Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That the Bill do now pass.

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

My Lords, it has been my great privilege to steer this Bill through the Lords. I thank all noble Lords who have dedicated so much of their time to scrutinising the Bill. I hope I have demonstrated my personal commitment to seeing it passed through my engagement with noble Lords from all sides of the House. Through this Bill, the Government are moving a step closer to delivering on the long-standing commitment to build a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre next to Parliament, where it rightly belongs.

As has often been repeated throughout the Bill’s passage, this commitment has cross-party support and the endorsement of every living Prime Minister, as well as the support of leading representatives of the Jewish community, other faith and community leaders, survivors and the wider public. The most important group of supporters is, without doubt, the Holocaust survivors, who have dedicated their lives to sharing their testimony so that the truth of what happened in the darkest, most appalling period of history is understood and remembered. I was delighted to see the Holocaust survivor Manfred Goldberg, whom I met in February and who is a firm supporter of the memorial, receive a well-deserved MBE in the King’s Birthday Honours List. We owe it to survivors to ensure that there is a permanent memorial to honour the 6 million men, women and children who were murdered in the Holocaust, together with a learning centre, so that they can be confident their testimony will live on for decades and centuries to come.

The Bill has been amended to include a new clause on the purpose of the learning centre. As I said on Report, I am sympathetic to the intentions of this amendment, but it will now be for the other place to consider the amendment and respond. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her unstinting support for the Bill, and the many noble Lords—I will not mention them all—who have spoken so passionately throughout its passage. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, for his unwavering support. I cannot mention every civil servant, but all my officials have been instrumental behind the scenes.

I finish by quoting the words of Dov Forman, the great-grandson of Lily Ebert, a most remarkable Holocaust survivor. His words encapsulate what we want to achieve by creating the new national memorial and learning centre:

“With education comes remembrance—this memorial will give people somewhere to remember and reflect. When we no longer have survivors like Lily among us, this memorial will help to ensure that their experiences are never forgotten. We can create the next generation of witnesses”.


Lily has since sadly passed, in October 2024 at the age of 100. We now need to get this memorial and learning centre built so that we can indeed create the next generation of witnesses. I beg to move.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his courtesy during the passage of the Bill and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on her leadership of those of us who felt there were problems with it. I thank all those who pointed out the risks and drawbacks of the choice the Government have made about the location of the learning centre and express a hope that, on reflection, the Government may in time make a different choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise at Third Reading of this important Bill. I will not restate our position at length, but the Official Opposition support the Bill, which will take us another step closer to delivering on my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton’s historic commitment to build a lasting national memorial to the Holocaust.

We have made a solemn commitment never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust and to work to ensure that it will never happen again. Holocaust education is an essential part of our efforts to make good on those promises. It has been the policy of successive Conservative Governments that we need a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. This has the support of the Holocaust education organisations, including the Holocaust Centre North, the National Holocaust Museum, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust.

We were very pleased that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, was successful on Report. We feel strongly that the noble Lord’s amendment not only improves the Bill but is actually helpful to the Government. It is designed to ensure that the intentions of successive Governments are honoured once the memorial and learning centre have been established. We hope the Minister will be able to reassure us today, although we have heard no reassurance, that the Government will carefully consider the amendment. Can the Minister perhaps go further and tell the House whether he will make the case to his colleagues in government that the amendment should be accepted?

Finally, I would like to thank the Minister for his continued engagement throughout the progress of the Bill. It is a controversial piece of legislation and I am grateful to him for his approach when working with the Official Opposition Front Bench. I would also like to thank his officials, the House authorities who have supported an extremely long Report stage and all noble Lords who have contributed to the scrutiny process of the legislation. On something very personal, I would like to thank Henry in the Opposition office, who has so ably supported me through the passage of the Bill.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that I am not going to respond to all the contributions from the noble Lords. I think there are still some outstanding concerns, but let me reassure noble Lords who have them that, subject to the passage of the Bill in the other House and on to the statute book, there will be a process for people to put their representations, views and ideas forward about prospective future planning. I look forward to meeting in particular with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, to look at the nature, technicality and wording of his amendment.

Finally, I will make one last point to my noble friend Lord Hacking. I thought I would take it as a compliment when he described me as an ostrich. The noble Lord may not know that it is the fastest bird on land, with speeds of up to 70 kph; I wish we had used that speed in the passage of the Bill.

Cladding: High-rise Buildings

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made on removing cladding from high-rise buildings.

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

My Lords, over half—57%—of all 18 metre-plus buildings identified with unsafe cladding have started or completed remediation. For 18 metre-plus buildings with aluminium composite material—ACM cladding—like that in Grenfell, 96% of identified buildings have started or completed remediation. We have been clear that those responsible must make swift progress or face action. We will update on the remediation acceleration plan this summer.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Many blocks still to be done contain the same panels as Grenfell. Can we be assured that the companies identified in the Grenfell report as using dishonest strategies and making false claims, such as Kingspan, Celotex and Arconic, are not involved in any replacement work? The companies are reported to have manipulated test data and manipulated the market. The Minister and other noble Lords will have read the exposure of the crooks running Arconic in a devastating article in the Sunday Times two days ago. Why are these people not behind bars?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Cabinet Office announced investigations into seven organisations, a few of which the noble Lord mentioned. These organisations were named in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry report, enabled by the Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February 2025. The Cabinet Office is considering options under this Act. This is rightly independent. While this process must run its course, further actions outside the debarments regime against those involved in this tragedy have not been ruled out.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, eight years after the Grenfell tragedy, the Public Accounts Committee in the other place reported that 3 million people are still living in unsafe buildings, unable to sell their properties and move on with their lives, facing high service charges and high insurance premiums, and in some cases facing repossession. The Minister’s own department says that this ordeal will not be completed until 2035, 10 years away. These leaseholders are the innocent victims of negligence and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said, of greed. Do they not deserve a better deal?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with great expertise and makes a very important point. This Government have been taking decisive action to address the building safety crisis so that residents do not need to wait a day longer than necessary to feel safe in their homes. We continue to work closely with industry, local authorities and residents to accelerate remediation efforts while ensuring that those responsible for unsafe buildings cover the costs. On the important point of insurance, work has been ongoing to reduce building insurance premiums for leaseholders. On lending, we have seen improvements for leaseholders who previously found themselves unable to sell or remortgage their homes, but we will remain vigilant and continue to hold the 10 major lenders to account following their commitment to lend on properties even if remediation is not yet complete.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the divergent opinions of fire safety remediation standards under what is known as PAS 9980, and in particular the undefined metrics of proportionality and tolerable risk which still leave residential blocks such as Meath Crescent, Bethnal Green, and Royal Artillery Quays in Greenwich, and thousands of others, with combustible elements which should never have been included under the building regulations applicable at the time of construction. What is his department doing to address the resultant long-term degradation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, but also the basic failure to meet construction standards in regulation at the time of construction? What is happening about that?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, as part of the work set out in our remediation acceleration plan, we intend that by the end of 2029, all 18 metre-plus high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding in a government funded scheme will have been remediated. Our intention is that every building of 11 metres-plus with unsafe cladding will have been remediated or have a completion date, or the landlord will be liable for severe penalties. On 26 February, the Government published the Construction Products Reform Green Paper, which sets out comprehensive proposals for system-wide reforms of the construction products regime. The Green Paper is a significant step towards a construction products regime that has safety at its heart. We welcome the extensive engagement from across the sector.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I want to focus on tenants of social housing. The Minister has referenced the remediation acceleration scheme. There was supposed to be a report specifically on social housing in the spring, which has yet to be published. What plans do the Government have to help registered social landlords, housing associations and councils, so that they have the funding to remediate their flats and social housing tenants can live in safe homes?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have some excellent news for the noble Baroness. Fresh from the spending review, we can confirm over £1 billion of new investment between 2026-27 and 2029-30 to accelerate the remediation of social housing by giving social housing providers the same access to government funding as private building owners. This will support providers of social housing to supply more affordable homes while also improving the living conditions of tenants. This Government recognise that social landlords face significant barriers to accelerating remediation of building safety risks, including access to upfront funding.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Is the Minister aware that the situation is even worse in Scotland, where money allocated under Barnett consequentials precisely for this purpose has been diverted into futile legal cases and the added costs of ferries? Will the Minister talk to his colleagues in the Treasury to make sure that money allocated for this purpose is earmarked in the future?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I will take my noble friend’s request forward. I am always happy to talk to colleagues across other government departments, and let me assure my noble friend that I am always happy to talk to him.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, last Saturday was the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and we send all our thoughts and prayers to the bereaved, the survivors and the communities of north Kensington. Can the Minister say when the £85 million earmarked for the regeneration of the Lancaster West Estate following the Grenfell Tower disaster is expected to be delivered—if it is still intended to be delivered at all?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Let me echo the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness in relation to the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. The Government are committed to taking the next steps respectfully and carefully. We have accepted all the inquiry’s findings and will take action on all 58 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system to deliver safe, quality homes for everyone. I will write to the noble Baroness on the issue of funding.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, on 15 June 2017, the Metropolitan Police began a criminal investigation into the Grenfell fire. Can the Minister tell the House how many individuals and corporations have been charged and prosecuted in the past eight years?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I hope my noble friend understands that this is still a live criminal investigation, so it would be remiss of me comment. However, let me reassure him: this will take time, as the Met Police has said. It is one of the largest and most legally complex investigations ever conducted by the Met Police, with 180 officers and staff dedicated to the investigation. We fully support the police in their important work. On funding, I can also reassure my noble friend that the Home Office will provide the Met Police with up to £6.6 million in 2025-26 to support the cost of the investigation.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my tribute to the Grenfell bereaved families, who have campaigned for so long to have their voices heard, and to firefighters and emergency workers who were on the scene.

The Grenfell Tower Inquiry report was damning about the role of central government in deregulating and indeed privatising fire safety building control, and the cosy relationship with the construction industry. Can the Minister reassure us today that the policy of deregulation will never happen again?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point, and I echo her tribute to the victims of the tragedy and all emergency service personnel. To be clear, companies must be held to account for their role in the Grenfell tragedy. On 26 February, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office announced that the Government will launch investigations into seven organisations—which brings me back to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Rooker. It is totally wrong that construction product manufacturers have faced so little accountability. That is why we have adopted all the findings and will take forward all 58 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system to deliver safe, quality homes for everyone.

Political Parties and Elections Act 2009

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pack]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to commence the provisions in section 9 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009.

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

My Lords, the Government committed in their manifesto to protect our democracy by strengthening the rules around donations. We are currently considering a series of policy interventions, such as enhanced checks by recipients of donations and tighter controls on donors, including more restrictions around company donations. This will help enhance the protections of our system against potential risks. We plan to set out further details in our strategy for elections, which we expect to publish this summer.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, it is 16 years since Parliament passed the simple but powerful safeguard in Section 9, in response to a financial scandal over the origin of donations. Implementation does not require any time for primary legislation, nor for the Treasury to be asked for any money, but it would make our political finances that bit more transparent, ethical and trustworthy. So, what is the reason for the Minister not to go back to the department this afternoon and simply say to colleagues, “I’ve got a commencement clause. I think we should sort this”?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I know the noble Lord has done a lot of research in this area, and we welcome that research. But, as I said in my previous Answer, we are committed to strengthening the rules around donations, improving our democracy and protecting our democracy from foreign interference. That will all be laid out in the summer and I am sure that, when it is, the noble Lord will be able to have a look, reflect and feed back into the whole process.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, in considering possible future changes, will the Government take account of political parties such as the Liberal Democrats, who received £2.4 million from a known and convicted fraudster, Michael Brown, and, 20 years on, have still to pay back that money to the people who were denied those resources?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot get involved in or discuss any individual donations, but I reassure him that we will ensure that we strengthen the law around political donations.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My Lords, I know that, in my day, when I was party chairman—before I became independent—some of the biggest political donors were the trade unions. Does this review include the trade unions and the restrictions that could be placed on them?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, to the noble Lord’s question, your Lordships will have to wait until summer, when we will set out our strategy. The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely keen, in her role as Secretary of State for MHCLG, to ensure that we have strong electoral reforms ready for the next election.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, if we are talking about motes and beams in different parties, will the Government now publish the redacted elements of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report on Russian money flowing into the Conservative Party? While I am on my feet, do the Government intend to simplify in any sense the great mess of electoral law, given that the Law Commission has done a lot of work on this and that electoral registration officers struggle with the various Acts—some of which are still extant, others of which have largely been expunged—in accordance with which they have to conduct their affairs?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord can understand that I am not able to comment on any particular donations to parties. It is not for government to interfere with that. But he makes a very interesting point, so I will take a moment to let the House know that, as set out in our manifesto, we are committed to strengthening our democracy, widening participation and upholding the integrity of elections. This includes improving voter registration, extending the electoral franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, reviewing and addressing voter ID rules, and strengthening rules around donations to political parties. I can let noble Lords across the House know that we will be bringing an election Bill within this Parliament, hopefully in the very near future.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I asked a question on Monday about expenses incurred by Kent County Council in relation to DOGE investigations and the hiring of 12 accountants and systems engineers? Perhaps I might inform him that Kent County Council Conservatives will be writing to the leader of Kent County Council, a Reform councillor, to seek clarification on precisely what form the costs incurred by these people will take and whether they will be declared as donations or, alternatively, as costs on the council tax payer. They will, of course, copy the Minister and the Electoral Commission into any correspondence they both send and receive.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Lord for informing me. I know that he has great depth of experience in this area. Any suspected violations of donation rules fall under the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission or the police. The Electoral Commission has the authority to investigate breaches and impose civil penalties when necessary. As part of efforts to enhance the regulations surrounding donations, including donations in kind, we are reviewing whether adjustments to the regulator’s role and powers are needed to ensure effective enforcement across the political finance framework.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, if I am going to be pre-empted in a question by anyone, it has to be William Wallace, has it not? But he is absolutely right. Of all the disgraceful donations the Tory party has had, those it got from Russia are the worst. I support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will go back to the department and say that there is a strong view in the House of Lords that the report on donations from Russia should be made public as soon as possible.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Let me assure my noble friend that the Government remain steadfast in addressing the threat posed by disinformation and foreign interference in our democratic processes. Safeguarding the UK against such threats is and will always be an utmost priority.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concerns that excessive regulation and red tape can lead to unintended adverse consequences, as we have seen with the politically exposed persons regulations? With that in mind, can he tell the House what is the status of the review of the PEP regulations by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Government, following legislation passed by this House?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the concern about making sure that our democracy is fit for purpose in the modern world. There is a huge challenge ahead, which is why we will address in the round the whole issue of electoral reform. I will write to the noble Lord on the specific example that he mentioned.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government’s review of donations include looking at the whole issue of people making donations using cryptocurrency, given the potential for abuse and of hiding the true source of those donations?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend alludes to an important theme in terms of donations. The rules around political donations must be abided by, regardless of the type of donation made, including donations made using cryptocurrency. Those who receive donations must assess the value of the donation when they receive it and, if it is over the reporting threshold, they must report it to the Electoral Commission. Parties and other campaigners must also check that donations come from a permissible source and are prohibited from accepting donations that are not from a permissible or identifiable donor.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could take this into account. I tried to give a donation to the Democratic campaign before the last election, but I was not able to because I do not have an American passport. Can the Minister ensure that we apply the same sort of control as regards money coming into this country?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an interesting point. I would not want to talk specifically about that example, but I can reassure him that the concern he shares with the House is a big focus area for making sure that those who donate are eligible to do so, have an interest in the UK and are tied to being part of the UK system, so their eligibility is absolutely legitimate.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Does my noble friend recall that, before the last election, the Conservative Government—for reasons that slightly bewildered me and I think some others—decided to massively extend the franchise to people living abroad who had lived abroad for more than 15 years, many of whom had barely ever lived in the country and for whom it was almost impossible to establish even an address at which they were last resident in the United Kingdom? Now that we have had an election under these rules, can my noble friend at least publish for us the extent to which these newly enfranchised people exercised their vote at the last election, which could of course potentially have had an effect in individual constituencies, how much the system cost and whether there are any plans to revert to the previously very satisfactory situation?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an interesting point. Just to reassure him, part of our strategy in the summer will reflect on the very issues that he is talking about, and in it we will set out our strategy on wider electoral reform, including donations and the source of donations.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be debating this important Bill once again. I will take a moment to just restate the position of the Official Opposition on this legislation: It has been a policy of successive Conservative Governments that we need a national Holocaust memorial and learning centre to ensure we never forget the unique suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. This project was first conceived by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2013, when he established a commission to consider measures to preserve the memory of the Holocaust.

