role in the other place. Also, to be candid, I am sure that several of us have had family members in the Armed Forces over the years. It has always struck me that if it is good enough for social housing, and good enough for private rented housing, as is being put in through the Bill, why on earth is it not good enough for the homes of our brave men and women who put their lives on the line every time they don that Armed Forces uniform?

Furthermore, in my experience, undoubtedly the quality of housing—I will not pretend it is homogenous; right across the country, some fantastic new accommodation is being built—is unfortunately a key factor in why people leave the Armed Forces. I will use the example of Rock Barracks, home to 23 Parachute Engineers, just outside Woodbridge. That is the kind of base where people are not there for lifetime basing. The strategy going ahead is that once people are part of a lifetime base, they might be able to buy their own home rather than be necessarily in Armed Forces accommodation. That does not happen with some of these specialist regiments. Actually, the base commander was one of the people who invited me in when I was getting letters from constituents who were really irritated about what was going on in their homes and how it was taking time to be fixed.

Of course, that can be fixed with a better company, but the key point here is that putting this into legislation not only gives reassurance to our soldiers and officers who are thinking about their families—they should not even have to think about what is going on with their families while they are abroad—but gives the families the assurance that they can have a very clear legal expectation about the state of their homes and what should be done if they are not in that state.

Going further, welfare is of course an element in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, and I think the Government have talked about housing. But the legislation specifically refers to matters where the Secretary of State can specify, and if it is believed that these matters might go against the safety of somebody or against national security, the commissioner can be stopped from investigating. Frankly, we all know how long it takes to get a commissioner to do anything. It is better to have the high standard in the first place. I am very conscious that the Government may try to say, “Things will be better in the future”. I am in a position now to say that enough is enough. We will be very happy if the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pushes this to a Division; I will certainly be in the voting Lobbies with her this afternoon.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 106A in this group. I also echo fully the support for Amendments 106, 109 and 119, which is consequential, from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I thank the right reverend Prelate for his support as well.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. It is interesting for how many of us Belsen was part of our lives. I was born in Celle, after the war, my father being in the BAOR and working with what were called DPs—displaced persons. He arrived not on the first day of the liberation of Belsen but soon after. I grew up, albeit with a very different background from that of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, with that experience. I think those of us who were brought up in that childhood have commemorated almost every day of our lives what happened. For those of us who believed in the European Union, it grew from the same basis—I know not everyone took the same view on Europe—of “never again”. This is a part big of my life.

The desire for commemoration does not mean that one has to support the particular proposal here, with the learning centre. I thought the reference to the Cenotaph was very moving. When one walks through the park—those of us who work in Millbank use it a lot—one stops at the Burghers of Calais. I think I am right in saying that the only time Rodin came to London was to discuss and choose the site of the Burghers of Calais, one of the most memorable statues or memorials in the country. Care was taken with the story he was trying to portray, albeit a much older story.

Yes, there should be a commemoration with a statue or equivalent, but there is this idea of millions of people coming. How are we going to deal with the traffic? I think we will deal with that in a later amendment. Before we come to that amendment, which will deal with a proper assessment, let us say yes to a commemoration, but that does not mean that we have to take over the whole of that garden and put in what would be a very small learning centre, with all the disadvantages that come with that.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as being on the Chief Rabbinate Trust and the Jewish Leadership Council, and as someone whose family was mostly wiped out by the Holocaust. My parents escaped and came here, and have always been hugely grateful for the protection of this country. I am deeply saddened at the controversy created by this proposed memorial and learning centre to support the promise to remember, which I have always believed is so important and so valuable.

I would like to put on record my gratitude for the support for this important project from both the previous and the current Government, and for the work put into it by so many Ministers, noble Lords and people who, as we have heard, have no direct interest and are not Jewish themselves. I recognise that we are a tiny minority of the population, but the work that has gone into this by so many is something that I am most grateful for. I understand the many objections and concerns that have been raised by noble Lords. I know that they are deeply and passionately held, and I do not believe they stem from antisemitism in any way, but this amendment would undermine the vision and purpose of this project.

Both the memorial and a learning centre are essential and are part of what this original project envisaged. Without the learning centre, I do not believe that it would achieve the aims. Noble Lords may or may not like the design, and I have enormous respect and admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Deech, all of whom I know have good intentions.

The Berlin museum is underground and actually, that subterranean environment contributes in some way to the power of the horrors portrayed. Not everyone will agree, but that is how it struck me. All the elements outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, can and will be incorporated into the learning centre—and she is right: they are all so important.

The bottom line is that at this stage, after so many years of such regrettably bitter controversy, I sincerely believe that if this project as proposed, with the support of both the current Government and the Opposition, does not go ahead now, there will be no memorial and no new visitor or education centre to explain what happened. In the context of Parliament, of democracy, and of moral and historical issues, the siting next to Parliament is important. I hope that noble Lords will be able to accept this now.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, may I briefly intervene? I hate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Howard, not least because I have great respect for him, but I was made to speak on this by listening to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who spoke extremely well, if I may say so. I too have read The Scourge of the Swastika—I was appalled by what I read, when I was about 15 or 16—and The Knights of Bushido. It is appalling.

Yesterday when I went to lunch, purely coincidentally, there was a man there who told me that his mother had been on the last train to Auschwitz. She was a German Jew, and her father had been killed on the eastern front. The mother, who was Jewish, put the girl in a convent, but she was found in the last few weeks of the war and sent to Auschwitz—and, luckily, survived, obviously, because this young man was there.

The point about that story is that it is not just the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and everybody else in this Chamber; there are people still alive who saw the awful things that happened in the Second World War, and we need to remember that. I know that many people here will have been to Yad Vashem. What an astonishing experience that is, to go to Jerusalem and to see that shocking display—certainly shocking to me, anyway.

