Wednesday 11th June 2025
(2 days, 22 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHolocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 View all Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-R-I(a) Manuscript amendment for Report - (11 Jun 2025)
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark)
My Lords, before we start, I remind the House that a lot of people will be watching this debate, and of the importance of being mindful of the tone of contributions. This Bill, understandably, stirs passionate and strongly held views across the House from different perspectives, as has been seen at earlier stages. I am sure that noble Lords will continue to uphold the best traditions of the House to speak and argue freely, alongside courtesy and respect for those both inside and outside the Chamber. I wrote to all noble Lords in September, alongside the usual channels, to remind everyone of those courtesies. I ask noble Lords to be mindful, in particular, of our Standing Order to
“be careful to avoid personally insulting or offensive speeches, which offend the customary courtesy of the House”.
I am grateful in advance to noble Lords, and I look forward to constructive debates.
Clause 1: Expenditure relating to a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre
Amendment 1
Viscount Eccles
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, in discussing funding and expenditure, I will consider the present funding and whether there are restrictions on how the money can be properly spent. This will entail consideration of the plans to build the Adjaye/Arad building in Victoria Tower Gardens.
The Holocaust memorial and accompanying learning centre are to be constructed in accordance with the recommendations made in Britain’s Promise to Remember, as accepted by Prime Minister Cameron in Methodist Central Hall on 27 January 2015. The then Prime Minister highlighted two recommendations. First, Britain should have a
“striking and prominent new National Memorial”
in central London. Secondly, there should be a “world-class learning centre” to accompany the national memorial. The Prime Minister also announced the creation of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, in response to the recommendation that there immediately be a permanent independent body to manage the project. He made the promise of £50 million of public money to kick-start fundraising, which was later increased to £75 million.
Page 53 of Britain’s Promise to Remember says:
“The Commission proposes that the permanent body seek to raise money from business and private philanthropy and that the government should match this, pound for pound, up to an agreed limit”.
That proposal has not been accepted; there is no permanent independent body and the Prime Minister’s kick-start has been ignored. Will my noble friend on the Front Bench and the Minister tell the House why the promoter made and maintains the decision not to implement these two recommendations from the commission?
Further, there has been no alternative effort to raise civil society money. Many memorials have been funded by civil society and the commission looked for philanthropy to show the way. Since 2019 there has been the Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust, but no money has been raised. Funding and expenditure decisions are now necessary and urgent; the only funds available are the £75 million of public money. In the present circumstances, that needs to be accepted as a limit. In contrast, for the trustees of the charity, there is no limit; depending on the public’s response, the sky is the limit. Thus for funding there is £75 million and, prospectively, an unknown sum in charitable grants. The formal position remains that these funds must be spent on the commission’s recommendations. As the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation says, it is
“taking forward the recommendations of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission”.
Given what we know from previous planning application proceedings, Committee on this Bill and recent explanations of plans in this House, the memorial and the learning centre are planned to be housed in one building. Unfortunately, this combination of both under one roof is not in accordance with the commission’s recommendations. The evidence is unarguably that the memorial and learning centre are to be closely associated as two distinct organisations in two nearby places. In 2016, the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation aimed to have the memorial constructed by the end of 2017 and the learning centre built and working before the next election. There cannot be any interpretation of Britain’s Promise to Remember that means “under one roof”.
In Committee, the Minister referred to “co-located”. Unusual in its use, “co-located” has a wide meaning, and as used by the commission, it clearly does not mean “under one roof”. The formal position remains that there are restrictions on expenditure, and the Adjaye-Arad building fails to meet the test. We need to agree an alternative that enables us to get on with the job.
Fortunately, there is one. There is widespread support for a conventional, stand-alone national memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. There are many good reasons for simplifying the project in this way, and we will hear about them shortly. The world-class learning centre can be established nearby in Westminster. Because developing the centre will need both time and money, a newly established independent body may need to secure office space before doing anything more ambitious. How it develops the learning centre will depend upon charitable fundraising.
My amendment sets out on the face of the Bill the way in which a conforming compromise could be funded and how we can move ahead. I beg to move.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, bearing in mind the instructions that have come, it is the aim of all of us who oppose this project to be constructive; we want to improve it. It is not about nimbyism, or even the location, but delivering something worthy of the cause: worthy, as I say to myself, of the losses in my own family, which is what has driven me for the last nine years or so. It is in that spirit that we bring forward these amendments.
I support the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in drawing attention to the financial non-management of this project in an era when every penny counts, and when proper education about the Jewish community of this country is crying out for funding and reform. The costs have escalated beyond the original estimates, without even a spade in the ground. The available figures are about two years old, no allowance for inflation has been made, the contingency is far higher than usual, private funds have not been identified publicly and, as I will come to, there is no management control.
As I have said before, I am struck by the contrast with the planned expenditure on a fitting memorial to the late Queen, reportedly to be erected, together with a space for pause and reflection, in Saint James’s Park at a cost of £46 million. The project will include the replacement of the Blue Bridge and is going to be ready in 2026. If such fiscal restraint is good enough for our late Queen, surely something has gone adrift in the financial plans for the memorial.
The petitioners before the Select Committee on the Bill asked that the Government present for the approval of Parliament a report on the capital and operating costs of the project, as well as the financial sustainability of the entity that will execute and operate it, before they present any new or amended proposal for planning permission. I have not seen such a financial report.
The original Government grant was £50 million; that has been raised to £75 million, and we believe the total cost will now be nearly £200 million. The latest estimate was made a couple of years ago.
There is no information about who will do the building, or indeed whether there are any builders willing to do it, given the security risks. The Commons Select Committee commented on this:
“We are particularly concerned about the costs around security of a Memorial and Learning Centre, which would need to be taken into account. Security is likely to be required around the clock, and this is, as yet, an unknown cost. Security is likely to become an expensive additional cost, which we urge the Government not to overlook … On this basis, we urge the Government to consider how ongoing costs are likely to be paid for and whether it offers appropriate use of public money”.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I intervene very briefly, as I have in Grand Committee previously, as the Minister and shadow Minister are aware, to make clear my position on this proposal. I am strongly in favour of a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. I am strongly in favour of a learning centre of good, adequate size that can be of a standard that we would like to see ensured.
All of us sitting here know, as does anyone who has discussed this seriously, that it cannot be done if you try to do it underground in Victoria Tower Gardens. I have great sympathy for the Minister and the shadow Minister because they are both committed; they are obliged to present this. I am sure they believe in it genuinely, but it is the reality that, in the times of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when it was put to him merely to have the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, it was originally proposed that the learning centre would be somewhere else. Then a problem arose over where that somewhere else was, so somebody approached the noble Lord again and he agreed for it to be put into Victoria Tower Gardens, which was not the original proposal.
