Lords Chamber

Wednesday 11th June 2025

(began 4 months, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:08
None Portrait Oral questions: Protecting children against abusive online communication
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral First Oral Questions. I beg leave to ask the question Paper.
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
None Portrait Oral questions: Economic growth mission, set out in the government's Plan for Change
-

Second Oral Question. Paper. I apologise because I only have half a voice today.
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:41
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
noble Lord supported. The government will also publish a white paper on police Reform later this year. Mr

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I come from generations of police

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I come from generations of police officers. The Labour manifesto promised to lower all sorts of crime and I wish them well in fulfilling and I wish them well in fulfilling that promise. The Police Federation and superintendents Association in their joint letter say that the their joint letter say that the police services in a state of crisis that it's broken, it's battling that it's broken, it's battling burnout and crushing stress. A situation that has become a national situation that has become a national emergency.

These are all direct quotes from their letter over the weekend. This is rather terrifying, so my question is about numbers. The Labour government inherited a total Labour government inherited a total of nearly 148,000 full-time equivalent warranted police officers, which was the highest level reached in two decades. But since his government took office, the numbers of started falling. Can the Minister give a commitment that after today's spending review, there will be more warranted police officers in eight years time, that's warranted.

Will those number have gone up in a years time or will they have fallen further still?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is always challenges in the police service, but I don't police service, but I don't recognise the phrase crisis which is been put to us after nine months in office. A crisis is when 20,000 office. A crisis is when 20,000 police officers are cut from the budget like 2010. Crisis is when having a P CSOs take place during having a P CSOs take place during the last government. It's one two thirds cut in special constables happened over the previous happened over the previous government.

It's when the previous government blocked recommendations government blocked recommendations on pay. This government has accepted recommendations on pay as put in place 3,000 extra neighbouring policing this year. We will probably place 13,000 by the end of this place 13,000 by the end of this Parliament, have put in place 1.2 billion pounds extra this year over what his government supported last what his government supported last year. Has put in money just a few moments ago extra in real terms increase in policing through the Comprehensive Spending Review.

And will ensure that we make these needs.... We will have a positive needs.... We will have a positive dialogue unlike what I believe happened in the previous 14 years. I welcome the noble Lord support, but let's look at the facts.
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:50
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Absolutely. There's a tremendous amount of work done in the back office that can be done by police support staff and my others and they pay an important role and are part of the police family response to crime. And it has been a problem where police officers are doing many roles which could be done behind- the-scenes stop again, going back to the noble Lord Carlile of Berriew and the points the noble Lord mentioned, the police white paper is trying to look at how we maximise efficiency, maximise bang for our buck and ensure that we have frontline policing, effective

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regional policing, and that we also look at how we can improve efficiencies in back-office, both procurement and staff delivery. That concludes Oral Questions for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That concludes Oral Questions for today. Numbers wishing to leave the today. Numbers wishing to leave the chamber at this point may do so -- members wishing to leave the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Private Private notice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Private notice question. Private notice question. Remind

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Private notice question. Remind the House that a number of individuals have been charged with incidents relating to these events. incidents relating to these events. Noble Lords are free to discuss the general terms of what has happened but should not refer to specific individuals who have been charged and are awaiting trial, or engaged
15:54
15:54
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:58
16:00
16:01
16:03
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:07
16:07
16:08
16:10
16:10
None Portrait Legislation: Armed Forces Commissioner Bill - consideration of Commons amendments and/ or reasons
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commissioner Bill. I beg to move that the Commons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the Commons
16:10
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be now considered. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

"Not content". The contents have it. I beg to move motion that this House do not insist on amendments House do not insist on amendments two and three and agree with the comments in their amendment to a in lieu. I will also speak to motion A1. Can I start by thanking all members and the liberals for their care and others for their careful and considered scrutiny of this landmark bill. It's an important bill, one that marks a significant step change for our Armed Forces and their families.

And delivers on a commitment upon which this The minor and technical government amendments were agreed to. These would fully implement the delegated and committee recommendation to change the regulation making power to define relevant family members for the negative to the affirmative procedure and the amendment which was consequential on clause 3 of the bill. The noble Baroness Goldie also raised concerns about anonymity. We listened carefully to those points you raised and brought forward amendments to address these concerns. I shall return to that later.

This only leaves the matter of whistleblowing and as I say anonymity which are the issues before us today. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness were put to a vote in the other place. And were both disagreed to. The government had taken on board the important debates we have had in your Lordships chamber, proposed a significant amendment in lieu, which the Commons agreed to. This amendment picked up on the spirit of the Baroness's amendments and went further than her proposals delivering concrete legal protections.

Never laws will be aware that the amendments to the government motion has been tabled which offers amendment in lieu in place of the Commons Amendment in lieu. Let me first offer some explanation on why the other place disagreed with the Lord's original amendments for whistleblowing before addressing the specifics of the amendments before us. Whilst the amendments proposed by your Lordships time with the spirit of the bills, the contents did not offer any additional legal protections for anyone coming forward to the Commissioner.

This entire bill is already designed to create a trusted and independent route for service personnel and their families to raise concerns about welfare matters that they may personally be affected by or that they observed to affect others. The Commissioner and this is important, the Commissioner can already investigate any general service welfare matters they choose and anyone can raise such an issue with the Commissioner including the type of person defined in Baroness Goldie's amendments. The Commissioner is independent and sits outside the change of command, and the MoD, and reports directly to Parliament -- chain of command.

The Commissioner will be bound by data protection legislation, meaning for anyone who contacts the Commissioner, personal information and details they provide will be subject to stringent protections. We all want to protect women from unacceptable behaviours. The debate between us is just about the best way of doing that. In her amendment speech at the report stage, the noble Baroness raised the central issue of anonymity for a person, raising the concern with the Commissioner, and this role and the role this may have on building trust and confidence for people to come forward.

We heard this and we agreed that this was a concrete legal protection that would add to the bill. The government amendment tabled and agreed to in the other place is therefore designed to address anonymity protections for all those who raise welfare concerns to the Commissioner. It has the effect of ensuring that their identity is protected in all the commissioners reports should they wish. It's often said the government does not listen to what the opposition says. In this particular aspect, an important debate we have listened but we have also acted.

As I set out at report stage, this amendment is supported by further nonlegislative commitments. Which taken together will further bolster trust and confidence in the Commissioner. I restate these now. The government will update its current raising of concern policy which includes replicating protections available to civilians under the Public interest disclosure act. This update will ensure similar protections for people under this policy are applied to disclosures made to the Commissioner. Including provisions relating to anonymity, confidential see and protection from unfair or negative treatment due to raising the concern.

The government will also conduct a communication plan campaign to ensure, again a point raised by noble Lords, to ensure that members of the Armed Forces and their families are clear about the role of the Commissioner and how this interacts with the existing protections and policy. The types of issues that can be raised with them and how they can be dealt with. Again specific concerns that were raised in your Lordships chamber which we have acted upon. Turning to the amendment before us today, Baroness Goldie's amendment seeks to replace the government amendment productions with another amendment.

It would create a two amendment. It would create a two tier or two class system in how individuals who approach the Commissioner would be treated. The bill before us full designed to carry out that manifesto commitments to give a voice and point of contact to anyone subject to service law and their families, so that any matters affecting welfare and the Armed Forces and the lives of the families of the Armed Forces could be investigated by an independent and trustworthy figure. The amendment proposed by Baroness Goldie today splinters this ambition, creating a further group of persons from within those who will already be able to approach the Commissioner, defined in the amendment as whistleblowers.

Addressing the term whistleblower, the word whistleblower or whistleblowing, which we believe may make somebody hesitate in coming forward, the Cabinet Office guidance which informed governments departments followed under the last government as well, leading the MoD, in developing their raising the concerns policies, recognises that language can put people off coming forward. We all know those words have strong connotations and links to the public subconsciousness, to expose large-scale fraud or deep- seated corruption, encouraging this language may lead to some serving personnel and their families feeling nervous about coming forward or may make them less likely to even think of this as an appropriate route to raise the welfare matters that are affecting their daily lives and well-being, in such a context.

The noble Baroness may well refer in her speech to the fact that the term whistleblower is used elsewhere as indeed was raised in the other place, is used elsewhere in the Armed Forces Act, true, but it only serves, only exists in that legislation the context of the police, of the police service, of the service police rather. The provision that references blows allows the Secretary of State to replicate any relevant provisions in the police four, 2002, regarding police whistleblowers. The whistleblowing regime set out in the police reform 2002 is significant with 11 separate sections setting out what whistleblowing means and how it works in that specific leasing context.

Simply using the term whistleblower in the bill does not import any meaning that may exist for it in different legislative contexts. Copying and pasting some of these provisions into the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill does not replicate an entire whistleblowing regime, it does not substantially change the powers that the Commissioner has two deal with the whistleblowing issue versus a general service welfare matter. We know and understand, and don't doubt at all, that the noble Baroness, as with every member of your Lordship's House, wants to build trust and confidence in the Commissioner.

But legislation is not a communications opportunity. It is the law, and must be clear to those who have to interpret it. So putting aside the terminology, let me ask your Lordships to consider the particular provisions themselves and the new proposals contained in the proposals contained in the amendments. If passed, hence my reference to a two tier system, the normal process of just going to the Commissioner, or if you were to act as whistleblower going through that route, under the whistleblower route, if passed, the whistleblower investigations proposed have the same scope as the current investigations powers, but none of the additional powers of investigation.

And that's because the new section 340, I, C, is not linked to sections 340, I, B, and 340, I, A. So the consequence of that if passed as this. If somebody goes to the Commissioner under the Russell blowing route, it does not allow the Commissioner to access sites to assist the investigation. It does not allow the Commissioner to access information or documents to assist the investigation. It does not require the Secretary of State to cooperate, assist and consider any findings or recommendations.

It does not require, reports to go to the Secretary of State to delay before Parliament. And indeed, the scope is narrower since it only applies to people subject to service law, so not to family members and cannot be about terms of service. The Commissioner will also need consent from the individual before starting an investigation, constraining the Commissioner's independence and possibly leading to junior staff facing pressure to withhold consent. The anonymity which the government brought forward would only relate to investigations under the section, and it removes the anonymity productions the government is proposing to include.

No investigative powers, no Parliamentary oversight, narrower scope, and constraining the Commissioner's independence. Why would anyone include in the Commissioner therefore want to use this route including the Commissioner. Importantly the bill is intended to provide a safe avenue for people to come forward with their concerns, no matter how small or how big they might seem to them at the time, and know they will be considered by a truly independent figure. He want people to feel secure and empowered to raise concerns.

We have therefore drafted the bill to be as broad and clear and inclusive as possible and throughout communications campaigns and guidance will make it clear that anyone subject to service law and their families can approach the Commissioner to raise a general service welfare matter. I would argue that what could be clearer than that? Why introduce a separate parallel system without the same investigatory powers? Creating a differentiation between whistleblowing about a general service welfare matter and simply approaching the Commissioner to raise a general service welfare matter at any level of complexity and confusion which I genuinely believe will make it harder, not easier, to navigate.

The second and finished with this. I know that there is unanimity of opinion within your Lordship's House that we need to do more to protect anyone who wishes to come forward with a concern to the new Commissioner. I believe that the amendment that the government has brought forward and the other matters we have said we will take forward means that we have listened to your Lordship's House. We have acted on what your Lordship's House have said but we are have very serious concerns about noble Baroness's amendment, however well-intentioned.
16:23
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that the motion be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the motion as an amendment, leave out from 3 to end amendment, leave out from 3 to end and insert, do disagree with the Commons in the amendment and do Commons in the amendment and do propose amendments in lieu. May I propose amendments in lieu. May I once again thank all noble Lords from across the House who supported my amendments to this bill at report and thanked all those in the other and thanked all those in the other place who also gave their support.

Throughout the passage of this bill, the Official Opposition have approached it in a constructive manner. We have challenged the manner. We have challenged the government when necessary but also sought to be supportive and it is in that vein that I have tabled my amendments. In lieu of the government's amendments made in the government's amendments made in the other place. In the debate, on my initial amendments, in the other place, the Minister for the Armed Forces said that the amendments while well-intentioned are unnecessary because the bill is already designed to provide a voice for armed forces personnel and their families outside the chain of command and do the noble Lord Lord Coaker the Minister repeated that argument in his remarks.

I would agree the bill does provide a voice for armed forces personnel outside the chain of command and that is fundamental to the role of the Commissioner but I say again this does not mean my amendment is either unnecessary or irrelevant. Every government at some point goes through a period of black clouds and searches for a silver lining. Handing the government is of aligning on a plate because this bill with my amendments put by the government at -- and are armed forces personnel in a good place.

Let me explain why. As I argued at report stage and as my honourable friend mark. Mark argued in the other place, whistleblowing is a recognisable term. It is recognisable in law, in both the police reform of 2002 and in the Armed Forces Act of 2006. And most importantly, it is recognisable to the thousands of armed forces personnel who know exactly what whistleblowing means and would benefit from this enhancement. If Parliament has a ready deemed it appropriate to give the service please complaints Commissioner a function to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers about the police, how can the government argued that the new Armed Forces Commissioner should not have a similar function? This is a question of consistency and fairness.

So this is not a two tier system as the noble Lord the Minister was arguing. I am offering a Rolls-Royce version of what is already in the bill. And that is why I disagree with the government and the amendment to A. The proposal is to place a duty on the Commissioner to ensure the reports do not contain any information which could be used to personally identifiable person who requested an investigation to take place. This is a welcome first step.

It is at least a test of the mission of the government that the bill is originally drafted did not go far in enough to safeguard individuals, making a confidential exposure. It is just that, a step. The government's amendment in lieu does not refer enough and does not accept the unique meaning of whistleblowing, as the noble Baroness Lady Kramer express at report and I thank her especially for her support. The new amendment is a reasonable comprised between what I have said to do and what the government itself has proposed.

My amendment opposes a new clause to be inserted which contains the same definition of a whistleblower as the original. But with two important additions. First in subsection letter to a concluded duty to take all reasonable precautions to ensure the anonymity of whistleblowers is protected, when the Commissioner is investigating the matter related to welfare matters. In the spirit of constructive engagement which I have endeavoured to reflect the passage of this bill, I have listened to the government's suggestions and included new subsections five and six which provide for the Commissioner to produce a report, once they have completed an investigation into a concern raised by whistleblower and a requirement that the report must not include information which identifies the whistleblower or enables them to be identified, except with their concerns.

As noble Lords can see, this new amendment therefore includes both my proposals for supplying the government's proposals as well. I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to see a genuinely want this to operate in the most effective manner possible. And I hope perhaps in vain that he might find himself able to support this improved amendments that his remarks indicate the country. Have taken on board his previous reservations and I have sought to allay them. Let us not forget how vital it is to improve the treatment of our service personnel.

Have mentioned before the horrifying case of somebody who was sexually abused and tormented endlessly before taking her own life. At report on the bill referred to the BBC Watchdog on the perfect assaults of three women, one of whom in the Navy, another in the RAF and the third who is still serving in the army. And just last week, we saw the tragic case of Lance Corporal Bernard Mangan who was founded in his bedroom in 2020. An inquest into his death heard that he was consistently degraded and undermined by his superiors.

With a friend saying that bullying would be an understatement. Another friend told the inquest that communication is an issue. It's a failing. The system should have worked. Well the system has not been working. It is not working. And we have an opportunity to do our bit to rectify this. And I hope the House agrees and supports my amendments. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question... Leave out the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question... Leave out the words and add the words of the words and add the words of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words and add the words of the I have listened carefully to the response. I wonder if she could help response. I wonder if she could help me to understand a point raised by me to understand a point raised by the Minister. It appears from the Minister. It appears from subsection 1 of clause to C -- subsection 1 of clause to C -- number 2C, that if there is a number 2C, that if there is a whistleblower involvement with the commissioner, then the whistleblower controls the investigation.

The whistleblower can stop any investigation by the Commissioner, even if the Commissioner has information from other sources will top does the noble Baroness think top does the noble Baroness think that is a reasonable approach?
16:31
16:33
Viscount Stansgate Portrait Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
Regulatory Reform Committee and the change in the powers to make family change in the powers to make family members from the negative to the affirmative procedure. We had interesting discussions about that interesting discussions about that in committee. This bill will not solve every problem we have. The culture of our Armed Forces. But the culture of our Armed Forces. But the bill provides a route for individuals to raise concerns outside the chain of command with an independent champion. I might add independent champion.

I might add that the bill quite rightly extends to the UK as a whole. Can I add one word about the government's word about the government's amendment in lieu of Lord's amendments two and three. As the House may be aware, the commission House may be aware, the commission can already investigate any general welfare issue that they choose. And welfare issue that they choose. And in effect as the Minister said in another place only last week, the another place only last week, the entire bill is to an extent about whistleblowing because it allows anyone to raise the matter outside the chain of command.

The government amendment in lieu can go further than the original Lord's amendment and will ensure genuine protection in respect of reports prepared by the Commissioner preserving anonymity of individuals who make complaints. In a way we are all on the same side of the purpose of this bill to be sorry if the House divided on it even if an amendment was presented as an attractive Rolls-Royce. I will say in a fast- changing world in which we now find ourselves and the very real threats we now face, we are going to need and require a great deal of our Armed Forces and I for one think this is the very least they deserve with this bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Having been in all the past ages was Bill, there is no disagreement across the House in terms of wanting to get the best out of this bill, in to get the best out of this bill, in terms of ensuring our servicemen and terms of ensuring our servicemen and women have a voice and ability to raise issues that go wrong within raise issues that go wrong within our Armed Forces. I have been every single Armed Forces Bill and the single Armed Forces Bill and the other place for nearly 20 years.

And I said it report stage, this is yet another attempt to try to ensure that we are open and transparent, that we are open and transparent, but also affect the means by which members of the Armed Forces can raise serious concerns. Sadly, other raise serious concerns. Sadly, other attempts have failed. Some of this attempts have failed. Some of this is going to be needed once the Armed Forces commissioners in place. In supporting amendment A, in terms of the amendment put forward by Baroness Goldie, it is that there is nothing in the existing bill which stops an individual, family member or related parties, actually raising a complaint with the Commissioner.

I personally would think it's important to ensure the Commissioner, he or she, has the ability to look at those complaints that come forward. The other point which the bill outlines and gives power to the Commissioner is the fact that he or she can do somatic -- thematic inquiries. Not just individual complaints, but thematic inquiries as well. I'm sure when they have conducted them, there will be a call for evidence and people will come forward in that process. I accept what Baroness Goldie is saying in terms of the key point here has got to be anonymity in terms of the individuals that have got to be protected from any idea that if things are raised is going to be in effect on their career or individual.

I think the existing processes outlined in the bill protect that. I welcome what's been put forward in terms of whistleblowing and I except we can dance on the head of a pin about definitions around whistleblowing, but the important thing and I think I said it report stage is going to be is to ensure that we get the information out to members of our Armed Forces that the system exists and can be used. I think in terms of giving an alternative to the chain of command and can I say, when I first started on this journey 20 years ago there was a very huge resistance to any idea of an independent...

Anybody crossing the chain of command. I think we have made progress and sadly I think it's because of the ongoing scandals we have had we have had to ensure that at least is an ability to look at these things outside of the chain of command. I don't feel there is any need for the amendments is put forward, but I do think just to finish by saying I don't think we are far apart here, we just want to ensure that this bill gives an opportunity for servicemen and women to raise concerns when it's them or as a wider thematic issues.

Will this be the end of it as far as the ark of the covenant, the system will be perfect? I'm not sure it will. I think we will have to amend it and possibly the Armed Forces Commissioner, whoever they are, will have to embed the process -- amend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the process as it is. I rise in support of Baroness
16:38
16:39
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
report. The coherent complaints process is exceedingly important, process is exceedingly important, that it can rise to the level, but whistleblowing is an opportunity to whistleblowing is an opportunity to deal with things that are more systemic and come from a different perspective from that of a perspective from that of a complaint. This is the reason why if you want to look at financial you want to look at financial services regulators or regulators across the piece, you will find they across the piece, you will find they all have both channels, they have a complaint channel where they come complaint channel where they come into an issue where they have a complaint they want to raise, but they also have a whistleblowing channel so that where somebody comes across intelligent or has an across intelligent or has an awareness or sees something that they think should be attended to because it has deeper implications, they use that whistleblowing channel to go to the investigative or regulatory body.

To me it is just extraordinary to put in place a new armed services Commissioner, a role that is clearly very important and independent role and not to give that commissioner the tools which you would normally give anybody else picking up that kind of Commissioner role. The Commissioner through the whistleblowing route can receive and reach for information and without that information it is very hard for him or her to actually function in that role. I think one of the reasons why this is not in the bill and wasn't in the bill from the start is that there's a change in culture and mindset that's taking place.

We are now seeing with many bills coming through this House the issue of whistleblowing is being raised because the public has become aware anytime there is a scandal, that there have been people who have spoken out, but who have not been heard, who have been silenced and suffered detriment. So now there is a search to put whistleblowing protection in almost as a standard norm that's in bill after bill. I think it would be better to unify it in one place, but I'm not going to make that argument here today.

We have an armed services Commissioner, that commissioner needs to receive a regular and steady flow of information to enable him to carry out the role that is intended. Can I say, I think the establishment of a whistleblowing channel will create far more trust amongst service personnel, who quite frankly understand better than you and I do the limitation of complaint systems. When somebody enters a complaint system, they typically see themselves as raising an issue which themselves as raising an issue which they then want that specific issue to be resolved.

In a welfare case it may be a situation that housing repairs have been carried out. It's a perfectly reliable and important channel, but whistleblowing touches something deeper and more fundamental and systemic. To have that channel moving parallel is the norm and excluding it is the exception. I asked the House to seriously consider this. I think of this bill was being written six months ago, given the discussion there has been around these issues in bill after bill, it would automatically have been put into place.

I don't want to slow this bill down, it's important. I asked the government to quickly draft something it felt captured all of these issues with the label -- legal expertise it has, not to lose this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity. Can I just respond to a couple of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just respond to a couple of the points that have been made. I the points that have been made. I want to highlight the answers to want to highlight the answers to that point. I agree, but the whole purpose of this bill is expanding the remit of the Service Complaints Ombudsman who can only look at Ombudsman who can only look at service complaints. To the Commissioner who can also look at Commissioner who can also look at thematic and systemic issues as well as service complaints.

It's a as service complaints. It's a complete expansion and change of the role. I would just say again to the noble Baroness, in terms of her amendment and we are passing legislation here. The whistleblower amendment if passed would not allow, because it's not connected to 340 IB. There are two different tiers of somebody coming to the Commissioner. There's the first tier, which has all the powers and advantages that noble lords want and has certain... Is able to do certain things.

Viewing premises, observing, power venture, all the things laid out in 340 IB. That is not in the amendment for the whistleblower. The ability to do those things, if we passed that, the whistleblowing amendment if it is passed would not have the powers of entry and other powers made available to the Commissioner. That's why it becomes a two-tier system. I suspect that if noble lords had the bill in front of them they would see exactly the point I would make.

Can I also thank Lord Hardy for his point because if people have... Let's say somebody comes forward as a whistleblower, raises a hugely important thematic issue. The Commissioner says, I'm going to investigate that. As Lord Hardy is pointed out, they can't do Hardy is pointed out, they can't do it. If the whistleblower says no I don't want you to do it. Because it can only be done with the consent of the whistleblower.
16:44
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
I understand the point of ministers making, but I think in all the years when I have met a whistleblower, I never met one that came forward intending just to speak to somebody and then close down the whole issue that they just raised. What whistleblowers are looking for our --'s investigation. If you would suggest something in lieu that corrected that very small three or four word part in the language, I'm sure no one would object.

We are legislating here. It's not on a wing and a prayer. It's not on the basis of what may happen or the fact that it never happened. We are legislating. We are trying to legislate for things that may happen. As Lord Hardy pointed out, much more expertise at the bar that I have, I'm not a lawyer, but I can see good point when I hear one. What is the answer to the question? If a whistleblower, never happen, we are told, but who knows? It whistleblower comes forward and says something which is of massive thematic importance.

If they turn around and don't consent, if the amendment is passed, they can't investigate it. So the control of the investigation is not with the Commissioner, it is whether the whistleblower decides to go forward That is an important consideration. We are legislating. If the amendment is passed we create a two-tier system. I have no hesitation in accepting the point that the noble Baroness made, my noble friend Viscount Stansgate made and everybody else has made but we all want the best for the Commissioner.

We all want some of the awful examples of bullying, of sexism, of racism, all those other things, that a small number have participated. We'll want that to stop. That is not the issue. The issue before your Lordship's House is whether we pass something which is legislatively sound and gives the Commissioner the powers that we want in the way that is consistent with good practice.
16:47
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
First of all, may I thank all who have contributed to this debate, not least the noble Lord the Minister, with his impassioned defence of the government? Position. And I shall try and deal with the individual points which have been raised. The noble and learned Lord Lord Hardie asked a simple question does the whistleblower controller process. As the noble Baroness Lady Kramer indicated, a whistleblower is indeed an individual and I think implicit within that is the whistleblower right to withdraw consent if it becomes concern -- if they become concerned.

That is an inevitable sequence of an individual pursuing a complaint. What I'm less keen about in that objection to the amendment is, an individual could claim, at the moment, complain to the Armed Forces Commissioner under the terms of the bill. And I don't know what the Commissioner would do if the individual suddenly turned round and said, I'm very worried about something, and I want to stop. It is true the Commissioner can't look at the Matic issues and we expect the Commissioner will, but as far as I can see, there is nothing in the drafting of the bill which says the Commissioner cannot look at something individual races.

The government objection to my amendment seems to be that there already exists facilities, processes, procedures, that enable an individual to raise a concern. So I'm not convinced that these objections are cogent. I accept it is a tribute -- it is legitimate to ask the questions but I don't accept that is a justifiable reason for opposing the amendments I have put down. The noble Viscount Viscount Stansgate posed a question, whistleblowing, it's fine, whistleblowing effectively is covered by the bill.

But did not at any point address the point raised by myself and Lady Kramer, what if it is so good that the word that do not speak its name in the face of the bill. This is what is beyond me to be quite honest. Whistleblowing as we have previously discussed is legitimate text and terminology in other legislation. Noble Lord Lord Beamish made an interesting point because I think from wisely concedes that once the bill is up and being operated, there may have to be tweaked, it may have to be reviewed, we may find it's not working, just as we all intended.

And he did make the distinction, as the Matic against individual, and I understand that distinction but as I've already explained, there's nothing as far as I can see in the bill that would stop an individual at the moment making a complaint under the provisions of the bill. The noble Baroness Lady Kramer, I think again, with cogent perspicacity got to the heart of the matter. She said whistleblowing complaints processes are different. Why would you not give the Armed Forces Commissioner the tools to do what has to be done.

She also added whistleblowing is a channel that in her opinion, and I'm inclined to defer to her opinion, would create more trust. I think we all understand that more trust certainly needed to reassure our Armed Forces personnel, and I was struck with the observation that where we have got to in political thinking, where we have got an Parliamentary process, whistleblowing should always be the norm, not the exception. So in short, and I reiterate, I'm very glad this debate is now the polemical of party physical, because we'll want to arrive at the same destination stop I think where we have got to is a bit of difference of opinion on the legal semantics.

But I firmly believe that the amendments I have placed before the House enhances this bill and will help the Armed Forces Commissioner to do the job better. And I therefore would like to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". There appears to be disagreement. The appears to be disagreement. The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion A,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A, one be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of There

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the motion
17:01
17:03
17:04
Lord Kennedy of Southwark Portrait Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-
-
it is important to be a mindful of the tone of contributions. This Bill, understandably, stirs Bill, understandably, stirs passionate and strongly held views across the House from different perspectives as we have seen in perspectives as we have seen in earlier stages. I am sure noble Lords will continue to uphold the best traditions of the House to best traditions of the House to speak and argue freely alongside speak and argue freely alongside courtesy and respect of those both courtesy and respect of those both inside and outside the chamber.

I wrote to all noble Lords in September, alongside the usual channels, to remind everyone of channels, to remind everyone of those courtesies. I ask noble Lords in particular to be mindful of our in particular to be mindful of our standing orders to be careful to avoid personally insulting or offensive speeches which offend offensive speeches which offend those in the House. I am grateful in advance to noble Lords and look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to constructive debate. Report of the Holocaust Memorial Bill, Lord Khan of Burnley and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill, Lord Khan of Burnley and. My Lords, I beg to move that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report be now received. The question is that this report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this report be now received. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. In clause 1, amendment one, the Viscount.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment one, the Viscount. My Lords, I will, in discussing funding and expenditure, I will
17:04
Viscount Eccles Portrait Viscount Eccles (Conservative)
-
-
funding and expenditure, I will consider present funding and whether there are restrictions on how the money can be properly spent. This will in until consideration of the plans to build in Victoria Tower Gardens. The Holocaust Memorial and accompanying learning centre are to be constructed in accordance with the recommendations made in Britain's promise to remember, as accepted by Prime Minister Cameron in the Methodist Central Hall on 27 January, 2015. The Prime Minister highlighted two recommendations.

First, Britain should have a striking and prominent new national memorial in central London, and second, there should be a world- class learning centre to accompany the national memorial. He also announced the creation of a Holocaust Memorial Foundation in response to the recommendation that there immediately be a permanent independent body to manage the project. And he made the promise of 50 million in public money to kickstart fundraising. Later increased to 75 million.

On page 53 of comments to remember, it was proposed that the permanent body seek to raise money from business and private philanthropy, and that the Government should match this pound for pound up to an agreed limit. This proposal has not been accepted. There is no permanent independent body, and the Prime Ministers kickstart has been ignored. When my Noble Friend on the front bench and the Minister will tell the House either promotion made and maintains the decision not to implement these two commissioned recommendations.

Further, there has been no alternative effort to raise civil society money. Many memorials have been funded by civil society, and the commission was looking for philanthropy to show the way. There philanthropy to show the way. There is now the 2019 Holocaust Memorial charitable trust, but no money has been raised. Funding and expenditure decisions will now be both necessary and urgent. The only funds available are the 75 million of public money in present circumstances, that needs in present circumstances, that needs to be accepted as a limit.

In contrast, the trustees of the charity, there is no limit. Pending the public's response, this guy is there a limit. Thus, for funding, there are 75 million and, respectively, and unknown some of charitable grants. The formal position remains that these funds must be spent on commissions recommendations. As the Holocaust Memorial says, taking forward the recommendations of the Prime Ministers commission. Given that we know from previous planning application proceedings, from the Committee stage of this bill, and from recent explanations of grants from recent explanations of grants in this House, the memorial and the learning centre are planned to be housed in one building.

Unfortunately, this combination of both under one roof is not in accordance with these recommendations. The evidence is, unarguably, that memorial and learning centre whilst being closely associated has two distinct organisations in two nearby places. In 2016, the Holocaust Memorial Foundation aimed to have the memorial constructed by the end of 2017, and the learning centre built and working before the next election. There cannot be any interpretation of Britain's promise to remember which means, under one roof.

In Committee stage the Minister referred to Kolo Kate. Unusual in its use, Kolo Kate has a wide meaning. And as used by the commission quite clearly does not mean under one roof. The formal position remains that there are restrictions by expenditure and the building fails to meet the test. We need to agree an alternative which enables us to get on with it. Fortunately, there is one, there is widespread support for a conventional, stand-alone, national memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens.

There are many good reasons to simpler fire the project in this way, and we will hear about them shortly. The world-class learning centre can be established nearby in Westminster. Because developing the centre will need both time and money, the newly established independent body may need to secure office space before doing anything more ambitious. Our develops the learning centre will depend upon charitable fundraising. My amendment sets out on the face of the bill the way in which a conforming compromise could be funded and we can move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ahead. I to move. Amendment proposed a close one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed a close one, page 1, line 10. Leave out from until the end of line 11 and insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

until the end of line 11 and insert the words as printed on the Marshall list. My Lords, bearing in mind the
17:12
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, bearing in mind the instructions that have come, it is the aim of all of us, I think, who the aim of all of us, I think, who oppose this project to be constructive. What we want to do is to improve it. It is not about the location, it is about delivering something worthy of a cause. Worthy of the losses in my own family, which is what has driven me for the last nine years or so, and it is in that spirit that would bring forward these amendments.

I support the noble Lords in drawing attention to the financial project in an era where every penny counts and where proper education about the Jewish community of this country is crying out for funding and reform. The cost has escalated beyond the original estimates, without even a spade in the ground. The figures that are available are about two years old. No allowance for inflation has been made, the contingency is far higher than usual and the funds have not been identified publicly and as their management control that I will come to.

I am struck, as I have said before, by the contrast, with planned expenditure on a fitting memorial to the late Queen who was elected together with a space for pause and reflection, reportedly cited in St James's Park at a cost of £46 million, including a replacement of the blue Ridge and is going to be ready in 2026. Such fiscal restraint is good enough of our late Queen, surely something has gone adrift in the financial backing for the memorial and the petition before the Select Committee on this bill ask the Government to present for the approval of Parliament a report on the capital and operating costs of the project, as well as the financial sustainability of the entity that will execute the project and operate it before they present any new or amended proposal from the planning commission, I have not seen such a financial report and the original Government grant was 50 million.