That commission, led ably by Sir Mick Davis, recommended the creation of a

“striking and prominent new National Memorial”,

which should be

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

The Conservative Government accepted the commission’s recommendations, taking forward the plans that are continued with this Bill. As part of that process, the then Conservative Government introduced the Holocaust Memorial Bill in 2023. This Bill is a continuation of that work, and we continue to support it.

My noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton summed up the Official Opposition’s view very well at the Second Reading of this Bill in September last year, when he said that

“this is the right idea, in the right place and at the right time”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1169.]

I also pay tribute to the many organisations that have written to Peers to endorse the plans for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, including Holocaust Centre North, the National Holocaust Museum, University College London, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust and the Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim.

We have considered the project in the round and at length: after 11 years we cannot be said to be rushing. Now is the time to press ahead with this bold national statement of our opposition to hatred and antisemitism. Now is the time to stand up for our British values and deliver a permanent memorial and learning centre as we recommit ourselves to our promise to never forget the unique horrors of the Holocaust.

Amendment 1, in the name of my noble friend Lord Eccles, would limit the level of taxpayers’ funding for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to £75 million, requiring any spending above that level to be provided by grants from the Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust. The updated Explanatory Notes, which were published on 18 July last year, stated that the updated costs of the project were now at £138.8 million. That is due to the fact that it is 10 or 11 years down the line, due to, as we have heard, the many planning issues that have come forward.

I have great respect for my noble friend but, on this occasion, I must respectfully disagree with his amendment, because it is the view of the Official Opposition that this amendment would place inappropriate constraints on the value and manner of funding for this project, potentially risking its viability.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for his amendment. It has allowed us to reflect not simply on the need for careful control of public expenditure but on the core reason why this Bill is needed. I will deal first with matters directly relevant to costs and to the overall management of the programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as this is Report I will be brief in responding to Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. We are concerned that the amendment would undermine the current plan for the construction of the memorial and learning centre, prevent its timely delivery and risk the whole future of the project. The Official Opposition have been unequivocal in our support for this project. While specific concerns about the design of the project can and should be put forward during the planning process—which will follow the passage of the Bill—we do not feel it would be appropriate to place undue constraints on the project through statutory legislation. What we have been discussing today are planning issues, and they should be dealt with in the planning process. We therefore cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Blackstone, for their amendment. This has been a lengthy but powerful debate, with much strength of feeling. Given that there were so many lengthy speeches, I am not sure if noble Lords got the memo from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, when he pontificated on having Report stage speeches.

I remind the House of the scope of the Bill: Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to pay for the costs of the project and Clause 2 disapplies the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 so that the project can be built in the designated area. I know that lots of points have been made in this debate; I am not going to address them now because I am sure they will come up in later amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I thank the Minister for directly answering my questions. I have a supplementary question: can the model be brought back for noble Lords to look at again? It was a very valuable experience.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, that question is for the House authorities. I personally emailed every Member of the House of Lords to invite them to visit the model, and I stipulated which days it would be there. We had a historian, security experts and the architect on site—I do not know what more I could have done to engage with noble Lords. But what I can say to the noble Baroness—I knew that this question would come—is that I took a picture of the model, which I can show her whenever we get a chance.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister, but why is the model not here today? Today is the day when noble Lords are considering this extremely important issue, so why was it here last week and not today?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

It was here last week, and I emailed every Member of the Lords to say where it would be. I do not think anyone could accuse me of lack of engagement. I have spent weeks and weeks speaking to people—I am happy to speak to anybody at any time. I took a very accurate picture, so I am sure I can talk the noble Baroness through it after this debate finishes.

I have to make progress. I say to my noble friend who asked in particular about the cost of an underground learning centre versus an overground one that the costs do not work like that. To talk about overground is a hypothetical question. We have given the cost for the whole project. Of course, we recognise that there are uncertainties, which is why our approach includes an appropriate level of contingency when it comes to costs, but it would be wrong to suggest that the cost estimates have somehow failed to take account of the underground construction.

The Holocaust Commission recognised more than 10 years ago that a learning centre should be collocated with the Holocaust memorial. By placing the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, we have an opportunity to deepen the understanding of many millions of people, from Britain and overseas, about the facts of the Holocaust and its significance for the modern world.

I want to touch on one final point before I conclude. The noble Lord mentioned Washington, as did many others. I was on the phone in the early hours of this morning to the international affairs director at the Washington museum and memorial, Dr Paul Shapiro. It was a special call because he was the person who took me when I visited the Washington memorial. It was a very moving and touching experience. I just want to share something that we can relate to today. The proposal to create a Holocaust memorial museum in Washington was announced in 1979, yet the memorial did not open until 1993. The site chosen, next to the National Mall in Washington, DC, generated considerable opposition, including points such as: it would lead to antisemitism because Jews would be seen as being given privileged status; injustices in US history were more deserving of memorials; or it would be used to whitewash the US response to the Holocaust or not do enough to celebrate US responses. Another reason was that the Holocaust was not relevant to American history, and another was that it was the right idea but the wrong place—something that we have heard today. By 1987 the final architectural design was agreed, but criticism and demands for changes to the design continued. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum was opened by President Clinton in 1993. As my friend Dr Paul Shapiro mentioned to me this morning, this month it will welcome its 50 millionth visitor.

Let us not throw this opportunity away. I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I have one more question. The Minister has spoken eloquently about learning lessons. My question applies both to America and to this country, where every child at a state school gets Holocaust education and has the benefit of six existing memorials. Why, then, is antisemitism rampant in our universities, among young people who have had Holocaust education, and rampant in the States? What have they learned?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a strong point. Let me be clear: unfortunately, building Holocaust memorials does not get rid of antisemitism. That is a reminder for us all, not just the Government but society, that we should all do more. That means education, which is why the Prime Minister has promised to make sure that the Holocaust is taught right across every school, whether a state school or not. There is more work to be done.

I take this personally in the respect that I am the Minister responsible for dealing with religious hate crime. The noble Lord, Lord Mann—he is not in his place—and I have regular conversations with stakeholders in this area, but we have to do much more as this is unfortunately on the rise. I speak to colleagues from the Community Security Trust, Mark Gardner in particular, and this is something on which we need to work more collaboratively together. It is unfortunately a challenge. As colleagues have said, there is a lot of distortion, misinformation, disinformation, online religious hatred and all kinds of discrimination. We are doing more, and we will continue to do more.

On the Holocaust memorial, I will share my personal experience. In my school education I was taught a bit about it, but it was not until I visited that memorial in Washington that I was personally moved and touched and realised the grave challenges and difficulties—the horrific situation that the 6 million men, women and children faced, as well as those in other communities. That is why I say that the Holocaust memorial is an important opportunity for young people—including schoolchildren when they visit Parliament—to visit and learn from what I see as a huge, life-changing, moving experience. This is in the national conscience and this is a national memorial. That is why we are supporting it and taking this Bill through the House of Lords.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, when responding to the Minister, it is typical to begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part. I am not sure that I can entirely do that because, as I said at the beginning, we are on Report and this group has taken rather longer than I hoped or expected, and some noble Lords have strayed slightly wide of the amendment.

I will say that I am particularly glad to hear that Dr Paul Shapiro is still in his role, unlike the heads of many museums in the United States of America—the mortality rate appears to be slightly alarming. The second thought I had was in reacting to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for the Opposition. I thought it was suitably ironic—indeed, I think many Jewish comedians would particularly enjoy the irony—to describe what we are trying to do in this amendment as “undermining” the project, since it is about stopping actual burrowing underground.

We are in a situation where there is a lot of emotion around. When there is a lot of emotion around, it is quite hard to focus on individual bits, to try to disaggregate them and to try to improve a project that has clearly run into a degree of difficulty.

This debate has made it clear that there is a fissure here. The aspiration of the memorial foundation to co-locate and create, in the words of the various institutions that spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, an “important global institution” is entirely laudable. This debate has demonstrated, on the basis of what is currently proposed, that it is highly unlikely and somewhat impractical that that will be delivered, much as I wish it was possible to deliver it.

I am certainly not going to divide the House on this—frankly, it is too important an issue to divide on. However, I beseech the promoters of this project to be honest and transparent with us about what it is and what it is not. What it is now is materially different from the aspiration described in moving terms in the report from January 2015. Being realistic about what we hoped for then and where we are now would help the situation—frankly, it would be more respectful—and help some of us to manage our emotions around this issue. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for bringing his considerable experience of security matters to Committee and now on Report. I know he brings his amendment forward with the best of intentions.

With all due respect to the noble Lord, we cannot support Amendments 3 and 10, which would prevent commencement of the Bill until such time as the security report required by Amendment 3 has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, again delaying what we want to be delivered as soon as possible. Security is of paramount importance and Ministers should consider security concerns very carefully, but we believe that this issue can be adequately addressed through the planning system, which is the proper way to deal with it. This has been through the planning system before, security has been dealt with, and the High Court agreed that this was the correct way to do it. It would set a huge precedent if we were to make legislative changes to this Bill in respect of what is actually a planning matter.

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

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Laing, for Amendments 3 and 10. I was saddened to hear the news of the passing of the noble Lord’s sister, Renata. May her memory be a blessing.

I also offer my thanks for the work done by the late Lord Etherton on the Select Committee, and thank all the other members of the Select Committee for their work.

These amendments would require a report to be produced on the security impacts of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and would require both Houses of Parliament to approve the report before work on the memorial and learning centre could proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has been a strong advocate of the need to give careful consideration to the security impacts of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I am grateful to him for his persistence in bringing these matters to the forefront of our debates throughout the passage of the Bill, and for meeting me several times to discuss the security impacts—as well as the performance of Burnley Football Club this year. The noble Lord and I share a history of being brought up in Burnley.

The noble Lord was kind enough, as he has already indicated, to provide me with a set of questions for discussion with security advisers. I was glad to take the noble Lord’s advice, and I did exactly as he proposed. The questions were shared and discussed with the UK Government security services and the Metropolitan Police. I have written to the noble Lord with the responses I obtained from our security services, and I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. I know that noble Lords across the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for formulating his questions, and I believe they will be reassured by the answers. If noble Lords will forgive me for taking a little time over these important matters, I will set out the main points from my discussion with security experts.

As a starting point, let me immediately acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is quite right to point out that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will face threats. Protestors with a range of motivations, including some who will be prepared to use violence or terror, will see the memorial and learning centre as a potential target. This sad truth has been recognised since the inception of the project. In response, the Government—both this Government and its predecessors—have done what I know the great majority of Members of this House would expect to be done. We have sought to ensure that the memorial and learning centre is designed and planned such that it can be operated safely and securely. In other words, we have sought to ensure that the proper, legitimate activities of our free, democratic society can continue. That is the approach the experts from the Metropolitan Police, UK Government security advisers and the Community Security Trust have all told me is the basis of their work.

On the design, acting on the advice of those experts we have incorporated features, including carefully designed barriers to protect the gardens against hostile vehicles. There will be an above-ground security pavilion and appropriate CCTV infrastructure, with a security control room.

On operations, we will make sure that the staff are trained to the highest standards, including in ways of working with the police. The advice of UK Government security advisers and the Metropolitan Police has been hugely valuable in developing our proposals, and we will continue to follow that advice as we construct and operate the memorial and learning centre.

Many noble Lords have questioned whether the threats would be lower if the memorial and learning centre were constructed in a less prominent location. We have to acknowledge—again, with sadness—that the advice from security professionals is that a Holocaust memorial would be seen as a target wherever it is located. From a security perspective, as my conversations have confirmed, placing the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens brings significant benefits. Within the government security zone, the memorial will benefit from many additional layers of security, including a police rapid-response capability.

Some have questioned whether the memorial would bring additional risks to the Palace of Westminster. When I have put this point to the security services, the clear response has been that the palace, by its very nature as the seat of government and a symbol of our democracy, faces potential threats. Establishing a national Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens would not significantly change the nature or severity of those threats, nor require additional measures in response. I fully recognise, of course, that the security implications of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre demand to be considered carefully. It is right that noble Lords should insist that proposals are developed in the light of the best available advice and the clearest understanding of threat.

I am immensely grateful to the police and our security services for the detailed advice they have provided over several years on the development of our scheme, for the meetings and discussions held with me in recent weeks, and, of course, for the tireless ongoing work of those organisations keeping us safe. To clarify, at the meeting to which the noble Lord alluded, the question that was asked of the security advisers and the Met Police was whether the security experts agreed with this amendment. Of course, you would expect the security advisers not to get involved in the political procedures of Parliament.

No scheme for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre could or should proceed without full recognition of the importance of security and full consideration of the best available evidence. I am confident that the arrangements for obtaining planning consent already ensure that security will be given proper consideration. The views of the UK Government security advisers and the Metropolitan Police will be sought, and any reservations or objections would be very apparent to the decision-making Minister and must be taken into account.

I will clarify some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on the planning application arrangements. The situation in which a planning application needs to be decided by a Minister in the department promoting the application is by no means unique and arises also in local government; the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, alluded to some examples he was involved in. The special arrangements for handling the planning application were subject to a High Court challenge in 2020. The court required the department to make some minor adjustments to reflect specific relevant provisions and to publish the handling arrangements, which were of course done. Otherwise, the court was content that the handling arrangements were proper and lawful.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Can the Minister tell me whether the precedent he cited was also a situation where the proposer was in a position to remove a major barrier of protection to the site where they wanted to put the proposed development? The Government can do that as well, under Clause 2.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The purpose of Clause 2 is to disapply the London county Act of 1906. That is why we want to push forward with the project. I reassure the noble Baroness that, subject to the Bill passing, this will be treated as a serious issue. The entire proposed project will be subject to full scrutiny and accountability, and will go through the full planning process that the designated Minister will determine. There will be plenty of opportunity for noble Lords to raise points about a number of issues, including security. Many points about planning were raised tonight, but I believe that this is the wrong forum for them.

I turn to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. We gave an undertaking that we would consult further on security and provide information to Parliament, and we will certainly do that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned queues. I reassure her that the ticketing and checking strategy is designed to avoid queues building up in the gardens.

Moreover, we have given a clear undertaking to the Select Committee that updated evidence on security will be provided and that we will consult on security matters with the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Community Security Trust, the Metropolitan Police, the National Protective Security Authority and Westminster City Council. We have undertaken that the updated evidence and the views of all these bodies, subject only to the redaction of any information that should be confidential for security reasons, will be placed in the Libraries of each House. The proposed amendment is not therefore necessary as a means of generating information about security or as a mechanism for ensuring that security is given proper consideration. The practical effect of the amendment would be to cause delay and to create uncertainty about the progress of the scheme.