We understand perfectly well that both the previous and present Governments desperately fear that they might be accused of antisemitism. In the very emotional circumstances that exist at the moment, with all the horrors of Gaza, the two-state solution and the whole Israel situation up in the air—today the Government announced the sanctioning of two senior members of the present Israeli cabinet—this could not be a more emotional and difficult time, and people are very concerned not to be accused of antisemitism. But it is quite clear that the people who will be guilty of antisemitism in the end are those who are proposing this arrangement, because it will never happen.
I have some personal involvement in construction issues in London, and there is no question but that the construction industry has some real problems, including a shortage of skilled people. It is not necessarily going to be the most attractive place to work, with the risk of the sort of demonstrations and other things that will take place. I have not had an answer to the question of whether anybody has yet undertaken to be prepared to quote for this job. If they have agreed to do it, will they in the end be able to honour it, having found some of their employees and skilled men not keen to carry it out?
It is a tragedy, because I think I am right in saying that this has now been going on for nearly nine years. I want to see a memorial and a learning centre. It is my belief that those who have got completely committed and stuck feel it is their duty to stick to where they are and press on. I think it will not happen, and they will then have to bear the responsibility for that. I am not going to get into it, because the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has explained some of these things extremely clearly and well. We know the problems they might run into if they did decide to go ahead with it.
I make one guarantee: if somebody is willing to do it, whatever price is quoted will not be the price at the end. It will keep coming back, and then somebody will get excited about the flood risk and who is going to take responsibility for the people in the learning centre running the risk of drowning if a crowd in there cannot get out. These are all variants on a most unhappy proposal.
I stand firm that we must have a memorial and a learning centre. If we agree not to proceed on this basis, and go ahead independently, it would be possible to do it quite quickly. My understanding is that a number of possible locations for the learning centre are available now, and if we went ahead it would save a lot of public money and mean that it actually happens. I understand the difficulties that the Government Minister and the shadow Minister face, but I believe this very sincerely.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly endorse some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, about building costs. He has much more experience in the world of construction than I do, but it is a matter that is both of interest to people and very important more generally.
We all know that since Covid there has been huge cost inflation in the building industry, partly because of the difficulty in assessing specialist forms of construction. This project falls into a category where generalised prediction is really not very helpful, for all the kinds of reasons that the noble Lord mentioned about the site and the nature of the processes involved in developing it.
When we think about this—it is a relevant consideration to us all—it is worth our while thinking about some well-known parliamentary projects. I think it was the case that the Scottish Parliament overshot 11 times its original budget. This—I am glad to be able to say—was worse than Portcullis House, which in 2000 was estimated to be £80 million over its original budget. That was only roughly half the overshot per square metre of the Scottish Parliament. We need to be very cognisant of the problems that are faced in the financial aspect of all this.
The Government assure us that they have been advised by experts, although, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, we have not seen any detail about all this, as the Government say that they cannot disclose commercially sensitive information into the public domain. Well, fair enough, but no doubt the Government were advised by similar—if not the same—experts on those other two projects, which seem to have been rather inaccurately valued at the outset.
Frankly, as far as costs go, I can see no reason to have any confidence in the amounts that we hear for this scheme, which, after all—as I think has been mentioned already—have gone up from £50 million in 2015 to £137 million now. Like the noble Lord, Lord King, the only thing that I am confident about is that if this project were to go ahead, that will turn out to be an underestimate.
The reality is that with projects of this kind, it is invariably a matter of “build now, pay up later”. It is not a fiscal rule; it is a rule of experience.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation, as I have been for nearly a decade, and a resident of Westminster who walks my dog in the park.
I remind us all that this is Report, not Second Reading, and I will attempt to resist the huge temptation to remind noble Lords that the foundation considered more than 50 sites and that there is huge value in collocating the memorial with the learning centre—I could go on. Instead, I would just like to focus on this actual amendment.
We all know that putting the costs in nominal pounds in the Bill is a bad idea. It does not matter what the building is or what we are trying to do: putting costs in a Bill makes for bad legislation. Each of the speeches we have heard today has been a Second Reading speech, because this is really an amendment designed to wreck the memorial. I think we should be honest about that.
We should not put costs in the Bill. It is not surprising that the costs have escalated over the last decade—we have been living through a period of very high inflation. We have not put a spade in the ground precisely because of the planning process that has taken so long. This is not unique to the Holocaust memorial; sadly, it is a fact of life for every major building project in this country, which is a subject for a much broader debate.
It is not surprising that fundraising has not been started, because it cannot be until there is planning permission to build something. So I am afraid that the arguments being used in favour of this amendment are actually arguments against a Second Reading of the Bill, and therefore we should dismiss them.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am also a member of the foundation. In fact, I am one of the co-chairs and trustees. I can confirm what the noble Baroness said: we cannot start fundraising until there is planning permission.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My noble friend has been talking about planning permission. Would he confirm that Westminster Council, both Labour and Conservative councillors, rejected planning permission here? In fact, it is only because that was called in and pushed through by the Government that we have got to this stage. He talks about local democracy, but local democracy was overruled.
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.
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.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, this is not an easy debate to reply to. I thank noble Lords who have spoken but will not attempt to sum up what they said. Many things were said about what has happened so far, why we should have a memorial and what the dangers will be, but that is not my purpose, which is a narrow one.
I was 14 when the British Army went into Bergen-Belsen. I remember that circumstance very clearly: I remember what we thought about it, what we said to each other about it, and how we were held to think about it very carefully by our schoolmasters, one of whom was an Anglican priest. I have thought about that circumstance very carefully ever since; it comes back to me often.
My problem is that I do not think the memorial and the learning centre should be in one building. I have made a technical argument that simply says that if we were implement the commission’s recommendation, they would not be in one building—they would be in two buildings. I think that technical argument runs, but I do not want to make too much of it. What I want to see is a national memorial, and we have nearly all come to agree that it can be in Victoria Tower Gardens without wrecking and so altering the gardens so that they are not gardens any more.
If we were to construct an unmanned, conventional memorial in accordance with the commission’s recommendations, we would have done that and, of course, we would still have needed the learning centre. To my mind, going to the memorial to remember is very different from the research, the understanding and the learning of lessons. The commission was absolutely right when it recommended that the memorial and the learning centre should be two separate matters.
