Holocaust Memorial Bill

Committee (3rd Day)

13:00:00

Good afternoon, my Lords. Welcome to the third day of the Grand Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which we are not expecting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. Clause 2: Removal of restrictions in relation to certain land Amendment 8

Moved by

8: Clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert “, subject to the total area used for such activities not exceeding either 1429 square metres or the area shown in the plan in appendix 4 of the letter sent by the Promoter to the House of Commons Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee on 5 February 2024, including in that total area any— (a) entrance pavilion,(b) courtyard,(c) ramp,(d) associated hard standing,(e) service access,(f) ticketing and security facilities,(g) access paths,(h) areas enclosed to ensure the security of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, and(i) areas not accessible to the public.”

My Lords, my Amendment 8 simply seeks to ensure that the area taken up by the Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens will not occupy an area any greater than is required, should it go ahead as currently proposed. One thousand four hundred and twenty-nine square metres has been accepted as the area required. I note that the Government have further provided assurances that this will be the case. In January 2024, the Government gave the Select Committee in the House of Commons the following assurance: “the Promoter will only site the permanent buildings and other … structures comprising a Holocaust memorial and learning centre and its ancillary facilities … on, under and over … land” according to a plan submitted to that committee on 5 February 2024, citing once again the 1,429 square metre figure. The proportion of the park to be taken up by the Holocaust memorial has long been disputed. The planning inspector’s report stated that “the area directly affected by the proposals would in my view be likely to be greater than the 7.5% calculation”. The proposed design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is so dominant and disproportionate that, as the inspector’s report also stated, “its role as the setting for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre inevitably becomes the more substantial element of its identity as a public space.” Thankfully, he did not go on to repeat the architect’s desire that it should also disrupt the peace of the park, although one could draw that conclusion from the planning inspector’s remarks. Confusion concerning the precise square metreage in question has arisen because of a Written Answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, to this House in March and April 2023, in response to a Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the total area needed. The noble Baroness’s answer said that the area was intended to cover “both the size of Victoria Tower Gardens and the area taken by the Holocaust Memorial above ground within the park.” However, inadvertently, the noble Baroness then stated in the subsequent text of her answer that the area of 1,429 square metres also included the enclosed Holocaust memorial courtyard with its ramp and entrance pavilion, its fence, and the associated hard-standing items A to D, as per my amendment; but also, five other areas specified in the amendment as E, F, G, H and I—all of these within the 1,429 square-metre area. At the same time, it provided a plan of the area which excludes the five areas, E, F, G, H and I. This plan was repeated in the letter addressed by the promoter’s lawyers to the Commons Select Committee on 5 February, and has been repeated since then. Given these official inconsistencies concerning the actual area affected by the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, I propose that Clause 2 of the Bill should be amended to include a clear limit in terms of square metreage—1,429 square metres, as previously claimed—or to include an appropriate amendment to the plan submitted by the Government to the Commons Select Committee on 5 February 2024. This is all fundamental, and we really must sort this out. I beg to move.

My Lords, my Amendment 14 says that the proposed monument must not be extended or altered in any “replacement scheme”. On this occasion, I shall be relatively brief. It was my experience as a constituency MP that developers would get planning permission for, say, 20 houses, and then a few months later bung in a revised application for 30 or 40 houses, or one to convert bungalows into two-storey houses. It is a well-known planning racket, and it works because local councils conclude that they would have to spend a fortune on planning appeals which they might not win, on the grounds that they had already given permission for some sort of development, so how could they resist additional development? This is what we must prevent happening here. We know that the department is considering tweaks to the plans, and many of us have been hypercritical of the inadequacy of the so-called learning centre in the bunker. We have amendments down later on the need for new planning permission, but what is to stop the department saying that the planning rejection was called in already and that the inspector ruled in favour, so no new planning permission is needed—and then use its own powers to alter the plans on the ground that they are just minor tweaks? The original planning application is six years old and a new application to Westminster City Council is essential, in the view of most of us on this side of the argument. We know that the department wants to avoid that public scrutiny and refused to submit the new application, saying that nothing has changed, but it cannot be trusted. After the Commons Select Committee reported, I met its chairman, who has since lost his seat in the election last year. He said that he and most of the committee were appalled at the lies and disinformation about the project. Nothing that the department or its lawyers produced could be trusted, but their hands were tied by the resolution passed by the Government in the Commons: that they were forbidden to look at any of the flaws, inadequacies, misinformation or downright lies that they had been told. The Government gave assurances following the Lords Select Committee report, and these two assurances are relevant here. Assurance 7 is about the exact location of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre within Victoria Tower Gardens. It basically relies on the as yet unspecified planning process to deliver an acceptable proposal. Assurance 8 focuses on a redesign of the area around the Buxton memorial. They promised to give detailed consideration and claim that they had already gone back to their design team. What does that prove? They are going to have to go back to get detailed designs anyway, and there is no indication that they will increase the gap between the two memorials. There is no one, other than at planning, to opine on whether the calibre of the new design delivers insignificant adjustments which count, since the only way to do that is to redesign the whole memorial and learning centre, or to move the Buxton memorial so that they are further apart. I also support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lord Robathan. We can all guess what will happen: the department will use the figure of 1,429 square metres for the building but will then have some fairly wide paths for people to queue, or for admission and searches. Then a police or security box will be added—and how could one possibly complain about that? Then there will be hard-standing areas at the back for vehicles to load and unload, and probably maintenance trucks. If there will be vehicles, will there be vehicle access from Millbank? We will be told that it will be essential to let in fire engines—and if there is a fire, how could we possibly oppose letting those in? They will inevitably build some facility above ground for what they will call essential maintenance support, or electrical power sheds. Has anyone ever heard of or seen an underground visitor centre without some fairly large above-ground support facility? Of course not. I simply want an assurance from the Government that if this Bill passes, there will not be the slightest change in the design or location, and that they will not seek to make it larger by claiming that the 1,429 square metres relates only to the space below ground. All the items in my noble friend’s Amendment 8 are essential accoutrements, for which planning permission is not required or they say are taken as read.

