Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Harper Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

I remind my noble friend that, in Committee, I ticked him off by saying that, if planning permissions are taken by political groups, it is illegal. A planning authority has a right and an applicant has a right. Frankly, his objection that the political parties had a vote is entirely bogus and entirely wrong, and would be grounds for overturning the decision of Westminster Council. I say that as someone who was responsible for planning for five years.

There is a strong reason why the two buildings should be co-located. This is likely to be a memorial of not just national significance but global significance. It is the view of Yad Vashem—the Israeli Holocaust museum—of Auschwitz, and of the American holocaust memorial that this will be the most visited Holocaust museum in the world and will play an enormous part in pushing back against Holocaust distortion. That is an important reason.

I take the point that this is not a Second Reading debate. In conclusion, there is a strong reason why we should not place a figure on this. Members will recall that, very sadly, at the first meeting of the Committee, the Committee got itself into all kinds of hot water when a Member—inadvertently, I think—repeated an antisemitic trope, suggesting that the Jewish community should pay more because they were rich people. This amendment seeks to achieve exactly that. If the amount is limited, there will be a shortfall of £46 million, and by implication that has to come from the community and beyond. Given what happened in Committee, it is singularly unfortunate. I do not believe for one moment that that was my noble friend’s intention, but you do not get an opportunity to explain the motivation of noble Lords in this House when it goes out to the public. There is a grave risk, should we put this to the vote, of unfortunate motivations being ascribed to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to this amendment. As a former Secretary of State for Transport, I have some knowledge of construction projects, the time they take and the reasons why costs may escalate. There is a decision for people to make, and I strongly agree with what my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe said.

Looking at the Explanatory Notes, I reminded myself of just how long ago my noble friend Lord Cameron first proposed this project; it was when I was in government as an Immigration Minister. That seems a very long time ago, because it was. It is not surprising, given the passage of time, that the costs set out then will clearly be much larger now.

I am a great supporter of spending public money wisely, and I have listened carefully to all the comments and concerns that people have made. I will not ascribe motives for this amendment; all I will say is that the Minister needs to reassure the House that, if this Bill proceeds—and if the memorial and the learning centre are approved and constructed, as I very much hope they are—the Government need to put in place strong controls to make sure that public money is spent wisely.

Also relevant to the many construction projects for which I have been responsible in government is that costs escalate partly because it takes a long time before the design and content of those projects are finalised. In part, it is parliamentary processes—which are perfectly good and understandable—that then cause the cost to escalate. The most obvious example of that in the projects for which I was responsible—part-way down the track—was HS2. People complain about how much that cost, but part of the reason it cost so much was that both Houses of Parliament—it, too, was a hybrid Bill—altered the design and put lots of extra requirements into it. Members of the other place and of your Lordships’ House then expressed surprise that the cost had escalated. I very much want to get on and build this memorial and learning centre, and the more delays there are and the more we debate what it looks like and where it goes, the more the cost will increase.

Finally, I strongly agree with what my noble friend Lady Harding said: putting a figure in nominal terms in the legislation is unwise. We have existing processes, including the National Audit Office and the various structures that the Government have for managing major projects. They are not perfect, but we need to make sure that those structures are used. Ministers must be accountable to both this House and the House of Commons in regularly reporting and accounting for themselves, and we must be able to ask them questions. I suggest that this is an unwise amendment, and I hope that it is not accepted and added to the Bill.

[Lord Sassoon (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak to this amendment, but I believe that my noble friends Lady Harding of Winscombe, Lord Pickles and Lord Harper have misunderstood—I would not say misrepresented—what the amendment is all about. I declare my interests in coming from a family in which my mother’s German Jewish family lost members in the Holocaust, and in which my great uncle, who came to this country, founded the Jewish Refugees Committee, which organised the Kindertransport. I also speak as a former Treasury Minister; that is how I look at the numbers and what the amendment seeks to do.

As I understand it and read it, my noble friend Lords Eccles is as concerned as I am and many others are that we have had no up-to-date or credible figures from the Minister, throughout the various stages of the Bill, as to what the current costs are. The latest costs, I think, go back at least two years, and we have heard what has happened to the costs since then. As a House, we need to understand what the more recent estimates are.

