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)
21:49 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 129 - Amendment 3 disagreed.
23:08 - Division on Amendment 4A (to Amendment 4) - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 79 - Amendment 4A (to Amendment 4) agreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, as everybody knows, we are now on Report. These issues have been debated extensively in Committee, so we do not need any Second Reading speeches. I urge noble Lords to reflect that in their contributions to the debate. This is a self-regulating Chamber, and one of the characteristics of that is discipline. I think we need to show that now.
Amendment 3
Lord Carlile of Berriew
“Report: effects of the construction, presence and use of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre on the security of the site and surrounding area(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the predicted effects on the security of the site and surrounding area arising from the construction, presence and use of any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—(a) a list of those bodies and individuals consulted before construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre (subject to redaction of names where necessitated by national security),(b) a summary of the advice provided by each body and individual consulted,(c) a full description with visual depictions of all road and traffic changes, at and near to the chosen site, proposed to be made during construction and following completion of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre,(d) proposals for the continuing assessment of the security of the site and nearby buildings, and(e) such other security information as the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.(3) The Secretary of State may delegate the preparation of the report referred to in subsection (1) to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for the tabling of a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament within 56 days of laying the report before Parliament.”
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, my amendments in this group relate to security, and I appreciate the support of noble Lords who have signed these amendments. I start by emphasising to your Lordships that I want to see the erection of a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens as soon as possible.
I have something personal to say. Nine days ago, I had the sadness and privilege of speaking at the funeral of a child Holocaust survivor called Renata Calverley. Renata was my beloved sister, literally my half-sister, her mother having died in Auschwitz. She was born in 1937, in Poland. How she survived was a miracle. Alas, in her survival, she lost her early childhood to five years of being hunted, hungry and hidden just because she was a Jewish child. She was, to be fair, a formidable memorial of the Holocaust herself, as I told her from time to time, but, unfortunately, she was ephemeral. What Renata and other survivors, and of course the dead, deserve is to be remembered in perpetuity in a memorial that is devoted solely to the Holocaust, the most horrific massacre of innocent people in human history. The reason for this amendment is partly based on my sister; that memorial must be a safe space, as free as can be managed from the threat of terrorism and other violence, and in as peaceful and accessible a setting as is possible in this city.
That is why I cannot support the erection of the planned learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, and for two reasons. The first has already been referred to frequently: it is not the right place for a proper learning centre. My noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, made that point. We heard a reference or two to the POLIN Museum. Yes, some of the POLIN Museum is underground, but the building of the POLIN Museum stands out as the most significant modern building above ground in Poland and in Warsaw. It is a competitor for style with the recreated buildings of the 18th century. It is not an underground museum. It is so big because it accommodates people who can do their PhDs and otherwise research the Holocaust properly, in a true learning centre.
My second reason is more pertinent to these amendments. I fear, and I warn, that placing a learning centre, whether small or large, so close to Parliament, that is expected to be visited by thousands of people each week and hundreds of thousands of people each year—perhaps millions—is a lure to terrorists. There are other potential sites for a much more complete learning centre elsewhere in this great city, more secure from the threat and risk of terrorism.
Our lamented friend Lord Etherton chaired the special Select Committee on the Bill, and I am delighted that there are other members of that committee here, including my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, who is in his place next to me. I welcome their presence; they all played a valuable part. Security was dealt with by the committee. It determined that it is imperative to recognise that the threat of terrorist activity here and abroad is much greater than when a planning inspector wrote his report on this proposal several years ago, and that much of what was said about security to the planning inspector in the early inquiries will now be out of date. I thank Lord Etherton and his committee for that view. None of the carefully organised flurry of letters supporting this Bill in recent days contradicts that a larger learning centre could provide for more, and more effective, learning, and that recent events have contributed to the substantial security risk that the Government’s proposal offers.
The Minister, who has always been extremely courteous and accessible to all of us—I thank him for that—has said publicly and in meetings that security can simply be dealt with by the planning process which would follow the passing of this Bill, if that occurs. I disagree with him that what is described as the planning process is adequate to deal with issues of security.
Before I come to that, I need to explain why I am so concerned about security. The proposed site is cheek by jowl with the Palace of Westminster. I and others—some of us over many years—have used Victoria Tower Gardens as a restful annexe to Parliament; we have sat there, eaten our sandwiches there, and sometimes been interviewed by the media there. It is very much part of the environment of this place, and any reconnaissance by an ill-wisher would reveal a stream of parliamentarians and journalists using the gardens, and children playing from estates with little open space near them in this part of Westminster.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I support both amendments in this group. If the Holocaust Memorial Learning Centre were to be placed in Victoria Tower Gardens, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, correctly warns, there is the risk of terrorism attacks, whether by state-sponsored or self-initiated terrorists. As he has indicated, that is because of its proximity to the Palace of Westminster. Thus, in association with whatever political controversies in general, not least particularly those currently surrounding the situation in Israel and Gaza, these amendments therefore give Parliament the opportunity to make the final decision on whether to put HMLC in Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere, based on proper evidence on where it makes best sense to put it without compromising national security.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Carlile, whose knowledge and expertise in the field of security and associated matters is way beyond mine. My conclusions are aligned with his.
What was interesting to me was the judgment by Mrs Justice Thornton in the High Court case dealing with the application for the Victoria Tower Gardens proposal. It was quashed, which means of course that legally it never existed, and there is therefore no planning consent for anything of the sort in Victoria Tower Gardens. She said at paragraph 76(5) of the judgment:
“As was common ground by the end of the hearing, the advent of the modern planning system has no bearing on the obligations in the 1900 Act”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, that is absolutely unequivocal. Mrs Justice Thornton ruled that the 1900 Act impacted on the character of the matters relevant to the determination of this planning application, and in parallel with that it is entirely within the discretion of Parliament—us—to take separate decisions on the merits of the matters under consideration, unconstrained by the precise criteria which applied in respect of the determination of any planning application.
It therefore seems to me that we are faced with two slightly separate issues, which are not those faced by a planning authority. First, we are legislators acting in the wider public interest, and secondly, we have been granted by the 1900 Act a right of veto on what goes on on the land immediately adjacent, which is in our curtilage. This is uncommon these days, but it is the kind of control over land that was relatively normal in the era of the 1900 Act. It seems to me that we have to exercise our powers in good faith, but that has nothing to do in itself with the law that relates to planning provisions.
We are faced with a series of woolly assurances from the Government on what will happen going forward and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, in terms of security matters they need very substantially tightening up. After all, what is our role in this? Obviously, it is the security and safety of Members, staff and visitors. It is up to us to decide what is appropriate to do for us as employers and hosts to people in this building. I do not believe that we can somehow put this out to commission to somebody else. That is why I strongly support the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because it brings to us the information we need properly and responsibly to carry out our duties in respect of our occupation of this building. This is quite separate from our approach to a whole range of other matters that may be discussed later this evening.
Finally, I am a trustee of a number of landed properties, and it seems to me that we cannot simply wish away responsibility for this. In my view, if I as a trustee were to take the approach to security matters here being advocated by the Government, I would be guilty of professional negligence. It is as simple as that. We have to know and be confident ourselves in what is being proposed. Looking at it from a different perspective, if we simply somehow put out to commission the responsibilities we have, we are imposing on the legislation something very much akin to a Henry VIII clause, and that, as we know, is very alien to the way we look at public business.
I do not want to go on any further, but it is up to us to decide what we think is right from the perspective we have on these matters.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment so I would like to speak next, if noble Lords do not mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said, this is no ordinary planning application and I will say why I think that is. The proposer is the Government. The Government are in a special position of being able to remove an important barrier to doing what they want to do, and Clause 2 removes the 100-year-old protections for the park. Most proposers of planning applications cannot do that. But guess what? It is even worse, because whoever decides on the planning application, yes or no, is the very same person as the proposer. It is the Government. It is a junior Government Minister. It was called in by a junior Government Minister when it first came before planning. That makes it a very unusual planning application.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
There are four gates to the park. Thank you for that correction. One of them is very near the playground. We feel it necessary to put horse guards on horses in Whitehall outside Horse Guards and at various other buildings around Westminster and this city. Are we going to have armed guards outside this centre? That is not really very appropriate when you are trying to remember the horrible deaths of so many millions of people.
As I said earlier, I am absolutely in favour of an appropriate memorial, but the learning centre is a government choice. For the actual implementation of the wish that we all have to have a good learning centre, it is the Government’s choice to do it like this and it is wrong. It is not good enough and it should not happen.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, this amendment would require further reports on security to be prepared and debated in both Houses before any proposed memorial or learning centre can proceed. But it is already being debated at great length in the House of Commons and has overwhelming cross-party support. This is a revising Chamber, so we can discuss revising it.
The noble Lord is saying that there has not been a sufficient amount of time on security, but I beg to differ. From the very beginning, security has been an important consideration in the design of the memorial and learning centre. It was made clear, including in the planning inquiry nearly five years ago, that the threat of terrorism or violent protest was recognised. It has never been the approach of this country to abandon the legitimate activities of free society simply because of the threat of terrorists and violent protesters. The noble Lord is right to point out what happened recently with the protesters outside the entrances into Parliament, and everybody agrees with that. But that is not necessarily a reason to block this proposal.
The memorial and learning centre have been designed be safe and secure. Advice from the National Protective Security Authority and the Metropolitan Police has led to significant measures, including the above-ground pavilion and the hostile vehicle mitigation measures protecting the gardens. My understanding is that there will not be blockages or security at the entrances to the park, but at the entrance to the actual memorial there will be airport-style security. You will not be able to just turn up; you will have to book in advance online.
The chosen site within the government security zone is better protected than any other plausible sites that have been mentioned. The proximity of the Holocaust memorial will make no difference to the scale or nature of the threat to the Palace of Westminster, nor to the security measures required. The Palace is very well protected, notwithstanding what happened the other day. Security matters have been and will be fully considered within the planning process.
The amendment would achieve only a delay, and would signal a weakness, telling the world that the UK was not prepared to place a Holocaust memorial next to Parliament for fear of attack. Consider who would be most pleased with that sort of message. Perhaps I might quote an expert in such matters:
“In conclusion, while it is impossible to eliminate all risks, the security measures planned for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre are comprehensive and have been developed with the highest standards of safety in mind. The Memorial’s location next to the Houses of Parliament should not be seen as a vulnerability but rather as a testament to our commitment to remembering the Holocaust in a prominent and respectful manner”.
That was written by a Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I greatly respect the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in reviewing terrorism legislation, but I think that on this particular issue he is wrong. I come to that judgment from having had some responsibility in the past, both as a Home Office Minister and most recently as Secretary of State for Transport, where I had responsibility for the security of aviation, maritime and our transport systems, including here in London.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord’s speech. First, on the planning process, clearly the design of the learning centre is, appropriately, taken account of in the planning process. As my noble friend has just said, advice was taken from the appropriate authorities in the design of the learning centre, and that was appropriate. Protecting it on a day-to-day basis would rightly be the responsibility both of the Metropolitan Police and of our other agencies. Having worked closely with them, I have enormous confidence in their ability to do that.
As to the noble Lord’s point about any change in the threat to the Palace of Westminster, first, he drew attention to the large number of visitors that would be expected to go to the learning centre. I draw to his attention the fact that around 1 million people a year visit the Palace of Westminster, whether as visitors or to meet their Members of Parliament. So a very significant number of members of the public already visit this part of London.
One of the challenges that all our security authorities have in a democratic country is balancing the necessary protection of your Lordships, Members of the House of Commons and all those who work in this building, with maintaining the appropriate access to a democratic institution for members of the public. A number of public servants work in this building, on the estate, in our security services and in the Metropolitan Police. They work every day—sometimes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referenced, at great personal risk to themselves—to keep us safe, but also to enable members of the public to have access to their democratic institutions. I have every confidence that they will continue to do that job. I do not think that that is an appropriate subject for a report for us to consider. Those threats are monitored and dealt with on an ongoing basis.
My final point is a slightly more worrying one. The logical conclusion of what both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, is that we would not have a learning centre anywhere. Even if there is such a threat in having a learning centre that it would be, as I think the noble Baroness said, a “lure” to those who wish people ill, in a democratic country we have to say at some point, “We have values and we want to build such a centre”. The correct thing to do is to make sure that it is properly protected, not to say that, because people might threaten it, we are not going to build it. That would be the wrong conclusion to draw.
The subsequent point is this. The fact that the noble Baroness said that having such an education centre would provoke this sort of reaction demonstrates to me the absolute necessity of building one, and of building it next to this democratic institution. If building a centre that reminds us of the Holocaust, and of our wish for nothing like that ever to happen again, truly provokes the worst in other people, that demonstrates to me the necessity to do it and to get on with it—and there is no better place to locate it than next to the democratic institution that represents this country. I urge noble Lords, if the noble Lord chooses to divide the House, to reject his amendment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the promoters of this project have said over and over again that they interpret our objections as being, “You can’t build a Holocaust memorial anywhere”, but that is not what it is about. The point is that you build it but you have to take into account the consequences on the immediate surroundings and the visitors of where and how you build it.
I do not share the absolute confidence of the promoters on the security. We know, for example, that for over a year those who care about security have asked the authorities to move the police from their comfortable spot at the foot of the escalators to Portcullis House out into the Tube, and they have not done it—after repeated requests. We have heard of other instances.
What noble Lords have not taken into account is protests. The Metropolitan Police and other police have not done well in balancing the right of protest against security. One end of the park is going to be wide open, and you can well imagine the hundreds or thousands of protesters, as has already happened, entering and waving flags, with their cans of red paint. There will be no one to stop them; they can go right up towards the mound and throw something or sail along the river and throw something. The police, to judge by their lack of action against protesters in Jewish areas of London and elsewhere, will say that the right of protest is more important than the need for the memorial to be quiet, sacred and respected.
We should also remember the children, unfortunate little ones, playing in the playground exactly where people queue. It is also well known that queues are a vulnerable spot for terrorists. There will be queues of people waiting to get in—sitting ducks, along with the children in the playground, which will be most unfortunate. There will be off-putting armed guards at one end, and free entry at the other. The record of the police and this Government on protecting Jewish people and Jewish students on campus since 7 October has been dire, and this cannot mean safety for gatherings in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to contribute to this debate until the noble Lord, Lord Harper, spoke. First, I should make my credentials known, since everyone else seems to have done it. For 40 years I have been a member of Labour Friends of Israel. I am married to a Jewish lady. My first interest in history and politics was provoked by that book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, and the horrors of Nazism. I feel sorry that I have to say that, but there is occasionally an imputation that anyone who opposes the present plan is somehow unsympathetic to Jewish people or to the commemoration and the memory of the Holocaust. I say that because nothing could be further from the truth in my case.
The objection that some people have to the present plan, including me, is that it is unviable. It increases insecurity, breaches all environmental guidelines, overrules all local democracy and increases the danger, not only the physical danger of the present plans but the danger of a backlash against forcing through this plan against all local democracy and common sense. That is my worry. Incidentally, it is the worry of many of my Jewish friends and my wife, to be quite truthful. If I was not to contribute tonight, I would be facing something even more dangerous than the Whips—potential divorce.
Let me correct a couple of things that have been said. As far as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is concerned, it is quite untrue to suggest that she said we cannot have a memorial anywhere. It is possible to have a separate memorial to the Holocaust established next to this Parliament, while having a genuine learning centre elsewhere. I declare an interest in that my PhD was on slavery. If you wanted to build a huge monument next to this Parliament, it would be about slavery—which was instigated and demolished by this Parliament. The terrible irony is that this plan suggests that we remove the only present monument in the gardens, which is to slavery.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
I said “move”.
