(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A I will also speak to Motion A1. It is a pleasure to bring back this important Bill to your Lordships’ House. The ambition to create a new national memorial to the Holocaust has been pursued by successive Governments, with support across all parties, for a number of years. The need for such a memorial and for a learning centre, which will remind people of the terrible facts of the Holocaust, seems only to have increased during this time.
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to noble Lords who participated in the early stages of this Bill, in particular my noble friend Lord Khan of Burnley, who worked so diligently to promote the Bill through its earlier stages in the House. I also acknowledge and thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for his commitment over many decades, commemorating and learning from the Holocaust. I was delighted to hear today that he has been invited to attend a special session of the Council of Europe on Monday to mark Holocaust Memorial Day.
I recognise that there are many different opinions and strong views about the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre, especially regarding the proposed location. Earlier debates on the Bill addressed those matters in depth. Today’s debate will focus on a much narrower question, though a question of considerable importance. On Report, the House supported the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, which aimed to ensure that the sole purpose of the learning centre should be education about the Holocaust and antisemitism. I recognise that the intent and the sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure that there is no mission creep and that, in the focus of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, there should be no attempt to divert attention from the unique nature of the Holocaust.
I appreciate that Motion A1 has the same sincere objective of ensuring that the learning centre remains focused on education about the Holocaust and anti- semitism. That is what the Government want to ensure and intend to do. I am personally committed to that. I was very pleased to meet the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and other noble Lords who supported the amendment on Report. We had a very fruitful and frank exchange, and I think we were at one. I am grateful to them for engaging in constructive discussions about the amendment, including the Government’s view of why the Bill is not the appropriate instrument for creating the safeguards that noble Lords intend to put in place.
As with the well-intentioned amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, we do not consider that the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is appropriate for the Bill. I remind noble Lords that the purpose of the Bill is to do two things. First, it authorises expenditure on the construction, operation, maintenance or improvement of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Secondly, it seeks to remove a statutory obstacle to its being built next door, in Victoria Tower Gardens, should it receive planning consent.
Given the narrow function of the Bill, adding a statutory provision along the lines envisaged in the amendment would create a good deal of uncertainty as to its enforceability. In the absence of wider provisions around governance, it would be unclear who would be held accountable for any breach of the requirement and what the consequences would be. Operation of the learning centre in these circumstances would carry risks. It would be difficult for the governing body to be sure what types of activity could fall outside the permitted range, and it would be open to the opponents of the learning centre to challenge any activities and create obstacles through litigation.
Through the discussions with those supporting the amendments, we agreed that a more effective approach would be to focus on the governance arrangements for the body which will, in due course, have responsibility for the operation of the learning centre. The noble Lords have, I hope, agreed to support the removal of the amendment from the Bill in return for certain assurances. My honourable friend the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities gave those assurances in another place yesterday, and I am delighted to repeat them tonight.
“Learning Centre purpose
The main purpose of any Learning Centre must be the provision of education about the Holocaust and antisemitism.””
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, my purpose in speaking is to try to rescue the central plank of what remains of this memorial. The Lords amendment stated that the sole purpose of the learning centre must be the Holocaust and antisemitism. I have retained pretty much the same wording. No alternative was put forward in the Commons and no reason given for the rejection other than that it is inappropriate. But having listened to Ministers, I can see that a vision of the purpose of the learning centre is emerging that is much more valuable than what has been suggested in the past.
In the past, the promoters have been asked repeatedly what their intent is for the planned learning centre, and they have prevaricated, sometimes suggesting that it will be all about Nazi genocides and at other times that it would include many genocides and wars, including in Rwanda, Serbia, Cambodia, Darfur and Bosnia. Of course, originally, the learning centre was planned to be about the British perspective on the Holocaust, which is a rather niche subject and would not be very educational for those who know nothing about it.
“Holocaust” and “genocide” have become general words of disapproval without definition. Throwing them around robs the Holocaust of its specificity, relativises it and diminishes its lessons for the future. It was quite different in origin and execution. The Nazis systematically set about eliminating 6 million children, men and women. That history is a warning to future generations, as we see increasing antisemitism orchestrated today. If a purpose of the memorial and learning centre is not defined as we suggest, there is a risk that it could be put to other, less effective ends.