I will repeat one final point about the amendment that was put to me with great force when I was preparing for this debate. Our response in this country to the threat of violence has never been to shrink from carrying out the normal, legitimate activities of a free society. We know that there are threats. In response to those threats, we plan, we prepare and we seek to protect our citizens from harm as they go about their lives. We should not send the message—which, with respect, I believe this amendment would send—that our approach is changing, that we fear we cannot protect our citizens and that, in the face of the threat of violence, we should place a Holocaust memorial somewhere less prominent.

Are we prepared to say that, in Britain today, visitors to a Holocaust memorial next to the seat of government cannot be protected? Are we willing to concede to the perpetrators of violence that a memorial established as a lasting reminder of a time when the Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany were denied the protection of the law and subject to appalling violence and persecution by their own Government cannot be placed next to our own Parliament? I do not think that this House would want to be associated with such a message. I therefore ask noble Lord not to press Amendments 3 and 10.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to this debate. I can tell your Lordships that I have had two big surprises tonight. One was the most wonderful compliment I have ever received from a former Home Secretary and Secretary of State from Northern Ireland, who is known for his pugnacious and accurate brain, so I take that seriously. The other—if I can refer back to an earlier debate—is that I have had the pleasure, for the first time ever, of agreeing with something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, who spoke earlier in the evening. I shall look upon that as something of value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, for bringing his Amendment 4 and his manuscript Amendment 4A which I have signed. As I said during our debate on this issue in Grand Committee, it was our understanding that this amendment is in line with the Government’s intentions. When we debated the amendment to closely define the sole purpose of the memorial and learning centre, the Government then resisted it.

On the one hand, the Minister argued that the amendment is unnecessary because:

“This Bill is about a memorial to the Holocaust, not to all genocides or crimes against humanity”—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. GC 551.]


But he then went on to say later that:

“The centre is also intended to address subsequent genocides within the context of the Holocaust”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. GC 552.]


That is an inconsistent and confusing position. I therefore understand why the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has brought his amendments forward on Report today.

We share the noble Lord’s concern that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre could in future come to inappropriately shift its focus from the unique crime perpetrated against the Jewish people and the other victims of the Holocaust by the Nazis to other acts of genocide. The memorial and learning centre should be purely focused on the unique horror of the Holocaust and we must resist any attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the Holocaust, which stands out in world history, and other events.

In the words of one German historian, the Holocaust was

“a unique crime in the history of mankind”,

and, as the then Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission stated in 2015,

“It is clear that Britain has a unique relationship with this terrible period of history”.


That is why we set out to deliver this memorial and learning centre, and we must not forget that impetus.

I am also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has included antisemitism in his amendment. As my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton put it so well at Second Reading,

“We have a problem with antisemitism in this country, and it is growing. What better way to deal with this than to have a bold, unapologetic national statement? This is not a Jewish statement or a community statement; it is a national statement about how much we care about this and how we are prepared to put that beyond doubt”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1170.]


This amendment is clearly consonant with the intentions of the Bill, and importantly, it need not delay its progress. Given these amendments meet those two tests, we will support the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, in his amendments should he seek the opinion of the House. However, I hope that we will not have to do that. I hope the Minister will stand up and agree with this House that the Government will look at this and bring back their own amendments at Third Reading.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Goodman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for Amendment 4, together with Amendment 4A, which, in addition, has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook.

This proposed new clause is similar to one proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Robathan, in Committee. I note that this proposed clause has removed the word “Nazi”, taking heed of the warning of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, that the Holocaust was not perpetrated by the Nazis alone.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the objectives behind this amendment. As noble Lords will be very well aware from earlier debates, it is the strong and clear intention of the Government that the learning centre should be focused on the history of the Holocaust and of antisemitism.

The new clause is no doubt well intentioned, but it is overly restrictive and may have unintended consequences. First, the new clause is unnecessary. The Bill clearly refers to a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust. The Bill also clearly states that it is about a Holocaust memorial, not a memorial to all genocides or to crimes against humanity. No Holocaust memorial and learning centre could exist without a clear understanding of the roots of antisemitism.

From the start, we have been very clear that to understand the devastation of the Holocaust on European Jewry, it is crucial also to understand the vibrancy and breadth of Jewish life before the Holocaust. We have been very clear about the concept of genocide and how it relates to the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the lens through which we view the development of international law on genocide and on human rights.

The modern understanding of genocide was developed in the context of the Holocaust. Indeed, the term itself was put forward by a Jewish lawyer working in the shadow of the death camps and involved in the attempt to achieve justice at Nuremberg. We will focus on the impact the Holocaust had on the emergence of the concept of genocide and the associated international legal frameworks. We will not, as some have claimed, relativise the Holocaust by equating it with other genocides. The learning centre will not portray the Holocaust as simply one among many episodes of inhumanity and cruelty, nor will it aim to communicate bland, generic moral messages. The Holocaust was a unique event among the evils of this world and will be treated as such. The learning centre, integrated with our national memorial, will provide a solid, clear historical account of the Holocaust, leaving no visitors in any doubt about the unprecedented crimes perpetrated against the Jewish people. 

I was pleased to offer noble Lords an opportunity to hear direct from Martin Winstone, the Holocaust historian and educator who is supporting development of the learning centre content. I appreciate the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Verdirame, and I wish we could have had our conversation much earlier in advance of the debate tonight, but, unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity. Those who were able to attend the session last week will have heard unequivocally that the focus is on the Holocaust and its devastating impact on Jewish communities across the world.

The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem, supported by an academic advisory group. With their help, we will ensure the content is robust, truthful and fearless. It will stand as a vital rebuttal of Holocaust denial and distortion in all its forms.   

I hope I have shown that there is no disagreement between the Government and those who wish to ensure that the learning centre focuses very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. I am not, however, persuaded that additional clauses to the Bill are needed to achieve what we all want to see. Moreover, there are inevitably risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly what the learning centre is permitted to do.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I have been listening very carefully to the Minister, and I completely accept what he is saying about his and the Government’s position on what he wants the learning centre to do, but can he address the question raised by several of my noble friends: what happens if there is a different Government and a different Minister with a different policy? Does anything in the Bill as drafted prevent a Government with a different policy—we have heard several examples of how that might come about—altering the focus of the learning centre? I do not doubt that he is sincere and in complete agreement, but it is about guarding against a future change. That is what noble Lords are trying to guarantee.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

If the noble Lord will allow me, I will address his point towards the conclusion of my speech.

I have mentioned the academic advisory group, and this is a good opportunity to tell the House who is in it: Ben Barcow CBE, who worked at the Weiner Holocaust Library from 1987 to 2019; Gilly Carr, professor of conflict archaeology and Holocaust heritage at the University of Cambridge; Robert Eaglestone of Royal Holloway College, professor of contemporary literature and thought and former deputy-director of the Holocaust Research Institute at Royal Holloway; Zoe Waxman, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who is professor of Holocaust History at the University of Oxford; Isabel Wollaston, who is professor of Jewish and Holocaust studies at the University of Birmingham; and my good friend Dr Paul Shapiro.

Before I come back to finish on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I hope I have shown that there is no disagreement between the Government and those who wish to ensure that the learning centre focuses very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. I am not, however, persuaded that the proposed additional clauses are needed in the Bill to achieve what we want to see. Moreover, there are inevitably risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly.

I suspect that many noble Lords would expect the learning centre to address, at least to some degree, the history of Jewish communities ahead of the Holocaust. I believe also that there would be support for some activities in the learning centre to be focused more on commemoration than on education. Neither of those matters is explicitly and obviously permitted by the proposed new clause. I say that as a direct answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.

We know, sadly, that the activities of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will face a good deal of opposition and hostility. I am very reluctant to provide additional opportunities for legal challenges and for inviting the courts to get involved in determining what can or cannot take place in the learning centre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I am sorry to say that the confusion, which is becoming deeper and deeper, is of the Government’s own making: all this use of the word “genocide”, this Holocaust and that Holocaust. I understand that the Government give funding to Holocaust education bodies only if they agree to include other genocides along with what Jews call the Shoah, the Jewish genocide. It is the Government who have opened this up.

We all know that the word “genocide” is now being turned against Israel and against Jewish people themselves. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust itself, which has written in support of this project, last November invited people to a Holocaust remembrance ceremony in January that was going to include the killing of civilians in Gaza. The killing of civilians in Gaza is dreadful, but it has nothing to do with what we should be talking about tonight: the genocide of the Jews. I fear that this is the Government’s own muddle. It needs clarification by support for my noble friend Lord Verdirame’s amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness’s strength of feeling on this and many other issues. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, I have a lot of sympathy for the intention of the proposed new clause, but I am concerned about it because there is no definition in the Bill. We have to be very careful on that point. I had a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame—as I did with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—but, because of the wording being overly restrictive, I respectfully ask them, at this moment, to withdraw the amendments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Minister has not properly answered my noble friend’s question. It is not just about the clarification of what is in the memorial and the learning centre now; it is concern about what may happen to the memorial as the world changes, Governments change and leaders change. We have also heard from my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who is an eminent lawyer, that this will make it safer in law and less able to be challenged than it would if it were left in the slightly woolly area that it is now. Can the Minister comment on the future of the memorial?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, there will be future discussions about the governance of the learning centre—those are the safeguards. For now, because I do not want to prolong the House any longer, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who spoke. I will briefly make a few points in reply. First, I have no problem at all with the individuals sitting on the academic advisory board; they are all very eminent. I am certainly glad to hear about the involvement from Yad Vashem.

The composition of boards changes over time: different individuals will come on board with different agendas. This is an opportunity for Parliament to set the agenda, and whoever comes on board will have to stick to that agenda set by Parliament.

On whether it is unnecessary, as the Minister said, I have to disagree. It is necessary because we have already seen some drift into other persecution and genocides in the Explanatory Notes, and that is why it is necessary. I do not quite see how it can be described as too narrow. The purpose would be education about the Holocaust and antisemitism. They are two pretty big missions, and we are not doing so well in respect of either of them.

Further, of course commemorations could take place because we are building a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, so it will be possible in this building to have commemorations. In addition, the fact that the amendment refers to education, which is a broad concept, also enables commemoration as part of education.

I have a lot of sympathy, as he knows, with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, about the inclusion of homosexual victims of the Holocaust. I never had any doubt that individuals who were wearing a pink star in Auschwitz were victims of the Holocaust. I considered, with other Members involved in the drafting of this amendment, alternative versions, and as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, we went through a bit of a journey with the formulation. In the end, we thought Holocaust was the obvious term because it is what the memorial is about: it is a memorial about the victims of the Holocaust. I see that term as inclusive of other groups persecuted and taken to concentration and extermination camps. I am very glad that he raised that point.

Finally, I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, said on legal challenges, but I was a little baffled by the idea that there could be a legal challenge about the meaning of Holocaust. That legal challenge could be brought now because the Bill provides for

“expenditure … in connection with … a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust”.

If somebody wanted to bring a challenge on the basis that the Holocaust is something else, they could probably already do it now. The amendment will not in any way widen the scope for such legal challenges, but it will afford a degree of protection against the risk of mission creep and of this learning centre starting to do things that we all know it is not supposed to do. With that in mind, I have listened to the Minister carefully, but I am afraid I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, we have listened carefully to all the debates focused on planning issues during the progress of the Bill, and we are clear that the planning process is the appropriate place for these issues to be addressed. Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, would take progress on the delivery of the landmark Holocaust memorial and learning centre backwards considerably. I have said already today that we are now 11 years on from the original commitment to deliver this. We are not rushing, and there have been ample opportunities to raise planning concerns. Indeed, a planning process will follow the passage of the Bill, and those concerns can also be addressed as part of that process.

It has been the policy of successive Conservative Governments that this project is well suited to the current planned site of Victoria Tower Gardens. A legislative requirement such as this would certainly prevent its timely delivery and risk the future of the project. We therefore cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, Lady Jones and Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, seeks to impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider alternative proposals for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre as part of the planning process, with the aim of coming up with new, better or different proposals.

I recognise and respect the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has deeply held views on our current proposals and would prefer the Government to change their mind and come up with a different scheme. However, our proposals have been arrived at over many years through a very thorough and lengthy process. It may be helpful if I briefly summarise the process of how we arrived at the current scheme.

Ten years ago, following extensive consultation, the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission submitted its report, Britain’s Promise to Remember. The recommendations in that report, including that there should be a new national Holocaust memorial with an accompanying learning centre, were accepted by all major political parties. An independent, cross-party foundation led a comprehensive search for the most fitting site for a prominent and striking memorial. Assisted by a firm of expert property consultants, the foundation identified and considered around 50 sites. The result was that Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the most suitable location, and the foundation was unanimous in recommending the site to government. As well as giving the memorial the prominence it deserves, it uniquely allows the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament, demonstrating the significance of the Holocaust for the decisions that we take as a nation.

Following an international competition with more than 90 entrants, the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel. After detailed consultation, in which shortlisted schemes toured the UK and a major consultation event for Holocaust survivors was held, the judging panel chose the winning design for a Holocaust memorial with an underground learning centre because of its sensitivity to Victoria Tower Gardens. Public exhibitions were held to gather feedback on the winning design ahead of a planning application.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Walmsley, for Amendment 6, and the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood, Lord Hodgson, Lord Lisvane and Lord Strathcarron, for Amendment 7. Both amendments seek to insert additional steps into the approvals process in the form of reports and resolutions in both Houses before planning permission can be implemented and the construction of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens can begin.

These steps are unnecessary. There is already an established statutory method of gaining planning consent, so there is no need to invent an additional process for this project. The planning process—put in place by Parliament and regulated through the courts—is the proper place for considering developments such as the proposed national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. This process considers diverse perspectives, extensive documentation and expert advice to reach a decision on whether planning consent should be granted.

Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords have the same opportunities as all other citizens to express their opinions about any proposed development. In the case of this planning application, Members of this House spoke at the previous planning inquiry. I have no doubt that many noble Lords will make representations to the designated Minister when he sets out the process for redetermining the planning application. If another planning inquiry is held, I am sure that several noble Lords will take the opportunity to appear and make their views known. The Government have already given an assurance that they will notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but he has come to a point where he has just said “if” another planning inquiry is held. In Committee, he was asked on a number of occasions whether a planning inquiry would be held, and we were told that there might not be a planning inquiry, and that it could all be done by written representations or even by an exchange of letters. Can he reassure the House that a planning inquiry will be held?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me clarify my comments, because that was a slight misinterpretation of what I said in Committee. I said then that the designated Minister would decide how we would take the planning process forward. As part of a number of options, there could be written representations, there could be a consensus by having a round table—though I doubt that that would happen, on the basis of this debate—and there could be a public inquiry. That is entirely the decision and prerogative of the designated planning Minister, and it is part of the planning process, from which we are totally detached.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister’s answer is extremely ambiguous.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

With respect, I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness. The application is live. Subject to the passing of this Bill, there will be a new planning process, when the designated Minister will decide what he will take forward.