In addition—and I totally support my noble friend Lord King—there are huge problems with what is on the table at the moment, and it needs to be simplified. There is a will to construct a conventional, appropriate and, I hope, brilliantly designed national memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. We should be getting on with getting that constructed. The foundation said it needed two years—if anyone thinks the present plans will be completed in two years, they need to think again.
My noble friend Lord Sassoon talked about public money. Of course I am conscious about public money; we all are in today’s circumstances. There is no doubt that £75 million would be sufficient to build a really impressive national memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Should I ask the House to decide? It is not really very easy to be confident, given the position of the two main parties, but this is Report: there is time for noble Lords to think, change their minds and go for a perfectly conforming and satisfactory solution to the situation we are in, so I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
Member’s explanatory statement
No Learning Centre should be constructed underground in order that a Learning Centre be constructed of adequate size in line with the recommendation of the 2015 Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission Report and in order to avoid detriment to Victoria Tower Gardens.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I should start by explaining why I am speaking at all on this subject. The reason is a personal one. My grandfather, the previous Lord Russell of Liverpool, fought in and survived the First World War. He was obviously a very brave man: he won the Military Cross not once, not twice, but three times. He had a Military Cross with two bars, which made him a fairly formidable individual. He subsequently became a lawyer, and he joined the Judge Advocate-General’s office of the Army. Between 1946 and 1951, he and his team were responsible for preparing and overseeing the war crimes trials throughout that period in the British occupied zone of Germany.
As noble Lords may imagine, what he and his team saw, read and experienced was pretty searing. They visited the camps, talked to the survivors and interviewed the perpetrators. That must have been a pretty unpleasant experience. The experience was strong enough that, in 1952, only seven years after the cessation of hostilities, my grandfather, who was still in the Judge Advocate-General’s department—he was the deputy by then—became increasingly disturbed to hear that a generation of young Germans going through schools was starting to emerge who were already beginning Holocaust denial. The rumour was that this was propaganda put out by the Americans, that they had exaggerated the situation and were trying to keep Germany under control.
My grandfather was sufficiently worried about this that he decided, because he had all the material which his team had collected, that somebody needed to go on the record and write a factual account of what happened—the beginnings of proper Holocaust education, if you like. He wrote the book and, as he was still an employee of the Army, he sent it to the authorities, because he needed to get permission to publish it. He was not given permission. The reason given at that time—the early 1950s—was that, with the Marshall plan’s money coming in and the early stirrings of the European Coal and Steel Community, which ultimately became the European Union, there was a feeling that one should not rake over the painful coals of the recent past too much and that it was important to try to move on.
My grandfather disagreed with that, so he resigned. I hope he thanked the Army for that, because it resulted in such a huge amount of publicity that his book immediately became a bestseller. It is called The Scourge of the Swastika, and I am ashamed to say it is still in print. It is a factual, educational account of part of what happened during the Holocaust. That is a personal reason for why I am speaking on this amendment, which is to do with the educational part of the national Holocaust memorial.
We are on Report. I am conscious that, like me, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, as a fellow Deputy Speaker, finds one of the less enjoyable parts of the privilege of being a Deputy Speaker to be sitting on the Woolsack listening to Second Reading speeches—so I do not intend to indulge in that. Indeed, I hope this group will not take very long, because the point I will try to make to your Lordships is about the difference between what was originally hoped and envisaged for what the learning centre would be and would be capable of delivering, and the increasingly likely reality if we proceed in the way that it is currently put together.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
This is Report stage, so the noble Lord can intervene if it is on a point of fact.
Lord Pickles (Con)
What I said was that it was the opinion of the American museum and of Auschwitz and Yad Vashem that this would be the most visited.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the noble Lord; I will still use that as evidence. Many of your Lordships may have seen the model that was in the Royal Gallery last week. If noble Lords can envisage more than 1.5 million people being able to go through the memorial and learning centre on an annualised basis, they are much better at logistics than I am because I find that hard to envisage.
I want to point out briefly what the Levine institute, the education centre at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC, is doing and has done brilliantly, and think about comparing that with what one might be able to do with the learning centre as currently designed. The Levine institute has educated more than 272,000 professionals during the intervening years. I am not talking about children going through: I am talking about education where it matters. It has educated almost 70,000 military professionals, nearly 7,000 civil servants and 27,500 federal and state legal professionals. It has also conducted programmes on this in 45 states, and in Canada and Puerto Rico. It has delivered educational programmes to almost 170 federal, state and local law-enforcement officials across the United States. As far as I am concerned, that is that is real education. That is not simply trying to get to young people, but going to a whole variety of areas in society where people often have to make judgments about antisemitic or racial behaviour. For me, that is what education is, and really should be, about.
I just ask your Lordships to reflect on the contrast between what could be possible with a world-class learning centre, and what is going to be practical to deliver in the learning centre as envisaged. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said on this amendment. He made many important points in moving it. I particularly identify with the points he made about lifelong learning and education being not just for children, but for all of us. Whatever our age, we should go on learning more about and understanding better what has happened in our world, including the horrors of the Holocaust.
In supporting the noble Lord, I am asking for a compromise. It should be agreed to go ahead with a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, but to move away from building a learning centre there and to find a more appropriate location for it. I raised this in Committee, and I was extremely disappointed by the Minister’s reply as he rejected this suggestion. I am now asking him to think again. Governments do need to think again when confronted with sincere and well thought-out opposition that does not totally dismiss a project. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, that there is nothing wrecking about this. I do not think there was about the previous amendment, and there certainly is not about this one. It is about trying to do something better, but going ahead with many of the objectives of the project.
This amendment tries to find a way through what most of the proponents of this scheme want, removing only that aspect of the scheme that is so controversial. In a spirit of compromise, also called for by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, it accepts that the proponents of the project want the Holocaust to be remembered in a space close to Parliament. Personally, I am a bit unconvinced of the necessity of placing it bang outside the Palace of Westminster, and I am not quite sure what it is meant to convey. However, I accept that people feel passionately that this is the right location for the memorial, and I believe that it should go ahead.
It should be a small, beautifully designed monument, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, above the ground and at a reasonable cost—probably a lot less than the cost of a learning centre. It could be built in Victoria Tower Gardens quite quickly. That would remove the controversy that surrounds the present plan, including the security problems; the swamping of a small heritage park; the restrictions on current users of the park, including small children; the risk of flooding and fire; and inadequate space for an exhibition from which visitors can both learn and be inspired—inspiration is very important here. I agree with the Minister that it should not be done on the cheap. In fact, the learning centre will cost quite a lot. But the proposal for including a learning centre as part of the memorial, in four small rooms below ground with no natural light and no exhibits, just a digital display, is wholly misconceived.