That has been raised to 75 and we believe the total cost will now be nearer to 200 million. The latest estimate was a couple of years ago. There is no information about the bill, and indeed whether there are any willing to do it given the risks and the security. The Commons Select Committee commented on this, they said that they are particularly concerned about the cost, around security of a memorial learning centre which would need to be taken into account.

Security is likely to be required around the clock. And this is, as yet, and unknown cost. It is likely to become an expensive additional cost which we urge the Government not to overlook. On this basis, we urged Government to consider how ongoing costs are likely to be paid for and whether it offers appropriate use of public money. Construction costs are bound to rise because this is an historical site. Victoria Tower Gardens, very close to the river. If you have walked there you know that it uses underfoot when it is raining and it is a fair bet that obstacles relating to water and archaeological finds will emerge if digging ever finds will emerge if digging ever About £20 million has been sent so far with nothing to be shown for it.

We've heard nothing about the private elements success. Can the Minister tell us how the funding has been settled? How much has been raised privately and from where? In 2022 the National Audit Office was highly critical of the Department's performance in planning, preparing and managing the project to date. It was particularly anxious about the management of the project, and the unexplained escalation in costs. It noted the promoters failure to consider any alternative site or consider the risks in litigation that have arisen.

All of this got a response from the Department that all is well with no changes in management and no transparency. Operating costs are also a mystery, and the government has pledged free entry to the learning centre, provided of course visitors book in advance online. Operating costs are estimated to have risen to 8 million a year, and the cost of security is a big unknown. The government had hoped to make some money from the learning centre by opening it for conferences, even in the evening.

But it would be a most unattractive site open to the elements, to risks of various sorts, and extra expenditure to run it out of hours. Not to mention disturbance to the neighbours. Can the Minister tell as about the operating costs and what plans there are to commercialise the space. There has been no allowance for the endowment fund which was a recommendation of the Prime Minister's 2015 report. The endowment fund was to be used for education. That is another abandoned aim, and there will be more to be said on that.

As for the management, the National Audit Office commented the Department of Housing, communities et cetera does not have a track record of managing programs of this nature. The report showed nine bodies under the Secretary of State who will have input into the management, it involves the Cabinet, the Treasury, and three advisory boards. An investment subcommittee, and charitable fundraising arm chaired by Sir Gerald Ronson, we have heard nothing from any of them. What is missing is a board with regular reports on expenditure.

If the scheme collapses, as is not impossible, because the designer's latest scheme in Accra now stands as an abandoned empty plot with the Ghanaian government looking into the costing. If the scheme were to collapse, who would be held accountable? It's almost impossible to find out who is actually in charge, but looking at such sources as are available the boards are heavily populated by politicians and donors, as distinct from experts. And the academic input is seemingly designed to further the political objective.

In a time of alleged fiscal responsibility, and if the government wants this project to get off the ground or other under the ground, we need to know who is responsible and where the funding is. Will the Minister please tell as how the government is going to get a I will speak very briefly as I have
17:20
Lord King of Bridgwater Portrait Lord King of Bridgwater (Conservative)
-
-
in the Grand Committee briefly and as the Minister is aware, to make as the Minister is aware, to make sure my position is made quite clear on this proposal. I am strongly in on this proposal. I am strongly in favour of a Holocaust Memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. I am Victoria Tower Gardens. I am strongly in favour of a learning strongly in favour of a learning centre, and of good adequate size that can be of a standard that we would like to see.

And what we all know, sitting here in this meeting, and any who have discussed this and any who have discussed this seriously, is that it can't actually be done if you try and do it underground in Victoria Tower underground in Victoria Tower Gardens. Now, I have great sympathy for the Minister and the shadow Minister, because they've both got committees they are obliged to present this before. Whether they believe are genuinely. But in the times of David Cameron, when originally I understand it was put to him merely to have the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, it was originally proposed the learning centre would be somewhere else.

Then a problem arose over where somewhere else was, so someone approached David again, or I should say the noble Lord Cameron, and he agreed it would be put into Victoria Tower Gardens which was not the original proposal. The situation now is that we understand this perfectly well, both the previous government and the present government are desperately fearing they may be accused of anti-Semitism. In the very emotional circumstances that exist at the moment with all the horrors of Gaza and the two state solution, the whole of the Israel situation in the yeah at the moment, this couldn't be a more emotional and difficult time.

That's actually come out today with the announcement of the isolation, I haven't used the right word, of two senior members of the present Israeli Cabinet by the present government. Who have sanctioned those gentlemen. So it's a very emotional and difficult time, people are very concerned not to be accused of anti-Semitism. I think it's quite clear that the people who will be guilty in the end of anti-Semitism are the people who are proposing this arrangement. Because I think it then will never happen.

I have some personal involvement in construction issues in London, and there's no question that the construction industry has some real problems. There is a shortage of skilled people, and it's going to be not necessarily the most attractive place to work with the risk of the sort of demonstrations and other things that will take place. I don't know and I haven't had an answer to this question, as to whether anyone has yet undertaken to be prepared to quote for doing this job.

And then to have any knowledge as to whether, if they have agreed to do it, whether in the end they would be able to honour it. Having found the attitude of some people, some employees and skilled men, not keen to carry it out. So it is a tragedy, because I think I'm right in saying this has now been going for nearly 9 years. I want to see a memorial, and I want to see a learning centre. My own belief is that those who have got completely committed and feel it is their duty to just stick where they are, press on, I think it won't happen.

And I think the state will have to bear the responsibility for that. I'm not going to get into it, because the Baroness explained that extremely clearly and well, as we know the problems they may run into if they do decide to go ahead with it, I make one absolute guarantee that whatever price is quoted if someone is willing to do it won't be the price it will end up at the end. And that will be coming back and coming back, and then when somebody actually gets more excited about the flood risk and responsibility and who is going to take it, people down in the learning centre running the risk of being drowned if they can't get out.

These are all different variants of a most unhappy proposal. So I stand absolutely firmly, we must have a memorial, we must have a learning centre, if we agree not to proceed on this basis and go ahead independently it would be possible to do it quite quickly. My understanding is there a number of possible locations for the learning centre which are available now, and if we went ahead with that it would then save a lot of public money and maybe it actually happens.

I understand the various difficulties that Government Minister and the shadow Minister face. But I believe this very sincerely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I might just rise briefly to endorse some of the comments the
17:25
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
endorse some of the comments the noble Lord King made about building costs. He is much more experienced in the world of construction than I am, but it is a matter both of interest to people very important more generally. We all know that since COVID there has been a huge cost inflation in the building industry, partly because of the difficulty expressed in assessing specialists for construction. This project falls into a category where generalised prediction is really not very helpful, for all the kinds of reasons noble Lord mentioned about the site and the nature of the processes involved in developing it.

I think it's worth our while when we think about this, because it is a relevant situation to us all, we should think about some well-known alimentary projects. I think it was the case of the Scottish parliament, overshot 11 times its original budget. But I'm glad to be able to say this was worse than Portcullis House, which in the year 2,000 was estimated to be £80 million over its original budget. That was only roughly half the overshot per square metre of the Scottish parliament.

So we need to be very cognizant of the problems that are faced in the financial aspect of the all this. The government assures us it's been advised by experts, we haven't seen any detail about all this and the government says well, we can't disclose commercially sensitive information into the public domain. Well, fair enough, but no doubt government was advised by similar if not the same experts on these other two projects, which seem to have been rather inactive -- inaccurately costed.

As far as costs go I have no reason to be confident in this scheme, which after a has already gone up over six or seven year period from 15 million in 2015 207 million now. The only thing that I am confident about is that if this project were to go ahead that would turn out to be an underestimate. The reality is that with projects of this kind it is invariably a matter of build now, pay up later. It's not a fiscal rule, but it's a rule of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

experience. I should first declare my interest as a member of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation, as I have been for nearly a decade. And also a resident of Westminster who also a resident of Westminster who walked my dog in the park. I would walked my dog in the park. I would just like to remind us all that this is the report stage, not Second Reading. And I will attempt to Reading. And I will attempt to resist the huge temptation to remind resist the huge temptation to remind noble Lords that the foundation considered over 50 sites, that there is huge value in co-locating the memorial with the learning centre.

I could go on. Instead, I would just like to focus on this actual
17:28
17:30
Lord Pickles Portrait Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
-
interest because I'm also a member of the Holocaust Memorial Foundation, I'm one of the trustees. I can confirm what my honourable friend, the noble Lady said. We can't start it until there is planning permission. I think it's probably a timely reminder, this House does not decide whether or not this is built. It decides whether it's possible for the planning process to move forward in order for it to be built. I hope my noble friend, I will in a moment, I hope my noble friend will forgive me if I correct him, because I was in the room when the decision was made.

I was a junior member, but nevertheless, the decision to move to Victoria Tower Gardens was always a view to have both buildings together. But for memorial and the learning centre. The learning centre was not an afterthought in any But my Noble Friend is right, this amendment is designed with my honourable friend who shares a birthday with my near neighbour, I think, and a recent explanation of the problems in raising finance and in controlling costs.

We have a difficult plan, a planning system that places a large burden and the reason we have that large burden is because of democracy and we have got the rights to panic and I will in a moment. We do now need to proceed and I can feel that we are getting and I can feel that we are getting to this point, please give me a memorial and I will give way to my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

honourable friend. E has been talking of a planning permission. But he confirmed that both Labour and Conservative both Labour and Conservative councillors reject the acquisition and it was only because it was called in by the Government pushed through the by the Government when he talks about local democracy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

overruled. At the committee stage I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the committee stage I will remind my Noble Friend that if planning permissions are taken by planning permissions are taken by political purposes panning authority has a right, so frankly his objection that the political parties objection that the political parties may be involved is entirely wrong and would be grounds for turning and would be grounds for turning over the decision of Westminster Council and I say that as someone who was responsible for planning for five years.

I think there is a strong reason why the two should be colocated. First of all, this is likely to be not just a memorial of national survey put of global events. It is the view of the Israeli Holocaust Museum it is a view of Auschwitz. It is if you have the American Holocaust Memorial that the visited Holocaust Memorial in the world in pushing back against Holocaust distortion. But I would like to say in conclusion because I take the point that it is not a second reading point think there is a strong reason why we should not place a finger on this.

Members will recall that, very sadly, after the first meeting of the committee, the committee would put themselves in all kinds of water when they remember I think inadvertently and anti-Semitic trope suggesting that the Jewish community should pay more because they are rich people. This amendment seeks to achieve exactly that. If the amount is limited, there is a shortfall of £46 million, and by implication that has to come from humanity. I think given what happened at committee stage it is singularly unfortunate.

I have to say I do not believe for one moment it was my noble friend's intention, but we do not get an opportunity, I think, to explain the motivation of noble Lords in this House when it goes out to the public and I think if we put this to the vote of unfortunate motivations in stride to your Lordships house.
17:35
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on this amendment because as a former Secretary of State for Transport I have some knowledge of construction projects, the time they take, and the reasons why cost may escalate, and so I think it is a decision that people have to take and I very strongly agree with what my Noble Friend has said. It is not surprising, and I reminded myself and the explanatory notes of just how long ago it was when my Noble Friend the Noble Lord Cameron first proposed this project, when I was in Government as immigrations minister was a very long time ago, because it was a very long time ago.

And it is not surprising given the passage of time the costs that were then set out are clearly going to be much larger now. I am a very great supporter of spending public money wisely, and I have listened very closely to all of the comments and concerns that have, and I will not prescribe motives for this amendment but what I would say is I think the Minister needs to reassure the House that if the bill proceeds as I very much hope it does, that the Learning Center is approved and constructed that the Government does need to put in place strong controls to make sure that public money is spent wisely.

One other thing that I think is very relevant to many projects I have been responsible for in Government is because part of the reason the costs escalate is because it takes a long time before the design and the content of those projects is finalised and it is partly parliamentary processes, good and understandable parliamentary processes that then cause that cost to escalate and I think the most obvious one of those and I was responsible for it partway down the track was here just to.

We complained about how much that cost, were part of the reason why it cost so much was because both Houses of Parliament, because it was, again, a hybrid, altered design, but lots of extra requirements into it, and then members of The Other Place, the Lord's, then expressed surprise that the cost had escalated, so my view is very much want to get on and build this memorial centre and the modular we haven't the more debate we have about what it looks like and where it goes, the more the costs will increase.

And the final point I would make is I agree very strongly with what my Noble Friend Baroness Harding said. That putting a figure in nominal terms on the face of the legislation is very unwise and I think we have existing processes, we have the very structures that Government has for managing major projects. They are not perfect, of course, but I think that we need to make sure that those structures are used and Ministers, of course, are accountable to both this House and the House of Commons in regularly reporting and accounting for themselves and we, of course, are able to ask them questions, so I would suggest this and I hope it is not accepted and is not added to the bill.
17:38
Lord Sassoon Portrait Lord Sassoon (Conservative)
-
-
I was not going to speak to this amendment, but I do think that my Noble Friend Baroness Harding of Winscombe, noble friend Lord Pickles, and my Noble Friend Lord Harper have misunderstood, I would say, misrepresented, misunderstood what this amendment is all about. And I should read Clair my interest is coming from a family in which my mother is German Jewish family lost members, and in which my great uncle who had come to this country founded the Jewish refugee committee which organised the Kindertransport.

And I should also say I suppose that I speak as a former Treasury minister, so I look at the numbers of what this amendment is seeking to do. And, as I understand it and read it, my Noble Friend Viscount Eccles is as concerned as I and many others are that we have had no up-to-date or credible figures from the Minister from the various stages of this bill as to what the current costs are, the latest costs, I think, go back at least two years and we have heard what has happened to cost since then, so we need, I think, as a house, to understand what the more recent estimates are.

But what this amendment, as I read it, with my Noble Friend telling me if I am wrong I will sit down is to put a cap on the public contribution to this that does not, as my noble friend's have just said, or implied, to the coastal cost of the project. And I think speaking as a Treasury former official and minister, I think we need a bit of discipline on this project. It is not going to tap the total cost of the project and unless that Noble Lord the Minister is able to give us more credible figures to explain the latest thinking about the split between the private and public-sector contributions, I would be fully supportive of my Noble Friend Viscount Eccles is amendment because I think it puts some necessary financial discipline on the project, but would in no way cause as many Noble Friend have said, they can come back to me if they want to, in no way does this The total expenditure that could be incurred
17:41
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
on the project. My Lords, it is a on the project. My Lords, it is a pleasure to be debating this important bill, once again. And I important bill, once again. And I just hope the noble Lords will permit me to take a moment during the debate on the first group to just state the position of the official opposition on this legislation. It has been the policy legislation. It has been the policy of successive Conservative Governments that we need a national Governments that we need a national memorial and learning centre to ensure that we never forget the unique suffering of the Jewish unique suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust.

This project was first conceived by my Noble Friend Lord Cameron of Noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2013. When he Chipping Norton in 2013. When he established a commission to consider measures to preserve the memory of the Holocaust. That commission led ably by Sir Mick Davies recommended the creation of a striking and prominent new national memorial which should be colocated with a world-class learning centre. And the conservative Government accepted the commission's recommendations, taking forward the plans that are continued with this bill.

As part of that process, that then Conservative Government introduced the Holocaust Memorial Bill in 2023. This bill is a continuation of that work and we continue to support it. I think my Noble Friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton summed up the official opposition's view very well in the second reading debate on this bill in September last year, when he said this is the right idea in the right place and at the right time. I would also like to pay tribute to the many organisations that have written to Piers to endorse the plans for the Holocaust Memorial and learning centre.

Including Holocaust Centre North, the National Museum, the University College of, the Jewish leadership Council, and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. The Holocaust Educational Trust, and the Chief Rabbi. We have considered the project and at length, after 11 years we cannot be said to be rushing. Now is the time to press ahead with this bold national statement of our opposition to hatred and anti-Semitism. Now is the time to stand up to our British values and deliver a permanent memorial and learning centre as we recommit ourselves to our promise to never forget the unique horrors of the Holocaust.

Turning to amendment one in the name of my Noble Friend Viscount Eccles, this amendment would limit the level of taxpayer funding for the Holocaust Memorial funding for the Holocaust Memorial and learning centre at £75 million. Requiring any spending above that level to be provided by grants from the Holocaust Memorial trust. And the updated and explanatory notes which were published on 18 July last year stated the updated costs of the project are now at 138.8 million. And that is due to the fact that it is 10 years down or 11 years down the line, due as we have heard to that many planning issues that have come forward.

I have great respect for my Noble Friend, but on this occasion, I must respectfully disagree on his amendment because it is the view of the official opposition that this amendment would place inappropriate constraints on the value and the manner of funding for this project and potentially risking the viability.
17:45
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to the Noble Lord Viscount Eccles for his amendment. It has allowed us to reflect not only on the need for public expenditure careful control but also why this bill is needed. I will deal first with some of the matters more directly relevant to costs and to the overall management of the program. Noble Lords are aware that forecast costs for computing the program through to opening are set out in the National Audit Office letter for 2040, much 2025, stand at 146 £146.6 million.

Those costs rest on assessment by professional cost consultants of the design which is subject of our planning application. They therefore take account of the costs of excavation, of archaeological investigations, of basement construction, and of all the necessary components of the memorial and learning centre, including measures to comply with all relevant standards concerning fire, flooding and accessibility. They include We recognise that uncertainties remain, for that reason we have added a contingency budget at a responsible level.

The part of the -- greater part of construction costs will be met by public expenditure, a right and proper source of funding for a memorial. We are looking to detract charitable donations towards the trust under the generous and determined leadership of Sir Gerald Ronson, committed to raise £25 million. I want to make an important point, we don't have planning consent yet however charitable fundraising will begin when consent is in place. On the point in relation to the noble Baroness Lady Deech made around costs being out of control, the government advised the National Audit Office in March 2025 forecast costs had increased, the reason for the increase forecast are the delay to the program, legal costs for the Holocaust Memorial Bill, further inflation and the rest of the program, and additional design costs.

It is deeply regrettable delays to the program had led to increased costs. Furthermore, we welcome the National Audit Office's July 2025 report on the project. The National Audit Office recognise the challenges we face in relation to inflation across the construction sector and delays. The NAO also recognise governance arrangements iron place, the strategic benefits of the program have been clearly identified and specialists with the necessary skills have been recruited to the program. It is important we retain oversight and control over program costs.

The program is part of the government's major program portfolio, with a designated senior responsible officer accountable to the Deputy Prime Minister. It will be clear that the effect of the amendment would be either to require drastic scaling back of the program or to place more of the burden of funding on the charitable trusts, I don't think either approach is acceptable. The amendment allows us to reflect on what clause 1 of the bill seeks to achieve. Our ambition is to create a national memorial to the Holocaust with a learning centre capable of letting visitors learn about the crime and its relevance in the modern world.

We want to place this memorial and learning centre in a prominent position, not merely to attract visitors and stimulate learning and awareness of the Holocaust, though those are desirable, our additional aim is that this memorial will say something important about ourselves as a nation. To say that we recognise the unique significance of the Holocaust, a determined attempt by a modern state to eliminate the whole Jewish people. To say we want to remember those who suffered under such appalling tyranny.

And to say that we want our own society never to fall into the grip of anti- Semitism, hatred and evil. We should not seek to do this on the cheap. Nor should we seek to place an unrealistic burden on charitable donors. We know all people from all parts of the country and all backgrounds will want to make some contribution to the memorial, but as a national memorial it is right that the bulk of the costs should be borne by public expenditure. The allocation of a budget and the oversight of expenditure over this program will be part of the normal arrangements for settling departmental budgets subject to the normal scrutiny by Parliament and the National Audit Office.

There is no need to seek additional statutory controls, I ask kindly for the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's not an easy debate to reply to. And I'm going to thank to reply to. And I'm going to thank people who have spoken, but not attempt to sum up what they have attempt to sum up what they have said. My purpose is a very narrow one. And many of the things that one. And many of the things that were said about what has happened so far, and why we should have a memorial, and what of the dangers memorial, and what of the dangers for the future, of course.

But that for the future, of course. But that isn't my purpose. I was 14 when the isn't my purpose. I was 14 when the British Army went into Bergen, and I remember that circumstance very remember that circumstance very clearly. And I remember what we thought about it, and what we said to each other about it, and how we were held think about it very carefully by our schoolmasters. One
17:52
Viscount Eccles Portrait Viscount Eccles (Conservative)
-
-
of whom was an Anglican priest. And I have thought about the circumstances very carefully ever since. It comes back to me very since. It comes back to me very often. My problem is that I don't often. My problem is that I don't think the memorial and the learning centre should be in one building. And today I have made a technical And today I have made a technical argument, simply to say that if we are going to implement the commission's recommendations they commission's recommendations they will not be in one building, they will be into buildings.

-- Two will be into buildings. -- Two buildings. I think that technical argument runs, but I don't want to make too much of it. What I want to see is a national memorial, and we have nearly all come to agree that it can be in Victoria Tower Gardens and not wreck and so alter the gardens so they aren't gardens any more. And if we were to construct an unmanned conventional memorial, in accordance with the recommendations of the commission, we would have done that.

And of course, we would still need the learning centre. But to my mind, my Lords, the memorial, the memory, the going to remember, is a very different subject to the is a very different subject to the research, the understanding, the so-called or not so-called learning of lessons is a very different subject. And I think the commission was absolutely right when it made the recommendation that these should be two separate matters, the memorial and the learning centre.

And in addition, I totally support Lord King, there are huge problems with what is on the table at the moment. And there needs to be -- they need to be simplified. There is a will to construct a conventional, appropriate, I hope brilliantly designed national memorial in Tower Gardens. And we should be getting on with that and getting it constructed. And if I go back to what the foundation said, it needed to years.

And I think if anybody thinks the present plans are going to be completed in two years, they need to think again. So on the basis of time and of course as my noble friend Lord Sassoon said, of course I am conscious about public money. I think in today's circumstances we probably all our conscious about public money. And I think there's no doubt that £75 million would be sufficient to build a really impressive national memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens.

Should I be asking the House to decide? Well, I think it's not really very easy to be confident, given the position of the two main parties. But this is report stage, there's time for people to think and to change their minds. And to go for a perfectly conforming and very satisfactory solution to the situation we are in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Clause 2, Amendment two,
17:56
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. Clause 2, Amendment two, I should start by explaining why I am speaking at all on this I am speaking at all on this subject. The reason is a personal one. My grandfather, the previous Lord Russell of Liverpool, fought in and survived the First World War. He was obviously a very brave man, he won the military Cross not once, not twice, but actually three times. So he had a military Cross with two bars, which made him a fairly formidable individual.

He subsequently became a lawyer, and he joined the Judge Advocate general's office of the army. Between 1946 and 1951 he and his team were responsible for preparing and overseeing the warcrimes trials throughout that period in the British occupied zone of Germany. So, as you may imagine, what he and his team saw, read and experienced was pretty searing. They visited the camps, they talked to the survivors, and they interviewed the perpetrators. And that must have been a pretty unpleasant experience.

And the experience was strong enough that, in 1952 so only seven years after the cessation of hostilities, my grandfather who was still in the Judge Advocate General's department, he was the deputy by then, became increasingly disturbed to hear that in Germany a generation of young Germans were starting to emerge going through schools who were already beginning Holocaust denial. The rumour was that this was propaganda put out by the Americans, that they had exaggerated the situation, and basically they were trying to keep Germany under control.

My grandfather was sufficiently worried about this that he decided, because of course he had all the material his team had collected, he decided that somebody needed to go on the record and actually write a factual account of what happened. If you like, the beginnings of proper Holocaust education. And he wrote the book, because he was still an employee of the army he sent it in to the authorities because he needed to get permission to publish the book. He was not given permission to publish the book, and the reason that was given was that at the time of the early 1950s the Marshall plan with money coming in and the early steering is of the European Ireland steel Federation, which ultimately became the European Union, there was a feeling that one should not rake over the painful calls of the last few years and it's important to move on.

My grandfather disagreed with that, so he resigned. I hope he thanked the army for that because it resulted in such a huge amount of publicity that his book immediately became a bestseller, it's called the scourge of the swastika, and I'm ashamed to say it is still in print. It is a factual, educational account of part of what happened during the Holocaust. So that is a personal reason for why I am speaking on this particular amendment, which is to do with the educational part of the national Holocaust Memorial.

We are at report stage, and I am very conscious that my noble friend and fellow Deputy Speaker, the Viscount Colville, like me finds one of the less enjoyable parts of the privilege of being a Deputy Speaker which is sitting and listening to Second Reading speeches. So I do not intend to indulge on that. I hope this group will not take very long, because the point I'm going to try and make to your Lordships is the difference between what was originally hoped and envisaged that the learning centre would be and would be capable of delivering, and I think what is increasingly likely the reality would be if we proceed in the way that it is currently put together.

I understand code location was originally the idea and the dream, and I do think, I agree with that in principle. The problem is if you code locate in a rather narrow triangle of land with very limited space, you are faced with an obvious physical difficulty. How do you build a world-class learning centre in such a confined space? For you to be able to do -- it to be able to do what the Prime Minister's Holocaust commission spoke very movingly and clearly about in its report in Aspiration is and was admirable.

But I think if you compare that with the reality of what this learning centre that they plan to build underneath that memorial would be able to deliver, it is night and day. And for a comparison I would just like to talk a bit about the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC. Which is the most visited Holocaust museum in the world. So, since 1993, it has had nearly 50 million visitors. And if you annualised that it is 1 1/2 million, it officially went down a bit during COVID.

And I think the Noble Lord said that the vision was for this to be the most visited Holocaust Memorial so I may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have misheard, but I did think that this is report stage, so actually you can intervene if it is a point of fact. It was the opinion of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was the opinion of the American Museum and of Auschwitz American Museum and of Auschwitz that this would be the most visited.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that this would be the most visited. Thank you very much. I think the point I will still use that as evidence which is that if we are thinking about, if you think about many of your no chips may have seen the model that was in the Royal Gallery, if you can envisage more Gallery, if you can envisage more than one and 1/2 million people being able to go through the memorial and the learning centre on memorial and the learning centre on an annualised basis, you are much an annualised basis, you are much better at logistics than I am, because I find that hard to envisage.

But I just wanted to point out briefly what the National Holocaust Memorial and the education Centre, the Libyan Institute, is doing and has done brilliantly in Washington DC. And just think about comparing that with what one might be able to do with the learning centre as it is currently designed. So, the Levine Institute has educated over 270 over 272,000 during the intervening years. And I talking about education here, not talking about children getting through but education where it matters, so they have educated almost 70,000 military professionals.

They have educated nearly 7,000 civil servants. They have in the judiciary educated 27 1/2 thousand legal professionals. And they have also conducted their programs around this in 45 states and in Pieter Rego. The have delivered educational programs to almost 170 federal state and local law enforcement provisions across the United States. And as far as I am concerned, that Israel education. That is not simply trying to get to young people, it is actually trying to go to a whole variety of areas across that society of people who will often be in positions where they have to make judgements about anti-Semitic area or racial behaviour.

And I think, for May, that is what education is and really should be about. So, I would just ask your Lordships to reflect on the contrast between what could be possible with their world-class learning centre, and what it is going to be practical to deliver in the learning centre as it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

envisaged. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause to page

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause to page 1 line 17, leave out over, under, or otherwise in relation to, and insert more over.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more over. I want to support what the Noble Lord Russell said, who has said on Lord Russell said, who has said on this man, he has made very important points in moving it. And, particularly, I would like to identify with the choices made on learning, for education, not just learning, for education, not just being for children but for all of us, whatever our age, we should go on learning more and understanding better what has happened in our world, including the horrors of the world, including the horrors of the Holocaust.

In supporting him, I am asking for a compromise. It should be agreed to go ahead with that memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens
18:07
Baroness Blackstone Portrait Baroness Blackstone (Labour)
-
-
and to movement we are building a learning centre there and to find a more appropriate location for it. I raised at committee that I was extremely disappointed by the Minister's reply as he rejected this suggestion. I am now asking him that he should think again. Governments he should think again. Governments do need to think again when confronted with well thought out confronted with well thought out opposition which is not to totally dismiss a project or that the dismiss a project or that the Baroness Lady Harding there is nothing regular about this, not at all I do nothing that there was about the previous amendment, but there certainly is not about this one.

It is about trying to do one. It is about trying to do something better, but going ahead with many of the objectives of the with many of the objectives of the project. So, what I think this amendment will try to do is to find a way through what most of the components want. Only removing that aspect of this which is so controversial. In the spirit of compromise, also called for by the noble Viscount Lord Edmonds, it accepts that the proponents of the project want Holocaust be remembered in respect of Parliament.

As it happens, personally, I am a bit unconvinced at the necessity of placing it back outside the banks of Westminster. I not quite sure what this will convey, however I accept that people feel passionately that this is the right connection for memorial, and so I want to accept that and go ahead. And it should be a small, beautifully designed monument, as the Noble Lord said above the ground and at a reasonable cost and probably a lot less than the cost of learning would be and it could be built in Victoria Tower Gardens.

It would remove the controversy of the plan and also security problems, swamping of a small heritage project, the restrictions on card users, including support from other risks required and the inadequate space from an exhibition from which visitors can both learn and be inspired, inspiration is very important here. It ideal agree with the Minister that it should not be done on the cheap and this would cost quite a lot. But the proposal for the inclusion of the learning centre in those rooms below ground with no natural light, just a digital display is wholly misconceived.

As the Royal Chair of British architects trust, I am afraid I and very puzzled as to why a distinguished group of judges selected them as I am. As others have said, the building is too big for the small park and to small to accommodate a learning centre of inequality. The exhibition should fully explore the historical background to anti-Semitism in Europe and the persecution of Jewish populations in a number of countries. Followed by this persecution coming for more extreme in Germany and in the countries that the Nazis conquered.

There needs to be full coverage of the ghettos and the restrictions they entailed. The establishment of concentration camps, the transposition of juice to them in the most cruel conditions. The first Labour and the torture of those imprisoned, and the final solution of as the Nazis described it in the gas Chambers of Auschwitz and elsewhere. It would need to cover what was known about the existence of the camps in Germany and elsewhere, as well as the liberation of those camps eventually.

And what happened to survivors, including a wide-ranging of touching and important individual stories. There needs to be enough space to reflect on how to prevent the horrors of the Holocaust ever happening again. Racism in all its forms is apparent and anti-Semitism is based on extreme intolerance, vicious stereotyping, and ignorance. What is prepared for that learning centre is a huge lost opportunity and as Sir Richard Evans, Britain's most distinguished historian of the third Reich said, it is an embarrassment, but has been proposed here.

And it is certainly an embarrassment compared with Washington and many of the Holocaust learning centres elsewhere. I had ministerial responsibility as well as having some background in education, so it really does disappoint me that we have come up with a proposal as weak as it is. As the Noble Lord King of Bridgwater said, it would be a better solution to find an alternative location for the Holocaust learning centre which could do justice to the wide range of issues as described which ought to become and would make for a more meaningful and memorable experience to those visiting it.

Especially young people but also older people, as I said at the beginning. One possibility would be to combine it with a new Jewish Museum that would celebrate the enormous contribution made by the Jewish community, culture, to science, to the economy, and to the with the political life of this notion and previous museums had to close, I believe because of funding issues associated with the building. Another alternative is for the learning centre to be located at the Imperial War Museum, alongside its Second World War galleries, the museum has extensive visitor facilities and ample parking space.

It committed the Minister said they want to have the centre together at one place and our speakers have questioned this, surely this is not essential. Surely we can do something better and it involves awful compromises and to the damage it does to this small park inputting them together. Any memorial monument could signal the presence of a learning centre not too far away. The learning centre build should be above, not below the ground. On the risks of flooding and the difficulty of escape for those cooked up in these underground galleries.

I want to mention the extra cost of excavation that we have in the first amendment we have discussed, the plan is to excavate more than 8 m down and these I have already made clear are too small and the total volume to be removed 24,800 m. The design requires basing blocks, the concrete heavy construction consisting of many piles of blocks and the committee I asked the Minister if they could perhaps say what the extra cost of building on the ground is.

And without notice that is understandable, but perhaps he could tell the House how. In a later amendment I will say why the qualities of a small park on a bed heritage site should not be in anyway objectified. The was not risked damaging what is remarkable to those that live and work in this neighbourhood. IBEC the Government to reconsider and seek another location which allows for better experience for visitors without the continued controversy of the current

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposal involved. I rise in support of amendment to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise in support of amendment to in that name of the Noble Lord prosit of Liverpool. As I said this encapsulates my concern and I intend to speak briefly. The Noble Lord to speak briefly. The Noble Lord broker during the debate on the Data Bill on 2 June referred back to some Bill on 2 June referred back to some pre-ministerial training administered in the days before he and colleagues entered Government, and colleagues entered Government, which included the words of former senior civil servant saying whatever senior civil servant saying whatever happens, it is never too late to avoid making a bad decision.