My Lords, I wish to say a word or two in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the amendments on size. I will then move on to my Clause 2 stand part notice. On size, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has said pretty much all that can be said. The precise measurements do not allow for what I call “milling around”—that is, all the ancillaries, with people moving around and queuing for this and that. Clause 1(1)(b) is also a slippery slope because it allows for “work ancillary to” the construction of the memorial. There will be no holding back because Clause 1(3) allows for “extension, alteration and re-erection”. In other words, unless we limit this, there will be no holding back; the whole of the park will be taken over. I want to say a word about the kiosk, which will take up some space. I am amazed that anyone would support a little wooden hut selling Coke and crisps. It will not even have tables, I believe—just benches and maybe chairs, which will simply generate litter. One can hardly imagine being in the middle of Whitehall during a remembrance ceremony, or at Westminster Abbey when there is a memorial service, and there being allowed a wooden kiosk with people queuing up, distributing litter and so on. It just shows the insensitivity that pervades this whole project. I now turn to Clause 2 stand part. If the clause were removed, we would have a good Bill. The removal of restrictions in relation to certain land, as set out in Section 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act, does not prevent “the carrying out of any of the activities described in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 1(1) on, over, under or otherwise in relation to the land”. We would be left with Clause 1, which permits expenditure “on, over or under any land” for a memorial and learning centre. This would enable the Government to go out and talk to experts in the field and to ask whether there is a need for another memorial and learning centre; what they would add to the existing six memorials and 21 learning centres that people seem so unaware of; what impact another might have; how to promote learning in a digital age; and what one is supposed to learn, and from what events. Dropping Clause 2 would enable the Government to take into account the views of the late Lord Sacks, of blessed memory, who wanted the Holocaust to be set in context. It would enable the Government to take account of scholars who understand that the teaching of the Jewish genocide, known as the Shoah, must not be presented alongside other genocides because that obfuscates whatever lessons are to be learned and diverts attention away from centuries of antisemitism in this country and across the world. It also opens the door to the dilution of the words “Holocaust” and “genocide”, which we see today when they are used casually to describe anything that people find abhorrent; they can even be turned against the Jewish people themselves. The aims of Lord Sacks would be met by building a new Jewish museum, which would incorporate the Holocaust as experienced here but in the context of a thousand years of Jewish life in this country—its triumphs, tragedies, contribution and dispossession. I do not understand the thinking behind the initial decision, described by Mr Ed Balls at the public inquiry as a “moment of genius”, to site the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. No studies, research or consultation went into the choice of the site before it was decided to place it there. Objectors noted the prohibition in the 1900 Act, the breaking of the promises to the park’s benefactor, WH Smith, and what the consequences would be. Only this week, Victoria Tower Gardens was listed as one of Europe’s most endangered heritage sites by European organisations. The results of the decision, probably made for reasons of economy, are dire and will have two profoundly undermining consequences. First, the promoters have had to justify the choice by specious and vague references to democracy; this has turned the project from a memorial to the victims of Nazism into a reassuring and political project about British values. Secondly, the physical constraint of VTG has resulted in the promised world-class learning centre being converted into a visitors’ centre.