My second point is on the comments that were made about the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who I have known for many years. I do not speak with the authority that others have—I have only been Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, Northern Ireland Secretary and Armed Forces Minister—but let me say one thing about the noble Lord, Lord Carlile: he is not just a lawyer or an expert on legislation. If I had to pick anyone outside the Armed Forces and the constabulary who had an understanding of the risk of terrorism, I would pick the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. You may not agree with him—or, even worse, you may agree with him privately but, because you want to build the present project, dismiss his claims—but think of the consequences in the long term.
In conclusion, if we want a genuine memorial to the Holocaust to remind us of the terrible things that happened, not just from 1933 when Hitler took control but for 1,000 years when antisemitism built up in Europe through philosophy and the religions, both Protestant and Catholic, and if we want a memorial to the horrible things that were done because of antisemitism—first, ghettoising and excluding from society and then the ultimate: excluding from life—then build a real learning centre that is not two stories underground, not in a confined space and not confined to 10 years. Let us put a memorial there to remind us, and then let us go and learn about the real history of antisemitism that has been current in Europe for 1,000 years and is still there.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Carlile was kind enough to mention that I was a member of the Select Committee that looked into the whole matter of the Holocaust memorial, and security in particular. As the Minister will recall, the Select Committee said:
“We recommend that the Secretary of State gives serious consideration”
to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—or something similar—and the promoter, that is the Secretary of State, agreed. Furthermore, and I would very much like the Minister’s reply to this point when he comes to make his final speech, we followed that part in our report by narrating three important recommendations that the promoter accepted. Are these recommendations still accepted?
Going back to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we understood that the decision is to be taken under delegation—not by the Secretary of State himself but by a Minister. The recommendations were what the Minister was to do should the planning application come back for decision.
These are important recommendations, because they require a good deal of consultation with people who really know what they are talking about, including the National Protective Security Authority, the Metropolitan Police, the Community Security Trust and others. The next recommendation says:
“The Promoter will make available to MPs and to members of the House of Lords the Promoter’s representations to the Secretary of State”,
and deposit them in the Library of both Houses. Of course, the recommendations fall far short of what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, recommends, but it is very important that the Minister assures us that those recommendations, which the Secretary of State accepted before us in our inquiry, are still to be respected. I hope that he will do so.
I come back to the Buxton memorial. Of course, it was moved; it used to be in Trafalgar Square, I think. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, is perfectly right that it was moved and taken into the gardens. Under the plan before us, the Buxton memorial is to remain where it was placed. It is not to be moved, but its appearance would be greatly affected, because it would be very close to all the uprights that mark the entrance to the underground memorial. The whole appearance of the Buxton memorial will be completely framed by this new development. It is not a question of moving it; it is concealing it. That is a very important point when we consider the importance of that memorial and what is has to tell us about slavery.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want very briefly to take on a couple of inferences in what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Harper. The sentiment was that we must show courage and face down terrorist supporters. Some of us have been arguing that for some time and, to be honest, there has been an almighty silence from many people in Parliament. I just did not like the inference that, somehow, the movers of this amendment were cowering when, in fact, they are the very people who have argued in many instances for fighting back against the antisemitism that has been on our streets. That was my first point.
I also thought that the suggestion that we in Parliament are so brave and can protect the learning centre next door in the park was slightly ill judged, given that Parliament seems increasingly like Fort Knox. We are, in fact, not in a situation where we are all wandering around freely and bravely, yet we are suggesting that we open up the park to the public for a learning centre and that they can just wander in, whereas we need armed guards, big barriers everywhere and so on. It is an unfair and ludicrous comparison.
There will be, and there should be, a memorial in the gardens—everybody agrees with that. It will be a hugely important symbol. The idea that anyone who does not want the learning centre to be there therefore does not want a learning centre misses all of the hours and hours of debates in which we explained where we did want a learning centre—a fitting learning centre—to be. To be honest, the plan for an underground learning centre is rather insulting, in my opinion. We should recognise that the people putting forward this amendment are doing so in good faith, not because they are frightened of terrorist supporters but because they are being sensible about the real consequences of what we are deciding here today.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I do not doubt that those people are acting in good faith; they just happen to be wrong. I can give noble Lords an assurance that my noble friend will not go home to a divorce tonight if this amendment is not agreed. I respect that he has been a Minister in more senior positions than I can ever aspire to.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
I just want to make sure that the record is correct. I did not say that I faced a divorce if the Bill passed. I said that I would face the divorce if I did not vote for the amendment.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My apologies; I have to be careful with my words on this issue.
I oppose the amendment. We have heard these arguments before, quite frankly. I oppose it not because I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has great experience of planning, as do others who support it. I am just puzzled; we are saying that a memorial centre is okay and we can deal with the security for that, but somehow we cannot do the same for a learning centre. I do not understand.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
No, I am not going to give way because I have not finished developing my argument. I had to listen to quite a few minutes from the noble Lord; I will not give way until I have finished, then the noble Lord can tell me that I am wrong, which I am bound to be because I have only ever been a junior Minister.
I do not accept as a valid argument that the learning centre is impossible to protect. Of course it is difficult to protect Parliament; people are not just going to wander in and out. We have already heard that you have to make appointments online. Of course there will be significant security. It is not that I think that those who tabled the amendment did so in bad faith or because they want to undermine the proposal. I just happen to think they are wrong in their analysis in suggesting that we cannot provide a safe and secure environment.
Will the learning centre undermine the Buxton memorial? No, of course it will not, because it will be done sensitively. I see noble Lords shaking their heads as if we are going to reduce it to something insignificant—no, we will not do that. We want to make the whole complex something to be admired and respected. Have we got the planning capacity to do it? In my opinion, we have. Have we got the security ability to do it? I believe that we have.
What would the amendment really do? Once again, it says that Victoria Tower Gardens is not the right place, and even it was we could not provide the security. My reason for opposing it is not to doubt the genuine intent and sincerity of those who support the amendment, but to say that, in my view, I think they are wrong.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I have not so far taken part in this debate, although I did in Committee. I simply want to say that I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but I want to get down to the nitty-gritty. Perhaps the Minister can help by answering my questions. I am trying to envisage what the memorial will look like with the security in place. How many police officers will be at each entrance? How many will be involved in its security? Will they be armed or unarmed guards? Will they be there 24 hours a day, or will the park shut so we will not then need them? I ask for a few simple answers.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness. I am not getting at anybody here, but we talked about a policeman dying for us. I made a vow that whenever we talked about him, we would remember that he was called Keith Palmer. His name is on a plaque at the gates to remind us. I knew him, and he was a brave man.
I am a bit concerned. I think that people are picking on the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. While I would not have the temerity to run as chairman of his fan club, I certainly could be a member. He has performed a very useful role. One or two people who have arrived late to this debate seem to think he has caused a degree of bad feeling. He has performed a very valuable role, because he has asked some difficult questions and has forced the Minister and me, and others, to address that.
We need to be assured that a process has been set up to answer the questions the noble Lord has asked. Through that process, the decision is made on whether we should have a Holocaust memorial and a learning centre—a decision which is not ours, but that of the planning process.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for bringing his considerable experience of security matters to Committee and now on Report. I know he brings his amendment forward with the best of intentions.
With all due respect to the noble Lord, we cannot support Amendments 3 and 10, which would prevent commencement of the Bill until such time as the security report required by Amendment 3 has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, again delaying what we want to be delivered as soon as possible. Security is of paramount importance and Ministers should consider security concerns very carefully, but we believe that this issue can be adequately addressed through the planning system, which is the proper way to deal with it. This has been through the planning system before, security has been dealt with, and the High Court agreed that this was the correct way to do it. It would set a huge precedent if we were to make legislative changes to this Bill in respect of what is actually a planning matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Laing, for Amendments 3 and 10. I was saddened to hear the news of the passing of the noble Lord’s sister, Renata. May her memory be a blessing.
I also offer my thanks for the work done by the late Lord Etherton on the Select Committee, and thank all the other members of the Select Committee for their work.
These amendments would require a report to be produced on the security impacts of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and would require both Houses of Parliament to approve the report before work on the memorial and learning centre could proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has been a strong advocate of the need to give careful consideration to the security impacts of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I am grateful to him for his persistence in bringing these matters to the forefront of our debates throughout the passage of the Bill, and for meeting me several times to discuss the security impacts—as well as the performance of Burnley Football Club this year. The noble Lord and I share a history of being brought up in Burnley.
The noble Lord was kind enough, as he has already indicated, to provide me with a set of questions for discussion with security advisers. I was glad to take the noble Lord’s advice, and I did exactly as he proposed. The questions were shared and discussed with the UK Government security services and the Metropolitan Police. I have written to the noble Lord with the responses I obtained from our security services, and I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. I know that noble Lords across the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for formulating his questions, and I believe they will be reassured by the answers. If noble Lords will forgive me for taking a little time over these important matters, I will set out the main points from my discussion with security experts.
As a starting point, let me immediately acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is quite right to point out that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will face threats. Protestors with a range of motivations, including some who will be prepared to use violence or terror, will see the memorial and learning centre as a potential target. This sad truth has been recognised since the inception of the project. In response, the Government—both this Government and its predecessors—have done what I know the great majority of Members of this House would expect to be done. We have sought to ensure that the memorial and learning centre is designed and planned such that it can be operated safely and securely. In other words, we have sought to ensure that the proper, legitimate activities of our free, democratic society can continue. That is the approach the experts from the Metropolitan Police, UK Government security advisers and the Community Security Trust have all told me is the basis of their work.
On the design, acting on the advice of those experts we have incorporated features, including carefully designed barriers to protect the gardens against hostile vehicles. There will be an above-ground security pavilion and appropriate CCTV infrastructure, with a security control room.
On operations, we will make sure that the staff are trained to the highest standards, including in ways of working with the police. The advice of UK Government security advisers and the Metropolitan Police has been hugely valuable in developing our proposals, and we will continue to follow that advice as we construct and operate the memorial and learning centre.
Many noble Lords have questioned whether the threats would be lower if the memorial and learning centre were constructed in a less prominent location. We have to acknowledge—again, with sadness—that the advice from security professionals is that a Holocaust memorial would be seen as a target wherever it is located. From a security perspective, as my conversations have confirmed, placing the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens brings significant benefits. Within the government security zone, the memorial will benefit from many additional layers of security, including a police rapid-response capability.
Some have questioned whether the memorial would bring additional risks to the Palace of Westminster. When I have put this point to the security services, the clear response has been that the palace, by its very nature as the seat of government and a symbol of our democracy, faces potential threats. Establishing a national Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens would not significantly change the nature or severity of those threats, nor require additional measures in response. I fully recognise, of course, that the security implications of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre demand to be considered carefully. It is right that noble Lords should insist that proposals are developed in the light of the best available advice and the clearest understanding of threat.
I am immensely grateful to the police and our security services for the detailed advice they have provided over several years on the development of our scheme, for the meetings and discussions held with me in recent weeks, and, of course, for the tireless ongoing work of those organisations keeping us safe. To clarify, at the meeting to which the noble Lord alluded, the question that was asked of the security advisers and the Met Police was whether the security experts agreed with this amendment. Of course, you would expect the security advisers not to get involved in the political procedures of Parliament.
No scheme for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre could or should proceed without full recognition of the importance of security and full consideration of the best available evidence. I am confident that the arrangements for obtaining planning consent already ensure that security will be given proper consideration. The views of the UK Government security advisers and the Metropolitan Police will be sought, and any reservations or objections would be very apparent to the decision-making Minister and must be taken into account.
I will clarify some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on the planning application arrangements. The situation in which a planning application needs to be decided by a Minister in the department promoting the application is by no means unique and arises also in local government; the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, alluded to some examples he was involved in. The special arrangements for handling the planning application were subject to a High Court challenge in 2020. The court required the department to make some minor adjustments to reflect specific relevant provisions and to publish the handling arrangements, which were of course done. Otherwise, the court was content that the handling arrangements were proper and lawful.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Can the Minister tell me whether the precedent he cited was also a situation where the proposer was in a position to remove a major barrier of protection to the site where they wanted to put the proposed development? The Government can do that as well, under Clause 2.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The purpose of Clause 2 is to disapply the London county Act of 1906. That is why we want to push forward with the project. I reassure the noble Baroness that, subject to the Bill passing, this will be treated as a serious issue. The entire proposed project will be subject to full scrutiny and accountability, and will go through the full planning process that the designated Minister will determine. There will be plenty of opportunity for noble Lords to raise points about a number of issues, including security. Many points about planning were raised tonight, but I believe that this is the wrong forum for them.
I turn to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. We gave an undertaking that we would consult further on security and provide information to Parliament, and we will certainly do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned queues. I reassure her that the ticketing and checking strategy is designed to avoid queues building up in the gardens.
Moreover, we have given a clear undertaking to the Select Committee that updated evidence on security will be provided and that we will consult on security matters with the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Community Security Trust, the Metropolitan Police, the National Protective Security Authority and Westminster City Council. We have undertaken that the updated evidence and the views of all these bodies, subject only to the redaction of any information that should be confidential for security reasons, will be placed in the Libraries of each House. The proposed amendment is not therefore necessary as a means of generating information about security or as a mechanism for ensuring that security is given proper consideration. The practical effect of the amendment would be to cause delay and to create uncertainty about the progress of the scheme.
I will repeat one final point about the amendment that was put to me with great force when I was preparing for this debate. Our response in this country to the threat of violence has never been to shrink from carrying out the normal, legitimate activities of a free society. We know that there are threats. In response to those threats, we plan, we prepare and we seek to protect our citizens from harm as they go about their lives. We should not send the message—which, with respect, I believe this amendment would send—that our approach is changing, that we fear we cannot protect our citizens and that, in the face of the threat of violence, we should place a Holocaust memorial somewhere less prominent.
Are we prepared to say that, in Britain today, visitors to a Holocaust memorial next to the seat of government cannot be protected? Are we willing to concede to the perpetrators of violence that a memorial established as a lasting reminder of a time when the Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany were denied the protection of the law and subject to appalling violence and persecution by their own Government cannot be placed next to our own Parliament? I do not think that this House would want to be associated with such a message. I therefore ask noble Lord not to press Amendments 3 and 10.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to this debate. I can tell your Lordships that I have had two big surprises tonight. One was the most wonderful compliment I have ever received from a former Home Secretary and Secretary of State from Northern Ireland, who is known for his pugnacious and accurate brain, so I take that seriously. The other—if I can refer back to an earlier debate—is that I have had the pleasure, for the first time ever, of agreeing with something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, who spoke earlier in the evening. I shall look upon that as something of value.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
With great respect, I remind the noble Lord that, in deciding the fate of his amendment, it is not necessary to respond to all the points raised in the debate. It might be helpful to the House if he could proceed to a decision.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
With great respect to the noble Lord—and I do admire him—he is a relative newcomer to this place. I am not replying to all the points that were made by all Members; I am making a few comments about particular points.
I was about to say, and will continue to say, to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, that I am afraid he was not listening to my speech when I first made it, because I was not opposed to what he thinks I was opposed to.
I am grateful for the numerous other speeches that were made. The questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, were not answered by the Minister. I am one of the quite large number here who remember her as the queen of nitty-gritty when she was Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. We learned enough in that other place to reply to her questions when they were asked, or else—I see the noble Lord, Lord Alton, nodding in agreement.
I have suggested something practical and sensible, and I have had encouragement and support from Members of your Lordships’ House who I admire. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Verdirame
“Learning Centre purposeThe sole purpose of any Learning Centre must be the provision of education about the genocide of the Jews and antisemitism.”
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 4, and then I have an amendment to that amendment. I have been advised that in these cases it is best first to move the amendment and then to give my main speech on the amendment to the amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment 4A (to Amendment 4)
Lord Verdirame
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 4, as amended by Amendment 4A, is a limited but important amendment. It clarifies the purpose of the learning centre. At present the Bill says only that there should be
“a centre for learning relating to the memorial”.