[Lord Sassoon (Con)]

I am now getting more and more confused. The Minister has just said that there will be a new planning inquiry, or a new planning process, but before he said that there might be only a round table or written representations. He just used the word “new”—I heard it very clearly. Can the Minister tell us on how many occasions when a planning application has been called in to a Minister has a further planning inquiry been held? I do not know what the precedents are, but it would be very interesting to hear if there are any precedents for a planning inquiry at this stage leading to a new inquiry.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly disagree with the characterisation of what I said. What I said was that the planning application was live, as it is, but that there will be a new planning process. The actual planning application has been quashed because of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. That is why we have brought forward Clause 2, so that we can disapply the powers of the county council Act 1906. I did say, as well, that the designated Minister will decide what process will be used to take the application forward; that could be a round table seeking consensus, a planning inquiry or written representations. That is a decision for the designated Minister; it is not in the remit of what we are discussing. At times, this has sounded very much like a planning committee, but that is not the remit of what the clauses of this Bill set out to do.

I will make progress. The Government have already given an assurance that they will notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable following the reactivation of the planning process for the current application. The restoration and renewal programme of the Palace of Westminster has also been considered. We will continue to work with the team responsible for the restoration and renewal programme to make sure we understand the interactions and potential impacts between the two schemes.

I will briefly clarify comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on the red rating assigned to the programme in the annual reports by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority. That rating, as has been made clear in each report since 2022, reflects the need to obtain Parliament’s approval for this Bill and to recover planning consent. Before losing planning consent in 2022, the programme was rated amber.

It is therefore unnecessary to seek further steps adding a report and a resolution in both Houses when a planning process will have been completed in accordance with the statutory requirements. These amendments would simply add further delays. I therefore ask the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane, Lord Hodgson, Lord Inglewood and Lord Strathcarron, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Walmsley, not to press Amendments 6 and 7.

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, I think that the intent that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and I had has been slightly misinterpreted. When the planning process—I use that general term, because, as we heard in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, it could have a number of different characteristics—has been completed, it may be that that part of the process imposes new requirements and that there is something that the planning process requires of the Government to acknowledge, to achieve or to allow for as the project goes forward. If that is the case then there will be a powerful argument for a reassessment of the achievability and affordability of the programme.

I had intended to test the opinion of the House on my amendment. However, at this late—or perhaps very early—hour, I can hear the first notes of the “Farewell” symphony being played. I do not think the House would be particularly happy if I inflicted another 12 or 13 minutes of Division upon it, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief, but on this side of the Chamber, we feel that these amendments are unnecessary because, as I have said so many times today, the planning process that will follow the passage of the Bill is the correct place to raise those matters. We are also concerned the amendment is not sufficiently specific and may leave the planning process open to an unnecessary legal challenge, which would, again, further delay the delivery of the memorial and learning centre. Therefore, we will not be supporting it.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to ensure that a decision on any planning application must take into account all relevant matters. This amendment is unnecessary. Planning decisions must be taken within a framework of statute and regulation, which Parliament has put into place to make sure that all relevant matters are considered and given appropriate weight. These matters are referred to as “material considerations” in the planning framework.

As noble Lords are well aware, the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre is the subject of a planning application that was originally submitted in late 2018. After the original decision to grant consent was quashed by the High Court in 2022, the application is now awaiting redetermination by a designated Minister. Special handling arrangements have been put in place to ensure that a proper and fair decision under the relevant planning legislation can be taken.

Noble Lords will understand that I speak as the promoter of the Bill and, in effect, as the applicant for planning consent. Therefore, it is not for me to comment in any detail on how the determination decision will be taken. However, I feel confident in saying that the designated Minister will seek to take that decision in accordance with the law. Whatever process is undertaken, whether seeking written representations or through a new planning inquiry, the decision-maker must take into account all relevant matters. There will of course be opportunities for any decision to be challenged in the courts if interested parties believe that relevant matters have not been taken properly into account.

This amendment adds nothing to the responsibilities which already rest on the Minister designated to take the planning decision. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I assume that the Minister, when he said, “seek to take that decision in accordance with the law”, will actually undertake to take the decisions in accordance with the law. I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, seeks to delay the delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre until the authorities of both Houses of Parliament have certified that they are satisfied that the delivery of the project will not impede the delivery of the restoration and renewal of Parliament. Restoration and renewal is indeed a vital project, and the future of our iconic Palace of Westminster is extremely important. This is a symbolic building, a statement of our respect for British parliamentary democracy, and we must press ahead with the restoration and renewal, but these goals do not need to be mutually exclusive.

When I was working in the department and had a responsibility for this part of the work of the department, it was very clear that all these people worked together. The project teams met regularly and they knew what each other was doing, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is still going on. These projects are not being done in isolation. They are being done together and planned together, and the delivery will work because they will talk to each other. The pressure on Westminster’s infrastructure of sustaining two projects of this magnitude is something that we should rightly address during the planning process, although we do not accept that this amendment is at all necessary.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Amendment 9, proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Laing of Elderslie, and the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Blencathra, deals with the important matter of co-ordination between the programme to construct a Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the programme of restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

This is an important topic. It was considered in some depth during the Select Committee as well as in Grand Committee. I had the privilege of a further discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for which I am very grateful. Evidence presented to the Lords Select Committee was that the main restoration and renewal works are not due to start before 2029 at the earliest. I think the estimate is now that 2030 would be the earliest realistic start date—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, made. On that timetable, the question of any direct overlap of the construction period seems unlikely to arise.

I understand that those involved in the planning of the restoration and renewal programme are concerned that the existence of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, once complete, could present problems for their planning. Those concerns relate not to any direct interface between the two projects but to the R&R programme need for planning consents in relation to Victoria Tower Gardens. Quite understandably, there are as yet no firm proposals from the R&R programme about how much of Victoria Tower Gardens will be required, and any application for planning consent appears some way off.

The Government, as promoter of the Holocaust Memorial Bill, made it clear in our response to the Select Committee that we recognise that the interaction between the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the restoration and renewal programme is important and that the interests of users of the gardens need to be considered. We will continue to work with the R&R programme team to understand that interaction, and its potential impacts are being considered—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, alluded to.

I know that many noble Lords will have studied the architectural model of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre last week when it was on show in Parliament in the Royal Gallery. The model helps to show that the memorial structure is at the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens while the learning centre is underground. Even if the R&R programme seeks consent for a good deal of the northern end of the gardens, there will be space available in the central area for all visitors and, of course, the playground will be available for children at the southern end.

Noble Lords may be unsatisfied with the commitment to co-operate and to seek in good faith to overcome practical challenges. The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness implies the need for more formal arrangements to ensure that the interests of Parliament are taken into account. There is already such a mechanism in place. Construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre cannot proceed without planning consent. The process for obtaining such consent, a process laid out in statute and subject to the proper scrutiny of the courts, provides the forum for the interests of neighbours to be taken into account. The authorities of the Palace of Westminster will have the opportunity to present evidence and make arguments ahead of any redetermination of the planning application. The corporate officers of both Houses have made representations in response to formal consultation by the planning casework unit, which is responsible for the redetermination process, I have no doubt that any material they wish to provide will be given proper consideration. It is quite clear, therefore, that the interactions between the Holocaust memorial programme and the R&R programme have been and are being considered at a practical level and that those interactions will be considered formally before any planning decisions are taken.

This amendment, however, seeks much more. In effect, it proposes that those responsible for the R&R programme should have an absolute right of veto over the Holocaust memorial programme. The amendment would mean that the arrangements for making planning decisions, for carefully considering different interests, and for balancing impacts against benefits—arrangements which Parliament has put in place to govern decision-making on all manner of development in all parts of the United Kingdom—should not apply in this case. I do not think such a radical departure is necessary.

I ask noble Lords to consider the practical implications too. The timetable for the R&R programme, for perfectly proper and understandable reasons, is subject to some uncertainty. It is far from clear when it might be possible for those responsible for the R&R programme to give the certification that the proposed amendment envisages. I emphasise once again that I fully understand and agree with the need for co-operation and co-ordination between those responsible for the Holocaust memorial programme and those responsible for the restoration and renewal programme. The R&R programme is a major undertaking and hugely important to secure the future of this iconic Palace. I am confident that, with good will and commitment, there need be no—

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

Who is going to manage the memorial and learning centre programme?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, once planning permission has been granted and when the time is right for the project to move forward, a body will be in charge of the oversight of the project.

I am confident that with good will—

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

So there is nobody appointed who can make preparations and think the whole thing through until it starts?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, once we go through the planning process, provisions will be made in due course, when the time is right.

To conclude, I am confident that, with good will and commitment, there need be no significant conflict between the two programmes. I do not believe it is necessary to make changes to the Bill to ensure co-operation and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 9.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, future parliamentarians will read Hansard and wonder why we were so careless about the progress of R&R. Everything that we have heard in response has been wishful thinking: “Let’s hope it goes okay. With a bit of luck, it will all be managed”. We have heard no detail at all about how those two projects will interact with each other—absolutely nothing. The memorial will go nearly all the way to the Buxton memorial and R&R will be coming up the other end. There is no doubt that they will meet each other or overlap. We have been told that the planning process will deal with all of that but, as earlier questions have shown, we do not know what planning process we are going to get or what it will deal with, so we have no idea what will happen.

As for those poor children in the playground, sandwiched between asbestos, concrete and dust at one end and queues of people and possibly armed guards at the other, I feel for them. I have no option but to withdraw this amendment, but I warn Members that they are treading on thin ice as far as progress of R&R goes. It is not being taken as seriously as it should be and that is a great shame.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will not say very much. Obviously, in any public building, safety has to be a major concern, but once again these concerns about safety should properly be considered within the planning process.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Fookes, Lady Finlay and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendments 11 and 12. I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of the topics that these amendments raise. When constructing any new public building, flood and fire risks and the evacuation strategy must be given the most careful attention. I assure the House that these risks have been considered in depth throughout the development of our proposed design and that there is no possibility of planning consent being granted unless proper provision has been made. No building project can be taken forward unless it complies with extensive regulations relating to flooding, fire and evacuation.

Extensive information about the Holocaust memorial and learning centre considered at the planning inquiry remains publicly available on Westminster City Council’s website. Over 6,400 pages of information relating to the detailed design and the history of the project were published as part of the planning inquiry. Noble Lords interested in the fire and flood risk provisions can see the relevant documents and study them in detail.

We would not be proceeding with a design that we believed exposed visitors to an unacceptable risk. The proposal has been subject to significant scrutiny to ensure that it is compliant with all the relevant regulations. As we develop and implement operational plans, we will of course continue to draw on expert advice and make sure that those plans comply with all relevant standards. The report prepared by the independent planning inspector in 2021 provides a good account of the scrutiny to which the proposals were subjected.

No flooding objections were raised by the Environment Agency or by Westminster City Council at the inquiry. The London Fire Brigade is content with the fire safety arrangements. Let me summarise the key points that demonstrate how seriously we take this matter. Flood risk was indeed identified as a matter for particular consideration when the planning application for our proposal was called in in 2019. The independent planning inspector gave particular attention to flood risk in considering the application. He held a round-table discussion involving interested parties and covered the matter in depth in his report.

London already has significant flood defences. The inspector noted that London is well defended against the risk of tidal flooding. He considered the risk of breach flooding to be extremely remote and believed that flood risk over the lifetime of the development would be acceptably managed. Planning consent was initially granted in 2021, with specific conditions requiring the development of a strategy for maintaining the river wall and the development of a flood risk evacuation plan. I would expect that any new planning consent would have the same or similar conditions attached. I hope I have made it clear that this is a matter we take seriously but it is, as I have said, a matter for the planning application and is subject to detailed scrutiny by appropriate experts.

When it comes to safety, fire is obviously a matter of the first importance. I reassure noble Lords that fire safety has been given close attention throughout the process of designing the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The information provided with the planning application included a detailed report on the relevant parts of the building regulations and set out how the proposed structure would meet those regulations. To pick up on one detail which some noble Lords may be interested in, the proposal includes both main and secondary escape routes from the underground space.

When the planning application was initially approved, a specific condition was agreed that a fire escape plan would be agreed with the local planning authority, Westminster City Council, before the development could take place. There can be no doubt that the fire safety arrangements proposed for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be subject to proper professional scrutiny and no possibility of development taking place if those arrangements are not approved.

These are important matters which I take very seriously and I make no criticism at all of noble Lords who want to be reassured about the arrangements for mitigating fire and flood risk and wanting to ensure that the learning centre has appropriate means of escape. But I also emphasise very strongly that the statutory processes for considering any planning application and ensuring compliance with building regulations are robust mechanisms for addressing fire risk, flood risk and evacuation measures. The Bill does not seek to provide an alternative route for obtaining the authority to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre.

To conclude, the Government and indeed the previous Government have been crystal clear that the Bill does not remove the need to obtain planning and building regulations consent, with all the detailed and expert scrutiny that requires. Amending the Bill to replicate or interfere with the planning process is therefore unnecessary. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 11.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I hope that the future planning process, whatever it is, decided on by the proposer, of course—yes—is a good deal more robust on this matter and with a great deal more detail than the previous one. I sincerely hope I never have need to say, “I warned you, I told you so”. With that, I withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Fookes for bringing forward her Amendment 13, which focuses on the extremely important issue of the heritage here in Westminster, one of the most historically, culturally and architecturally significant parts of our capital. Clearly, the delivery of our national memorial to the Holocaust cannot come at the cost of our national heritage here in Westminster. I know that the Minister will want to reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government will act judiciously to protect that heritage.

I understand completely my noble friend’s concerns, but I do not feel that the amendment is necessary. I assure her that we will keep an eye on what is going on to ensure that the national and global heritage in Westminster is protected for future generations.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes, Lady Blackstone and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for the amendment.

Amendment 13 seeks to delay commencement of the Bill until heritage bodies, including UNESCO, have confirmed that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will not in their view adversely affect the world heritage site, the existing memorials and the gardens. It would be a novel step to overturn long-established procedures for deciding on new development by handing a veto to certain bodies.

Planning decisions in this country are taken within a framework of statute and of policy that allows different views to be heard and that enables all arguments to be properly considered and balanced against each other. The impact of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre on the heritage assets and setting of the world heritage site is a planning matter and has been assessed in detail as part of the statutory planning process, which is the proper forum for examination of such matters.

The planning inspector examined a great deal of evidence on this matter, including representations from Historic England, as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is better known, and UNESCO. The evidence presented by Historic England was that

“the proposals would not significantly harm the Outstanding Universal Value of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site”.

The planning inspector confirmed this view in his report and concluded that the development will not compromise the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site. The planning inspector concluded that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.  The planning inspector’s report still stands as a robust assessment of the proposals.

On UNESCO, the Government take very seriously our commitments and obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of the world heritage convention. Historic England has the statutory duty of advising the Government on the world heritage sites designated under that convention. I have already set out how Historic England has carried out its duty in respect of the Holocaust memorial proposal.

UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has the role of implementing the convention and has the final say on the designation of world heritage sites. The Government take the views of the committee very seriously and provide regular state party reports in response to the committee’s decisions. However, the World Heritage Committee does not hold a power of veto over planning decisions in the UK. It would be a quite remarkable step, with very significant implications, to bestow such a veto on the committee.

On Westminster alone, the World Heritage Committee has expressed views and concerns not simply about the Holocaust memorial but in relation to an extension to a children’s hospital at St Thomas’; the proposed Royal Street development, also across the river in Lambeth; and, of course, the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. There are strong reasons why UNESCO should take an interest in all these proposals.

The heritage impacts, including on the world heritage site, must be carefully considered, but noble Lords will appreciate that there are other matters to be considered too. Simply handing the decision to a body solely focused on heritage would not achieve the balanced assessment of benefits and harms on which a good decision should be based.