13:15:00

Clause 2 is vandalising clause. It removes the protection afforded to the green space of VTG for more than a century, and wrecks the aspirations of the Prime Minister's Holocaust Commission report in 2015, which recommended a large campus with room for a lecture hall, classrooms, an online hub, the Imperial War Museum’s Holocaust exhibition, offices for all the Holocaust education bodies and a professorship dedicated to transforming Holocaust education. This has virtually all been abandoned because the site chosen is too small and too difficult to encompass any of that. The use of technology has rendered the need for space smaller but, indeed, so great is the advance of technology that, frankly, from what we have seen of the underground learning centre it does not need a building at all. The whole thing could be contained in a set of slides and made available on every computer in every school and home in the land.

The survivors’ remembrances have already been achieved by the recordings of their experiences in the British Library and the new Holocaust portal, created in no small measure due to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, to whom we are grateful, and the many excellent films on the Holocaust. An uninformed visitor would learn more from watching two good movies on the Holocaust than from a 45-minute walk through the underground learning centre. One has to ask what remains to be achieved. The only thing that we need to achieve these days is the destruction of antisemitism, a topic not addressed in this project.

The green space is going, leaving the residents in blocks of flats around here, many of which are social housing Peabody buildings, high and dry. They have nowhere else to go. They do not have their own gardens. They have nowhere else to take their children. It is contrary to the Government’s policy. The Government’s environmental improvement plan contains a commitment for every household to be within a 15-minute walk of green space, and that is going. In addition, it will soon all be cluttered up with restoration and renewal building materials for 20 or 30 years to come. That same green space was used extensively when the late Queen had her lying-in-state and then for the coronation, and those are not one-off events. The World Heritage status is threatened, and we will come to that later. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority regards the building there as undeliverable and not, I emphasise, for planning permission reasons. The expense is eye-watering and unknown, and so far not even a spade has entered the soil. No contractors have been found and the designers, Adjaye Associates, are now suffering a loss.

Why was Victoria Tower Gardens chosen? Because it was free. It is not free. It is a taxpayers’ burden. The only case for it, made by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, at the planning inquiry, was that visitors would emerge to a view of the Palace of Westminster and think that it could not happen here. The exhibition, however, as far as we know, is not about the death camps, but more about refugees and Britain, and their sad stories, such as the parents of the kinder in the Kindertransport being refused entry and the barring of what might have been a refuge in Palestine. Those decisions took place right here in Whitehall, and every week now the anti-Jewish marches proceed unhindered close to Westminster. Our students are persecuted on campus without redress from Parliament. The siting argument based on democracy is false, to put it mildly. It is virtue signalling at others’ expense. It was not in the published Labour manifesto of 2024, on which the population voted, but in the King’s Speech. I have gone through the online manifesto repeatedly and not found it.

Clause 2 is a betrayal of the trust placed in the Government by the original donors of VPG, and a betrayal of those who have relied on the statute for more than a century. The destruction of greenery is contrary to Jewish values. It is a provocation to protesters. They are, of course, not a reason not to build, but one has to be prepared for the vandalism, the security, the armed guards and the bag checking. It will be an obstacle to the best way forward for R&R. It is unduly expensive because of the need to build down two storeys, leaving a mound which will further obscure a large chunk of the garden.

There is plenty of room elsewhere in central London for another memorial, says the 2015 commission, which drew a map of a large area. Vast sums could be saved by placing a memorial in VCG, with the learning centre elsewhere—for example, Richmond House, which has an ideal forecourt, or the former Museum of London site.

There is no hurry. It is the Government’s own fault if this is delayed because of the choice of VCG. They can swiftly put a better memorial in VCG and search for a proper learning centre elsewhere. In saying this, I am supported by several Holocaust survivors, including the formidable Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, who survived Auschwitz because she could play the cello, which was needed, ironically, for the camp orchestra—the Germans being such a cultured people. She called these plans “rubbish” in her evidence to the Commons Select Committee. If she has called them rubbish and has asked what could possibly be learned, we should respect her judgment. No one other than her could be more informed, and no one more upset by this ill-judged Bill.

I just remind the Committee of the normal time limits for speaking.

They are advisory only.

My Lords, I just say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron’s Amendments 8 and 17. Projects such as this are always liable to mission creep. This has already had quite a lot of mission creep attached to it, and I can see many reasons why there might be further mission creep in future. My noble friend has undertaken a valuable role in drawing attention to the areas where this might happen and, therefore, bringing in the agreements and undertakings so far given by the Government and the promoters of the Bill. That relates to Amendment 8, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra has also underlined many of the words and excuses that will be used for wishing to go wider than originally anticipated. Amendment 17 would help guarantee that this does not become a way for creep in the future. We can stop mission creep as far as this project is concerned, but there may be subsequent creep thereafter. The amendment is therefore very valuable, because this is controversial and all sides are entitled to know exactly what is proposed. I honestly cannot see how the Government and promoters—if they are being honest—can refuse to accept an invitation that lays everything out clearly and precisely so that we know where we are from the beginning. These two amendments therefore have my support.