My avoid making a bad decision. My Lords, I believe this will, heavy with good intentions, is article with good intentions, is article with bad decisions, and I asked the Government to desist. When I hear of the format member of this House, not Williams, whose sensitivities on these issues is matched by great wisdom, seeing things such as the hardest question for this proposal to answer, I believe, is whether we are being lowered towards a grand gesture when the actual facts are so gesture when the actual facts are so We have a memorial in Hyde Park and a number of learning centres around the UK, but let it be a fitting one and let the learning centre be located in a space that is adequate to the scale of its subject which to the scale of its subject which this proposal is not.

Indeed, let us go for a world-class learning
18:17
18:17
18:17
Lord Moore of Etchingham Portrait Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I warmly endorsed the speech by the noble Baroness Blackstone and the right Reverend Prelate. I briefly invite your Lordships to make a comparison in order to understand how we might look at this issue. It's a comparison we can make with our own eyes when we travel in this part of London every day. Because we can walk past the Cenotaph, and when the First World War came to a conclusion, actually even before that, people thought very hard about how you should remember it.

And how you should pay the right tribute and get the right amount of information, to preserve it, memorials and so on. The Imperial War Museum was conceived before the war ended, 1917. I think the Cenotaph was erected as early as 1922, so people moved fast in those days when thinking about these matters. They fought very hard. One of the things that people like Roger Kipling were debating was what are we trying to say? They try to work it out very carefully before they set it.

I think we are doing the process backwards. What you have in the Cenotaph is a beautiful simplicity. Very carefully thought about. All it is a monument to the dead, all it says is "The glorious dead", it doesn't even say our glorious dead or the dead of the British Empire, just the glorious dead. Everybody who has walked past ever since has thought about that. And in the past when men wore hats they would always take it off as they passed it. At the same time with similar motives people thought about how you commemorate in a sense of learning, there you have the Imperial War Museum.

There's no reason to believe the commemorative memorial idea should physically go with the learning idea. In this case, for all sorts of reasons, it's actually very physical lay difficult as well. So I ask you to learn from that beautiful example and apply it to a situation and a subject equally important and equally tragic.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak briefly regarding
18:19
Lord Evans of Rainow Portrait Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak briefly regarding this amendment, and I pay tribute to the noble Earl Russell. I wasn't aware of your grandfather but I've made a note that I'm certainly going made a note that I'm certainly going to purchase that book, the scourge of the swastika. A memorial without a learning centre would fail to meet the objectives of the Prime Minister's commission of 10 years ago. In 2015 the report promised for us to remember. As was mentioned earlier, Lord Cameron said it is the right design in the right place, at the right time.

That was the Prime Minister in 2015. The Prime Minister in 2017 agreed, Theresa May. Subsequent Prime Minister's in 2019 and 2024, Conservative and Labour manifestoes had this proposal in them. So the other place has voted on this and it has now come to this House, this House is a revising chamber. Some of these amendments may well be well-intentioned, but listening to some of them they are meant to wreck this bill. Because a memorial without the learning centre would not work.

Without an integral learning centre the memorial lacks contents -- context. We want to encourage millions of visitors to learn about the Holocaust and its significance. Lord Moore mentioned how we came about for the Cenotaph, and as we walked past we see the glorious dead, and those that served in the first and Second World War is would know about that. We are talking about the future here. In generations to come our children, grandchildren and great- grandchildren do need to be educated on what happened.

That is the whole point of having this centre. It's fanciful to suggest a learning centre could be placed elsewhere without losing this opportunity for visitors to learn. Abandoning the proposal proposed for Victoria Tower Gardens means setting the program back many years. Perhaps that is the intent of this bill. It is wholly unrealistic to imagine that a new site in any location remotely suitable would gather universal support. We would at best spend many more years listening to objections and facing objection from a new set of voices.

I'm sorry to say that, but that's the feeling I have. The government is right to bring this to the House as previous governments have. I will be supporting this clause.
18:22
Lord Pickles Portrait Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
-
I've asked two questions which I always find really are taking. The first one is, am I Jewish? And if I'm not Jewish, why am I interested in this? The second is what got you interested in the Holocaust. I can tell you, at 10 years old, 1962, my grandfather had -- as a birthday present got me a copy of the scourge of the swastika. Which I read from cover to cover and put the living daylights into me. I've always been fascinated by it.

I'm really sorry I haven't made the connection, it's a wonderful contribution not just to this countries history but also this countries literature. I think I would like to deal with this question... A really important point about the loss of the Jewish Museum. I thought it was a really good museum. I'm sure she was a regular visitor, and I was a regular visitor. And I think without going into detail there were many problems there, but you can count me in for any revival of the Jewish Museum.

Because I think it's important. It fulfils a role that the noble Lord referred to in his excellent column when he talked about the importance of the Poland museum. The Poland museum in Warsaw is a wonderful museum, and it's about Polish life. It's about an understanding of the importance of jewellery in Poland. The heart was ripped out of Poland by the Holocaust, and Poland has simply not recovered. But I hope you won't mind, I hope noble Lords won't mind me reminding them that the Poland museum is subterranean.

I hope noble Lords won't mind me reminding them that the size of the Holocaust section of the Poland museum is just fractionally larger than the museum proposed -- the learning centre proposed in Victoria Tower Gardens. I hope noble members will not be too upset if I remind them that the Berlin museum to the Holocaust, that goes with that interesting memorial, is subterranean. And I hope they won't mind me reminding them it is considerably smaller than the learning centre.

That the Washington Museum part of it is subterranean, and that when that museum decided to look, as we intend to look at our country to their country during the Holocaust, the size of their exhibit is smaller than ours. This museum is not exceptionally small. If you look across the world by and large it meets the numbers. And we have to make clear, we have the full support of the Imperial War Museum. To build it here.

We have on the foundation people from the museum in Washington, from the 9/11 Museum, in New York. We have people that represent the Imperial War Museum. And also forgive me, I have learned throughout this debate what a distinguished historian is. A distinguished historian is one that agrees with you. We have a holistic people on our academic board who are very distinguished Holocaust historians, who support the memorial. If we were now to say let's just build a memorial, let's find a learning centre elsewhere, it would be a big missed opportunity.

Because we are living in a post- Holocaust world, we have just seen the election of a Polish President who has allegations against him of being a Holocaust denier. We can't wait. This would be an important global institution. And we should not throw it away. And if you will forgive me, I just want to quote to small paragraphs from letters we have received from the Holocaust education trust. And it's from our friend who is the sister of the late Sir Brian.

She said "I was liberated in Bergen by the exceptional British Army in 1945, and London has been my home for most of my life. It feels entirely fitting that a memorial should stand in this country that so many survivors are grateful to and have called their home. My brother and fellow survivor Sir Ben hell can't campaign passionately for this memorial. It saddens me he did not live to see it come to pass. My hope is I will be able to and turned -- attend the opening, ".

Karen Pollock said "More than 10 years ago the memorial project was first proposed, now is time to act. Many survivors still dream of being present at the opening. Tragically covers never had that opportunity -- others never had that opportunity". If we split them, if we don't go along with proposals, it would be decades or maybe never before it's built. That is something I think is unforgivable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to rise... My Lords, I wish to speak to this amendment. I haven't spoken in this amendment. I haven't spoken in this debate yet. I've got a few facts
18:29
Lord Young of Norwood Green Portrait Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
-
-
debate yet. I've got a few facts about myself. I'm due, a secular Jew, but one of my cousins was lucky to survive in Rotterdam. Lucky to survive the Second World War. I've experienced a great deal of anti- Semitism in my time. Some of it through ignorance, some of it deliberate. I've looked at this carefully. I've listened to the comments that were made. And I was disappointed at Lord Russell of Liverpool. I read the book, the scourge of the swastika, I was 15 years old and it made an indelible impression upon me.

Actually he wrote another book, called Knights of bushido, about Japanese war crimes. Equally horrific. So I think I know a fair amount about this subject. I have visited the Washington memorial and it's a very impressive memorial. But to say that we are going to build, and I listened carefully to my noble friend Baroness Blackstone, I didn't quite follow the threads, we are going to build something on the top but we don't want to damage the gardens. I don't want to particularly damage the gardens, but I think it is the right place not just for a memorial but a learning centre as well and I ask you to think about if we are really going to go through something that is just a memorial and not take the opportunity at the same time to educate people, what a huge wasted opportunity that will be.

And it is not about my generation. We understand it, we know that anti- Semitism is a continuing problem. We know that polling in some parts of our population are unfortunate and people that still have significant numbers that are Holocaust deniers and another significant proportion believe that 9/11 was part of a Jewish conspiracy, so do not think this is a dead issue. It is not a dead issue at all, we have got an opportunity today, here, in this Parliament, to make a very important decision.

And I am proud to be associated with it. Some people said to me why are you supporting this? It has nothing to do with whether or not it is Lord Pickles and I could not help but I looked at someone else and I sold I can remember Wilfred pickles and I tell you what is on the table today, really importantly, it is not just a memorial but a learning centre and we have got some of the best civil engineers in the world.

Don't tell me we cannot build something that is complex. Of course we can. There is no doubt of that in my mind we can make it historic, a tribute to the skill and quality of British construction. And I hope the House construction. And I hope the House here today is going to stay in what is a really important decision and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make a statement, to the next generation. Can I clarify some points. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I clarify some points. I think many people are speaking as though there are no learning centres though there are no learning centres in this country, we have at least half a dozen and 21 learning centres and they do not seem to have had and they do not seem to have had much effect. There has never been an impact assessment. And as for yet another one with an extremely narrow another one with an extremely narrow remit about elements of the British reaction or knowledge of the
18:33
18:34
18:34
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
things like Churchill and whether the camps should have been warned, so unless you are pretty knowledgeable at first, it would not knowledgeable at first, it would not teach you anything stop and the curator at his presentation the other day was unable to say what was other day was unable to say what was going to be learned. He was unable going to be learned. He was unable to say whether it was going to combat anti-Semitism and I think he said it would not. And Alaska will said it would not.

And Alaska will fish, the great survivor that played the cello at Auschwitz appeared the cello at Auschwitz appeared before the Commons select in her wheelchair. She thumped the table wheelchair. She thumped the table and she said it is rubbish. What do you think people are going to learn you think people are going to learn after 80 years? That we should not kill each other? Is that all you have to offer? And, in fact, the content, as proposed, is a sort of tribute to British greatness, British democracy, a kind of absolution, we are not like that, but I will come back to that.

The other thing that should be clarified is this an army of letters that your Noble Lord chips have received. Note that nearly all of them come from individuals, even the President of the Board of Trade has not been able to bring himself to put it to a vote because it would very likely be split. As to the others that do not seem to know the British scene or know-how any other memorials we already have, and in fact the reason why that memorials are located is because the particular design is not necessarily a memorial and what we're going to see with 26 standing in the air, of course it has got to have a learning centre somewhere, otherwise people will just say what on earth is this and pass on by.

Also, the model that has been shown to your lordship and is in the world Gallery is misleading for so it has little figures climbing on the mound, does not show you the security that will be necessary or the fences and all the other paraphernalia that are going to have to accompany it and it seems to put that memorial in the wrong place but we will come to that. Now, what we are talking about tonight is largely a moral and historical issue. If ever there was an issue that merited a Free vote, it is this one also indeed, noble Lords know full well that if they have to be whipped to support this project, then there is something gravely wrong with it.

If it was a good project, there would be no problem at all. The other thing you have been told is that no Holocaust Memorial is ever built without controversy. This is quite wrong. As is the notion that has been put about in the project in the Labour manifesto, it was not. The Imperial War Museum, the National Centre in Europe, that memorials in Swanage, Huddersfield, many others, are all built without opposition stop it is only when it is clearly in the wrong place, offering no education or commemoration, like Hyde Park and this one that there is opposition stop suspect that many noble Lords have not visited the others, nor learn from the 21 learning centres already existing because the debate always seems to assume there was nothing until this project started, and if it does not come about, there will always be nothing, but that is simply not the case.

There are more than 300 memorials and museums around the world, and as they go up, as they are built, so the anti-Semitism rises. The amendment of building in Victoria Tower Gardens overground is perhaps the most sensible and achievable one of all. In a nutshell, this amendment says if you are in a hole, stop digging. If the Government wants to get a memorial out quickly without dissent, without costs, and all the other obstacles, the answer is to build a war memorial, a proper one, that speaks to you, that says something to you.

And putting a learning centre close by. It is the building underground that is causing all the trouble. The Polish museum that I have been to in Warsaw has basements, basically, it is a building that is overground next to an evocative Warsaw ghetto memorial. But building here means excavation of the depth of two stories with a consequent mound disposing the soil which, incidentally, is not depicted in the model. There are flood and fire risks that we will come to.

And the underground nature is not a virtue in itself, it only came about because the site was selected without proper research and it is too small for what is needed. The Noble Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton will know this because he was Prime Minister at the time, which he accepted in his Holocaust commission report of 2015 had been abandoned. And those that were involved in that cannot be happy with the way it has been cut down now and all they can do is put a brave face on it and try to justify that.

The present underground plant is close to the dock and is entered by a slope with no considerations seeming to be given and we all know that when architects put up memorials there are trees and people strolling around and they never factor in rain going down the slope. The idea was that there should be a place for contemplation, commemoration, and prayer, but it is too cramped. If you put a decent learning centre somewhere else, it would not need planning permission with this bill.

It would enable people who want to go to go. It would not do the harm that it is going to do. As I said, the designers track record is not a good one and his current plan has not been able to proceed. You conceive it online. Somebody mentioned HS2 first of quite right, because this plan has been rated by the National commission thrice as undeliverable. They put it in the same category as he HS2 and not for planning reasons.

As a compromise, we have been offering for years a memorial quickly, a learning centre with more spacious accommodation in Westminster and that will achieve basic 2015 recommendations which was for a campus with offices for all of the Holocaust organisations and the lecture hall. What we have been presented with is a failure on every score. It will not be able attraction. Why should it be? Will it be an attraction at all? It must be a matter of regret for the entire nation for those responsible for advancing this project to continue with manifesting the plan on such a controversial and inappropriate site.

Of course it has given rise to intense opposition from local residents, and from all those that have ambitions in relation to education about US history. As the late and much lamented former Chief Rabbi, about sex, said, the Holocaust must be studied in context. And that is why the Poland museum is so good. The actual size of the Holocaust element in it is irrelevant. It is in the context of more than 1,000 years of history of development. People know why they were there, what happened, and what happened afterwards, which is important.

Instead of accepting the compromise, they insist on imposing a memorial that is essentially a tourist attraction with a visitor centre attached, a convenient stop for anyone in Westminster who wants a cafe and a toilet spot. It also shows the disregard for the very distinguished Jewish opponents and I include myself. There are historians, professionals, writers, lawyers, journalists, the creative community, who have all come out and said this is not good enough for our family. Not good enough to teach people.

Not good enough for this country. The most damaging of all is the interference with R&R and the rebuild or the repair of Victoria to, but I will come to that later. The plan to build underground will come back to haunt the parliamentary authorities. There are many supporters who seem to be concerned with any memorial rather than a good memorial. It is understood that the Government is anxious to shake off allegations of anti-Semitism that were investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

It is not anti-Semitic to oppose this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

culture and want to oppose it. I did not want to impose that. And I remind the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I remind the noble Baroness that she has spoken for 10 minutes now and request that she could not bring her reports to an end and a bring her reports to an end and a lot of these arguments are rehearsed then.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then. I will conclude by saying that this needs a complete rethink. And now is the chance for your Lordships to rescue the proposal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to rescue the proposal. I have not previously spoken in the debates on this bill. And I had not expected to speak today. But I not expected to speak today. But I wish to say a few words in support of the observations made by my Noble Friend. My grandmother was killed in Friend. My grandmother was killed in Auschwitz. I was partly brought up by an ant who survived Auschwitz, but had actually been in the gas chamber on two occasions.

So, like others who have spoken this afternoon, I have some vested interest in this subject. I have some other experience which may be relevant. For many years, I practised as a planning case. I am very familiar with the range of objections that are likely to be put forward, and are very often put forward. To any proposal. People would say I absolutely support the principle of this development, but it is in the wrong place. They would say, I absolutely support the principle of this development, but it is the wrong design.

There would say, I would absolutely support the principle of this development, but it is going to cost too much. And I can predict one thing to your Lordships : that whatever alternative proposal was advanced, to the proposal that is in this bill, there would be those who would come forward with that kind of objection. My Lords, this proposal has been before Parliament for My noble friend who spoke from the frontbench at the conclusion of our debate on the previous amendment recited a long list of those organisations dedicated to the commemoration of the Holocaust.

Who support this proposal. Is your Lordships House going to go against them? I very much hope not. them? I very much hope not.
18:46
18:47
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Portrait Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
persons, -- my father worked with displaced persons, therefore growing up albeit from a very different background to Lord Howard. I think those of us who were brought up in those of us who were brought up in that childhood have commemorated almost everyday of our life what happened, and for those of us who believed in European Union it grew from the same basis. The never from the same basis. The never again. This is a big part of my life.

So I would only say that the desire for commemoration does not desire for commemoration does not mean that one has to support a particular issue here and with the particular issue here and with the learning centre. I thought the reference to the Cenotaph was very reference to the Cenotaph was very moving, because the other thing when one walks through the park and those of us who work in Millbank use it a lot is of course to stop at the burghers of Calais.

A -- I think I was right in saying that the only time to come to London was to discuss the choosing of the Bergen of Calais, done with care and he took the story he was trying to portray their full albeit a much older story. Yes, a commemoration, a statue or equivalent, but the idea of millions of people and how we will deal with the traffic, I think we will deal with that in a later amendment, before we deal with that let us be able to say yes to a commemoration.

But that doesn't mean to say we have to take over the whole of that garden and put in actually a very small learning centre with all the disadvantages that come with that.
18:48
Baroness Altmann Portrait Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I declare my interest on the chief rabbinate trust, and as someone whose family was mostly wiped out by the Holocaust and whose parents escaped and came here, and have always been hugely grateful to the protection of this country. I am deeply saddened at the controversy created by this proposed memorial and learning centre. To support the promise to remember. Which I have always believed is so important, and can be so valuable. I would like to put on record my gratitude for the support for this important project, from both the previous government and the current government.

And the work put into this project by so many Ministers, noble Lords and people who, as we have heard, have no direct interest, are not Jewish themselves. We are a tiny minority, I recognise that, of the population. But the work that has gone into this by so many is something that I am most grateful for. I would also like to say that I understand the many objections and concerns that have been raised by noble Lords. And I know they are deeply and passionately held, I don't believe they stem from anti-Semitism in anyway.

But this amendment would undermine the vision and purpose of this project. Both the memorial and the learning centre are essential, and part of what this original project envisages. Without learning centre I don't believe it would achieve the aims. Noble Lords may or may not like the design, and I have enormous respect and admiration for the noble Lord Russell, for Baroness Blackstone and noble Lady Baroness Deech, all of whom I know have good intentions here. But the Berlin museum is underground, and actually that subterranean environment contributes to the power in some way of the horrors portrayed.

Not everyone will agree, but that is how it struck me. All the elements outlined by the noble Lady Blackstone, I believe, can and will be incorporated into the learning centre. And they are all so important, she is absolutely right. But the bottom line is that at this stage, after so many years of such regrettably it controversy, I sincerely believe that if this project as proposed, with the support of both the current government and the opposition, does not go ahead now there will be no memorial, no new visitor or education centre to explain what has happened.

And in the context of Parliament, in the context of democracy and of moral and historical issues, I actually do believe that the siting next to Parliament is important. And I do hope noble Lords will be able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accept this now. If I may very briefly intervene,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may very briefly intervene, I hate to disagree with Lord Howard not least because I have a great not least because I have a great respect for him, but I was made to speak on this by listening to Lord
18:53
Lord Robathan Portrait Lord Robathan (Conservative)
-
-
speak on this by listening to Lord Russell who spoke extremely well. And I also have read the scourge of the swastika, appalled at what I read when I was about 15 or 16. It is appalling. Yesterday I went to lunch purely coincidentally there was a man who told me his mother had been on the last train to Auschwitz. His father was killed on the eastern front, the mother who was Jewish put the girl into a convent, she was only found in the last few weeks of the war.

Luckily she survived. The point of that is it's not just Lord Eccles, it's not just everybody else in this chamber, but people are still alive who saw the awful things that happened in the Second World War. We need to remember that. I know most people, many people in this room will have gone to Jerusalem to see the shocking display, certainly to me. I've also been to Poland, I went courtesy of the Holocaust trust, I thank them for it.

It was literally tearjerking. My point is, by the way I will point out to Lord Pickles he mentioned the underground Polish memorial, it obviously hasn't had much of an effect on the Polish President who may have anti-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Holocaust believes, is that right? I can recall when I arranged the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can recall when I arranged the meeting with the curator of the meeting with the curator of the Poland museum, I arranged to meet him in Milan. He was frightened to leave the museum because the then government, the same party of the new President, if he left the museum new President, if he left the museum he was going to sack. My noble friend needs to understand is there is a battle going on about Holocaust Memorial. If we are to preserve Memorial.

If we are to preserve things like the Poland museum, we need to preserve the truth and this will be an important part of it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be an important part of it. I agree with him 100% about preserving the truth, I don't think the truth is necessarily preserved the truth is necessarily preserved by this learning centre. We need something a lot better, frankly. It was said in 2015 the Imperial War Museum wanted the learning centre there. And I did go round the galleries of the Imperial War Museum, of the Holocaust, and that also is very impressive. We can enhance that. I'm not a planner, I wouldn't object to that, but I do wouldn't object to that, but I do think...

I do think the Imperial War Museum has space, we can enhance the view and have an impressive learning centre. We need to have an impressive learning centre for this appalling crime against humanity. And I'm afraid to backup what Lord Russell was saying, this proposal is not an impressive centre.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is reciprocally about the underground nature of this about the underground nature of this project. -- Specifically. I have three brief questions I would like three brief questions I would like to put to the Minister in the Hopi can answer them when he rises to can answer them when he rises to address the House. The first is, and notwithstanding the passion with notwithstanding the passion with which my noble friend Lord Pickles spoke this evening, and the dedication I'm sure we all admire dedication I'm sure we all admire which he has shown to this project for many years, he told us about for many years, he told us about other memorials which are either wholly or partially subterranean.

wholly or partially subterranean. But no one has explained, no one has given any positive reason why it is a good idea to put a memorial underground. If we are proud to direct this memorial, to invest money in it and care about it, why would we hide it away underground instead of putting it somewhere where it can be properly admired and seen. When I say it, I have two divide this into two parts. On the one hand we have the learning centre, on the other hand we have the memorial.

I am sure most people who are paying attention to this debate today don't know what we are talking about. They think we are debating whether there should be a memorial or not, we are not. We are debating whether there should be a learning centre or not. There is no one who is against a memorial. My first question is, what is good about putting a learning centre underground rather than overground? Which is so much easier and more accessible for children and old people et cetera.

My second question is, having looked at the plans for is, having looked at the plans for this project, where do people go to briefly pay their respects to those who died in the Holocaust? We are told that people coming to visit this memorial will come by bus, go through security and then go down been to the Holocaust Memorial. When I fast knew about this project what I imagined was a beautiful statue. A statue in between the burghers of Calais and the Buxton Memorial, which would provide, as Lord Finkelstein movingly said in one of the sessions of the committee on this bill, that would provide a place where we would be celebrating many occasions in world history where good has overcome evil.

So why not have a beautiful memorial of that kind, which can be easily visited, easily seen, easily admired, and won't cause any problems and put the learning centre somewhere else. No one has explained why that can't be done. And my third question to the Minister is a very simple and practical one. Where is that model that was here in the Royal Gallery last week? Again, many noble Lords will not have seen it, many noble Lords will not have read the full report which describes If the Minister and his colleagues are proud of this project, why is the model not there right now for us all to go out and look at to be sure if we consider it to be the right kind in the right place or not? It kind in the right place or not? It must have taken a lot of money to make that model and it is not here today.

That says something about the confidence that the Minister and promoters have in the project they are asking us to support. are asking us to support.
19:01
19:02
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
too small to tell such a huge story. too small to tell such a huge story. too small to tell such a huge story. What we have is a site that is too small for the sure and a project to small for the sure and a project to big. The learning centre is what big. The learning centre is what really matters. It is not nearly as really matters. It is not nearly as good as others. My father was an army doctor, but never told us army doctor, but never told us anything about it so shocked by what he saw.

I only saw about his role he saw. I only saw about his role there. I think he would have said what matters most of all is education. You need libraries, education. You need libraries, lecture theatres, computer desks, and I think a tourist exhibit in the gardens does not match up to what we are looking for from an education

**** Possible New Speaker ****

centre. I would like to address directly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to address directly the question that my noble friend the question that my noble friend posed on Waikoloa should is important and why it is the right important and why it is the right important and why it is the right location. I think this is an location. I think this is an important and measured debate and it important and measured debate and it is an honour to contribute to it. I have been on the Holocaust Memorial foundation for a decade, which is my only lived experience of this, but what I have learned in that decade
19:03
Baroness Harding of Winscombe Portrait Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Conservative)
-
-
what I have learned in that decade from sitting alongside real experts on Holocaust education is that it is so important that we feel this as well as we learn facts. Leaders of all Holocaust educational organisations believe that this is the right place, the right size, and the right way to do this as a National Mall. They know that more than I do and I have watched them at work over the last decade and we should respect them. As Lord Howard said earlier.

It would not be a tribute to British greatness. Quite the opposite. It would ask us to think clearly about Britain's role in the Holocaust, and there are some things we can be proud of, but I would argue that tempting though it is to believe that this is like the Cenotaph, that we would walk past and fear the pain of the victims and their families, the most difficult part of Holocaust education is not to think it could be my family, the most difficult part of Holocaust education is to ask if it could have been a perpetrator.

That is a lesson that could not be more important today and the sad thing is every week I have been on the foundation, it is felt more important that we ask people to think that and that is why Kolo to the learning centre in the shadow of the mother of all parliaments where so many people for liberty and freedom at the right place and right time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was not going to rise in support... In response to this support... In response to this amendment, but I was struck by the amendment, but I was struck by the reference to the site in Jerusalem.
19:06
Baroness Berger Portrait Baroness Berger (Labour)
-
-
reference to the site in Jerusalem. I did some investigation to understand why that memorial is underground and to reflect it on the experience of the architect and is primarily underground to promote an emotional experience for visitors and we had the visit on more than two dozen occasions. The architect designed the museum representing the rupture in Jewish history caused by the Holocaust and visitors descended to the earth moving through dark galleries that moved it into one of history's darkest chapters.

I share that because there is good reason why it is underground. Noble Lords can read about it if they would like to understand more, but having visited, it is part of the experience and why I will vote against it if it goes to a vote.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will reinstate as I did at Committee that this bill is a Free Committee that this bill is a Free vote and we feel it is a conscience issue. I make my remarks about my issue. I make my remarks about my own opinions and I feel very strongly about this. I strongly strongly about this. I strongly support the right and honourable decision of Lord Cameron that we decision of Lord Cameron that we should have a national, national should have a national, national Holocaust memorial, and a national Holocaust learning centre.

I also Holocaust learning centre. I also agree it needs to be done right and it needs to be done soon. I feel it needs to be done soon. I feel that the choices the government made that the choices the government made about how to do it are not fitting for the seriousness and importance of the issue. I do feel that it is
19:08
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
quite possible for us to have a fitting, appropriate and high- fitting, appropriate and high- quality memorial in the park. After all, if we can have a memorial to all, if we can have a memorial to those who voluntarily offer themselves to save their city, can we not remember 6 million Jews who we not remember 6 million Jews who did not voluntarily die at the hands did not voluntarily die at the hands of the Nazis? It should be a of the Nazis? It should be a compelling place.

It should be somewhere we can contemplate the somewhere we can contemplate the horror of the Holocaust, where we can remember and pray for the dead, not only the millions who died, but also the other communities that suffered at the hands of the Nazis. The Romani people, the homosexual people, those with physical and mental disability who suffered at the hands of the Nazis. We also need somewhere we can celebrate those who resisted the Nazis and those who survived the Nazis with very great courage and celebrate the lives they have subsequently made in this country and around the world.

The families they have grown and the contribution they have made to our society and societies across the world. That is the memorial I would like to see Diane happy to see it near to Parliament, but I would like to see it soon. The problem arises with the learning centre. We all remember and it is very important that we make sure future generations remember. I say it with great respect to all members of the House who suffered the pain and loss of losing members of their family to the Holocaust.

I a lucky person who did not suffer that pain and loss so I hesitate to speak, but I feel passionately that this matter is so important that we must do it right. The main thing about remembering is we instill in future generations the facts of what happens if people turn a blind eye to evil and that is what happened in Nazi Germany and that must never happen again. I would like to see compelling, informative, learning centre in a place that is adequate to the importance of the nature of the issue we are trying to nature of the issue we are trying to teach future generations about.

I support this amendment and other amendments that raise the issues that arise specifically because of the way the government chose to take this idea forward. I would say to Lord Howard for whom I have great respect and to his family and experience, one of the reasons this took so long to go through Parliament is it is not right. Over the years, people have realised it is not right and we want to do it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right. Let us please do it right. I promise not to detain you long,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I promise not to detain you long, but I wanted to come back to the exchange from Lord Pickles and Lord
19:11
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
exchange from Lord Pickles and Lord Robathan. The decision was made that there is anti-Semitism in the ruling party and we have discussed this about how the Holocaust is memorialised in Warsaw. There is a memorial on the site of the ghetto. That is the one where Billy Brant drops to his knees. There is the history of the Jewish people museum that was opened in 2013 by the leader of the Law and Justice Party who celebrated panic in the Presidential Palace, the first Polish person to celebrate.

The only country that was in the Second World War from the beginning to the end. An important ally. We should not leave unchallenged that implication on the wider issue of the amendment I think it is difficult for any person not to be convinced by the speeches of Baroness Deech, Lord Russell and Lord Moore of Etchingham. I can only say I would have come at this in favour of the memorial simply if I put my motives under the microscope, but if I am honest it is because I imagine those I would not like would be on the other side.

The more I listen to the arguments, the harder it is to avoid the conclusion that if it was not a whipped photo, it would not get through the chamber. That is precisely because as an unelected chamber, in order to look at the radicalism of the other House, we look on headlines and do the right thing regardless of how it is summarised or misrepresented.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be brief. This is report

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be brief. This is report stage and I rise to respond to amendment to the name of Lord Russell of Liverpool. We are concerned that the amendment would concerned that the amendment would undermine the current plan for the construction of the memorial and learning centre preventing its
19:14
19:14
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Blackstone, Baroness Deech, for their amendment. It has been a very long, lengthy, powerful debate with strength of feeling, but I am not sure he had the memo as he pontificated having it at the stage of the speech. I remind the House the scope of the bill, clauses, the first gives the Secretary of State power to pay for the cost of the project, and the second clause which applies, the London County act, so the project can be built in the relevant area.

Many points were made that I will not address now because I'm sure it will go through later stages in the amendments coming. The amendment the noble Lord and Baronesses put through is the construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The government is committed to the proposed design and the effect of the amendment would of course kill off that design. Any new design would be acquired in reducing uncertainty in many years of further delay and additional cost of the project.

The amendment would also certainly mean a learning centre could not be at the Victoria Tower Gardens and that would mean that millions of visitors observing the memorial would have no immediate There are many excellent institutions where visitors can learn about the Holocaust but we should not pretend that all the many thousands of people would be equally likely to make an additional journey to the Imperial War Museum. If we abandon the learning centre we are giving up the opportunity to help many hundreds of thousands, or indeed millions of people in the decades to come from learning the facts of the Holocaust and its significant for Britain in the modern world.

I have listened carefully to the practical objections raised against the proposed underground learning centre. Let me say a few points in response. First, in relation to size. Our proposal includes exhibition space of more than 1,300 1,300 m. That is more than adequate for an engaging and comprehensive exhibition using state-of-the-art digital and audiovisual media. Indeed, it is similar to the size of the Holocaust galleries that Imperial War Museum. At Victoria Tower Gardens, visitors will be able to learn about the long history of anti-Semitism, to explore the response of the British Government and British public to the emergence of the Nazis and to see the brutal reality of the Nazi attempt to eliminate the Jewish people.

As well as housing the exhibition it will provide spaces for quiet contemplation, reflection and prayer, a first rate lecture facility and ample room for large gatherings. Second, the risk of flooding. There are a great many basements in modern England, modern London, including many that are so close to the river, as this one post. Of course it presents a construction challenge but one that is far from the vault. The greatest care will be taken with design and construction and will be for compliance with all relevant building standards.

Then regarding the means of escape from fire, flood or other disaster, I must assure noble Lords that these risks have been fully considered as a design has developed. There will be measures to reduce the risks as well as design features including secondary means of escape to mitigate the consequences of any incidents that occur. It would be inconceivable that any modern building could achieve planning consent without proper consideration consent without proper consideration of these risks and suitable provision in -- Inc.