I have also been to Poland, only once. I went courtesy of the Holocaust Educational Trust to Auschwitz, and thanked them for it. It was amazing. Again, it was literally tear-jerking. By the way, I would point out to my noble friend Lord Pickles, who mentioned the underground bit of the Polish war memorial, that it obviously has not had very much effect on the Polish president, whom he said might have anti-Holocaust beliefs. Is that right?

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the plan has been condemned for about six years by UNESCO. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has said that it will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the outstanding universal value of this important site. The International Council on Monuments and Sites has condemned it. Europa Nostra has shortlisted Victoria Tower Gardens as one of Europe’s seven most endangered sites. Historic England has expressed its reservations too.

Will the Minister explain why the advice of those international bodies is ignored, especially bearing in mind the willingness of the Government, as they keep saying, to observe international law. International treaties are important to us, say the Government, but here are some they are apparently prepared to ignore. I am sure others would like to hear why they are being ignored, and what answer the Government propose to give to those international bodies.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I have seen the plans, and I know that those working on this project have gone to great lengths to make sure that they will protect Victoria Tower Gardens. They will improve the gardens—that will be the outcome of this project. From what we are hearing, it is as if nobody has taken any care about what they are doing and this has been put together in some hasty manner. This has been carefully planned and I urge noble Lords to respect the work that has gone into the planning. Nobody who is running this project would want to leave the gardens in a worse state. Everyone is intent on improving them, and adding this memorial.

[Lord Sassoon (Con)]

I am quite prepared to believe that the gardens will be improved, and the paths and the drainage, but this does not go to the heart of what this amendment is all about, which is preserving, among other things, the world heritage site which is Westminster. This is a very strange amendment in some senses. Why is it necessary? It should not be necessary at all, but having listened to the debates, I increasingly think that it is necessary. Why is it necessary? First, because not only have we no assurance about the future planning process, which should sweep up these issues, but we have heard from the Minister about reactivation, redetermination and a new process.

I had thought that by this stage in the passage of the Bill, the Minister might have got a clear line on what is going on. He talks about the possibility of a new inquiry, a round table, and written representations. The bottom line is that there may be a reactivated short inquiry process that takes in merely written representations, if that. So we have no insurance through the planning process. I am very disappointed in my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook’s not in any way challenging the planning process from our Front Bench, but merely parroting the Minister’s words that these matters are all for planning. That is very disappointing.

The second thing we have heard a lot about today is the model, and the improvements to the gardens. But those of your Lordships who looked at the model last week and tried to get the view of those tiny figures in front of the memorial will know that the only way you could do it was by putting your camera down there and taking a photograph. The Minister is now laughing and making faces again, as he has been doing all day. This is a serious point that I would like to make. He talked earlier about photographs of the model and offered to share them with one of my noble friends. I took photographs on my phone last week showing that somebody standing in those gardens, on the other side of the memorial from the Palace, will have the view of the south facade of the Palace entirely blocked out.

That goes to the heart of UNESCO’s concerns. My noble friend Lord Pickles, when I challenged him on this a little earlier, talked about the paths and the landscaping, and I have no doubt that those will be improved. But what is happening to the Victoria Tower Gardens is that there will be a very large memorial, which UNESCO says is putting the world heritage site of Westminster are at risk. Of course I recognise that that is not within the actual area of the heritage site as such; that goes through the northern part of the gardens—but that does not mean that the heritage site is not at risk.

So we have a situation late at night when we are getting to the heart of the issues around the planning for this proposed memorial. I go back to something else that the Minister said—that the memorial would say something important about ourselves as a nation. There are many aspects to that, but if one thing it does is mean that UNESCO decides that Westminster is no longer a world heritage site, that is a very significant matter.

I believe that my noble friend Lady Fookes’s amendment is a proportionate way of dealing with a very serious issue that goes to the heart of this Bill.

Social Housing: Awaab’s Law

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am the child of Holocaust survivors and I have grown up with stories of how the Holocaust originated. My mother is thankfully still with us—I do not know for how long—and this summer I buried and laid a stone to a cousin who was on the Kindertransport.

Those stories are that the Holocaust was not initially about war. It was about the rise of anti-Semitism across a country that was considered a democracy and that was perpetrating anti-Semitic murders well before the Second World War. I grew up with the gratitude of a family that was saved by this country, at least in tiny part, believing my whole life that it could not happen again, but I fear that the anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust, which I never believed I would see in this country, is rising again right now in Britain and elsewhere.

I am therefore so grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and the new Government want to carry on with this project, for which I am so grateful to my noble friends Lord Cameron and Lord Pickles, to Ed Balls, and to many others who have worked tirelessly, not because they are Jewish like me and have that history but because they genuinely want to warn and leave a legacy mark to demonstrate the concerns about any of this happening once more.

I am used to the idea that anything one does that is a major new construction project will cause controversy. Whatever you build, there will always be people who like it and others who do not. I am grateful that so many noble Lords support the concept of a memorial and recognise its importance. I am not sure of the detailed history of how this site has been chosen or the design that has been chosen, but I am sure that if this is not agreed, passed and done now, it will not happen. As my noble friend Lord Cameron said, it is much needed now. The signal of not proceeding at this stage would be of great concern to me.

Of course I respect and understand the concerns that have been expressed about the security of the site, but that would apply wherever it was placed. I appreciate the feelings and concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Russell, and I am very grateful for the actions of their families and for the stories that we have heard in this important debate.

I congratulate both this Government and the previous one on wanting to push this idea to its conclusion, and I am very sad that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for whom I have enormous respect, has this deeply held opposition to the project. I can respect and understand it, but I genuinely believe that, with so much support from people who do not have the history, we need to grasp the opportunity now to make sure that this project proceeds.