It seems the Government agree. The point of difference between us is this: if the Government are happy to give assurances about the learning centre, why not enshrine them in the Bill? Ten or 20 years down the line, any assurances given today will be forgotten and the interested parties today will no longer be in their positions or even alive. Without this amendment, reference to the learning centre’s key purpose, the Holocaust and antisemitism, is excluded from the Holocaust Memorial Bill.
All Governments recently have insisted that their funding of Holocaust remembrance in this country may not be limited to Jews; it always has to include other tragic situations. But the Roma have their own memorial in Newcastle, and there is a memorial dedicated to LGBT victims at the National Memorial Arboretum. Only the Jewish memorial has to be diffused and hence deprived of the power that it should have.
Focusing on the Nazi victims makes the centre about the Nazis, Germany and the Second World War—an historical event in the past, not something enduring today—but the Holocaust’s origins go back more than 2,000 years and its roots are still alive today. It is a continuum, not a past event. Including other genocides reduces whatever lesson might be learned to just platitudes about hatred and tolerance, which was rightly and forcefully condemned by the cellist and survivor, Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, at the Select Committee.
It is imperative that antisemitism be addressed, not fudged, because it is today that antisemitism is flourishing. A learning centre has to be about Jewish lives today, not just deaths. It is so relatively easy to mourn the dead, but so much harder to understand the living.
We objectors want a proper-sized museum setting the Holocaust in context, as the late Lord Sacks called for. There has been no consultation on any of that.
The Chief Rabbi has rightly called for Holocaust memorialisation not to be politicised, but that is exactly what is happening now. On the part of the Opposition, it has been an attempt to put some substance into the campaign for British values. On this Government’s watch, sadly, Jews are constantly threatened. We know the details —the police’s uneven treatment; welcoming an Egyptian dissident who wants to kill Jews; failing to prosecute people who spout foul hate speech; teachers, doctors, pop stars, lecturers and students getting away with calls for violence against Jews; treating their ally, Israel, as an enemy; and the one-sided recognition of Palestine.
I suspect the Government think that by announcing a Holocaust memorial something will be achieved, but there is not a shred of evidence from the half-dozen existing British memorials and the hundreds around the world that they have any effect on antisemitism. No one has ever done an impact assessment. It is a case of easy sympathy for dead Jews and an excuse for not protecting the living.
All the benefits of a learning centre, as recommended in the Prime Minister’s 2015 commission report, have now been lost. They are all gone. There will be no lecture hall, no learning hub, no professorship, no endowment, no teacher training, no overhaul of Holocaust education. Its location is within a gunman’s range from the bridge, the river and the Millbank windows. To lose even the fundamental essence of the project is unacceptable.
The current assurances about the learning centre are vague, unsustainable and unenforceable. Assurances were requested, and some were rejected, at the conclusion of the Select Committee on the Bill. They are all now forgotten. Unless there is a proper planning application, there will be no chance of consideration of what was agreed. I am asking the Government for more than assurances—something much more concrete that will last down the years. I am asking for legislative support for the aims of the 2015 report to ensure that the core purpose of the learning centre is agreed and maintained. This simple amendment would show the public that the Government have the right aim and the courage of their convictions. I beg to move.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for his patient and constructive engagement on this matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, who before him was dealing with this Bill and tried to work things through with equal dedication. As the Minister knows, my preference would have been to have the purpose set in law, for the reasons that my noble friend Lady Deech so eloquently set out just now, but it became clear that I was not going to persuade the Government of that case, and it was also clear that there was a strong desire, which I shared, to move forward with cross-party consensus.