As a former chair of the Royal Institute of British Architects Trust, I am, I am afraid, very puzzled as to why a distinguished group of judges selected this design. As others have said, the building is too big for this small park and too small to accommodate a learning centre of any quality. The exhibition should fully explore the historical background to antisemitism in Europe and the persecution of Jewish populations in a number of countries, followed by this persecution becoming far more extreme in Nazi Germany and in the countries the Nazis conquered. There needs to be full coverage of the ghettos and the restrictions they entailed, then of the establishment of concentration camps, the transportation of Jews to them in the most cruel conditions, the forced labour and the torture of those imprisoned, and the final solution, as the Nazis described it, in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and elsewhere. It would need to cover what was known about the existence of the camps in Germany and elsewhere, as well as the eventual liberation of those camps and what happened to the survivors, including a wide range of touching and important individual stories. There needs to be enough space to reflect on how to prevent the horrors of the Holocaust ever happening in Europe again.
Racism in all its forms is abhorrent. Antisemitism is based on extreme intolerance, vicious stereotyping and ignorance. What is proposed for the learning centre is a huge lost opportunity and, as Sir Richard Evans, Britain’s most distinguished historian of the Third Reich, said, it is “an embarrassment”. It is certainly an embarrassment compared with Washington and many other Holocaust learning centres elsewhere.
I had ministerial responsibility for museums, as well as having some background in education, so it disappoints me that we have come up with such a weak proposal. As the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, said, it would be a better solution to find an alternative location for a Holocaust learning centre that could do justice to the wide range of issues I have just described, which ought to be covered. That would make for a more meaningful and memorable experience for those visiting it, especially young people but also older people.
One possibility would be to combine it with a new Jewish museum to celebrate the enormous contribution made by the Jewish community to culture, science, the economy and the political life of this nation. A previous Jewish museum has had to close, I believe because of funding issues associated with the lease of its building. Another alternative is for the learning centre to be located at the Imperial War Museum alongside its Second World War galleries. The museum has extensive visitor facilities and ample parking space.
In Committee the Minister said the vision of the sponsors was to have the memorial and learning centre together in one place. Other speakers have questioned this. Surely this is not essential. We can do something better if we separate them. It involves awful compromises, both on what kind of learning centre is created and on the damage it will do to this small park if we put them together. Any memorial monument could signal the presence of a learning centre not too far away. The learning centre should be built above ground, not below. Others will comment on the risks of flooding and fire and the difficulty of escape for those cooped up in these underground galleries. I want to mention the extra cost of excavation, which was not covered in the first amendment we discussed today. The plan is to excavate more than eight metres down to achieve the proposed dimensions. As I have already made clear, these dimensions are too small. The total volume of soil to be removed amounts to 24,800 cubic metres. The design requires a basement box with concrete heavy construction consisting of many piles around the box. In Committee I asked the Minister whether he could say what the extra cost of building underground is. He was not able to do so in his reply. Without notice that is understandable, but given that he has now had notice, perhaps he can tell the House today.
On a later amendment I will say why the qualities of this small park on a world heritage site should not be in any way jeopardised. We must not risk damaging what is a welcome open space for those who live and work in this neighbourhood. I beg the Government to reconsider and to seek another location that allows a far better experience for visitors without the continued controversy that the current proposal involves.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I support Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, as it encapsulates my concern. I intend to speak briefly. During the debate on ping-pong on the data Bill on 2 June, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to some pre-ministerial training administered in the days before he and colleagues entered government, which included a former senior civil servant saying:
“Whatever happens, it is never too late to avoid making a bad decision”.—[Official Report, 2/6/25; col. 498.]
I believe that this Bill, heavy with good intentions, is prodigal with bad decisions, and I ask the Government to desist. When I hear the former Member of this House, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, whose sensitivity on these issues is matched by great wisdom, saying things such as:
“The hardest question for this proposal to answer, I believe, is whether we are being lured towards a grand gesture whose actual effects are so very far from clear”,
I am concerned.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I warmly endorse the amendment and the speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the right reverend Prelate. I briefly invite your Lordships to make a comparison in order to understand how we might look at this issue. It is a comparison we can make with our own eyes when we travel in this part of London every day, because we can walk past the Cenotaph.
Even before the First World War came to a conclusion, people thought very hard about how to remember it and how to pay the right tribute and get the right amount of information to preserve it with memorials and so on. The Imperial War Museum was conceived before the war ended in 1917 and the Cenotaph was erected as early as 1922, so people moved faster in those days when they thought about these matters, but they thought very hard. One of the things that people such as Rudyard Kipling, Fabian Ware and of course Lutyens were debating was: what are we trying to say? They tried to work it out very carefully before they said it, and I think we have been doing the process backwards.
In the Cenotaph you have a beautiful simplicity that is very carefully thought about. It is a monument to the dead and all it says is, “The Glorious Dead”. It does not even say, “Our Glorious Dead”, or “The Dead of the British Empire”. It says, “The Glorious Dead”, and that is it. Everybody who has walked past it ever since has thought about that. Indeed, in the days when men wore hats, they always took off their hats to it as they passed. At the same time, quite separately but with similar motives, people thought about how to commemorate it in the sense of learning and historical thought and evidence, and there you have the Imperial War Museum.
There is no reason to believe that the commemorative memorial idea should physically go with the learning idea. In this case, for all sorts of reasons adumbrated, that is physically difficult as well. I ask us to learn from that very beautiful example and to apply it to a situation and a subject that is equally important and equally tragic.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I was not aware of his grandfather, but I have made a note and I am certainly going to purchase his book, The Scourge of the Swastika. A memorial without a learning centre would fail to meet the objectives of the Prime Minister’s commission of 10 years ago in 2015. The report promised for us to remember and, as was mentioned earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said that it is
“the right idea, in the right place and at the right time”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1169.]
That was the Prime Minister in 2015. The Prime Minister for the 2017 general election, the noble Baroness, Lady May, agreed with that, as did subsequent Prime Ministers in 2019 and 2024. The Conservatives and Labour had this proposal in their manifestos.
The other place has voted on this, so now it has come to this House. This House is a revising Chamber. Some of the amendments may be well intentioned but, from listening to them, I think some of them are meant to wreck the Bill, because a memorial without the learning centre, as I say, would not work. Without an integral learning centre, the memorial would lack context. We would miss the opportunity to help millions of visitors learn the facts of the Holocaust and its significance for Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Moore, mentioned how the Cenotaph came about. As we walk past, we see “The Glorious Dead”, and, as he rightly says, those who served in the First and Second World Wars would know about that. But we are talking about the future here. The generations to come—our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren—need to be educated on what happened. That is the whole point of having this centre there. It is fanciful to suggest that a learning centre could be placed elsewhere without losing this opportunity for visitors to learn.