Indeed the risk of flooding was looked at in great detail at the public enquiry as part of the statutory planning process. And the planning expectant noted that the chances of reaching flooding would be promoted and the development would be in accordance with national, regional and local policy relating to flood risk. The Planning Inspectorate report also stated that no development would be able to take place without a flood risk evacuation plan under fire evacuation plan being approved. Any future planning consent is likely to include the same requirements.

The model was mentioned a few times, in particular the noble Baroness Lady Deech talked in relation to drainage. But the noble Baroness was invited to speak to the architect who mustered -- who was stood alongside and he could have expand about this. The model is accurate and it shows the security pavilion, the fencing and the Vauxhall Memorial Hall carefully to scale. I note that the noble Lord's explanation of the intent of this amendment so refers to possible interference with the restoration and renewal programme.

There is a separate and dealing with that program so I will talk to that point will become to the relevant amendment. And just directly to the questions asked by the noble Baroness Lady Laing, the first question, why underground? That it can be with the memorial, we don't want to build an overground learning centre. We do want the centre to beat next to the more real. Question two, where can people pay respects? The courtyard in front of the memorial is likely to be the place where people can choose for contemplation.

Expect to create space within the learning centre contemplation and reflection. The third question, like the model has gone back to the architects. We were given permission by the House authorities only four days. Finally, regarding costs. The cost estimates that have been published are based...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was very interested to see this model and the model announced. The model and the model announced. The other Monday. I forgot failed to suit on the Monday. I went straight suit on the Monday. I went straight to the room on the Tuesday and it had gone. And it's therefore rather had gone. And it's therefore rather longer, rather short a visit than the four days that my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister has just mentioned. I thank the Minister for directly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for directly answering my question. Supplementary question. Can the model be brought question. Can the model be brought back for noble Lords to look at again? It was a very valuable

**** Possible New Speaker ****

experience. The question is subject to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is subject to the House authorities, we broke the model but I emailed, personally, every member of the House of Lords to invite people to visit the models and ice to belated to 4 days they will be there, we have a historian on site, security experts, architects. I don't know what else I could have done more to engage with the noble Lords. What I do have, I knew the question would come so I took a picture of the model and I will show you whenever I get the chance.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful, but why is it not here today? Today is the day that here today? Today is the day that noble Lords are considering this extremely important issue so why was it here last week and not today?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I emailed every member of the Lord and said where it would be. I Lord and said where it would be. I don't think anybody could in accuse me of lack of engagement. I took a me of lack of engagement. I took a very accurate picture so I can talk you through it after this debate you through it after this debate finishes. I have got to make progress. I want to say to my noble friend who asked in particular in friend who asked in particular in relation to costs of underground learning centre versus overground.

The overground will be in a political question so we have given the cost for the whole project. -- Will be a hypothetical question. There are uncertainties. That is why our approach includes an appropriate level of contingency when it comes to costs. It would be wrong to suggest that the cost estimates have somehow failed to account of an underground construction. The Holocaust commission recognised more than the 10 years ago that a learning centre should be colocated with a Holocaust memorial. Placing that memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens gives us an opportunity to deepen the understanding of many means of people from millions of people from Britain and overseas about the facts of the Holocaust.

I want to touch upon one final point before I conclude. The noble Lord mentioned Washington. As many other Lord Stewart. I was on the phone this morning, in the early hours of the morning, to the International first director, the Washington resume and memorial. While that was the special thing is that he was the person that took me, when I visited Washington memorial, it was a very moving and touching experience. I want to give you something which we can relate to today.

The proposal to create a Holocaust memorial museum was announced in 1979 yet the memorial did not open until 1993, in Washington. The site chosen in Washington, DC generated considerable position including points like it would lead to anti- Semitism because Jews would be seen as being given privileged status injustices in US history were more deserving of memorials. It would be used to whitewash US responses to the Holocaust or not to do enough to celebrate US responses. Another reason was the Holocaust was not relevant to American history.

Another reason was it was the right idea at the wrong place. Something we have heard today. By 1987, the final architectural design was agreed but criticism and demands continued. The memorial was opened by President Clinton in 1993. As the noble Lord mentioned, as my friend but a poor Shapiro from the US mentioned to me this morning, this month they will welcome 50th million visitor -- my friend Paul Shapiro. I respectfully ask the noble Lord to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw his amendment. He has spoken eloquently about learning lessons. My question
19:26
19:26
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
point and let me be clear. Unfortunately, by building Holocaust memorial, it doesn't get rid of anti-Semitism. That is a reminder for all about, not just government. We should all be more, that means education and that is why the promised has promised to make sure Holocaust is taught right across every school. That is more work. I take this personally, I'm the Minister responsible for dealing with religious hate crime and every day, we have regular conversations with stakeholders in this particular area, and that is something unfortunately that is on the rise.

I speak to the colleagues from the Community Security Trust, Mark Gardner in particular, this is something we need to work collaboratively on together. Unfortunately it is a challenge. As colleagues have said there's a lot of distortion, misinformation, disinformation, online, religious hatred and all kinds of dissemination but we are doing more and we will continue to do more. But this Holocaust memorial, let me give you my personal experience, when I went in terms of school education, I was taught bit about it.

But it wasn't until I visited that memorial in Washington where I was personally moved and touched and realise the grave challenges and difficulties, horrific situation, that the 6 million men, women and children faced as well as other communities. And that is why I say to you, that the Holocaust memorial is an important opportunity for young people, schoolchildren when they visit Parliament, to visit and learn from what I would see as hugely life changing experience. This is a national memorial, this is why the supporting this and taking this through the House of Lords.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's typical to begin when you are responding to the Minister to thank all noble Lords who took part. I'm not sure I can
19:28
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
who took part. I'm not sure I can entirely do that because as I said at the beginning, we are in report stage and this group has taken rather longer than I hoped, or expected, and some noble Lords have strayed slightly wide of the amendment. I would say I'm particularly glad to hear that Doctor Paul Shapiro is still in his role, unlike the heads of many museums in the United States of America, the mortality rate does appear to be slightly alarming. The second thought I had was reacting to the comments of the noble Baroness for The Opposition, Baroness Scott of Bybrook.

I thought it was suitably ironic, and indeed I think many Jewish comedians would physically enjoy the irony of it, which was to describe what you are trying to do in this amendment as undermining the project, since it's about stopping actually barring underground. I do think that we are in a situation where there's a lot of emotion around and when there is a lot of emotion around, it is quite hard to focus on individual bits, to try and disaggregate them and to try and improve a project which clearly has run into a degree of difficulty.

I do think what this debate has made clear is that is a clear fissure between the aspiration of the moral foundation to co-locate and create the words of the various institutions, to create an important global institution -- the aspiration of that memorial foundation. I think that is a laudable intent. I do think what this debate has demonstrated is the reality of being able to deliver that on the basis of what is currently proposed is highly unlikely and somewhat impractical, much as I wish it would be possible I am not going to divide the House on this.

It is too important to divide the House on an issue like this, but the promoters of this project, I would like you to be honest and transparent with us about what this project is and is not. What it is now is materially different to the aspiration described in moving terms in the report from January 2015. I think being realistic about what we hope for then and where we are now would for then and where we are now would help the situation, perhaps be more respectful and help us manage our emotions around this issue, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is clause to withdrawn. The question is clause to stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think this is a convenient time to close proceeding to consider the to close proceeding to consider the Commons message on the data bill. We will not return to the Holocaust

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill before 20:31. The question is further consideration on report be consideration on report be adjourned. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". There will be a pause before I call
19:32
None Portrait Legislation: Data (Use and Access) Bill - consideration of Commons reasons and / or amendments Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

19:33
None Portrait Legislation: Data (Use and Access) Bill - consideration of Commons reasons and / or amendments Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour)
-

Members Members not Members not wishing Members not wishing to Members not wishing to stay Members not wishing to stay should remove themselves quietly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before we consider the Commons message on the data bill, we will remind the House again the remind the House again the importance of applying greater discipline. We have spent nearly 44 hours debating this bill as a whole, hours debating this bill as a whole, including 9.5 hours of ping-pong. 20% of the total time has been done on ping-pong alone. The remaining on ping-pong alone. The remaining issue is entirely known to peers and arguments rehearsed at length. I arguments rehearsed at length.

I asked noble Lords to minimise contributions and to keep brief and contributions and to keep brief and to the point. Please keep the House on track. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on track. Thank you. Consideration on Commons amendment, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitchurch. I beg to move the Commons amendments be now considered. The question is Commons amendments be considered. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Motion A, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move motion A that this House do not insist on Amendment 40 House do not insist on Amendment 40 9F and agree with the Commons in 9F and agree with the Commons in Amendment 49 P, Q, R, S, T in lieu. Amendment 49 P, Q, R, S, T in lieu. I will also speak to motion a1. The government has been clear throughout passage that we need to properly analyse the 11,500 consultation responses before we consider bringing forward legislative change bringing forward legislative change relating to AI and copyright.

For that reason, the amendments in lieu that reason, the amendments in lieu past by the other place are the same as the government amendments previously tabled in the House. I understand this is a source of disappointment to some noble Lords, but it is not fair to say as some have outside of the House that the government has in anyway been unclear about its intentions, misled or disrespected noble Lords. Turning to the motion today from Lord Berkeley of Knighton, I understand the noble Lords desire for a quick and effective solution.

I would like to thank Lord Berkeley for the productive and helpful meeting we had ahead of the debate this evening. I recognise that people have not been reassured entirely so far which is unfortunate. I want to give the House the same undertaking I gave him that we will work as hard as possible on this issue. I will reassure him that our plan will give
19:36
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
copyright holders as much protection copyright holders as much protection and support as possible including via transparency, enforcement and via transparency, enforcement and remuneration while not pre-empting the outcomes of the important, unnecessary processes set out and without prejudging any future without prejudging any future legislation. We want to ensure we uphold our gold standard copyright uphold our gold standard copyright regime while adapting to the new regime while adapting to the new challenges and I look forward to working with him as part of the Parliamentary working group on this issue.

In the meantime, I urge noble issue. In the meantime, I urge noble Lords to accept the motion and amendments in lieu. That is the best way to finally pass the data bill with comprises government made to with comprises government made to the issue to be addressed as quickly as possible. It will speed up work, make it more comprehensive and provide Parliament with a meaningful update within six months, a clock that only starts ticking when the bill passes. These steps increase engagement and accountability but without prejudging or pre-empting the consultation that so many took time to respond to.

In my most recent letter, I was pleased to share details of the cross-party Parliamentary working group that was established to support our next steps. I want to take this opportunity to reassure those on the relevant select committees that this group will not in any way what I know is their core work. The Minister confirmed we will meet with relevant Committee stage shares in both houses to discuss how this new group can complement existing mechanisms and I will provide an update to the House in the formation and progress of a working group as soon as I am able to.

Lastly I want to thank members of the House or their contributions to the debate on this bill during the passage and I look forward to sharing contributions on other matters when the bill passes. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is motion A The question is motion AB agreed to. Motion a1, Lord Berkeley of Knighton.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Knighton. I beg to move the motion and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the motion and I will leave out from 40 9F and I seek will leave out from 40 9F and I seek to disagree on Amendment 49 -- P, R,
19:38
Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-
-
to disagree on Amendment 49 -- P, R, S, T and propose 49 U on the previous amendments. noble friend Baroness Kidron has been an inspiring person during the passage of the bill and inspired me to take up the cudgels on behalf of our creative industries, writers, painters, filmmakers, filmmakers, composers, all of the aspects of life today is underwritten by somebody's good idea. I believe all sides of the House agree that they should benefit from and own that creativity.

Noble Lords who have written a novel, an article, created a picture, produced a film, will know what it is like to feel ownership of their ideas and how they would feel if they were maligned. I declare my interest as a composer. I do not want to divide the House, but with no meaningful response from the government I will have no choice. Both Baroness Kidron and I told the House that we did not want to collapse, to use the Ministers phrase, the data bill and we are not playing ping-pong with Amendment 49.

We are seeking to have a beneficial relationship with the government. After all, many of the ideas that are going in to AI were initially developed by the creative industries who, like the government want to be in the forefront of what into come -- what is to come in AI, things impossible to imagine, and I have no doubt will take our breath away. Peter Kyle in the other place said that he did not want to deal with these issues piecemeal.

We know from experience that not putting in protections at an earlier stage can lead to the tail wagging the dog. Streaming would be a perfect Streaming would be a perfect example. In exacting new law, surely there is a duty to build in transparency in order that we can safeguard copyright that the Minister Baroness Jones promised would remain in place. For the creatives themselves to be able to enforce copyright, they need to know who is using and possibly stealing their work.

If you don't know theft is occurring, you cannot do much about it. I'm going to take a slightly different tack today. My amendment amends the copyright design and patents act making copyright law enforceable by requiring AI firms to make a public statement about their use of copyright works and the means by which they access those works. However, AI firms would not be required to disclose the use of copyright work if they agreed a licence with the rights holder.

Seems only fair. This removes burdens from ethical AI firms while also acting as a strong incentive to abide by copyright law. The data used in AI training is now the key point of competitive advantage for AI firms. Far more so than an models algorithm or architecture. Therefore, the requirement gives AI firms a strong incentive to licence creative content and avoid public disclosure. For those AI firms that persist in theft of copyright, holders will be able to identify stolen content in the public disclosure and seek redress.

The copyright design and patents act is enforceable via private action. As a minister himself set out in the other place yesterday, this amendment intended to respect the financial primacy of the Commons. Minister Bryant without realising perhaps did away with Financial Privilege by saying correctly it was not the job of government to pursue breaches of copyright. That is why breaches of copyright. That is why the creators need transparency so that they can do the policing, that is not, as I agree, the government's job.

I say to the government which is after all led by a musician and how welcome it was to find a musician at the helm. I say to them the traffic is all one way, the essence of creativity as the PM must know whether on stage or at the concert hall, in development studios or the laboratory, is the ability to listen. To exchange ideas. That is how curiosity and intelligence come together to create a better world and one that respects the ideas of our creators, whether it be Elton John, and think how much he and his colleagues have brought in, or as he himself said, the young, impoverished artist sitting in a garage and bursting with the great ideas that just may be the next thing to take the world by storm.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was motion a be agreed to. Motion a1 has been moved. Insert the words as printed moved. Insert the words as printed on the Marshall list. The question is that motion a1 be agreed to. Be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to the amendment. The timing of the debate and the pretense that they are in any pretense that they are in any meaningful sense amendments in lieu is more process and nonsense and I will leave to other noble Lords to reflect on the stunning rebuke of Your Lordships' House that to the Your Lordships' House that to the Minister I say it is disrespectful to millions of people to bring back
19:45
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
to millions of people to bring back amendments as if they had not been resoundingly rejected already. I did explicitly leave the protection of property and livelihood of millions of British workers, the UAA I agency, and those in the government hands. Despite actively acknowledging that creative work is being stolen at scale, the government shows once again to government shows once again to remove transparency provisions we provided. Allowing the tech sector to continue to rob creative industries blind.

It is as cynical The government has refused every attempt for Lordship's House to provide emergency amendments. In favour of the so-called comprehensive solution. The Lords amendments were interim measures for an industry crying out for immediate help but the government has aggressively moved any and all projections. And I say to the government, actions speak louder than words and we have heard you. We heard the Secretary of State on Sunday talk about analogue copyright for the digital age.

We heard him say copyright was unfit for purpose and yesterday we heard Minister Bryant say the single most important compromise is going to be between the IIS sector and the creative industries. Ministers may have rowed back from the ill-fated opt out preference but they are unrepentant in their plans to weaken copyright law. Many noble Lords will recall a letter to the Prime Minister signed over by 400 UK creators, several dozen of whom have paid more in tax than Google or Amazon ever have.

And all of home have contributed to the UK economy as a cultural life of the nation. Tom Stoppard, Helen feline, Anthony Gormley, Sting, Paul McCartney, Shirley Bassey, Stuart Lepper, alongside institutions from Glyndebourne to the Sheffield Crucible and the edges of almost all our national newspapers. These are the creators and keepers of the national legacy and culture, but the Prime Minister did not spare time, not even a piece of headed notepaper, to reply. But instead, bounced their concerns back to that very department whose policy they were asking him to overrule.

Yet this weekend, the Prime Minister hosted Big Tech at Chequers and again for dinner at Downing Street last night, and let us be utterly clear. It is right that the government meet with all sorts of sector leaders, but not so much as a note for the icons of the UK's second-biggest industrial sector about the US tech billionaires and their proxies have access to ministers and Prime Minister on tap. Milos, during the course of our debate, I have spoken to AI academics, more than one noble Lords at, UKI companies and many who have all currently work at TikTok, matter, and others.

And unlike those that trust in a feeding frenzy around government, they are collectively incredulous that a country with such valuable data would give it away without a fight, as one said, at the weekend, of course we prefer it for free but if you don't protect your IP, we will take it just like we did the High Street. Warm words about being fair and balanced don't cut it. The government have stood in the way of attempts to stop one sector building their products on the labour of another without permission or payment.

And we will shortly see celebratory announcements of inward investment shiny new AI zones, data centres and several thousand jobs but my Lords, I am all for inward investment. I am all for new jobs, indeed, I am all in for AI. But when government says it is premature to give transparency to prevent our work being stolen, we are sacrificing UK businesses to invest our future and our tax receipts in AI, in advance of any economic assessment, and without any nemesis of where the money will go.

It is economically illiterate, morally and culturally indefensible. Milos, ping-pong has been a disaster, not because the government used its majority to overturn our modest amendments but because it has revealed a government entrapped by the shiny promises of tech lobbyists, and who now do not, cannot find a path out. If they cannot negotiate a compromise with noble Lords, what chance do they have with the global tech sector? Labour's pre-election manifesto promise to put creativity back in the centre of our lives but the EU reset did not sort out touring.

There's nothing in the Children's Wellbeing Bill about auto culture. Even though it contributes disproportionately to children's well-being. Nothing for freelance workers, real terms cuts for DCMS, and despite an explicit promise in their cultural manifesto to protect copyright, they are actively standing in the way of 2.4 million workers who are on their knees begging for transparency. My Lords, the sad, frustrated, angry does not even begin to express the contents of my inbox. Of the last 24 hours. And it is inexplicable to most that a Labour government would prevent creative workers getting a days wage for a day's labour.

Ministers take their wages, their holiday pay, buildup their pension pots but blind -- blithely walked through the lobby to give creators sick pay, to the most capitalised countries in history. Creators are not unwilling to bargain, not unwilling to licence, do want to work with IIAC, do want to be part of building the new future. They are not stupid but they are very worried that the government is. Because ministers appear not to understand our creative industries are valuable, valuable to their owners, valuable to the public purse, and valuable to the future of AI.

Ministers say the debate, but it have no legislative vehicle, to standby property and livelihood being stolen, better to have no timeline but the government's letter is the enemy of the creative industries best. Which was to have their elected representatives represent them. By ruthlessly standing in the way of transparency, the government has put the spotlight on their every move, every favour to the tech sector, every public rent, every nomination to the working group, every announcement of inward investment with a corresponding tax break, will be scrutinised by the UK businesses they have just thrown under the bus.

There were nuanced roots, clever at negotiating tactics, with UK innovators and creators at the helm, but the government made the extraordinary choice to be bullied by billionaires. And my Lords it will not stop at copyright. Those very same companies have their eyes on the NHS, on our security data, on education, on geospatial data. Finally, article 15, paragraph 1, C of the international of economic social rights of 1966 states, everyone has the right to protection of the moral material interests resulting from any scientifically literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

It is a basic universal entitlement, it does not need to be asserted or claimed. By overruling our protections, the government has set themselves unequivocally on a path of conflict with the law. It may not be Parliament but the courts to pull off this case and it may not be the tech companies but the government who are responsible for the loss of income to the individuals and companies that make up the creative industries, in whose way they have stood.

The Data Bill was not a constitutional crisis. Falsely proclaimed by ministers. It was an opportunity. The government have five times stupid in the way of that opportunity. -- Stood in the way. Actions speak louder than words and the sound of government actions is deafening. The government has been disingenuous and I commend the label Lord Berkeley for his speech, for putting forward his important and proportionate amendment. It was very inventive, I must admit. And for inventive, I must admit.

And for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

being on account in his defence. Macro being uncounted in his defence of the creative industries. It's an honour to follow the
19:55
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's an honour to follow the noble Baroness Kidron. I rise to support the local Lord's amendment support the local Lord's amendment but I declare an interest as per the register. It is with deep sadness that once again I'm speaking on this issue which continues to feel like a horror movie, a bedroom, where creators are being victimised. Just yesterday, a friend of mine in the advertising industry told me, his sector will be wiped out by AI in under five years.

Due to the loss of revenue. The same can be said of numerous other creative sectors. This is morally wrong. The government have promised not to introduce an exception without proof of an effective opt out mechanism. But there is no effective system available for this. Technologies are far from even being developed, and they do not even work conceptually. A transparency first approach to AI is essential. AI developers should be required to keep accurate records of all training materials that use, and web crawlers they employ.

This is critical for ensuring that creators can identify when their works have been used for AI training, potentially without their consent. Although everything needs to be said about this woeful and sad situation has already been eloquently and passionately expressed in this chamber, by noble Lords across the house, especially from the noble Baroness Kidron, for the sake of clarity, I would like to ask the following questions so that of thousands and thousands of people in the creative industries that they understand exactly where the government stands on this issue.

Taking their lifeblood. So can I ask the Minister, does the government accept that the creative industries need transparency and assurances before considering changes to copyright law? And if so, why not prioritise it now? Does the government believe it is acceptable to ignore theft in the creative industries when such an action would be unthinkable in sectors such as retail or manufacturing? Does the government agree that creatives are working people and that they should be fairly paid for their labour? If so, how does the government expect this to happen without transparency for AI training? How does the government intend to ensure that AI companies receive high-quality content to training on, if creativity is not being paid for by a company.

They are doing it for nothing. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response for these important questions. My Lords, it's an unprecedented four UK Government to weaken the intellectual property laws for British citizens and businesses to the advantage of large overseas corporations. Think about that. My Lords, this risk and demanding confidence in the whole creative sector which plays a crucial role in the government 's industrial strategy, and the UK's 'soft power'. So the whole of the industry urges and pleads with the government to prioritise the long- term sustainability of its British creative sectors over short-term benefits for IR developers.

And put an end to this unbelievable AI

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nightmare. -- AI developers. I've kept my contributions to a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've kept my contributions to a minimum and I will again but I have to voice my frustration and hearing the government here and in the other place oppose our course for transparency about IR training data transparency about IR training data by saying that Data Bill is not in by saying that Data Bill is not in place for it. And that they want to consider transparency of art training data as part of the consultation on copyright whilst consultation on copyright whilst also saying that transparency is " absolutely key to our ability to deliver a package that we would like to put together".

And yet refusing to accept any timetable for delivering this fundamental aspect. Until we have transparency over this use of data, data owners, copyright holders, cannot use existing copyright laws and bring cases around existing current violations of those laws. And the longer this situation goes on, the harder it will be fought those data owners, those copyright holders, to bring legal cases. There is an urgent need and opportunity in this bill. It seems completely inextricable to me that my government, as a subject here, our government, appears to be blocking this opportunity for all of us to have a means to use existing copyright law, and with no cogent explanation.

No attempt to compromise on this single vital point. Unless the government can give a reason why they don't want give a reason why they don't want people in this country to be able to use this country? Current copyright law against AI companies that have law against AI companies that have breached it, some transparency might say, then I will continue to support say, then I will continue to support amendments to try to give people, amendments to try to give people,
20:01
20:02
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)
-
-
is almost exactly 25 years since I joined this House, so perhaps been hit too long, but it I do not recall any occasion where ping-pong has any occasion where ping-pong has been done in the dinner break. I do sympathise with the complaint the Chief Whip made about the time Chief Whip made about the time spent. It must be more than eight hours spent on ping-pong. Precious hours spent on ping-pong. Precious parliamentary time. Anyone listening parliamentary time. Anyone listening to any of the speeches from Baroness Kidron could not fail to be Kidron could not fail to be impressed by the arguments and I impressed by the arguments and I find it extraordinary that the House of Commons, the other place, has been so tone deaf and to needed to been so tone deaf and to needed to those arguments.

-- tinned eared. I know my Chief Whip is there and understandably we are whipped on the issue of principle, that we do not challenge the House of Commons over and over again, but that depends on the House of Commons, on the other place, actually showing respect for this place and the arguments put and they have not done so and I feel sorry for the Minister because they are unable to do anything because of the view that has been taken in the other place, but frankly to keep coming back and back and back and saying the same thing over again and expecting things to change is an act of political madness.

I do not understand the politics of this. The government is alienating key supporters. Lord Berkeley came supporters. Lord Berkeley came forward and in -- with an ingenious amendment in continuing the process and do we really want to extend this? I am sorry that people did not want to hear the speech. It is devastating in its impact and in what the government is doing for the implication. The noble Lord talked about how he was delighted that there were now musicians in the government.

I think we have some pipers because he who pays the piper seems to call the tune. The fact that the Prime Minister was entertaining, if that is what Baroness Kidron said, people at Chequers those who want to put their hand in the pocket of our most creative, productive people without any opportunity to make recompense is pretty extraordinary. We got to this position because of the recount since -- recalcitrant way this happened. A modest concession would prevent us getting into continuing ping-pong.

It just will not do. To put it in the dinner hour, and many may think it is limited to one hour, but no, we can go on as long as we like. We may upset our colleagues if we did so, but it is not right. I know they said there may not be more amendments, but I would say to that I felt at least after such substantial defeats that there would be some give. There is a big principle here. Baroness Kidron touch this.

It is the creative industries. What will they come for next? They will come for our health data. Where are we going to be on the protections we fought so hard for as the noble Baroness played a leading role in. Are we going all the way with this being crony capitalism that we are seeing in the United States at the expense of our most precious industries and precious values. That is why if Lord Berkeley presses this matter, I will go through the lobbies in support of his amendment, feeling I should not have been driven to that position by a government which shows no proper respect to the House or to the arguments.

It is not enough to just have a majority. That is the road the previous Viscount Hailsham described as a dictatorship in a democracy. Elected dictatorship. The elected dictatorship is looking to those who have substantial financial means instead of the interests of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the people of our country. I rise to support the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the noble Lord Berkeley and his amendment and Berkeley and his amendment and declare my interest as interested member. It is no secret the government built AI policy around those with the deepest vested
20:07
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
interests. Companies business models rely on a capacity. The amendment is modest, but it is a line in the sand. If we want fair digital economy, we must start by listening not only to shareholders in Silicon Valley lobbyists, but creators, lobbyists and it is not a threat to innovation but the precondition for accountability. The amendment aligns perfectly with established IP disclosure requirements, under regulation 16 of the collective rights management regulations, copyright users must provide information to collective societies about work used.

Lord Berkeley's amendment simply extends this proven principle to AI companies ensuring they disclose what copyright work they use in training. This creates consistency across the IP regime rather than carving out special exemptions for big tech. Second as has already been said by Lord Berkeley, the amendment involves no financial burden on government. Finally, disclosures benefit everyone including AI companies themselves when both rights holders and AI developers can see the work being used, they can properly assess whether legitimate exceptions exist under copyright law and if they apply.

This legal clarity reduces litigation risk and encourages proper licensing arrangements. I hope the House supports the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Like many others I'm extremely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like many others I'm extremely sad to see we have got to this stage. Sadly I was not able to be at stage. Sadly I was not able to be at other stages of ping-pong, so I feel I need to add my voice of support to the extraordinary work the noble the extraordinary work the noble Baroness Kidron has done on this bill. She achieved something that
20:09
Baroness Harding of Winscombe Portrait Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Conservative)
-
-
bill. She achieved something that something in my short tenure is very where, real unanimity across the chamber and all sides of the House that we are engaged in doing something that is very, very wrong. I applaud Lord Berkeley and like my noble friend I will be supporting if he chooses to divide the House, but I will offer noble Lords one small crumb of comfort. Across all sides of the House we are united that we need to sort this out.

We keep being told AI will change everything, which I'm afraid means we will be discussing this on every bill I suspect and there will be an opportunity and we will in the end prevail. This chamber, this House, has faced these dilemmas with technology transformation before and then so determined that I will not in my lifetime participate in the protection of an industry in order, in the name of economic growth, when actually what we are doing is destroying society and people's lives.

It is very sad to say it took 100 years for the seatbelt to become mandatory in the back seat of cars after the seatbelt was invented, and I actually feel confident after the passage of the bill it will not take that long to protect the precious copyright of the British creative industries. We will keep fighting even if we lose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

.. A senior member of a publishing company, worldwide publishing, and they have a lot of publishing, and they have a lot of research material as well as books and things like that. At the moment,
20:11
20:12
Lord Dobbs Portrait Lord Dobbs (Conservative)
-
-
do what it intends. Of course it does, but that does not them right to do what it intends to do. -- Does not make them right to do what they intend to do. This is a mark of cross-party determination. The government has ignored us because the government knows best. We amassed extraordinary majorities in this House that delivered warning after warning. The government has not listened or budged because the government knows best. I would like to follow-up on Baroness Kidron's remarks about Downing Street.

It was not long ago that the door of Downing Street would be thrown open wide with government ministers going down on their grazed knees to welcome Elton John, Paul McCartney, Ian McKellen, Ed Sheeran, Dua Lipa, thousands of others and they have spoken out in anger about what the government intends to do, but in response nothing. The official record is stuck in the groove. The government knows best, the government knows best. The US Vice President has talked most openly about what he wants from the UK on copyright, but the government assures us that no word or whisper has been exchanged with anyone in the White House, that this plan to do away with copyright protection has been all its own thinking.

has been all its own thinking. Bless. I am sure this government does know best. Let me tell you a little bit about creative people. They are people of passion. They are remorseless. They have the ability to reach out to millions of ordinary people and those who live and work and tour and sweat and go through their working lives and retirement relying on copyright, 2.4 million of them and their families and friends, with the dreams of what they still might do and the sweet memories of what they have already done.

I suspect that they won't forget what is being done. I know it is silly and misguided of them. As we know, the government knows best. Ministers could have given just a little and it would have gained such a lot. Perhaps it is still not too late. Perhaps there is something to admire in the government determination to turn its back on the cheap applause that is so readily available were they to do so. If you forgive me, I will leave any expression of admiration to others.

I feel not so much like a horror movie but the charge of the light Brigade. We have been participating in that charge, a noble, historic endeavour, the guns have spoken in their heedless way. But I think Lord Tennyson would have given us a fine adverse in praise of Baroness Kidron, all of the tenacity and principled effort she has shown and with all of the others included Lord Berkeley has seen. My Lords, we ride on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I address my comments to the government benches, particularly the government benches, particularly the government frontbench. If you look at the Commons Hansard from yesterday on the last round of ping-pong, several things stand out. ping-pong, several things stand out. The first is that although we have been through many rounds of ping- pong, yesterday was the first time pong, yesterday was the first time ever in ping-pong that Baroness ever in ping-pong that Baroness Kidron was actually named and Kidron was actually named and This was the same Baroness Hughes accused by spokesman of trying to accused by spokesman of trying to bully the government because she's an activist.

This was the first time that the frontbench, the ministers
20:16
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
that the frontbench, the ministers actually mentioned Baroness Kidron's name which I find extraordinary and slightly disrespectful. The second thing that happened yesterday was that Sir Chris Brown, who was obviously on fine form, managed to annoy no less than three shares of common Select Committee. He managed to annoy Dame Meg Hillier, who is the chair of the Treasury Select Committee and the Liaison Committee, by the manner in which last- minute.com, the department suddenly landed the culture & select committees with this idea of a Parliamentary user group, with no prior warning whatsoever.

They knew nothing about it. In the House more broadly new nothing about it until an email went out early on Saturday morning. This is not the way to manage this issue. Uncertain backbenchers on the government side have spoken during the course of ping-pong -- certain back ventures. To make clear their discomfort and the uncomfortable position they are put in when it comes to the loyalty to the party and government and clear concern about the manner in which the Minister involved are currently managing this process.

So I would like to encourage all members of the governing party to try, if anything I have said all that we have heard here brings about, find a way of getting the message through, so they understand that it is not simply ourselves who are not members of the governing party who are concerned that noble Lords and members of another place are also deeply, deeply concerned and we want and expect frankly a change of attitude, a change of pace, much greater focus, and a much clearer demonstration to all of these people who are so concerned about their future and that livelihood that the government is on their side, as in the case, and will defend them in anyway it can.
20:19
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I declare an interest as the chair of the authors licensing connecting society. I want to start by saying that we should all be grateful to that noble Lord Berkeley for that very gracious way in which he introduced his amendment, particularly given the history of this into house discussion. Disrespect, negligence, bloody madness, a bad dream, tone death, whatever the reality, we find ourselves once again in this chamber debating an issue that should have been settled long ago.

And I share the profound anger and frustration expressed by the noble Baroness Lady Kidron and admire her unwavering determination, even if she, for very honourable reasons, will not be voting today. And as she pointed out, the Prime Minister who entertained the tech industry at Chequers in Downing Street is complicit in the situation where we are today and we are here today because the government have point- blank refused to move, repeatedly presenting the same position on three occasions, while this House by contrast has put forward a series of genuine solutions in an attempt to find a way forward, as the noble Lord Forsyth pointed out.