I welcome the Minister’s assurances and, in particular, the fact that the Government are committed to ensuring that the learning centre will be focused exclusively on the Holocaust and antisemitism, and that there will be no deviation from this purpose. Having gone through this exercise, at least now, as my noble friend Lady Deech said, we have some clarity about what the purpose of this learning centre should be. No deviation is a key commitment. The reason for insisting on it is not because some of us do not understand that people will and should draw broader lessons from the Holocaust and antisemitism, but what we have seen in recent years is that too often the broader lessons take centre stage, while the distinctively unsettling features of the Holocaust and antisemitism end up being diluted or lost behind feel-good bromides. Avoiding this was the main driving concern for this amendment.
The other concern is that the memorial and the learning centre might become the focal point for political gesturing about the Middle East and anti-Israel protest. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, agrees with us on these concerns and is very keen to address them. I think the commitment to have the purpose clearly and specifically enshrined in the governing documents, while not as good as having it in law, is important, and we need to follow that through. I also welcome his commitment just now to consult on those governing documents. It might perhaps help if he can tell us a bit more about the process that might be envisaged about the contents of the documents and about how Parliament will be kept informed. In particular, it would be useful to have drafts published in advance so that people who have an interest in these matters, and perhaps the House, will have an opportunity for debate and scrutiny. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that it will provide further reassurance to those who, like my noble friend Lady Deech, continue to have reservations.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lady Deech’s amendment, I of course recognise the very considerable and determined efforts of my noble friend Lord Verdirame, who sought to persuade the Government to accept the amendment made by your Lordships’ House when the Bill was before us previously.
I have some questions for the Minister, but before I ask them, I want to thank him for his very heartfelt and obviously extremely genuine and clear statement of what he sees as the purpose of the learning centre. I totally accept what he said as being his view. My questions relate to the use of the word “inappropriate”. I take it that the use of that word reveals that the words that my noble friend Lady Deech seeks to insert in the Bill—or, indeed, the words originally inserted by your Lordships’ House—are not in any way out of scope of the Bill. It is a matter of choice, of taste even; it is not a matter of law or legislative practice.
Secondly, I invite the Minister to answer the question: does what he has said in any way bind a future Government or even bind the trustees? I suspect that it might be possible to bind the trustees, but not a future Government, but only by expensive litigation, which would be extremely distasteful on this subject, if in the future they chose to change the approach of which the Minister has spoken.
Of course the Bill is about changing planning arrangements for Victoria Tower Gardens—that is necessarily part of it—but it is slightly absurd to suggest that the Bill is just about property, given the basic purpose of having a memorial learning centre in the gardens. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that there is a memorial and a learning centre, which has the one aim that people will go there—in my view, it is too small and in the wrong place, but I cannot debate that now—to learn about the Holocaust, the Shoah, what happened to Jews in the Second World War, what built up to that Holocaust and to learn the lesson. That is the only purpose of spending many millions on this project.
What is wrong with stating in the Bill the purpose of the project? Those of us who have a personal, a family, background which makes us very close to this proposal, as I have, do not want to see that limited desire for the purpose to be stated in the Bill to be rejected by the use of a vague adjective like “inappropriate”.
I have huge misgivings about why this is being put in Victoria Tower Gardens, what is being put there and whether it will be secure. I absolutely reject the notion that one should be concerned about the current Middle East situation in deciding the words that should be put in the Bill. That, in my view, is unprincipled and should not be allowed to endure.
I earnestly say to the Minister, who is much admired in this House—and I share in that admiration—that he should listen very carefully to this debate before pitching into something that is unacceptable to a very large number of people who have close contact and concerns about this proposal.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I commend the very wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in this important amendment.
I should say first that I respect 150% the honesty and integrity of the Minister; I trust him 100%, but I do not entirely trust the Government to deliver on this. I thank not just the two Labour Peers who were on the Committee but all those Peers from all sides—the other Labour Members, Cross-Benchers, Lib Dems and Conservatives—who raised many concerns about all aspects of this memorial.
The one thing we were united on was that it had to commemorate the Holocaust—the Shoah—and antisemitism. What concerned us during the Committee was that on many occasions when we pushed the question, “Will this be purely about the Shoah?”, we did not get a categorical answer that it would be. We had many reports from other organisations suggesting that it could include Rwanda, Pol Pot, Darfur and others. Those were horrible genocides, I know that, and we have seen some horrible genocides around the world since the end of the Second World War, but they are not the Shoah, and the memorial should be purely about that.