The Explanatory Notes add:
“The Learning Centre’s exhibition will explore the part played by Britain’s Parliament and democratic institutions in response to the persecution of the Jewish people and other groups both at the time and subsequently. It will help people understand the way the lessons of the Holocaust apply more widely, including to other genocides”.
At Second Reading, the Minister said:
“The learning centre will also address subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1224.]
The website of the Holocaust memorial says that the learning centre is going to provide an honest reflection of Britain’s role surrounding the Holocaust as well as reflecting on subsequent genocides.
We had an interesting and useful briefing with Martin Winstone, the project historian for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I am grateful to him for his time and expertise, and I am grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, for organising that briefing and for his patient and dedicated engagement on the Bill. Martin Winstone reassured us that he and other historians involved in the project are very clear that the focus of the learning centre will be the Holocaust and, in particular, Britain’s role. I have no reason to doubt that commitment and, of course, their expertise.
I also appreciate that it is not the role of Parliament to curate the content of a learning centre or a museum, but it is the role of Parliament to tell those who will curate a learning centre created by Parliament what lessons Parliament thinks must be taught. This is particularly the case given that organisations change over time. The people who are in charge and sit on the various boards today will at some point be replaced. Organisational drift—that is, slow deviation from the organisation’s intended goals—will happen. It always does. At the moment, neither what I see in the Bill and the Explanatory Notes nor what I have heard and read from the historians reassures me that there is the clarity required to prevent this. I am particularly concerned that the various references to subsequent persecution and other genocides foretell that before too long, notwithstanding all the good intentions, this learning centre, unless firmly anchored by Parliament, will also drift.
I am not saying that Britain’s response to subsequent persecutions is not an important topic—it is—nor suggesting that it would not be important to educate people about other horrific atrocities. It would be. In fact, one of my concerns is that we should respect the historical complexity of other atrocities. My first job in academia, as a researcher at the Refugee Studies Programme in Oxford, involved interviewing Rwandans in east Africa in the aftermath of that genocide. Not only was that a harrowing experience but it was intellectually a humbling experience because after months of research on the Rwandan genocide and meeting many Rwandans, I still felt that I had barely begun to understand Rwandan society.
The point is that Rwanda, like Darfur or Cambodia, has a very complex history that would have to be told properly, not as an appendix to the Holocaust and not on the false premise that there are parallels between, say, the Weimar Republic and the regime of Juvénal Habyarimana. Yes, in a legal sense, crimes under international law were committed in all these situations, but the centre does not purport to be—nor, in my view, should it be—a learning centre about international criminal law. Our amendment would give a clear and well-defined purpose to the learning centre to educate people about the Holocaust and about antisemitism. The amendment responds to a basic pedagogic rationale for any learning enterprise: knowing in advance what lessons we are seeking to teach.
In that respect, I am grateful to the noble Lords who in Committee pointed out that the first formulation for this amendment was inadequate. We have reflected on those comments, particularly with the amendment to the amendment, and we now have, I think, the right language, which includes killings by collaborators of the Nazi regime as well as the genocidal persecution of other groups, such as the Roma.
There is a profound moral rationale behind this amendment. It would address the risk of the learning centre drifting into other messages, as I have said, and it is a risk that is neither theoretical nor abstract. We have already had instances of Holocaust commemorations forgetting about the Jews or of such events being used as platforms for other messages. With this amendment, Parliament would send a clear signal that whatever the disagreements about the memorial itself might be, there would have to be none of this nonsense in this learning centre willed by Parliament and right next to Parliament.
As Stephen Pollard, who wrote in support of our amendment in the Spectator today, said:
“This is not about some contest of suffering in which the Jews are declared the winner”.
The amendment is seeking precisely to pre-empt this kind of absurd contest. The risk of losing focus and drifting into other messages is particularly acute given that, at the international level, genocide is being invoked more frequently now than ever before. Before the International Court of Justice there are disputes under the genocide convention between Ukraine and Russia, South Africa and Israel, and Gambia and Myanmar. Also, Sudan recently submitted a dispute against the UAE under the genocide convention. Every international lawyer can explain that the reason for this proliferation of genocide in international litigation and politics is that the genocide convention is often the only legal route available for submitting a dispute to the International Court of Justice. It is certainly the one with the greatest political effect.
Our amendment contemplates a lesson beyond the Holocaust about which the learning centre should seek to educate visitors. It is the most obvious lesson that should accompany Holocaust education: educating about antisemitism. The rise of antisemitism is one of the great moral failures of our times. In our country 33% of religious hate crimes recorded in the year ending March 2024 targeted Jews, who make up barely 0.3% of the British population. According to the latest Global 100 survey conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, 46% of the world’s adult population—an estimated 2.2 billion people—harbour deeply entrenched antisemitic attitudes. This has more than doubled since the Anti-Defamation League’s first worldwide survey a decade ago, and is the highest level on record since the Anti-Defamation League started tracking these trends globally.
We all know that this memorial could become a focal point for protest and controversy. The least we can do as parliamentarians is to try to nip these controversies in the bud. To do so we need the moral clarity and the moral courage to say that this learning centre, if it is to happen at all, must be about the Holocaust and about antisemitism, and to put this in law.
The fact that both Holocaust denial and antisemitism are rising—especially among the young, as we have seen—shows that our education is failing. The only point of a new learning centre is if it is ready to confront that failure and tackle those two challenges head on. There are of course many other important lessons that we can teach but this should not be the place for them. With so many in our society who still have so much to learn about the Holocaust and antisemitism, it is surely not too much to ask that the learning centre devoted to the victims of the Holocaust should concentrate on these two educational missions and nothing else. I beg to move.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 4 and 4A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame.
This has been a passionate debate. It is possible to believe that in the course of time a memorial and a learning centre will be established in Victoria Tower Gardens, they will be a great success and we will all look back and wonder what the fuss was all about, but it is also possible to believe that that will not be the case. If passions continue to run high, I suspect they will be fuelled by a single word: genocide.
I will not repeat the arguments that I made at Second Reading about how the word “genocide” is now contested—a few moments ago the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, put the case more eloquently than I possibly could—but I will leave a single example hanging in the air, having made the observation that it is probably impossible to wage a modern war in which, tragically, there are mass civilian casualties without incurring accusations of genocide, as Israel is currently discovering in Gaza. What I say next, I say with no reference in particular to war in the Middle East or anywhere else, but war crimes are sometimes conflated with genocide, as are crimes against humanity. Appalling and horrendous though both are, genocide is the ultimate crime because it is the attempted extermination of an entire people. In short, I am concerned about mission creep in the learning centre over time.
I pause to pay tribute to the Minister, who I have always found to be extremely helpful. He organised the useful briefing to which the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has just referred, with Martin Winstone, the project historian. He gave a most impressive presentation—the academics who are advising the project are extremely eminent—and I understood for the first time when the briefing was being given why the Minister specifically referenced Darfur and Rwanda at Second Reading, because it is the Holocaust that set the standard by which horrors since have been weighed, both legally and in other ways, as genocides. I can see all that, and he made a very good case, but Governments change and the Minister will not be here for ever—sadly. What the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, just said about the wording of the Bill and the Explanatory Notes is correct. For all the persuasiveness and attraction of the presentation that we were given, there is as yet no actual content of the learning centre for us to be able to judge. So I would like noble Lords to think of Amendment 4A as a kind of safeguard.
Other amendments this evening, as the debate has gone to and fro, have been characterised as wrecking amendments because they seek to separate the learning centre from the memorial. I make no comment on those debates one way or the other, but the one thing that cannot possibly be said about the amendment is that it is a wrecking amendment. It accepts that there will be a memorial and a learning centre together in Victoria Tower Gardens. It simply seeks to set some guardrails around the content. Were it a wrecking amendment, my noble friend on the Front Bench would not be supporting it, as I understand is the case.
That leads me back to the Minister. I think I know where our Front Bench stands; I now want to hear, when the Minister responds to the debate, what he has to say. I think he is sympathetic to the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, put and which the amendment stands for. I am hoping that he can satisfy us. If he cannot do that now, it is possible he will be able to do that at Third Reading, but I do not know. If he cannot, and the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, seeks to move the amendment to a vote, I hope that noble Lords will vote in favour.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I do not regard this as a wrecking amendment at all; I think it is a very thoughtful one that has been on a journey where unintentional consequences have occurred. I am very sympathetic because I went through the same process myself a few years ago, after the 2017 election, when the prospect of a Jeremy Corbyn Prime Ministership was a real and present danger. I certainly could see the possibility that the Holocaust memorial would turn into some kind of genocide museum or genocide and slavery museum and be completely watered down. I spent a lot of time worrying and trying to find ways round it. I have to say that if there had there been a Jeremy Corbyn Government with that intent, I do not think there would be very much this House could have done to prevent it.
The noble Lord is right that “genocide” has been used in an almost flippant way in trying to describe things. We have had instances in which people have refused to take immunisations and have compared themselves to the Jews. We have heard noble prelates describe environmental problems as a holocaust. I think it is important to recognise why the Holocaust was unique. I think Members around the Chamber will remember our dear friend David Cesarani, sadly no longer with us, a very distinguished British historian of the Holocaust. David had this ability to put things very neatly and in 22 words he managed to sum up the Holocaust:
“The Holocaust involved the systematic use of state power, modern bureaucratic methods, scientific thinking, and killing methods adapted from industrial production systems”.
There has been no subsequent holocaust—and no prior holocausts—that would fall into that definition, except one. That is why the manuscript amendment is so vital because the Roma and Sinti genocide was identical to what happened in the Holocaust in that the individuals were selected not because of what they did, not because of what they thought, not because of their sexual preferences, but because they were Roma or Sinti. They were killed in ghettos and murdered in Auschwitz. It was an attempt to annihilate a race and the previous amendment would have ruled them out, in effect. I just wanted to make that clear because there has already been quite a bit of speculation that this was an attempt to push out the Roma and the Sinti. That is not the intention of the proposal. It would never be the intention of this House.
I am very sympathetic but I hope I will be forgiven for probing just a little. I may be wrong on this, and I would like the Minister to give a reply. As I read it, if you did a commemoration inside the learning centre without education, would that be in contradiction to this very sensible amendment? If that is the case—because I believe the amendment is an important one—is there some way that the magic of the usual channels can fix any defect? I am looking at the most distinguished member of the usual channels. I hope he will give active consideration to this should that be the case. If I am wrong, I would be delighted.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, some years ago I visited the Dachau concentration camp just outside Munich. It made a huge impression on me, as did visiting the memorial and learning centres in Jerusalem and in Berlin. One thing particularly struck me, perhaps because it touched me personally. In Dachau there was a display of the different badges prisoners in the concentration camp were required to wear. One of those badges was a pink triangle, which was reserved for the prisoners who were detained there because they were homosexual. Some 50,000 people are estimated to have been given severe life sentences by the Nazis, and some 15,000 to 20,000 were sent to concentration camps for being homosexual. Most of them died or were killed. Some were subject to horrific experiments, including castration.
I think it would be the effect of the noble Lord’s amendment that the learning centre should not provide information or education about that part of the atrocities perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Sometimes the word Holocaust has been used to include those atrocities. I understand, of course, the force of his argument and the purpose of his amendment—his wish to reserve the education centre and its focus for the appalling crime of attempted genocide perpetrated against Jewish people. If homosexuals, who were also targeted by the Nazi regime, are to be excluded from this learning centre, we should acknowledge that and be conscious of it. Perhaps alternative educational provision can be made. If they should be included—the atrocities were committed against a smaller number of people but were by the same regime with the same sort of motive—then I am not sure the amendment allows for that and should itself be amended at a later stage, should this House accept it tonight.
I do not in any way seek to belittle the crime of attempted genocide against the Jewish people—of course not. Nor do I think we should ignore or belittle what was done to people by the same Nazi regime simply because they were gay.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I think the discussion so far indicates just how ambiguous the point of this learning centre is. Still no one knows exactly what it is going to teach and what will be in it. I heard the presentation from Martin Winstone. I recall from that that he did not know what lesson was to be learned and that the centre was not going to combat antisemitism.
Over the last few years, I have asked many questions about which genocides will be included. I have had various answers from Ministers and former Ministers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and different answers to Written Questions. Sometimes we are told it is the Rohingya or Kosovo. Other times we are told it is all the people who were victims of the Nazis. This indicates to me no clarity about what is going on. Most of the other Holocaust memorials around the world address a question that is very painful for this Government and Parliament. The British Government closed the doors of Palestine in the 1930s, and even after the war. I always think of how many more people may have been saved—maybe millions—if Britain had abandoned the mandate and allowed Israel to be created in 1938 rather than 1948. This country bears that responsibility, as it did after the war, when it still would not let people into what was evolving into Israel.
These are difficult questions, but they have to be addressed. The late Lord Sacks said that today’s antisemitism had morphed into anti-Israelism. We cannot escape that question. If we want to combat today’s antisemitism, there has to be some learning somewhere about the biblical, historical and practical need for the nation of Israel, and why it came about. That lack is what is driving much of the hatred on the streets today.
The reason why this amendment is good, but maybe does not even go far enough, is this. The Jewish genocide, unlike all the others that have been mentioned, is rooted in more than 2,000 years of antisemitism—not 1,000, but more than 2,000, and some take it back 5,000 years. The other genocides were the results of tribal hatred, religion, sexual distaste and so on. The other victims, on the whole, were minorities; of all the genocides that have been mentioned, the people were minorities within states, without their own self-determination and means of self-defence. This has nothing to do with democracy, which is why the choice of Victoria Tower Gardens is not a good one. Genocide usually happens because one is a minority within a majority state, unable to exercise self-defence—and the need for self-defence needs to be explained in this learning centre, if it is to teach anything.
We also have to stop putting all this in the past. The learning centre suffers from the deficiency that it will tell people what happened in the war, and about the Nazis. Full stop. Unfortunately some of that is continuing. The learned lawyer Anthony Julius gave a speech a week or two ago in which he said that for thousands of years antisemitism had been a default position almost across the world. My generation were lucky in that this receded for the last 80 years or so, but it has come back, I am afraid to say. We cannot just talk about antisemitism in the past—“It was all Germany, it all happened a long time ago, and now we’re in a democracy and it’s all fine”. That is not the case. It is an ongoing matter.
One has to combat antisemitism with today’s weapons of explanation, which have to encompass what the survivors did after the war. That is a difficult issue for people to confront, because what the learning centre is apparently going to teach, if anything, is very odd—the British reaction to the Holocaust during the war. Did people know about it? Did they not know about it? There will be the Kindertransport, and maybe even the failure to prosecute Nazi war criminals who arrived here after the war. But what one learns from that I really do not know.
I fear that the learning centre will continue the business of globalising the Holocaust, making it a vague word that can be applied to any kind of slaughter that one does not approve of. We need to combat the terrible racism that is appearing in professionals, artists, the media and the universities today. We cannot just treat the Holocaust as another murder in the past, not to be remembered on its own. It is a continuing story.
It has been assumed too readily that learning the facts of the Holocaust inures against antisemitism. Today proves that it does not. I am afraid the learning centre will politicise and de-Judaise the treatment of Jews. We see this at national Holocaust remembrance ceremonies every year: an hour or two of self-congratulation and feeling much better. We need to overhaul Holocaust education and teach that the Holocaust did not succeed. The distinguishing feature of the Jewish community over the ages is survival against all the odds, not just death and victimhood. At every Passover celebration, the people around the table say, “In every generation they rose up to destroy us, but God delivered us from their hands”. That is a lesson that needs to be repeated today.