The only new element seems to be a promise of cross-party parliamentary working party, but I ask what is so enticing about merely more talking when action is desperately needed? Lord Berkeley's proposed amendment 49, U, designed to amend the 1998 copyright act, is a reasoned compromise, requires identifying the copyrighted works and the means by which they were accessed, unless the developer has obtained a licence. That seems to be a fair trade-off. And as it happened, the noble Lord pointed out that the Minister has made it clear that today's amendment does not invoke Financial Privilege on this occasion.

The government argue that legislating piecemeal would be problematic, but the historical precedent of the clause and the Digital Economy Act in turn demonstrates that Parliament can and should take hours to act when a sector is facing an existential threat, they are an exact parallel to where we are today. This is not about picking a side between AI and creativity, as we have heard right across the House today. It's about ensuring that both can thrive through fair collaboration based on consent and compensation and we must ensure that the incentive remains for the next generation of creators and innovators.

Given what ministers, how ministers have behaved, in the face of the strength of feeling of the creative industries, how can anyone in those industries tossed these -- trustees this government and this minister ever again. Will they trust their Big -- the instincts to appease Big Tech? I suspect not. I don't regard the Baroness Jones as personally liable in this respect but I hope she feels ashamed of her colleagues in the Commons, at the behaviour of her department, and of her government.

In this House, we won't forget. There is still time for the government to listen to act, to secure a future where human creativity is not plundered, but valued and protected. And on these benches, if the noble Lord Berkeley chooses to put this to the vote, we will be supporting him to the hell. -- To the help. I trust all noble Lords from all benches, if he does put to the vote, to support the UK

**** Possible New Speaker ****

creative industries once again. Is I think everybody has said, it is deeply disappointing that we once
20:23
Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
-
is deeply disappointing that we once again find ourselves in this position. The noble Lady Baroness Kidron has brought the concerns of copyright owners to the attention of the House time and time again, and throughout the process, progress of the bill, the government have declined to respond to the substance of those concerns and engage with them properly. As I said, previous round of ping-pong, I'm starting to lose count, the uncertainty of the continued delay to this bill is hurting all sides.

Businesses, even businesses that are in industries are removed from concerns about AI and copyright, are waiting for the Data Bill and it has been delayed because of the government lie frankly stubborn mismanagement of this bill. I understand completely why the noble Lord Lord Berkeley felt sufficiently strongly to move his very inventive amendment, about how the government have acted. And it strikes at the heart of how this government should be treating your Lordship's House. If ministers hope to get their business through your Lordship's House in good order, they will rely on this House trusting them and collaborating with them.

I know these decisions are often made by the Secretary of State. Have the highest respect for the noble Baroness minister but this is the situation of the government's making. I should also note in passing, it was very disappointing to read that the government was not planned AI bill will now be delayed by at least a year. All of that said, as the official opposition, we have maintained our position as ping-pong has progressed, that protracted rounds of disagreement between the other place and your logic house should be avoided and indeed this situation could have been avoided if the government had acted in good-faith and sought compromise.
20:25
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
I shall start repeating my thanks to noble Lords for their contributions and repeat once again, as I've done several times before, absolute commitment to the creative sector and our intention to work with them to help them flourish and grow. And I would also in passing say to noble Lords that this is London tech week this week. And all ministers including myself, my colleagues, have been involved in that, involved in showcasing UK's rising tech talent to the world.

And I don't feel I should apologise for our involvement in the tech sector in that regard.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Maybe she was just, as she would perhaps note, I said of course they should be meeting and it was rather

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the fact that the creative industries did not get a response that was at issue here. I apologise to the noble lady, if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise to the noble lady, if the creative sectors, I apologise that they didn't get a response and I can obviously follow that up but I was responding to a different point was responding to a different point just made by the noble Lady but by other people that was costing aspersions about our ministerial involvement with this sector which involvement with this sector which is an important sector for our economy. It's clear that several economy. It's clear that several noble Lords still have concerns about the government plan and of about the government plan and of course I understand the concerns, even if I don't share them.

Just as I'm sure they understand our concerns with the proposed concerns with the proposed alternatives, even if we don't share them. And I would say to the noble Lady Baroness Benjamin, it's a matter of fact that the bill does not change, weaken or block anything in copyright law and I can also say to her that we absolutely believe in transparency. We absolutely believe in detection and enforcement and we absolutely agree with remuneration. This is our task ahead. But I'm afraid that the government's firm view remains that we cannot prejudge the consultation, nor the technical or Parliamentary working groups, nor the proposals, resulting from these that will be brought forward in our report.

I want to thank the Lord Berkeley for his speech and I want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to repeat my assurances... I understand her point about not wanting to prejudge the consultation wanting to prejudge the consultation although I have to say on other issues like the VAT on school fees, that doesn't seem to apply. But I understand her point. What I find difficult is why the government were not prepared to take a power which not prepared to take a power which would enable then to act at a subsequent date and did not require

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them to do so. This is because we believe that the powers that we already have the powers that we already have sufficient to enable us to enact the regulations once we finish doing a regulations once we finish doing a piece of work that we are working piece of work that we are working on. I do want to thank the noble on. I do want to thank the noble Lord Berkeley for his speech and I want to repeat my assurances in response to his ask.

Our plans will give copyright holders as much production as possible and that will be via transparency enforcement and remuneration. And I want to say now that our court nine-month from Royal assent will contain our proposals to put this into place and can I also inform your Lordship's House that the government is looking at the case for more comprehensive AI legislation which delivers on our manifesto commitment and I expect any competitive vegetation to address the opportunities and challenges presented by AI to the creative sector.

I want to turn to concerns that the government has not compromised on this issue. Noble Lords are right that have deep concerns about pre-empting all the work necessary to determine what future laws should contain. And it's an important principle that good governance respects the responses and sets out its proposals will stop I expect any competitive legislation that follows to address the opportunities and challenges opportunities and challenges percentage by AI, rather AI sector, to encompass those principles, however I want to remind noble Lords of everything I'm referring to when I say that government has compromised, it has compromised on the consultation recognising concerns about the lack of an impact assessment and reducing report that will set out proposals and be accompanied by a full impact assessment.

The government has also compromised in the process, the reports will be brought forward even more quickly with what topics included in them and there will be a progress statement and technical and Parliamentary working groups will now be set up to complement this process. I press my point, the government has, most many times on many issues. But where we cannot compromise is on one of the principles we cannot prejudge the principles we cannot prejudge the I want to thank noble Lords for their contributions today, but I respect the primacy of the other place that voted five times against these amendments in this space and support the government motion.

If noble Lords choose to vote for Lord Berkeley's motion, the government will have two again offer an amendment in. I say this now for complete transparency as I don't want noble Lords to vote today on something that will turn out to be false a week later. We will continue to consult to help shape ultimate proposals, but noble Lords should not think the substance of the position will be any different the next time we are here. We have a clear plan to address the issue and will act on it as rapidly as we possibly can.

Continuing to oppose the view of the elected chamber is not the constitutional role of this revising chamber. In the meantime, I hope Lord Berkeley has listened to what I have to say and I hope he will not press the amendment and we look forward to continue working with him, but in the meantime I beg to move the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for her comments which I will come back to
20:32
Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-
-
comments which I will come back to in a moment. I'd like to thank Baroness Kidron once again for so passionately embracing this issue on behalf of creative people. She has done a remarkable job and noble Lords will know on both sides of the House that I have attacked both governments over music for children in schools, over artists touring, so there is lots of work to be done and I say it to noble Lords on the Frontbench, many of the noble Ladies comment need to be taken seriously and there is a great deal of progress that could be made.

When I discovered that a musician would be Prime Minister, I was hopeful and I still am that we can make progress in this area. It is not just for today's musicians, but the musicians as tomorrow. These are the people that will create works of art in the future. I said to the Minister in our meeting the problem with the government position is that once AI and big tech companies start trawling, we cannot get it back.

This is what we said with streaming. It is a slippery slope and that is why we are so passionate. Lord Forsyth was absolutely right in saying that this is something the government brought upon itself because they are so far into bed of AI and tech companies that they have no position to manoeuvre. That is the feeling I get. If this bill is at all ingenious, IOA great deal of gratitude to the public bill office for helping me work it out -- I owe a great deal.

I thank those who wrote a book and saw it put on television and become enormously successful, House of Cards in this country and America. I'm grateful to Lord Clement-Jones who speaks wisely on these subjects and on copyright as he probably knows more than most of us. Many lords have spoken and I won't go through a long list, but I did take my cue at the end from the beginning. We know that Baroness Kidron is not inclined to vote tonight.

We heard from Lord Forsyth that he would come through the lobby with me and I am enormously grateful, but it is tricky. Many noble Lords on government benches I know feel very torn by this. I do not want to put them through that again. I want to show the other place that we can act with dignity in this chamber and make our point as noble Lords have done on so many occasions and by such huge majorities and it is a huge tribute to Baroness Kidron on what she brought forward.

But on that note, I have decided on this occasion that enough probably is enough. I hope the government will listen and I trust them to listen and improve matters as far as the creatives are concerned. We can only do so much here. I believe we have done it but it is up to the government and the other place to listen. I beg to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The motion is by leave withdrawn. The question is that motion A be The question is that motion A be agreed to. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contrary, "not content". The contents have it. I think it might be an idea to pause while noble be an idea to pause while noble Lords... Hello, I am still on my Lords... Hello, I am still on my feet. I will pause while noble Lords who wish to do so leave quietly when Report Report of Report of the Report of the Holocaust Report of the Holocaust memorial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. I beg to move that the bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the bill be further considered on report. The question is the bill be considered further on report. As considered further on report. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not
20:39
None Portrait Legislation: Holocaust Memorial Bill - report stage (part two)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. As everybody knows we are now on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As everybody knows we are now on report stage and these have been debated extensively at Committee debated extensively at Committee stage so we do not need any second reading speeches. I urge noble Lords to reflect that in their contributions on the debate. It is a self-regulating chamber and we must have discipline and we must ensure that now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 2, amendment three, Lord Carlile of Berriew.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Carlile of Berriew. I beg to move the amendments on security the stand in my name on the Order Paper and I appreciate the support of noble Lords who signed support of noble Lords who signed the amendments. I start by emphasising that I would like to see emphasising that I would like to see the direction of a Holocaust memorial Victoria Tower Gardens as memorial Victoria Tower Gardens as soon as possible. But something personal, nine days ago I had the personal, nine days ago I had the sadness and privilege at speaking at the funeral of a child Holocaust the funeral of a child Holocaust survivor.

She was literally my half survivor. She was literally my half sister, her mother having died in the concentration camps at Auschwitz. She was born in 1937 in Poland. How she survived was a miracle. 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 she and other survivors and the dead deserved to be remembered in perpetuity in a memorial devoted solely to the Holocaust, the most horrific massacre of innocent people in human history. And the reason for this amendment is partly based on my sister because that memorial must be
20:41
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
a safe space, as free as can be managed from the threat of terrorism managed from the threat of terrorism and other violence and as peaceful and accessible setting as is and accessible setting as is possible in this city. That is why I cannot support the direction of the cannot support the direction of the band learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens for a couple of reasons. -- banned. The first is one reasons. -- banned. The first is one that has been referred to frequently.

It is not the right place for a proper learning centre. Lord Russell made the point. Lord King of Bridgwater made the point. We heard references to the museum. Some of the museum is underground, Some of the museum is underground, but the building of the museum stands out as the most significant modern building above ground in Poland and in Warsaw. 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 PhD and otherwise research the Holocaust properly in a true learning centre. But my second reason is more pertinent to these amendments. I fear and I'm afraid I worn that placing a learning centre whether small or large so close to Parliament expected to be visited by thousands of people each week, hundreds of thousands of people a year, perhaps millions, is a lure to terrorists. There is a much better potential site elsewhere in this great city and more secure from the threat and risk of terrorism.

Our lament to friends, Lord Etherton, chaired the Select Committee bill and I'm delighted there are others here today including Lord Hope who is sitting next to me. I welcome them here. They played a valuable part. Security was with by the Committee. They 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 enquiries will now be out of date.

I thanked Lord Etherton and his Committee for that view. None of the carefully organised flurry of letters supporting the bill in recent days contradict that a larger learning centre could provide for more and more effective learning and that recent events have contributed to the substantial security risk the government proposal offers. The noble Lord the Minister who has always been extremely courteous and accessible to all of us and I thank him for that publicly and in meetings that securing it can 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, but before I come to that, I need to explain why I'm so concerned about security. The proposed site is chic by Jowel with the Palace of Westminster. Some of us over many years have used Victoria Tower Gardens as a restful and to Parliament, sitting there, eating sandwiches there and sometimes interviewed by the media. It is part of the environment of this place and any reconnaissance would reveal a stream of parliamentarians and journalists using the guardians and children playing from estates that have little open space in the area of this part of Westminster.

In recent weeks, we have witnessed scenes, the evidential context of what I say, scenes in the area of Parliament that generate a real cause for concern. On March 8, a Saturday, a barefoot man carrying a Palestinian flag easily penetrated the allegedly secure perimeter of He managed to climb up the Victoria Tower and stay there for 16 hours. Those who got first place and all the cameras around it failed to detect him. Where were they? Where is this great security that I keep is this great security that I keep being told has been applied to this palace? I don't comment on the case itself, just the fact that this occurred.

And it is astonishing that nobody was quick enough for observant enough to prevent that very significant trespass. Despite very considerable expenditure on the safety and security of this, the danger of such an offender could create is self-evident. It cannot have been lost on our enemies with that non-state or state actors. And then a few days ago there was a demonstration around the Palace which caused great concern to members of your Lordship's House. Some are fast, I was one, were interfered with us we were trying to get into the House from the Tube station because there were no police there.

I had the pleasure of telling a young American that I thought that she should spend a little more time solving problems in her own country. One noble Lord, I know had water thrown at him and exactly that place. And for some astonishing reason, the police decided that the demonstrators should be allowed to completely occupy chorus line so that vehicles could not be driven into Parliament chorus Lane. The security arrangement assured is going to keep us safe without further review? And so I turned to the changes that have occurred since the previous planning application was made and the comment I've already reflected for Lord Etherton's committee.

The horrific criminal terrorist attack by Hamas on Israelis enjoying a music festival caused over 1,000 deaths. Terrible criminal attack. However, those deaths are many fewer than the number of deaths that have been in the war on Gaza. Conducted by Israel. Which of course has every right to defend itself within international law. I make no judgement of that. Whatever the rights and wrongs of those events, they are plainly a catalyst of disorder and possible terrorism. They can breed terrorism.

It would be foolish to ignore those risks. The increased risks which now exist because of those recent events, and indeed it is officially accepted by J TAC that during recent months the risk of terrorism in this area has been and remains designated as a substantial. In the days leading to this debate, I was given the advantage of a meeting organised by the noble Lord the Minister, with experts from the relevant security authorities and I thank him for that.

I ask them, a plain question. Is the risk of terrorism increased by those recent events and by having a learning sector at the proposed site in Victoria Tower Gardens? I looked at them hard and waited for the answer. But the officials declined to answer the question, one way or the other. Saying that it was a political matter. The Minister was there, I was there, that is exactly what happened. If it is a political matter, given that we are considering this bill before Parliament, it is not merely want to Parliament, it is not merely want to be decided by a minister or two, rather it is a matter for Parliament, for both Houses of Parliament.

And this brings me back to the planning issue. If Alex Carlisle as an individual applied to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, it would have been refused because of the London County Counsel improvements act 1,900, section 8. But this is no such application. The applicant this time it's the Secretary of State. The bill is in front of you. My Lords, who is applying to you. The application had to be to Parliament because it involves the statutory decision to overrule the 1,900 act of Parliament.

Which made Victoria Tower Gardens immune from such development. Conceptually, under legal principle therefore, this is not only ordinary planning case before a local authority. It is an application to Parliament. Yes, the planning system can deal with some of the detail. But not before Parliament has decided upon the location, that is Arbroath today, and decided whether it is safe to have it there. It is right in principle, not to leave security considerations to the vagaries of the planning process but to give that authority to Parliament.

I haven't done as many planning appeals as the noble and learned Lord who spoke earlier. But I have done a fair number of planning appeals and I have yet to appear in one in which I saw anything of serious security discussed. So I proposed amendment setup process for doing this. Process is simple and sensible and actually I have yet to hear any objection to the methodology on its merits. It would involve full consultation including the security services, an independent report would enable Parliament to make an assessment of the security what is proposed and of course I'm prepared to listen to any constructive suggestions to improve amendments.

I have said before that I do not wish to be the person who says, I told you so, after a terrible event. I have spent much of the last 25 years paying very close attention to terrorism issues, and matters of security, over 10 of those years as independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. My parliamentary life and in my fresh and alive I continue to focus on such issues. My firm and considered belief is placing of a learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, visited by thousands of people each week, in an area which could easily be penetrated by a terrorist carrying weapons, is a risk that could be removed by creating a better learning centre and putting it on a more suitable site.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after close to, insert the following new clauses to, insert the following new clauses as printed in the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I join in supporting both amendments of this group. If the Holocaust memorial learning centre Holocaust memorial learning centre were to be placed in Pretoria Gardens Tower Gardens -- Victoria Gardens Tower Gardens -- Victoria Tower Gardens, the noble Lord Tower Gardens, the noble Lord correctly warns of the increased threat of terrorist attacks, as he threat of terrorist attacks, as he has indicated it is because of his proximity to the Palace of Westminster in association with Westminster in association with whatever political controversies in whatever political controversies in general and currently surrounding situation in Israel and Gaza, these amendments therefore now give the opportunity for Parliament to make the final decision on whether to put HMRC in Victoria Tower Gardens or elsewhere, based on proper evidence on where it makes best sense to put it without compromising national-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

security. I rise to speak in support of the remarks of my noble friend the noble remarks of my noble friend the noble Lord Carlisle. Whose knowledge and expertise in the field of security
20:54
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-
expertise in the field of security from associated matters is way beyond mine. And my conclusions are aligned with hers. What was very interesting to me was that if you look at the judgement of Mrs justice Thornbury, in the appeal, in the case, in the High Court dealing with this application that was made for the proposal in Victoria Tower Gardens, in which, after which it was crushed which means of course legally never ever existed and therefore there is no planning consent for anything of this sort in Victoria Gardens was she said at I think paragraph 54 paragraph 54.4, as was common ground by the ending of the hearing, the advent of the modern planning assisted law has no bearing on the obligations in the 1,900 act.

My Lords, that as the noble Lord Carlisle pointed out is absolutely unequivocal. She ruled that the 1,900 act impacted on the character of the relevant matters to the determination of this particular planning application, and that in parallel with that, it is entirely within the discretion of Parliament, i.e. Ourselves, to take separate decisions on the merits of the matters under consideration unconstrained by the precise criteria which applied in respect of the termination of any planning application.

Therefore seems to me that we are faced with two slightly separate issues which in turn are not those that are faced by planning authority. The first one is we are legislators acting in the wider public interest and secondly we have been granted by the 1,900 act, it seems to me, write a veto on what goes on in the immediately adjacent land which is in our cartilage. This is something which is uncommon these days but is the kind of control over land that was relatively normal in the era of the 1,900 act.

And it seems to me that we have got to exercise our powers in good faith, but that has nothing to do with itself with the law relates to planning permissions. We are faced by a series of willing assurances that the government had proposed in respect of what is going to happen going forward and is the noble Lord Lord Carlile pointed out, in terms of security matters, it needs very substantially tightening up. After all, what is our role in this? Obviously the security and safety of the members.

And the staff. And the visitors. And it is up to us to decide what is appropriate for us as employers and hosts to people in this building what we should do. And I don't believe that we can somehow put this out to commission to somebody else. That is why I strongly support the approach of Lord Carlile because it brings to us the information that we need roughly and responsibly to carry out our duties in respect of our occupation of this building.

This is quite separate to our approach to whole range of other matters that may be discussed later on this evening. Finally, it seems, and I'm a trustee of a number of landed properties, that we can't simply wish away responsibility for this. In my view, if I was a trustee was to take the approach that is being advocated by the government, to security matters here, I would be guilty of professional negligence. It's as simple as that. We have got to know ourselves and be confident ourselves, in what is being proposed.

And looking at it from a different perspective, if we simply somehow put out commission that responsible is we have, it seems we are imposing into legislation something very much akin to the Henry VIII clauses and that of course as we know something which is very alien to the way in which look at public business. So I don't want to go on any further but it's arts but it's for us to decide what we think is right from the perspective that we have in the context of these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

matters. I would like to speak next if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak next if noble Lords don't mind. As the Nova Lord Carlile has said, this is no ordinary planning application. I will tell you why I think that is. will tell you why I think that is. The proposer is the government. The government is in a very special position of being able to remove a position of being able to remove a very important barrier to doing what they want to do and that is close they want to do and that is close to, removing the 100-year-olds to, removing the 100-year-olds projections for the park.

And most proposes for planning applications proposes for planning applications can't do that. But guess what? It's even worse. Because whoever decides on the planning application, yes or on the planning application, yes or no, is the very same person as the proposer. It's the government, it's the junior government minister and it was called in by a junior Government Minister when it first came before planning. So that makes it a very unusual planning application. However to turn to the particular issue of security, there are few people in this House who know more about security threats in the noble Lord Lord Carlile and if he says the threat is serious, then I think he's right.

He mentioned the person who managed to get at the Elizabeth Tower. I do recall the very sad situation where a man got into Parliament with a knife and very sadly managed to kill one of our police officers. Now if the parliamentary authorities thought it necessary, after that happened, to put 18 foot fences around the House of Commons, and now put 12 foot fences around your Lordship's House as well, what are they going to do to the heart? Where is the noble Lord Carlisle has said it is allure to people who have horrible anti- Semitic approaches.

To want to do something dreadful to make a point. And the people who are going to be vulnerable to that our children, our elderly people, a lot of elderly people will want to come and visit people will want to come and visit And a lot of children for their education. So it really is somewhere that is a red flag to some people who may want to take terrible action. There are three gates to the park. We are told the centre is going to have a check, oh great.

What about the three gates to the park? Are we going to have police officers at the gates? Are we going to have fences up to protect, as we have a responsibility to do? Sorry, there are four gates to the park. Thank you for that correction. One near the playground of course. We feel it necessary to put horseguards outside Whitehall, and in various other buildings around Westminster and this city. Are we going to have armed guards outside this centre? That's not really very appropriate when you are trying to remember the horrible deaths of so many millions of people.

As I said earlier, I'm absolutely in favour of an absolutely in favour of an appropriate memorial. But the Learning Center is a government Learning Center is a government choice, the actual implementation of the wish we all have two have a good learning centre, it's the governments choice to do it like governments choice to do it like this. And it's wrong, it's not good enough and it shouldn't happen.
21:02
21:04
Lord Evans of Rainow Portrait Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)
-
-
secure, advice from the national protective security authority and protective security authority and the police have noted measures such as the aboveground hostile mitigation measures protecting the gardens. My understanding is there gardens. My understanding is there isn't blockage or security at the entrances to the park, but there entrances to the park, but there certainly is at the entrances to the certainly is at the entrances to the actual memorial, airport type security. You can't just turn up, you 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-respected, -- protected, notwithstanding what happened the other day. Security matters will be fully considered within the planning process. The amendment seeks only to delay, telling the world the UK is not prepared to place a Holocaust Memorial next to Parliament out of fear of attack.

Consider who would be most pleased with that sort of message. If I may quote an expert in such matters, in conclusion while it's impossible to eliminate all risks the security measures planned for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre are comprehensive, have been delivered with the highest standards of safety in mind. The memorials location needs to be next to the Houses of Parliament, it should not be seen as a vulnerability but rather as a testament to our commitment to remembering the Holocaust in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prominent and respectful manner. That was from Lord Stevens. I greatly respect the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I greatly respect the noble Lord Carlisle's experience in reviewing terrorism legislation. I think on terrorism legislation. I think on this particular issue he is wrong. this particular issue he is wrong. And I come at that judgement from having some responsibility in the past both as a Home Office Minister, but most recently as Secretary of State for Transport having responsibility for the security of
21:06
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
responsibility for the security of aviation, maritime and transport systems, including here in London. I would say a couple of things, I listened carefully to the speech. Firstly on the planning process. Clearly, the design of the Learning Center is quite 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 Center. And that is appropriate. In terms of protecting it on a day-to-day basis, quite rightly that would be the responsibility both of the Metropolitan Police and our other agencies.

And having worked closely with them I have enormous confidence in their ability to do so. As to his point about any change in the threat to the Palace of Westminster, first of all he drew attention to the large number of visitors that would be expected to go to the Learning Center. I would just draw to his attention there are a million people in the year who visit the Palace of Westminster. Whether as visitors, visiting Houses of Parliament. Very significant numbers of the public already visit this area of London.

One of the challenges all our security agencies have is balancing the necessary attraction of your Lordships, the members of the House of Commons and all those who work in this building, but also maintaining the appropriate access to a democratic institution for members of the public. We have a number of public servants who work both in this building and on the estate and in our security services and in the Metropolitan Police. They work every day, as Baroness Walmsley drew attention to, sometimes at great risk to themselves keep us safe and let the public have access to their institutions.

That's not an appropriate thing for there to be a report to us to consider. Those threats are monitored and dealt with on an ongoing basis. The final point I would make is the more worrying one, the logical conclusion in what both the noble Lord and noble Lady Walmsley have said is you can have a Learning Center anywhere. If it is the case that there is such a threat in having a Learning Center that in having a Learning Center that it's going to be a Lua to wish people ill, the correct thing to do is to make sure it is properly protected.

Not to say because people might threaten it we aren't going to do it. That would be the wrong conclusion to draw. And a subsequent point from that I think is this one. The fact that she said that having such an education centre would provoke this sort of reaction I think demonstrates to me the absolute necessity that we build one, and that we build it next to this democratic institution. Because if truly building a centre that reminds us of the Holocaust, and our wishful something like that to never happen again, if doing so provokes the worst in other people it demonstrates to me the necessity to do it, to get on with it, and there's no better place to locate it than to be democratic institution that represents this country.

If the noble Lord chooses to divide the house I urge noble Lords to reject his amendment.
21:10
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
It's been said over and over again that they interpret our objections as being you can't build a Holocaust Memorial anywhere. That isn't what it's about. The point is you build, but you have to take into account the consequences on the immediate surroundings and the visitors, of where you build it and how you build it. I don't share the confidence of the promoters on the security. We know for example that for over a year those who cared about security have asked authorities to move the police from their comfortable spot at the foot of the escalator to Portcullis House out into the tube.

And they have not done it, after repeated requests. We've heard other instances. What noble Lords have not taken into account his protests. The Metropolitan Police and other police have not done well in balancing the right protest against security. One end of the park is going to be wide open, you can well imagine the hundreds of protesters, thousands as has already happened, entering and waving flags with their cans of red paint. There will be no want to stop them. They can go right up towards amount and throw something, or sale along the river and throw something.

And the police, judging by their lack of action against protesters in Jewish areas of London and elsewhere, will save the writer protests is more important -- the right of protests is more important than the need of the memorial to be quiet and safe and respected. We have not taken into account the protests. Also remember the children. Unfortunately the ones playing in the playground, right where people queue, it's 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 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 October 7 has been dire. This cannot mean safety for gatherings in Tower Gardens.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm tempted to contribute to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm tempted to contribute to this debate, Lord Harper spoke. I think first of all I should make my first of all I should make my credentials known, since everyone else seems to have done it. For 40 else seems to have done it. For 40 years I've been a member of Labour Friends of Israel, I am married to a Friends of Israel, I am married to a Jewish lady. My first interest in Jewish lady. My first interest in the history of politics was provoked the history of politics was provoked by that book, the rise and fall of the Third Reich, and the horrors of the Third Reich, and the horrors of Nazism.

So 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. And I say that because nothing could be further from the truth in my case. The objection that some people, including myself, have two the current plan is that it is unviable, it increases insecurity, it breaches all environmental guidelines, it overrules all local democracy, and it increases the danger, not only the physical danger of the present plans but the dangers of a backlash.

Against forcing through this plan against all local democracy and all commonsense. And that is my worry. Incidentally, it's a worry of many of my Jewish friends. And my wife, to be quite truthful. If I wasn't to contribute tonight I would be facing something even more dangerous than the whips, which is potential divorce. Let me correct a couple of things that have been said. As far as Baroness Walmsley is concerned, it is quite untrue to suggest that
21:16
Lord Reid of Cardowan Portrait Lord Reid of Cardowan (Labour)
-
-
she said that we cannot have a she said that we cannot have a It is possible to separate a memorial to the Holocaust, established next to this Parliament, established next to this Parliament, while having a genuine learning while having a genuine learning centre elsewhere. Quite frankly, and here I declare an interest, my PhD was on slavery, if you wanted to was on slavery, if you wanted to build a huge monument next to this Parliament it would be about Parliament it would be about slavery.

Which was instigated by slavery. Which was instigated by this Parliament, and which was demolished by this Parliament and the terrible irony is that this plan suggests that we remove the only present monument in the gardens which is to slavery. To move I said, to move. Second thing I would say about the comments I said about Lord Carlile. I don't speak with the Carlile. I don't speak with the authority that others have done, I've only been Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, Northern Ireland Secretary, Armed Forces Minister.

Let me tell you one thing about Lord Carlile, he is not just a lawyer. He is not just an expert on legislation. If I had to pick anyone outside of the Armed Forces and the Constabulary who had no understanding of the risk of terrorism, I would pick Lord Carlile. So when he says, you may not agree with him or even worse, you may with agree -- agree with him privately, but because you want to build the present project dismisses claims, think of the consequences in the long-term.

In conclusion I would say, 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 from 1,000 years, the anti-Semitism in Europe that built up through the philosophy, through the religions, Protestant and Catholic, the horrible things that were done in anti-Semitism, ghettoisation first of all, excluding from society and then the ultimate of course, just excluding from life. Then build a real learning centre, not two stories underground, not in a confined space, not confined to 10 years, but a memorial there to remind us and then let's go and learn about the real history of anti-Semitism which has been in Europe for a thousand years and are still there.

-- And is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Carlile was kind enough to mention I was a member of the Select Committee that looked into the whole matter of Holocaust in particular
21:19
Lord Hope of Craighead Portrait Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-
security. As the noble Lord will recall circulate said this. We recommend that the Secretary of State give serious consideration to State give serious consideration to something similar, and the promoter and Secretary of State agree to that furthermore, this is my point to the Minister and I would very much like his reply when he comes to make its final speech, we followed that path in our report by narrating three important recommendations which the promoter accepted. My question is whether these recommendations are still accepted.

Going back to Baroness Walmsley's point, the decision we understood it is to be taken under delegation, not by the Secretary of State himself is to be taken by Minister. Recommendations of what the Minister was to do should the planning application come back for decision, the very important recommendations because they require a good deal of consultation and a good deal of consultation with people who really know what their talking about, including the National protective's authority, the Metropolitan Police, the Community Security Trust and others.

Then we must make available to MPs and members of the House the promoters representations to the Secretary of State and deposit them in the library of both houses. Of course they fall far short of what was recommended but it's very important that the Minister assures us that recommendations which the Secretary of State accepted before the enquiry are still to be respected and I hope he will do that. Then we come back to the Buxton memorial, because it was moved it was to be in Trafalgar Square.

The noble Lord is quite right it was moved into the gardens. And to the plan we have before us, the Buxton memorial was to remain where it was placed, it was not going to be removed, but it's appearance would be greatly affected because it would be very close to uprights which mark the entrance to the memorial itself the Underground memorial. The whole appearance of the Buxton memorial is completely framed by this new development. It's not a question of moving it it's concealing it.

That's a very important point when you consider the importance of that memorial and what it had to tell us about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

slavery. Very briefly I wanted to take on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly I wanted to take on Lord Evans and Lord Harper on a couple of inferences in what they couple of inferences in what they said. The sentiment was made that we must show courage and face down must show courage and face down terrors that supporters and some of us have been arguing that for some
21:22
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
time and to be honest with you, there's been an almighty silence from many people in Parliament. I just didn't like the inference somehow that the movers of this amendment were cowering when in fact they have been the very people who have been arguing in many instances to fight back against the anti- Semitism that's been on our streets. That was the first thing. I also thought that the suggestion that we in Parliament are so brave and we can protect the learning centre next door in the park is slightly old judged in view of the fact that it seems to me as though this Parliament is increasingly like Fort Knox and that actually we are not in a situation where we are wandering around freely and bravely and yet we are suggesting that we open up the park to the public for a learning centre and that they can just wondering, wearers we need armed guards, we need big barriers everywhere and so on.

It's an unfair and ludicrous comparison. There will be an there should be a memorial in the gardens, everyone agrees with that, it will be a hugely important symbol, very important. The idea that anyone who doesn't want the Learning Center to be there doesn't want a learning centre has missed all of the hours of debates where we explained that we did want a learning centre that was a fitting learning centre, and to be honest the underground plans is rather insulting Learning Center in my insulting Learning Center in my opinion.