The noble Lord was right: it would be perfectly in scope of the Bill to insert the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. To reject that on the grounds that it would be inappropriate is rather flimsy. When I was chair of the Delegated Powers Committee and we saw the Government taking extraordinary powers to pass regulations, the Government always said, “Ah yes, but we don’t intend to use them”. The intention is irrelevant; it is what is in statute law that counts. Putting this into statute law would guarantee that it was enforced.
The Minister said, if I remember correctly, “Oh, people could challenge any requirement in a statute”. If people can challenge, with difficulty and judicial review, words in a primary Act of Parliament, then how much easier would it be to challenge a letter from the Government to the administrators or the trustees? That seems ripe for judicial review, whereas a statutory requirement would not be.
That is all I wanted to say. As I say, I entirely trust the Minister and his noble intentions, but I do not trust the Government to be able to deliver on this, either through negligence or a deliberate act on their part. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is absolutely right in seeking to put this in the Bill.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to the fact that I am, along with Mr Ed Balls, the joint chairman of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation.
I do not want to make the Minister blush, but I add my tribute to the way he has conducted the negotiations—I think we have arrived at a situation where we can see some progress—but I also associate myself with his words about the noble Lord, Lord Khan, who took this through its various stages with charm and considerable good temper, and we arrived at a better Bill because he was there. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Scott on my Front Bench for the way this has come about.
I have always been of the view that this memorial should also celebrate Jewish life and Jewish people, because—and I say this as a non-Jew—Jewish culture is a fundamental part of British identity. Without Jews, this country would be a lesser place. You only have visit a place like Poland to see that the very heart of that country has been ripped out by the removal of the Jews.
I supported the original amendment because this is not an academic exercise or a discussion over particular words. There is a real war going on—I do not think it is wrong to say that—which seeks to undermine and subvert the Holocaust and turn it on its head. We have seen two attempts in recent years to do this. First, there was an attempt within the academic board to extend the museum to cover slavery, which the board fought against solidly, leading to one member resigning. Secondly, we saw last year an attempt to equate the Holocaust with the false accusation of a genocide in Gaza. That awful attempt to invert the Holocaust is one of the reasons why fewer schools are commemorating the Holocaust this year than before. The reason for that is that the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust was not prepared to do “Holocaust-lite”. We are not prepared to dilute it.
But this continues. There is some criticism of Holocaust education. We see from Canada that the former attorney-general, Irwin Cotler, someone known to many Members of the House, regarded Holocaust education in this country as the gold standard. But it is only the gold standard if people attend the courses. Some evaluations from UCL and Visions Schools Scotland show that if people go through the course, things change for the good. But if you are a child of a parent who refuses to allow you to go, if you are on a school governing body that refuses co-operation, if teachers pressurise other teachers to prevent it, then those pupils lose out. That is why we see such bad scores on understanding of the Holocaust.
This is not just about the simple teaching of the past; it is about operating some support for our own liberal democracy. I am delighted to report that we are in advanced negotiations with the Shoah Foundation of the United States, which would like us to be one of the main centres for its database of Holocaust testimony. We already have its testimony for British survivors, but this means that we will be a main player on the scene. There is enthusiasm for this because we will get people to that learning centre—I am about to finish—who would normally not go to any other museum.
I welcome the unity. We should put the past behind us and now put our hands out firmly to opponents and those who are in favour, and work together to ensure that we build something we can be proud of.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, while the tributes are flowing, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, who gave one of the best speeches the first time this amendment was discussed, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
It is truly important to have this discussion and debate, and not just to say that it does not matter. I also do not doubt the sincerity of the noble Lords, Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Khan of Burnley, who have both been absolutely reassuring. My problem is that I am not reassured by reassurances. I still cannot understand why it is only reassurances, and not firmly fixed. It is not reassuring that this cannot be written down, so that we all know it is not going to be sold out. No disrespect, but a lot of sell-outs happen in politics; however, I do not doubt the integrity of the noble Lords I have mentioned.