My Lords, I will be brief. I am pleased that the Government have allocated additional days to discuss the Bill, but I am slightly concerned that we are becoming repetitious and are in danger of spending more time on it than we are spending in Committee on reform of the House of Lords. I have a couple of points. If I am honest, I do not entirely understand Amendment 17. My reading of the Bill is that we are not repealing the 1900 Act, we are just disapplying it. Anyone wishing to build outside the area that has planning permission would have to go through this process again and would require a special Act of Parliament to disapply the 1900 Act. We should also be clear about Mr WH Smith—a name that looks like it is about to disappear from our high streets. His principal concern was to prevent wharfs being built next to the House because of the risks that would have in terms of industrial activity, and the risk of fire it posed to the House. I am sure that his wishes are not in any way being diminished by the various statues that have gone up in the intervening period. I am sorry to repeat this, but Parliament has long decided how to deal with matters such as this, and it is through the planning Acts. They have a process whereby objectors can object and ideas are tested. That seems the most appropriate way of doing it, not setting up a separate system where the House of Lords is judge and jury in its own case. I recognise that people have strong views, but I am disappointed that we are hearing repeats of things that are plainly untrue. There is no suggestion that this will be anything other than something that commemorates the Holocaust—the Shoah. Any references to other genocides are peripheral and probably will occur under two circumstances. One of the outcomes of that terrible event was the creation of crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide. They give the lie to “never again”. It is important that this memorial is not celebratory of British involvement but is “warts and all”, to use Mr Cromwell’s phrase. The question is: who supports this? It is unseemly to play Top Trumps with Holocaust survivors. I could reel off a whole bunch of Holocaust survivors who have been supportive of this from the very beginning. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to go with the Minister to Ron Arad’s headquarters up in Chalk Farm, where there is a beautiful model laid out, which I hope the Committee will get an opportunity to look at—certainly, the House should do so—as many of the worries would disappear. Far from this memorial dominating the Buxton memorial, it would lie considerably below the very top of it. Far from it dominating the park, it would enhance it, and it seems very sensible. The Minister and I were fortunate to be joined by the Chief Rabbi, who has taken a great interest in this matter, as did the late Jonathan Sacks, of blessed memory. I can remember lots of discussions with Rabbi Sacks on this. The Chief Rabbi is entirely happy with the design, the purpose and the like. I am not Jewish; I cannot make a judgment, but I think I am entitled to take the views of the Chief Rabbi in preference to those of others in this Committee. I hope, now that we are close to the possibility of coming to a decision on this, we will not drag our feet and repeat points that we made earlier, interesting though they are. Can we just get on with the job?

My Lords, I was not planning to speak on this group, but I want to respond to some of the points that have been made. I agree completely with what the noble Baroness said about antisemitism and the marches in London—I think she knows that. She, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and I were all at a briefing by the historians working on the contents for this, who assured us that it would be specifically and only about the Holocaust, not about genocides generally, and that it would not relativise or compare the Holocaust to other genocides. We have been assured about that repeatedly by the Minister and the people working on the content, and we should accept that assurance. On the question of the location, the Holocaust Commission recommended a new national memorial in central London “to attract the largest possible number of visitors and to make a bold statement about the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust”. Victoria Tower Gardens was chosen as the right setting because it would be a permanent reminder, as we have said before, to people next door in Parliament, to UK citizens and to visitors from all over the world of what can happen when politics is poisoned by racism and extremism. If you go to Berlin, you will see its Holocaust memorial and learning centre right at the centre of its national life. If you go to Paris, you will struggle to find it, and in Vienna, it is a bizarre concrete block tucked away in a square, miles from anywhere. It would be much better to have this right at the centre of our national life, too. There are serious voices in the Jewish community who do not support this, not least the noble Baroness, and I respect them, but there is no doubt that the vast majority of Holocaust survivors and refugees, their families and the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community support this project. As we heard a moment ago, the Chief Rabbi is not only happy about this project but described the venue as inspirational—his word—and said, “it is in a prime place of … prominence and it is at the heart of our democracy”.

13:30:00

Holocaust survivor Mala Tribich asked:

“What better symbol to remind our parliamentarians and the wider public of where apathy as well as prejudice and hate can ultimately lead?”

Her brother, the late Sir Ben Helfgott, was one of the driving forces behind this project, and its location. Manfred Goldberg said just last year that:

“I was 84 when Prime Minister David Cameron first promised us survivors a national Holocaust Memorial in close proximity to the Houses of Parliament. Last month I celebrated my 93rd birthday and I pray to be able to attend the opening of this important project”.

I could quote lots of other Holocaust survivors making exactly the same points.

