Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Carlile, whose knowledge and expertise in the field of security and associated matters is way beyond mine. My conclusions are aligned with his.

What was interesting to me was the judgment by Mrs Justice Thornton in the High Court case dealing with the application for the Victoria Tower Gardens proposal. It was quashed, which means of course that legally it never existed, and there is therefore no planning consent for anything of the sort in Victoria Tower Gardens. She said at paragraph 76(5) of the judgment:

“As was common ground by the end of the hearing, the advent of the modern planning system has no bearing on the obligations in the 1900 Act”.


As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, that is absolutely unequivocal. Mrs Justice Thornton ruled that the 1900 Act impacted on the character of the matters relevant to the determination of this planning application, and in parallel with that it is entirely within the discretion of Parliament—us—to take separate decisions on the merits of the matters under consideration, unconstrained by the precise criteria which applied in respect of the determination of any planning application.

It therefore seems to me that we are faced with two slightly separate issues, which are not those faced by a planning authority. First, we are legislators acting in the wider public interest, and secondly, we have been granted by the 1900 Act a right of veto on what goes on on the land immediately adjacent, which is in our curtilage. This is uncommon these days, but it is the kind of control over land that was relatively normal in the era of the 1900 Act. It seems to me that we have to exercise our powers in good faith, but that has nothing to do in itself with the law that relates to planning provisions.

We are faced with a series of woolly assurances from the Government on what will happen going forward and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out, in terms of security matters they need very substantially tightening up. After all, what is our role in this? Obviously, it is the security and safety of Members, staff and visitors. It is up to us to decide what is appropriate to do for us as employers and hosts to people in this building. I do not believe that we can somehow put this out to commission to somebody else. That is why I strongly support the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because it brings to us the information we need properly and responsibly to carry out our duties in respect of our occupation of this building. This is quite separate from our approach to a whole range of other matters that may be discussed later this evening.

Finally, I am a trustee of a number of landed properties, and it seems to me that we cannot simply wish away responsibility for this. In my view, if I as a trustee were to take the approach to security matters here being advocated by the Government, I would be guilty of professional negligence. It is as simple as that. We have to know and be confident ourselves in what is being proposed. Looking at it from a different perspective, if we simply somehow put out to commission the responsibilities we have, we are imposing on the legislation something very much akin to a Henry VIII clause, and that, as we know, is very alien to the way we look at public business.

I do not want to go on any further, but it is up to us to decide what we think is right from the perspective we have on these matters.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment so I would like to speak next, if noble Lords do not mind. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said, this is no ordinary planning application and I will say why I think that is. The proposer is the Government. The Government are in a special position of being able to remove an important barrier to doing what they want to do, and Clause 2 removes the 100-year-old protections for the park. Most proposers of planning applications cannot do that. But guess what? It is even worse, because whoever decides on the planning application, yes or no, is the very same person as the proposer. It is the Government. It is a junior Government Minister. It was called in by a junior Government Minister when it first came before planning. That makes it a very unusual planning application.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

There are four gates.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

There are four gates to the park. Thank you for that correction. One of them is very near the playground. We feel it necessary to put horse guards on horses in Whitehall outside Horse Guards and at various other buildings around Westminster and this city. Are we going to have armed guards outside this centre? That is not really very appropriate when you are trying to remember the horrible deaths of so many millions of people.

As I said earlier, I am absolutely in favour of an appropriate memorial, but the learning centre is a government choice. For the actual implementation of the wish that we all have to have a good learning centre, it is the Government’s choice to do it like this and it is wrong. It is not good enough and it should not happen.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment would require further reports on security to be prepared and debated in both Houses before any proposed memorial or learning centre can proceed. But it is already being debated at great length in the House of Commons and has overwhelming cross-party support. This is a revising Chamber, so we can discuss revising it.