I just wanted quickly to just note why this matters. The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, made the point when he referred to the fight. I had written down, “The context of this is a fight”. I do a range of education work, although not this issue, but when I go to universities and schools I get into arguments—obviously enough—about all sorts of things. In a debate about whether there is a genocide in Gaza, because I said there is not, and tried to explain it rationally, I was accused of being a Holocaust denier. When I then tried to untangle why that was not the case and why you would use that term, one of the students said, “The problem is that Jews jealously guard the Holocaust. It is part of their colonial entitlement attitude”. That was quite a normal thing to say. I was shocked; nobody else was.
This is a learning centre. Look at the revelations that have come forth in relation to the MP from Labour Friends of Israel who was stopped from going into a school to teach, as well as the subsequent revelations—exposed by Nicole Lampert—about the goings-on in the National Education Union, a teaching union that is almost institutionally hostile to Israel and that has very strong and openly antisemitic elements to it. People who are worried about the Shoah being relativised or diffused are not being paranoid; this is happening.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, can the speakers in this debate concentrate on the issue? The issue is whether this amendment should remain in the Bill. We have had two long speeches that have not addressed that.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly, and I will try to address that. I will speak briefly not because the subject is not important—it is such an important subject that there could be no end of words said about it—but because we are focusing on the Commons reason and our response to it. For reasons that I gave at the time, I supported the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. As the Minister pointed out, the purpose of that amendment was to ensure no mission creep—if I can pick up his phrase.
I am one of the Members of this House who have had sustained, constructive and helpful engagement from the Minister, his staff and his team of civil servants. I was pleased to hear the clear and constructive statements that he made, and those made from the Dispatch Box in another place. When we are talking about governance provisions in a trust document, those are legally binding and effective. The nice legal and constitutional question of whether a Government can bind their successor is one thing, but a board of trustees is bound by its constitutional documents.
The important thing to me tonight is that we simply have to get on with this project. I am concerned that there is a risk that further delay will lead not just to further cost but to question marks over the project. We have had a good debate about it, and I think we all share the concern behind the amendment. Indeed, as I say, I supported it. But now we have to get on and not so much complete the job but complete the legislative job and begin the real action on the ground.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, knows the high regard I have for her. She explained her opposition to parts of this project very clearly. We agree on some points and we do not agree on others. Disagreement is part of what this place is all about. I respectfully say, on the proposed amendment to say that the “main purpose” must be the provision of education—as opposed to the original amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, which had the “sole purpose”—that saying “main purpose” is worse than saying nothing. If you say that the main purpose is X, you are almost admitting, accepting and implying that you can also do Y and Z. It is not just nearly like “sole”. In law, there is a clear distinction between “main purpose” and “sole purpose”. In any event, that is not the real focus of my remarks, which is that we need to get on with it, for the reasons I have given.
I put on record my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, who started the work on the Bill in this House. Both in the Chamber and out of it, he and I had many conversations about it, all of which were constructive and conducted in the best traditions of this House. We all owe the noble Lord a huge debt of gratitude. Perhaps he might think about this: his name will always be linked to this Bill because he made the rather prosaic statement, noble Lords might think, set out in Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act, to the effect that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with convention rights. We can have arguments about Strasbourg jurisprudence—that is not for now—but it struck me, reading those words in the Bill, that it is not just that the provisions of the Holocaust Memorial Bill are compatible with convention rights but that the Holocaust is a reminder of what may happen if fundamental rights are not protected.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but, for the avoidance of doubt, I was in the Chamber when it started—I rushed in—because I wish to hear every word. That is partly because I was first alerted to the provisions of the memorial by Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, my cello teacher Raphael’s mother, and subsequently by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, many years ago. This was before 7 October.
The reason I mention this is that, when I was a Member in the other place, I represented a constituency that had extreme views and, as a non-Jew, I felt it was bad enough that I had to hear some of them. It was unbearable. I represented two synagogues, one Orthodox and one progressive, with a very diverse Jewish constituency with a range of political views. Before 7 October the feeling was—I consulted my constituents, and I wanted to put this on record, particularly for the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—that they wanted a memorial, as they all said. There were some variations but, overall, people said they wanted the memorial as proposed.