As I read it, this amendment puts a cap on the public contribution to this, but does not, as my noble friends have just said, or implied, cap the total cost of the project—if my noble friend tells me I have got it wrong, I will sit down. Speaking as a former Treasury official and Minister, I say that we need a bit of discipline on this project. It is not going to cap the total cost of the project and, unless the Minister is able to give us more credible figures to explain the latest thinking about the split between the private and public sector contributions, I would be fully supportive of my noble friend Lord Eccles’s amendment, because it puts some necessary financial discipline on the project but will in no way—as my noble friends have said, and they can come back at me if they want to—cap the total expenditure that could be incurred on the project.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Harper Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment would require further reports on security to be prepared and debated in both Houses before any proposed memorial or learning centre can proceed. But it is already being debated at great length in the House of Commons and has overwhelming cross-party support. This is a revising Chamber, so we can discuss revising it.

The noble Lord is saying that there has not been a sufficient amount of time on security, but I beg to differ. From the very beginning, security has been an important consideration in the design of the memorial and learning centre. It was made clear, including in the planning inquiry nearly five years ago, that the threat of terrorism or violent protest was recognised. It has never been the approach of this country to abandon the legitimate activities of free society simply because of the threat of terrorists and violent protesters. The noble Lord is right to point out what happened recently with the protesters outside the entrances into Parliament, and everybody agrees with that. But that is not necessarily a reason to block this proposal.

The memorial and learning centre have been designed be safe and secure. Advice from the National Protective Security Authority and the Metropolitan Police has led to significant measures, including the above-ground pavilion and the hostile vehicle mitigation measures protecting the gardens. My understanding is that there will not be blockages or security at the entrances to the park, but at the entrance to the actual memorial there will be airport-style security. You will not be able to just turn up; you will have to book in advance online.

The chosen site within the government security zone is better protected than any other plausible sites that have been mentioned. The proximity of the Holocaust memorial will make no difference to the scale or nature of the threat to the Palace of Westminster, nor to the security measures required. The Palace is very well protected, notwithstanding what happened the other day. Security matters have been and will be fully considered within the planning process.

The amendment would achieve only a delay, and would signal a weakness, telling the world that the UK was not prepared to place a Holocaust memorial next to Parliament for fear of attack. Consider who would be most pleased with that sort of message. Perhaps I might quote an expert in such matters:

“In conclusion, while it is impossible to eliminate all risks, the security measures planned for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre are comprehensive and have been developed with the highest standards of safety in mind. The Memorial’s location next to the Houses of Parliament should not be seen as a vulnerability but rather as a testament to our commitment to remembering the Holocaust in a prominent and respectful manner”.


That was written by a Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I greatly respect the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in reviewing terrorism legislation, but I think that on this particular issue he is wrong. I come to that judgment from having had some responsibility in the past, both as a Home Office Minister and most recently as Secretary of State for Transport, where I had responsibility for the security of aviation, maritime and our transport systems, including here in London.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord’s speech. First, on the planning process, clearly the design of the learning centre is, appropriately, taken account of in the planning process. As my noble friend has just said, advice was taken from the appropriate authorities in the design of the learning centre, and that was appropriate. Protecting it on a day-to-day basis would rightly be the responsibility both of the Metropolitan Police and of our other agencies. Having worked closely with them, I have enormous confidence in their ability to do that.

As to the noble Lord’s point about any change in the threat to the Palace of Westminster, first, he drew attention to the large number of visitors that would be expected to go to the learning centre. I draw to his attention the fact that around 1 million people a year visit the Palace of Westminster, whether as visitors or to meet their Members of Parliament. So a very significant number of members of the public already visit this part of London.

One of the challenges that all our security authorities have in a democratic country is balancing the necessary protection of your Lordships, Members of the House of Commons and all those who work in this building, with maintaining the appropriate access to a democratic institution for members of the public. A number of public servants work in this building, on the estate, in our security services and in the Metropolitan Police. They work every day—sometimes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referenced, at great personal risk to themselves—to keep us safe, but also to enable members of the public to have access to their democratic institutions. I have every confidence that they will continue to do that job. I do not think that that is an appropriate subject for a report for us to consider. Those threats are monitored and dealt with on an ongoing basis.