The noble Lord is saying that there has not been a sufficient amount of time on security, but I beg to differ. From the very beginning, security has been an important consideration in the design of the memorial and learning centre. It was made clear, including in the planning inquiry nearly five years ago, that the threat of terrorism or violent protest was recognised. It has never been the approach of this country to abandon the legitimate activities of free society simply because of the threat of terrorists and violent protesters. The noble Lord is right to point out what happened recently with the protesters outside the entrances into Parliament, and everybody agrees with that. But that is not necessarily a reason to block this proposal.

The memorial and learning centre have been designed be safe and secure. Advice from the National Protective Security Authority and the Metropolitan Police has led to significant measures, including the above-ground pavilion and the hostile vehicle mitigation measures protecting the gardens. My understanding is that there will not be blockages or security at the entrances to the park, but at the entrance to the actual memorial there will be airport-style security. You will not be able to just turn up; you will 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 protected, notwithstanding what happened the other day. Security matters have been and will be fully considered within the planning process.

The amendment would achieve only a delay, and would signal a weakness, telling the world that the UK was not prepared to place a Holocaust memorial next to Parliament for fear of attack. Consider who would be most pleased with that sort of message. Perhaps I might quote an expert in such matters:

“In conclusion, while it is impossible to eliminate all risks, the security measures planned for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre are comprehensive and have been developed with the highest standards of safety in mind. The Memorial’s location next to the Houses of Parliament should not be seen as a vulnerability but rather as a testament to our commitment to remembering the Holocaust in a prominent and respectful manner”.


That was written by a Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Laing, for Amendments 3 and 10. I was saddened to hear the news of the passing of the noble Lord’s sister, Renata. May her memory be a blessing.

I also offer my thanks for the work done by the late Lord Etherton on the Select Committee, and thank all the other members of the Select Committee for their work.

These amendments would require a report to be produced on the security impacts of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and would require both Houses of Parliament to approve the report before work on the memorial and learning centre could proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has been a strong advocate of the need to give careful consideration to the security impacts of the 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 the Bill, and for meeting me several times to discuss the security impacts—as well as the performance of Burnley Football Club this year. The noble Lord and I share a history of being brought up in Burnley.

The noble Lord was kind enough, as he has already indicated, to provide me with a set of questions for discussion with security advisers. I was glad to take the noble Lord’s 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 that noble Lords across the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, 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 from my discussion with security experts.

As a starting point, let me immediately acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is quite right to point out that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will face threats. Protestors with a range of motivations, including some who will be prepared to use violence or terror, will see the memorial and learning centre as a potential target. This sad truth has been recognised since the inception of the project. In response, the Government—both this Government and its predecessors—have done what I know the great majority of Members of this House would expect to be done. We have sought to ensure that 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 free, democratic society can continue. That is the approach the experts from the Metropolitan Police, UK Government security advisers and the Community Security Trust have all told me is the basis of their work.

On the design, acting on the advice of those experts we have incorporated features, including carefully designed barriers to protect the gardens against hostile vehicles. There will be an above-ground security pavilion and appropriate CCTV infrastructure, with a security control room.

On operations, we will make sure that the staff are trained to the highest standards, including in ways of working with the police. The advice of UK Government security advisers and the Metropolitan Police has been hugely valuable in developing our proposals, and 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—again, with sadness—that the advice from security professionals is that a Holocaust memorial would be seen as a target wherever it is located. From a security perspective, as my conversations have confirmed, placing the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens brings significant benefits. Within the government security zone, the memorial will benefit from many additional layers of security, including a police rapid-response capability.

Some have questioned whether the memorial would bring additional risks to the Palace of Westminster. When I have put this point to the security services, the clear response has been that the palace, by its very nature as the 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, that the security implications of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre demand to be considered carefully. It is right that noble Lords should insist that proposals are developed in the light of the best available advice and the clearest understanding of threat.

I am immensely grateful to the police and our security services for the detailed advice they have provided over several years on the development of our scheme, for the meetings and discussions held with me in recent weeks, and, of course, for the tireless ongoing work of those organisations keeping us safe. To clarify, at the meeting to which the noble Lord alluded, the question that was asked of the security advisers and the Met Police was whether the security experts agreed with this amendment. Of course, you would expect the security advisers not to get involved in the political procedures of Parliament.