I put to them the arguments that the noble Baroness and I share. Yes, that is partly because I am so aware of Anita’s experience, longevity and wonderful personality, and the fact that, whenever she sees me, she checks my fingers before she says hello to make sure I am still practising the cello—despite everything. I really wanted to hear from my constituents that they also held some of those ambiguities, and they did not. But they were utterly clear about the issue of the purpose of the memorial and the learning centre.
This has been my concern since 7 October, since when, frankly, I have heard many things that reinforce the need for the purpose of the learning centre to be utterly clear, without doubt and without any diminution or dilution. People have been capable of saying the most dreadful things, which implied to me that they had little or no knowledge of the Shoah and why it matters, and why a focus on the Shoah and on antisemitism matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is quite right to say that it is about not just the dead but the living. The risk of further such atrocities right now, specifically to Jews, is so great. I feel that, as a non-Jew, it is even more my duty to say that and to put on record that which many people have been frightened to say—they have been frightened to say the truth. That is why it mattered to me to see this amendment. However, I am afraid I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that seeking to put something in has made it weaker than the original thing that the other place has now rejected. I regret that, but this is the place we are at now.
I share other noble Lords’ determination that we should get this right, and I share the admiration for my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Khan, who have worked so hard to get us to where we are. It feels like a tremendously long time since we began. However, the need for clarity of purpose has not diminished. It has only grown in the intervening years. I wish to put on record, in my name—as a non-Jew, but with former Jewish constituents who I did my best to represent—the doubling, tripling, quadrupling need that there seems to be, not just over the last four years since the atrocities of 7 October but even in the last four weeks, in Australia and in Manchester, given the sort of antisemitism that we hear about every day. We all know, having read the history of the Shoah, that this is how it starts. I share noble Lords’ determination that we should not hold back.
I share the disagreement of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about where the memorial should be, but we are now past that. I encourage other noble Lords, if they have not already, to go to the Imperial War Museum and hear the beautiful cello playing of my cello teacher, Raphael, and see some of the things that Anita wore and was able to keep with her, which in themselves tell their story. I hope that this memorial and learning centre will tell the story as we need them to, now possibly more than ever.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I too am puzzled why it is not possible to include this wording in the Bill. Given that the Bill makes provision for the construction of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre, why on earth can we not define what the learning centre is for? However, I accept the Minister’s assurances about the purposes.
I have one specific question that I would like to ask the Minister. When we debated this matter in June, I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, the issue of the definition of the word “Holocaust”, pointing out that the Holocaust included groups other than Jewish people. Of course, it was primarily an atrocity committed against Jewish people, and that will be the primary purpose of a memorial centre, but other groups were affected too, including LGBT people and disabled people, who were killed in concentration camps. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, assured me that his understanding was that the Holocaust did include such groups. Some of the contributions from noble Lords today make me wonder whether that is a shared assumption.
Since this debate is about clarity and definition, I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance, on the back of the assurances he has given about the purpose of the learning centre, that his and the Government’s understanding is that the Holocaust included the murder of other groups at the same time, as part of the activities of the Nazi regime, and that that should not be excluded or considered to be mission creep, to use the words that some noble Lords have used in concern about the absence of a definition from the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me that same reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, gave me in June.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was right to admonish us and to remind your Lordships of the need to stay focused on the matter in hand at this stage of the Bill’s progress. However, it is seven months since the Division which saw noble Lords backing the sensible amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am heartened to hear about the fruitful discussions that he has had with Ministers and officials about that matter in the intervening months. If noble Lords have had other remarks to make, it is because those extra months have, as we have heard, sadly added further examples of the importance of looking at this and getting it right. I agree with so many of the remarks I have heard.