Abandoning the proposed design for Victoria Tower Gardens would mean setting the programme back many years. Perhaps that is the intent of the amendment. It is wholly unrealistic to imagine that a new site in any remotely suitable location would gather universal support. We would at best spend many more years facing and listening to objections from a new set of voices. I am sorry to say that, but it is the feeling that I have. The Government are right to bring this to the House as previous Governments have done, so I will not be supporting this amendment.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I am asked two questions that I always find really irritating. The first is whether I am Jewish and, if I am not, why I am interested in this. The second is, “What got you interested in the Holocaust?” I can tell the House that when I was 10 years old, in 1962, my grandfather got me as a birthday present a copy of The Scourge of the Swastika, which I read from cover to cover. It put the living daylights into me and I have always been fascinated by it. I am sorry that I had not made the connection with the noble Lord. It is a wonderful contribution not just to this country’s history but to its literature.
The noble Baroness made an important point about the loss of the Jewish Museum, which I mourn; I thought it was a really good museum. I am sure she was a regular visitor and I have to tell her that I was too. Without going into detail, there were some management problems that accelerated the problems there, but I make it clear that you can count me in for any revival of the Jewish Museum, because it is important. It fulfils the role that the noble Lord, Lord Moore, referred to in his excellent column about the importance of the POLIN museum in Warsaw. It is a wonderful museum about Polish life and about an understanding of the importance of Jewry in Poland. The hard truth is that the heart was ripped out of Poland by the Holocaust, and Poland has simply not recovered.
I hope noble Lords will not mind me reminding them that the POLIN museum is subterranean. I hope they will not mind me reminding them that the size of the Holocaust section of the POLIN museum is just fractionally larger than the learning centre proposed for Victoria Tower Gardens. I hope they will not be too upset if I remind them that the Berlin Holocaust museum, which goes along with that interesting memorial, is subterranean, and I hope they will not mind me reminding them that it is considerably smaller than the learning centre. Part of the Washington museum is subterranean and, when that museum decided to look at its country during the Holocaust, as we intend to look at ours, the size of its exhibit was smaller than ours. The proposed museum is not exceptionally small. If you look across the world, you will see that, by and large, it meets the numbers.
We have to make it clear that we have the full support of the Imperial War Museum to build it here. We have on the foundation people from the museum in Washington and from the 9/11 museum in New York. We have people who represent the Imperial War Museum. Forgive me, but I have learned throughout this debate what a distinguished historian is: it is a historian who agrees with you. We have a whole list of distinguished Holocaust historians on our academic board who support the memorial.
If we were now to say, “Let’s just build a memorial and find a learning centre elsewhere”, that would be a big missed opportunity, because we are living in a post-Holocaust world. We have just seen the election of a Polish President who has allegations against him of being a Holocaust denier. We cannot wait to do this. This would be an important global institution, and we should not throw it away.
I shall quote two small paragraphs from a letter that we have received from the Holocaust Education Trust, which each Member has received. It is from our friend Mala Tribich, the sister of the late Sir Ben Helfgott. She says:
“I was liberated in Bergen-Belsen by the exceptional British Army in 1945 and London has been my home for most of my life. It feels entirely fitting that a memorial should stand in the country that so many survivors are grateful to and have called their home. My brother and fellow survivor Sir Ben Helfgott … campaigned passionately for this national Holocaust Memorial and dreamed of seeing its opening—it saddens me that he did not live to see it come to pass. It is my hope I will be able to attend the opening and remember Ben and all the family we lost”.
Karen Pollock says in the same letter that more than 10 years ago the memorial was first proposed, and now is the time to act:
“Many survivors like Mala still dream of being present at its opening. Tragically, others—like Sir Ben Helfgott and Lily Ebert MBE—will never have that chance”.
If we split the memorial from the learning centre and do not go along with these proposals, it will be decades, or maybe never, before it is built, and that would be unforgivable.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to this amendment and I have not spoken in this debate yet.
Here are a few facts about myself. I am a secular Jew. One of my cousins was lucky to survive the Second World War in Rotterdam. I have experienced a great deal of antisemitism in my time, some of it through ignorance and some of it deliberate.
I have looked at this carefully and listened to the comments that have been made. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, that I was disappointed. I read the book The Scourge of the Swastika when I was 15 years old and it made an indelible impression upon me. The author wrote another book—if noble Lords have not read it, I can recommend it—called The Knights of Bushido, which is about Japanese war crimes and is equally horrific. So I think I know a fair amount about this subject.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, can I clarify some points that have arisen? I think many people are speaking as if there were no Holocaust memorials or learning centres in this country. We have at least half a dozen and 21 learning centres and they do not seem to have had much effect—there has never been an impact assessment. As for yet another one with an extremely narrow remit about rather recherché elements of the British reaction to or knowledge of the Holocaust in the 1930s and 1940s, if you did not know an awful lot before you went into it, you would not know much when you came out because it is not going to be able to tell you the whole story. It will be only about things such as Churchill and whether the camps should have been bombed and so on. Unless you were pretty knowledgeable at first, it would not teach you anything.
Indeed, the curator at his presentation the other day was unable to say what was going to be learned. He was unable to say whether it was going to combat antisemitism; in fact, I think he said it would not. Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, the great survivor who played the cello at Auschwitz, which saved her life, appeared before the Commons Select Committee in her wheelchair. She thumped the table and said it was rubbish. She asked what people were going to learn after 80 years—that we should not kill each other? Was that all we had to offer? In fact, the content as proposed is a sort of tribute to British greatness, British democracy, a kind of absolution: “We are not like that”. I will come back to that.
The other thing that should be clarified is about this tsunami of letters that noble Lords have received. Note that nearly all of them come from individuals. Even the president of the Board of Deputies has not been able to bring himself to put it to a vote because it would very likely be split. This comes from individuals who do not seem to know the British scene or how many other memorials we already have.
In fact, the reason the memorial has to be co-located is that this particular design is not exactly a memorial. What are you going to think if you see 23 sticks sticking up in the air? Of course, it has to have a learning centre somewhere; otherwise, people will just say, “What on earth is this?” and pass on by. Also, the model in the Royal Gallery that has been shown to your Lordships is misleading. It has little figures climbing on the mound but does not show the security buildings that will be necessary or the fences and all the other paraphernalia that are going to have to accompany it. It also seems to put the Buxton memorial in the wrong place; we will come to that.