My final point is a slightly more worrying one. The logical conclusion of what both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, is that we would not have a learning centre anywhere. Even if there is such a threat in having a learning centre that it would be, as I think the noble Baroness said, a “lure” to those who wish people ill, in a democratic country we have to say at some point, “We have values and we want to build such a centre”. The correct thing to do is to make sure that it is properly protected, not to say that, because people might threaten it, we are not going to build it. That would be the wrong conclusion to draw.

The subsequent point is this. The fact that the noble Baroness said that having such an education centre would provoke this sort of reaction demonstrates to me the absolute necessity of building one, and of building it next to this democratic institution. If building a centre that reminds us of the Holocaust, and of our wish for nothing like that ever to happen again, truly provokes the worst in other people, that demonstrates to me the necessity to do it and to get on with it—and there is no better place to locate it than next to the democratic institution that represents this country. I urge noble Lords, if the noble Lord chooses to divide the House, to reject his amendment.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the promoters of this project have said over and over again that they interpret our objections as being, “You can’t build a Holocaust memorial anywhere”, but that is not what it is about. The point is that you build it but you have to take into account the consequences on the immediate surroundings and the visitors of where and how you build it.

I do not share the absolute confidence of the promoters on the security. We know, for example, that for over a year those who care about security have asked the authorities to move the police from their comfortable spot at the foot of the escalators to Portcullis House out into the Tube, and they have not done it—after repeated requests. We have heard of other instances.

What noble Lords have not taken into account is protests. The Metropolitan Police and other police have not done well in balancing the right of protest against security. One end of the park is going to be wide open, and you can well imagine the hundreds or thousands of protesters, as has already happened, entering and waving flags, with their cans of red paint. There will be no one to stop them; they can go right up towards the mound and throw something or sail along the river and throw something. The police, to judge by their lack of action against protesters in Jewish areas of London and elsewhere, will say that the right of protest is more important than the need for the memorial to be quiet, sacred and respected.

We should also remember the children, unfortunate little ones, playing in the playground exactly where people queue. It is also well known that queues are a vulnerable spot for terrorists. There will be queues of people waiting to get in—sitting ducks, along with the children in the playground, which will be most unfortunate. There will be off-putting armed guards at one end, and free entry at the other. The record of the police and this Government on protecting Jewish people and Jewish students on campus since 7 October has been dire, and this cannot mean safety for gatherings in Victoria Tower Gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme

Lord Harper Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the welcome that local authorities and people across Scotland showed to Syrians fleeing persecution, and the willingness they are showing to help Ukrainians fleeing persecution, is great. He is absolutely right that people in Argyll and island communities have already done that. We hope to allow the Scottish Government to be a super sponsor and allow them to work with local authorities in Scotland. That is what Scottish Government Ministers have proposed to us as the best way forward, and it seems sensible to me. We just need to try to make it work.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the scheme that my right hon. Friend set out, but may I urge him to ensure that safeguarding and checking measures remain proportionate? As Conservatives, we generally believe that people can make decisions for themselves. I agree that with unaccompanied children safeguarding is critical, but the state should not get in the way of the generous response of the British people. Let us ensure that the checks are proportionate to the risk. Let the British people respond in the way that they already have.

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his common-sense perspective, which I completely share.

Levelling Up

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes]

The hon. Lady has identified very important funding needs. The fund will tackle one element of the problems that we are seeking to address. As I set out, there will be about £600 billion of public sector investment funding over the next five years; through other funding opportunities, I am sure there will be the chance to tackle the concerns that she raised. I am delighted that she will be working with her local council to identify a priority bid for the levelling-up fund.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

The last award of funds to my constituency, from the Getting Building Fund last year, has already been worked on and constructed; a fantastic construction industry training centre will admit its first students next January. Therefore I welcome my constituency’s being a priority 1 area for the levelling-up fund. I am already working with my local authority—we had our first kick-off meeting last week—so will he confirm that bids that reflect genuine local need, supported by the local authority and the Member of Parliament, have the best chance of success in getting that funding to turn into real opportunities for our constituents?

[Eddie Hughes]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and for being an exemplar of how an excellent local MP can not only bring funding to his constituency but see the project through to completion—a great example for us all to follow. I endorse the idea that through this scheme we need to identify quality local projects that will make a visible difference to local people in the constituency. That is why it is so important that MPs work with their local councils to prioritise such schemes and ensure maximum opportunity for success.

Draft Enterprise Act 2002 (EU Foreign Direct Investment) (Modifications) Regulations 2020

Lord Harper Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (EU Foreign Direct Investment) (Modifications) Regulations 2020.