On the size of the thing, given that we have had many assurances—from Ministers of the current Government, and the last Government—and every opportunity to look at it, we have reached the point where we ought to accept that it is just going to take up 7.5% of the park. I have looked at the plans and the data, and it seems to me to be completely accurate.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As I understand it—and I am prepared to be corrected—neither of these amendments amend the plan. They just say that the plan must be stuck to, so all they are concerned about is what I describe as mission creep. Secondly, vanishingly few of us—certainly not me, and, I think, nobody else here—object to the idea of a memorial. Thirdly, he will understand that no Minister, of any party, can bind their successors. Assurances are fine, but circumstances change and so can the arrangements and the background to which assurances were given. All these amendments are seeking to do, I think, is to make sure that the assurances given by my party’s Front Bench—and, no doubt, by the noble Lord, Lord Khan, in due course—can be put into legislation, into statutory form, so we have assurances that it will not go any further than that.

People have argued against this proposal from day one. They have argued against not just the location but the idea of having a memorial and it being in Victoria Tower Gardens. I accept and understand that the tactics now are to say, “Well, look, we are not against the memorial being in Victoria Tower Gardens, but we do not like the design or the size”, or some other spurious reason, and to drag this whole process out for as long as possible and make it as controversial as possible in the hope that, in the end, the Government will change their plans or drop the whole thing in its entirety. I say this to noble Lords: people can table all the amendments they like, and we can have all the lengthy debates they want. I think there is cross-party support for this project. There is majority support in both Houses and, as I have said, widespread support in the Jewish community, too. It is about time we stopped tabling amendments and having lengthy, repetitive debates on the same points week after week. I can see that the noble Lord is about to get up and make all the same points once again, but we will respond to them, and we can drag this out for as long as he wants.

I cannot speak for my noble friends, but I deeply resent the suggestion that our suggestions for a proper memorial are somehow a tactic to delay and destroy the Bill. All of us on this side of the argument are deeply committed to a proper memorial, the memorial the Holocaust Commission recommended: one which is appropriately British and which recognises the killing of 6 million Jews, not the thing that was accepted by the last Government. I exempt the Minister from most of the blame for this; he is carrying on the vanity proposals of the Cameron Government. I want to get to the bottom of a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Austin, and my noble friend Lord Pickles: that it is purely for the Shoah, and no other genocides will be there. But paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Notes refers to “the persecution … of other groups … subsequently”. On Second Reading, the Minister said: “The learning centre will also address subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. GC 1224.] Is the noble Lord saying that the Minister was lying when he told the House on Second Reading that it would commemorate other genocides? Was he telling the truth, was he misguided, or was it a lie? [Interruption.]

Let me respond to that point; it is a valid question, and I want to answer it. Every single Member of this House and the other place had the opportunity to sit down with the historian responsible for the content. As far as I am aware, the only three people who have bothered to take part in any of these debates are myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. I think it fair to say that all three of us were impressed by what we were told by the historian, who assured us—we have also had this assurance from the Minister and the relevant officials—that this will be a memorial to the Holocaust, not to genocides in general. It may be the case that, as people leave, there is a board saying, “Since then, there have been atrocities in Cambodia and Darfur, so clearly, we have not yet learned the lessons”. But this is specifically and solely about the Holocaust.

In his argumentum ad historian, is the noble Lord suggesting that the rest of us do not know our history of the Holocaust? If so, that is extremely insulting.

Of course I am not suggesting that; I would never do so.

That is what the noble Lord just suggested.

Hold on. Let me be really clear about this. Of course I am not suggesting that—not for one moment. What I said, very specifically—the noble Lord should concede this—was about the historian responsible for the content of the memorial. I was speaking about that specifically and not about anybody else’s knowledge of the history of the Holocaust. I would never do that. I would not presume to do that—certainly not to the noble Lord; I really would not. I offer this right now: let us ask that historian to come back to Parliament before our next session. I hope that everybody here who is concerned about this matter will attend. They can sit down with him, listen to his assurances, and look at the plans and the content in detail.

The noble Lord, Lord Austin, says that he wants to move things on in this Committee; I completely agree with him. So why does not he let the Minister answer the direct question about the assurances—or non-assurances—he gave about the content, rather than wasting our time with talk about historians, very interesting though it is? I attended an online seminar, and it is nonsense to say that no other noble Lords listened to what the historian had to propose. Instead of the noble Lord speaking for the Government, it would be interesting if, in due course, we moved on and let the Minister answer the charge that has been made by my noble friend Lord Blencathra and others.

The noble Lord seems to have no objection to people making lengthy speeches on all sorts of points and tabling a million amendments that support his argument, but he objects now. This is a debate: people make points and others are allowed to respond to them. That is how it works. I offer the noble Lord this: if he can get everybody else not to make lengthy, repetitive speeches on spurious points, I will be very happy not to respond to them.