What we are talking about tonight is largely a moral and historical issue. If ever there was an issue that merited a free vote, it is this one. Indeed, noble Lords know full well that if they have to be whipped to support this project, there is something gravely wrong with it. If it was a good project, there would be no problem at all. The other thing noble Lords have been told is that no Holocaust memorial is ever built without controversy. This is quite wrong, as is the other notion that has been put about that the project was in the Labour manifesto; it was not. The Imperial War Museum, the National Holocaust Centre in Newark, memorials in Swanage and Huddersfield and many others were all built without opposition. It is only when it is clearly in the wrong place, offering no education or commemoration, like in Hyde Park and this one, that there is opposition.
I suspect that many noble Lords have not visited the others nor learned from the 21 learning centres already existing because the debate always seems to assume that there was nothing until this project started and if it does not come about there will always be nothing. That is simply not the case. There are more than 300 memorials and museums around the world and as they go up, as they are built, so the antisemitism rises. The amendment to confine building in Victoria Tower Gardens to overground is perhaps the most sensible and achievable one of all. In a nutshell, this amendment says, if you are in a hole, stop digging.
If the Government want to get a memorial up quickly, without dissent, without limitless costs and all the other obstacles, the answer is to build a proper memorial—one that speaks to you, that says something to you—and put a learning centre close by. It is the building underground that is causing all the trouble. The POLIN Museum in Warsaw, which I have been to, has basements but basically it is a building that is overground, next to an evocative Warsaw Ghetto memorial. But building here means excavation to the depth of two storeys, with a consequent mound to dispose of the soil, which, incidentally, is not depicted in the model. There are flood and fire risks that we will come to.
The underground nature is not a virtue in itself, it came about only because the site was selected without proper research and is too small for what is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, knows, because he was Prime Minister at the time, that the space and nature recommendations that he accepted in his Holocaust Commission report of 2015 have been abandoned. Those who were involved in that, I suppose, cannot be happy with the way it has been cut down now. All they can do is put a brave face on it and try to justify it retrospectively.
The present underground plan is claustrophobic and dark. It is entered by a slope and no consideration seems to have been given to rain. We all know that when architects put up memorials they show you sun and trees and people strolling around. They never factor in rain and this one will have rain going down the slope. The idea was that there should be a place for contemplation, commemoration and prayer but it is too cramped. If you put a decent learning centre somewhere else, you would not need planning permission, you would not need this Bill. It would enable people who want to go to go without a ticket. It would not do the harm it is going to do.
As I have said, the designer’s track record is not a good one, and his current plan has not been able to proceed. You can see it online; it is just an empty site. Somebody mentioned HS2, and quite right too, because this plan has been rated by the National Infrastructure Commission thrice as undeliverable. It has been put in the same category as HS2, and not for planning reasons.
There is a compromise that we have been offering for years: a memorial quickly and a learning centre, with more spacious accommodation, in Westminster. That will achieve the basic 2015 recommendation for a campus, with offices for all of the Holocaust organisations and a lecture hall. What we have been presented with is a failure on every score. It will not be a worldwide attraction—why should it be?—and, in fact, it might not be an attraction at all.
It must be a matter of regret for the entire nation that those responsible for advancing this project have continued with a manifestly impossible plan on such a controversial and inappropriate site. It has given rise to intense opposition from local residents, and from all those who have ambitions in relation to education about Jewish history. As the late and much-lamented former Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks said, the Holocaust must be studied in context. That is why the POLIN Museum is so good. The actual size of the Holocaust element in it is irrelevant; it is in the context of more than 1,000 years of history of Jews in Poland. People know why they were there, what happened and what happened afterwards, which is important.
Instead of accepting the compromise that we have offered, the proposers insist on delivering a memorial that is essentially a tourist attraction, for selfies, with a visitor centre attached—a convenient stop for anyone in Westminster who wants a café and a toilet. It shows disregard for the very distinguished Jewish opponents of it. I would hardly include myself among those, but historians, professionals, writers, lawyers, some journalists and people in the creative community have come out and said that this is not good enough for our family, not good enough to teach people and not good enough for this country.
Most damaging of all is the interference with R&R and the repair of Victoria Tower, but I will come to that later. The plan to build underground will come back to haunt the parliamentary authorities if it is not abandoned.
There are many supporters who seem to be content with any memorial rather than a good memorial. It is understandable that the Government are anxious to shake off the allegations of antisemitism that were investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It is not antisemitic to oppose this project and to want to improve it. I did not want to have to raise that, but I have.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
The noble Baroness has spoken for 10 minutes. I hope she can now bring her remarks to an end, considering this is Report and not Committee stage of the Bill, and a lot of these arguments were rehearsed then.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I will conclude by saying that this needs a complete rethink, and now is the chance for your Lordships to rescue the proposal.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I have not previously spoken in the debates on this Bill and I had not expected to speak today, but I wish to say a few words in support of the observations made by my noble friend Lord Pickles.
My grandmother was killed in Auschwitz. I was partly brought up by an aunt who survived Auschwitz, but who had actually been in a gas chamber on two occasions. Like others who have spoken, I have some vested interest in this subject.
I have other experience which may be relevant. For many years, I practised as a planning KC. I am very familiar with the range of objections that are likely to be—and very often are—put forward, to any proposal. People would say, “I absolutely support the principle of this development, but it is in the wrong place”; they would say, “I absolutely support the principle of this development, but it is the wrong design”; and they would say, “I would absolutely support the principle of this development, but it is going to cost too much”. I can predict one thing for your Lordships: whatever alternative proposal is advanced to the proposal that is in this Bill, there will be those who come forward with that kind of objection.
This proposal has been before Parliament for too long. My noble friend who spoke from the Front Bench at the conclusion of our debate on the previous amendment recited a long list of those organisations dedicated to the commemoration of the Holocaust which support this proposal. Is your Lordships’ House going to go against them? I very much hope not.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. It is interesting for how many of us Belsen was part of our lives. I was born in Celle, after the war, my father being in the BAOR and working with what were called DPs—displaced persons. He arrived not on the first day of the liberation of Belsen but soon after. I grew up, albeit with a very different background from that of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, with that experience. I think those of us who were brought up in that childhood have commemorated almost every day of our lives what happened. For those of us who believed in the European Union, it grew from the same basis—I know not everyone took the same view on Europe—of “never again”. This is a part big of my life.