The learning centre as it stands is not good enough. “Never again” means concentrating on the Jewish genocide and antisemitism, and remembering the need for a safe and strong Israel—the world’s only haven for the persecuted and the survivors of the Holocaust—almost regardless of its faults. Hence the vital nature of this amendment, to secure at the very least a decent rationale for the learning centre.
Baroness Fleet (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, who presented them with compelling logic. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on her leadership on this Bill and her brilliant speeches.
We have heard what a deeply contentious and divisive issue the proposed memorial is. I spoke in Committee about my very real concerns about a number of aspects of this Bill. Today, I will add a few brief comments about the purpose of the learning centre, and I shall focus on antisemitism. I am not Jewish, but my husband is; his parents came to England in 1938—Sylvie from Vienna and George from Prague, young refugees, mere teenagers, who were among the fortunate few who escaped the hell of Hitler. They were grateful to Britain, but they knew that the antisemitism of British officials and politicians, as referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, prevented thousands of Jews from being saved from the Holocaust. I repeat that today because it is central to my argument.
It could be argued that when the Holocaust Commission’s 2015 report, Britain’s Promise to Remember, was published, many people were not aware of antisemitism in this country; it was seldom on our front pages. Then came 7 October. If noble Lords have not yet read the 7 October Parliamentary Commission Report, I urge them to do so. Chaired by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Belgravia, it is a definitive and utterly shocking description of Islamic-inspired horror and a deep hatred of Jews.
In spite of worldwide coverage of the events of 7 October, antisemitism became even more rampant globally. In London, antisemitism continues to be tolerated by the police and the Mayor of London. Even when the hateful slogan, “From the River to the Sea”, was projected on to the Elizabeth Tower, the police did nothing. Did the police not know the meaning—that this is a call for the destruction of Israel and the 8 million Jews who live there? Do noble Lords believe that the Met will have the will to stop antisemitic protests at the proposed memorial? They could not even stop a pro-Palestine protester climbing up the Elizabeth Tower, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
The failure to confront antisemitism in universities and public debate, including on the BBC, shows the difficulties of effective Holocaust education. The BBC is complicit in the rise of antisemitism, propagating daily the lies of Hamas. I draw noble Lords’ attention to Allison Pearson of the Telegraph, who last week described how the BBC’s Israel reporting is fuelling antisemitism. I raise this because it is really important that when we talk about antisemitism we understand what it is and why. Do we really think that a small digital learning centre can really tackle this issue?
The BBC has been captured by the anti-Israeli lobby. Has anyone been fired for antisemitism? The director-general, Tim Davie, is out of his depth, with little apparent understanding of the significance of what is happening under his watch. Can a digital learning centre really tackle the complex issue of antisemitism? No, it cannot.
The Minister has said that the memorial and learning centre is intended to be a national focal point of Holocaust remembrance, to host events on Holocaust Memorial Day. No—the memorial and learning centre will become a focal point of antisemitism.
Antisemitism is complex and deeply embedded in our society. Will the Holocaust memorial’s digital learning centre ever begin to tackle this complex issue? No, it will not. Digital displays cannot begin to foster a real understanding of the 5,000-year history, the suffering and the determined survival of the Jewish people. I am saddened by the suggestion that noble Lords who choose not to support all aspects of the Bill might somehow be antisemitic—quite the reverse. The few survivors still with us are divided. Just as this House is divided, the Jewish community is divided.
I finish by quoting a short extract from a letter that was sent to us all by the learned Rabbi Gluck, who wrote:
“I can see no value in the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre planned for Victoria Tower Gardens … The Learning Centre is too small to be useful, it will trivialise the unique nature of the Shoah and render it impossible to learn anything … about antisemitism, past and present (as was pointed out by Holocaust survivors to the Commons Select Committee).”
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am at a disadvantage because I have not seen the manuscript amendment, Amendment 4A, but I will make just a few comments. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert, has already suggested that the centre should include other aspects of the concentration camps in Germany—for example, the treatment of homosexuals. I would like this centre not to be restricted. The Jewish community has a very long history in our country and of making positive contributions to our society. It also has a history of persecutions over many years in our country. I would like this centre to have a wider base so that people can see and recognise the contributions that have been made by the Jewish community in this country over 2,000 years and learn about the occasions when it has been badly persecuted by the non-Jews.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Pickles, I have considerable sympathy with this amendment, which was so well set out by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am pleased to find common ground with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that it is really important that we are honest about the responsibility that Britain bears, not just for good but, as she has set out, where we, as a country, made big mistakes. I also agree with her that it is hugely important that this is about a continuing story. However, I am worried about this amendment, because I fear that it could be a wedge for more legal action. What worries me even more is when my noble friend Lady Fleet gives a speech about rejecting the learning centre in totality in this specific amendment—which, as I say I have some sympathy with.
I therefore have a question for the Minister, who I know has been thinking deeply about this: what risk is there in this amendment? Those of us who have worked on this for a long time know that every legal avenue has been taken up to prevent this memorial being built. I may be seeing shadows, and the danger with the Bill is that we all see shadows from different sides, so could the Minister reassure us that, for all the good intentions behind the amendment, it would not create that wedge, which would create real challenges for a future curator of this learning centre, who may find themselves subject to lawfare which, unfortunately, appears to be more and more common in this land?
Lord Sassoon (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that we are getting a bit diverted from the main purpose of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, because I very strongly support it. What he and my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe had to say got to the essence of this, and I think we are straying a bit. I would like us to get back to what is really important here.
At the heart of this is not shadows but what we have heard and read from the Minister in successive debates in this House and in Committee, and what we have heard from the Government’s advisers outside the Chamber to help inform us. It shows that there is no clear definition of what this learning centre is to be about. It is clear that other genocides have been referred to in the Government’s material, so let us not talk about shadows but about what is hard fact: unless we put this amendment into the Bill, it leaves things very wide open for different interpretations over time from those who are running the learning centre. That is the central point, and I strongly support the amendment.
I have stood where the Minister stands and had to answer many times on legislation, with points along the lines of, “Well, it is called the memorial learning centre and therefore that is what it is going to be. We do not need to put anything in the Bill”. But this is a case where there is so much confusion and it is such a critical issue that we need to be clear about it.
I must say that I am very sympathetic to what my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs had to say. I was at the Imperial War Museum this morning, because I thought it would be an important prelude to this debate to go back there. I know that its galleries very sensitively use an inclusive definition of the Holocaust, so I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that topic, as well as what the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has to say. I think it is right that the Holocaust can be and should be defined that way. Questions about further legal action or whether education really covers other events should not divert us this evening from the main purpose of this amendment, which is very necessary.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I too recently visited the Imperial War Museum with my two sons, not only to see the exhibition on the Holocaust but to visit Lord Ashcroft’s Victoria Cross gallery, which is, sadly, closing shortly.
The Government, their predecessors and the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation have been crystal clear that the learning centre will focus on the Holocaust. The exhibition will set out the facts of the Holocaust from a British perspective. There is no intention of relativising the Holocaust, still less of turning the learning centre into a forum for generic discussion on genocides.
I say to noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that I agree with a lot of what she said in her speech. She attended the recent presentation by the project historian Martin Winstone. He gave an open and very thorough account of the planned exhibition at an all-party event last week, on Tuesday 3 June. He explained to us all, in plain language, how the exhibition is being developed. The curator, Yehudit Shendar, is deeply experienced in Holocaust exhibitions, having played a leading role at Yad Vashem. The academic advisory board includes leading Holocaust experts, such as the UK’s only professor of Holocaust history, Professor Zoe Waxman. It will benefit from new research that deepens our understanding of British connections to the Holocaust. It falls under the guidance of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, which has always been determined that the learning centre will provide a clear account of the Holocaust, seeking to tackle distortion.
The amendment seeks to respond to misleading messages about the purpose of the learning centre. In reality, it is certain that the learning centre will focus sharply and unambiguously on the Holocaust. I welcome the amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief, because this is in fact Report, although sometimes it has not quite seemed that way.
The point in this amendment appears to me to be short, focused and unanswerable. What is the question that we are trying to answer? Why are we building this memorial and learning centre? That is the fundamental question. The obvious answer is that we are building it to memorialise the Holocaust and to teach people about what happened and the dangers of antisemitism. If that is the case, I cannot see any reason why that purpose is not included in the Bill. I see no possible answer to that at all. Of course, none of this is to dismiss other atrocities or to downplay or minimise other genocides, but that is not what this memorial and learning centre is about.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I would like to say, as someone who is Jewish, how incredibly heartwarming each and every one of the speeches tonight has been. Every speaker has spoken with compassion, affection and sensitivity to the plight of the Jewish people and other victims of the Holocaust. This proposed new clause reflects great credit on this House.
My main point was prompted by the noble Lord, Lord Evans. He went to see Lord Ashcroft’s exhibition of Victoria Crosses at the Imperial War Museum. Lord Ashcroft very generously gave his incredible collection of VCs and £5 million to the museum, which was very grateful. However, the trustees of the museum decided, of their own volition, to close the exhibition and return the medals—but not the Victoria Crosses—to Lord Ashcroft. This is a lesson to us all about what can happen years after something is determined in good faith: trustees can change their minds or the trustees themselves change, or the mood, fashion or style can change. That is why I welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. The purpose has to be included in the Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, for bringing his Amendment 4 and his manuscript Amendment 4A which I have signed. As I said during our debate on this issue in Grand Committee, it was our understanding that this amendment is in line with the Government’s intentions. When we debated the amendment to closely define the sole purpose of the memorial and learning centre, the Government then resisted it.
On the one hand, the Minister argued that the amendment is unnecessary because:
“This Bill is about a memorial to the Holocaust, not to all genocides or crimes against humanity”—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. GC 551.]
But he then went on to say later that:
“The centre is also intended to address subsequent genocides within the context of the Holocaust”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. GC 552.]
That is an inconsistent and confusing position. I therefore understand why the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has brought his amendments forward on Report today.
We share the noble Lord’s concern that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre could in future come to inappropriately shift its focus from the unique crime perpetrated against the Jewish people and the other victims of the Holocaust by the Nazis to other acts of genocide. The memorial and learning centre should be purely focused on the unique horror of the Holocaust and we must resist any attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the Holocaust, which stands out in world history, and other events.
In the words of one German historian, the Holocaust was
“a unique crime in the history of mankind”,
and, as the then Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission stated in 2015,
“It is clear that Britain has a unique relationship with this terrible period of history”.
That is why we set out to deliver this memorial and learning centre, and we must not forget that impetus.
I am also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has included antisemitism in his amendment. As my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton put it so well at Second Reading,
“We have a problem with antisemitism in this country, and it is growing. What better way to deal with this than to have a bold, unapologetic national statement? This is not a Jewish statement or a community statement; it is a national statement about how much we care about this and how we are prepared to put that beyond doubt”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1170.]
This amendment is clearly consonant with the intentions of the Bill, and importantly, it need not delay its progress. Given these amendments meet those two tests, we will support the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, in his amendments should he seek the opinion of the House. However, I hope that we will not have to do that. I hope the Minister will stand up and agree with this House that the Government will look at this and bring back their own amendments at Third Reading.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Goodman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for Amendment 4, together with Amendment 4A, which, in addition, has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook.
This proposed new clause is similar to one proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Robathan, in Committee. I note that this proposed clause has removed the word “Nazi”, taking heed of the warning of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, that the Holocaust was not perpetrated by the Nazis alone.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the objectives behind this amendment. As noble Lords will be very well aware from earlier debates, it is the strong and clear intention of the Government that the learning centre should be focused on the history of the Holocaust and of antisemitism.
The new clause is no doubt well intentioned, but it is overly restrictive and may have unintended consequences. First, the new clause is unnecessary. The Bill clearly refers to a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust. The Bill also clearly states that it is about a Holocaust memorial, not a memorial to all genocides or to crimes against humanity. No Holocaust memorial and learning centre could exist without a clear understanding of the roots of antisemitism.
From the start, we have been very clear that to understand the devastation of the Holocaust on European Jewry, it is crucial also to understand the vibrancy and breadth of Jewish life before the Holocaust. We have been very clear about the concept of genocide and how it relates to the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the lens through which we view the development of international law on genocide and on human rights.
The modern understanding of genocide was developed in the context of the Holocaust. Indeed, the term itself was put forward by a Jewish lawyer working in the shadow of the death camps and involved in the attempt to achieve justice at Nuremberg. We will focus on the impact the Holocaust had on the emergence of the concept of genocide and the associated international legal frameworks. We will not, as some have claimed, relativise the Holocaust by equating it with other genocides. The learning centre will not portray the Holocaust as simply one among many episodes of inhumanity and cruelty, nor will it aim to communicate bland, generic moral messages. The Holocaust was a unique event among the evils of this world and will be treated as such. The learning centre, integrated with our national memorial, will provide a solid, clear historical account of the Holocaust, leaving no visitors in any doubt about the unprecedented crimes perpetrated against the Jewish people.
I was pleased to offer noble Lords an opportunity to hear direct from Martin Winstone, the Holocaust historian and educator who is supporting development of the learning centre content. I appreciate the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Goodman and Lord Verdirame, and I wish we could have had our conversation much earlier in advance of the debate tonight, but, unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity. Those who were able to attend the session last week will have heard unequivocally that the focus is on the Holocaust and its devastating impact on Jewish communities across the world.
The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem, supported by an academic advisory group. With their help, we will ensure the content is robust, truthful and fearless. It will stand as a vital rebuttal of Holocaust denial and distortion in all its forms.
I hope I have shown that there is no disagreement between the Government and those who wish to ensure that the learning centre focuses very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. I am not, however, persuaded that additional clauses to the Bill are needed to achieve what we all want to see. Moreover, there are inevitably risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly what the learning centre is permitted to do.
Lord Harper (Con)
I have been listening very carefully to the Minister, and I completely accept what he is saying about his and the Government’s position on what he wants the learning centre to do, but can he address the question raised by several of my noble friends: what happens if there is a different Government and a different Minister with a different policy? Does anything in the Bill as drafted prevent a Government with a different policy—we have heard several examples of how that might come about—altering the focus of the learning centre? I do not doubt that he is sincere and in complete agreement, but it is about guarding against a future change. That is what noble Lords are trying to guarantee.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
If the noble Lord will allow me, I will address his point towards the conclusion of my speech.
I have mentioned the academic advisory group, and this is a good opportunity to tell the House who is in it: Ben Barcow CBE, who worked at the Weiner Holocaust Library from 1987 to 2019; Gilly Carr, professor of conflict archaeology and Holocaust heritage at the University of Cambridge; Robert Eaglestone of Royal Holloway College, professor of contemporary literature and thought and former deputy-director of the Holocaust Research Institute at Royal Holloway; Zoe Waxman, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who is professor of Holocaust History at the University of Oxford; Isabel Wollaston, who is professor of Jewish and Holocaust studies at the University of Birmingham; and my good friend Dr Paul Shapiro.
Before I come back to finish on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I hope I have shown that there is no disagreement between the Government and those who wish to ensure that the learning centre focuses very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. I am not, however, persuaded that the proposed additional clauses are needed in the Bill to achieve what we want to see. Moreover, there are inevitably risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly.
I suspect that many noble Lords would expect the learning centre to address, at least to some degree, the history of Jewish communities ahead of the Holocaust. I believe also that there would be support for some activities in the learning centre to be focused more on commemoration than on education. Neither of those matters is explicitly and obviously permitted by the proposed new clause. I say that as a direct answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.
We know, sadly, that the activities of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will face a good deal of opposition and hostility. I am very reluctant to provide additional opportunities for legal challenges and for inviting the courts to get involved in determining what can or cannot take place in the learning centre.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I am sorry to say that the confusion, which is becoming deeper and deeper, is of the Government’s own making: all this use of the word “genocide”, this Holocaust and that Holocaust. I understand that the Government give funding to Holocaust education bodies only if they agree to include other genocides along with what Jews call the Shoah, the Jewish genocide. It is the Government who have opened this up.
