Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the promoters of this project have said over and over again that they interpret our objections as being, “You can’t build a Holocaust memorial anywhere”, but that is not what it is about. The point is that you build it but you have to take into account the consequences on the immediate surroundings and the visitors of where and how you build it.

I do not share the absolute confidence of the promoters on the security. We know, for example, that for over a year those who care about security have asked the authorities to move the police from their comfortable spot at the foot of the escalators to Portcullis House out into the Tube, and they have not done it—after repeated requests. We have heard of other instances.

What noble Lords have not taken into account is protests. The Metropolitan Police and other police have not done well in balancing the right of protest against security. One end of the park is going to be wide open, and you can well imagine the hundreds or thousands of protesters, as has already happened, entering and waving flags, with their cans of red paint. There will be no one to stop them; they can go right up towards the mound and throw something or sail along the river and throw something. The police, to judge by their lack of action against protesters in Jewish areas of London and elsewhere, will say that the right of protest is more important than the need for the memorial to be quiet, sacred and respected.

We should also remember the children, unfortunate little ones, playing in the playground exactly where people queue. It is 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 off-putting 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 7 October has been dire, and this cannot mean safety for gatherings in Victoria Tower Gardens.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to contribute to this debate until the noble Lord, Lord Harper, spoke. First, I should make my credentials known, since everyone else seems to have done it. For 40 years I have been a member of Labour Friends of Israel. I am married to a Jewish lady. My first interest in history and politics was provoked by that book, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, and the horrors of Nazism. 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. I say that because nothing could be further from the truth in my case.

The objection that some people have to the present plan, including me, is that it is unviable. It increases insecurity, breaches all environmental guidelines, overrules all local democracy and increases the danger, not only the physical danger of the present plans but the danger of a backlash against forcing through this plan against all local democracy and common sense. That is my worry. Incidentally, it is the worry of many of my Jewish friends and my wife, to be quite truthful. If I was not to contribute tonight, I would be facing something even more dangerous than the Whips—potential divorce.

Let me correct a couple of things that have been said. As far as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is concerned, it is quite untrue to suggest that she said we cannot have a memorial anywhere. It is possible to have a separate memorial to the Holocaust established next to this Parliament, while having a genuine learning centre elsewhere. I declare an interest in that my PhD was on slavery. If you wanted to build a huge monument next to this Parliament, it would be about slavery—which was instigated and demolished by this Parliament. The terrible irony is that this plan suggests that we remove the only present monument in the gardens, which is to slavery.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

I said “move”.

My second point is on the comments that were made about the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who I have known for many years. I do not speak with the authority that others have—I have only been Home Secretary, Defence Secretary, Northern Ireland Secretary and Armed Forces Minister—but let me say one thing about the noble Lord, Lord Carlile: he is not just a lawyer or an expert on legislation. If I had to pick anyone outside the Armed Forces and the constabulary who had an understanding of the risk of terrorism, I would pick the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. You may not agree with him—or, even worse, you may agree with him privately but, because you want to build the present project, dismiss his claims—but think of the consequences in the long term.

In conclusion, 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 for 1,000 years when antisemitism built up in Europe through philosophy and the religions, both Protestant and Catholic, and if we want a memorial to the horrible things that were done because of antisemitism—first, ghettoising and excluding from society and then the ultimate: excluding from life—then build a real learning centre that is not two stories underground, not in a confined space and not confined to 10 years. Let us put a memorial there to remind us, and then let us go and learn about the real history of antisemitism that has been current in Europe for 1,000 years and is still there.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Carlile was kind enough to mention that I was a member of the Select Committee that looked into the whole matter of the Holocaust memorial, and security in particular. As the Minister will recall, the Select Committee said:

“We recommend that the Secretary of State gives serious consideration”


to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—or something similar—and the promoter, that is the Secretary of State, agreed. Furthermore, and I would very much like the Minister’s reply to this point when he comes to make his final speech, we followed that part in our report by narrating three important recommendations that the promoter accepted. Are these recommendations still accepted?

Going back to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, we understood that the decision is to be taken under delegation—not by the Secretary of State himself but by a Minister. The recommendations were what the Minister was to do should the planning application come back for decision.

These are important recommendations, because they require a good deal of consultation with people who really know what they are talking about, including the National Protective Security Authority, the Metropolitan Police, the Community Security Trust and others. The next recommendation says:

“The Promoter will make available to MPs and to members of the House of Lords the Promoter’s representations to the Secretary of State”,


and deposit them in the Library of both Houses. Of course, the recommendations fall far short of what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, recommends, but it is very important that the Minister assures us that those recommendations, which the Secretary of State accepted before us in our inquiry, are still to be respected. I hope that he will do so.

