Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Walmsley Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

When we debated that Bill last Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, told us that the Home Secretary was minded to add in due course this Holocaust memorial and the memorial to Muslims who fought in the World Wars, once they are both constructed. I was glad to hear that; I think that is sensible. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said, there are existing memorials to the Holocaust, including, for instance, the memorial in Hyde Park that was unveiled in June 1983. If the Minister is able, either now or later in writing, I would be grateful to know whether he thinks it would be appropriate to add that memorial, which is not listed. Sadly, it was targeted as recently as last April by protesters campaigning about current events in the Middle East. If we are to make sure that memorials such as this one are not targets for protesters, will he speak to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to make sure that other memorials to the Holocaust are not targeted, and let us know whether he thinks that it too should be listed in Schedule 12 to the Crime and Policing Bill?

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, time is passing, so I hope noble Lords will not mind if we move to the winding speeches now.

Noble Lords will know, because I said it many times during previous stages of the Bill, that this is a free vote for my colleagues, so my comments reflect my own views, although I know that the vast majority of my colleagues share them.

I have always thought that the words on the front of the Bill should reflect the policies inside it. I therefore find it difficult to understand, in one respect, why the Government will not accept this purpose clause. If you go to the Public Bill Office with the intention of inserting a purpose clause into a Bill, they usually draw in their breath and say, “Governments don’t like a purpose clause”—and that is Governments of all colours, by the way. However, that is very hard to understand in this particular case, because we all know which Holocaust we are talking about. The Minister and the Government cannot be surprised that people have lost a little confidence in that focus because of all the other things that were raised at the earlier stages of this Bill—other tragic events in the history of mankind.

The Holocaust, when 6 million Jews were slaughtered, is the biggest blot in the history of mankind and we must never forget it. That is why, across all Benches, we supported the first purpose of the Bill, which was to enable the Government to promote and fund a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. What we disagreed about was the second part, which was the removal of the legislative barrier to putting that learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, mainly because we did not think that the gardens would do it justice, as it needs to be a high-quality memorial. I think we all hope that, in the fullness of time, that is what it turns out to be.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on her leadership in this Bill, and agree with her that you can commemorate the dead by celebrating the lives of the living and the people who survived. There were millions who suffered and, even if they did not lose their lives, they lost their livelihoods and the ability to have children. Many of them did have children, however, and their descendants contribute an enormous amount to the life of this country, the other countries in Europe and other parts of the world.

I will just touch on what the Minister has said. He has given us a very clear reassurance that the purpose of this legislation will remain commemorating the Holocaust and learning the lessons to tackle antisemitism. It has been said that that is not good enough: it should be on the face of the legislation. I have a little more confidence than some Members of the House do in clear statements from the Dispatch Box by a Government Minister, and I know that if Governments deviate from what they have said, they can be challenged. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned, to make that challenge often requires considerable legal costs, so it is far better, if you want to be absolutely clear, to put it in the Bill. I ask the Minister: why not?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I contributed to earlier Holocaust Memorial Bill debates, and I shall speak briefly in this one. I was moved to do so mainly by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who made the excellent point that the amendment talks about

“The main purpose of any Learning Centre”,


which dilutes the original amendments and raises the possibility that there might be other purposes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, knows, although we have disagreed on a number of things, I am an enormous admirer of all the hard work she has done to support the concept of Holocaust education, and I put on record my particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Khan. It has been heartwarming to listen to him and I admire him for the work he did in his position.

The point I want to make to both the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the Minister is to ask for clarification. In the Bill and in the amendments, there is reference to “a Holocaust”, but the particular paragraph that bites, Clause 1(1)(a), talks about

“the construction on, over or under any land of … a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust”,

and that is crystal clear. The centre for learning has to be relating to the memorial. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Deech: why is there any uncertainty about this? Is it not clear in the Bill that it has to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust? As my noble friend Lord Wolfson said, now is the time to move on.