My purpose in rising is to ask the Deputy Leader of the House about an issue that was not before us when the Bill was last debated in your Lordships’ House. He will know that the Crime and Policing Bill, which is also before your Lordships’ House, proposes to make it a criminal offence to climb on certain specified monuments and memorials. Schedule 12 to that Bill sets out 24 memorials that are listed at grade 1 and one further memorial that is not listed at grade 1, which is the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, time is passing, so I hope noble Lords will not mind if we move to the winding speeches now.
Noble Lords will know, because I said it many times during previous stages of the Bill, that this is a free vote for my colleagues, so my comments reflect my own views, although I know that the vast majority of my colleagues share them.
I have always thought that the words on the front of the Bill should reflect the policies inside it. I therefore find it difficult to understand, in one respect, why the Government will not accept this purpose clause. If you go to the Public Bill Office with the intention of inserting a purpose clause into a Bill, they usually draw in their breath and say, “Governments don’t like a purpose clause”—and that is Governments of all colours, by the way. However, that is very hard to understand in this particular case, because we all know which Holocaust we are talking about. The Minister and the Government cannot be surprised that people have lost a little confidence in that focus because of all the other things that were raised at the earlier stages of this Bill—other tragic events in the history of mankind.
The Holocaust, when 6 million Jews were slaughtered, is the biggest blot in the history of mankind and we must never forget it. That is why, across all Benches, we supported the first purpose of the Bill, which was to enable the Government to promote and fund a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. What we disagreed about was the second part, which was the removal of the legislative barrier to putting that learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, mainly because we did not think that the gardens would do it justice, as it needs to be a high-quality memorial. I think we all hope that, in the fullness of time, that is what it turns out to be.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on her leadership in this Bill, and agree with her that you can commemorate the dead by celebrating the lives of the living and the people who survived. There were millions who suffered and, even if they did not lose their lives, they lost their livelihoods and the ability to have children. Many of them did have children, however, and their descendants contribute an enormous amount to the life of this country, the other countries in Europe and other parts of the world.
I will just touch on what the Minister has said. He has given us a very clear reassurance that the purpose of this legislation will remain commemorating the Holocaust and learning the lessons to tackle antisemitism. It has been said that that is not good enough: it should be on the face of the legislation. I have a little more confidence than some Members of the House do in clear statements from the Dispatch Box by a Government Minister, and I know that if Governments deviate from what they have said, they can be challenged. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned, to make that challenge often requires considerable legal costs, so it is far better, if you want to be absolutely clear, to put it in the Bill. I ask the Minister: why not?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I contributed to earlier Holocaust Memorial Bill debates, and I shall speak briefly in this one. I was moved to do so mainly by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who made the excellent point that the amendment talks about
“The main purpose of any Learning Centre”,
which dilutes the original amendments and raises the possibility that there might be other purposes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, knows, although we have disagreed on a number of things, I am an enormous admirer of all the hard work she has done to support the concept of Holocaust education, and I put on record my particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Khan. It has been heartwarming to listen to him and I admire him for the work he did in his position.
The point I want to make to both the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the Minister is to ask for clarification. In the Bill and in the amendments, there is reference to “a Holocaust”, but the particular paragraph that bites, Clause 1(1)(a), talks about
“the construction on, over or under any land of … a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust”,
and that is crystal clear. The centre for learning has to be relating to the memorial. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Deech: why is there any uncertainty about this? Is it not clear in the Bill that it has to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust? As my noble friend Lord Wolfson said, now is the time to move on.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Collins. Back in 2014, I supported this Bill in the House of Commons. It had cross-party support—it is Parliament at its best when we all agree—and I am slightly surprised that, 12 years later, we are still having these debates. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson says, we really need to get on with it. I believe it is the right development in the right place, it is the right plan and it is at the right time.
However, I have a question for the Minister. We are talking about a visitor centre and noble Lords will see the number of schoolchildren that attend this place on a daily basis, so it is important that we get the content of that visitor centre right. What sort of content will it have? What relevance will it have and how will it come across to people of a younger generation? It will attract a broad spectrum of the population, but it is very important that we educate future citizens about the Holocaust, so I am interested specifically in school visits—how will the visitor centre cater for those?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we have had extensive debates on the Bill and I know there are strong views across the House on a whole range of issues relating to the delivery of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. We were right to debate this important Bill in full and scrutinise its every aspect, but now we have just one issue before us. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, on his success on Report and we were delighted to give him our support in that Division. We have worked closely with him and in discussions with the Government to secure the concession that the Government have made in response to his amendment.