No scheme for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre could or should proceed without full recognition of the importance of security and full consideration of the best available evidence. I am confident that the arrangements for obtaining planning consent already ensure that security will be given proper consideration. The views of the UK Government security advisers and the Metropolitan Police will be sought, and any reservations or objections would be very apparent to the decision-making Minister and must be taken into account.

I will clarify some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on the planning application arrangements. 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; the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, alluded to some examples he was involved in. The special arrangements for handling the planning application were subject to a High Court challenge in 2020. The court required the department to make some minor adjustments to reflect specific relevant provisions and to publish the handling arrangements, which were of course done. Otherwise, the court was content that the handling arrangements were proper and lawful.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Can the Minister tell me whether the precedent he cited was also a situation where the proposer was in a position to remove a major barrier of protection to the site where they wanted to put the proposed development? The Government can do that as well, under Clause 2.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The purpose of Clause 2 is to disapply the London county Act of 1906. That is why we want to push forward with the project. I reassure the noble Baroness that, subject to the Bill passing, this will be treated as a serious issue. The entire proposed project will be subject to full scrutiny and accountability, and will go through the full planning process that the designated Minister will determine. There will be plenty of opportunity for noble Lords to raise points about a number of issues, including security. Many points about planning were raised tonight, but I believe that this is the wrong forum for them.

I turn to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. We gave an undertaking that we would consult further on security and provide information to Parliament, and we will certainly do that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned queues. I reassure her that the ticketing and checking strategy is designed to avoid queues building up in the gardens.

Moreover, we have given a clear undertaking to the Select Committee that updated evidence on security will be provided and that we will consult on security matters with the corporate officers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Community Security Trust, the Metropolitan Police, the National Protective Security Authority and Westminster City Council. We have undertaken that the updated evidence and the views of all these bodies, subject only to the redaction of any information that should be confidential for security reasons, will be placed in the Libraries of each House. The proposed amendment is not therefore necessary as a means of generating information about security or as a mechanism for ensuring that security is given proper consideration. The practical effect of the amendment would be to cause delay and to create uncertainty about the progress of the scheme.

I will repeat one final point about the amendment 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 that there are threats. In response to those threats, we plan, we prepare and we 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 and that, in the face of the threat of violence, we should place a Holocaust memorial somewhere less prominent.

Are we prepared to say that, in Britain today, visitors to a Holocaust memorial next to the seat of government cannot be protected? Are we willing to concede to the perpetrators of violence that a memorial established as a lasting reminder of a time when the Jewish citizens of Nazi Germany were denied the protection of the law and subject to appalling violence and persecution by their own Government cannot be placed next to our own Parliament? I do not think that this House would want to be associated with such a message. I therefore ask noble Lord not to press Amendments 3 and 10.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I added my name to these two amendments. I will add very briefly to the remarks that have already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in moving his amendment.

I referred earlier to the unsatisfactory nature of Committee, when all sorts of issues which could usefully have been dug out and discussed were put to one side. This included the fact that we were told that a large number of issues that we would have liked to have discussed in Committee were to do with planning and were therefore nothing to do with us. We did not have the competence, experience or indeed the legal position to be able to make a useful contribution.

Let me be clear: I absolutely respect the planners’ competence and their experience. However, the provisions and implication of a Bill such as this go far beyond the normal arrangements. This is not like a controversial proposal to build on the green belt; it is about constructing an iconic memorial on a small piece of open space in the lee of the Palace of Westminster, itself a world heritage site.