I come back to the Buxton memorial. Of course, it was moved; it used to be in Trafalgar Square, I think. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, is perfectly right that it was moved and taken into the gardens. Under the plan before us, the Buxton memorial is to remain where it was placed. It is not to be moved, but its appearance would be greatly affected, because it would be very close to all the uprights that mark the entrance to the underground memorial. The whole appearance of the Buxton memorial will be completely framed by this new development. It is not a question of moving it; it is concealing it. That is a very important point when we consider the importance of that memorial and what is has to tell us about slavery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

Sorry, Secretary of State.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

I just want to make sure that the record is correct. I did not say that I faced a divorce if the Bill passed. I said that I would face the divorce if I did not vote for the amendment.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My apologies; I have to be careful with my words on this issue.

I oppose the amendment. We have heard these arguments before, quite frankly. I oppose it not because I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has great experience of planning, as do others who support it. I am just puzzled; we are saying that a memorial centre is okay and we can deal with the security for that, but somehow we cannot do the same for a learning centre. I do not understand.

Voter Registration and Participation

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, in this digital age, is it not a disgrace that we depend on displaying rail cards, bus cards, Armed Forces cards and all sorts of other cards to combat fraud? Is the answer not staring us in the face? In this digital age, we should have digital ID and digital ID cards, without which we will not be able to tackle voter fraud, far less black employment, immigration or counterterrorism. Will the Government finally at least consider the use of digital ID?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for making that very important point. He alludes to the use of technology and the digitalisation of the process, but I remind the House that technology already plays a part in the smooth running of the UK’s election registration infrastructure. The noble Lord is talking about ID to help voting, but there is a range of ways in which technology could be part of measures to improve the whole process. The Government will thoroughly explore the viability of every avenue to achieve that goal. Any new measures will be rigorously tested and will take the accessibility and diverse needs of different groups of people into account, so that all those eligible to vote are able to register.

Councillors: Publication of Addresses

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As far as families are concerned, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why they are mentioned under the “sensitive interests” provision and protected in the same way as councillors. As far as the House of Lords and Peers are concerned, I will take that back to the relevant House officials.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to say that this was such an important issue that “Anything … we can do … we will do”. May I make a simple suggestion? At present, the protection afforded under law requires councillors to opt in. They have actively to seek out the right not to have their addresses shown. Could the Government make it an opt-out system by creating an obligation under statute that councillors’ home addresses will not be published unless they specifically request that this be done?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

This is exactly what the Government have said they will look to do as soon as they get legislative time. At the moment, it is better that we have an opt-in, or is it an opt-out? I cannot remember which way it is; noble Lords will know what I mean. It is important to have this while we are waiting for that further legislation.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Friday 2nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, I will make a brief contribution. I did not intend to speak today. I came along as a matter of respect and to listen, and I am glad that I did because I found some of the speeches quite incredible, not least that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. In my 40 years in Parliament, or thereabouts, I have rarely heard a more moving contribution. I am proud to call him a colleague and a friend.

I have only one point to make. The magnitude of the horror of the Holocaust is such that we, out of necessity, constrain it within certain limits of place and of time. The place? Germany under the Nazis. The time? The period between 1933 and 1945. I understand why we do this, but it is extremely misleading. In terms of time, we can go back 1,000 years in European history. The Jews were certainly excluded at stages; then, they were ghettoised; then, they were forcibly converted; then they were proscribed. And then, they were annihilated.

The Holocaust was the natural outcome of the seeds of a thousand years of European—dare I say it?—Christian conduct. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned the Catholic Church; I do not think Martin Luther and the Protestants were very keen on the Jews, either. It was a Christian phenomenon, and one which we should face up to. Of course, at the end of the 19th century it culminated in the writings of Joseph Chamberlain, the Dreyfus affair, the caricature of “Jewish Bolshevism”—which enabled people to go for Communists and Jews at the same time—and the terrible outcome of the Holocaust. But there was a long period before 1933, or even before 1921, when the Nazis adopted the original programme.

Secondly, the Holocaust was also not confined to concentration camps and death camps. Fewer than half of the people who died, died in concentration camps and death camps. And it was not confined to Germany or Poland. It happened in Hungary, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, in western Europe and France; thank God, not in Britain. So, yes, the Nazis gave licence, but they did not order each and every execution. It sprung from the history of European civilisation and Christianity, and when it was unleashed by the Nazis, all sorts of people were involved in annihilating the Jews.

Why do I mention those two aspects? Because, if we truly want to learn the lessons, we should not confine it mentally to one nation, one area and one epoch, and recognise that even today it is ubiquitous. It is there: we see it in the politics of rabid right-wing nationalism, which will turn on the Jews because they are not of this country, and of the rabid left wing, which equates monopoly capitalism with the Jewish financiers. We have seen how insidiously that can creep into our own party on this side of the House.

We truly want to learn the lessons in order to combat it. It is uncomfortable, but we had better recognise the length of anti-Semitism and its ubiquitous nature. That is the task that faces us. It is widespread and long lasting, and I have no doubt that it will continue to be so—so all of us have a responsibility to counter it wherever and whenever it occurs.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

I am trying to follow the Minister’s logic, but I am afraid that my intellectual capacity prevents me doing so. I therefore ask a simple question. By all logic of his argument, there should be no hybrid Select Committee meetings in this House, yet there are. Does he think that that therefore devalues those Select Committee meetings?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That point is very similar to one made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend about an option of virtual attendance in case of illness or disability—as we have in this Chamber—but that option is on an exceptional basis. With great respect, that is a far cry from the terms of the amendment that my noble friend has tabled. We know what effective debating looks like: it is when we can stand in this Chamber and look each other in the eye—as at present—as active participants.