The desire for commemoration does not mean that one has to support the particular proposal here, with the learning centre. I thought the reference to the Cenotaph was very moving. When one walks through the park—those of us who work in Millbank use it a lot—one stops at the Burghers of Calais. I think I am right in saying that the only time Rodin came to London was to discuss and choose the site of the Burghers of Calais, one of the most memorable statues or memorials in the country. Care was taken with the story he was trying to portray, albeit a much older story.
Yes, there should be a commemoration with a statue or equivalent, but there is this idea of millions of people coming. How are we going to deal with the traffic? I think we will deal with that in a later amendment. Before we come to that amendment, which will deal with a proper assessment, let us say yes to a commemoration, but that does not mean that we have to take over the whole of that garden and put in what would be a very small learning centre, with all the disadvantages that come with that.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests as being on the Chief Rabbinate Trust and the Jewish Leadership Council, and as someone whose family was mostly wiped out by the Holocaust. My parents escaped and came here, and have always been hugely grateful for the protection of this country. I am deeply saddened at the controversy created by this proposed memorial and learning centre to support the promise to remember, which I have always believed is so important and so valuable.
I would like to put on record my gratitude for the support for this important project from both the previous and the current Government, and for the work put into it by so many Ministers, noble Lords and people who, as we have heard, have no direct interest and are not Jewish themselves. I recognise that we are a tiny minority of the population, but the work that has gone into this by so many is something that I am most grateful for. I understand the many objections and concerns that have been raised by noble Lords. I know that they are deeply and passionately held, and I do not believe they stem from antisemitism in any way, but this amendment would undermine the vision and purpose of this project.
Both the memorial and a learning centre are essential and are part of what this original project envisaged. Without the learning centre, I do not believe that it would achieve the aims. Noble Lords may or may not like the design, and I have enormous respect and admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Deech, all of whom I know have good intentions.
The Berlin museum is underground and actually, that subterranean environment contributes in some way to the power of the horrors portrayed. Not everyone will agree, but that is how it struck me. All the elements outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, can and will be incorporated into the learning centre—and she is right: they are all so important.
The bottom line is that at this stage, after so many years of such regrettably bitter controversy, I sincerely believe that if this project as proposed, with the support of both the current Government and the Opposition, does not go ahead now, there will be no memorial and no new visitor or education centre to explain what happened. In the context of Parliament, of democracy, and of moral and historical issues, the siting next to Parliament is important. I hope that noble Lords will be able to accept this now.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, may I briefly intervene? I hate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Howard, not least because I have great respect for him, but I was made to speak on this by listening to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who spoke extremely well, if I may say so. I too have read The Scourge of the Swastika—I was appalled by what I read, when I was about 15 or 16—and The Knights of Bushido. It is appalling.
Yesterday when I went to lunch, purely coincidentally, there was a man there who told me that his mother had been on the last train to Auschwitz. She was a German Jew, and her father had been killed on the eastern front. The mother, who was Jewish, put the girl in a convent, but she was found in the last few weeks of the war and sent to Auschwitz—and, luckily, survived, obviously, because this young man was there.
The point about that story is that it is not just the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and everybody else in this Chamber; there are people still alive who saw the awful things that happened in the Second World War, and we need to remember that. I know that many people here will have been to Yad Vashem. What an astonishing experience that is, to go to Jerusalem and to see that shocking display—certainly shocking to me, anyway.
I have also been to Poland, only once. I went courtesy of the Holocaust Educational Trust to Auschwitz, and thanked them for it. It was amazing. Again, it was literally tear-jerking. By the way, I would point out to my noble friend Lord Pickles, who mentioned the underground bit of the Polish war memorial, that it obviously has not had very much effect on the Polish president, whom he said might have anti-Holocaust beliefs. Is that right?
Lord Pickles (Con)
My noble friend asks me specifically, so I shall tell him that when I arranged a meeting in Milan with the curator of the POLIN museum, he was frightened to leave the museum, because if he did so, the then Government—the same party as that of the new president—were going to sack him. What my noble friend needs to understand is that there is a battle going on about Holocaust memorials, and if we are to preserve things like the POLIN museum we need to preserve the truth. This will be an important part of it.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I agree with my noble friend 100% about preserving the truth, but I do not think the truth is necessarily preserved by this particular proposed learning centre. We need something a lot better, frankly. It was said in 2015, as I understand it, that the Imperial War Museum wanted the learning centre there. I went round the galleries of the Imperial War Museum on the Holocaust—I think they are permanent—and they too are very impressive. We can enhance them. I am not a planner, but I would not object to that. The Imperial War Museum has space and can enhance the view and have an impressive learning centre. We need an impressive learning centre for this appalling crime against humanity—and, to back up what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, I am afraid that this proposal is not for an impressive centre.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, the amendment is specifically about the underground nature of this project. I have three brief questions which I would like to put to the Minister in the hope that he can answer them when he addresses the House. The first relates to what my noble friend Lord Pickles said—notwithstanding the passion with which spoke this evening and the dedication, which I am sure we all admire, he has shown to this project for many years. He told us about other memorials that are either wholly or partially subterranean, but no one has explained, no one has given a positive reason, why it is a good idea to put a memorial underground. If we are proud to erect this memorial, to invest money in it and to care about it, why would we hide it away underground instead of putting it somewhere where it can be properly admired and seen?
When I say “it”, I have to divide that into two parts, because on the one hand we have a learning centre and on the other hand we have a memorial. I am sure that most people who are paying attention to this debate today do not know what we are talking about. They think we are debating whether there should be a memorial or not. We are not. We are debating whether there should be a learning centre or not. No one is against a memorial. So my first question is: what is good about putting a learning centre underground rather than overground, which would be so much easier and more accessible for children, old people and others?
Having looked at the plans for this project, my second question is: where do people go briefly to pay their respects to those who died in the Holocaust? We are told that people coming to visit this memorial will come by bus, go through security and then go underground. That is a large project. It would be a big undertaking for anyone who was visiting London and wanted to pay their respects to the whole issue of the Holocaust. Where would you go to lay flowers? Where would you go to take a picture to send to your family back home to say, “I’ve been to the Holocaust Memorial”?
When I first knew about this project, what I imagined was a beautiful statue—a statue between the Burghers of Calais and the Buxton Memorial, which would provide, as my noble friend Lord Finkelstein movingly said in one of the sessions of the Committee on this Bill, a place to celebrate many occasions in world history when good has overcome evil. So why not have a beautiful memorial of that kind, which can be easily visited, seen and admired, and that will not cause any problems, and put the learning centre somewhere else? No one has explained why that cannot be done.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The core of the problem is that the learning centre is too cramped, small and poky. I do not think it should be underground, but the real problem is that it is too small to tell such a huge story. What we have is a site that is too small for the Shoah but a project that is too big for the site. The learning centre is what really matters.