What about the consultation’s representation of the Jewish community? That has never happened. There is a saying in the Jewish community: when you have two Jews, there are three opinions, and if you have one synagogue you have to have another one because someone has to have a synagogue they will not go to. A Rabbi of the Orthodox persuasion, which is about one-third of the community—he is a leader there—is opposed to this project, as is Rabbi Dr Romain, the recent leader of the Reform Judaism element. There is no one view. There has been no proper consultation, and most people have no idea what the design is or what will be in the learning centre.

My Lords, we are having a civilised discussion about this matter, but it is quite clear how controversial it is. It is also quite clear that, once the building begins, and as it proceeds, the traffic is disrupted and the Victoria Tower Gardens become a building site, there will be a less civilised discussion outside this House. My fear is—I expressed this at Second Reading and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has expressed the same fear—that this project will become a focus for antisemitism. People will blame it on the Jews, it will become a focus and the underlying message of the Holocaust memorial will be lost. It will be lost in controversy about the present day, not the past. It will become, I fear, a focus for demonstrations in the way that the American embassy was back in the 1960s over the Vietnam War. All kinds of authorities are being quoted and all kinds of theories have been put forward, but as Members of this House we owe it to the House and to the public to express our views and fears. My warning is that proceeding along the lines that we are doing is going to do very great harm. It is going to promote antisemitism and it is going to be the reverse of everything that a Holocaust memorial should be.

My Lords, I wish to, in the nicest possible way, challenge the noble Lord, Lord Austin, again. I am not sure whether he was here when we had our discussion on how the project would be managed. He quotes the advice of historians. The historians are advisory only. They are utterly irrelevant in deciding the end output of the learning centre. We discussed it last week and I produced the chart from the National Audit Office showing the hierarchy and structure. We have a foundation advisory board and an academic advisory board, but they sit under the ultimate direction of the Secretary of State and the Minister, who make the decision, so the historians can have any view they like. I prefer to believe the view of the Minister. It was a Minister who said at Second Reading that subsequent generations of genocides will be commemorated as well. I think that is terribly important, and we take the Minister at his word. If the Minister cares to say afterwards that he was wrong or that that is not the case and no other genocides will be considered in this memorial centre, then, again, I will take the word of the Minister for that, but the Committee needs to know. Is it still the Government’s view, which they expressed at Second Reading, that these subsequent genocides will be commemorated? I neglected to comment on Clause 2 stand part. I shall do so briefly. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill only for the underground learning centre. We are all happy to have a proper memorial that is relevant to the 6 million murdered Jews, but the underground learning centre fails to fulfil any of the Holocaust Commission’s requirements that it should be a large campus with a conference centre and facilities for debates and meetings, a place where Jewish organisations could have rooms and offices to continue Jewish education. The Holocaust Commission recommended three sites: Potter’s Field, a site further down Millbank that the Reuben brothers were willing to donate and, of course, the Imperial War Museum, which was gagging to build a huge new learning centre attached to its museum. We have not heard a single reason why those sites were rejected. I think my noble friend Lord Finkelstein or my noble friend Lord Pickles or the Minister said earlier in our debates that 50 other sites were considered. Okay, 50 other sites were considered, but we have not had a single reason why the three sites recommended by the Holocaust Commission were rejected. So I think that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill, particularly the part about the underground learning centre. We need to have a proper one that will do all the things that the Holocaust Commission recommended. Note that no one in the Government or the previous Government or my noble friends talk about the Holocaust Commission now, because we know that this project has completely ditched everything that it called for. Just as they never mention the name of the discredited architect Adjaye, they never mention the Holocaust Commission, which is now regarded as out of date and whose proposals are no longer relevant. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.

My Lords, I support what my noble friend has just said. I very much admire the commission’s report and I think that the way that it is being treated now shows a degree of disrespect that is little short of appalling. The debate that we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Pickles and the noble Lord, Lord Austin, is completely irrelevant to the actuality of what is being proposed and the difference between it and what the commission recommended.

I am sorry that my noble friend sees this in such personal terms. I do not see people objecting to this at all in a personal way; they are expressing a perfectly reasonable right. I apologise if my intervention earlier rather excited one or two colleagues to some rather verbose interjections.

13:45:00

All I can say is that there has not been a single Holocaust memorial anywhere in the world on which this kind of debate has not taken place. It is a good thing. It is a good thing that we are not a compliant nation; it is a good thing that we have regular ways of sorting these things out, which is through the planning process. That will give people the opportunity to make these points to an independent person. That seems reasonable.

While I am on my feet, I just say that one addition to the memorial will be a permanent memorial to the British citizens who died in the camps. There is a surprisingly large number of them who were trapped on the continent.