I do think that you should, that people who moving this motion 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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't doubt that they are in good faith, they just happen to be good faith, they just happen to be wrong. I can give you an assurance that my noble friend won't be going that my noble friend won't be going home to a divorce tonight if this motion isn't passed, I respect that motion isn't passed, I respect that he has been Minister of more senior he has been Minister of more senior positions than I can ever aspire to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sorry Secretary of State. Want to make sure the record is correct, I didn't say that I faced a divorce if this bill passed, I said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

divorce if this bill passed, I said I faced a divorce if I didn't vote for the amendment. I knew I had to be careful with
21:25
Lord Young of Norwood Green Portrait Lord Young of Norwood Green (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I knew I had to be careful with my words on this issue. Look, I am opposing this amendment, I think we've heard these arguments before we've heard these arguments before quite frankly. I'm opposing it not because I don't think Lord Carlile has great experience in planning and so do others who support it, but I'm so do others who support it, but I'm just puzzled. If we are saying that a memorial centre is OK, that's a memorial centre is OK, that's alright, we can deal with security on that, but somehow a learning on that, but somehow a learning centre we can't do that.

I don't understand... I'm not going to give understand... I'm not going to give way because I'm just developing my way because I'm just developing my argument. I had to listen to quite a argument. I had to listen to quite a few ministers -- minutes from you, I'm not giving way until I finished developing and then you can tell me I'm wrong, I'm sure I'm bound to be because I've only ever been a junior minister. I just want to make this point.

If we are saying that we can't somehow the Learning Center is impossible to protect, I don't accept that that is a valid argument. Of course it is difficult to protect a parliament, people are not just going to wander in and out as we have already heard that you have to make appointments online, of course there is going to be significant security. So it's not that I think that people who are moving this amendment are doing it in bad faith or because they want to undermine the proposal, I just happen to think they are wrong in their analysis.

They are wrong to suggest that somehow we cannot provide a safe and secure environment, will it undermine the Buxton memorial? No of course it won't because it's going to be done sensitively isn't it? It's not just going to be, we going to make it the most, we going to reduce it to something that is really insignificant. We won't, we know that we want to make the whole complex to be something that will be admired and respected. Have we got the planning capacity to do it? In my opinion we have.

We got the security ability to do it? I believe that we have. What does this amendment really do? Once again it says that it's not the right place, it's not somehow, even if it were we couldn't provide the security. That's my reason for opposing. Not to doubt the genuine intent and sincerity of those who support the amendment, but just in my view to amendment, but just in my view to amendment, but just in my view to If the House agrees...



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have not so far taken part in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have not so far taken part in this session today although I have in the Committee stage. I simply want to say that I strongly support Lord Carlile's amendment, but I Lord Carlile's amendment, but I would like to get down to the nitty-gritty and perhaps the nitty-gritty and perhaps the Minister can help by answering my questions. I'm trying to envisage what this would look like with the
21:28
21:29
Lord Pickles Portrait Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lady. I'm not getting as the noble Lady. I'm not getting as anybody here but in terms of talking about policeman drive through is I made a bow that whenever we would talk about it we would remember he has talked Mackie was called Keith Palmer. Just a reminder by the gaze that Matt Gaetz his name is on a plaque and I knew him, he was a great man. I'm a bit concerned.

I think people are picking on the noble Lord Carlisle. While I wouldn't have the temerity to run as chairman of his fan club I think I certainly could be a committee member. He's performed a very useful role and I think one or two people who have arrived late to this debate seem to think, I think a degree of bad feeling. He has performed a very valuable role because he is asked some difficult questions. He has forced myself and the Minister and others to address that.

I think we need to be assured that a process has been set up in order to answer the questions that the noble Lord has asked, and I think through that process when the decision is actually made whether or not we should have a Holocaust and the Learning Center which is not asked but the planning process, we should do so. But I'd like to briefly say something because it seems to be this idea that the government is the applicant and the government decides, it simply isn't true.

It's a well established process and is taken very seriously. I was planning David Cameron never told me what to do. I can remember Michael Gove being very angry with me when I turned out some houses, because I turned out some houses, because I wanted to ensure the environment. It's going to be a junior Minister because the Secretary of State has come out in favour of this. It will be taken by a Minister who will take the process very seriously.

And I am certain that Minister will look really carefully at very sensible things Lord Carlile has said. We have had the advantage of getting advice from the CST, and from a former commissioner, from existing senior police officers. It's not unreasonable to look at those things in the balance. I don't think voting against Lord Carlile's amendment is voting against the legitimate questions Lord Carlile is asking. I just feel we can arrive there through a different route.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank Lord Carlile for bringing this considerable experience of his two considerable experience of his two the security matters at committee stage, and now a report stage of the stage, and now a report stage of the bill. I know he brings his amendment forward with the best of intentions. And with all due respect to the noble Lord, we can't support noble Lord, we can't support amendments three and 10 which would promote the commencement -- prevent promote the commencement -- prevent the commencement of the bill until a security report has been approved by security report has been approved by both Houses of Parliament, again delaying what we want to be delaying what we want to be delivered as soon as is possible.

delivered as soon as is possible. Saying that, yes, security is of paramount importance and Ministers should consider security concerns very carefully. We believe this issue though can be adequately addressed, it's the proper way to deal with it. And that is through the planning system. It's been through the planning system before, security has been dealt with, the High Court agreed it was the correct way to do it. It does not need and it should not have, it would set a huge precedent if we were to make legislative changes to this bail for what is actually a planning situation.

-- To this bail.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lords and ladies for amendments three and 10. ladies for amendments three and 10. I was saddened to hear about the news of the noble Lords sister, her news of the noble Lords sister, her passing, Majer memory be a blessing. I also thank the work of the late I also thank the work of the late Lord Etherton and all the manners of that Select Committee throughout -- that Select Committee throughout -- members of the Select Committee throughout.

The report would require that both Houses of Parliament should approve those reports before work on the memorial and learning centre could proceed. Lord Carlile has been a strong advocate of the has been a strong advocate of the need to give careful consideration of the security impacts of the Holocaust Memorial and learning 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 this bill, and from meeting me several times to discuss security impacts as well as the performance of Birmingham football club this year.

Both myself and the noble Lord share a history of being brought up in Birmingham. The noble Lord was kind enough to provide knee with a set of questions for discussion with security advisers. I was glad to take the noble Lords 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 noble Lords across the house will be grateful to 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 for my discussion with security experts. As a starting point, let me acknowledge Lord Carlile is quite right to point out that the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre will face threats. Protesters with a range of motion of oceans will be prepared to use violence or terror will see the memorial centre and learning centre as a potential target.

This has been recognised since the inception of the project. In response both this government and its predecessors have done what I know the great majority of members in this House would expect to be done. We have sought to ensure 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 freedom society can continue. That is the approach which the experts from the Metropolitan Police from UK government security advisers and from the community Security trust have all told me is the basis of their work.

As far as the design is concerned, acting on the advice of those experts we have incorporated features including carefully designed barriers to protect the gardens against hostile vehicles, and aboveground security pavilion, appropriate CCTV infrastructure with a security control room. When it comes to operations we will make sure staff are trained to higher standards, including on ways of working with the police. The advice of the UK government security advisers and the Metropolitan Police has been hugely valuable in developing our proposals.

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, with sadness, the advice from security professionals that a Holocaust Memorial would be seen as a target wherever it is located. From a security perspective, as my conversations confirmed, placing the memorial and learning centre in the Victoria Tower Gardens brings sufficient benefits.

The memorial will benefit from many additional layers of security including a rapid response capability by the police. Some have questioned whether the memorial would bring additional risks to the Palace of Westminster. When I put this point to the security services there clear response has been that the Palace already, by its very nature as a 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 the security implications of the memorial and learning centre demand to be considered carefully. It is right that noble Lords should insist proposals are delivered -- developed in with the best advice and I am immensely grateful to police and our security services for the detailed advice they have provided over several years, for the meetings and discussions, and of course for the tireless ongoing work of those organisations keeping us safe. Just to clarify, the meeting with the noble Lord alluded to, the question that was asked of the police is whether the security experts agreed with his amendment.

You would expect the security advisers not to get involved in the political procedures involved in the political procedures of Parliament, no scheme for a Holocaust Memorial or learning could or should proceed without full recognition of the importance of security and full consideration of the best available evidence. I am confident the arrangements for arranging planning consent already ensure security will be given proper consideration. The views of the UK government security advisers and metropolitan police will be sought, any objections or reservations would be very apparent to the decision- making Minister and must be taken to account.

Just to clarify some points. That Baroness Walmsley alluded to. 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. Lord Pickles alluded to some examples he was involved in. The special and arrangements for handling the planning application subject to a High Court challenge in 2020, the court required minor adjustments to reflect specific relevant provisions, and to publish the handling arrangements which of course has been done.

Otherwise, the court was content the handling arrangements were proper and lawful. To the question asked by...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the Minister, is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the Minister, is the Minister able to tell me that the precedent he quotes was also a situation where the proposer was actually in a situation to remove a actually in a situation to remove a major barrier of protection to the site where they wanted to put the site where they wanted to put the proposed development? Because the government could do that as well,
21:41
21:43
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Moreover, we have been given a key under -- we have given a key undertaking to the committee, that undertaking to the committee, that security will be provided, that we will consult on security matters, corporate offices of the House of corporate offices of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, though Metropolitan Police, the national security authority, national security authority, national security authority, Westminster City Council. We have given that undertaking. And we have undertaken that the updated evidence and the views of all these bodies subject to reduction of any subject to reduction of any information that should be confidential for security reasons will be placed in the libraries of will be placed in the libraries of each House.

The proposed amendment is therefore not necessary as a means of generating information about security, nor as a mechanism about security, nor as a mechanism for ensuring security is given proper consideration. The practical proper consideration. The practical effect of the amendment would be to cause delay and create uncertainty about the progress of the scheme. Let me say one more thing about the amendment, a point 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 there are threats, in response to those threats we plan, we prepare and 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. That in the face of threatened violence we should place a Holocaust Memorial somewhere less prominent. Are we really to say that in Britain today visitors to the Holocaust Memorial next to the seat of parliament can't be protected? Are we willing to concede this to the perpetrators of violence, that a memorial established as a lasting reminder of the time when Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany were denied the protection of the law and subject to appalling violence and persecution by the government, that such a memorial cannot be placed next to our own Parliament? I do not think this House would want to be associated with such a message.

I therefore ask the noble Lords and ladies to withdraw amendments three and 10.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to the debate. I have contributed to the debate. I have had two big surprises tonight. One was the most wonderful compliment I
21:45
Lord Carlile of Berriew Portrait Lord Carlile of Berriew (Crossbench)
-
-
was the most wonderful compliment I ever received from a former Home Secretary and Secretary of State for 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, I've had the pleasure for the first time ever I think of agreeing with something that was said by the noble Lord Hannan who spoke earlier in the evening. And I shall look upon that as something of value. I have to say to the noble Lord the Minister that it is with great respect nonsense to suggest that my amendments seek to run away from the risks in society.

What we do in this country is way up the risks for society, and we take proportionate decisions. In my view, the proportionate decision requires two things. One is probably two separate the learning centre, which I would love to see as a large learning institution, from the learning institution, from the The other thing we do in such circumstances is to weigh up whether we are putting too great a burden on our police and our security services.

What we do if you are a person like me you look at the evidence, because I spent my life looking at evidence. What I learned from the evidence is based on experience. The past is very important, though we often remember it inaccurately. But the future is even more important even if we remember the past inaccuracy inaccurately in deciding how to shape the future. What I believe about this is that if we have a proper way of allowing Parliament to decide on the security of this process for any bill becomes more, then we will be taking our constitutional responsibility seriously.

I've had no objection to my amendment actually, the whole of this debate, in the whole of the time since I table this amendment some weeks ago I have seen no thought out objection to what I am proposing it will do no harm in it may do a lot of good. I would urge your Lordships to adopt it. I'm not going to go through all the speeches that were made but I would say to Lord Harper that placing a learning centre elsewhere would reduce the risk.

The risk to adopt a phrase from a great Conservative leader would be a double whammy if the Learning Center and a static memorial were in Victoria Tower Gardens, a double whammy for the terrorist who could have a reasonable chance of damaging Parliament as well as a Jewish memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. That is not necessary so why do we do it? I would say with great respect to Lord Evans that I'm not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sure, in a moment. With great respect can I just remind the noble Lord that in deciding on the fate of their amendments it is not necessary to respond to all the points raised in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

respond to all the points raised in the debate, it might be helpful to the House to proceed to a decision. With great respect to him I do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With great respect to him I do admire is a relative newcomer to this place, I'm not replying to all the points that were made by all the the points that were made by all the members but I am making a few comments about particular points. I was about to say and I will continue was about to say and I will continue was about to say and I will continue to say to Lord Harper, noted Lord Evans, I'm afraid he wasn't listening to my speech when I first listening to my speech when I first made it because I was not supposed to what he thinks I was supposed to.

to what he thinks I was supposed to. I'm very grateful for the numerous other speeches that were made, the questions asked by Baroness Fookes were not answered by the Minister. I am one of the quite a large number on 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 Lord Walton nodding in else I see Lord Walton nodding in agreement.

What I really say is I have suggested something practical, I suggested some insensible, I had encouragement and support from members of your Lordships house I admire and I beg to test the opinion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the House. The question is that amendment three years agree to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". Question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now
21:50
22:01
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment for, to which there is an amendment 4A, insert the word Holocaust.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Holocaust. IPad 2 move amendment 4A standing in my name on the Order Paper, leave out genocide of the Jews and insert Holocaust. Amendment number four is a limited but important amendment. It clarifies the purpose of the learning centre, at present the bill only says there should be a centre for learning relating to the memorial. The Explanatory Notes add this, the learning centres 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 two other genocides. At Second Reading, the Minister said the learning centre will also address subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. In the website of the Holocaust Memorial it is said 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'm grateful to him for his time and expertise, and I'm grateful to Lord Khan for organising that briefing, and for his patient and dedicated engagement on this bill. Martin Winston assured us that he and other historians involved in the project are very clear that the focus of the learning centre would be the Holocaust, in particular Britain's role. I have no reason to doubt their commitment, and of course their expertise. I do also appreciate that it is not the role of Parliament to cure rate the content of a learning centre or a museum.

But it is the role of Parliament to tell those who will cure rate a learning centre created by Parliament what lessons Parliament thinks must be taught. This is particularly the case, given that organisations change all the time. The people who are in charge and sit on the various boards today will at some point be replaced. Organisational drift, that is the slow deviation from the organisation's intended goals, will happen. It always does. At the moment, neither what I see on the bill or the Explanatory Notes, nor what I've heard and read from the historians, reassures me 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 and less firmly anchored by Parliament will also drift. Not saying Britain's response to subsequent persecutions is not an important topic, it is. Nor am I suggesting 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 program in Oxford involved interviewing Rwandan's in the aftermath of that genocide. Not only was that a harrowing experience, it was also intellectually a humbling experience. Because after months of research on the Rwandan genocide and meeting many Rwandan's I still felt 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 taught properly.

Not as an appendix to the Holocaust, and not on the false premise that there are parallels between the wine my Republic and the regime in wonder. Yes, in a legal sense crimes under international law were permitted in all these situations, but the centre should not be nor should it in my view be a learning centre about International Criminal Court. Our amendment would give it clear and well-defined purpose to the learning centre, do educate people about the Holocaust and about anti-Semitism.

The amendment response to any learning enterprise learning in advance what lessons we are seeking to teach. In that respect I am grateful to the noble Lords who at committee pointed out that the first formulation for this amendment was inadequate, and we have reflected on those comments. Particularly with the amendment to the amendment, we now have I think the right language, which includes killing by collaborators of the Nazi regime as well as the genocidal persecution of other groups like the Roma.

There is a profound rationale behind this amendment. It would address the risk of the learning centre drifting into other messages, as I've 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 if this learning centre, willed by Parliament and right next to Parliament.

As Stephen Pollard to wrote in the Spectator today said, this is not about some context of suffering in which the Jews are declared to be the winner, I would add the amendment is seeking precisely to prevent this kind of absurd contest. The risk of losing focus and drifting into other messages is particularly acute given that 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, Gambia and Myanmar.

Recently Sudan also submitted a dispute against the UAE under the Genocide Convention. Every international lawyer can explain the reason for this proliferation of genocide in international litigation and politics is that the Genocide Convention is often the only legal route available, certainly the one with the greatest political effect, for submitting a dispute to the International Court of Justice. Our amendment does not have a listen beyond the Holocaust, it is the most obvious lesson that should accompany Holocaust education, educating about anti-Semitism.

The rise of anti- Semitism 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 antidefamation league, 46% of the world's adult population, an estimated 2.2 billion people, have deeply entrenched anti-Semitic attitudes. This is more than double compared to the defamation league's first worldwide survey a decade ago, and the highest level on record since the antidefamation league first 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 and nip these controversies in the blood. To do so we need the moral clarity and courage to say that this learning centre, if it is to happen at all, must be about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. And to put this in law. Both -- the fact that both Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism is rising shows that our education is failing.

The only point of the new learning centre is if it is ready to confront this failure and tackle these two challenges head-on. Of course there are many other important lessons we can teach, but this should not be the place for them. With so many in our society still with so much to learn about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

missions, and nothing else. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after close to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after close to as an amendment to clause -- amendment four, insert the word

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Holocaust. I rise to support amendment for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment for an form a Mac -- 4A. This is been a passionate debate. But it is
22:11
Lord Goodman of Wycombe Portrait Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Conservative)
-
-
passionate debate. But it is possible to believe that in the course of time the memorial and learning centre will be established in Victoria Tower Gardens, that they will be a great success and that we will all look back and wonder what the fuss was all about. However, it's also possible to believe that this will not be the case. And if passions continue to run high I suspect they will be fuelled by a single word, that word is genocide. I won't repeat the arguments that I made at Second Reading, about how that word genocide is now contested, and Lord Verdirame a few moments ago put the case more eloquently than I could.

But I will leave a single example hanging in the air, having made the observation that it is probably impossible 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 warcrimes are sometimes conflated with genocide. Crimes against humanity are sometimes conflated with genocide. And appalling and horrendous though they both are, genocide is the ultimate crime because it is the attempted extermination of an entire people.

In short, I am concerned over time about mission creep in the learning centre. At this point I paused to pay tribute to the Minister, who I've always found to be extremely helpful and organised the useful briefing that Lord Verdirame has just referred to, to Martin Winston the project historian. He gave a most impressive presentation. The academics who are advising the project are extremely eloquent. I understood for the first time when debriefing was being given why the Minister at Second Reading specifically referenced Darfur and Rwanda, because it's the Holocaust that set the standard by which horrors since have been weighed, both legally and otherwise.

I could see he made a very good case. But governments change, the Minister won't be here forever, what the noble Lord Verdirame said a few moments ago about the wording of the bill and the wording of the Explanatory Notes is correct. For all the persuasiveness and attraction of the recitation given, there is yet no actual content of the learning centre for us to be able to judge. So I would like noble Lords to think of this amendment as a kind of safeguard.

And I close by making this point. That other amendments this evening as the debate has gone to and fro have been presented 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. One thing that can't possibly be said about this amendment is that it is such a wrecking amendment, because it accepts there will be a memorial and a learning centre together in Tower Gardens.

It simply seeks to set some guardrails around the content. Were it a wrecking amendment, my noble friend on the frontbench would not be supporting it as I understand is the case. That leads me, in conclusion, back to the Minister. I think I know where our frontbench stands, I want to hear when the Minister responds to the debate what he has to say. I think he is sympathetic to the document Lord Verdirame E put in this amendment. I hope he can satisfy us.

If you can't do that now it's possible he will be able to do that at Third Reading. If he can't, and the noble Lord further he can't, and the noble Lord further Lord Verdirame ER puts

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it's an important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it's an important amendment not a wrecking one, but this has been on a journey during this has been on a journey during which consequences have occurred. I went through the process myself a few years ago after the 2017 few years ago after the 2017 election. When the prospect of a
22:16
22:16
22:16
Lord Pickles Portrait Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
-
that a Holocaust Memorial would turn into some kind of genocide museum or genocide and slavery Museum, and genocide and slavery Museum, and that it would be completely watered down. I spent a lot of time worrying and a lot of time trying to find and a lot of time trying to find ways round it. I have to say this, if they had been a Jeremy Corbyn government with that intent I don't think there would be much this House think there would be much this House Genocide has been used in an almost Genocide has been used in an almost flippant way in terms of trying to describe things we've had instances describe things we've had instances in which people have refused to take injections, immunisations and have compared themselves to the Jews, we've heard noble Lord described the environment problems as a Holocaust.

I think it is important to recognise why the Holocaust was unique, and members around the chamber would remember our dear friend David says Irani sadly no longer with us, very distinguished British historian of the Holocaust. David had this ability to be able to put things very neatly. In 26 words he managed to sum up what the Holocaust is. I quote from him. Holocaust invoked the systematic use of state powers, modern bureaucratic men -- methods, scientific thinking and killing methods adopted from industrial production systems.

There has been no subsequent Holocaust, that would fall into that definition. Except one. That's why the manuscript amendment is so important, so vital. Because of course it was identical to what happened in the Holocaust in that the individuals that 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 Cindy. They were killed in ghettos, they were murdered in Auschwitz, it was an attempt to annihilate a race.

Previous amendment before this would have effectively ruled them out. 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, I want to make it absolutely clear that is not the intention of the proposal, it certainly has never been the attention -- intention of this House will stop I'm very sympathetic but forgive me if I just probe 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 Center without education, would that be in contradiction to this very sensible amendment? If that is the case, because I do believe that the amendment is an important one, is there some way that the magic of the usual challenge channels -- channels can fix any defect that occurs? I'm looking at the most distinguished member of the usual channels and I hope he will give happy active consideration to this should that be the case I'm wrong I would be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

delighted. Some years ago I visited the Dachau concentration camp just
22:20
Lord Herbert of South Downs Portrait Lord Herbert of South Downs (Conservative)
-
-
Dachau concentration camp just outside of Munich. It had a huge impression on me, as the visiting the memorial and learning centre in Jerusalem and in Berlin. But one thing particularly has struck me perhaps because it touched me personally. Was that in Dachau there was a display of the different badges which prisoners in the concentration camp were required to wear and one of those badges was a pink triangle which was reserved for the prisoners who were detained there by reason of the fact that 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 taken to concentration camps being homosexual, most of them either died or were killed somewhere subject to horrific experiments including castration. I think it is the effect of the noble Lords amendment that the Learning Center should not provide information or education about that part of the atrocities which we saw 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 on the appalling crime of genocide, attempted genocide that was perpetrated against Jewish people. But if homosexuals who were also targeted by the Nazi regime are to be excluded from this learning centre then I think we should acknowledge that and be conscious of it and perhaps alternative educational provision can be made, or if they should be included and the atrocities were committed to a smaller number of people but by the same regime with the same sort of motive, then I am not sure that the amendment allows for that.

And should perhaps itself be amended at a later stage should this House except this amendment 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they were gay. I think the discussion that has gone on so far indicates just how ambiguous is the point of this
22:23
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
ambiguous is the point of this learning centre. No one still knows exactly what it is going to teach and what is going to be in it. I had the presentation of Martin Winston and what I recall from that is that he didn't know what was the lesson that was to be learned and that the centre was not going to combat anti-Semitism. Variously over the last years I've asked many questions about which genocides are going to be included, I've had various answers from the ministers including Baroness Scott of by Brooke, different answers in written questions.

Sometimes we are told it is the Rohingya, it's Kosovo, other times we are told it's all the people who were victims of the Nazis. This indicates to me no learning clarity about what is going on. Most of the other Holocaust memorials around the world address a question which is very painful for this government in this Parliament which is that the British Government closed the doors of Palestine in the 1930s and indeed even after the war. I always think how many more people might 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 that have to be addressed. Lord Sacks said today's anti- Semitism has morphed into anti- Israel is. We cannot escape that question. If we want to combat today's anti-Semitism 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 and maybe doesn't 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 anti-Semitism. Not 1000, more than 2000, some take it back 5,000 years. The other genocides where the results of tribal hatred, religion, sexual distaste and so on. The other sexual distaste and so on. The other victims on the whole work minorities, of all the genocides that have been mentioned they were minorities within the states.

Without their own self-determination and means of self defence. It's got nothing to do with democracy which is why the choice of the CG is not a good one. Genocide usually is because one is a minority within a majority state, unable to be, unable to exercise self defence. The need for self defence needs to be explained in this learning centre, it is -- if it is to teach anything. We also have to stop putting it all in the past, the Learning Center suffers from the deficiency that will tell people what happened in the war and the Nazis..

Unfortunately some of that is continuing. The learning lawyer Anthony Julius gave a speech a week or two ago in which she said that for thousands of years anti-Semitism has been 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 afraid to say. You cannot just talk about anti-Semitism in the past, it was all Germany, it'll happen the long time ago and now we are in a democracy and it's all fine.

That is not the case, it is an ongoing matter. One has to combat it with today's weapons of explanation. Which has to encompass what the survivors did after the war. And that is a very difficult issue for people to confront. Because what the Learning Center apparently is going to teach anything is very odd stop the British reaction to the Holocaust during the war, did they know about it, did they not know about it, the Kindle transport, maybe even the failure to prosecute Nazi war criminals who arrived here after the war.

What one learns from that I really don't know. I fear that the Learning Center will continue this business of globalising the Holocaust, making it a vague word that can be applied to any kind of slaughter that one doesn't approve of. We need to combat the terrible racism which is appearing in professionals, artists, the media, the universities today. We can't 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 to readily that learning the facts of the Holocaust in years against anti-Semitism. Today proves that it does not. I'm afraid the Learning Center will politicise and de-Judea eyes the treatment of Jews will stop we see this at national hologram Holocaust remembrance and ceremonies every year, now or to self-congratulation and feeling much better. We need to overhaul Holocaust education and treat 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 the lesson that needs to be repeated today. The Learning Center as it stands is not good enough, never again means concentrating on the Jewish genocide and anti- Semitism 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 regard -- regardless of its faults.

Hence the vital nature of this amendment to secure at the very least a decent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I strongly support the amendments in the name of Lord Verdirame. He presented his amendment with presented his amendment with compelling logic, and I congratulate the noble Baroness Lady Deech for
22:30
Baroness Fleet Portrait Baroness Fleet (Conservative)
-
-
the noble Baroness Lady Deech for her leadership on this bill and her brilliant speeches. We have heard what a deeply contentious and divisive issue the memorial is. I spoke at committee stage about my very real concerns of this bill. Today I want to add a few brief comments about the purpose of the learning centre. And I will focus on anti-Semitism. I am not Jewish, but my husband is. His parents came to England in 1938, mere teenagers. Sylvie from Vienna and George from Prague.

Young refugees were among the fortunate few who escaped the hell of Hitler. They were grateful to Britain, but they knew that the anti-Semitism of British officials and politicians, as referenced by Lady Deech, had prevented thousands of Jews being saved from the Holocaust. I repeat this today because it is central to my argument. When the Holocaust commission's 2015 report was published it could be argued that many people were not aware of anti- Semitism in this country. It was seldom on our front pages.

Then came October 7. If noble Lords have not yet read 7 October parliamentary report, I do urge them to do so. Chaired by my noble friend, Lord Roberts, it is a definitive utterly shocking description of Islamic inspired horror, and a deep hatred of Jews. In spite of worldwide coverage of the events of October 7, anti-Semitism became even more rampant. Globally. And in London anti-Semitism continues to be tolerated by the police and by the mayor of London.

Even when the hateful slogan, from the river to the sea, was projected onto 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 the Met will noble Lords believe the Met will have the will -- to stop a protest at the memorial, they couldn't even stop a protester climbing up a tower as we had from Lord Carlile.

The failure to confront anti-Semitism at universities and in public debate, including on the BBC, shows the difficulties of effective Holocaust education. The BBC is in fact complicit in the rise of anti- Semitism, propagating daily lies of Hamas. I draw noble Lords attention to the Telegraph's Allison Pearson, who last week described how the BBC's Israel reporting is fuelling anti-Semitism. I raised this because I think it is really important that when we talk about anti-Semitism 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 anti- Semitism? The director-general, Tim Davie, out of his depth with little apparent understanding of the significance of what is happening under his watch. And a digital learning centre really tackle the complex issue of anti-Semitism? No, it cannot. The Minister has said the memorial and learning centre is intended to be a national focal point for Holocaust remembrance.

To host events on Holocaust Memorial Day. No, the planning centre will become a focal point for anti- Semitism. Anti-Semitism is complex and deeply embedded in our society. Will the Holocaust memorial 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 years history of the Jewish people, the suffering and the determined survival of the Jewish people. I am saddened by the suggestion that noble Lords you choose not to support all aspects of this bill might somehow be anti- Semitic.

Quite the reverse. The few survivors still with us are divided, just as this House is divided the Jewish community is divided. I will finish by quoting a short extract from a letter that was sent to us all by Rabbi Gluck. He said, "I see no value in the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre plan for Victoria Tower Gardens. The learning centre is too small to be useful, it centre is too small to be useful, it will trivialise the unique nature and render it impossible to learn anything about anti-Semitism, past and present.

" As was pointed out by Holocaust survivors to the Select

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Committee. I'm at a disadvantage because I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm at a disadvantage because I haven't seen the manuscript amendment 4A, but I would like to amendment 4A, but I would like to make a few comments. The noble Lord Herbert has already suggested that
22:36
22:37
Baroness Harding of Winscombe Portrait Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Conservative)
-
-
have some considerable sympathy with this amendment. Well set out by Lord Verdirame. I find myself pleased to find common ground with the noble Lady Baroness Deech. Common ground that it is really important that we are honest about the responsibility Britain bears. Not just for good, but as she set out where we as a country made bigness takes. I would also agree with her it is hugely important this is about a continuing story. But, I am worried about this amendment because I fear that it could be a wedge for more legal action.

And what worries me even more, I'm afraid when Baroness Deech gives a speech about rejecting the learning centre in totality in this specific amendment. So I have a question for the noble Lord Minister, who I know has been thinking deeply about this, what risk is there in this amendment? Because those of us who have worked on this for a long time know that every legal avenue has been taken to prevent this memorial being built. I may be seeing shadows, and the danger with this bill is that we all see shadows from different sides, but I would ask the noble Lord Minister to give us reassurance that for all the good intentions of this amendment that it doesn't create that wedge that will create real challenges for a future curator of this learning centre to find themselves subject to lawfare, that unfortunately appears more and more common in this land.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sorry that we are getting diverted a bit from the main purpose of this amendment, because I very of this amendment, because I very strongly support Lord Verdirame's amendment. I think that between him amendment. I think that between him and what my noble friend Lord Goodman had to say got to the Goodman 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 get back to what is really important here.

The heart of this is not here. The heart of this is not shadows, it is what we have actually heard and read from the Minister in 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 to help inform us. It does show that there is no clear definition of what this learning centre is to be about. And it is clear that other genocides have been referred to in the governments material.

So let's not talk about shadows, let's talk about what is hard fact here. Which is that unless we put this amendment into the bill
22:41
Lord Sassoon Portrait Lord Sassoon (Conservative)
-
-
it leaves things very wide open for different interpretations over time from those who are actually running this learning centre. That is the this learning centre. That is the central point here, and I very strongly support the amendment. I have stood where the Minister sits, and had to answer many times on and had to answer many times on legislation points along the lines of, well it is called the memorial learning centre therefore that's learning centre therefore that's what it's going to be and we don't need to put anything in it.

But this is a case where there is so much confusion, it is such a critical confusion, it is such a critical issue we need to be clear about it. I must say, I'm very sympathetic to what my noble friend Lord Herbert what my noble friend Lord Herbert has two say. I was at the Imperial War Museum this morning because I thought it would be an important pearl you'd to this debate to go back there Mac Pro you'd to this debate. I would be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that topic and what Lord further army has to say -- Lord Verdirame has to say.

I think it is right that the Holocaust should be defined that way. I think questions about further legal actions, questions about whether education really covers other events, are things that should not divert us this evening from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

main purpose of this amendment which is very necessary. It's a pleasure to follow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, I also recently visited the Holocaust exhibition at the
22:42
Lord Evans of Rainow Portrait Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)
-
-
the Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial War Museum. My two sons joined me not only to see the exhibition on the Holocaust but the gallery that is closing shortly. The government, its predecessors and the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation have been crystal-clear that the learning centre will focus on the Holocaust. The exhibition was -- will set out the facts of the Holocaust from a British perspective. There is no intention of re-relative arising the Holocaust, I would like to say to Lady Deech that I agree with a lot of what she said in her speech.

She attended the recent presentation, Martin Winston gave a thorough account of the exhibition at an all-party event last Tuesday. 3 June. He explained to us in plain language how the exhibition is being language how the exhibition is being developed. With a curator deeply experienced in Holocaust exhibitions, having played a leading role at Yad Vashem. With an academic advisory board including leading experts such as the UK's own professor is a wee Waxman. With the benefit of new research deepening our understanding of British connections to the Holocaust.

