Holocaust Memorial Bill

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, I too am puzzled why it is not possible to include this wording in the Bill. Given that the Bill makes provision for the construction of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre, why on earth can we not define what the learning centre is for? However, I accept the Minister’s assurances about the purposes.

I have one specific question that I would like to ask the Minister. When we debated this matter in June, I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, the issue of the definition of the word “Holocaust”, pointing out that the Holocaust included groups other than Jewish people. Of course, it was primarily an atrocity committed against Jewish people, and that will be the primary purpose of a memorial centre, but other groups were affected too, including LGBT people and disabled people, who were killed in concentration camps. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, assured me that his understanding was that the Holocaust did include such groups. Some of the contributions from noble Lords today make me wonder whether that is a shared assumption.

Since this debate is about clarity and definition, I would be grateful for the Minister’s assurance, on the back of the assurances he has given about the purpose of the learning centre, that his and the Government’s understanding is that the Holocaust included the murder of other groups at the same time, as part of the activities of the Nazi regime, and that that should not be excluded or considered to be mission creep, to use the words that some noble Lords have used in concern about the absence of a definition from the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could give me that same reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, gave me in June.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, was right to admonish us and to remind your Lordships of the need to stay focused on the matter in hand at this stage of the Bill’s progress. However, it is seven months since the Division which saw noble Lords backing the sensible amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. I am heartened to hear about the fruitful discussions that he has had with Ministers and officials about that matter in the intervening months. If noble Lords have had other remarks to make, it is because those extra months have, as we have heard, sadly added further examples of the importance of looking at this and getting it right. I agree with so many of the remarks I have heard.

My purpose in rising is to ask the Deputy Leader of the House about an issue that was not before us when the Bill was last debated in your Lordships’ House. He will know that the Crime and Policing Bill, which is also before your Lordships’ House, proposes to make it a criminal offence to climb on certain specified monuments and memorials. Schedule 12 to that Bill sets out 24 memorials that are listed at grade 1 and one further memorial that is not listed at grade 1, which is the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square.

Global LGBTI+ Rights

Debate between Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Thursday 17th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the UK remains committed to the promotion and protection of LGBT rights at home and internationally. We are proud of the leading work we do through a variety of international fora—indeed, in currently co-chairing the Equal Rights Coalition. We are working with the Strong in Diversity, Bold on Inclusion programme on the design and governance of the next phase of its work. The funding level has not been finalised, so I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not comment on the figures he cited. The total programme allocation supporting LGBT rights in this financial year is just under £12.3 million, and we will remain a world-leading aid donor, spending more than £10 billion next year.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, the ILGA World report on state-sponsored homophobia, published this week, found that while some countries are encouragingly going forwards, others are going backwards, involving the persecution of LGBT people. Will my noble friend agree that the UK Government have a vital leadership role to play across the world in promoting LGBT rights and that one of the important ways in which they can do this is by funding brave organisations on the ground that do so much to promote rights in conditions that are often extremely difficult for them?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

I pay tribute to my noble friend’s tireless work in this area, not least in relation to the international LGBT rights conference, which we look forward to hosting next year. That will be a great opportunity to do exactly as he says: to build on the leading role that the UK already plays in this area, for instance through the additional £3.2 million of funding that my noble friend Lady Sugg announced at the UN core group in October, which builds on the work we started when we hosted CHOGM in 2018 to help Commonwealth Governments and civil society groups such as those my noble friend mentioned repeal outdated laws and end discrimination. However, my noble friend and ILGA are right that we must remain constantly vigilant to make sure that we are moving forward in this area and building on progress.