It is a pleasure to open the debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. The draft instrument was laid before the House on 8 June. I will try to clearly explain the rationale behind it, but first let me turn quickly to foreign direct investment more broadly.

The UK has a proud and hard-won reputation as one of the most open economies in the world. We remain the top destination in Europe, and the third in the world, for foreign direct investment, with 58,000 new jobs created in the UK in 2018-19 through that inward investment.

Although most FDI does not raise concerns, it is vital that any transactions that could operate against the public interest should be scrutinised. Under the Enterprise Act 2002, the Secretary of State has powers to intervene in mergers that present public interest concerns. The Government will shortly bring forward the National Security and Investment Bill to further strengthen the UK’s ability to scrutinise investment into the UK. There will be the usual opportunities to debate the Bill once it is introduced.

The European Union also recognises the security risks that can, on occasion, be posed by foreign direct investment, and has responded by bringing forward a regulation that establishes a framework for the screening of foreign direct investment into the European Union. The draft instrument will make effective that regulation, which will come into force on 11 October. As Committee members will know, under the withdrawal agreement the UK is obliged to implement EU law during the transition period. Most of the regulation’s provisions will automatically have direct effect in the UK. I will briefly set out its purpose.

The regulation will create a mechanism that will allow the UK, member states and the European Commission to share information about investments with each other. Specifically, the EU regulation does three things. First, it requires member states and—for the duration of the transition period—the UK to provide notification of any FDI that is undergoing scrutiny. That will have no impact on us, because in the UK notifications of screening under the Enterprise Act are already published on gov.uk.

Secondly, the regulation allows the UK, member states and the European Commission to issue opinions and comments on investments that are being screened elsewhere in the EU, and to request information where their own security or public order might be affected. To be clear, while any opinions expressed might be considered, they will not affect the UK Government’s right to intervene in or make decisions on merger cases that we consider may raise national security concerns: our sovereign capability is not affected.

Thirdly, the regulation requires member states and the UK to share basic information about FDI that has not already been screened where it may affect another member state’s security or public order. The UK could similarly request information or issue opinions on investments occurring in EU member states if we felt that our security or public order might be affected. Member states and the UK are not required to share information on specific security or public order concerns.

The EU regulation will automatically become part of UK law on 11 October 2020. However, some measures in the regulation require changes to UK law to ensure that it can operate effectively in the UK. The draft instrument makes those changes. It will allow the Competition and Markets Authority, the CMA, to use its existing powers, set out in the Enterprise Act, for the purposes of regulation.

However, two changes to the Enterprise Act are being made. The first extends the CMA’s existing information-gathering powers and associated penalty regime. The CMA already gathers information for businesses, when the Secretary of State intervenes in a merger, by issuing a public interest intervention notice, or PIIN. However, the EU regulation allows information to be requested about FDI that is not undergoing screening—when a PIIN has not been issued. It is these cases for which the additional information-gathering powers are needed.

The CMA will be able to gather this information only when a member state or the European Commission has requested it on the basis that FDI into the UK might affect their own security or public order. The types of information that can be requested include the ownership structure of the foreign investor, the value of the investment and the date when the investment is planned to be or has been completed. Businesses already hold that information, so it will not be burdensome to provide. If, however, a business fails to comply with a request, penalties could be issued. The instrument extends the scope of the existing civil and criminal penalty regime available to the CMA, as set out in the Enterprise Act.

The second change that the instrument makes will allow the Secretary of State and the CMA to disclose information to the European Commission or member states where the Secretary of State wishes to provide comments on FDI in a member state. The Enterprise Act already allows the Secretary of State or CMA to provide information to the Commission or member states where that is required because of a Community obligation, but that would not be the case when we actively choose to provide comments on FDI in a member state, which is why the second change is needed.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

May I ask the Minister a question about that second point? I have been listening very carefully to what he said. The explanatory notes make it clear that these regulations will be revoked at the end of this year, when the transition period comes to an end. In the Bill that we will introduce, are we proposing to allow Ministers to continue sharing information with the European Union where they choose to do so in the cases that he set out, or will that come to an end when these regulations are revoked?

[Paul Scully]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. The regulations will be repealed as part of the wider European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. They do not interact with the Bill that we are introducing, but add further powers that can be used.