I hope that we can address these points in a collegiate way. I was trying to address them by noting that, given that the 1900 Act still applies, quite a lot of these amendments are simply not necessary.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 17 in my name, which I do not think has been particularly addressed. I reply, in part, to my noble friend Lord Pickles: this tries to stop any ambiguity that might be there, and which I think still is there. The amendment is intended to clarify that there is a defined limit to the area for which the 1900 Act is being disapplied and that it relates only to the areas on which the Holocaust memorial and learning centre will be built. The Government have been at pains not to repeal Section 8 of the 1900 Act, only to disapply it in a limited manner. It will obviously be the source of even greater later confusion than it is now if it is not made totally clear at this stage exactly what the area is, on what criteria that is based and what precisely the defined area will be used for.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Strathcarron for introducing this group, which is primarily focused on design. I would like to make it clear to my noble friend that, in relation to the accusation that he made about my inconsistencies in figures relating to the amount of the park that would be required for the memorial, I will look into it and respond to him personally. Clearly, the planning process will, as we have heard numerous times from my noble friend Lord Pickles, take into account concerns about the design of the memorial and learning centre. I hope that the Minister—I will ask him once again—can give the Committee more detail on how these concerns can be raised in an appropriate way, at an appropriate time. It is crucial that the Government bring people with them when pressing ahead with these plans, as we know how strongly people feel. We feel it would be helpful if the Minister could take this opportunity to set out the next stages of progress after the passage of this Bill, particularly the processes for the planning stage. If he is unable to do so this afternoon, it would be helpful for the Committee to have these details in writing well before Report. I will speak to Amendments 8 and 14. The principle behind Amendment 8 is very sensible: it seeks to protect the interests of existing users of Victoria Tower Gardens while construction is under way. Perhaps this need not be set down in legislation, but I am pleased that my noble friend has brought this amendment forward. This should certainly be addressed during the planning process. Amendment 14, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, seeks to extend any limit to the size of the memorial and learning centre to any replacement memorial and centre in the future. We are not sure that this Bill is the right place to put a limit on the size of the centre, but we accept that my noble friend has legitimate and deeply felt concerns about the impact that the memorial and centre will have on Victoria Tower Gardens.

If this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to put a limit on the size, what would be?

The appropriate vehicle for all these issues, apart from what is in the simple Bill before us, is the planning process. I sometimes feel quite uncomfortable discussing the issues that we discuss, because they can pre-empt planning decisions. We have to be very cautious about what we say in this Committee. I regret that I cannot support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in her Clause 2 stand part notice, which seeks to leave in place the existing legal prohibitions on the development of Victoria Tower Gardens. I have spoken previously about, and will repeat, the importance of the symbolism of establishing the Holocaust memorial here in Westminster, in the shadow of the mother of all Parliaments. I believe that this is an important statement of how important we consider Holocaust education to be. After all, it is our duty, as a Parliament, to protect the rights of minorities and learn the lessons of the Holocaust ourselves so that this never happens again. Amendment 17 is very good, and I thank my noble friend Lord Strathcarron. I do not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, on this. When the Conservatives were in government, we put plans in place to limit the impact of construction on the rest of Victoria Tower Gardens, and we agree that the gardens should be protected for their existing use as far as possible. I urge the Government to listen to my noble friend Lord Strathcarron’s argument and ensure that protection for the rest of the gardens is put on a statutory footing, as the gardens as a whole are currently protected in law. That said, I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who has long taken such a keen and passionate interest in this Bill. I know how deeply she feels about this legislation. The Government should take her concerns seriously and provide her and the rest of the Committee with reassurances, where possible.

My Lords, this has been another passionate debate showing the strength of feeling on different sides. Yesterday, I was at the Ron Arad Studio alongside the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and I saw the 3D model for the first time, in person. I will bring the model into Parliament, into this House, and book a space for all noble Lords to have the opportunity to look at it and question a representative of the architects’ firm, who can talk through the model. On the back of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Austin, I will also invite the historian Martin Winstone back into the House and give noble Lords another opportunity to engage with him, ask him questions and listen to his perspective. I start today by giving those two assurances. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Blencathra, for tabling their amendments. It would be appropriate, alongside these amendments, to argue that Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. This group of amendments takes us to the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. The Act led to the creation of Victoria Tower Gardens in broadly its current form. The 1900 Act was then at the heart of the High Court case in 2022 that led to the removal of planning consent for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The previous Government, with cross-party support, introduced this Bill to remove the obstacle identified by the High Court. That was the right way to proceed. Parliament passed the Act in 1900, extending Victoria Tower Gardens and making them available for the public. It is right that Parliament should be asked to consider whether, in all the circumstances of the modern world, the 1900 Act should continue to prevent construction of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre in these gardens. The Bill is short. It does not seek powers to bypass the proper procedures for seeking planning consent. With this one simple clause—Clause 2—the obstacle of the 1900 Act is lifted. No part of the 1900 Act is repealed. No general permission is sought for development. The only relaxation of restrictions concerns the creation of a memorial recalling an event that challenged the foundations of civilisation. That is the question posed to Parliament by Clause 2. It does not require hair-splitting over the number of square metres that should be allowed for a path or a hard standing; those are proper and important matters for the planning system, which is far better equipped to handle them than a Grand Committee of your Lordships’ House. I would like to say a brief word about why Victoria Tower Gardens were chosen as the location for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, an issue of concern raised by a number of noble Lords. After an extensive search for suitable sites, Victoria Tower Gardens were identified as the site uniquely capable of meeting the Government’s vision for the memorial; its historical, emotional and political significance substantially outweighed all other locations. The Holocaust memorial and learning centre was also seen to be in keeping with other memorials sited in the gardens representing struggles for equality and justice. The 1900 Act requires that Victoria Tower Gardens should remain a garden that is open to the public. We absolutely agree with that. Clause 2 simply provides that the relevant sections of the 1900 Act, requiring that the gardens shall be maintained as a garden open to the public, do not prevent the construction, subsequent use and maintenance of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre.

