Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I agree on one point. The Jewish community can be said to be divided. It has been divided for as long there has been a Jewish community, both in this country and elsewhere. If you read the Bible, you will know that there were some people who did not want to leave Egypt, so the fact that you have a divided Jewish community is not a new point. I caution, with the greatest respect, against invoking the name of Rabbi Gluck in this context. He was about the only person in the Jewish community who sought to maintain cordial relations with Mr Corbyn when the rest of us thought he was basically leading an antisemitic cult which, at one point, threatened to take over the Labour Party. I am not going to take lessons from Rabbi Gluck as to how the Jewish community should operate. The overwhelming majority of the Jewish community is strongly in favour of this memorial and learning centre. The huge advantage of this amendment is that it will put the purpose of the memorial and the learning centre right there in the Bill.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to say, as someone who is Jewish, how incredibly heartwarming each and every one of the speeches tonight has been. Every speaker has spoken with compassion, affection and sensitivity to the plight of the Jewish people and other victims of the Holocaust. This proposed new clause reflects great credit on this House.

My main point was prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. He went to see Lord Ashcroft’s exhibition of Victoria Crosses at the Imperial War Museum. Lord Ashcroft very generously gave his incredible collection of VCs and £5 million to the museum, which was very grateful. However, the trustees of the museum decided, of their own volition, to close the exhibition and return the medals—but not the Victoria Crosses—to Lord Ashcroft. This is a lesson to us all about what can happen years after something is determined in good faith: trustees can change their minds or the trustees themselves change, or the mood, fashion or style can change. That is why I welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. The purpose has to be included in the Bill.

[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.

Elections: Political Party Spending

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As the work is being done to consider what needs to be in the electoral strategy, there have been a number of recent reports on elections and how they work. All the work done will be considered as we pull together the election strategy.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, in her answer to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the Michael Brown memorial question, the Minister referred to a strategy document that is being produced before the Summer Recess, but as of yet there has been no engagement with any other political party on this document. The last Conservative Government consulted the parliamentary parties panel, but the Labour Government have yet to do this. Will she commit so to do? I declare my interest as a treasurer of the Conservative Party.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that all political parties must be engaged in any consultation. The idea is to produce a draft strategy based on the reports that have been produced so far and then have an extensive consultation on that. I will reply to the noble Lord in writing if that is different.

Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. Giving local leaders the power and resources to deliver the solutions that are right for their area is at the heart of our Government’s devolution agenda. We have made £69 billion available to council budgets, and brought forward the first multiyear funding settlement in a decade, so that they can deliver better public services and drive forward our plan for change. The English Devolution White Paper was published in December 2024 and the Bill will come to us in due course, which I know noble Lords are all looking forward to. There will be an ambitious package of transport measures in there to give local leaders the tools and the flexibility they need to improve local transport networks and infrastructure. Through greater funding consolidation and multiyear settlements, authorities will have the flexibility to plan and deliver the services that are aligned to local priorities, and to design the transport systems that meet their local needs.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I gather that a consultation will take place next week between the industry and the Minister. One hopes that a code will be set up, but the Government can determine fines. Does she agree with the leader of Bournemouth Council, Millie Earl, who, following an incident where fire engines could not get through on a road by the seafront, said:

“We are really constrained in what we can do to deal with it”?


The fines are now £35, which, as the former MP for Bournemouth East, Tobias Ellwood, said, is a very good bargain for parking for a day out.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

It is very important that local areas can determine that themselves. It is not the Government’s intention to impose that on local areas, because it may vary across an area. It is very important that local areas can determine that themselves and fit it around their overall local transport strategy—that is key. There is a great difference between local authority car parking, where the money might be recycled into local services, and private parking. Sometimes there are agreements between the private parking companies, sometimes there are not. This is a matter for local determination.

Car Parking Companies

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I very much understand the issues that my noble friend has outlined. We will do our best to work across government. That is a Home Office issue, but I would be happy to meet her and the noble Lord, Lord Spellar, to discuss this further.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that, following the judicial review that she mentioned of the code of conduct, the department promised to publish an impact assessment? It did publish draft impact assessments but has not yet published the full impact assessments. Is the reason for that that the impact assessments show that the £100 dropping to £40 does work and that the problem is that councils, which can charge only £50, dropping to £25, are not able to enforce parking restrictions because it simply is not economic?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am not sure why the full impact assessment was not published. The accredited trade association’s voluntary cap on private parking charges is £100, as the noble Lord will be aware. I will look into the issue around local authority caps on parking charges and get back to him.