My credentials to speak are not nearly as good as others. My father was an Army doctor at the liberation of Bergen-Belsen, but he never told us anything about it, so shocked was he by what he saw. I learned about his role there—I think he was the first Army doctor in—only after he was dead. I think that he would have said that what matters most of all is the education, and for that you really do need a lecture theatre and libraries as well as electronics and computer desks. A tourist exhibit down a hole in the gardens does not match up to what one is looking for from an education centre.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will address directly the question that my noble friend posed on why collocation is important and why this is the right location. I would just like to dispel a couple of myths in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for bringing it, and I think it is a very important and measured debate that we are having. It is an honour to contribute to it at all.
As I said, I have been on the Holocaust Memorial Foundation for a decade. That is my only lived experience of this. But what I have learned in that decade from sitting alongside real experts in Holocaust education is that it is so important that we feel this, as well as learning facts. I remind noble Lords that the leaders of all Holocaust education organisations in this country believe that this is the right place, the right size and the right way to do this as a national memorial. They know a thousandfold or a millionfold more than I do. I have watched them at work over the course of the last decade and I think that we should respect them, as my noble friend Lord Howard said earlier.
It will not be a tribute to British greatness—quite the opposite. It will ask us to think very deeply about Britain’s role in the Holocaust. There are some things that we can proud of but lots that we cannot. I would argue that, tempting though it is to believe that this is like the Cenotaph and that we would walk past and feel the pain of the victims and their families, actually the most difficult part of Holocaust education is not to think, “Oh my God, it could be my family who were victims”. The most difficult part of Holocaust education is to ask yourself “Could you have been a perpetrator?” That is the lesson that could not be more important today.
The sad thing is that, with every week that I have been on the Holocaust Memorial Foundation, it has felt more important that, as a country, we ask people to think about that. Collocating the memorial and the learning centre in the shadow of the Mother of Parliaments, where so many people have fought for liberty and freedom, is why it is the right place at the right time.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I was not going to rise in response to this amendment, but I was struck by contributions on all sides of the House from noble Lords that have drawn reference to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. In the course of this debate, I did some investigation to understand why that memorial is underground, and I reflected on the experience of the architect who created Yad Vashem. It is primarily underground, and that was done to create a powerful symbolic and emotional experience for visitors. I have had the opportunity to visit, and have done so on more than two dozen occasions. The architect, Moshe Safdie, designed the museum representing the rupture in Jewish history caused by the Holocaust. Visitors descend into the earth, moving through dark galleries that evoke the descent into one of history’s darkest chapters.
I share that reflection only because there is a good reason why Yad Vashem is underground. Noble Lords can read more about it, if they wish to understand more, but for me, having been there and visited, it is part of the experience and why I shall vote against this amendment if it goes to a vote.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I feel that I should restate, as I did in Committee, that this Bill is a free vote for our Benches. We feel that it is a conscience issue, so I make my remarks about my own opinions—and I feel very strongly about this.
I strongly support the right and honourable decision of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that we should have a national Holocaust memorial and a national Holocaust learning centre. However, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord King, that it needs to be done right and it needs to be done soon. The choices that the Government have made about how to do it are not fitting for the seriousness and importance of the issue.
It is quite possible for us to have a fitting, appropriate and high-quality memorial in the park. After all, if we can have a memorial to six burghers who voluntarily offered themselves to save their city, can we not remember 6 million Jews who did not voluntarily die at the hands of the Nazis? Yes, we could have it in the park—and it should be a compelling place where we can contemplate the horror of the Holocaust and where we can remember and pray for the dead—not only the 6 million Jews who died but the other communities who suffered at the hands of the Nazis. I refer to the Romany people, the homosexual people and the people with physical and mental disabilities who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.
We also need somewhere where we can celebrate those who resisted the Nazis and those who survived the Nazis with very great courage, and celebrate the lives that they have subsequently made in this country and around the world—the families that they have grown and the contribution they have made to our society and societies across the world. That is the sort of memorial that I would like to see and I am very happy to see it near to Parliament. It is appropriate—but I would like to see it soon.
The problem, of course, arises with the learning centre. We all remember, and it is very important that we make sure that future generations remember. I say this with great respect to all Members of the House who have suffered the pain and loss of losing members of their family to the Holocaust. I am a lucky person who has not suffered that pain and loss, so to some extent I hesitate to speak—but I feel passionately that the matter is so important that we must do it right.
The main thing about remembering is that we instil in future generations what happens if people turn a blind eye to evil. That is what happened in Nazi Germany, and it must never happen again. I want to see a compelling and informative learning centre, in a place that is adequate to the importance of the issue that we are trying to teach future generations about.
I support this amendment, and I will support other amendments that raise issues that arise simply because of the way in which the Government have chosen to take this idea forward.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, for whom I have great respect—particularly regarding his family experience—that one of the reasons why this has taken so long to go through Parliament is that it is not right, and over the years people have realised that it is not right. We all want to do it right, so let us please do it right.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I promise not to detain the House for long. I want to come back on the exchange between my noble friends Lord Pickles and Lord Robathan, because the insinuation was made that there is antisemitism in the governing party of Poland. We have been talking in this debate about the way in which the Holocaust is memorialised in Warsaw. There is a memorial on the site of the ghetto, which has been there since the late 1940s—the one that Willy Brandt famously dropped to his knees before. Then there is the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, opened in 2013, the ground-breaking having been commenced by President Lech Kaczynski of the Law and Justice Party. He was the first president to celebrate Hanukkah in the presidential palace and the first Polish president to attend a synagogue. Poland is an important ally. It was the only other country that was in the Second World War from the beginning to the end. It is still an important ally today, and it is important that we do not leave unchallenged that implication.
On the wider issue of this amendment, it is very difficult for any open-minded person not to have been convinced by the forensic speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham. I can only say that, if I am honest and put my motives under the microscope, I would have been in favour of the memorial simply because I imagine that the kind of people I do not like would have been on the other side. However, the more I have listened to the arguments, the harder it is to avoid the conclusion that if this were not a whipped vote, there is no way that it would get through this Chamber. As an unelected Chamber, able to be a check on the radicalism of the other House, we surely exist precisely because we can look beyond headlines and do the right thing, regardless of how it is summarised or misrepresented.
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.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. I was very interested to see this model, and we were told that it was to be here on the Monday. I forgot or failed to see it on the Monday; I went straight to the Robing Room on the Tuesday, and it had gone. That is therefore a rather shorter visit than the four days that my noble friend the Minister has just mentioned.
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.