We all know that the word “genocide” is now being turned against Israel and against Jewish people themselves. The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust itself, which has written in support of this project, last November invited people to a Holocaust remembrance ceremony in January that was going to include the killing of civilians in Gaza. The killing of civilians in Gaza is dreadful, but it has nothing to do with what we should be talking about tonight: the genocide of the Jews. I fear that this is the Government’s own muddle. It needs clarification by support for my noble friend Lord Verdirame’s amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness’s strength of feeling on this and many other issues. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, I have a lot of sympathy for the intention of the proposed new clause, but I am concerned about it because there is no definition in the Bill. We have to be very careful on that point. I had a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame—as I did with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman—but, because of the wording being overly restrictive, I respectfully ask them, at this moment, to withdraw the amendments.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Minister has not properly answered my noble friend’s question. It is not just about the clarification of what is in the memorial and the learning centre now; it is concern about what may happen to the memorial as the world changes, Governments change and leaders change. We have also heard from my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who is an eminent lawyer, that this will make it safer in law and less able to be challenged than it would if it were left in the slightly woolly area that it is now. Can the Minister comment on the future of the memorial?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, there will be future discussions about the governance of the learning centre—those are the safeguards. For now, because I do not want to prolong the House any longer, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who spoke. I will briefly make a few points in reply. First, I have no problem at all with the individuals sitting on the academic advisory board; they are all very eminent. I am certainly glad to hear about the involvement from Yad Vashem.
The composition of boards changes over time: different individuals will come on board with different agendas. This is an opportunity for Parliament to set the agenda, and whoever comes on board will have to stick to that agenda set by Parliament.
On whether it is unnecessary, as the Minister said, I have to disagree. It is necessary because we have already seen some drift into other persecution and genocides in the Explanatory Notes, and that is why it is necessary. I do not quite see how it can be described as too narrow. The purpose would be education about the Holocaust and antisemitism. They are two pretty big missions, and we are not doing so well in respect of either of them.
Further, of course commemorations could take place because we are building a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, so it will be possible in this building to have commemorations. In addition, the fact that the amendment refers to education, which is a broad concept, also enables commemoration as part of education.
I have a lot of sympathy, as he knows, with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, about the inclusion of homosexual victims of the Holocaust. I never had any doubt that individuals who were wearing a pink star in Auschwitz were victims of the Holocaust. I considered, with other Members involved in the drafting of this amendment, alternative versions, and as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, we went through a bit of a journey with the formulation. In the end, we thought Holocaust was the obvious term because it is what the memorial is about: it is a memorial about the victims of the Holocaust. I see that term as inclusive of other groups persecuted and taken to concentration and extermination camps. I am very glad that he raised that point.
Finally, I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, said on legal challenges, but I was a little baffled by the idea that there could be a legal challenge about the meaning of Holocaust. That legal challenge could be brought now because the Bill provides for
“expenditure … in connection with … a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust”.
If somebody wanted to bring a challenge on the basis that the Holocaust is something else, they could probably already do it now. The amendment will not in any way widen the scope for such legal challenges, but it will afford a degree of protection against the risk of mission creep and of this learning centre starting to do things that we all know it is not supposed to do. With that in mind, I have listened to the Minister carefully, but I am afraid I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Deech
“Any new planning application to consider better alternativesThe Secretary of State must ensure that any future planning process relating to the expenditure specified in section 1(1)(a) must take into account at least two alternative proposals for each construction specified in section 1(1)(a)(i) and section 1(1)(a)(ii).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that attention is given to alternative sites in order to reduce any security risks, to enable the inclusion of the Learning Centre within a new Jewish museum and to seek an alternative to the proposed design of the Holocaust Memorial.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I will be careful not to repeat what has already been said. I just want to draw attention to the availability of other sites that have been on offer for some years. The 2015 commission identified three sites: the Imperial War Museum, Potters Fields near Tower Bridge, and Millbank. There is still room on Millbank—I check all the time. A property was offered at one stage, which is no longer there, but there are empty buildings on Millbank for rent or sale. It is not necessary to build anything from scratch for a learning centre—or, indeed, for a museum, which, as many people have said, would be preferable to a learning centre.
The compromise we have offered would be a suitable figurative memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. It should not be overlooked that the designer of the current memorial and learning centre is now discredited. He has withdrawn or been withdrawn from nearly all the projects with which he is linked because of the allegations made against him, which have not been settled in any way over the past two years. Why this designer should still be considered good enough for a Holocaust memorial is very troubling and worrying. We need a new design for that.
There happens to be an excellent sculptured memorial in Gladstone Park, London, by Fred Kormis, the German-Jewish sculptor. It deserves a wider audience and could be moved to Victoria Tower Gardens, where it would fit admirably and would certainly be a lot better than the absolutely meaningless design by a discredited designer that we are given now.
The Jewish community remains divided on this matter. It is not the case that it is mostly in favour—far from it. A lot of donors and officials support the project; scholars and everyday members do not necessarily do so. The Chief Rabbi represents the mainstream, but on the left, as it were—the progressive element—Rabbi Jonathan Romain, among others, is against the project, and on the right the very Orthodox Rabbi Gluck, who should not be discredited, represents their views. There is simply no one view. Indeed, the Jewish community has not really been given the chance to consider this because many do not know the details.
Given advances in technology, the need for a physical exhibition space of this sort is diminishing. Everything that we have been told will be in the learning centre could be put on a memory stick—if that is the modern technological way of doing things—and distributed to every school in the country without necessarily having to bring people to London.
In essence, Victoria Tower Gardens as a site is not right. What we are being given is not a memorial and it is not a Holocaust learning centre; it is a political function arguing that democracy protects Jews and prevents genocide. This misguided narrative assumes that situating a memorial near Parliament enhances democratic accountability. In reality, there is no evidence that such a placement impacts antisemitism or political decision-making. Although officials claim that parliamentarians will reflect on their responsibilities while viewing the memorial, a nearly £200 million project seems an excessive way to underscore the obvious reality that political decisions have consequences.
Across the world, memorials unfortunately unintentionally serve as staging grounds for political virtue signalling, with people posing in front of them to demonstrate their commitment to remembrance while engaging in anti-Israel actions. Politicians, as we know, can stand in front of a memorial or go to a remembrance ceremony and say, “There isn’t a racist bone in my body”, but then in the afternoon shake hands with Hamas.
Victoria Tower Gardens is therefore unsuitable both practically and ideologically. Before settling on it as perhaps a last resort, we know that there are other locations that would do far better, and it is time to give the community information about what is happening. This amendment about alternatives and the others present an opportunity to make a more meaningful and lasting impact. A figurative memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens—not the current one on offer—and a learning centre of greater depth and scholarship elsewhere could be achieved quickly and more economically. The real effort should begin. I beg to move.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, sites come into potential because of changes in the usage of buildings around London. Quite apart from the sites referred to by my noble friend in moving this amendment, there are at least two sites in the City of London that, in my view, could well be available if the Government would negotiate with the City of London Corporation. I believe that each of those sites, and possibly there are others, would be iconic in their own way but would not contain the risks involved in putting a learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment. I heed very closely the words of my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew; we have to look at the balance of risks. I will not go through the details of the substances that I looked at because I do not want to fuel any terrorist activity, but I worry that this will be a trophy for terrorists. Suffice it to say that, looking at the pharmacology of the different substances that are used in mass poisonings, it takes only two minutes to have the fatalities that you might see happen in a place where somebody is of malintent.
Having looked at the model that was here on display and asked questions about it, I remained completely unconvinced that the screening processes would be adequate to detect anything hidden in a body cavity, whether in the vagina masquerading as a tampon or put into the rectum. Highly concentrated chemical substances can be sealed and released. The other problem is that the open forum would allow for something to be lobbed into the area which is the exit route on the design at present.
I added my name to this amendment because I hope that planning alternatives will be looked at seriously, so that the proper meaning of this memorial and of a learning centre can proceed.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because it seems a brave attempt to bridge a gap between two very entrenched positions.
Having sat through most, if not all, of the Committee and through today at Report, I am reminded of the football manager saying, “I have a sense of déjà vu all over again”. One important thing we can do is try to focus on what has united us as opposed to what has divided us.
I think everybody who took part in the Committee was supportive of the key objectives of the Holocaust Commission. It is worthwhile quoting briefly what the committee said:
“The National Memorial should … be a place where people can pay their respects, contemplate, think and offer prayers … provide factual information about what happened”,
and
“convey the enormity of the Holocaust and its impact”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moore, reminded us earlier, those are two very different activities. The first is a personal thing: I go to pray and I go to pay my respects. The second may be personal but it is more likely to be collective: I am learning something. The emphases of the two parts of what is required by this Bill are quite different. Therefore, when people say that they need to be linked together, I am not sure I buy that, for the reasons I have just explained. My noble friend Lord Evans suggested it is going to be ticket-only admission. Is it going to be ticket-only admission for me to pray? That puts quite a different emphasis on the nature of the relationship between the public, Jewish or non-Jewish, and the memorial we are creating.
Part of our difficulty has been that, during Committee, although valuable points were made, it was clearly felt by both Front Benches that this was a Bill that was close to perfect and therefore amendments were unlikely to be tabled to improve it but, rather, in many cases, to impede its progress. The Minister dealt with all these amendments with his customary humour, tolerance and patience. I was grateful, and I am sure the Committee was grateful to him too. He is, I know, a proud Lancastrian from Burnley, the home of the cricketer Jimmy Anderson. I hope he will forgive me if I say that, on this occasion, at the Dispatch Box his performance reminded me of another cricketer—the proud Yorkshireman Geoffrey Boycott, whose renowned shot was the forward defensive prod, giving nothing away. The consequence of that is that we have returned to a lot of the stuff that we could have cleared out in Committee, if there had been any evidence of a readiness to reflect and consider matters in a more constructive way.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Jewish Leadership Council. I am conscious of time but very keen to speak briefly. I have a deeply personal connection to the atrocities that our discussions relate to. I lost over 100 members of my family on my mother’s side in the Holocaust and have been involved in many Holocaust education initiatives domestically and abroad over the last almost 25 years. I have visited a number of memorials and their associated learning centres across the world. I have also studied at the International School for Holocaust Studies at Yad Vashem.
Many noble Lords on both sides of the House have referred to the very serious issue of antisemitism in the debate. You do not need to be Jewish to walk in a Jewish person’s shoes, to care deeply about any form of hatred, including anti-Jewish hatred. It is perhaps worth noting that I do not think any other Members of this House have seen six people convicted in this country for the antisemitism and death threats directed towards me because of my faith.
It is in that vein that I have followed this debate very closely from the start. I am sorry that I do not share the view of the proposers of this amendment, despite agreeing with them on many other matters. I wish to speak briefly about this amendment, and in doing so speak against it, but also set out my support for the Government’s proposal for a national Holocaust memorial together with an education centre. I would have liked to set out my support before our debate today, but I was not yet introduced to this House. As I said, I will endeavour to keep my remarks very brief.
I am only sorry that we do not yet have a national Holocaust memorial and that these proceedings have already taken so many years. During that time we have lost some extraordinary Holocaust survivors, those first-hand witnesses since the pledge was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in his previous role as Prime Minister more than 10 years ago. We have lost some inspirational people, including Sir Ben Helfgott, a man I had the privilege to meet a number of times. He captained the British Olympic team twice and it is his sister, Mala Tribich MBE, who tirelessly shares her testimony to schools and businesses and who has eloquently outlined her support for the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre, as was shared before the dinner break by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles.
I am very clear that a national memorial should be placed adjacent to our Houses of Parliament at the heart of our democracy and home of our national public life as a very physical reminder to us all of the horrific and unique history which saw the systematic murder of 6 million Jews and millions of non-Jewish civilians, including Roma, the disabled, Poles, Soviet prisoners of war and members of the LGBTQ community. It is the worst example in living history of what happens when good people do nothing. If you accept the premise that we should have a national Holocaust memorial here in Westminster adjacent to our Houses of Parliament—and having listened to the debate this evening, it appears there is majority support for that—I think it is absolutely correct that the learning centre should be located together with the memorial to ensure that a visit to the memorial delivers a full educational experience.
There has to be a learning resource in its immediate vicinity in the same way that major sites such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dachau and Flossenbürg in Germany and the Holocaust Museum in Slovakia all have educational facilities alongside the memorials. In the USA most major Holocaust memorials are paired with museums or education centres—in Washington DC, New York, Texas and Florida and, most significantly, as we have discussed a number of times this evening, at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.
Unlike some other noble Lords, I am heartened by representations from the academic advisers—those experts to the Holocaust Memorial Foundation—who have set out in correspondence to this House that the main focus of the memorial and learning centre will be to explore the differing responses of individuals, communities and institutions, including the press, Government and Parliament, to the persecution and mass extermination of Jews by Nazi Germany.
The aim of the memorial and education centre will be to prompt visitors to reflect on questions such as: what more could and should have been done to help? It will highlight the fate of British nationals caught up in Nazi terror, and those involved in liberating camps, which many noble Lords have referred to this evening. I warmly welcome that evidence-based approach to help visitors engage meaningfully with the past, and to reflect on the very serious dangers of indifference, hatred and antisemitism—perils that we know have not gone away. Today sees record levels of anti-Jewish hatred in this country. I believe that this pedagogical approach, inspired by some of the leaders in this field, including from Yad Vashem, will make a difference.
The proposed location of the memorial and learning centre is essential. I went through all the correspondence that was shared with all noble Lords. I was struck in particular by the words of the director of the Holocaust Centre North in Huddersfield, Dr Bucci. I think he best summed it up in his letter to all noble Lords when he said that the Holocaust did not begin with violence, it began with legislation.
To place this memorial beside the seat of our democracy is to honour that history and to serve as a lasting reminder of the weight of responsibility borne by those in power. This is especially urgent at a time when radical ideologies are finding their way into mainstream discourse. The memorial will stand as a visible permanent statement that our democracy must always be alert to the dangers of intolerance, scapegoating and division.
Noble Lords from all sides of the House attended an event a couple of months ago. It was the Yom HaShoah service held in the Victoria Tower Gardens on the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen. I and many others took footage. There were hundreds of schoolchildren from across the country who took part in the service. I thought it was a very fitting service, but it was also indicative of the memorial we can have there.
In conclusion, I do not think we need any alternative plans, as this amendment sets out. At best, this is a severely delaying amendment. I hope noble Lords will reject it and we can progress with this Bill.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
I would like to interrogate the argument, which is an important one, that, to use the noble Baroness’s phrase, the location of the learning centre next to our Parliament is essential. That is not the case in relation to other Holocaust learning centres around the world, is it?
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which has been referred to—the most visited in the world—is nearly two miles from the United States Capitol. It is, of course, within the overall area where there are many memorials and government buildings, but it is not proximate to the United States Capitol. The Jewish Museum in Berlin, which I referred to earlier, is the same distance of nearly two miles away from the Reichstag. The Jewish memorial is a little closer, but the Jewish Museum is an outstanding and much visited place, with an amazing experience and building designed by Daniel Libeskind.
The kernel of the argument of those of us who have concerns about the location of the proposed learning centre—not the memorial—is that the consequence of being so determined that it should be right next to our Parliament is that will be a much smaller, less impressive and less suitable learning centre than it would be if an alternative venue was chosen. The other arguments are secondary to that. The security concerns will be concerns wherever the location is.