This amendment would have the effect of elevating the views of two eminent bodies, one British and one an international committee, above other consultees and the views of the Minister designated to take a decision on the planning application. In effect, it would mean that the balancing exercise intrinsic to planning decisions could not be carried out. In other words, if we were to say to Historic England and UNESCO that they may decide on all planning matters they consider relevant to the world heritage site, I cannot see how we could restrict such an arrangement simply to a Holocaust memorial. On what basis would we say that Historic England and UNESCO should have the final word on a Holocaust memorial that sits close to a world heritage site, but not on other developments nearby, still less those that fall within a designated site?

High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, it is a privilege to stand before the Committee today to address the important topic of high streets and the findings of the Built Environment Committee. I thank the committee for raising this debate and for its insightful report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for his opening remarks, and congratulate him on his appointment, replacing the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and filling what I see as big shoes. I thank the noble Lord for the work that he did in his role as chair.

This Government are committed to rejuvenating our high streets. We recognise the shifting tides of online and out-of-town retail, as well as the decline of local government funding by the previous Government, which have left our town centres depleted. However, like the committee’s report, the Government do not support a narrative of unmitigated decline, which serves only to sap confidence further. Instead, we should see the opportunities to reimagine high streets and to empower local places to deliver the right plan for their area. We must also recognise that high streets are symptomatic of wider issues in the economy and in society. To boost our town centres, we must address these root causes by investing in a stronger economy and in safer streets, as well as by empowering local leaders and communities to help town centres adapt to a world no longer dominated by physical retail.

That is why this Government are committed to transferring power out of Westminster and into local communities. The English devolution Bill will give local leaders the tools to kick-start their economies, as well as empowering communities to transform their neighbourhoods and high streets. We are expanding and deepening the powers available to mayors and strategic authorities. This includes integrated funding settlements for mayors who have a strong track record of delivery, as well as new powers over strategic planning to give all strategic authorities autonomy to plan for housing growth. Densified housing in our towns can address the need for homes, build new communities and support high street footfall.

We are also providing powers to help local leaders and communities take action to regenerate their area. One in seven high street premises currently stands vacant, yet our communities remain unable to retain vital assets. Community assets such as shops, pubs and community spaces have a significant role to play in developing social networks, encouraging community and promoting civic pride. Our “community right to buy” will empower local people to bring pubs and other important spaces back into the hands of the community, tackling the deep feeling of powerlessness felt by many in our society who care profoundly about preserving communities.

In addition, we are taking action against the familiar sight of shop fronts being boarded up and left empty for too long with high street rental auctions. The powers enable local authorities to tackle decline by bringing vacant units back into use, auctioning a lease to interested bidders and helping to make the high street more accessible and affordable for tenants, including small and medium enterprises, local businesses and community groups.

We recognise that businesses are vital to high street success. It is key that we create an environment in which they can flourish. To that end, we are making progress on reforming business rates. Parliament has now approved an Act enabling permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from next April. This permanent tax cut will ensure that these properties benefit from much-needed certainty and support. We have also established a licensing policy task force to make recommendations to reform the licensing framework in order to foster a vibrant hospitality and night-time economy.

We will also take action to address the rise of anti-social behaviour, which can be so damaging to businesses and off-putting to residents. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee and the creation of new offences in our Crime and Policing Bill, we will restore order in our town centres and empower the police to act against unacceptable behaviour. We will also provide more than £7 million in funding over the next three years to support the police in tackling retail crime.

I turn to the points made by noble Lords in the debate. I start with the points made by my noble friend Lady Andrews in relation to the plan for neighbourhoods. The Government recently announced the plan for neighbourhoods programme as a successor to the long-term plan for towns, which noble Lords referenced. The prospectus was published in March 2025; I commend it to noble Lords.

We are putting power into the hands of local people with our plan for neighbourhoods; the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, touched on this. This will address deprivation, regenerate local areas and unleash the full potential of places that have been overlooked for far too long. Neighbourhood boards are bringing together residents, businesses and grass-roots campaigners to draw up and implement plans for how they will spend up to £20 million of funding; this could be on repairing pavements in high streets, setting up community grocers that provide low-cost alternatives when shopping for essentials or establishing neighbourhood watches to keep people safe. We want to empower boards to tackle the root causes of disengagement and division, to bring people together so that they can feel proud of their area and safe in their neighbourhood, to restore a collective sense of belonging in their community.

My noble friend Lady Andrews asked me about the high street accelerators programme. This will now end in June 2025, at which point the Government will carry out a review of the programme to help inform future interventions on the high street. We hope that the current partnerships will evolve into sustainable teams that are embedded in the local area and continue to work on projects that help high streets to thrive.

The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, talked about high street rental auctions. We are proud to roll out this fantastic new tool to enable councils to reduce vacancy rates and the visual blight of empty shops. These powers are available to all councils to use right now, and we encourage them to do so.

To help with the initial implementation of the high street rental auctions, we have set aside a new burdens payment to cover costs, such as those borne through the notice and auction processes. Over £1 million of funding has been made available to support delivery for all local authorities in England to create high street vacancy registers and to support the cost of refurbishing vacant premises.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, talked about accessibility and physical well-being. Accessibility is an important issue. I fully agree with the need for inclusive design embedding physical well-being into high streets. The plan for neighbourhoods offers communities the option to invest in measures to improve access and physical health.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott, talked about transport accessibility. Effective transport is key to regeneration and plays an essential role in driving footfall to our towns and high streets. We have provided long-term funding to improve the transport network in local areas to transform and unlock regeneration opportunities. Local leaders will be empowered to choose the bus operating model that works for their area through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which was introduced on 17 December 2024. This includes several options to improve bus services, such as franchising and establishing new local authority-owned bus companies.

On the point about funding support for local services, local government is vital for the delivery of the Government’s missions and it delivers more than 800 services to local people every day. This is the front line of public services; it deserves a government working alongside it, as equal partners in power.

Taken together, the additional funding announced by the Chancellor at the Autumn Budget and through the 2025-26 local government finance settlement will provide over £5 billion of new funding for local services, beyond local council tax. This includes an additional £2 billion in grants through the settlement, a guarantee that local authorities in England will receive at least £1.1 billion in 2025-26 from the new extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme and a further £233 million for homelessness services. We are delivering a settlement that aims to strengthen the foundations of local government by providing significant investment and redirecting funds to the services and places that need it most.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, about funding, we will set a refreshed approach to local growth funding at the spending review in the spring. This will include more integrated settlements over the longer term, with less central direction and more local choice. This is a point that the noble Baroness asked me about.

On public services and amenities, when it comes to new government services, we already consider broader benefits where appropriate and will keep further options for provision under review. Departmental spending proposals must follow the principles outlined in the Green Book, which is the government guidance on appraisal.

I move on to another point raised in my noble friend Lady Andrews’ comprehensive contribution, and by other noble Lords, about a small business strategy. This year, the Government will bring forward a small business strategy that will set out our plan to support SMEs, including consideration of how best to support our high streets to make sure that they are providing vibrant places for our communities and fertile environments for our businesses. The small business strategy will also boost scale-ups in growing the co-operative economy, making it easier to access finance, opening up overseas and domestic markets, building business capabilities and providing a strong business environment.

We also have a programme called Experience on Main Street, which promotes UK creative businesses that specialise in placemaking to decision-makers responsible for high street regeneration projects; these include retailers, local and regional government, real estate owners and urban planners. This is all to encourage the reimagination and revival of high street spaces by using creative services and products.

The noble Lord, Lord Mair, made some very interesting comments about markets. I agree that markets are an institutional part of the high street and provide local areas with a valuable community space. The Government recognise the role that markets play in providing access to good-quality, healthy and affordable food and in providing local people with opportunities for social engagement and inclusion. They can also help to build the local economy by boosting footfall and providing opportunities for entrepreneurs and start-up businesses to test new and innovative products. It is for local authorities and other market operatives to decide how best to operate and manage their markets. We encourage local authorities and market operators to continue to support market traders as they consider the best path forward to help markets thrive.

My noble friend Lady Andrews asked about business rates. The Government are looking at business rates reform in the round. We have already legislated to reduce tax rates on the high street, and the Chancellor will announce further plans for this in the autumn.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Lord, Lord Mair, discussed the use classes for planning. The commercial, business and service use class—known as use class E —groups together various uses, such as shops, gyms, restaurants, offices, and medical or health facilities, which means that planning permission is no longer required to switch between those uses. This change enables premises to respond quickly to how communities want to use their high streets, giving business owners and landlords the freedom to adapt swiftly to changing consumer demand. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mair, and my noble friend Lady Andrews, we will continue to keep planning use classes under review, to ensure that they meet the needs of our communities and businesses.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked for more clarification about parking. We know that the practices and behaviours of parking operators need to change. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 places a duty on the Government to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities. This Government are determined to drive up standards in the private parking sector and will announce their plan for the new code in due course. Parking is the responsibility of local authorities, and this Government are keen to empower them to make decisions about their local areas, since they are best placed to consider how local needs can be effectively met through their local transport plans.

The noble Lord, Lord Mair, talked about arts and culture and about adding colour to our town centres and high streets, which shape and reflect society and are enjoyed by people in every part of our country. We announced over £270 million of investment for our arts venues, museums, libraries, and heritage sector. We also recently announced an £85 million creative foundations fund to help arts and cultural organisations, with varying scales of need, to resolve urgent issues with their infrastructure.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, discussed parish councils. We absolutely recognise that town and parish councils have an important role in improving the quality of life and well-being of their communities, and in creating places where people are proud to live. They are close to the communities they serve, know their communities’ needs and can champion the priorities of local people and design the right services that work for their places. The Government are committed to building stronger communities where people feel proud of their neighbourhoods and actively contribute to their development.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised money laundering. To be profoundly clear, I assure him that we take this very seriously. That is why we are building up local enforcement capacity and smashing the gangs. We will continue to look at what more we can do in this area.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. High streets arouse strong emotions. This Government recognise the challenges that high streets face and welcome the spotlight shone by this report. With the right actions and the right leadership, we can make a different future for our town centres—a future that is more sustainable, more resilient, more connected and more aligned to the way we live our lives today. How will we achieve that? I have outlined some of our policies, but let me summarise them.

From Burnley to Pendle, our town centres need a purpose and a vision, linked to jobs and amenities and tied into a wider local growth plan. This Government are making this possible by pushing powers and funding out of Westminster, delivering the devolution that is required to transform the prospects of our towns. Alongside this, we are fixing the fundamentals: boosting local government funding; giving a permanent business rates cut to retail, hospitality and leisure; deregulating our cumbersome licensing laws; and investing in skills, jobs and infrastructure up and down the country.

We are also wasting no time in showing people real, visible improvements now. That is why we are putting 13,000 neighbourhood officers on the streets, making new laws to tackle anti-social behaviour, giving councils new powers to force open vacant shops and giving communities a right to buy valued assets such as the local pub. Through the plan for neighbourhoods, we are giving the most deprived places funding to clean up their high street or give it a makeover.

In summary, we are committed to fixing the foundations of the economy on which our towns depend, while giving local people the tools to revitalise their communities now. This is an exciting agenda which the Government are so proud to be delivering. My noble friend Lady Andrews referred to “imagination, leadership and innovation”, and that is exactly what the Government are providing.

I thank the Built Environment Committee again for an excellent report, and all noble Lords for their wise contributions to this important debate. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who I know will do a brilliant job because he is from a smashing part of the country—Lancashire; he is my neighbour, in Pendle. It is great to be responding to him, as he is chair of the committee.

Climate Change: Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the increased risk of wildfires caused by climate change; and when they will publish a Wildfire Strategy and Action Plan.

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

My Lords, outdoor fires, especially wildfires, are expected by many academics to increase in frequency and impact, predominantly driven by climate change. The Home Office, as the former lead government department for wildfire, worked closely with Defra, its agencies and other stakeholders to identify policy options to enhance our resilience and response to wildfires. The outcomes of this work are currently being considered following the transition of fire functions to MHCLG on 1 April.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we are having a bad wildfire year, with 439 wildfires and 95 square miles burned already. By mid-April, the total burned area will be the second worst on record. Wildfires are devastating to people and property, and brutal to our biodiversity and net-zero efforts. I push the Government to do more. I ask the Minister to review our wildfire resilience plans for the rest of this year, to respond to the NFCC’s urgent calls for dedicated funding and specialist equipment, and for further action to improve public education.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl is right to raise this important issue. The numbers he highlighted are worrying. We are working closely with the NFCC. We continue to fund the national resilience wildfire adviser, who is tasked with reviewing capability and approaches across the fire sector. We are also providing proactive public safety communications on barbeques, cigarettes and open fires, in collaboration with the National Fire Chiefs Council.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that there are three key ingredients to a wildfire: ignition, oxygen and fuel load? As most of the owners of our treasured landscape do not look after the fuel load, they are complicit in the wildfire problem. Would the Minister check that Natural England has the right scientists on board to advise these NGOs and other owners, and that it is taking account of the latest science on wildfire?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl made an interesting point and spoke about the ingredients that contribute to wildfires. On his request to check with Natural England, I will go back and check with colleagues on this particular area. We work with stakeholders across the country, in particular local fire and rescue services and fire authorities in relevant areas. I will come back to the noble Earl with some assurances of the work Natural England is doing.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I encourage my noble friend the Minister to talk to the devolved nations and regions, particularly the Northern Ireland Executive. In Northern Ireland, there has been considerable prevalence of wildfires over the last months and the last few years. Could the Minister discuss with the devolved nations and regions causes and mitigation measures to ensure the protection of natural wildlife habitats?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to highlight that wildfire is a devolved issue. The national resilience wildfire adviser covers the whole United Kingdom. My department has a very strong relationship with the devolved Governments across all areas, but I will have conversations with relevant counterparts within the devolved departments—those in Northern Ireland in particular—and find out more about how we can do things more collaboratively, as this issue affects all our nations.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

Would the Minister look at the policy on moorland and the selective burning of firebreaks? Some of the policies, which do not allow any burning at all, mean that, if it does catch, the whole thing goes up and it is much harder to control. In the old days there was selective burning for producing firebreaks, which meant you could control fires much more easily.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Earl made an important point. I highlight that the responsibility for land management policies sits with my colleagues in Defra. I understand there are a number of methods that land managers may use to mitigate wildfire risk. Defra recognises that, in certain circumstances, prescribed burning may be the most important tool. Defra encourages landowners and land managers to adopt good-quality wildfire management plans and to use sustainable methods to manage habitats.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right to describe climate change as the driver for the wildfires. Mitigation is always good in land management plans and so on, but what about the initial point of climate change? What more can the Government do? Can they go further and faster on various issues?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right. I have said before about climate change. I understand the Met Office predicts that the UK will experience more frequent and intense weather extremes. It is widely believed that the impact of climate change is likely to increase and intensify fire incidence. We are already doing so much. We are the leading department for wildfire response and own wildfire risk in the national risk register. We are looking at relationships and co-ordinating across government between key wildfire stakeholders. We have already appointed a national resilience wildfire adviser, who we will work closely with, and are working with the NFCC on the very important issues the noble Baroness outlined.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, we have just seen quite a devastating fire on Beeley Moor in Derbyshire. Everybody would want the Government to do as much as they can to help educate adults. Have the Government considered banning disposable barbeques?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, my thoughts are with the people affected by the fire in Derbyshire. The noble Lord makes a strong argument, and I will take that away with me to reflect upon.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I think we are all aware of the devastating recent fires in Los Angeles. If we understand correctly, part of that was due to underinvestment and lack of planning locally. I do not think the Minister quite answered the Question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, so I ask again: what are the Government going to do, particularly in rural areas, to make sure we have adequate equipment? That includes the availability of planes and helicopters for bringing water in, and training our firefighters to respond effectively to the risk of wildfires, which we are increasingly seeing.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government understand this issue. Officials have undertaken extensive consultation with stakeholders to consider current challenges and policy options, host workshops on prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, and produce a comprehensive policy scoping report to inform Ministers of the next steps on this important issue. Since the transfer of functions on 1 April, the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Local Growth has been working hard to meet key partners and understand the challenges facing the fire sector, including wildfire. I know he is committed to leading this work and continues to support our fire and rescue services to provide the best possible service to help keep our communities safe.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, could my noble friend take this opportunity to praise the work of our brave fire and rescue service operatives, who have to deal with these sorts of fires on a daily basis? Does this topic not emphasise the fact that, despite the great reduction in domestic fires in recent years, we still need a fully effective, well-staffed and well-trained fire and rescue service to deal with the modern challenges we face?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I praise all those brave people for serving our country by dealing with fire and rescue. I will make a particular point about resourcing: overall, fire and rescue authorities will receive around £2.87 billion in 2024-25, and stand-alone fire and rescue authorities will see an increase in core spending power of up to £65.5 million in 2025-26, which includes the national insurance contributions grant. This is an increase of 3.6% in cash terms compared with 2024-25. Decisions on how their resources are best deployed to meet their core functions are a matter for each fire and rescue authority. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders across the sector to ensure that fire and rescue services have the resources they need to protect communities.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, as we face this problem, the two most important things are prevention and mitigation. Will the Minister tell his department to review the current policy that prevents landowners creating firebreaks, as it currently does more damage to the climate rather than save it?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a really important point. As I said previously, fire functions have been transferred from the Home Office to my department. I will work very closely with officials and push them, particularly on the point the noble Baroness raises. I will also have a meeting with the designated Minister to scope the options, reports and approaches available here; we will make sure that her point is considered and reflected on in our discussions.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.