Political Parties: Funding

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend and assure him that the Government take the threat posed by disinformation and foreign actors interfering in our democratic processes very seriously. It is, and always will be, an absolute priority to protect the UK against foreign interference. While it is clear that foreign donations to political parties are not permitted, the Government recognise the risk posed by malign actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democratic processes. That is why we will take all necessary steps to ensure that effective controls are in place to safeguard our democracy. I assure noble Lords that we share the sense of urgency, and as soon as we have developed our proposals we will inform Parliament.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the Labour Front Bench tabled amendments to the Elections Bill in 2022 that would have granted many foreign nationals the right to vote in both local and parliamentary elections; indeed, the IPPR is suggesting this again. How would Labour be able to restrict such donations? What assessment has been made of the potential influx of foreign donations from Russia, China and Iran as a consequence of the Labour Government in Wales and the Scottish Government allowing their foreign citizens to be on the electoral roll?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the law is already clear that accepting or facilitating foreign campaign donations is illegal. Only those with a legitimate interest in UK electoral events can donate to candidates or political parties. Donations from individuals not on the electoral register are not permitted and strict rules are in place to make sure that foreign money is prohibited from entering through proxy donors, providing a safeguard against impermissible donations by the back door. We are looking at ways to make this even stronger. It is an offence to attempt to evade those rules on donations.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords I rise to support this Bill as it stands and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, on bringing it through. A cursory glance at my interests in the register will reveal that I have many interests in the Jewish community. I am president, chairman or vice-president of a number of Jewish community organisations, including a synagogue, a think tank and a leadership group. Not listed is my involvement in and support of a number of other Jewish-related charities, such as the Holocaust Education Trust. I was at the dinner where my noble friend Lord Cameron made his eloquent speech with this idea. However, I cannot possibly claim, and would not wish to, that I represent any of them or that any of them agree on anything, particularly this issue. They all have different views of different strength.

I have to be honest that, initially, I struggled to come to terms with any objection. As Sir Mick Davis said in his commission’s report,

“The Holocaust was also a catastrophe for human civilisation. The very scientific and industrial innovation which had propelled society forward was used on an extreme scale to take humanity into the deepest abyss of moral depravity”.


It was so depraved and evil that it has taken some many decades to be able to address it and consider how to mark it.

As my noble friend Lord Cameron and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, those of us who have been to a camp, read about the Holocaust or seen documentaries can never forget the images and the stories, often told first-hand, but not for much longer. Those who do not have a personal connection will from time to time be reminded by popular culture. Who will ever forget the sight of Dr Jacob Bronowski in “The Ascent of Man” standing in a pond where the ashes of 4 million people reside or how popular culture reminds us of the bravery of Oskar Schindler and Nicholas Winton or The Escape Artist: The Man Who Broke Out of Auschwitz to Warn the World, the story of Rudolf Vrba told by Jonathan Freedland, or even our own noble friend Lord Finkelstein’s telling of his family’s ordeals at the hands of Hitler? However, these will pass. The world will move on and perhaps fail to believe that a country that was at the very peak of the civilised world, the most sophisticated, mannered, wealthy, cultured country in existence at the time—Austria, as Stefan Zweig described it—could have produced Adolf Hitler? Your Lordships do not need me to tell you all this. We are all of a mind to ensure that the creation of an evil capable of perpetrating the humiliation, depravation and, ultimately, attempted extermination of the Jewish people and others needs to be prevented from ever happening again.

I want to address some of the concerns raised. In all honesty, I find it very painful to have to have a public argument on this debate. I am more than happy to have a ding-dong and set-to with noble Lords about Brexit, the economy or taxation, but this is difficult. It upsets me to know that some Peers are against this proposal, particularly those whom I rate so very highly and respect more than I can say in public without embarrassing them and me, none more so than the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, whose description of her interest in her petition is so moving, starting with the words:

“I am a direct descendent of Holocaust victims”.


Who am I to disagree with someone with that pedigree?

I want to say that I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns. I agree with her that this must not be just a memorial to British values. It must retain its focus on the 6 million exterminated and the attempt to eradicate one single group of people. We need to ensure that this memorial and learning centre explains that this really was an attempt at a genocide in the true sense of the word, not as currently bandied around in some parts of the Middle East at the moment—to do so is gut-wrenching.