There will also be an impact on a very small space. We have little of that kind of green space around our Parliament building so I think it is perfectly reasonable to accept the noble Baroness’s amendment and look for alternative sites. This is not just because of the effect on Victoria Tower Gardens, but because we are going to end up with a much less optimal learning centre if we persist in combining it with the memorial in this too-small space.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, unlike most speakers in this debate—although I think I am with the previous speaker—I come at this from the perspective of being concerned about Victoria Tower Gardens. I do not suppose that that is a surprise, coming from somebody who is the president of Historic Buildings & Places and a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. It is my considered view that what the Government are proposing is overdevelopment of Victoria Tower Gardens. Earlier this afternoon I did not go to the Cross-Bench group meeting, but skived off and walked round the gardens, and I must say—let us be under no illusions—if this goes ahead, it will wreck the gardens.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I was not going to speak at all, and I will make this very short, because I am a great believer in this project and I support what the Minister has done. This amendment is just a wrecking amendment, because it is clear that the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation put in place by the then Prime Minister conducted an extensive search for alternative sites. Fifty were considered. There should be no more prevarication: we need to get on with this.
If we look at the model, we see that Victoria Tower Gardens are not going to be wrecked; they will be enhanced. The greenery will be enhanced. I just cannot accept the argument being made. To the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to whom I am very close on so many things, I say that I think the case has been proved tonight. The Jewish community, of course, have many different views; and the Jewish community, like any other citizen in the country, had a chance to get involved nine or so years ago. If they wanted to make some comments they could, like anybody else, have done so.
The last thing I want to say is that the most important speech tonight has just been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger. The courage and bravery that she showed, and what she was put through by her own people, in her own party, leads me to say that I admire everything she did. Every word that she said tonight, everybody should read. I totally support that, and therefore I disagree with this amendment.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I would very much like to be associated with the words expressed about the noble Baroness, Lady Berger. She is a great addition to this House and a woman of considerable courage. Like my noble friend, I have enormous admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. So far as I am aware, this is the only thing I have ever disagreed with her about. But I hope she will not mind if I do so here. I thought initially that she had just misspoken, but she has repeatedly said that the historian Martin Winstone did not know what was going into the memorial. That is not true. What he actually said—
Baroness Deech (CB)
I did not say that—I said that he was unable to explain to us what was going to be learned. He told us very clearly what was going to be in there, but when we asked what the lesson was to be learned, there was no answer.
Lord Pickles (Con)
No, that is not what was said. The reason why he could not talk about learning or about what it was going to look like was that, quite properly, we suspended the use of the consultants who are going to be the curators. As the Minister said, it is Ralph Appelbaum.
There has been praise from opponents of and proponents of the Holocaust exhibition in the Imperial War Museum. That was devised by Appelbaum. There is considerable praise for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and that was designed by Appelbaum. The International African American Museum, which is extremely good, was also done by that firm, as was the First Americans Museum, as well as the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Members will be able to travel down the river to look at the Crown Jewels exhibition, which is also curated by Appelbaum.
I have to say that the descriptions we have heard of Victoria Tower Gardens do not in any way equate to the reality. The place is a dump. It has been neglected as a dump—and those who speak so eloquently about it should have done something about it. In the summer it is a dustbowl, and in the winter it is a quagmire. Who is going to look after it? The people who were selected to do the landscaping for the Eiffel Tower. The French are a choosy nation—they only go for the best, and the place is going to look so much better. It is going to have paths that water can go through and which will not choke the roots of the trees, as the current paths do. People who are disabled and in wheelchairs will for the first time ever be able to enjoy the embankment. It seems to me to be utterly wrong that somehow, for property-owning reasons, we should deny the people of London, the people who live on the Peabody Estate, something better. This is going to be considerably better, since we as a Parliament have allowed it to be neglected, and I heartily support that.
It is also quite wrong to suggest that somehow, this museum is going to be about British triumphalism. We have repeatedly said that that is not going to be the case.
We have already had a non-Jew quote a rabbi, and as a non-Jew I would like to quote, from the Office Of The Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, who is the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom but also of the Commonwealth, and not easily dismissed. He says:
“In these highly challenging times, with rising antisemitism, I wholeheartedly support the creation of this UK Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre. There can be no better place than Victoria Tower Gardens, in the shadow of our Parliament, in the heart of our nation’s capital, to act as our permanent reminder of the lessons we must continue to learn from the Holocaust for the sake of all in our society”.
When the Jewish community needed him, he stood up against antisemitism, and he stood up against Jeremy Corbyn. He did not suck up to Jeremy Corbyn. This is a man of great leadership, and his words should be listened to.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
I did not want to be discourteous by interrupting his flow, so I am following the normal convention. Before he sits down, can he explain something that is rather puzzling me? If there is to be this immense improvement to the site, why has UNESCO said that this makes it one of the five or six most at-risk world heritage sites on its register?
Lord Pickles (Con)
My noble friend is entirely wrong. It is not on the UNESCO site; it is outside the UNESCO site. The inspector looked at this and came to the conclusion that this would enhance the site, and that any change to the site would be an improvement. I think the heritage people have also said that there would be no significant damage. I am grateful to my noble friend, because he has just emphasised what a good thing this is going to be.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I suppose it is a bit of a clue that if we have more groups of amendments than there are clauses in the Bill, we are going to feel a bit like we are going round in circles—and this group does feel a bit like we are going round in circles.
It may be the worst nightmare of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, to have three Conservatives in a row say that they wholeheartedly agree with what she has said and how incredibly courageous she has been, but I would also like to associate myself with all her remarks. I also respect the integrity with which the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Deech, introduced this group by being very clear that she disapproves and disagrees with the concept of the learning centre.
We should have no illusions: this is a wrecking amendment. Having been on the Holocaust Memorial Foundation for 10 years, I know that we have looked at more than 50 locations and that if we go back to square one and look for new locations, we are kicking this can down the road for at least another decade. That would be a crying shame when the world really needs this now.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have listened carefully to all the debates focused on planning issues during the progress of the Bill, and we are clear that the planning process is the appropriate place for these issues to be addressed. Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, would take progress on the delivery of the landmark Holocaust memorial and learning centre backwards considerably. I have said already today that we are now 11 years on from the original commitment to deliver this. We are not rushing, and there have been ample opportunities to raise planning concerns. Indeed, a planning process will follow the passage of the Bill, and those concerns can also be addressed as part of that process.
It has been the policy of successive Conservative Governments that this project is well suited to the current planned site of Victoria Tower Gardens. A legislative requirement such as this would certainly prevent its timely delivery and risk the future of the project. We therefore cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, Lady Jones and Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, seeks to impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider alternative proposals for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre as part of the planning process, with the aim of coming up with new, better or different proposals.
I recognise and respect the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has deeply held views on our current proposals and would prefer the Government to change their mind and come up with a different scheme. However, our proposals have been arrived at over many years through a very thorough and lengthy process. It may be helpful if I briefly summarise the process of how we arrived at the current scheme.
Ten years ago, following extensive consultation, the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission submitted its report, Britain’s Promise to Remember. The recommendations in that report, including that there should be a new national Holocaust memorial with an accompanying learning centre, were accepted by all major political parties. An independent, cross-party foundation led a comprehensive search for the most fitting site for a prominent and striking memorial. Assisted by a firm of expert property consultants, the foundation identified and considered around 50 sites. The result was that Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the most suitable location, and the foundation was unanimous in recommending the site to government. As well as giving the memorial the prominence it deserves, it uniquely allows the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament, demonstrating the significance of the Holocaust for the decisions that we take as a nation.
Following an international competition with more than 90 entrants, the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel. After detailed consultation, in which shortlisted schemes toured the UK and a major consultation event for Holocaust survivors was held, the judging panel chose the winning design for a Holocaust memorial with an underground learning centre because of its sensitivity to Victoria Tower Gardens. Public exhibitions were held to gather feedback on the winning design ahead of a planning application.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, it is a matter of regret that Committee took place in the Moses Room, where there was not much room for discussion or, indeed, attendance. Now we find that the Government are still trying to steamroller this through by whipping—which is quite wrong—and keeping us here late at night in the hope that people will get tired and go home. This needs more time.
Let me advert to some misconceptions in the speeches made. We have a National Holocaust Centre already—
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Let me just say to the noble Baroness that, in deciding on the fate of the amendment, it is not necessary to respond to all the points raised in the debate. It might be helpful to the House if we proceed to a decision.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I have no intention of responding to all the points, but there were some things said that simply are not correct. Not all the survivors want a memorial, or one in this place. No one has studied the impact. There is all this talk about it having to be next to Parliament to make some signal about democracy, but there has been no study of the impact of location or visiting. No one has done a study to say, if you go and visit a Holocaust memorial museum, what you will feel like when you come out at the other end. The model that we have been given is somewhat misleading. It does not show the whole project.
As for the unfortunate little Victoria Tower Gardens, which is really a very nice place and an open space for Peabody building inhabitants and all those who live in flats, it is going to be real mess in the forthcoming years because it will be a repository for the scaffolding, the building equipment, concrete mixers, et cetera, associated with restoration and renewal. The prospect that anyone will be able to stroll around and enjoy it for the next 30 years or so is simply untrue.
As for the design, no due diligence was done at the outset, otherwise people would have realised that the design had already been presented in Ottawa. Since then, the same design has been used in Niger and in Barbados, so there is nothing in it about sensitivity or special affiliation to London, the park or the Jewish community.
Given the lateness of the hour, I can do nothing but withdraw the amendment, but the truth within it remains. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lisvane
“Planning application and report to Parliament(1) In the event of any planning consent being granted for a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, the Secretary of State must arrange for the tabling of a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament on that planning consent within 60 days of that consent being granted.(2) Construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre must not begin until planning consent has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, in the form of a motion for resolution under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause seeks to ensure Parliamentary approval of the size and design of any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in addition to planning consent, and to allow Parliamentary consideration of the implications of planning consent for Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is also in this group. Amendments 6 and 7 would do pretty much the same thing, but it is typical of the noble Lord’s gift for crisp expression that his Amendment 7 is about half the length of my Amendment 6.
We are after something which I would have thought would be beyond criticism: the approval of Parliament. It happens that this is first amendment of the evening—indeed, the early morning—that is not directly about the HMLC project. We seek straightforward approval from both Houses for the planning consent, should that be obtained. Ministers would have to table approval Motions in each House within 60 days of any consent being granted, and no work on the centre could begin until both Houses had agreed.
Planning consent is one thing, but the putting of the proposition to Parliament brings in a wider dimension: the achievability of the project and the proper expenditure of public money. Those are issues on which Parliament has a right to be consulted and express a view. There are quite a few former accounting officers in this place and I must admit to being one myself. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority report in January this year is the stuff of which accounting officers’ nightmares are made. The authority said:
“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.
The authority has rated the project red and unachievable for each of the last three years.
The National Audit Office has been no kinder. In its 2022 report, it described the promoter’s failure to consider any alternative sites, or to quantify or account for risk, as an emerging risk, causing potential cost increases. The latest capital cost estimate, which was kindly given to us by the Minister in a debate on an earlier amendment, is £146 million. This must make the case for the parliamentary approval that Amendment 6 would provide.
One argument which I hope the Minister will not think of deploying against this amendment is the canard that Royal Assent to the Bill will provide the necessary parliamentary authority for the project; of course it will not. What the Bill does is encapsulated in the long title: it allows expenditure but, crucially, does not approve it.
When and if planning consent is given, we will move into the next phase. That should be of a properly costed and funded project with serious management arrangements, which the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the National Audit Office feel able endorse. It is that which Amendment 6 seeks to submit to parliamentary judgment. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 7 and in support of Amendment 6. I strongly reiterate and endorse the wise words from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. As he said, we are not a planning authority. We are Parliament, and we are looking at changes in the legislation contained in the Act of 1900. The criteria used to determine whatever decisions may be reached are different in the two separate cases and we must exercise our judgment independently of the rules which relate to the granting or otherwise of planning permission.
The one thing I feel very strongly about here is certainty. In 1900, the legislation incorporated a plan that was deposited with the Clerk of the Parliaments—I understand it is currently somewhere between this building and Kew, so I have not been able to see it—which shows precisely what was going to happen, and it was in law that what was in the plan was to be implemented.
We are now being asked, in repealing that piece of legislation, to rely on a series of the most generalised principles, and we do not know what we are being asked to approve. It is only right and proper, once planning permission has been granted and there is a degree of certainty about the detail of what is going to be proposed, that we then have the last word. That is consistent with the pattern of the way in which this has occurred.
Let us remember: Victoria Tower Gardens is not just any old public park. It was established by an Act of Parliament, and at the time it was established, it was agreed between the committee and the LCC—and, I think, the First Commissioner of Works—that it was a “national improvement”. Given that context, what we are seeing is both entirely reasonable and quite proper.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I added my name to these two amendments. I will add very briefly to the remarks that have already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in moving his amendment.
I referred earlier to the unsatisfactory nature of Committee, when all sorts of issues which could usefully have been dug out and discussed were put to one side. This included the fact that we were told that a large number of issues that we would have liked to have discussed in Committee were to do with planning and were therefore nothing to do with us. We did not have the competence, experience or indeed the legal position to be able to make a useful contribution.
Let me be clear: I absolutely respect the planners’ competence and their experience. However, the provisions and implication of a Bill such as this go far beyond the normal arrangements. This is not like a controversial proposal to build on the green belt; it is about constructing an iconic memorial on a small piece of open space in the lee of the Palace of Westminster, itself a world heritage site.
When these plans come to fruition—as I hope they do, as I have said before—it will be really important that the then Members of the two Houses of Parliament, who are, after all, essentially the trustees of the Palace of Westminster, should take responsibility for all the decisions that are made. They should finally tick it off once we have reached that particular point in the process. That is why I support the noble Lord’s amendment.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I also added my name to this amendment. I will be extremely brief: I support it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Inglewood, for bringing forward Amendments 6 and 7. While we respect the spirit in which these amendments have been brought, we on the Official Opposition Benches cannot support the amendments. We are very concerned that both Amendments 6 and 7, which each require further parliamentary scrutiny of the progress of the project after the planning stage, would severely undermine the planning process, prevent the timely delivery of the project and risk its future. We are firmly supportive of the delivery of the memorial and learning centre as soon as possible, so we cannot support any amendments to the Bill which would delay delivery.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Walmsley, for Amendment 6, and the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood, Lord Hodgson, Lord Lisvane and Lord Strathcarron, for Amendment 7. Both amendments seek to insert additional steps into the approvals process in the form of reports and resolutions in both Houses before planning permission can be implemented and the construction of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens can begin.
These steps are unnecessary. There is already an established statutory method of gaining planning consent, so there is no need to invent an additional process for this project. The planning process—put in place by Parliament and regulated through the courts—is the proper place for considering developments such as the proposed national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. This process considers diverse perspectives, extensive documentation and expert advice to reach a decision on whether planning consent should be granted.
Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords have the same opportunities as all other citizens to express their opinions about any proposed development. In the case of this planning application, Members of this House spoke at the previous planning inquiry. I have no doubt that many noble Lords will make representations to the designated Minister when he sets out the process for redetermining the planning application. If another planning inquiry is held, I am sure that several noble Lords will take the opportunity to appear and make their views known. The Government have already given an assurance that they will notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but he has come to a point where he has just said “if” another planning inquiry is held. In Committee, he was asked on a number of occasions whether a planning inquiry would be held, and we were told that there might not be a planning inquiry, and that it could all be done by written representations or even by an exchange of letters. Can he reassure the House that a planning inquiry will be held?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me clarify my comments, because that was a slight misinterpretation of what I said in Committee. I said then that the designated Minister would decide how we would take the planning process forward. As part of a number of options, there could be written representations, there could be a consensus by having a round table—though I doubt that that would happen, on the basis of this debate—and there could be a public inquiry. That is entirely the decision and prerogative of the designated planning Minister, and it is part of the planning process, from which we are totally detached.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister’s answer is extremely ambiguous.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
With respect, I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness. The application is live. Subject to the passing of this Bill, there will be a new planning process, when the designated Minister will decide what he will take forward.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
I am now getting more and more confused. The Minister has just said that there will be a new planning inquiry, or a new planning process, but before he said that there might be only a round table or written representations. He just used the word “new”—I heard it very clearly. Can the Minister tell us on how many occasions when a planning application has been called in to a Minister has a further planning inquiry been held? I do not know what the precedents are, but it would be very interesting to hear if there are any precedents for a planning inquiry at this stage leading to a new inquiry.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly disagree with the characterisation of what I said. What I said was that the planning application was live, as it is, but that there will be a new planning process. The actual planning application has been quashed because of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. That is why we have brought forward Clause 2, so that we can disapply the powers of the county council Act 1906. I did say, as well, that the designated Minister will decide what process will be used to take the application forward; that could be a round table seeking consensus, a planning inquiry or written representations. That is a decision for the designated Minister; it is not in the remit of what we are discussing. At times, this has sounded very much like a planning committee, but that is not the remit of what the clauses of this Bill set out to do.
I will make progress. The Government have already given an assurance that they will notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable following the reactivation of the planning process for the current application. The restoration and renewal programme of the Palace of Westminster has also been considered. We will continue to work with the team responsible for the restoration and renewal programme to make sure we understand the interactions and potential impacts between the two schemes.
I will briefly clarify comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on the red rating assigned to the programme in the annual reports by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority. That rating, as has been made clear in each report since 2022, reflects the need to obtain Parliament’s approval for this Bill and to recover planning consent. Before losing planning consent in 2022, the programme was rated amber.
It is therefore unnecessary to seek further steps adding a report and a resolution in both Houses when a planning process will have been completed in accordance with the statutory requirements. These amendments would simply add further delays. I therefore ask the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane, Lord Hodgson, Lord Inglewood and Lord Strathcarron, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes and Lady Walmsley, not to press Amendments 6 and 7.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I think that the intent that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and I had has been slightly misinterpreted. When the planning process—I use that general term, because, as we heard in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, it could have a number of different characteristics—has been completed, it may be that that part of the process imposes new requirements and that there is something that the planning process requires of the Government to acknowledge, to achieve or to allow for as the project goes forward. If that is the case then there will be a powerful argument for a reassessment of the achievability and affordability of the programme.
I had intended to test the opinion of the House on my amendment. However, at this late—or perhaps very early—hour, I can hear the first notes of the “Farewell” symphony being played. I do not think the House would be particularly happy if I inflicted another 12 or 13 minutes of Division upon it, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Inglewood
“Matters to be taken into account in determining planning applicationAny determination involving consideration of any application to grant planning permission for any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens must take into account all relevant matters at the time of the determination.”
Lord Inglewood (CB)
I think this will be a very short debate, because the right thing for me to do—bearing in mind that the last round in the planning process led to the application being quashed, and therefore it no longer exists in law at all, which means that it has to be redetermined de novo—is just to say to the Minister that I assume that he agrees with what I have put in the amendment.
My only additional comment is that the previous application was not quashed because of the London County Council Act; it was quashed because administrative mistakes were made.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I did not add my name to this amendment, but the point of it is that the entire circumstances in which planning permission was first granted, and the project was first mooted, have entirely changed. I will make one small point about that. My research shows that the national Infrastructure and Projects Authority rated the project red, even at a stage when it had planning permission, because it is as flawed as HS2.
If we go back nine or 10 years, what do we find? Everything is different. Today, we know that for the next 30 years or so, Victoria Tower Gardens will be the site of rubble and building materials needed to repair the Palace of Westminster and Victoria Tower and for the replacement of the Parliament Education Centre. The appeal to the emotions of the special nature of Victoria Tower Gardens and its relationship to democracy, peace and quiet has entirely gone.
The Adjaye firm design can no longer be considered to be of exceptional quality, as the inspector put it, because we now know it is a third-hand design. We know that the design of the 23 fins has been condemned by Sir Richard Evans as not representing anything historical at all to do with the 22 countries whose Jewish populations were exterminated. We know from research that abstract memorials are vandalised far more than figurative ones because the former carry no emotional weight. A fresh start would entail having a proper religious or appealing motif to the design.
The need for open space has been shown as more persuasive than ever since lockdown. That space was used for the lying-in-state of the late Queen and for the queues for the Coronation, and may well be needed again. That is a very important space to keep open. There has been criticism by UNESCO and other international bodies. The flood risk has increased, and the environmental regulations call for new consideration; in other words, there needs to be fresh consideration of a situation entirely different from what prevailed nine or 10 years ago. That is what this amendment is trying to achieve.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief, but on this side of the Chamber, we feel that these amendments are unnecessary because, as I have said so many times today, the planning process that will follow the passage of the Bill is the correct place to raise those matters. We are also concerned the amendment is not sufficiently specific and may leave the planning process open to an unnecessary legal challenge, which would, again, further delay the delivery of the memorial and learning centre. Therefore, we will not be supporting it.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to ensure that a decision on any planning application must take into account all relevant matters. This amendment is unnecessary. Planning decisions must be taken within a framework of statute and regulation, which Parliament has put into place to make sure that all relevant matters are considered and given appropriate weight. These matters are referred to as “material considerations” in the planning framework.
As noble Lords are well aware, the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre is the subject of a planning application that was originally submitted in late 2018. After the original decision to grant consent was quashed by the High Court in 2022, the application is now awaiting redetermination by a designated Minister. Special handling arrangements have been put in place to ensure that a proper and fair decision under the relevant planning legislation can be taken.
Noble Lords will understand that I speak as the promoter of the Bill and, in effect, as the applicant for planning consent. Therefore, it is not for me to comment in any detail on how the determination decision will be taken. However, I feel confident in saying that the designated Minister will seek to take that decision in accordance with the law. Whatever process is undertaken, whether seeking written representations or through a new planning inquiry, the decision-maker must take into account all relevant matters. There will of course be opportunities for any decision to be challenged in the courts if interested parties believe that relevant matters have not been taken properly into account.
This amendment adds nothing to the responsibilities which already rest on the Minister designated to take the planning decision. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I assume that the Minister, when he said, “seek to take that decision in accordance with the law”, will actually undertake to take the decisions in accordance with the law. I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Deech
“Restoration and Renewal of Parliament not to be impededThe activities described in section 1(1) may not be commenced on the land referred to in section 2 unless the authorities of both Houses of Parliament have certified that they are satisfied that those activities will not impede the approval and implementation of any restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.”Member's explanatory statement
This Clause seeks to ensure that any Holocaust Memorial and/or Learning Centre in Victoria Tower Gardens has no adverse effect on the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster including the planning consent for this project and the consequent disapplication of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I now come to the elephant in the room. I wish to bring up the question of the impact of building a Holocaust memorial and underground learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. It will either render impossible restoration and renewal or make it more difficult and expensive. I hope that the memorial is not built at all, but if it is built before R&R, it will get in the way. It is impossible to imagine a memorial to 6 million deaths taking shape and being visited when it will be surrounded, right up to its boundaries, by all the paraphernalia that will accompany R&R. Instead of reverence and contemplation, there will be masonry, concrete mixers, builders, scaffolding, material and a jetty, and trucks roaring by and unloading.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and her Amendment 9. With the then Clerk of the Parliaments, I commissioned the first ever condition and survey of the Palace in October 2011. That reported in March 2012; its principal conclusion was that doing nothing was not an option, and that was 13 years ago. I am deeply frustrated that nothing, or very little, has been done since then. If there is some catastrophic event of fire, structure, electricity or water supply, those years of indecision will be partly to blame.
This amendment is based on the happy assumption that we finally get R&R going. But when we do, the last thing we need is for the construction of the memorial and learning centre to be a new obstacle to R&R.
I will very briefly revisit a point I made in Committee. At the north end of Victoria Tower Gardens is the Parliamentary Education Centre, which the noble Baroness mentioned briefly. It has been hugely successful in introducing young people to Parliament. As the then corporate officer of the House of Commons, I was the applicant for the planning permission for the centre. That permission ran out on 22 August last year. It has been extended to 2030, but when it runs out and the Parliamentary Education Centre is demolished, that will be a major works project in itself, and it will happen at the very time when the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is being constructed. Whatever difficulties of safety, security and access may be presented by that project, they will be substantially increased by the demolition of the Parliamentary Education Centre and the heavy traffic involved. It is all the more important that the authorities of the two Houses—in practice probably the corporate officers—should be satisfied that R&R will not be impeded. This amendment would achieve that aim.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment and I wholeheartedly support it. We, as parliamentarians, have a duty to cherish and care for this wonderful building. That is what the restoration and renewal project is about. We have a duty to preserve this world heritage site and to hand it on to future generations; whatever else happens anywhere else in the vicinity, we must never lose sight of that duty. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, have put the case very well and there is no need, at this late hour, for me to add anything further to that.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
Strategic decisions on R&R have yet to be taken. There is no prospect of serious work on-site before 2030. It is likely the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be completed by that time if your Lordships’ House will permit it. The Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be at the southern end of the Victoria Tower Gardens, some distance from the land which the R&R programme is expected to use. With good will and practical common sense, it will be perfectly possible to arrange matters to avoid any conflicts.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, in the event of there being a conflict, which one trumps the other?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, seeks to delay the delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre until the authorities of both Houses of Parliament have certified that they are satisfied that the delivery of the project will not impede the delivery of the restoration and renewal of Parliament. Restoration and renewal is indeed a vital project, and the future of our iconic Palace of Westminster is extremely important. This is a symbolic building, a statement of our respect for British parliamentary democracy, and we must press ahead with the restoration and renewal, but these goals do not need to be mutually exclusive.
When I was working in the department and had a responsibility for this part of the work of the department, it was very clear that all these people worked together. The project teams met regularly and they knew what each other was doing, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is still going on. These projects are not being done in isolation. They are being done together and planned together, and the delivery will work because they will talk to each other. The pressure on Westminster’s infrastructure of sustaining two projects of this magnitude is something that we should rightly address during the planning process, although we do not accept that this amendment is at all necessary.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Amendment 9, proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Laing of Elderslie, and the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Blencathra, deals with the important matter of co-ordination between the programme to construct a Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the programme of restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
This is an important topic. It was considered in some depth during the Select Committee as well as in Grand Committee. I had the privilege of a further discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for which I am very grateful. Evidence presented to the Lords Select Committee was that the main restoration and renewal works are not due to start before 2029 at the earliest. I think the estimate is now that 2030 would be the earliest realistic start date—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Evans, made. On that timetable, the question of any direct overlap of the construction period seems unlikely to arise.
I understand that those involved in the planning of the restoration and renewal programme are concerned that the existence of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, once complete, could present problems for their planning. Those concerns relate not to any direct interface between the two projects but to the R&R programme need for planning consents in relation to Victoria Tower Gardens. Quite understandably, there are as yet no firm proposals from the R&R programme about how much of Victoria Tower Gardens will be required, and any application for planning consent appears some way off.
The Government, as promoter of the Holocaust Memorial Bill, made it clear in our response to the Select Committee that we recognise that the interaction between the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the restoration and renewal programme is important and that the interests of users of the gardens need to be considered. We will continue to work with the R&R programme team to understand that interaction, and its potential impacts are being considered—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, alluded to.
I know that many noble Lords will have studied the architectural model of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre last week when it was on show in Parliament in the Royal Gallery. The model helps to show that the memorial structure is at the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens while the learning centre is underground. Even if the R&R programme seeks consent for a good deal of the northern end of the gardens, there will be space available in the central area for all visitors and, of course, the playground will be available for children at the southern end.
Noble Lords may be unsatisfied with the commitment to co-operate and to seek in good faith to overcome practical challenges. The amendment put forward by the noble Baroness implies the need for more formal arrangements to ensure that the interests of Parliament are taken into account. There is already such a mechanism in place. Construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre cannot proceed without planning consent. The process for obtaining such consent, a process laid out in statute and subject to the proper scrutiny of the courts, provides the forum for the interests of neighbours to be taken into account. The authorities of the Palace of Westminster will have the opportunity to present evidence and make arguments ahead of any redetermination of the planning application. The corporate officers of both Houses have made representations in response to formal consultation by the planning casework unit, which is responsible for the redetermination process, I have no doubt that any material they wish to provide will be given proper consideration. It is quite clear, therefore, that the interactions between the Holocaust memorial programme and the R&R programme have been and are being considered at a practical level and that those interactions will be considered formally before any planning decisions are taken.
This amendment, however, seeks much more. In effect, it proposes that those responsible for the R&R programme should have an absolute right of veto over the Holocaust memorial programme. The amendment would mean that the arrangements for making planning decisions, for carefully considering different interests, and for balancing impacts against benefits—arrangements which Parliament has put in place to govern decision-making on all manner of development in all parts of the United Kingdom—should not apply in this case. I do not think such a radical departure is necessary.
I ask noble Lords to consider the practical implications too. The timetable for the R&R programme, for perfectly proper and understandable reasons, is subject to some uncertainty. It is far from clear when it might be possible for those responsible for the R&R programme to give the certification that the proposed amendment envisages. I emphasise once again that I fully understand and agree with the need for co-operation and co-ordination between those responsible for the Holocaust memorial programme and those responsible for the restoration and renewal programme. The R&R programme is a major undertaking and hugely important to secure the future of this iconic Palace. I am confident that, with good will and commitment, there need be no—
Viscount Eccles (Con)
Who is going to manage the memorial and learning centre programme?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, once planning permission has been granted and when the time is right for the project to move forward, a body will be in charge of the oversight of the project.
I am confident that with good will—
Viscount Eccles (Con)
So there is nobody appointed who can make preparations and think the whole thing through until it starts?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, once we go through the planning process, provisions will be made in due course, when the time is right.
To conclude, I am confident that, with good will and commitment, there need be no significant conflict between the two programmes. I do not believe it is necessary to make changes to the Bill to ensure co-operation and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 9.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, future parliamentarians will read Hansard and wonder why we were so careless about the progress of R&R. Everything that we have heard in response has been wishful thinking: “Let’s hope it goes okay. With a bit of luck, it will all be managed”. We have heard no detail at all about how those two projects will interact with each other—absolutely nothing. The memorial will go nearly all the way to the Buxton memorial and R&R will be coming up the other end. There is no doubt that they will meet each other or overlap. We have been told that the planning process will deal with all of that but, as earlier questions have shown, we do not know what planning process we are going to get or what it will deal with, so we have no idea what will happen.
As for those poor children in the playground, sandwiched between asbestos, concrete and dust at one end and queues of people and possibly armed guards at the other, I feel for them. I have no option but to withdraw this amendment, but I warn Members that they are treading on thin ice as far as progress of R&R goes. It is not being taken as seriously as it should be and that is a great shame.
Baroness Walmsley
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 12, which is grouped with this amendment. Noble Lords need not worry; I have crossed out most of my speech in the interest of the lateness of the hour, besides which, I am so bleary-eyed I can hardly read it, so I will deal with this important matter as briefly as I possibly can.
The current proposals for the learning centre, as we have heard at length, offer a set of rooms entirely below the ground at a depth of 8.5 metres. It would be located extremely close to the Thames and the ageing river wall. There is only one entrance to the facility and it leads to a courtyard entrance area below ground level. I am concerned that there would be a risk to life for the public visiting the facility, some of whom may be elderly, disabled or young children, from floods, fires, terrorist attacks, or any disruption that could cause panic.