1C: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B to F. Motions A to D and Motion F ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B, 8B and 15B to 15E. The other place disagreed to these amendments on the basis that they interfere with the public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is sufficient.

Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B and 8B seek to allow the Treasury to exclude healthcare and anchor stores from the higher multiplier through regulations. As set out in this House previously, these amendments are unnecessary as the powers they seek to create already exist in the Bill.

The measures set out in Clauses 1 to 4 deliver on the Government’s commitment as set out at the Autumn Budget. Furthermore, they represent the first step of this Government’s work to transform the business rates system. It is essential that the Government are able to progress this work by taking this first step.

Further reforms will come, as the Government have made clear, and further information on this will be set out in the coming months. We want to start our journey with the Bill. Therefore, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments.

Amendments 15B to 15E would move the decision to remove charitable rate relief from private schools from one being made by Parliament in the Bill to one that would be made by the Secretary of State through regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure. I have already stated the Government’s view that this is a matter for Parliament to decide, which is why we have invited Parliament to do so through the Bill. For these reasons I ask that noble Lords do not insist on these amendments.

Motion E asks the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, not to insist on his Amendment 13B. The other place disagreed to this amendment on the basis that the Government have already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary. The first part of Amendment 13B is concerned with a review that would consider the impacts of Clauses 1 to 4 on properties with a rateable value close to £500,000. I understand that this is seeking to further understand the way that the multipliers in business rates operate and whether the thresholds within the system serve as a disincentive to invest. As previously set out in this House, the Government have already committed to looking at this question through the broader transforming business rates work, and therefore to stipulate this in legislation is not necessary.

The second part of Amendment 13B seeks a review of the merits of a new use class within business rates and an associated multiplier for online fulfilment warehouses. As I have set out previously, this question has arisen over recent years and is something in which the Government have an interest. First, I should be clear to the House that the Government’s intention at this time is to have only one higher multiplier and for that to be applied to all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. However, I understand that the noble Lord’s amendment is more concerned with the ability to target online-focused warehouses. I assure the noble Lord and the House that the Bill already provides the Government with the ability to introduce additional higher multipliers in future if required.

The noble Lord’s amendment explored how these online warehouses can be identified in business rates. We have looked at this again, and I remain sure that the best place to tackle this is through the digitalising business rates project. This project links together HMRC and VOA data from which we expect to be able to identify online businesses operating distribution warehouses separately from businesses that operate on the high street. I hope I can give the noble Lord some further reassurance on what we have found. The project will create opportunities to better target business rates policy in future by having access to more comprehensive data. Using this data, the Government could target particular types of businesses within the warehousing sector. I believe this is what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. Such an approach will do that systematically, using the latest data and technology, and give us the best prospect of a solution that can be fully integrated into the business rates system.

We are confident that this approach is preferable to one that looks to categorise how individual warehouses are being used on the ground, especially given that one warehouse used by one type of business may in practice be used in much the same way as another used by another type of business. Attempting to categorise warehouses by how they are used as opposed to who they are used by, without more accurate data on the businesses using them, risks capturing warehouses used by businesses that we are seeking to protect, creating a far higher burden on high street retailers. I am aware that the noble Lord feels that this is valuable, and I recognise that. I hope he can understand why the Government cannot accept the amendment. However, we are prepared to keep engaging with him on this matter, be that directly with him or with the three professional bodies he mentions in his amendment. On this basis, I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to insist on his amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The Bill not only fails to deliver on the Government’s manifesto but is far from the reform of the business rates system that was promised and will be a damaging blow to our high streets. We have debated the numerous issues present in the Bill a number of times, and I remain exceptionally concerned about the higher multiplier that will undoubtedly hit anchor stores in town centres; the impact of the blunt £500,000 threshold on businesses with values close to that margin, which will affect their decisions about investment; and the Government’s decision to place a tax on education. We have urged them time and again to rethink, but they remain unmoved by our arguments and, more importantly, by the views of people and businesses across the country. I hope that anchor stores will not leave the high street and that this will not result in the destruction of our town centres, but the Government are making it more difficult for those businesses with this blunt tool, which will hit larger stores with higher business taxes.

The Government have rejected even our amendments that would have allowed the Secretary of State to exempt certain businesses if this proved to be damaging, but they are so confident in this increase to business rates that they do not need that power to reverse these decisions. Only time will tell whether that confidence was misguided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few words about independent schools. Throughout, the Government’s position has been in essence that we have to take away—they say—some of the resources of 7% of our country’s schools to enable 93% to make improvements. State schools will gain little or nothing from Labour’s tax raid, which will simply harm independent schools. Throughout our debates, I have tried to provide a voice for small independent schools, as president of the Independent Schools Association, whose 720 members are, for the most part, cherished small local schools. As I have said several times, 40% of independent schools have under 100 pupils. Their future is now in jeopardy, thanks to this Government. Ministers will be held to account here in Parliament and in the country at large for the damage their policies will do to these schools, which contribute so richly to our communities in spheres such as special needs, music, the arts and sport, as I and a number of noble friends have shown in these debates. Labour’s discriminatory tax burdens threaten their very survival.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short debate, as well as all those who have dedicated their time and efforts to scrutinising this Bill. I am especially thankful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott of Bybrook, the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Jamieson, Lord Thurlow, Lord Moynihan, Lord Lexden, Lord Black of Brentwood, Lord Storey and Lord Shipley, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. The time and consideration noble Lords have given to this Bill are greatly appreciated and, while I acknowledge that it is not always possible to see eye to eye, I hope they understand the appreciation I have for their efforts and expertise. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for their agreement not to insist on these amendments.

Through the Bill, we are beginning to deliver on our ambition to transform the business rates system. In taking our first vital step on that path, we are ensuring a sustainable, funded, permanent tax cut for retail, hospitality and leisure properties that will be provided from April 2026. Furthermore, the Government are delivering on their commitment to break down barriers to opportunity by removing the business rates charitable relief from private schools, to help raise vital revenue to support the delivery of the Government’s commitments to education and young people. I am aware that the noble Baroness does not agree with the Government on this matter, but I hope she understands our position, and that it is vital that we take the tough but necessary decisions to ensure that the same opportunities are afforded to all children, regardless of where they come from or their financial background.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, invited me to write a letter on a question. I am going to reject that invitation because I have the answer for her now. She asked specifically about the powers to exclude classes of properties from the higher multiplier if we wanted to in future. We have the powers in Clause 3. Specifically, the powers referred to in that clause allow us to exclude classes of hereditaments from the higher multiplier.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for his remarks. I am aware that he is concerned about the timetable for the digitalising business rates project. The solution to that problem lies in the linking of business and property data, and in the project itself. I look forward to engaging with the noble Lord, along with officials. Once again, I thank him and all noble Lords for not insisting on their amendments.

Motion A agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2C.

2C: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7C.

7C: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8C.

8C: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 13B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 13C.

13C: Because the government has already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary.

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15F.

15F: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, to follow on a little from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I want to say that I think most of us would be delighted to see a decent memorial and learning centre to the victims of the ghastly Holocaust, but not here. I am afraid it is a completely bonkers idea—and I want to put that clearly, because it is a bonkers idea. I would love to see Yad Vashem in London—and those who have not been there should go. It is one of the most moving places I have been to, and I have been three times altogether. It is absolutely extraordinary, but it could not possibly be in the space we are talking about. Perhaps it could be in the grounds of the Imperial War Museum, which wanted this learning centre in the first place.

I am not going to dwell on everything that has been said before. I just mention something that my noble friend Lady Fookes talked about—namely, green spaces. Every Government say that we have to have green spaces. I remember Rishi Sunak saying it, and I am sure that Keir Starmer would have said it—the Minister can bear me out if he has. We need green spaces for people, and I think I am right in saying that this is the only green space between Fulham Palace gardens and the other side of the City of London that runs along the north side of the river. That is pretty extraordinary—it is the only green space where you can walk beside the river without a road in the way and see it from a green area. It is extraordinary to want to destroy it when there are no others.

On security, to back up what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, a lot has been said, although I am afraid I missed the part on security. I do not know whether it was discussed last week—

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

It was.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I know it was discussed last week. But what do you do with all the people visiting if, for instance, the King were to die, God forbid? Did we discuss what would have happened with all those people visiting the late Queen Elizabeth? Thousands of people were in that park. Where would they go now? That is a very reasonable point. Also, I know it has been discussed at length but if we have renovation and renewal, or whatever it is called, there will have to be a slight discussion.

What I particularly want to talk about on my noble friend Lady Fookes’s amendment is the council and planning permission. I should declare as an interest that I am a resident of Westminster and, indeed, that my wife is on Westminster City Council. When it came before the council in, I think, 2019, it was turned down completely—I think, although the Minister might be able to tell me, not just by the Conservatives who were then in power but by the Labour Party as well. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think I am. It is very important that people understand that those are the views of local people. Again, I thought that not just Conservatives but the Labour Party wanted the views of local people taken into account, but they are not going to be on this.

I do not want to repeat everything that has been said. I will say just two things, to be answered by the Minister. Does the Minister believe that the views of the local people of Westminster count, or are we not going to have another planning application? Does the Minister believe in the importance of environmental and open spaces beside the river and elsewhere in London, or is everything just to be bulldozed and trampled over? If that is the case, we might as well all just give up anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have nothing further to say, my Lords.

Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, touches on an important issue. Obviously, we would not want any proposals to damage or undermine the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey or St Margaret’s. These are sites of immense value to the British people, and the abbey is of global architectural importance. That said, again, we do not feel that this amendment is necessary, and these questions should be addressed, as always, through the planning process.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Fookes, for bringing these amendments. This group of amendments seeks to put in place a series of new requirements that must be met before progress could be made with construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre.

It may be helpful if I briefly remind the Grand Committee that a very extensive process has already been followed in the journey from the 2015 report of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. The commission consulted extensively before submitting its report, entitled Britain’s Promise to Remember, in January 2015. The recommendations in that report were accepted by all major political parties. An independent, cross-party foundation then led an extensive search for the right site. The foundation included experienced and eminent property developers. A firm of professional property consultants was commissioned to provide assistance. Around 50 sites were identified and considered.

The outcome is of course well known: Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the most suitable site. The foundation was unanimous in recommending the site, which gives the memorial the prominence it deserves and which uniquely allows the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament. The design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel after an international competition with more than 90 entrants.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Is it not true that the original commission put forward three positions, and none of them was Victoria Tower Gardens?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Yes, that is right.

After detailed consultation in which shortlisted schemes toured the UK and a major consultation event for Holocaust survivors was held, the judging panel chose the winning design for a Holocaust memorial with a collocated learning centre because of its sensitivity to Victoria Tower Gardens. Public exhibitions were held to gather feedback on the winning design ahead of a planning application. As the law requires, further consultation took place around the planning application. More than 4,000—

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister believe that the description “collocated” includes being in the same building? What the commission actually said was that the learning centre should be located in close proximity, not in the same building. If one organisation tries to tell you that in this instance “collocated” includes being in the same building, I am afraid that that is a definitional mistake and quite misleading.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can only refer back to the word “collocated” which was used about the Holocaust memorial alongside the learning centre.

I would like to make some progress and I know that I have a number of questions to answer. Please can I get through some of the background of where we are? I hope we can address the amendments, and I will take interventions, as required.

As I have said, as the law requires, further consultation took place around the planning application. More than 4,000 written representations were submitted. A six-week planning inquiry was held, in public, at which more than 50 interested parties spoke; I believe some noble Lords were there. All the details of the planning application—over 6,000 pages of information, all of which remains publicly accessible online—were closely scrutinised. The design team, and indeed the co-chairs of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, were cross-examined by learned counsel.

Following the planning inquiry, the independent inspector then submitted his detailed and lengthy report to the Minister with a recommendation that consent should be granted. The Minister agreed with that recommendation. The planning decision was, of course, subsequently quashed by the High Court, on the basis that certain parts of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 prevented development in Victoria Tower Gardens. That is why we are promoting this Bill: to seek Parliament’s agreement that the statutory impediment should be lifted for the purposes of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. However, the planning decision still needs to be retaken by the designated Minister—for the sake of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and other noble Lords in the Committee, that would be Jim McMahon—in accordance with proper procedures and in line with all relevant statutory requirements.

I turn now to Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. This would require a new planning application, which would take us back to 2018. I see no possible justification for such a step. The planning application submitted in 2018 remains current. The planning process which is under way has provided, and will provide, all the proper opportunities for consultation and scrutiny. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 21.

Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, calls for a new impact assessment. I have pointed out already that the impacts of the proposal have been studied in depth and a great deal of material has been published on the Westminster City Council planning portal. Noble Lords who wish to consider further the educational impact of the proposal could review the evidence provided by Professor Stuart Foster of the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education, who told the inquiry that the learning centre

“will offer visitors an engaging, interactive and dynamic experience … underpinned by rigorous scholarship and the advice and expertise of some of the leading academics and specialists in the field”.

It will

“offer different insights and critical interpretations of what Britain did and did not do in response to events”,

and

“will serve as a catalyst for deeper engagement and interest in Holocaust education across the country”.

For an assessment of the impacts on air quality, archaeology, soils, flood risk, traffic and water quality—and a great deal more—noble Lords could review the environmental assessment which remains available online. The expected costs of the proposal have been presented to Parliament and will be updated in line with the normal arrangements for major projects. This clause simply requires work to be duplicated, causing further unnecessary delay, so I ask the noble Lord not to move Amendment 34.

Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to insert an additional step into the process for obtaining all the required permissions and consents for construction of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens. Such a clause can hardly be justified. Both Houses of Parliament have had the opportunity to consider very carefully the case for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre at VTG; I need hardly remind noble Lords that this Bill has already received its Second Reading in this House, having been agreed by the other House last summer. It has certainly been no secret that the Government are promoting this Bill with the express purpose of enabling construction of the scheme for which planning permission was sought in December 2018.

Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords have the same opportunities as all other citizens and residents to express their opinions about any proposed development. In the case of this particular planning application, Members of this House made their views clear and spoke very forcefully at the planning inquiry. The Palace of Westminster of course has an interest as a neighbour to the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Like any other neighbour, Parliament can make its views known through the planning system and be confident that those views will be given due weight.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Does the Minister see any internal contradiction in what he says? He says repeatedly that these issues can be considered in a planning application, but at the same time he also says that the Minister can decide what to do about a planning application. As we have said repeatedly, there is absolutely no guarantee that there will be any space of any sort for these issues to be considered. Is it not important to the Minister that the original planning application was made six or seven years ago? Any politician will tell you that the world has changed—Westminster has changed, the atmosphere has changed and the climate has changed in the last seven years. How can it be right to ignore all of that, not answering the questions that have been put this afternoon, and ignoring the elephant in the room—that the project now proposed is a very far cry from that which was recommended in 2015 and accepted by David Cameron, then the Prime Minister? This is a million miles away from what was proposed and accepted then.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I politely disagree with the noble Baroness—there is no inconsistency. My job in promoting the Bill is to look at the two main clauses along with the third one, which says that the Bill applies to England and Wales. Planning permission is absolutely for the designated Minister. As a proposal of national significance, it is perfectly proper for a planning decision to be taken by a Minister rather than by a local planning authority. When these arrangements were challenged in a judicial review in 2020, that challenge did not succeed.

Perhaps I can just make some more progress. Like any other neighbour, Parliament can make its views known through the planning system.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

With the greatest respect to the Minister, if the Planning Minister is somebody different, why is he not here answering these questions today?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, that is not the way planning works. I will leave my remarks there, in the sense that it is up to the designated planning Minister how he takes this process forward, but there will be a planning process, which is right. It is not ideal for this House, through this Bill in particular, to be discussing planning applications. That is not the role of this Committee on this Bill in particular.

As I said before, Parliament can make its views known through the planning system and can be confident that those views will be given due weight. We have well-established provisions in place to allow a decision to be challenged if proper weight is not given. The Lords Select Committee considered this matter, and the Government were pleased to give an assurance that they would notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable following the reactivation of the planning process in respect of the current application.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down—I am sorry to harass him—

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Can I just make a point to the noble Lord?

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

Of course.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am not anywhere near sitting down for a while yet, because I have a number of points to make—but I will take the noble Lord’s intervention then.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, raised this point in his amendment. The Government were pleased to give an assurance that they would notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable, following the reactivation of the planning process in respect of the current application. The planning process, put in place by Parliament and regulated through the courts, is the proper place for considering developments such as the proposed national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. There is no justification for seeking to add further steps into the approval process, which can only cause unnecessary delay and uncertainty. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 38.

Finally in this group, Amendment 42 from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, proposes that an additional approval should be required before the Bill could come into effect. This is a convenient place for me to respond to the questions put to me earlier by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, who I regret to say is not in his place today but who talked passionately about UNESCO—so it is ideal that I now talk to the points made by the noble Lord previously.

The Government’s obligations with regard to UNESCO were asked about. In brief, those obligations rest on Articles 4 and 5 of the world heritage convention. That convention initiated the world heritage list, which identifies the cultural and natural heritage across the globe considered to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. I need hardly say that the Government take those obligations extremely seriously.

The Government’s statutory adviser on the historic environment, including on world heritage sites, is Historic England, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said. There is a great deal of helpful information on Historic England’s website relating to the world heritage convention and its significance for the 35 UK sites currently on the world heritage list. In practical terms, as Historic England explains on its website:

“Protection for World Heritage in England is provided by a combination of the spatial planning system and national designations (for example, listed buildings, scheduled monuments, sites of special scientific interest … that cover elements, if not the whole, of the site. The heritage significance of a World Heritage Site (its ‘outstanding universal value’)”—


which the noble Baroness referred to—

“may be reflected, at least in part, in the significance of any listed building, scheduled monument … or other heritage asset that forms part of it where this relates to its”

outstanding universal value. It continues:

“The provisions and protections under the planning system that apply to any such elements within a World Heritage Site are an important element, ensuring that the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site is recognised and taken into account”.


Having addressed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on the general context, I turn to the specific example of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and its potential impact on the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey, including St Margaret’s Church, a world heritage site. In line with the provisions and protections of the planning system that I referred to a moment ago, the potential impact of the memorial and learning centre on the world heritage site and its settings has been properly considered and fully taken into account.

Historic England, in its role as statutory adviser, provided pre-application advice on the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Its written advice was in front of the independent planning inspector, who considered the planning application—as indeed a further statement from a highly qualified representative of Historic England was considered. That statement reminded the inspector of Historic England’s role

“in advising Government in relation to World Heritage Sites and compliance with the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage. It is the lead body for the heritage sector and the Government’s principal adviser on the historic environment”.

On the specific question on the impact of the proposal, the statement confirmed the view that Historic England has set out in its pre-planning advice, following a detailed consideration of the proposal. The view was that

“the proposals would not significantly harm the Outstanding Universal Value of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site”.

The planning inspector did, of course, have the benefit of hearing other opinions on this matter, including opponents of the scheme who took a different view from Historic England. The inspector, having heard all the evidence, was able to come to a fully informed view about the potential impact of the application on the World Heritage site. His assessment was that the proposed UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre

“would not result in compromise to the”—

outstanding universal value of the world heritage site—

“because it does not harm it or its setting, thus conserving it”.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Why, therefore, has UNESCO continued to reiterate its

“serious concerns that the proposed location of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre … would have a significant adverse impact on the OUV of the property, and therefore requests the State Party to refrain from any action which would allow the current proposal to proceed, and to seek alternative locations and/or designs”?

UNESCO has said that, I think, four times now.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can talk only about how the inspector, in his decision, has taken different views—opposing and supporting views—and has taken evidence from Historic England.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister—I know he wants to get on—but perhaps he could respond to my questions. What discussions have taken place between those who propose this project and the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO? It has a committee that has pronounced, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said. Why have the Government not taken into account its views—or, if they have, when did they, and did they persuade the committee to change its mind?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will have to come back in particular detail on the noble Baroness’s specific question. If she is asking whether the Government are talking to the DCMS, I say that of course our officials are speaking to colleagues in DCMS. That is an earlier question that the noble Baroness asked.

I remind my noble friend that this is not a planning committee. We are here discussing the particular provision of the clauses of this Bill. I apologise to noble Lords that I have to go into some detail on these matters. I hope the answer that I have given responds to the earlier questions from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, about the Government’s general approach as well as the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about UNESCO designations. I hope it reassures the House that the potential impact of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre on the Westminster world heritage site has been fully and properly considered.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, would have the effect of elevating the views of two eminent bodies, one British and one an international committee, above the views of the Minister designated to take a decision on the planning application. In effect, it would mean that the balancing exercise intrinsic to planning decisions could not be carried out. There is no good reason to make such a radical intervention in the normal planning procedures for this particular proposal. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 42.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I am sorry to harass the Minister. He is doing extremely well. My brief question is one that I asked beforehand, and it is encapsulated thus: does the proposal to build this memorial centre—not the memorial itself but the centre—override the Government’s proposal to keep open spaces, particularly green space, for families and particularly for children in Westminster?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My answer to that is that there will be green spaces. Some 90% of the park will still be green spaces. The whole project is 7.5% of the park. This has been discussed extensively in previous groups. There has been no lack of analysis, consultation and scrutiny in the process that has led us to this point. I accept, of course, that the process has not brought a complete consensus, but are we really expected to believe that, by repeating the process that began all those years ago, we would find a solution that would somehow meet everyone’s expectations? That is simply not realistic.

Our objective is widely shared, including by a succession of Prime Ministers and party leaders. Earlier this afternoon I was watching numerous Prime Ministers, from John Major to Gordon Brown, Theresa May, David Cameron and Tony Blair, all with democratic mandates and all giving strong support to this project. Numerous Prime Ministers and party leaders have shared widely their support to create a national memorial to the Holocaust, with an integrated learning centre, in a prominent location. An excellent design meeting our objectives has been put forward and awaits a decision on the planning application.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I detect that the Minister is in his peroration so I am grateful for him allowing me to intervene. He answered straightforwardly one of the questions that I posed—whom the designated Minister would be—but there are two others that he has not. He has made it clear that the designated Minister would have three options. He has been briefed by his civil servants that there are three options you can do. One is a full-scale planning application to Westminster City Council, which I believe will never happen. The second option was described by the Minister as a round table and the third was written representations to be received by the Minister. Clearly, the able civil servants in his department have invented those two other options. There must be a brief somewhere on what the round table and the written representations would do, and I would like to hear from the Minister, either today or at some time in the future, exactly what those other two options would involve.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to get involved in that. The reason why is that I am in no position to pre-empt what the designated planning Minister will do or the nature of his decision. That might require that the planning process is totally to be determined, and, within the options, he may have a particular focus on how he would like that exercised.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am sorry but the Minister may have misunderstood me. I am not asking for a decision on which option he will go for; I am asking for the details of the possible options that he could decide on. It is perfectly legitimate to ask, if the Government are saying that one thing will be a planning application, another thing will be a round table and the third one will be written representations, what details would be required in the round table. We are perfectly entitled to know that. The Minister must have had a brief on what it would be about; the department cannot pluck those three options from thin air without giving Ministers details of how they would operate in reality. I do not want to know which one he will go for, of course, but I want to know how they might work.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is perfectly reasonable of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to ask that question, but information is available on the website of the planning casework unit; the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has previously referred to it in this Committee. If it would help, we could send some more detail, in terms of where the website is and the address—as well as more details about the options that the designated Minister could pursue—to give the noble Lord more assurance around and confidence in the procedure. That would be no problem.

There is nothing to be gained by turning the clock back to 2015. All that this would achieve is to delay the creation of a memorial by many years. Few Holocaust survivors, perhaps none at all, would live to see the project completed—

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I must remind the Minister again that we are building not for the survivors, who already have something like six memorials and 21 learning centres in this country, but for the future. The survivors themselves would say that it is a mistake to hurry just because there is a possibility that it will be built in their lifetimes. That is not the issue.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can give noble Lords absolute confidence that the many Holocaust survivors I have spoken to are looking forward to seeing this Holocaust memorial built. It might not be so for everybody, but I speak in the context of my numerous heartfelt conversations with Holocaust survivors.

My point stands: few Holocaust survivors, perhaps none at all, would live to see the project completed. In those lost years, how many more opportunities to spread and deepen understanding of the Holocaust will be missed? How many millions of visitors will pass through Westminster who might otherwise have been prompted to reflect on the murder of 6 million Jews? How many visitors, young and old, will be denied the opportunity to learn objective facts on a topic of such profound importance? We should not be creating new hurdles, setting new tests or extending legitimate processes. Our aim should be to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre of which the nation can be proud, and to do it soon. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I am not surprised by the line that the Minister has taken. I may be allowed to express disappointment, but certainly not surprise, because it seems to me that, despite previous discussions in this Committee—particularly this afternoon—we have heard many and varied reasons as to why the situation has changed markedly from what it was six years ago or more, and that these should have been taken into account.

I am particularly concerned that we are overriding an Act of Parliament set up by somebody—originally as a gesture of good will and philanthropy, which was then endorsed by the 1900 Act—whose objectives, far from being over, are if anything more important now than they were before because it is a valuable green space in an area served by many people, often those without great assets or gardens of their own. We are now far more aware of the importance of the environment than we probably were in 1900. So, far from being old hat, this remains extremely important. That is where I start from.

However, I also look to the fact that the commission set up—it gave its verdict in 2015, I think—outlined the kind of memorial and learning centre that it wished to see. Clearly, that cannot be carried out fully in this very small space, so there is a great gap between what the commission said it wanted and what is now possible on a very restricted site. That is where I take my stand.

Sadly, I feel that the Minister has not been listening to the many and varied arguments put with considerable force, knowledge and eloquence by people serving on this Committee. I am sorry indeed about that, and I am particularly sorry that we seem to be getting nowhere fast. In those circumstances, I cannot see that any lengthy speech by me— or anybody else come to that—will change the Minister’s mind and, because we cannot have votes in this Committee by reason of the way it is set up, I can do nothing but seek leave to withdraw my amendment, but I do so believing that I am right about this. I am disappointed that we are not getting anywhere, so I seek leave to withdraw my amendment, but with a very heavy heart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, both amendments in this group seek to delay plans to deliver the memorial and learning centre unless it can be shown that the works will not negatively impact the process of the restoration and renewal. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his clear explanation of the timescales and the importance of continued discussion between the two projects. When I was Minister in the department, that was happening regularly, as were discussions on security and other issues, and it is important that those things continue. With respect, however, what we have here is one long-planned and undelivered project and another long-planned and undelivered project, and I feel it is now time just to get on with the important delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. It is not going to be as long a project as the restoration project, and we should get on with it and deliver what is important.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 24 and 41 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, deal with the important matter of co-ordination between the programmes to construct a Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the programme of restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. It is of course essential that care should be taken when planning these projects.

The House of Lords Select Committee gave a good deal of attention to this matter and addressed it in its report. It recommended that we should give detailed consideration to how the construction and operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the restoration and renewal programme will interact with each other, and accommodate the use of Victoria Tower Gardens by nearby residents and their children. We made clear in our response to the Select Committee that we agree on the importance of the interaction between the two programmes and that the interests of users of the gardens need to be considered. We will continue to work with the restoration and renewal programme to make sure that we understand those interactions and potential impacts.

It is worth noting—as the Select Committee made clear in its report—that the evidence presented to the committee was that the main restoration and renewal works would not begin before 2029 at the earliest. I also remind noble Lords that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is to be constructed at the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens—in other words, the opposite end of the gardens to the area which may be required during the restoration and renewal programme.

With all that in mind, we do not believe that there is good reason to expect any major practical conflict between the two programmes, and there is no reason that the construction and operation of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre should be contingent on certification by the authorities of both Houses of Parliament. It would be even less sensible to delay the entire project until the restoration and renewal programme is complete. The commencement of the construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is a matter for the statutory planning framework that Parliament has put in place to determine planning matters.

It is very important that I say this. I want to engage with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, in particular, and I want to make sure that, after the great, eloquent contribution from the noble Lord, we pay due respect and have regard to the points he makes. I am happy to arrange a meeting to discuss it in detail and to show how seriously we want to see interaction between the programmes. The two programme teams already meet regularly to share information and co-ordinate plans to reduce potential impacts. Rest assured, they will continue to do so.