No limits are placed on authorities broadcasting their meetings online, and I would encourage them to do so to reach as wide an audience as possible. However, I hope that my noble friend Lady McIntosh and other noble Lords who have aligned themselves with her position will understand why I am coming at this from the point of view of a principle: that it is our duty to safeguard democracy as fully as we can and not to short-change it. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not feel compelled to oppose that principle by dividing the House today.

Voter Authority Certificates

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Yes, I am happy to repeat that: those who return with voter ID will be recorded.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Greens!

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is making a pretty bad fist of a very poor case. She mentioned 2003 in Northern Ireland, where there was manifest data on impersonation. If she does not know the difference between Northern Ireland and the British mainland over the past 40 years—before 2003—I cannot really help her. But 2003 was also the year when voluntary biometric ID cards were introduced, in an attempt to make sure that access to public services was not misused, to help in the control of immigration, to make sure that there could not be voter impersonation on the British mainland, and for a dozen other good reasons.

[Noble Lords]

Question!

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

That scheme was unilaterally abolished by the Liberal Party when they were in the coalition. They are the very same people who are now crying out for some decent method of identification. It is the only way to make sure that there is no impersonation in voting.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I do understand what happened in Northern Ireland in 2003. Let us get it right. Personation in polling stations is very difficult to identify and prove. By definition, it is a crime of deception. If you listen to the people of Northern Ireland, you will hear that they are more satisfied with their voting system than people in this country. We should allow our residents to be as satisfied with ours. If you look at what comes from polling, you will see that two out of three people in this country would feel more confident in the voting system if there were photo ID.

Elections: Multiple Voting

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I guess people can decide to vote where they want to if they are registered in two places, but in a general election they cannot vote twice. Whatever the system, I am sure that my noble friend could be elected if he stood again, even if in the past it was by a pretty narrow margin.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, will the Minister recognise that this problem would be easily solved—as would the problems of fraudulent voting, control of immigration, access to public services and counterterrorism —if the coalition Government had not in 2010, at the behest of the Liberal Democrats, abolished biometric ID cards?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

This is something of a Groundhog Day Question, as we look back in time. As part of the Elections Act, we have introduced voter identification as a means of reducing electoral fraud.

Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Reid of Cardowan Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 18th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks, and, like many others, I support these Bills. I will confine my remarks to the Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) (No. 2) Bill, not least because the other Bill—and the important subject it raises—has been dealt with comprehensively and succinctly by my noble friend Lady Andrews and a number of others, embellished by the hygiene history of Saltaire given by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It is always a pleasure to follow him.

Like other noble Lords, I fully understand the need for the measures contained in the Bill. In effect, in summary they will help ensure that future business rates will better reflect the potential effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the commercial property market by postponing the date of the next business rates revaluation until April 2023. It seems to make sense—not least to the business community affected—to take into account the effects of changing market conditions, and that is why I will support the Bill. But perhaps the Minister could respond to one or two questions and queries that I have regarding the Bill.

First of all, it seems to me that the delay cuts both ways. Does it not mean, for instance, that some businesses badly affected by the pandemic will have to tolerate their existing burden of rates—assessed and set in perhaps much more benign circumstances some years ago—for potentially an additional two years, while their present commercial reality may be much changed for the worse precisely because of the pandemic? To address this, could not the new valuation and assessment, taking into account the effects of the pandemic, be carried out in a much shorter time than the additional two years outlined in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister could tell us.

Secondly, as we have heard on several occasions, the Government are presently undertaking a fundamental review of business rates and, as part of that exercise, they are considering the frequency of future revaluations. Can the Minister tell us what specific implications, if any, today’s Bill might have on that review? Can he assure us, for instance, that the review will not be unduly delayed because of the measures we are considering today, or are we to assume, as I did from his opening remarks, that there has already been a delay on this, partly—presumably—because of the attention being given to the pandemic, including those aspects which relate to the present Bill?

Thirdly, will the additional time being allowed by this Bill permit a consideration of wider changes in market conditions outside of those directly springing from the pandemic? Is it to be exclusively centred in its consideration on the pandemic itself, or, for instance, are the short-term effects of Brexit, which may well prove as deleterious as the pandemic itself for some businesses, to be taken into account?

Finally, in supporting these measures, I should say that, as others have stressed, while they are a common-sense response to a temporary and, I hope, unique challenge—the Covid-19 pandemic—they do not provide a long-term solution to the recurrent problems and criticisms associated with the present valuation process, with which all of us are very familiar. That will be provided only by the review and reform of the whole process mentioned by the Minister. I hope that the Minister can assure myself and all the other noble Lords who have raised this that it will be a thoroughgoing review, followed by the expeditious implementation of the necessary and appropriate reforms, and that that is the Government’s prime longer-term objective.