Victoria Tower Gardens is in a high-risk, rapid-inundation flooding zone, which means that, in the event of a breach of the River Thames river wall at high tide—particularly if, because of climate change, the sea level has risen—the whole learning centre would be quickly immersed. Although the danger from such catastrophic flooding is remote, it must be taken into account when considering planning permission. However, the risk was swept aside in Committee with no real consideration whatever by the Minister.
The planned development is currently said to be protected by the Thames Barrier—which needs replacing and is to be improved by 2050—and the old river walls, but however small the risk, it is not worth taking. What if climate change, a rising sea level and unusual storms should cause overtopping of the wall? What if a ship, either deliberately or accidentally, were to run aground and breach the wall? What if a fire breaks out underground?
In 2019 the Environment Agency expressed in an initial letter doubts about whether these proposals meet the constraints of its own policies on flooding. Quite exceptionally, the learning centre has no floors above the external ground level that people inside the memorial could escape through, or where they could take refuge from floods. The exits from the exhibition spaces are in the same below-ground level courtyard that serves as the entrance. That single entrance/exit is also a problem in relation to the potential outbreak of fire in the centre.
My concerns are borne out by the fact that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s 21 August flood warning emergency plan for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre’s construction period provides that the whole site will be evacuated when a severe flood warning for the Thames is in place. Such warnings are regularly issued now, sometimes with little warning, several times every winter and sometimes in the summer too. Do we really want this important learning centre to have to be frequently closed? The implication of the emergency plan is that, when it opens, the visitor centre would frequently have to be closed.
I believe it is unwise and unnecessary to build the right thing in a risky place. The constraints of the place chosen by the Government make it unsuitable for such an important memorial and learning centre. That is why in Amendment 12 I have requested that the Secretary of State prepare a full report on all these matters and lay it before Parliament before the other sections of the Act, once passed, come into force. Then Parliament itself can assess the risks and make a decision. Amendment 11 is simply the enactment amendment. I beg to move.
By the way, I will not be in the least bit upset if no one else speaks except the Minister.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I will be as brief as I can.
My point relates to the design of the learning centre as it is, and the fear that it would be provoking as a trophy for terrorists. Evacuation is of great concern because there is only a single entrance. As I said previously, the type of substances that may be used are fatal within about two minutes if they are used and not detected when going through the security measures. In the event that there is some disaster—and we all hope there is not—I hope no one has to look back and say, “We should have looked at another site that would have had at least two separate exits. We should have learned from coal mines, which have two exits so that if one is blocked, people can still get out”. If that single entrance was blocked, I am not sure how you would get people in to evacuate others.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will not say very much. Obviously, in any public building, safety has to be a major concern, but once again these concerns about safety should properly be considered within the planning process.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Fookes, Lady Finlay and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendments 11 and 12. I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of the topics that these amendments raise. When constructing any new public building, flood and fire risks and the evacuation strategy must be given the most careful attention. I assure the House that these risks have been considered in depth throughout the development of our proposed design and that there is no possibility of planning consent being granted unless proper provision has been made. No building project can be taken forward unless it complies with extensive regulations relating to flooding, fire and evacuation.
Extensive information about the Holocaust memorial and learning centre considered at the planning inquiry remains publicly available on Westminster City Council’s website. Over 6,400 pages of information relating to the detailed design and the history of the project were published as part of the planning inquiry. Noble Lords interested in the fire and flood risk provisions can see the relevant documents and study them in detail.
We would not be proceeding with a design that we believed exposed visitors to an unacceptable risk. The proposal has been subject to significant scrutiny to ensure that it is compliant with all the relevant regulations. As we develop and implement operational plans, we will of course continue to draw on expert advice and make sure that those plans comply with all relevant standards. The report prepared by the independent planning inspector in 2021 provides a good account of the scrutiny to which the proposals were subjected.
No flooding objections were raised by the Environment Agency or by Westminster City Council at the inquiry. The London Fire Brigade is content with the fire safety arrangements. Let me summarise the key points that demonstrate how seriously we take this matter. Flood risk was indeed identified as a matter for particular consideration when the planning application for our proposal was called in in 2019. The independent planning inspector gave particular attention to flood risk in considering the application. He held a round-table discussion involving interested parties and covered the matter in depth in his report.
London already has significant flood defences. The inspector noted that London is well defended against the risk of tidal flooding. He considered the risk of breach flooding to be extremely remote and believed that flood risk over the lifetime of the development would be acceptably managed. Planning consent was initially granted in 2021, with specific conditions requiring the development of a strategy for maintaining the river wall and the development of a flood risk evacuation plan. I would expect that any new planning consent would have the same or similar conditions attached. I hope I have made it clear that this is a matter we take seriously but it is, as I have said, a matter for the planning application and is subject to detailed scrutiny by appropriate experts.
When it comes to safety, fire is obviously a matter of the first importance. I reassure noble Lords that fire safety has been given close attention throughout the process of designing the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The information provided with the planning application included a detailed report on the relevant parts of the building regulations and set out how the proposed structure would meet those regulations. To pick up on one detail which some noble Lords may be interested in, the proposal includes both main and secondary escape routes from the underground space.
When the planning application was initially approved, a specific condition was agreed that a fire escape plan would be agreed with the local planning authority, Westminster City Council, before the development could take place. There can be no doubt that the fire safety arrangements proposed for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be subject to proper professional scrutiny and no possibility of development taking place if those arrangements are not approved.
These are important matters which I take very seriously and I make no criticism at all of noble Lords who want to be reassured about the arrangements for mitigating fire and flood risk and wanting to ensure that the learning centre has appropriate means of escape. But I also emphasise very strongly that the statutory processes for considering any planning application and ensuring compliance with building regulations are robust mechanisms for addressing fire risk, flood risk and evacuation measures. The Bill does not seek to provide an alternative route for obtaining the authority to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
To conclude, the Government and indeed the previous Government have been crystal clear that the Bill does not remove the need to obtain planning and building regulations consent, with all the detailed and expert scrutiny that requires. Amending the Bill to replicate or interfere with the planning process is therefore unnecessary. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 11.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I hope that the future planning process, whatever it is, decided on by the proposer, of course—yes—is a good deal more robust on this matter and with a great deal more detail than the previous one. I sincerely hope I never have need to say, “I warned you, I told you so”. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fookes
“(2A) If it is decided that a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre will be built in Victoria Tower Gardens, this Act does not come into force until the Secretary of State has obtained written confirmation from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization that they are content that the proposals for any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre to be built in Victoria Tower Gardens do not adversely affect—(a) the integrity, authenticity, or outstanding universal value of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site;(b) any other memorial or the setting of such memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens;(c) the integrity of the Victoria Tower Gardens as a green space dedicated to the wellbeing of local people, in perpetuity.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to obtain the approval of heritage bodies which have expressed grave concern about the planned use of Victoria Tower Gardens; and to protect the Spicer and Buxton Memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, given the lateness of the hour and the fact that this amendment, in my name and that of other noble Lords, is rather unfortunately numbered 13—it does not bode well for this amendment, I fear—I will be as brief as I can.
I simply wish to seek the opinion of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the World Heritage Committee that they are satisfied that this unique little park will not suffer detrimentally from the building works that are planned. We have to bear in mind that this is the setting for our magnificent building. As such, it is of considerable importance. In addition, we want to see that the memorials already there are not overlooked or in any way detrimentally affected. I am also particularly keen to ensure that the green space is preserved.
I will not rehearse all the views I expressed in Committee, save to say that I believe there is a very real danger that the two avenues of magnificent planes will be at serious risk. I base this on an independent report made to Westminster City Council, which set out in detail what those risks were. I will not rehearse those now, but I ask that we take full account of the importance of this little park, both for its setting and for the people who currently enjoy the green spaces in an area not very full of them. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I am disappointed that, in this wide-ranging and very interesting and relevant debate, we have hardly touched on the conservation significance of Victoria Tower Gardens. We need to be under no illusions that it is a very important site, both on its own account and because it is one of the most significant sites in this country, which is of global, European and national importance.
I will not at this point in the evening enumerate the detail of the characteristics and designations it has achieved, nor the criticisms that have been levelled against what is being proposed. Suffice it to say that, from a national and an international perspective, those criticisms carry the greatest heritage value and perspective. They should not be lightly dismissed as some kind of frippery on the periphery of this debate—on the contrary, they are right at its centre.
I hope, in conclusion, that the way in which this matter will be handled will be one that will enable some of those who are bound to be disappointed to accept that a fair, even-handed decision was reached, balancing all interests involved, and that no particular pressure groups—whether they are Jewish or conservationists or anybody else—has been given priority unjustly over anyone else.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as a botanist, I assure your Lordships that the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, is absolutely right about the extreme danger to the two rows of plane trees. I just have one question for the Minister, and I hope he can reply. Notwithstanding the text of Clause 2, can he say what measures the Government plan to put in place, if the proposed project is to go ahead unamended, to ensure the continued public benefit of Victoria Tower Gardens as a green space to the local population and to the workers in this building?
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the plan has been condemned for about six years by UNESCO. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has said that it will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the outstanding universal value of this important site. The International Council on Monuments and Sites has condemned it. Europa Nostra has shortlisted Victoria Tower Gardens as one of Europe’s seven most endangered sites. Historic England has expressed its reservations too.
Will the Minister explain why the advice of those international bodies is ignored, especially bearing in mind the willingness of the Government, as they keep saying, to observe international law. International treaties are important to us, say the Government, but here are some they are apparently prepared to ignore. I am sure others would like to hear why they are being ignored, and what answer the Government propose to give to those international bodies.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I have seen the plans, and I know that those working on this project have gone to great lengths to make sure that they will protect Victoria Tower Gardens. They will improve the gardens—that will be the outcome of this project. From what we are hearing, it is as if nobody has taken any care about what they are doing and this has been put together in some hasty manner. This has been carefully planned and I urge noble Lords to respect the work that has gone into the planning. Nobody who is running this project would want to leave the gardens in a worse state. Everyone is intent on improving them, and adding this memorial.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
I am quite prepared to believe that the gardens will be improved, and the paths and the drainage, but this does not go to the heart of what this amendment is all about, which is preserving, among other things, the world heritage site which is Westminster. This is a very strange amendment in some senses. Why is it necessary? It should not be necessary at all, but having listened to the debates, I increasingly think that it is necessary. Why is it necessary? First, because not only have we no assurance about the future planning process, which should sweep up these issues, but we have heard from the Minister about reactivation, redetermination and a new process.
I had thought that by this stage in the passage of the Bill, the Minister might have got a clear line on what is going on. He talks about the possibility of a new inquiry, a round table, and written representations. The bottom line is that there may be a reactivated short inquiry process that takes in merely written representations, if that. So we have no insurance through the planning process. I am very disappointed in my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook’s not in any way challenging the planning process from our Front Bench, but merely parroting the Minister’s words that these matters are all for planning. That is very disappointing.
The second thing we have heard a lot about today is the model, and the improvements to the gardens. But those of your Lordships who looked at the model last week and tried to get the view of those tiny figures in front of the memorial will know that the only way you could do it was by putting your camera down there and taking a photograph. The Minister is now laughing and making faces again, as he has been doing all day. This is a serious point that I would like to make. He talked earlier about photographs of the model and offered to share them with one of my noble friends. I took photographs on my phone last week showing that somebody standing in those gardens, on the other side of the memorial from the Palace, will have the view of the south facade of the Palace entirely blocked out.
That goes to the heart of UNESCO’s concerns. My noble friend Lord Pickles, when I challenged him on this a little earlier, talked about the paths and the landscaping, and I have no doubt that those will be improved. But what is happening to the Victoria Tower Gardens is that there will be a very large memorial, which UNESCO says is putting the world heritage site of Westminster are at risk. Of course I recognise that that is not within the actual area of the heritage site as such; that goes through the northern part of the gardens—but that does not mean that the heritage site is not at risk.
So we have a situation late at night when we are getting to the heart of the issues around the planning for this proposed memorial. I go back to something else that the Minister said—that the memorial would say something important about ourselves as a nation. There are many aspects to that, but if one thing it does is mean that UNESCO decides that Westminster is no longer a world heritage site, that is a very significant matter.
I believe that my noble friend Lady Fookes’s amendment is a proportionate way of dealing with a very serious issue that goes to the heart of this Bill.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Fookes for bringing forward her Amendment 13, which focuses on the extremely important issue of the heritage here in Westminster, one of the most historically, culturally and architecturally significant parts of our capital. Clearly, the delivery of our national memorial to the Holocaust cannot come at the cost of our national heritage here in Westminster. I know that the Minister will want to reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government will act judiciously to protect that heritage.
I understand completely my noble friend’s concerns, but I do not feel that the amendment is necessary. I assure her that we will keep an eye on what is going on to ensure that the national and global heritage in Westminster is protected for future generations.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fookes, Lady Blackstone and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for the amendment.
Amendment 13 seeks to delay commencement of the Bill until heritage bodies, including UNESCO, have confirmed that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will not in their view adversely affect the world heritage site, the existing memorials and the gardens. It would be a novel step to overturn long-established procedures for deciding on new development by handing a veto to certain bodies.
Planning decisions in this country are taken within a framework of statute and of policy that allows different views to be heard and that enables all arguments to be properly considered and balanced against each other. The impact of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre on the heritage assets and setting of the world heritage site is a planning matter and has been assessed in detail as part of the statutory planning process, which is the proper forum for examination of such matters.
The planning inspector examined a great deal of evidence on this matter, including representations from Historic England, as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is better known, and UNESCO. The evidence presented by Historic England was that
“the proposals would not significantly harm the Outstanding Universal Value of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site”.
The planning inspector confirmed this view in his report and concluded that the development will not compromise the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site. The planning inspector concluded that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. The planning inspector’s report still stands as a robust assessment of the proposals.
On UNESCO, the Government take very seriously our commitments and obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of the world heritage convention. Historic England has the statutory duty of advising the Government on the world heritage sites designated under that convention. I have already set out how Historic England has carried out its duty in respect of the Holocaust memorial proposal.
UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee has the role of implementing the convention and has the final say on the designation of world heritage sites. The Government take the views of the committee very seriously and provide regular state party reports in response to the committee’s decisions. However, the World Heritage Committee does not hold a power of veto over planning decisions in the UK. It would be a quite remarkable step, with very significant implications, to bestow such a veto on the committee.
On Westminster alone, the World Heritage Committee has expressed views and concerns not simply about the Holocaust memorial but in relation to an extension to a children’s hospital at St Thomas’; the proposed Royal Street development, also across the river in Lambeth; and, of course, the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. There are strong reasons why UNESCO should take an interest in all these proposals.
The heritage impacts, including on the world heritage site, must be carefully considered, but noble Lords will appreciate that there are other matters to be considered too. Simply handing the decision to a body solely focused on heritage would not achieve the balanced assessment of benefits and harms on which a good decision should be based.
This amendment would have the effect of elevating the views of two eminent bodies, one British and one an international committee, above other consultees and the views of the Minister designated to take a decision on the planning application. In effect, it would mean that the balancing exercise intrinsic to planning decisions could not be carried out. In other words, if we were to say to Historic England and UNESCO that they may decide on all planning matters they consider relevant to the world heritage site, I cannot see how we could restrict such an arrangement simply to a Holocaust memorial. On what basis would we say that Historic England and UNESCO should have the final word on a Holocaust memorial that sits close to a world heritage site, but not on other developments nearby, still less those that fall within a designated site?
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My lords, I would not be seeking to invoke other bodies—one of them foreign—if the fears I expressed much earlier in the Bill’s progress had been taken more seriously by the Government. I got the impression that anything one said was always brushed away, and therefore concluded that I must seek other ways of getting my worries dealt with.
I can see that I am getting absolutely nowhere fast, and that it is the early hours. Therefore, I will withdraw the amendment, but my worries and concerns have not been diminished in any way. I beg leave to withdraw.