When these plans come to fruition—as I hope they do, as I have said before—it will be really important that the then Members of the two Houses of Parliament, who are, after all, essentially the trustees of the Palace of Westminster, should take responsibility for all the decisions that are made. They should finally tick it off once we have reached that particular point in the process. That is why I support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I also added my name to this amendment. I will be extremely brief: I support it.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Inglewood, for bringing forward Amendments 6 and 7. While we respect the spirit in which these amendments have been brought, we on the Official Opposition Benches cannot support the amendments. We are very concerned that both Amendments 6 and 7, which each require further parliamentary scrutiny of the progress of the project after the planning stage, would severely undermine the planning process, prevent the timely delivery of the project and risk its future. We are firmly supportive of the delivery of the memorial and learning centre as soon as possible, so we cannot support any amendments to the Bill which would delay delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me clarify my comments, because that was a slight misinterpretation of what I said in Committee. I said then that the designated Minister would decide how we would take the planning process forward. As part of a number of options, there could be written representations, there could be a consensus by having a round table—though I doubt that that would happen, on the basis of this debate—and there could be a public inquiry. That is entirely the decision and prerogative of the designated planning Minister, and it is part of the planning process, from which we are totally detached.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister’s answer is extremely ambiguous.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

With respect, I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness. The application is live. Subject to the passing of this Bill, there will be a new planning process, when the designated Minister will decide what he will take forward.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Walmsley]

11: Clause 3, page 1, line 22, at end insert “, subject to subsection (2A).”

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 12, which is grouped with this amendment. Noble Lords need not worry; I have crossed out most of my speech in the interest of the lateness of the hour, besides which, I am so bleary-eyed I can hardly read it, so I will deal with this important matter as briefly as I possibly can.

The current proposals for the learning centre, as we have heard at length, offer a set of rooms entirely below the ground at a depth of 8.5 metres. It would be located extremely close to the Thames and the ageing river wall. There is only one entrance to the facility and it leads to a courtyard entrance area below ground level. 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 floods, fires, terrorist attacks, or any disruption that could cause panic.

Victoria Tower Gardens is in a high-risk, rapid-inundation flooding zone, which means that, in the event of a breach of the River Thames river wall at high tide—particularly if, because of climate change, the sea level has risen—the whole learning centre would be quickly immersed. Although the danger from such catastrophic flooding is remote, it must be taken into account when considering planning permission. However, the risk was swept aside in Committee with no real consideration whatever by the Minister.

The planned development is currently said to be protected by the Thames Barrier—which needs replacing and is to be improved by 2050—and the old river walls, but however small the risk, it is not worth taking. What if climate change, a rising sea level and unusual storms should cause overtopping of the wall? What if a ship, either deliberately or accidentally, were to run aground and breach 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 that people inside the memorial could escape through, or where they could take refuge from floods. The exits from the exhibition spaces are in the same below-ground level courtyard that serves as the entrance. That single entrance/exit is also a problem in relation to the potential outbreak of fire in the centre.

My concerns are borne out by the fact that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s 21 August flood warning emergency plan for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre’s construction period provides that the whole site will be evacuated when a severe flood warning for the Thames is in place. Such warnings are regularly issued now, sometimes with little warning, several times every winter and sometimes in the summer too. Do we really want this important learning centre to have to be frequently closed? The implication of the emergency plan is that, when it 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. That is why in Amendment 12 I have requested that the Secretary of State prepare a full report on all these matters and lay it before Parliament before the other sections of the Act, once passed, come into force. Then Parliament itself can assess the risks and make a decision. Amendment 11 is simply the enactment amendment. I beg to move.

By the way, I will not be in the least bit upset if no one else speaks except the Minister.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Oh dear.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

Apart from the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I will be as brief as I can.

My point relates to the design of the learning centre as it is, and the fear that it would be provoking as a trophy for terrorists. Evacuation is of great concern because there is only a single entrance. As I said previously, the type of substances that may be used are fatal within about two minutes if they are used and not detected when going through the security measures. In the event that there is some disaster—and we all hope there is not—I hope no one has to look back and say, “We should have looked at another site that would have had at least two separate exits. We should have learned from coal mines, which have two exits so that if one is blocked, people can still get out”. If that single entrance was blocked, I am not sure how you would get people in to evacuate others.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Fookes, Lady Finlay and Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for Amendments 11 and 12. I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of the topics that these amendments raise. When constructing any new public building, flood and fire risks and the evacuation strategy must be given the most careful attention. I assure the House that these risks have been considered in depth throughout the development of our proposed design and that there is no possibility of planning consent being granted unless proper provision has been made. No building project can be taken forward unless it complies with extensive regulations relating to flooding, fire and evacuation.