The UK and the EU have both stated that we intend to support ambitious, close and lasting co-operation on external threats. That co-operation should respect both sides’ strategic and security interests and respective legal orders. We are open to participation in security-facing EU programmes and instruments on a case-by-case basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

As I say, although we are obviously obliged to abide by EU law during the transition period, we do not believe it would be appropriate to remain part of the reciprocal information-sharing channel after the transition period has come to an end. As I say, when the National Security and Investment Bill is introduced, we will be able to debate that fully.

[Mr Harper]

May I clarify something? I think the right hon. Member for North Durham is asking a slightly different question about reciprocal obligations. My question was more straightforward. These regulations give the CMA a power that it does not currently have to share information that we wish to share.

All I was asking was this: in the future, when we are no longer obligated to share information with the EU, will Ministers have the legal power to share that information if they chose to? They will under these regulations, but once those are revoked will Ministers have the power, under the Bill that the Minister has talked about, to share information with the EU if they choose to do so? That is all I was asking. I did not go quite as far as the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting.

[Paul Scully]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that clarification. We already share a lot of this information on gov.uk, and it is not particularly burdensome on businesses to release the information we are looking for. Much of this work is in effect tidying up, because we have gone that little bit further in the Enterprise Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I have one question and one point. I am conscious of your injunction, Mrs Miller, to stick to the subject. This is directly related to points that are made in the explanatory statement.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about the future framework—

[Mr Jones]

Right hon.

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman. I disagree with him on the compulsory nature of the information sharing. I am perfectly happy with a co-operative framework. The point I was driving at—I think this is the substance of the regulations—is that in order for the CMA to share information, it has to have the power to share the information. If it shared the information, even if it wants to, that would be unlawful; it does not have the power to do that sharing.

My point, which I think is different from that of the right hon. Gentleman, is that I am perfectly relaxed that we are not able to compel European Union member states, post the transition period, to share information with us, because I am content that they should not be able to compel us to share information with them. I do, however, want to see a structure where we co-operate with them, so that where we choose to share information with them, we are empowered to do so. The regulations specifically address allowing us to share information.

My question to the Minister is about what is intended to come afterwards. Do we intend to replicate the ability for us to share information where we choose to do so? That is a different point from that made by the right hon. Gentleman, which, I think, is about some element of compulsion.

My second point is that the explanatory notes explicitly say that the intention is to revoke not just the instrument we are debating today but the retained version of the foreign direct investment regulations in their entirety at the end of the transition period. Paragraph 7.1 of the explanatory memorandum states that the FDI regulations do not

“affect the UK’s ability to screen investments into the UK”

because we will retain our own responsibility for national security. Once we have removed those FDI regulations, do we currently have domestic powers to do that screening, or is that what the new Bill is for?

That is an important question, because if we currently have powers and the new piece of legislation the Minister refers to is about strengthening or extending them, I am fairly relaxed about whether there is a gap before the Bill comes into force, because if we already have substantial powers and we are talking about beefing them up, I can live with there being a gap. If we revoke the FDI regulations on 31 December, however—and with them, our current ability to do screening for our own national security—the right hon. Member for North Durham is right to say that we would need the new legislation to come into force immediately upon their revocation or there would be a gap, not just in the sharing of information, but in our own national security. That is a point on which I differ from the right hon. Gentleman, but also one very specific question that pertains to points in the explanatory note.

Housing and Homes

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I will come to the point about leasehold that the hon. Lady highlights, but first I want to finish considering some of the issues in relation to tenancies.

Last month, the Department set up a database of rogue landlords and agents and introduced banning orders. That will make it easier for local authorities to act against rogue landlords and agents to protect tenants. We will shortly consult on options to support landlords to offer longer tenancies to those who want them.

Buyers, too, are getting a fairer deal under this Government. We are determined to make the process of buying a home easier, cheaper and less stressful. As part of that, we put out a call for evidence. That has helped us to identify some practical steps we can take to achieve this goal.

We are also cracking down on abusive practices in the leasehold market. We will legislate to ban the development of new build leasehold houses, except in exceptional circumstances. We will restrict ground rents in newly established leases of houses and flats to a peppercorn.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I want to comment on the point about renters. We often hear that people are forced to move frequently because they do not have long tenancies. My right hon. Friend might be interested to know that the average length of a tenancy in the private sector is 4.3 years and the most common reason for its coming to an end is the tenant wanting it to.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for putting those facts on the record. However, all the reforms for buyers and renters are united by one aim: to improve fairness, standards and affordability across the board.