I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to withdraw Amendment 24 and not to press Amendment 41.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

We were presented, in the committee, with a plan that showed that, during construction, the whole of the garden area would have to be regarded as subject to works—in other words, the whole of the grass area, up to quite close to the memorials at the north end. Has the Minister taken into account the fact that the underground works may have to be dealt with by opening up the surface of the ground to construct the works underneath? It is not quite right to say that the effect of the Holocaust memorial is simply at the southern end of the grassy area; that is not what the plan showed. I simply ask the noble Lord to take account of that from now on in considering the interaction between the two, because the promoter’s plan showed that it would have to occupy the whole of the grass area, right up to the public path at the north end. That is a very important point, because it is one thing to say that it is at the southern end and the grassy area as a whole will not be touched, but that is not what the promoter’s plan showed. That is why there is more to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, than perhaps the noble Lord suggested.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord makes an interesting point, which I hear strongly. I have been studying this plan for a big part of today and I want to reassure noble Lords on it. By the way, I am happy to sit down as part of the discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that my team will arrange, because the noble Lords’ points are important, and we want to give them extra due consideration post Committee.

Rest assured that the Select Committee made clear in the report that the evidence presented to it was that the main restoration and renewal work would not begin before 2029 at the earliest. By then, we hope that we will be well on the way to completing the Holocaust memorial.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

Following up on what the noble and learned Lord said, I will paraphrase what the Minister has said: “You can rely on us. It’ll be all right on the night”. I do not think that is quite good enough in the context of the debate we are having, because the whole thing is a straight-up construct of generalities.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am sure I did not say, “Rely on us on the night”, but I did say that the Select Committee itself acknowledged that the work on the restoration and renewal programme will not start until 2029 at the earliest—that is my point. However, I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that, because of the specific interest, I am happy to sit down and understand more of their concerns.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I had hoped for an answer from the Minister about the atmosphere to surround a memorial. Can one imagine, for example, the Cenotaph or any other dignified war memorial in this country being right in the middle of a building site with, as I said, concrete mixers, builders drinking their cups of tea, and the dirt, dust and noise? Why is that okay for a Holocaust memorial when, I submit, it would not be contemplated for a moment in relation to any other holy commemorative or significant religious site anywhere else in the world, let alone in this country?

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will add to what the noble Baroness has just said. The Minister made clear that he wants the experience of visiting this Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be valuable from an educational point of view. I do not think that any teacher would be particularly happy about bringing their older primary school pupils or younger secondary school pupils to an environment like this. It is not a good learning environment. There are obviously so many other much better places for this to happen than a small park that will be used—not for ever but for quite a long period—as a base for building a renewed Palace of Westminster. It just does not make any sense. Will the Minister take this issue back and discuss it again with his colleagues to see whether some change of mind can result from it?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have finished my contribution and just want to ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I have no option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords on all sides for their many powerful and often moving speeches throughout the whole of this Committee.

Amendments 32 and 38A seek to require the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to focus solely on the Nazi genocide of Jews and antisemitism, and to be in conformity with Britain’s Promise to Remember: The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission Report. My understanding is that this is the Government’s intention, and I hope the Minister can confirm this.

This is the final group that we will debate in Committee. I conclude, as I began, with a clear statement of our support for the Government’s plans to deliver the Holocaust memorial and learning centre as soon as possible. As the Committee knows, I have worked on this as a Minister and will continue to work with the noble Lord opposite to support the delivery of this important project.

As I have said before, a Conservative Prime Minister made this solemn commitment to the survivors of the Holocaust, and we will stand by that commitment, made 11 years ago. This is not a promise to be broken. Eighty years on from so many liberations of concentration camps, we must get on and deliver the Holocaust memorial and learning centre right here in Westminster, at the heart of our democracy. We must do this so that the survivors who are still with us can see it open to the public. It is our duty to renew our commitment never to forget the horrors of the Holocaust. We support the Government in making good on that promise.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this final group take us to topics at the heart of the Government’s reasons for seeking to establish a new national memorial and learning centre.

Amendment 32 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would restrict the learning centre to providing solely

“education about the Nazi genocide of the Jews and antisemitism”.

The proposed new clause is well intentioned but overly restrictive and may have unintended consequences. First, it is unnecessary. The Bill—the clue is in its name—clearly refers to a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust and a centre for learning related to the memorial. This Bill is about a memorial to the Holocaust, not to all genocides or crimes against humanity. The learning centre will focus on the unique crime of the Holocaust and aim to set the historical facts in the context of antisemitism. No Holocaust memorial and learning centre could exist without a clear understanding of the roots of antisemitism.

The clause may also have unintended consequences. It may discourage the learning centre from exploring the context and complexity of the Holocaust, missing an opportunity to create an educational offer that would benefit visitors. From the start, we have been clear that, to understand the devastation of the Holocaust on European Jewry, it is crucial to also understand the vibrancy and breadth of Jewish life before the Holocaust.

The centre is also intended to address subsequent genocides within the context of the Holocaust, showing how the Holocaust led to the development of international law. It is doubtful whether either of these topics could be included in the learning centre under this proposed new clause. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar—formerly of Yad Vashem—with the support of an academic advisory group. They will ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I really do not understand; there are too many contradictions here. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott—presumably speaking for the Tories when they were in government—said quite plainly that it will include Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. I just do not understand what is meant by projecting the Holocaust on to other catastrophes. There are legal aspects but, as far as I know, this will not be an exhibition devoted to the legal meaning and development of the concept of genocide—although one could have a huge exhibition on that. I simply do not understand.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to repeat the arguments; I have laid them out very clearly.

Yad Vashem has been mentioned numerous times across the Committee for its excellent content. Having Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem—to be supported by an academic advisory group—will ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust. I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to withdraw Amendment 32.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for his Amendment 38A. I welcome the opportunity that it presents to draw attention to the report he mentioned, Britain’s Promise to Remember, which was published in January 2015 by the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. The commission, set up with the active participation of all the main political parties, conducted an extensive investigation into the state of Holocaust commemoration and education.

Rereading the report and its conclusion is a valuable exercise that can help remind us all of the context of our debates on this Bill. In his foreword, the chair of the commission, Mick Davis, recorded the statement of his fellow commissioner, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, who saw the commission’s work as

“a sacred duty to the memory of both victims and survivors of the Holocaust”.

The report reminded us that:

“The Holocaust was … a catastrophe for human civilisation”.


It is very clear that the commission conducted its work with a full and clear knowledge of the depth of its responsibility.

At the heart of the commission’s report was the recommendation that

“there should be a striking new memorial to serve as the focal point of national commemoration of the Holocaust. It should be prominently located in Central London to make a bold statement about the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust. This will stand as a permanent affirmation of the values of our society”.

This recommendation was accepted by the then Prime Minister in 2015, with cross-party support. Each subsequent Prime Minister has given the same commitment. The current Prime Minister, the right honourable Sir Keir Starmer MP, has unequivocally committed his Government to fulfilling that promise.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill)

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1, Motions B and B1, Motions C to F, Motions G and G1, Motions H and H1, Motions J to M, Motions N and N1, Motions P and P1, and Motion R. These Motions concern the measures in the Bill to enable the introduction of new multipliers from April 2026 in line with the Chancellor’s intention set out at the Autumn Budget.

As a reminder, it is the Government’s intention to introduce two lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and for that permanent tax cut for those RHL properties to be sustainably funded to also introduce one higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. Given the challenging fiscal context, this prudent approach is essential to ensure that the new lower RHL multipliers can be adequately funded from within the business rates system.

Motions A to M ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 1 to 12. The other place disagreed to these amendments on the basis that they interfere with public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is sufficient.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has tabled Amendments 1B and 7B in lieu of Amendments 1 and 7. These amendments seek to allow the Treasury to exclude healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has tabled Amendments 2B and 8B in lieu of Amendments 2 and 8. These amendments seek to allow the Treasury to exclude anchor stores from the higher multiplier.

We have discussed during the passage of the Bill the importance of having a higher multiplier that applies to all properties at £500,000 rateable value and above, and why this is the only fair way of raising the revenue needed to fund the lower multiplier. We have ensured that the Valuation Office Agency has published data on those hereditaments in the healthcare and retail sectors with a rateable value of £500,000 or above. The impact is very limited and, for retail, mostly limited to supermarkets and retail warehouses. I have previously provided the House with the statistics that show that, and they have been published by the VOA.

Nevertheless, I assure the House that the powers already contained in Clause 3 would allow the Treasury to exclude from the higher multiplier classes of hereditament based upon their use. The amendments put forward to Clause 1 are therefore unnecessary. Therefore, I respectfully ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott, not to press these amendments.

Motions N, P and R ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 13, 14 and 16. The other place disagreed with Amendments 14 and 16 on the basis that they interfere with public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is sufficient. The other place disagreed to Amendment 13 on the basis that the Government have already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has tabled Amendment 13B in lieu of Amendment 13 and Amendment 14B in lieu of Amendment 14. Amendment 13B seeks to require the Government to undertake a review of how provisions within the Act may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000. The amendment requires that this part of the review be laid before Parliament within six months of the day on which the Act is passed. Amendment 13B also sets out that that review must consider the merits of a separate use class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets. Amendment 14B is similar to the amendment previously tabled by the noble Lord but removes the requirement for the recommendations of that review to be implemented.

As set out previously in this House and the other place, Amendment 13, and now Amendment 13B in lieu, probe the way that the multipliers in business rates currently operate and whether this may serve as a disincentive to invest. This is something the Government have already committed to looking at through their work in Transforming Business Rates. The Government have published a forward look that shows that an announcement on reforms to be taken forward will be coming later this year. Reforms will be phased in over the course of this Parliament.

Furthermore, the objective set out now in both Amendments 13B and 14B, to identify fulfilment warehouses used by online retailers that do not have a material presence on our high streets, is something the Government believe they are already exploring through the existing digitalising business rates project. As set out previously in this House, that project will allow the Government to match property-level data with HMRC business-level data. This will help us to improve the way that we target business rates and identify property and businesses within the business rates system.

For these reasons, the amendments are not necessary as they are already being pursued through other government work. Therefore, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press these amendments. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I realise that I omitted to refer to Motion P1, which is in the same group. It is consequential on Motion N1 and will depend on the outcome of that Division.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short debate. We heard concerns that the measures in the Bill for new multipliers do not deliver on the stated intention of the policy as announced at the Budget. I do not agree with that. At the Budget, the Government announced their intention to introduce two lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties and, in particular, to end the uncertainty of annual RHL relief. RHL is a temporary stopgap measure that has been extended year on year since the pandemic, and it does not provide the certainty that businesses require. The Government, through this Bill, are taking steps to address that. It was also announced at the Budget that the permanent tax cut for RHL businesses needs to be sustainably funded. This is an appropriate and prudent approach. The challenging fiscal environment that the Government face requires this, but it goes without saying that any tax cut must be funded as part of sound financial management. To do this, the Government intend to introduce a higher multiplier for the most valuable properties, those with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. The higher multiplier will affect less than 1% of properties in England. This delivers on the policy set out at the Budget by the Chancellor. Furthermore, it represents the Government’s first step to delivering on their manifesto commitment to transform the business rates system to one that is fairer, protects the high street and is fit for the 21st century.

I have explained to noble Lords here today while the amendments tabled in lieu are not necessary. For these reasons and the other reasons I have already set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their Motions containing Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B, 8B, 13B and 14B.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response, which gave me no hope that the Government are considering relieving hospitals of the higher multiplier. We agree with him that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses should benefit from the lower multiplier in the Bill, but it should not be at the expense of the NHS. There are other ways of doing it, and I am appalled that the Minister has not sought to find alternative sources of income. So because we on these Benches wish to make sure that our hospitals do not lose a penny more in business rates to the Government, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.

3A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.

4A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.

5A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.

6A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion G

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.

7A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.

8A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.

9A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10A.

10A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.

11A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.

12A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 13, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 13A.

13A: Because the government has already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 14, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 14A.

14A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 15, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15A.

15A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion Q, I shall also speak to Motions S, T and U. These Motions relate to the measure in the Bill to remove charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities.

This Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and raising standards for every child and young person, no matter where they come from or their financial background. To do this, the Government need to concentrate on the broader picture towards the state sector, where most children are educated. That is why the Government committed in their manifesto to remove the eligibility for charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities in England to raise revenue to help deliver these important commitments.

This is a tough but necessary decision. This Government must act to restore public services and improve opportunities for all. Removing the eligibility of private schools for charitable relief will raise approximately £140 million per year. Taken together with the removal of the VAT exemption from private school fees, these policies are expected to raise £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30, which will help to deliver the Government’s commitments in relation to education and young people. The approach to this policy has been carefully considered. The Government have sought to ensure that the impact of this change on those children with the most acute needs is minimised.

Motions Q and S to U ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 15, 17, 18 and 19. The other place disagreed to Amendments 15 and 17 on the basis that they interfere with the public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason was sufficient. Similarly, the other place disagreed to Amendments 18 and 19 on the basis that these amendments are consequential on Amendment 15, with which the other place disagrees for the reason stated.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has tabled Amendments 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E in lieu of her original Amendment 15. These amendments move the decision to remove the charitable rate relief from one made by this Parliament to one which would be made by the Secretary of State by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for that statutory instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has tabled Amendments 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E in lieu of her original Amendment 15. These amendments would move the decision to remove the charitable rate relief from one being made by this Parliament to one which would be made by the Secretary of State by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for that statutory instrument.

As I have said, this Government are clear that the relief should be removed from private schools. We believe that this is a matter that Parliament should decide, and we have invited Parliament to do so through this Bill. The amendment therefore seeks unnecessarily to move this decision from Parliament to the Secretary of State. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments. I beg to move.

Motion Q1 (as an amendment to Motion Q)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches believe that there is a principle at stake of not regarding independent schools as charities. Education is not a profit-making business, although independent schools have to cover their costs—which, as I have sadly heard, Fulneck School has failed to do. We will support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, if she wishes to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their important contributions in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has stated her firm belief that no education should be taxed. She has also reminded this House of her view, shared by the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, that the Government are creating a two-tier charity system. The measure delivered through this Bill is a tough but necessary choice to ensure that the Government can deliver on their commitments and break down barriers to opportunity for all. Tough choices are difficult—the Government know this—but they are also necessary. This Government will take these tough decisions because of the financial climate out there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm clearly that, through this measure, the country will obtain, for the first time ever, a two-tier charitable system? That is what he appeared to accept. This must be thoroughly undesirable. To remove a set of arrangements that independent schools, the vast majority of them very small schools, have enjoyed over centuries and to create two tiers must be a thoroughly retrograde step. To describe the exemptions that independent schools, like all other charities, have hitherto enjoyed as “tax breaks” is deeply unfair. Independent schools have been properly treated, along with other charities, for centuries—a position that ought to endure—and it is really shameful, given that independent schools are overwhelmingly small and cannot bear these burdens, for this state of affairs now to come into existence as a consequence of this legislation.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with the noble Lord. We are putting the Bill through because we, as the Government, want to deliver on our commitments and break down barriers to opportunity for all. Ninety-three per cent of students are in the state sector. The measures are necessary, tough decisions. We know they are tough choices, but they are necessary to make sure that we can support the state sector, where 93% of students attend.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister and I think he did not satisfactorily address the points made by my noble friends Lord Caine and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which addressed, in different ways, how independent schools form part of the fabric of our society. Nor did he really address the points of principle raised by my noble friends Lord Mackinlay and Lord Lexden, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. He understandably repeats the point about tough decisions and tough choices, but these amendments do not force the Government to do anything: all they do is allow the Government to change their mind gracefully if they find that their policy actions do not raise the funding that they had hoped. With that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 16, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 16A.

16A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 17A.

17A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 18, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 18A.

18A: Because the Lords Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 15 with which the Commons disagree.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.

19A: Because the Lords Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 15 with which the Commons disagree.