Extensive information about the Holocaust memorial and learning centre considered at the planning inquiry remains publicly available on Westminster City Council’s website. Over 6,400 pages of information relating to the detailed design and the history of the project were published as part of the planning inquiry. Noble Lords interested in the fire and flood risk provisions can see the relevant documents and study them in detail.

We would not be proceeding with a design that we believed exposed visitors to an unacceptable risk. The proposal has been subject to significant scrutiny to ensure that it is compliant with all the relevant regulations. As we develop and implement operational plans, we will of course continue to draw on expert advice and make sure that those plans comply with all relevant standards. The report prepared by the independent planning inspector in 2021 provides a good account of the scrutiny to which the proposals were subjected.

No flooding objections were raised by the Environment Agency or by Westminster City Council at the inquiry. The London Fire Brigade is content with the fire safety arrangements. Let me summarise the key points that demonstrate how seriously we take this matter. Flood risk was indeed identified as a matter for particular consideration when the planning application for our proposal was called in in 2019. The independent planning inspector gave particular attention to flood risk in considering the application. He held a round-table discussion involving interested parties and covered the matter in depth in his report.

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

When it comes to safety, fire is obviously a matter of the first importance. I reassure noble Lords 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 planning application included a detailed report on the relevant parts of the building regulations and set out how the proposed structure would meet those regulations. To pick up on one detail which some noble Lords may be interested in, the proposal includes both main and secondary escape routes from the underground space.

When the planning application was initially approved, a specific condition was agreed that a fire escape plan would be agreed with the local planning authority, Westminster City Council, before the development could take place. There can be no doubt that the fire safety arrangements proposed for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be subject to proper professional scrutiny and no possibility of development taking place if those arrangements are 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 wanting to ensure that the learning centre has appropriate means of escape. But I also emphasise very strongly that the statutory processes for considering any planning application and ensuring compliance with building regulations are robust mechanisms for addressing fire risk, flood risk and evacuation measures. The Bill does not seek to provide an alternative route for obtaining the authority to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre.

To conclude, 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 requires. Amending the Bill to replicate or interfere with the planning process is therefore unnecessary. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 11.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reassurances. I hope that the future planning process, whatever it is, decided on by the proposer, 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 never have need to say, “I warned you, I told you so”. With that, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

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

I will not at this point in the evening enumerate the detail of the characteristics and designations it has achieved, nor the criticisms that have been levelled against what is being proposed. Suffice it to say that, from a national and an international perspective, those criticisms carry the greatest heritage value and perspective. They should not be lightly dismissed as some kind of frippery 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 some of those who are bound to be disappointed to accept that a fair, even-handed decision was reached, balancing all interests involved, and that no particular pressure groups—whether they are Jewish or conservationists or anybody else—has been given priority unjustly over anyone else.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, as a botanist, I assure your Lordships that the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, is absolutely right about the extreme danger to the two rows of plane trees. I just have one question for the Minister, and I hope he can reply. Notwithstanding the text of Clause 2, can he say what measures the Government plan to put in place, if the proposed project is to go ahead unamended, to ensure the continued public benefit of Victoria Tower Gardens as a green space to the local population and to the workers in this building?

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, the plan has been condemned for about six years by UNESCO. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has said that it will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the outstanding universal value of this important site. The International Council on Monuments and Sites has condemned it. Europa Nostra has shortlisted Victoria Tower Gardens as one of Europe’s seven most endangered sites. Historic England has expressed its reservations too.

Will the Minister explain why the advice of those international bodies is ignored, especially bearing in mind the willingness of the Government, as they keep saying, to observe international law. International treaties are important to us, say the Government, but here are some they are apparently prepared to ignore. I am sure others would like to hear why they are being ignored, and what answer the Government propose to give to those international bodies.