Housing, Planning and the Green Belt

Lord Harper Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am hoping that the housing White Paper, to which I will return in a minute, will attempt to clarify matters. As he will be aware, a lot of planning applications are assessed against the five-year land supply, particularly on appeal, but there is no methodology for calculating that five-year land supply. That is another problem in the planning system that I hope the Government will be able to correct.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, with whom I share a local authority, for giving way. He is making a good point: this is a regional problem. Figures from the Office for National Statistics on household growth in Gloucestershire show that our local planning authorities are building, or planning to build, enough houses to cope with the population growth. There is a significant problem in London and the south-east, but it is not consistent across the UK. My hon. Friend makes that point very well.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and Gloucestershire neighbour. That is exactly the point that I was seeking to make.

Why are there so many proposals to build houses on the green belt, particularly in my area? In the joint core strategy that is being drawn up by the Tewkesbury, Cheltenham and Gloucester planning authorities, Tewkesbury is looking to cover the unmet need of Cheltenham and Gloucester. However, contrary to planning guidance, the green belt is being compromised to satisfy the undoubted duty to co-operate, and this is creating confusion.

Why is Tewkesbury Borough Council doing this? It is because it feels that it must, and I have some sympathy with its position when I read the details of the planning inspector’s report, which again illustrates anomalies in the planning guidance. The inspector states in her report:

“Taking full account of constraints and the outcomes of cross-border exploration, removal of land from the green belt is needed, so far as is justified, to contribute to housing provision and the five-year supply”.

She goes on to say:

“I find that the adverse impacts of removing land from the green belt would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of contributing towards housing and other development needs”.

Here we see clear evidence of the confusion in the planning guidance with regard to protection of the green belt. The inspector is insisting on building on the green belt and on the floodplain to meet housing numbers, yet the planning guidance clearly states that unmet housing need is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt in importance. I am aware that local planning authorities have the right to change the designation of the green belt at the plan-making stage, but that is not the point. The point is that there is a contradictionin the planning guidance.

I am aware that the Government have introduced a White Paper to consider the housing crisis and the broken housing market, but having read through it, I do not think that it is likely to address the problems of the market or the inconsistencies, contradictions and confusions in the planning system. Nor do I think that it will restore a sense of democracy to the planning process. Indeed, the wishes of a significant proportion of my constituents have been completely disregarded in the outcome of this process. We often hear the Government referring to the importance of local decision making, but the existence of the Planning Inspectorate makes a mockery of that, and does not help us to provide the houses that we need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am grateful for that news, Mr Deputy Speaker, as it means that I can expound my argument a little more fully than I had thought. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), on securing the debate.

In the limited time I have—notwithstanding your generosity, Mr Deputy Speaker—I wish to cover three points. First, I do not think that we have a national housing crisis; we have a serious regional housing problem that is more severe in some parts of the country than others. Secondly, I shall say a little about housing finance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury touched on. Thirdly, I shall say a word or two on an issue to which one or two Members alluded: the need to spread economic growth and development more evenly throughout the country. Doing so would help to deliver housing, including affordable housing, in many parts of the country.

Many Members have commented about the planning system, but I think that it is doing its job properly in many parts of the country by delivering housing in line with the projected population increase. Under the plans that local authorities are putting in place in my area of Gloucestershire, we are projected to build housing in line with the growth in population. There are a number of other regions throughout the country where that is true, but it is not true in London, where we are massively under-building housing compared with the growth in population, as several colleagues have mentioned. There is also significant pressure in the south-east and east. Those are the parts of the country where the projected growth in population is significantly outstripping the housing that is being built, so that is where the Government need to focus their efforts to bring the housing market under control.

