Holocaust Memorial Bill

Debate between Lord Lisvane and Lord Inglewood

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is also in this group. Amendments 6 and 7 would do pretty much the same thing, but it is typical of the noble Lord’s gift for crisp expression that his Amendment 7 is about half the length of my Amendment 6.

We are after something which I would have thought would be beyond criticism: the approval of Parliament. It happens that this is first amendment of the evening—indeed, the early morning—that is not directly about the HMLC project. We seek straightforward approval from both Houses for the planning consent, should that be obtained. Ministers would have to table approval Motions in each House within 60 days of any consent being granted, and no work on the centre could begin until both Houses had agreed.

Planning consent is one thing, but the putting of the proposition to Parliament brings in a wider dimension: the achievability of the project and the proper expenditure of public money. Those are issues on which Parliament has a right to be consulted and express a view. There are quite a few former accounting officers in this place and I must admit to being one myself. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority report in January this year is the stuff of which accounting officers’ nightmares are made. The authority said:

“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.


The authority has rated the project red and unachievable for each of the last three years.

The National Audit Office has been no kinder. In its 2022 report, it described the promoter’s failure to consider any alternative sites, or to quantify or account for risk, as an emerging risk, causing potential cost increases. The latest capital cost estimate, which was kindly given to us by the Minister in a debate on an earlier amendment, is £146 million. This must make the case for the parliamentary approval that Amendment 6 would provide.

One argument which I hope the Minister will not think of deploying against this amendment is the canard that Royal Assent to the Bill will provide the necessary parliamentary authority for the project; of course it will not. What the Bill does is encapsulated in the long title: it allows expenditure but, crucially, does not approve it.

When and if planning consent is given, we will move into the next phase. That should be of a properly costed and funded project with serious management arrangements, which the Infrastructure and Projects Authority and the National Audit Office feel able endorse. It is that which Amendment 6 seeks to submit to parliamentary judgment. I beg to move.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 7 and in support of Amendment 6. I strongly reiterate and endorse the wise words from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. As he said, we are not a planning authority. We are Parliament, and we are looking at changes in the legislation contained in the Act of 1900. The criteria used to determine whatever decisions may be reached are different in the two separate cases and we must exercise our judgment independently of the rules which relate to the granting or otherwise of planning permission.

The one thing I feel very strongly about here is certainty. In 1900, the legislation incorporated a plan that was deposited with the Clerk of the Parliaments—I understand it is currently somewhere between this building and Kew, so I have not been able to see it—which shows precisely what was going to happen, and it was in law that what was in the plan was to be implemented.

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

Let us remember: Victoria Tower Gardens is not just any old public park. It was established by an Act of Parliament, and at the time it was established, it was agreed between the committee and the LCC—and, I think, the First Commissioner of Works—that it was a “national improvement”. Given that context, what we are seeing is both entirely reasonable and quite proper.