It is very welcome that Ministers have confirmed that the learning centre will be focused exclusively on the Holocaust and antisemitism and that there will be no question of it drifting from that purpose. That commitment is an important step towards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am pleased that he and the Government have come to an agreement on this, and we will continue to support him.
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for the constructive way in which he has engaged with me and other noble Lords to get to this point. Like many other noble Lords, I give very big thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. He was a joy to work with as we went through what was, in the early stages, a difficult—probably the most difficult —Bill I have ever been involved in, and I thank him for that.
Next week, on Tuesday, it is Holocaust Memorial Day. I believe it is fitting that tonight we take what I hope is one very big step forward in the delivery of this memorial to the 6 million men, women and children who perished in the Shoah.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions to this evening’s debate. I do not want to delay us too much, but I want to reflect on a number of comments, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, who has been doing excellent work on Holocaust education, and I have followed him in many places, trying to make sure that his message was repeated. I spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, earlier today and I mentioned that I went to Bratislava to attend a memorial event in a square, but it was not limited to that. We then went to the concentration camp, the transportation centre, and I saw at first hand where people, including children and babies, were kept. The impact of that will always live with me. A memorial is not enough, which is why the learning centre is so vital.
I also want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. To answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, we cannot bind a future Government. We wanted to look at how we could ensure that the purpose was fully maintained. The Bill does not have all the governing structure or all the stuff that we need. I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord, but his advice about how we can enshrine the purpose in those trust agreements was essential.
The most important thing—and we have heard this today—is that we leave tonight united in one purpose: that we do not forget the 6 million who were murdered or the consequences of the Nazi crimes. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, he knows where I stand on the crimes of the Nazis. Of course, the very first people they imprisoned and murdered were trade unionists who were standing up for workers’ rights, and we need to understand that. I was also struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said to me this morning: that antisemitism did not start with the Nazi crimes. It has been with us for 2,000 years. We need to ensure that we understand the impact, not only of the past but on the living, and I think she is right.
Why have we not put it in the Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said it all. In the narrow function of the Bill, adding a statutory provision along the lines envisaged could create difficulties and uncertainty in its enforceability, and I want to see us united on the way to do that. The noble Lords, Lord Verdirame and Lord Wolfson, have helped me in how we can deal with that.
I also reassure noble Lords that further consideration will be given to the different forms of governance which might be right for the memorial. As the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, has asked me to do, we will give an assurance that those proposals will be published, including the governance documents that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, referred to.
I understand the points the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has made. He has made them fully in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Hanson is here, who can actually take these points up on how memorials are protected.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister, whose eloquence and understanding is very touching and altogether praiseworthy.
I have just two small points to make. There need not have been any delay. There need not even have been a delay if the Government had accepted the amendment. Much has been spoken about delay. This memorial is not for the survivors; it is for future generations. We are not going to rush something through so that people who are now 90 or 100 will live to see it. They already have other memorials.
I have heard the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Wolfson, on the definitional problems. Whatever you express, there are going to be definitional problems, which have been exacerbated in the past few years—because despite what the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, said, there has been all this talk about Darfur, Bosnia, and other genocides and so on, and it is only now, under the leadership of the Minister, that we have some clarity.
I felt I had to drive this forward for the sake of my parents, my grandparents and all the others who are looking down, who would never forgive me if I did not push this as far as I can to get a memorial that honours them—which I have doubts about, frankly. But I have done everything I can within my power for their sakes, because I know very well—as a child, they told me—what they went through. I have done every last thing I can.
I can see no point in calling a vote now, and I will withdraw the Motion, but I insist on continuing for their sakes and for all the other families, some of whom are in this Chamber. We must get something that honours them and protects today’s Jews. I will not give up on that, but I withdraw the Motion, and I thank the Minister.