Her concerns that the learning centre is too small when compared to the commission’s recommendations are well made, but there can be other learning centres for greater study. This venue will make people, in particular children who come to visit us in Parliament, stop and stare, not just now, not just for decades, but in hundreds of years, and say “Wow! Why did they build that here? Why is it so prominent with its 22 fins?”. That reaction will come only from a structure and venue as currently proposed and with an opportunity for visitors to learn enough about what happened to understand its importance.

We in the Jewish community, and others, have spent too long arguing over this proposal and, as we have done so, survivors such as Zigi Shipper, Sir Ben Helfgott and many others, so keen to see it built, sadly are no longer with us. We can ensure that the memorial and learning centre achieves the spirit of the objectives of the commission, we can address many of the concerns raised by the petitioners against it, but we should not allow the many nimby and other objectors to overturn a project whose time has come.

Hate Crimes

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, we have seen an increase in reporting and recording of hate crime over the last decade or so. There has been a small decrease in the last year, but, overall, that is partly reflective of the fact that we have put additional efforts into encouraging people to come forward. That includes through supporting charities such as the Community Security Trust but also Tell MAMA, which we fund, which is an organisation that focuses on anti-Muslim hatred and provides a different route by which people can report crimes and incidents and then get the appropriate support.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests, which discloses that I am president of Westminster Synagogue. This Saturday, we had 20 policemen and four vans to protect us as a demonstration went past Knightsbridge. Does my noble friend agree that these demonstrations, with anti-Semitic slogans and rhetoric calling for genocide against the State of Israel, need to be controlled and curtailed so that British Jews can once again feel safe and secure in the streets of London?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I think my noble friend’s experience bears out the statistics that we saw announced by the Community Security Trust last week, showing the highest number of reported anti-Semitic incidents on record in 2023, with the majority of these being reported from 7 October. There is no place on British streets for demonstrations, convoys or flag-waving that glorify terrorism or harass the Jewish community, and we will work closely with the police, who we urge to step up patrols and use all available powers to enforce the law.

UK Citizens Resident Overseas: Verification

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, my Lords; absolutely not.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Will my noble friend the Minister have an opportunity during the recess to glance back at former Liberal Democrat policy statements, in particular the one from July 2019? Its policy document, Modernising the Relationship between Britain and its Citizens Living Abroad, advocated extending the vote to those living abroad and makes no mention whatever of the concerns just raised, because they are not real concerns.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I will go back and check even further, when I have time to do so, but I am not sure whether this is Liberal policy at all.

Renters Reform Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The Government are already investing in social housing; we are putting £11.5 billion into building social housing. Some of the money from the windfall, as the noble Lord called it—I would not call it that—will go into that. There is also support going to local authorities to support those in the private rented sector who might have problems this winter and whom we might need to help out.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, following the tragic death of Awaab Ishak due to fungus growing in a family apartment, will my noble friend the Minister agree to a review of the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 to stop this ever happening in the private rented sector?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As we discussed in a lot of detail last week, this was an extremely sad and very disturbing case. On whether we will look at the healthy homes standard again, I think we will now wait to see if it is going to be in the renters reform Bill. In the meantime, the Secretary of State wrote to all local authorities this week to insist that they look at their stock, so that we as a department and a Government know exactly what is happening in our social housing stock as far as mould and damp are concerned.

Building Safety Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Grand Committee

My noble friend has a chance to achieve two of these aspirations. If he accepts our great amendments, which we are thrusting on him, then he will himself achieve greatness; when this Bill is an Act, he too can have the epitaph, although not too soon of course, of that great British builder Sir Christopher Wren at St Paul’s Cathedral: “Si monumentum requiris circumspice”—if you seek his monument, look around you. This Bill could be a great monument: safe housing for all our citizens.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, with some trepidation after that, I rise to speak to my Amendment 94ZA, as advertised by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. I welcome the Government’s clear commitment that no leaseholder in a medium or high-rise building will have to pay to remove dangerous cladding, so I therefore support the significant legislative changes being introduced in this Bill. I am also pleased to see that legislation is coming forward to identify the beneficial owners of freehold and leasehold properties, because without that I am not sure how this Bill would work in its entirety. We need to know who owns property in the UK.

However, there is a small group of leaseholders who have fallen through the Government’s net of protections. They are leaseholders who have already paid for the removal of ACM Grenfell-type cladding from their buildings through an exceptional service charge imposed by their landlords, but whose landlords have unilaterally decided not to pursue available government remediation funding because they have no incentive to do so, given that the leaseholders have already borne all the costs. No encouragement by or pressure from their leaseholders or the Government has resulted in any change in their position, particularly in one specific case of which the Minister is aware.