Under the guidance of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation which is 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 the learning centre will focus sharply and unambiguously on the Holocaust.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome this amendment. I will be brief because this is actually report, though it sometimes
22:44
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
actually report, though it sometimes hasn't quite seemed that way. The point in this amendment appears to me to be short, focused and unanswerable. What is the question we are trying to answer? Why are we building this memorial and learning centre? That is the fundamental question. The obvious answer is we are building it to memorialise the Holocaust, and to teach people about what happened and the dangers of anti-Semitism. If that's the case, I can't see any reason why that purpose is not included on the face of the bill.

I see absolutely no possible answer to that at all. None of this of course is to dismiss other atrocities, or to downplay or minimise other genocides. But that's not what this memorial and learning centre is about. I do take on board the astute points made by my learning friend -- my noble friend Lord Herbert, about the persecution of the gay community and others during this time period. My understanding is the purpose of the amendment would be to include those persecutions within the gambit of the memorial and learning centre because they occurred at the same time period, therefore everyone who suffered under Nazi Germany because of their race or origin or sexual affiliation during that time period, that is part of the Holocaust as generally understood.

That would be different to other genocides in other places at other times, that's the critical distinction. I see no legal riskier at all, indeed not putting it on the face of the bill would seem to me to increase legal If we actually look at clause 1 of the bill it's the construction of first a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust and then a centre for learning relating to the memorial. Why I ask rhetorically does not say asserted centre for learning relating to the victims of the Holocaust? Problem with a centre of learning relating only to the memorial is that is ambiguous, that is why a strongly support the amendment including the Manuscript amendments which is so important but amendments which is so important but for us by Lord Verdirame.

I do agree on one point, the Jewish community can be said to be divided. If the Jewish community has been divided for as long as there has been a Jewish community, both in this country and elsewhere. If you read the Bible there were actually some people who didn't actually want to leave Egypt so the fact you have a divided Jewish community is not a new point. With the greatest of respect I urge caution against quoting the name of Rabbi Gloukh in this context will stop he was about the only person in the Jewish community who sought to remain cordial relationship with Mr Corbin when the rest of us thought he was leading basically an anti-Semitic cult which at one point threatened to take over the Labour Party.

I'm not going to say lessons from Rabbi Gloukh as to how the Jewish community should operate. The overwhelming majority of the Jewish community strongly in favour of this memorial, strongly in favour of this Learning Center and the huge advantage of this amendment is that it will put the purpose of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

memorial and of the Learning Center right on the face of the bill. I rise very briefly first of all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise very briefly first of all to say 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 tonight. I think certainly in this clause it reflects certainly in this clause it reflects great credit to this House. The main point I wanted to make was prompted point I wanted to make was prompted by Lord Evans which was he went to see Lord Ashcroft's exhibition of see Lord Ashcroft's exhibition of Victoria Cross at the Imperial War Museum.

Lord Ashcroft very Museum. Lord Ashcroft very generously gave his incredible collection of VCs to the Imperial War Museum and he also gave £5 million to the Imperial War Museum who were very grateful. But the trustees of the museum decided on their own volition to close the exhibition, return the medals to Lord Ashcroft but not the Victoria crosses. Therefore this is a lesson Something is determined in good faith, trustees decide they change faith, trustees decide they change their mind, the mood has changed, fashions change, style has changed, the trustees have changed which is why I welcome this amendment by Lord Verdirame, the purpose of it has to Verdirame, the purpose of it has to be on the face of the bill.
22:50
22:51
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
four a which I have signed. As I said during the debate on this issue in Grand Committee, it was our 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 purpose of the memorial and Learning Center, the government then resisted Center, the government then resisted it. On the one hand the Minister argued the amendment is unnecessary because and I quote, this bill is because and I quote, this bill is about a memorial to the Holocaust not all genocides or crimes against not all genocides or crimes against humanity.

But he then went on to say later in his remarks, that the centre is also intended to address subsequent genocides within the subsequent genocides within the context of the Holocaust. That is an context of the Holocaust. That is an inconsistent and confusing position. I therefore understand why Lord Barber army -- Lord Verdirame has brought his amendment forward at report stage today. We share his concerns that the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre could in future come to an 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 Center should the we believe 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 a German historian the Holocaust was an unique crime in the history of mankind. As the 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 Center and we must not forget that impetus. I am also pleased that Lord Verdirame has included anti-Semitism in his amendment. As Lord Cameron put so well at second reading, we have a problem with anti-Semitism 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 to put that much we care about this to put that beyond doubt.

This amendment is clearly constant with the intention of the bill and it need not delay the progress of the bill importantly. Given these amendments meet these two important tests, we will support the noble Lord Lord Verdirame in his amended, his amendment should he seek to test the opinion of the House. But I do hope that we will not have to do that because I hope the Minister will stand up and he will agree with this House that the government will look at this and will bring back its own amendments at third reading.
22:53
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lords Lord Verdirame and Lord Goodman and Baroness Deech for amendment four together with four a in addition with bonus Scots support this poses a clause similar to the one proposed by Lord Blencathra Committee stage, I note this proposed course as remove the word Nazi to heed Lord Pickles warning that the Holocaust was not perpetrated by the Nazis alone. I've 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 Center should be focused on the history of the Holocaust and of anti-Semitism.

The new clause is no doubt well-intentioned, but it is overly restrictive and we 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, not a memorial to genocides, naughty crimes against humanity. -- Nor two. Nor could it exist without a clear understanding of the roots of anti- Semitism. From the start we have been very clear that to understand the devastation of the Holocaust and European Jewry it is crucial to also understand the vibrancy and breath 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 which the Holocaust had on the emergence of the concept of genocide and the associated international legal framework.

We will not as some have claimed relative eyes the Holocaust by comparing it with other genocides of the Learning Center will not betray the Holocaust simply one among many episodes of inhumanity and cruelty. Nor will the Learning Center aim to communicate bland generic moral messages will stop the Holocaust was a unique event among the evils of this world and will be treated as such. The Learning Center 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 Winston Holocaust trust historian and educator who are supporting development of the Learning Center content and I appreciate Lord Goodman and comments by Lord Verdirame and wish we could have had a conversation much earlier to the debate tonight. Unfortunately we have not had 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 Center has been developed by leading international curator formerly of Havisham supported by Help -- with their help will ensure the content is robust, truthful and fearless. It will stand as a vital rebuttal to Holocaust denial and distortion in all its forms. I hope I have shown that there is no disagreement in the government and those who wish to ensure that the Learning Center focuses very clearly on the history of the Holocaust. I am not however persuaded that additional clauses are needed on the face of the bill to achieve what we all want to see.

Moreover there are inevitably risks in seeking to prescribe too narrowly the Learning

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Center is permitted to do. I'm listening very carefully to what the Minister says and I what the Minister says and I completely accept what he is saying about the government's position, and his position about what he wants the his position about what he wants the Learning Center to do, but can he address the question that was raised address the question that was raised by several of my noble friend's, what happens if there is a different government and a different minister government and a different minister with a different policy, is there anything in the bill as currently anything in the bill as currently drafted that would prevent a drafted that would prevent a government with a different policy, we've had several examples of how that may have come about, that would prevent the alteration of the focus of the Learning Center? I don't of the Learning Center? I don't doubt that he is sincere complete doubt that he is sincere complete agreement but it's about guarding about against the change in the future that I think noble Lords are trying to guarantee.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the noble Lord allows I will come towards the conclusion I answer come towards the conclusion I answer that point. It's a good opportunity as I mentioned the academic adviser group I was looking at the notes to group I was looking at the notes to remind noble Lords I briefly tell you who is on the board. Then back you who is on the board. Then back out the be, worked at Weiner Holocaust lab from 1987 to 2019. Holocaust lab from 1987 to 2019.

Professor Jilly car, Professor of conflict archaeology on Holocaust heritage at the University of Cambridge. Professor Robert Eagleson, Professor of contemporary Eagleson, Professor of contemporary literature and thought and former DAC Deputy Director of the Holocaust DAC Deputy Director of the Holocaust research Institute. Professor Zoe Waxman mentioned by Lord Evans of the University of Oxford, Professor of universe -- Holocaust history. Isabel Wollaston, University of Birmingham. Professor in Jewish and Holocaust studies at the University of Birmingham. As well as my good friend Doctor Portia Perraud.

-- I can I have passion there is no disagreement between the government and those who wish to ensure that the incentive focuses very clearly on history of the Holocaust. I'm not however persuaded additional clauses are needed on the face of the bill, moreover there are inevitably risks in seeking to prescribe do narrowly. I suspect many noble Lords will expect the Learning Center to address at least to some degree the history of Jewish communities ahead of the Holocaust, I believe also there would be support for some activities within the Learning Center for focused more on commemoration than on education neither of those matters are expressly and obviously permitted by the proposed new clause which is an answer and giving directly to the We now sadly that the activities at the memorial and learning centre will face a good deal of opposition and hostility.

I am looking for courts to get involved to determine what can and cannot take place within the learning centre. Just to finish off, it's clear we do not agree with what the meaning of what the Holocaust is so the legal risk is one of someone challenging what the government interpretation. That challenge will inevitably cause delay. The Bill as drafted will continue to refer to the Holocaust, the new government would have to change the law to expand that definition.

And of course, the government could change any other provision we add to the bill. There isn't a definition in the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You're quite right,... I'm sorry to say that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry to say that the confusion which is becoming deeper and deeper is of the government's and deeper is of the government's own making. This use of the word genocide, this Holocaust and that genocide, this Holocaust and that Holocaust. I understand the government gives funding to Holocaust education bodies. Only if they agree to include other genocides along with what Jews call genocides along with what Jews call the shower, the Jewish genocide. The government open this up. We all know government open this up.

We all know the word genocide is now being turned against Israel and the Jewish people themselves. The Holocaust people themselves. The Holocaust Memorial Dave trust, which is written in support of this project written in support of this project itself last November invited people to a Holocaust Memorial ceremony 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 it is the governments own model, and it needs clarification. By support of the amendment put forward by Lord Verdirame.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand the strength of feeling the noble Lady has with this and many issues, like I said to the and many issues, like I said to the noble Lord I have lots of sympathies with the intention of the new with the intention of the new clause. I am concerned there isn't a definition in the bill. We have to be very careful in that particular be very careful in that particular point. The noble Lord and the noble Lady's new clause, I understand I had a conversation with Lord Verdirame and Lord Goodman, because of the wording being overly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the wording being overly constrictive I have to ask them to withdraw. I don't think he has properly answered my noble friend's question. It's not just about the It's not just about the clarification of what is in the clarification of what is in the learning centre at this point, it's this concern about what may happen as the world changes, as governments change, as leaders change, to the memorial. We have also heard from my noble friend, Lord Wolfson, who is an eminent lawyer I would suggest that actually this will make it safer in law, and less able to be challenged than it would if it was left in the slightly woolly area that it is now.

Would the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

memorial? There will be future discussions about the governance of the learning centre, those are the safeguards. For this moment I don't want to prolong the House longer, I ask Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Verdirame to withdraw his amendment. I am grateful to everyone who
23:04
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to everyone who intervened. I will say briefly a few intervened. I will say briefly a few points in reply. First of all, I do not have any problem at all with the individuals who are sitting on the academic advisory Board, they are all very eminent. I'm certainly glad to hear of the involvement from Yad Vashem. Composition of boards change over time, different individuals 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. Secondly, on whether it is unnecessary, as the noble Lord the Minister said. I'm afraid I have to disagree. It is necessary because we have already seen some drift into other persecution and other genocides in the Explanatory Notes. That's why it is necessary. I don't quite see how it can be described as too narrow, the purpose would be education about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. They are two pretty big missions, and we are not doing so well in respect of either of those.

Further, as far as the point about commemoration. 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 to that, fact that the amendment refers to education which is a broad concept also enables, narration as part of education. -- Enables commemoration as part of education. The point made by Lord Herbert about the inclusion of homosexual victims of the Holocaust, I have to say I never had any doubt that individuals who were wearing a pink star in Auschwitz were victims of the Holocaust.

I did consider with other members in valve in the drafting of this amendment alternative versions, as 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 centre is about. It is a memorial about the victims of the Holocaust. And I do see that term as inclusive of other groups persecuted and taken to concentration and extermination camps. But I am very glad that he raised that point.

And finally, as far as the legal challenges are concerned I have to say course I agree with everything Lord Wolfson said on legal challenges. But I was a little baffled by the idea 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.

I don't think the amendment I have tabled will in anyway widen the scope for such legal challenges. But it will afford a degree of protection against the risk of mission creep, and against the risk 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'm afraid I do wish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to test the opinion of the house. The question is that amendment 4A be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now
23:09
23:19
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be careful not to repeat what has already been said. I just want to draw attention to the 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 Field near Tower Bridge and Millbank. There is still room on Millbank, I have checked 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 and it is not necessary to build anything from scratch for a Learning Center.

Or indeed museum which is many people have said, would be preferable to a Learning Center. The compromise 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 Center is now discredited, he has withdrawn, 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 last two years.

While this designer -- why this designer should still be considered good enough for Holocaust is very troubling and worrying. We need a new design for that. There happens to be an excellence sculptured memorial in Gladstone Park London by Fred cornice, 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 which we are given now.

The Jewish community remains divided on this matter, it is not the case that they are mostly in favour, far from it. A lot of donors and officials support the project, scholars and everyday members do not necessarily. The Chief Rabbi represents the mainstream, but on the left as it were the progressive element, Rabbi Jonathan remain among others as against the project and on the right the very orthodox rabbi Gloukh 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 of them do not know the details. Given the advancements in technology, the need for a physical exhibition space of this sort is diminishing. Everything we have been told would be in the Learning Center 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 is a site is not Tower Gardens is a site is not right, what we have been given is not a memorial and is not a Holocaust Learning Center, it is a political function arguing about democracy protecting Jews and preventing 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 anti- Semitism or political decision- making. While 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 unfortunately memorials unintentionally serve as staging grounds for political virtue signalling. People posing in front to demonstrate their commitment to remembrance while engaging in anti- Israel actions. Politicians as we know can stand in front of memorials, go through a remembrance ceremony and say not a racist bone in my body, but then in the afternoon go and shake hands with Hamas. Victoria Tower Gardens is therefore unsuitable both therefore unsuitable both practically and ideological. Before settling on either may be as a last resort we know there are other locations that would do far better, and it's time to give community information about what's happening.

These amendments about alternatives and the others put present an opportunity to make a more meaningful and lasting impact, figurative memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, not the current one on offer, and the Learning Center of greater depth and scholarship elsewhere could be achieved quickly and more economically. The real

**** Possible New Speaker ****

effort should begin. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause 2 insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled List. I would say to the House that sites come into potential because of sites come into potential because of changes in usage of buildings around London. Quite apart from the sites London. Quite apart from the sites referred to by my noble friend in her opening of this amendment, there
23:25
23:25
23:27
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Portrait Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Conservative)
-
-
I spot this amendment because it seems to me a brave attempt to bridge gap between two entrenched positions. As someone who sat through most if not all the Committee stage and sat through today's report stage I am reminded of the football manager saying, I have a sense of dej vu all over again. I think one of the important things we can do is try and focus on what has united us as opposed to what has divided us.

I think everybody who took part in the proceedings of the Committee stage were supportive of the key issues, the key objectives of the Holocaust commission, which just worthwhile quoting briefly. The national memorial should be a place where people pay their respects, contemplate my think and offer prayers. Second, remote -- promote factual information about what happened and promote the enormity of the Holocaust and its impact. As Lord Moore reminded us earlier this afternoon, those are two very different activities in the sense that the first is a personal thing, I go to pray, I go to pay my respects.

The second may be personal but is more likely to be collected. I am learning something. So the emphasis of the two parts of what is required by this bill is quite different and therefore when people say they need to be together I'm not sure I buy that the reasons I just explained. I understand I think my noble friend Lord Evans suggested it's going to be ticket only admission, is it going to be ticket only admission free to pray? That seems to me to take quite a different sort of emphasis of the nature of the relationship between the public, Jewish or non-Jewish, and the memorial we are creating.

I think part of our difficulty has been that during the Committee stage, though very valuable points were made, it was clearly felt by both Front Benches that this was a bill that was close to perfect. And that therefore amendments will likely not to improve it or not being tabled like to improve it, but were being tabled in many cases to impede and delay its progress. The Minister dealt with all these with his customary humour and tolerance and patience, and I'm sure I was grateful and I'm sure the committee is grateful to him as well.

He is of course I know a proud Lancastrian course I know a proud Lancastrian from Burnley, the home of Jimmy Anderson the cricketer. I hope you will forgive me if I say that on this occasion at the despatch box his performance reminded me of another cricketer, a proud Yorkshireman Geoffrey Boycott whose renowned shot was the forward defensive prod giving nothing away. That might giving nothing away. The consequence of that is we returned to the staff that we could have cleared out at Committee stage of there had been any evidence of a readiness to reflect and consider and look at matters from my point of view in a more constructive way.

The second issue that I covered has influenced our debate is the modern concept of the lived experience. That is one can only speak really authoritatively if one has direct what is tangentially direct experience of the matter in hand. This is the point made by noble Lords earlier. This obviously has great sensitivity when we are discussing something like Holocaust Memorial Bill and places considerable emphasis and constraints on those of us who like me are not Jewish.

While I accept this constraints, I don't accept the basic premise. I think it's possible to have the emotional intelligence and maturity to get inside an issue and offer another perspective, not and offer another perspective, not I have to say, although some members of your Lordship's House have talked to me about my ability as a non-Jew to give proper weight to what is happening and what is being reflected in this bill I have to say that equally, as has been pointed out, I have had a lot of correspondence from members of the Jewish community who actually have a much more reflective view of what this issue is all about.

And do regarded as important that we should consider it and look at it in the round. It may be that my noble friend Lord Pickles will say I am trying to support a wrecking trying to support a wrecking amendment. But that is not true. Like my noble friend Viscount Eccles, he is slightly more senior to me that I was still a war baby, I remember my father showing me a picture. He was a soldier and came out of the Army at the end of the war, he collected copies of illustrated London News which members of a certain age will remember, it substituted for the pre-television age.

The only time we saw moving pictures before television was when you went to the cinema, usually before the main feature began. He illustrated -- the illustrated London News filled up that gap, pictures and photographs of the background. My father kept some of the illustrated London News at the time that the British Army liberated Bergen in 1945, it was of course a truly horrific issue. 70 years later I still remember it as clearly as if it was yesterday. As I was 12 or 13 years old, you remember the things you familiar with.

The thing I was wet most familiar with was a British soldier pushing bodies into a pre-dug trench. He had around his face a class, no doubt because the smell from the bodies was so the smell from the bodies was so appalling. That was 70 years ago, and they remain burnt into my memory. So I really don't need to be reminded of the appalling things that went on and the horrors of the Holocaust. That is why I have the confidence to say, as a Gentile, that of course we need a memorial, must have a memorial.

And we need an education centre. But we have not got the mix quite right yet. What would write look like? I think to me it would look like a memorial in Victoria Tower garden in scale and appropriate of the importance of what it commemorates. And from my point of view, for all the reasons that have been said, we can do better and more exclusively and more effectively if we were able to bring ourselves to move the educational centre to some other location.

And address the points made by Lord Carlile and others at the same time. My final words, we are talking about the events of 80 years ago. We opened the Festival of Britain in 1951, the then King George VI said the purpose of the exhibition was to lift our civilisation and he invited the world to come and see what this old country could do. I hope we find a way that we could uplift our civilisation and wish to show the world what this old country can do.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare an interest as vice president of the Jewish leadership Council. I'm conscious of time but
23:35
Baroness Berger Portrait Baroness Berger (Labour)
-
-
Council. I'm conscious of time but very keen to speak briefly. I do have a deeply personal connection to the atrocities that our discussions relate to this evening. I lost over 100 members of my family and my mothers side in the Holocaust, and I have been involved in many Holocaust education initiatives domestically and abroad over the course of the last almost 25 years. I visited a number of memorials across the world and their associated learning centres, I've also studied at the International School for Holocaust studies at Yad Vashem.

Many honourable members on both sides of the house have referred to a serious issue of anti-Semitism during the course of this debate. You don't need to be Jewish to walk in someone's Jewish shoes to see that any kind of hatred, it's worth noting, I perhaps don't think any other member is a house have seen six people convicted in this country of anti-Semitism that has been directed towards me because of my faith. It's in that vein I followed this debate closely from the start, I don't 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 doing so speak against it but also to 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, I wasn't yet introduced to this House. I will endeavour to keep my remarks brief. I'm sorry we don't yet have a national Holocaust Memorial. And these proceedings have already taken so many years.

During the course of this time we have lost some extraordinary Holocaust survivors, those first-hand witnesses, since the pledge was made by the previous Prime Minister more than 10 years ago. We have lost some inspirational people, I've had the privilege to meet Sir Ben and number of times, he captained the British team a number of times and his sister tirelessly shares her testimony to schools and businesses and eloquently outlined her support for the national Holocaust Memorial learning centre as was shared before the dinner break by Lord Pickles.

I am very clear that a national memorial should be placed adjacent to our Houses of Parliament at the part of our democracy and our public life. As a physical reminder to us all of the horrific and unique history that saw the systematic murder of 6 million Jews and millions of non-Jewish people including members of the LGBT community. The worst example of in living history when good people do nothing. If you accept the present -- the premise that we should have a national Holocaust Memorial in Westminster adjacent the Houses of Parliament, having listened to the debate this evening it does appear there is majority support for that, I think it's correct that the learning centre should be located together with memorial to ensure that a visit to the memorial delivers a full educational experience.

There has to be a learning resource in its immediate facility, in the same way that major sites like Auschwitz, Birkenau, the Holocaust Museum in Slovakia, they all have educational facilities alongside the memorials. In the US where most memorials are paired with museums in Washington the sea, Texas, Florida, and most significantly as we discussed on a number of occasions this evening at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. Unlike some other noble Lords, I am heartened by representations from the academic advisers, those experts 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 be 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 such questions as what more could and should have been done to help? And will highlight the fate of British nationals caught up in Nazi terror, and those involved in liberating camps. Which many noble Lords refer to this evening. I warmly welcome that evidence-based approach to help visitors engage meaningfully with the past, and to reflect meaningfully on the hatred and anti-Semitism, perils we know have not gone away and today see record levels of anti-Jewish hatred in this country.

I believe 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, and I went through all the correspondence that were shared with all noble Lords, I was in particular struck by the words of the director of the Holocaust Centre North in Huddersfield. I think he best summed it up in his letter to all noble Lords when he said 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 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. I know there are noble Lords from all sides of the House who attended the event a couple of months ago, a service held in the Victoria Tower Gardens on the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen.

I took footage, there were hundreds of schoolchildren across the country who took part in the service. I thought it was very fitting service but also indicative of the memorial we can have fair. In conclusion, I don't 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 the bill.
23:42
Lord Herbert of South Downs Portrait Lord Herbert of South Downs (Conservative)
-
-
Very briefly, can I just interrogate the argument, which is an important one, that to use the noble lady's phrase the location of the learning centre next to our Parliament is essential. That isn't the case, is it, in relation to other Holocaust learning centres around the world. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which has been referred to, the most visited in the world, is nearly 2 miles away from the United States Capitol. And 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, which I referred to in an earlier intervention, is in Berlin. It is the same difference -- distance, nearly 2 miles away from the Reichstag, the Jewish memorial is a little closer but that Jewish Museum is an outstanding and much visited place, with an amazing experience and building designed by Daniel the skin. The kernel of the argument for those 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 it is going to be a much smaller and less impressive, 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 that. The security concerns will be concerns wherever the location is. There will also be an impact on this very small space, and we have little of that kind of green space around our Parliament building. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to accept the noble Lady's amendment and look for alternative sites. 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 persist in combining it with the persist in combining it with the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I like most because of this debate although I agree with the previous beaker, I come from the perspective of being concerned about Victoria Tower Gardens. I don't Victoria Tower Gardens. I don't suppose that should be surprised from someone who is the president of
23:45
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
from someone who is the president of historic buildings places and also a fellow of the Society of antiquaries. It is my concern my considered view that what is being proposed by the government is overdevelopment of Victoria Tower Gardens. Having earlier this afternoon not gone to the crossbench group meeting I skive doff and walked around the gardens. I must say, if this goes ahead let's be under no illusion it's going to wreck it. Planning is based around land use and that inter-alia involves alternative sites.

There is a very real possibility and I think the government accepts that, that the planning process may end up based betting the government current ideas out. Now I think there is unanimity around this chamber that somewhere we want a Learning Center. A lot of people think that the site that is being proposed is the long -- wrong place but there is little doubt that there is agreement about the desirability of this. I think the majority if not everybody would like the memorial to be in Victoria Tower Gardens.

The question I would like to put to them to discover where they stand on all this, what is going to happen if the planning process spits out the proposal? Are they simply going to abandon the whole scheme? Or are they actually then going to proceed to see if they can provide an alternative way of proceeding? Because if we aren't given a clear emphatic answer to that question, it is actually going to be much harder both I think for the government and for ourselves to know which way to vote because as I said earlier, this debate is not only about the planning process, it is about the way in which this House in Parliament responds to the legal obligations imposed on it by the 1,900 act which is still the law of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the land. I wasn't going to speak at all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wasn't going to speak at all and now I will be very short because I am a great believer in this project and I support the Minister project and I support the Minister
23:48
23:49
Lord Pickles Portrait Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
-
associated with the words expressed about Baroness Berger, she is a great addition to this House and a woman of considerable courage. I also enormously admire Baroness Deech, is the only thing I've ever disagreed with her. But I hope she won't mind, I thought initially she had just misspoke she has repeatedly said that the historian Martin Winston didn't know what was going to go into the memorial. That is not to go into the memorial. That is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

true. What he actually said... I didn't say that, said he wasn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I didn't say that, said he wasn't able to explain to us what was going to be learned, he told us very clearly what was going to be in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there, but when we said what's the lesson to be learned there was no answer. That isn't what he said. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That isn't what he said. The reason he couldn't talk about learning and the reason he couldn't learning and the reason he couldn't talk about what was, what it was going to look like was because quite going to look like was because quite properly we suspended the use of the consultants who are going to be the consultants who are going to be the curators. As the Minister said, it curators. As the Minister said, it is Ralph happen born. There have is Ralph happen born.

There have been a number of praises for -- from proponents and opponents for the Holocaust Imperial War Museum. That was devised by him. There is some considerable praise for the US Holocaust Izyum and up -- Museum and that was designed by Appelbaum. The American African Museum which is an extremely good one was also done by them. The first American one was done, the Canadian human rights Museum was done by them, and members will be able to travel down the river to look at the Crown Jewels exhibition was also curated by Appelbaum.

I have to say, with regard to the park, this is not Victoria Tower Gardens, the descriptions we have heard don't in any way quite to the reality. The place is a dump. And it's been neglected as a dump and those who speak so eloquently about something should have done something about it in the window, -- winter, in the summer it's a dustbowl, in the winter. So who is going to look after it? The people who were selected to do the landscaping for the eyeful to.

The French are a cheesy nation they only go for the best. That place is going to look so much better. It's going to have hearths that water can go through and won't choke as the current path to do, the roots of the trees. People who are disabled who are in a wheelchair for the first time ever will be able to enjoy the embankment. Just seems to me to be utterly wrong. Somehow that for property only reasons we should deny the people of London something better.

That we should deny the people that live in the Peabody estate something better. And this is going to be something considerably better than is currently there and that we as a parliament have allowed it to be neglected. I wholeheartedly support that. I think it's also quite wrong to suggest that somehow this museum is going to be about British triumphalism. Have repeatedly made clear that that is not going to be the case. I would like to conclude because I feel we have already had a quotation from a Rabbi from a non-due and as a non- due I would like to quote from the office of the Chief Rabbi.

Evan Murphy who is the Chief Rabbi of the kingdom but also the Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth. Not easily dismissed. He says, this is a short paragraph. In these highly challenging times with rising anti- Semitism I wholeheartedly support the creation of the 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 our society.

I say this in conclusion, when the Jewish community needed him he stood up against anti-Semitism. He stood up against Jeremy Corbyn, he didn't suck up to Jeremy Corbyn, this is a man of great leadership

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and he his words should be listened to Before my noble friend sits down could he just explained to me, well I didn't want to be discourteous by I didn't want to be discourteous by interrupting his flow but I followed the normal convention and asked him, the normal convention and asked him, if before he sits down he could explain to me something that is rather puzzling me that if there is going to be this immense improvement to the site, could he explain why it to the site, could he explain why it is Unesco has said this makes it one of the five or six most at risk World Heritage sites on the register?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

register? Know he is entirely wrong is not Unesco site committed outside Unesco site. The inspector looked at this site. The inspector looked at this and came to the conclusion that this and came to the conclusion that this would enhance, any change to the site would improve. I think also people said that there would be no singer can damage, so actually the noble gentleman I'm grateful for because he's just outlined what a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

good thing it's going to be. I suppose it's a bit of a clue that if we have more groups of moments in our clauses in the bill moments in our clauses in the bill it's going to feel like we are going round in circles a bit. This group does feel like we are going round in
23:56
23:57
23:59
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
The amendment from the noble Ladies Baroness Deech, Baroness Jones and Baroness Finlay seeks to impose a requirement of the Secretary of State to consider alternative proposals for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre as part of the planning process within that with the aim of coming up with new better or different proposals I respect the fact that Lady Deech has deeply held their views on our current proposals and would prefer the covenant to change its 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. 10 years ago following extensive consultation the premises Holocaust commission submitted a report. The recommendations in that report was accepted by all major parties including that there should be a new National Holocaust Memorial with an accompanying learning centre, an independent cross-party foundation led a complains of search for the most fitting site for prominent and striking a memorial assisted by a firm of construct consultants they considered around 50 sites.

The result was that Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the most suitable location. The foundation was unanimous in recommending the site to government as well as giving the memorial the prominence it deserves, uniquely allows the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament. Demonstrating the significance of the Holocaust to the decisions that we take as a nation. Following international opposition with more than 90 entrants, the design of the Holocaust and why and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel after detailed consultation in which shortlist schemes toured the UK in and consultation event for Holocaust survivors was held, the judging panel chose the winning design for the Holocaust memorial with an underground learning centre because of the sensitivity to Victoria Tower Gardens.

Exhibitions were held to gather feedback on the winning design head of a planning occasion. As the law requires further consultation took place around the planning application, more than 4,000 representations were submitted and a six-week planning enquiry was held at which more than 50 interested parties spoke. All the details of the application, 6,000 pages of information all remains publicly accessible online and closely scrutinised. The design team and the coach out of the UK Memorial foundation were cross-examined by It included looking at the proposed security measures both those to be incorporated into the memorial and learning centre and those proposed as operational procedures.

Both aspects of these measures will be reviewed and updated routinely in response to the existing threat assessment. Alternative sites were also considered as part of the planning application and dealt with in the report. Following the inquiry, the independent inspector then submitted his detailed and lengthy report to the Minister with a recommendation that consent should be granted. The Minister agreed with that recommendation. The planning decision was subsequently crushed by the High Court on the basis that certain parts of the rendered County Counsel improvements act 1,900 prevented development in Victoria Tower Gardens.

That's why we are promoting close two of this bill to seek parliaments agreement that the statutory impediment should be lifted for the purposes of Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre. However, the planning will still need to be taken by the designated Minister in accordance with proper procedures and in line with all relevant statutory requirements. Turning to the amendment which is seeking alternative proposals to be considered in the hope of coming up with something better, I can see no possible justification for such an amendment.

The planning application submitted in 2018 remains live. The planning process which is not yet concluded has provided and will continue to provide all the proper opportunities for consultation and scrutiny. The current proposal has been endorsed by every living Prime Minister, has cross party backing and is supported by faith and community leaders. I recognise there are opposing views about the proposed design and location. It would be profoundly unrealistic to imagine we can find a design and a site that everyone agrees with.

Simply repeating the process of consideration would not be a guarantee of creating consensus. The only certainties that there would be another 10 years of delay, a point made by others. Just a finished, I asked the noble Lady's and the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord to withdraw amendment five. It is a matter of regret that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a matter of regret that the Committee stage of this took place Committee stage of this took place in the grand chamber. Where there wasn't much room for discussion or wasn't much room for discussion or intend -- attendance. Now we find the government is still trying to steamroller this through by keeping steamroller this through by keeping us here late at night in the hope that people will get tired and go
00:04
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
that people will get tired and go home. This needs more time. Let me over to some misconceptions in the speeches made. We have a national Holocaust centre already.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In deciding on the fate of the amendment, it was not necessary to respond to all the points raised in the debate and might be hopeful to the House reaching a decision.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House reaching a decision. I have no intention of responding to all of the points. But there was to all of the points. But there was something said which were not correct. Not all of the survivors correct. Not all of the survivors want a memorial. No one has studied the impact. All this talk about it the impact. All this talk about it has to be next to parliament to make a signal about democracy. There's been no study about the impact of location or visiting.