My point about population growth is supported by figures on housing affordability, which give us a good idea about whether we are balancing the supply and demand of housing. Unaffordability is not significantly higher in most of the country now than it was before the financial crash, but that is not true in London. In London, the ratio of median house price to median gross residence-based earnings is nearly 13:1, whereas the average for the rest of the country is about 7:1, so London is skewing the national figure and giving a misleading impression.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I talked about the houses that were being built in Wandsworth, but I should have mentioned that thousands of the homes are specifically for low rent or for purchase at low cost. In fact, the focus is on those people whom my right hon. Friend is so concerned about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

That proposal sounds sensible. I am not familiar with the detail, but given what my hon. Friend sets out, it sounds like the local authority is focusing on demand. We will need significantly more of that if we are to meet demand in London.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury put his finger on it when he spoke about housing demand. Clearly, compared with the situation when I was younger, we are much tougher with the loans that people can take out. When we look at what happened to the financial system after the banks made unwise lending decisions, such practice is probably very sensible, but it does make it more difficult for younger people to purchase houses. I welcome what the Government have done on the finance side of the argument, and two things are particularly welcome. The Help to Buy equity loan scheme is helping a significant number of young people who can afford a mortgage to be able to finance their deposit. It is not true to say, as some people do, that that only deals with the demand side of the equation, because it is of course only used for buying new houses. If we look at how house builders operate, we see that they build houses as they sell them. If we make it possible for a first-time buyer to purchase a home through the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, the house builder will then build more houses on that estate, as I have seen clearly in my constituency. Such practice helps on the demand side, which in turn generates housing supply.

I also welcome the introduction of the lifetime individual savings account, which enables younger people to save for a pension or a home, but I have one policy suggestion for the Minister. I am very supportive of our auto-enrolment policy to ensure that everybody saves for a pension, so will he consider whether we could apply auto-enrolment to lifetime ISAs? A young person going into the labour market would then find that their savings and their employer’s contributions would go into a lifetime ISA—at least that would be an option—so that the money could be used to fund either a pension or a home. If someone is a homeowner when they retire, they will not need such a significant pension, because they will not be paying rent on the home that they own. I think that that sensible proposal might make younger people keener to save for a deposit, because they would find it more affordable, so I urge the Minister to consider the suggestion.

I am grateful that the Government have said so much recently about the northern powerhouse. Given the location of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury, I also welcome what the Secretary of State for Wales did with the Severn growth summit to encourage the development of what we might call a western powerhouse to create another centre of gravity for developing economic growth in Wales and the west country. It seems to me that one of the real problems is that we will not deal with the housing crisis simply by building more homes. London, for example, has high levels of immigration—23% of Londoners are non-UK born residents, and 156,000 migrants moved to London in 2016. Having listened to colleagues’ concerns about excessive house building in London, I argue that we cannot build our way out of the problem. A longer- term solution is to generate progress in the northern powerhouse—in transport infrastructure and development in that part of the country—and then generate development in what I might call the western powerhouse in the west of the country and Wales. We could also look at things such as the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford growth corridor, so that we actually see economic development spread more equitably across the United Kingdom. That would mean that rather than feeling the pressure to move to London, or to get a job or create a new business there, young people in many parts of the country would feel able to stay in their home towns and cities, or indeed to move to Manchester and the great cities of the north. That will happen if we create a powerhouse that is globally competitive, as London is.

[Toby Perkins]

I am much happier with where the right hon. Gentleman is finishing his speech than I was with his position six or seven minutes ago. It seems that London has doubled in size during my lifetime, but the major cities of the north have hardly changed. If the message that the Government get today is that we need continually to expand the size of London, I agree entirely that we will not build our way out of this problem, as we will just continue to feed that demand. The solution has to be investment in infrastructure and skills all around the country, not just focused on London.

[Mr Harper]

I am glad that I have cheered up the hon. Gentleman as my remarks have developed, and I hope that I have had that effect on at least one or two other colleagues. He is right that that is the answer. There is a regional housing problem in the United Kingdom. House prices in London and its surrounding areas are massively out of kilter with the rest of the country, and we can deal with some of that by building houses. We do need to increase the density of house building in London, so I welcomed what the Government said yesterday about building upwards, and having slightly increased housing densities and slightly higher rise properties—not massive, but perhaps with more storeys than a traditional two-storey property—but we also need to spread economic growth across the country.

People with housing challenges who live in London should be as supportive of investment in the northern powerhouse and other parts of the country—and in creating a great, globally competitive city in the north—as people who live in the north. Such investment would result in us sharing economic growth more equitably across the country. That is how we deal with the housing challenges that we face more fairly and equitably, and it would also help the whole country’s economic growth and make us more globally competitive.