This was not the intent of the well-meaning government cladding remediation scheme, as it assumed that landlords would behave appropriately. The scheme required applications to be made by landlords. Leaseholders had no right to do so directly, nor could they force landlords to seek funding. As a result, these leaseholders remain without reimbursement for the considerable sums that, in some instances, they have expended on removing dangerous cladding to live safely.

This behaviour has been described in the other place as outrageous; my noble friend the Minister described it as unacceptable in his Written Answer to me on 26 January. However, the Government’s proposed legislation does not expressly address this inequitable situation. My O-level Latin was even worse than that of most Members of the Committee, so to provide some balance I will quote from my coat of arms the Hebrew “Im low achshav aymarthie”, which, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is not in his place, would explain, means “If not now, when?”

Paragraph 8 of new Schedule 9 prohibits a service charge being payable under a qualifying lease in respect of cladding remediation if the tenant was resident at the qualifying time, as we have heard. This does not help resident tenants who have already paid up by way of service charge before the Bill becomes law. My proposed amendment extends paragraph 8 of Schedule 9 to include situations where resident tenants have paid for cladding remediation at any time during the five years before the commencement of the Bill. This will leave the landlord with the choice of applying for available qualifying remediation funding or having to reimburse relevant resident tenants out of their own funds.

I appreciate that this will be relevant in only a small number of situations but that is not a reason not to have legislation. There is a glaring hole in the legislation, and we have the opportunity here to correct it. I can see that some might argue that this is retrospective, but it is not because the amendment covers only situations where the lessees have paid and the freeholders will not act as they should. It is up to the Minister, inspired by the call to arms, to widen this amendment—on Report if not here—to cover future situations where lessees pay for recladding as they are fed up with waiting for landlords, knowing that, if this amendment passes, the freeholders will be forced to apply for reimbursement.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 93 and 94. I thank the Minister for explaining the many amendments relating to the costs of remediating cladding and other fire safety and building defects, including who will pay and how.

However, my amendments are to his Amendment 92 and are about my favourite issue, which is that leaseholders should not pay a penny. It is not their fault. The Government and everybody else accept that, and therefore, they should not pay anything. The easiest way of ensuring this is to amend the government amendment to change the maximum amount—that is, the cap—to £15,000 or £10,000, be it in London or outside London, to a peppercorn; in other words, to zero, zilch, nothing. This would achieve the aim I started with two years ago.

There are reasons for this. The Minister may not want to do it, but I certainly do. He said, “Of course”, so I assume he will now accept my amendment. However, if it helps the Minister, I am willing to exclude paragraphs 6(4) and 6(5) of the new schedule proposed by Amendment 92. They relate to properties with a value of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 or more.

I appreciate that the Minister and others in the Government have laboured long and hard to reach a more just outcome for leaseholders. However, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, the letter we received said that the Secretary of State had stated on behalf of the Government that leaseholders must not be required to pay anything. That is what my amendment would achieve. The building failures were not theirs. As we have all agreed, those who made the failures, who put up flammable cladding and failed to put in firebreaks, are the ones who have to pay.

In his introduction to his amendments, the Minister said that cap will be offset by costs already being paid for waking watch, fire alarms and other such things, which will reduce the final liability. In that case, why on earth are we pursuing it? Let us say that the amount liable is £7,000. If it is paid over a period of five years, that is less than £1,500 a year. What bureaucracy will be set up to collect that? The cost of collecting it will almost certainly outweigh the benefits. So there is a practical reason as well as a reason of justice, and I guess that the Minister will therefore accept my amendment. We will have a whole new bureaucracy for nothing very much. It is not a practical proposal at all, and it is not a just one.

The amendment is straightforward, but there are one or two things I want to ask the Minister to explain and to give some very straightforward answers to some very easy questions. Some things are not clear from all this. There are good intentions in all these clauses to try to solve who pays for remediation, but what happens if nobody pays up? Who takes on the liability? Secondly, if they all go to litigation—which is my guess about what is going to happen, and we heard earlier that there are already moves in that direction—that could take a long time. So what happens then when buildings are not safe? Who will pay for the removal of the cladding and putting right the fire safety defects? Are we expecting leaseholders, shareholders and tenants to remain in those unsafe buildings for all that period of time? So who will pay, and what about the timing? If we do not get the cash, what happens and, with that timing, what happens—peppercorn rents excepted? My noble friend Lord Stunell will wind up for us on these Benches.