No one has location or visiting. No one has done a study to say if you go visit a Holocaust Museum, what do you feel like when you come out at the other end? The model we have been given is end? The model we have been given is somewhat misleading, it does not show the whole project. As for the Victoria Tower Gardens, which is a nice place in an open space for building inhabitants and all those live in flats, it is going to be a real lesson in forthcoming years because it will be a repository for the scaffolding and building and concrete mixers and so on associated with restoration and renewal.

In 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, I think no due diligence was done at the outset, otherwise people will have realised that the design had already been presented in Ottawa and since then the same design has been used in Niger and Barbados. There is nothing about sensitivity or special affiliation to London or the park or the Jewish community. Given the lateness of the hour, I can do nothing more with the minute, but the truth within it remains.

I beg leave to withdraw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is your lordships pleasures of this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is withdrawn. Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

six. I rise to move amendment six in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment six in my name. And in the names of the my name. And in the names of the noble Baroness and noble Lord. And
00:06
Lord Lisvane Portrait Lord Lisvane (Crossbench)
-
-
noble Baroness and noble Lord. And amendment number seven in the name of the noble Lord is also in this group. Amendment six and seven would do pretty much the same thing, but it is typical of Lord Inglewood's gift of crisp expression that his amendment seven is about half the length of my amendment number six. What we are after is something which I would have thought would be beyond criticism. The approval of Parliament. It actually happens that I think this is the First Amendment of the evening and indeed, the early morning, which is not directly about the HMRC project.

We seek a straightforward approval of both houses for the planning consent should that have been obtained. It would have two table of provement motions within 60 days for any consent being granted and no work on the centre could begin until both houses had agreed. Having consent is one thing, but the putting of the proposition department brings in a wider dimension and that is 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 to express a view.

Quite a few former Accounting Officer's in this place and I must admit to being one myself. The national infrastructure and projects authority report in January of this year is the stuff of which accounting officers nightmares are made. The authority said and I quote, successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivering, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The authority of said red and unachievable for each of the last three years.

The National Audit Office have been no more kindly. In their 2022 report they described as an emerging risk causing potential cost increases that promote as failure to consider any site or to quantify or account for risk. The latest capital cost estimate which was kindly given to us by the noble Lord the Minister in a debate on an earlier amendment is 146 million. This must make the case for the parliamentary approval which amendment six would provide.

One argument which I hope the Minister will not think of deploying against this amendment is that Royal assent to this bill will provide the necessary parliamentary authority for the project. Of course it won't. But the bill does is encapsulated in the long title. It allows spinach her but does not approve it. When 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 national infrastructure and projects authority and the National Audit Office feel able to endorse.

It is that which amendment number six seeks to submit to parliamentary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

judgment. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after close to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after close to into the following the close is printed on the Marshalled List. -- Clause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause. I rise to speak in support of amendment seven and amendment six. I amendment seven and amendment six. I reiterate and endorse the wise words from the noble Lord. As he said, we
00:10
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-
from the noble Lord. 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 1,900. The criteria which are used to determine whatever decisions may be reached are different in the two separate cases. We must exercise our judgment independently of the rules which relate to the granting otherwise of planning permission. The one thing I feel very strongly about here is certainty. In 1,900, the legislation incorporated a plan which was deposited with the Clerk of the Parliaments and I understand is currently somewhere between this building and Q, which I've not been able to see it, which shows precisely what was going to happen and was led in law that what was in the plan was to be implemented.

We are now being asked in repealing that particular piece of legislation to rely on a series of the most generalised principles. We don't know what we are being asked to approve. I think it is only right and proper that once planning permission has been granted and then there was a degree of certainty about the detail of what is going to be proposed, we then have the last word. That is consistent with the pattern of the way in which this has occurred.

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 the first commission network said it was a national improvement. Given that context, I think what we are seeing is entirely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasonable and also quite proper. I want to add my name to these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to add my name to these two amendments. I will add briefly to the two remarks already made in
00:13
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger Portrait Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
to the two remarks already made in moving the amendment. I refer earlier to the unsatisfactory nature of the Committee stage where all sorts of issues which could usefully have been dug out and discussed were put to one side. This included the fact that a large number of issues which we would like to have discussed with the committee, we were told it was to do with planning and therefore it was nothing to do with us. We did not have the competence and experience, or the legal position to be able to make a useful contribution.

Let me be clear, I respect the planners competence and their experience, but the provisions and implications of a bill like this go far beyond the normal arrangements. This is not like a controversial proposal to build in the Green Belt. This is about constructing an iconic memorial on a small piece of open space in the palace of Wentz Minister, itself a heritage site. -- Westminster. When these plans come to fruition, it will be really important method then members of the two houses of Parliament who are the trustees of the Palace of Westminster should take responsibility for all decisions that are then made.

They should finally take it off once we have reached that part of the process.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is why I support the amendment. I will add my name to this amendment, I will be extreme a amendment, I will be extreme a brief. I support it. -- Extremely brief.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brief. I think -- thank the noble lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think -- thank the noble lords for bringing their movements. While we respect the spirit in which these have been brought, we on the official opposition benches cannot support these amendments. We are very concerned that both amendment very concerned that both amendment six and seven which each require further parliamentary scrutiny of further parliamentary scrutiny of the progress of the project after planning stage would severely planning stage would severely undermine the planning process and prevent the timely delivery of the project and risk its future.

We are
00:15
00:16
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Method Method of Method of gaining Method of gaining planning Method of gaining planning consent, 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 a proper place for considering development such as the proposed National Holocaust Memorial. And learning centre for this process considers diverse perspectives, extensive augmentations and expert advice to reach a decision whether planning consent should be granted. Members of Parliament and members of the Lords at the same opportunities as all citizens to express their opinions about any proposed element.

In the case of this planning application members of this House spoke at the previous planning enquiry. I have no doubt that many noble Lords will make representations to the designated minister when he sets out the process for determining the planning occasion. If another planning enquiry is held I'm sure several noble Lords will take the opportunity to appear and make their views known. The government has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

already given an assurance that it will notify the relevant authorities in both houses as soon as practicable. I apologise for interrupting the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but he has come to a point about planning enquiries, just that about planning enquiries, just that if a planning enquiry is held during the committee stage it was asked on a number of occasions whether a a number of occasions whether a planning enquiry would be held and we were told that there might not be we were told that there might not be a planning enquiry that could all be done by written representations or even by an exchange of letters.

Can he reassure the House of the committee, that a planning enquiry will be held?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be held? Let me clarify because that was a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me clarify because that was a misinterpretation of what I said in committee. What I said was the designated minister, he would decide how we will take the planning how we will take the planning That's part of the number of options that could be written reputations, there could be a consensus by having a roundtable I doubt that will happen, on the basis of the debate, but there could be public enquiry and that is entirely a decision and prerogative of the planning designated minister and as part of the planning process of which we are totally detached from.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

That his answer is extremely un- vigorous.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vigorous. I strongly disagree -- ambiguous, I strongly disagree, this I strongly disagree, this application is live and subject to the passing of this bill there will be a new process which the designated minister will decide what you will take forward in terms of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you will take forward in terms of that the decision the Minister... I'm getting more confused because the Minister has just said there the Minister has just said there will be a new planning enquiry or a new planning process, but before he said there might only be a roundtable or written roundtable or written representations. He just used the word new, I had a very clearly. word new, I had a very clearly. Could the Minister tell us please on how many occasions when a planning enquiry, planning application has been called in to a minister has a further planning enquiry been held? Because I don't know what the presidents are -- precedents are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

below I'm not aware of there any precedent for a planning enquiry at this stage leading to a new enquiry. I strongly disagree with the characterisation of what I said. What I said was the planning What I said was the planning application is live as it is but there will be a new planning process because the planning application has been quashed because of the London County Council act 1,900. That's why we put this bill forward. Clause 2 so we can disapply the powers of 1906 County Council act.

What I did 1906 County Council act. What I did say as well, the Minister designated minister will decide what process in minister will decide what process in terms of how the application will be taken forward, that could be a roundtable seeking consensus, it roundtable seeking consensus, it could be a planning enquiry, it could be written at rest -- written a reputation for top that's a a reputation for top that's a decision for the designated minister to decide, not in the remit of what we are trying to discuss was at times it sounded like a planning committee but that's not the remit of what the cause of the spill is set out to do.

I moved progress, in saying the government has orally given assurances that it would notify the relevant authorities in both houses are seen as practicable following the reactivation of the planning process in respect of the current application. The Restoration and Renewal programme of the Palace of Westminster has also been considered, and we will continue to work with the team responsible for the Restoration and Renewal programme to make sure we understand interactions and potential impact between the two schemes. I want to quickly clarify Lord Lisvane's comments in relation to, he referred to the red dating site to the program in the annual report by the infrastructure and project authority.

That rating as has been made clear at each report since 2022, reflects the need to retain Parliament's approval to this bill and to recover planning consent before losing planning consent in 2022, the program was rated and It is therefore necessary to seek further steps adding a report and resolution in both houses when planning processes have been completed in accordance with statutory requirements. These amendments will add further delays and therefore I ask Lord Lisvane, Lord Hodgson, Lord Strathcarron and Baroness Fookes and Baroness Walmsley to withdraw their amendments.

Six and seven.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the intent with which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the intent with which Lingle and I had -- Lord Inglewood has been slightly interpreted. When
00:21
00:23
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Inglewood. I think this is going to be a very full -- short vote because I think the right thing for me to do think 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 it has to be read determined de novo. Just to say to the Minister, I assume you agree with what I have put in the amendment? My only additional comment I think is that the previous application wasn't quashed because of the London County Council act, it was actually quashed because of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

administrative mistakes made. Doesn't noble Lord wish to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doesn't noble Lord wish to move his amendment or not? The question is after amendment proposed, after clause to insert the following new clause is printed on the marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List -- clause 2. I did not put 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 granted and the project was first mooted have entirely changed. On one mooted have entirely changed. On one small point my research was that the national infrastructure project national infrastructure project authority rated the project read 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 it we find? Everything is
00:25
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
different. Today we know that the different. Today we know that the toy Talla gardens will be the site for the next 30 years or so of for the next 30 years or so of rubble and building materials needed to repair the Palace of Westminster, Victoria itself and the replacement of the Parliament education Centre. of the Parliament education Centre. So to appeal to the emotions of the special nature of Victoria Tower Gardens and its relationship to Gardens and its relationship to democracy and peace and quiet has entirely gone.

The RJ firm design entirely gone. The RJ firm design can no longer be considered to be of exceptional quality as the inspector put it because we now know it's a put it because we now know it's a thirdhand design. We know that the design of the 23 thins has been design of the 23 thins has been condemned by Sir Richard Evans does not represent anything historical at all to do with 22 countries whose Jewish population was exterminated. We know from research that abstract memorials are vandalised far more than figurative ones because the former carry no emotional weight.

I think a fresh start would entail having a proper religious or appealing motif to the design. The need for open space has been shown as being more persuasive than ever That space may ball be needed again for that lying in state of the late Queen Anne to use of the coronation. 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 regulation call for a new consideration.

In other words the needs to be fresh consideration of the situation entirely different from what prevailed nine or 10 years ago that is what this amendment is trying to achieve.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will be very brief but we do feel on the side of the chamber that these amendments are unnecessary because as I said so many times today, the planning process that
00:27
00:27
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
into account, must take into account all relevant matters. This amendment is unnecessary for the planning decisions must be taken in a framework of statute and regulation which Parliament put in place to ensure 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 originally submitted in late 2018 after the original decision to grant consent was quashed by the High Court in 2022 the application is now waiting for redetermination with a designated minister in a special arrangement of 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 a promoter of the bill and in effect as the applicant for planning consent, it's not for me to comment therefore in any detail on how the determination decision will be taken. I do feel confident in saying that the designated minister will seek to take that decision in accordance with the law whatever processes undertaken, whether seeking written representations or through a new planning enquiry the decision-maker must take into account all relevant matters. They will of course be opportunities for any decision to be challenged in the courts if interested parties believe relevant matters have not been taken properly into account.

This amendment adds nothing to the responsibilities which already rest on the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

designated to take the planning decision, I asked noble Lords to withdraw the amendment. I assume the Minister when he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I assume the Minister when he said seat to take these decisions in accordance with the law will accordance with the law will actually undertake to take in accordance with the law. I beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accordance with the law. I beg leave to withdraw. Is a lot of pleasure this and that is withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment nine Baroness Deech. I now come to what I might call

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I now come to what I might call the elephant in the room. I wish to bring up the question of the impact bring up the question of the impact of building a Holocaust, an underground learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. Which is going to either render impossible going to either render impossible the restoration renewal or make it the restoration renewal or make it more difficult and expensive. And whether the memorial is built which of course I hope it won't be as it
00:30
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
of course I hope it won't be as it is, whether it is built before R&R it will get in the way. It's impossible to imagine a memorial to 6 million deaths taking shape and being visited when it will be surrounded, it will have right up to with boundaries all the paraphernalia that will accompany R&R. Instead of reverence and contemplation there will be masonry, concrete mixers, builders, scaffolding, material and HFT, trucks drawing by and unloading. There are three projects going on including the memorial that conflict with each other, and all of them in the centre of Victoria Tower Gardens.

One is the repair Victoria, delayed by some error in the procurement process but now expected to start imminently and run for at All the proposals for R and R will involve the use of a chunk of the gardens is a main area for keeping all the equipment, access to the palace and so on. Two of the proposals for R and R involves tunnels under the palace and going into the gardens with great upheaval. Remembering also that the so-called learning centre will also be underground.

I would say it reminds me of the excitement involved in building the channel tunnel when the team starting in France in the team starting here eventually met exactly in the middle, which is what they wanted to do but would be most unfortunate if it happened under Victoria Tower Gardens. The restoration of renewal works will reach nearly as far as the memorial and the memorial will reach up to it from the other end. The current plan for R and R, and express my gratitude to my noble friend, Lord Fox, who gave evidence to the Select Committee on the memorial.

Indicates that almost half of the area of the gardens will be needed for the full duration of R&R which could last for 30 years. Work is unlikely to start until 2029. The memorial may or may not be under construction by then. The planning permission needed for R and R will be more difficult if Holocaust Memorial Bill is built or planned to be built. Because nothing of the gardens will remain open, contrary to the 1,900 LCC improvement act, which prohibits building in Victoria Tower Gardens.

The very act under discussion tonight. If a memorial is built, there will still be an obligation under the 1,900 act to keep the rest of the gardens open for the public. It's impossible to see how that can be achieved. If a memorial is built it will damage the ability to get planning permission for R and R and may need further amendment of the 1,900 act. It will restrict the ability of the restoration and renewal people to use the gardens as they might wish to.

Including early work to build a jetty and the tunnels I mentioned. If both projects are undertaken, there will be no gardens left and the atmosphere that might be conducive to a memorial will be destroyed. There will also be an impact on traffic, with buses and visitors to the memorial potentially conflicting with Lori's and building work. Even before R&R gets properly under way. We've had no indication from those involved in R&R how they will manage this. Of course, R&R has to take precedence over anything else in the gardens.

It is a vital national project and we have a moral obligation to get on with it. The education centre of Parliament has had its temporary building extended to 2030 and that presents another problem in relation to the open nature of the gardens. The gardens lie within the Westminster Whitehall area of archaeological priority. They are thought to cover the site of Westminster Abbey's Mill, St. Peter's wharf and a tutor slaughterhouse. As well as having high potential for new discoveries like sunken boats, wharfs and jetties.

The pipes and wires of the palace, which as we all know need replacement, or curious relics of the past and they extend under Westminster Bridge to the gardens. So all those elements will conflict. The dust and noise associated with R&R is inevitable and of course it must be done. I strongly support any move to get going on this. The impact of R&R on a memorial and vice versa is very serious indeed. Not to mention for security issues. I don't envy the parliamentary authorities trying to deal with all of this, but the last thing they need is to have to take into account Holocaust underground Learning Center with the associated excavation and all the other issues that we are by now familiar with.

There's a simple solution, R&R is important to the nation, to the work of government, to the dignity of Parliament, to the needs of future generations. It must be allowed to go ahead as efficiently as possible. So when planning a memorial, the considerations relating to R&R must be sorted out first and they must take priority. And we must be told how this is going to be achieved. The persistence behind the memorial project is hard to understand. It can now be seen to be adverse to the national interest.

In addition to all its other flaws, we must get on with R&R and bring to an end the colossally -- costly indecision and risk we face now. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause to insert the following new clause is printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is printed on the Marshalled List. I support the noble Lady and her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support the noble Lady and her amendment nine. With the then Clerk of the Parliaments, I commissioned the first ever conditional survey of the palace in October 2011. That the palace in October 2011. That reported in March 2012 and its principal conclusion was that doing principal conclusion was that doing nothing was not an option and that was 13 years ago. I am deeply
00:36
Lord Lisvane Portrait Lord Lisvane (Crossbench)
-
-
frustrated that nothing has been done 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 a memorial and Learning Center to be a new obstacle to R&R. May I very briefly revisit a point I made in committee.

At the north end of the Victoria Tower Gardens is the education centre which was mentioned briefly by the noble Lady, which 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, but it has been extended to 2030. When it runs out, and the education centre is demolished, that will be a major 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 the project, they will be substantially increased by the demolition of the education centre and the heavy traffic involved. It's all the more important that the authorities of the two houses, probably the corporate offices, should be satisfied that R&R will not be impeded in this amendment would achieve that end.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I put my name to this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I put my name to this amendment and I wholeheartedly support it. We as parliamentarians have a duty to
00:38
00:39
00:40
00:41
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Amendment nine proposed by the noble Lady's Baroness Deech and Baroness Laing and the noble lords deals with the important matter of coordination between the programme to construct a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre and a 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 at Grand Committee. I had the privilege of a further discussion with the noble Lord for which I'm very grateful.

Evidence for presented to the committee was that the main restoration and renewal works are not due to start before 2029 at the earliest. The estimate is now the 2030 would be the earliest realistic start date upon which the noble Lord Evans made as well. On that timetable the question of any direct overlap of the construction. Seems unlikely to arise. I understand those involved in the planning of the R&R 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 need for planning consent in relation to Victoria Tower Gardens. Understandably there are as yet no firm proposals from the R&R programme about how much of Victoria Tower Gardens will be acquired in any application for planning consent appears some way off. The government, as promoter of the Holocaust Memorial Bill test made it clear in our response to the Select Committee that we recognise the introduction of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre and the restoration and renewal programme is important and that the interest of the users of the gardens need to be considered.

We will continue to work with the R&R programme team to understand that Introduction and its potential impacts are being considered, point which the noble Lady alluded to. I know many noble lords will study the architectural model of the Holocaust Memorial last week when it was unsure in Parliament and the royal gallery. The model helps assure that the memorial structures at the southern end of Victoria's tower gardens while the Learning Center is underground. Even if the R&R programme seeks consent for the good deal of the northern end of the gardens, there will be space available in the centre area for all visitors and the playground will be available for children at the southern end.

Noble lords may be unsatisfied with their commitment to cooperate and to seek in good faith to overcome practical challenges. The amendment put forward by the Baroness implies a need for more formal arrangements to ensure the interest of the 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 for the interest 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 determination of the planning application. The corporate offices of both houses have made representations in response to former consultation by the planning case unit which is responsible for that process and I have no doubt that any material they wish to provide will be given proper consideration. It is quite clear that the introduction between the Holocaust Memorial programme and the R&R programme have been and are being considered at a practical level.

Those interactions will be considered before any planning decisions are taken. This amendment 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 Bill and. The amendment would mean that arrangements for making planning decisions come arrangements for considering different impacts for balancing impacts against benefits come arrangements Parliament has put in place to govern decision-making on all manner of development in all parts should not apply in this particular case.

I do not think such a radical departure is necessary. I would ask noble lords to consider the practical implications. Perfectly proper and understandable reasons is subject to uncertainty. It is far from clear what might be possible for those responsible for the R&R programme to give the certification which the proposed amendment envisages. Let me emphasise once again that I fully understand and agree with the need for cooperation and coordination between those responsible for the memorial programme and those The program is a major undertaking an huge importers securing the future of this iconic palace.

I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

confident that with goodwill and commitment there need be no... Can I very briefly ask the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I very briefly ask the Minister, who is going to be in charge of the memorial and learning centre program?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On that particular point there will be once planning permission has been granted and when the time is right for the project to move forward there will be a body which forward there will be a body which will be in charge of the oversight of the project.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the project. I just add to that, so that means that there is nobody appointed who that there is nobody appointed who can make preparation and see the whole thing through until the whole

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thing the whole thing starts? When the time is right we go through the planning process there will be provisions made in due course when the time is right and course when the time is right and the project is past the planning stage. Just to conclude with goodwill and commitment there need be no significant conflict between the programs, I don't however the programs, I don't however believe it's necessary to make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

believe it's necessary to make changes to this bill to ensure cooperation. I ask noble Ladies and Lords to withdraw the amendment. Future parliamentarians will read

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Future parliamentarians will read Hansard and wonder why we were so callous about -- careless about the process of R&R. Everything we've heard in response has been wishful thinking, let's hope it goes OK, with a bit of luck it will be fine. with a bit of luck it will be fine. We've had no detail at all about how those two projects will interact those two projects will interact with each other, absolutely nothing. The memorial will go nearly all the way, the Buxton Memorial and R&R will be coming up the other end and there is no doubt they will meet each other, or indeed overlap.

We've been told the planning process will deal with all of that, then as earlier questions have shown we don't know what planning process we are going to get what it will deal with. So we have no idea what is going to happen. As the poor children in the playground, sandwiched on the one hand between asbestos and concrete and dust from 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 won members that we are treading on thin ice as far as the progress of R&R goes, and it has not been taken as seriously as it should be.

I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is a great shame. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 10 Lord Carlile not moved. We come to amendment 11 Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Walmsley. I rise to move amendment 11 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 11 and speak to amendment 12 groups with it speak to amendment 12 groups with it and don't worry, I have crossed out most of this in the interests of the lateness of the hour, besides which lateness of the hour, besides which I'm so bleary eyed I can hardly read it. I will deal with the simple matter as briefly as I possibly can. The current proposals for the
00:49
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The current proposals for the learning centres we've had at length for a set of rooms entirely below the ground. It goes down to a depth of 8.5 metres. It would be located extremely close to the terms and the ageing Riverwalk, there is only one entrance to the facility and that leads to a below ground level courtyard entrance area. 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 flood, fire or terrorist attack, or any disruption that could cause panic.

The toy italic gardens is in a high-risk rapid inundated planning zone -- flooding zone which means that in the event of a breach of the River Thames Riverwalk, at high tide, particularly because of climate change, the sea level has risen. The whole learning centre will be quickly immersed stop although the danger from this catastrophic flooding is remote, it must be taken into account when considering planning permission. But the risk was swept aside with no real consideration whatever from the Minister in committee.

Planned development is currently held to be protected by the Thames Barrier which needs replacing. It is to be improved by 2050. And of course the old river walls, however small the risk it's not worth taking. What if climate change, rising sea level and unusual storms should cause overtopping of the war? What if a ship either deliberately or accidentally breached 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 where people inside the memorial could escape through. Or take refuge from floods. The exits from the exhibition spaces are in the same low ground level courtyard that serves as the entrance. The single entrance exit is also a problem in relation to potential outbreak of fire in the centre. My concerns are borne out by the fact that the Ministry of communities and August 21 flood warning emergency plan for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre's construction.

Provides that the whole site will be evacuated when a severe flood warning for the Thames is in place, such warnings are regularly now issued, sometimes with little warning. Several times every winter and sometimes in the summer as well. Do we really want this important learning centre to have to be frequently closed? Implications of this emergency plan is that when it actually 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 and that is why in amendment 12 I have requested why the Secretary of State should prepare a full report on all these matters and laid before Parliament for the other sections of the House -- act once past come into force. Then Parliament itself can assess the risks and make a decision about it. Amendment 11 is simply the enactment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 3, page 1, line 22. At end insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

subject to subsection 2 a. I won't be in the least bit upset if nobody else speaks except the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Apart from my noble friend.
00:53
00:54
00:56
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
and flood risk provisions can see the relevant documents and study the relevant documents and study them in detail. We would not be proceeding with a design we believed exposed visitors to an unacceptable risk. The proposal has been subject to significant scrutiny to ensure its compliant with relevant its compliant with relevant regulations. As we develop and impairment plans we will continue to draw on expert advice and make sure those plans comply with all those plans comply with all standards.

Report prepared by the planning inspector in 2021 provides a good account of the scrutiny to which the proposals were subjected. No flooding objections were raised No flooding objections were raised by the Environment Agency by Westminster City Council at the enquiry will stop the London Fire Brigade are content with the fire Brigade are content with the fire safety arrangements, let me summarise key points that demonstrate how seriously we take this. Flood risk was identified specifically as a matter for consideration when the planning The independent Planning Inspectorate gave particular attention to flood risk into considering the application, he had a roundtable discussion involving interested parties and cover the matter in depth.

London already has significant flood defence, the inspector noted that front London is well defended against the risk of tidal flooding. He considered the risk of breach flooding to be extremely remote and believe that flood risk over the lifetime of the development would be acceptably managed. Planning consent was originally granted in 2021 with specific conditions requiring develop into the strategy for maintaining the level wall and the flood risk evacuation plan for I expect any new planning consent would have a similar was the same conditions I would hope I make it clear that this is a matter we take seriously but it is as I've said matter of the planning application and subject to detailed scrutiny by appropriate experts.

When it comes to safety fire is obviously a matter of first importance will top let me reassure you 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 application included detailed report on the relevant parts of the building regulations and set out how the proposed structure would meet those regulations will top pick up one detail which some noble Lords may have been interested in, the proposal included both main and secondary escape routes from the When the application was initially approved specific conditions were agreed that a fire escape plan would be agreed with local planning authority, Westminster City Council, before the developer could take place.

There's no doubt that the fire safety arrangements proposed for the Holocaust would be subject to proper professional scrutiny and no possibility of development taking place if those arrangements were 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 want to ensure that the learning centre has appropriate means of escape but I should emphasise very strongly that the processes for considering a planning application and ensuring compliance with building regulations are robust mechanisms for addressing fire risk, flood risk and evacuation measures.

This bill doesn't seek to provide an alternative route for obtaining authorities to build the memorial and learning centre. 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 it requires. Amending the bill to replicate or interfere with the planning process is therefore

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unnecessary, I ask the noble Ladies and Lord to withdraw amendments 11 and 12. I thank the Minister for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for his reassurance, I do hope that the future planning process whatever it is decided upon by the proposal 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 previous one. I sincerely hope I never have need to say I warned you, I told you so. With that, I withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the amendment. Is a urologic pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn? Amendments by leave withdrawn. Amendment 12 not by leave withdrawn. Amendment 12 not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by leave withdrawn. Amendment 12 not moved. -- Is it your Lordships pleasure we now come to the amendment in the name of Baroness Fookes I beg to move the amendment in my name and that of other noble Lords. Given the lateness of the hour and the fact that it is rather unfortunately number 13 it doesn't bode well for this particular amendment I feel. 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
01:01
01:02
Lord Inglewood Portrait Lord Inglewood (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. I am disappointed that in this wide-ranging and very interesting wide-ranging and very interesting and relevant debate we rarely have hardly touched on the conservation significance of Victoria Tower Gardens. We need to be absolutely under no illusions that it is a very important site and it is an important site both on its own account and also because it is one of the most significant sites in this country, which is of global European and national importance.

I won't at this point in the evening and enumerate the detail of both the characteristics and designations it has achieved, nor of the criticisms that have been levelled against what is being proposed. But suffice it to say that from a national and an international perspective, those criticisms carry the greatest heritage value in perspective and should not be likely dismissed as some kind of for Paris 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 those, some of whom are bound to be disappointed, will be able to accept that affair, evenhanded decision was reached, balancing all interest involved in no particular pressure groups, whether they are Jewish or anybody else have been given priority unjustly over anyone else.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a botanist I can assure you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a botanist I can assure you lordships that the Baroness is absolutely right about the extreme danger to the two rows of plane danger to the two rows of plane trees. I just have one sentence and one question for the noble Lord the one question for the noble Lord the Minister and I hope you can reply. Can he say notwithstanding the text of clause 2, what measures the of clause 2, what measures the government plans to put in place of government plans to put in place of the proposed progress were to go ahead and amended to ensure the public benefit of Victoria Tower public benefit of Victoria Tower Gardens is a green space to the local population and to the workers
01:04
01:05
01:06
01:06
01:08
Lord Sassoon Portrait Lord Sassoon (Conservative)
-
-
we have no assurance about the planning process and I'm very disappointed that my noble friend disappointed that my noble friend Baroness Scott of Bybrook from our Frontbench did not in any way Frontbench did not in any way challenge the planning process, but merely also parroting the words of the Minister that these matters are the Minister that these matters are all for planning. That is very disappointing. The second thing we've heard a lot about today is the we've heard a lot about today is the model.

In the improvements to the gardens. But actually, for those of gardens. But actually, for those of you who looked at the model last week and tried to get the view of week and tried to get the view of those small tiny figures in front of the Memorial, the only way you could do it is by putting your camera down do it is by putting your camera down there and taking a photograph. What there and taking a photograph. What that showed, the ministers laughing and making faces now as he's done all day.

This is a serious point I would like to make. The Minister talked earlier about photographs of the model and he was offering to share them with one of my noble friends. I took photographs on my phone last week that showed somebody standing in those gardens the other side from the palace of the Memorial will have the view of the south faade of the palace entirely blocked out and that goes to the heart of UNESCO's concerns.

NY, to answer my noble friend Lord Pickles who when I challenged him earlier talked about the paths in the landscaping, I have no doubt that will be improved, but what is happening to the Victoria Tower Gardens is a very large Memorial is put down, which Unesco says is putting the World Heritage Site of Westminster at risk. I recognise it is not within the actual area of the heritage site as such, that goes to the northern part of the gardens, but that doesn't mean to say that the heritage site is not at risk.

So we have a situation late at night where we are getting to the heart of the issues around the planning for this proposed Memorial and I go back to something else which the noble Lord the Minister said, he said this memorial will say something important about ourselves as a nation. There are many aspects to that, but one of the things it does is to actually mean that Unesco decide that Westminster is no longer a World Heritage Site, I think that is a significant matter and so I believe my noble friends amendment is a proportionate way of dealing with a very serious issue that goes to the heart of this bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I think my noble friend for bringing forward amendment 13 which focuses on the extremely important issue of the heritage here in issue of the heritage here in Westminster. One of the most historically culturally and architecturally significant parts of our capital. Clearly the delivery of
01:11
01:12
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
existing memorials in the gardens. It would be a novel step to overturn long-established procedures for deciding on new development my handing Vito to certain bodies. Planning permissions in this country are taken within a framework statute and a policy which allows different views to be heard and which enables all arguments to be properly considered and balanced against each other. The impact of the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre on these 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 Inspectorate examined a great deal of evidence on this matter including representations from historic England as a historic buildings and monuments is better known, and Unesco. The evidence presented by historic England was that proposals would not significantly harm the outstanding universal value of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey, including St. Margaret's Church World Heritage Site. The Planning Inspectorate confirm this view in his report and he concluded that the development will not compromise the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site.

The Planning Inspectorate concluded that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. The Planning Inspectorate report still stands as a robust assessment of the proposals. As far as Unesco is concerned, the government does of course take very seriously our commitments and obligations under article 4 and five of the World Heritage convention. Historic England have a statutory duty of advising the government on the World Heritage Sites designated under that convention. I've already set out how historic England have played out their duty in respect of the Holocaust Memorial Bill stop UNESCO's midi has their own say of implementing...

And has the final say on the World Heritage Site to stop they take the views of the committee very seriously and provides regular reports in response to the committee's decision. The World Heritage does not however hold the power of veto over planning decisions in the UK. It would be quite a remarkable step with very significant implications, to bestow such a veto on the committee. In Westminster alone, the World Heritage has expressed views and concerns not simply about just the Holocaust Memorial, but also in relation to an extension to a Children's Hospital at St.

Thomas is, the proposed Royal Street development also across the river and Lambeth and the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. There are strong reasons why Unesco should take it from -- taking interest in all these proposals. Noble lords will appreciate that there are other matters to be considered also. Handing a decision to a body fully focused on heritage will not achieve the balance 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 in international come in a, above other consul tees and the views to take a decision on the planning application.

In effect it would mean the balancing exercise intrinsic to planning decisions could not be carried out. If such a step were to be taken in other words, if we were to say to historic England and Unesco that they may decide on all planning matters which it considers 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 historic England and Unesco should have the final word on a Holocaust Memorial which sits close to a World Heritage Site, but not on other developments nearby still less those which fall Just reassure the question by Baroness Walmsley which I thought Baroness Altmann answered eloquently, we will take great care with Victoria Tower Gardens seeking to ensure the -- improve the site and ensure all activities carried out currently can continue.

The finish there's no good reason to make such of that radical intervention in the planning procedures either for this proposal or more widely. I therefore ask the noble Lord and ladies to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 13. I would not be seeking to invoke
01:17
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page