Holocaust Memorial Bill

Debate between Lord Pickles and Lord Herbert of South Downs

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I do not regard this as a wrecking amendment at all; I think it is a very thoughtful one that has been on a journey where unintentional consequences have occurred. I am very sympathetic because I went through the same process myself a few years ago, after the 2017 election, when the prospect of a Jeremy Corbyn Prime Ministership was a real and present danger. I certainly could see the possibility that the Holocaust memorial would turn into some kind of genocide museum or genocide and slavery museum and be completely watered down. I spent a lot of time worrying and trying to find ways round it. I have to say that if there had there been a Jeremy Corbyn Government with that intent, I do not think there would be very much this House could have done to prevent it.

The noble Lord is right that “genocide” has been used in an almost flippant way in trying to describe things. We have had instances in which people have refused to take immunisations and have compared themselves to the Jews. We have heard noble prelates describe environmental problems as a holocaust. I think it is important to recognise why the Holocaust was unique. I think Members around the Chamber will remember our dear friend David Cesarani, sadly no longer with us, a very distinguished British historian of the Holocaust. David had this ability to put things very neatly and in 22 words he managed to sum up the Holocaust:

“The Holocaust involved the systematic use of state power, modern bureaucratic methods, scientific thinking, and killing methods adapted from industrial production systems”.


There has been no subsequent holocaust—and no prior holocausts—that would fall into that definition, except one. That is why the manuscript amendment is so vital because the Roma and Sinti genocide was identical to what happened in the Holocaust in that the individuals were selected not because of what they did, not because of what they thought, not because of their sexual preferences, but because they were Roma or Sinti. They were killed in ghettos and murdered in Auschwitz. It was an attempt to annihilate a race and the previous amendment would have ruled them out, in effect. I just wanted to make that clear because there has already been quite a bit of speculation that this was an attempt to push out the Roma and the Sinti. That is not the intention of the proposal. It would never be the intention of this House.

I am very sympathetic but I hope I will be forgiven for probing just a little. I may be wrong on this, and I would like the Minister to give a reply. As I read it, if you did a commemoration inside the learning centre without education, would that be in contradiction to this very sensible amendment? If that is the case—because I believe the amendment is an important one—is there some way that the magic of the usual channels can fix any defect? I am looking at the most distinguished member of the usual channels. I hope he will give active consideration to this should that be the case. If I am wrong, I would be delighted.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, some years ago I visited the Dachau concentration camp just outside Munich. It made a huge impression on me, as did visiting the memorial and learning centres in Jerusalem and in Berlin. One thing particularly struck me, perhaps because it touched me personally. In Dachau there was a display of the different badges prisoners in the concentration camp were required to wear. One of those badges was a pink triangle, which was reserved for the prisoners who were detained there because they were homosexual. Some 50,000 people are estimated to have been given severe life sentences by the Nazis, and some 15,000 to 20,000 were sent to concentration camps for being homosexual. Most of them died or were killed. Some were subject to horrific experiments, including castration.

I think it would be the effect of the noble Lord’s amendment that the learning centre should not provide information or education about that part of the atrocities perpetrated by Nazi Germany. Sometimes the word Holocaust has been used to include those atrocities. I understand, of course, the force of his argument and the purpose of his amendment—his wish to reserve the education centre and its focus for the appalling crime of attempted genocide perpetrated against Jewish people. If homosexuals, who were also targeted by the Nazi regime, are to be excluded from this learning centre, we should acknowledge that and be conscious of it. Perhaps alternative educational provision can be made. If they should be included—the atrocities were committed against a smaller number of people but were by the same regime with the same sort of motive—then I am not sure the amendment allows for that and should itself be amended at a later stage, should this House accept it tonight.

I do not in any way seek to belittle the crime of attempted genocide against the Jewish people—of course not. Nor do I think we should ignore or belittle what was done to people by the same Nazi regime simply because they were gay.