I am so sorry to interrupt the Minister again. He said that, after looking at 50 sites, Victoria Tower Gardens was decided to be the best of them. He has not explained what was wrong with the three sites recommended by the Holocaust Commission. Why did the Government reject the Imperial War Museum, Reuben Brothers’ offer of a site off Millbank, and Potters Fields?

That is an issue for the competition and planning process subsequently. I cannot comment on planning matters. Victoria Tower Gardens will remain open to the public and be home to an inspiring Holocaust memorial that will also be open to the public. Indeed, the design of the memorial was chosen because it met an essential challenge of the brief by being visually arresting yet showing sensitivity to its location and context. The winning design was further developed to meet the requirements of the chosen site and to ensure that the new features and landscaping improvements will benefit all users of the gardens. The gardens themselves will benefit from landscaping improvements that will enhance them for all visitors. This clause will enable the Government to make progress on delivering the commitment that successive Administrations have made since 2015. Every Prime Minister since 2015 has supported this project. The current Prime Minister has restated that commitment clearly, including in his speech to the Holocaust Educational Trust last September—I was there—when he said: “We will build that national Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre and build it next to Parliament, boldly, proudly, unapologetically … Not as a Jewish community initiative, but as a national initiative—a national statement of the truth of the Holocaust and its place in our national consciousness, and a permanent reminder of where hatred and prejudice can lead”. I turn now to Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, which is intended to set a physical limitation on the size of any Holocaust memorial and learning centre that could be constructed at Victoria Tower Gardens. I acknowledge the desire among noble Lords to be reassured about the size of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre but, by setting a square metreage, this amendment does not provide certainty. Instead, it would open further avenues for litigation and make the proposed scheme undeliverable. The amendment would conflict with Clause 1(3) specifically, which allows alterations and extensions. More fundamentally, it would act as an obstacle to the creation of the specific scheme that this Government and previous Administrations have proposed to construct.

14:00:00

These matters were, of course, considered carefully by the Select Committees in both Houses. The House of Lords Select Committee accepted the assurance from the Government that the area of land to be taken would be as set out in the planning application, which is currently under consideration. Our assurance reflects the fundamentally important point that, notwithstanding the Bill we are debating, a Holocaust memorial and learning centre can be constructed at Victoria Tower Gardens only if planning consent is obtained. The planning process is the right forum for considering matters such as the scale, design and wider impact of any proposed scheme.

For the current proposal, the planning inspector considered a great deal of evidence from all sides and looked in detail at matters such as the impact on the gardens and on existing memorials. The planning inspector concluded that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed by the public benefit of the scheme. The planning inspector’s report still stands as a robust assessment of the proposals. Any further development in Victoria Tower Gardens would have to be permitted by the granting of planning permission, with all the detailed scrutiny and consultation that that would entail. I therefore respectfully request that noble Lords allow the planning system to do its job and that the noble Lord withdraw his amendment.

Amendment 14 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is intended to prevent any future modifications to the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, after it is built, that would increase its size. Let me reassure the Committee that we have no plans to extend or modify the design we have proposed and seek to take forward, but it would be unwise to say that no modification would ever be necessary. We simply need to reflect on the changes that have taken place in Victoria Tower Gardens over the years, with new monuments added, the layout of paths changed and the playground remodelled, to see that practical and aesthetic reasons can lead to sensible modifications which need not be hugely controversial.

Of course, modifications to the Holocaust memorial and learning centre must be considered within the context of planning law. No significant changes could take place without planning consent, and the process of seeking planning consent would entail consultation and careful assessment of any impacts on the gardens and on any nearby monuments. This amendment is not necessary as a safeguard against significant future expansion of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. It would, however, be an unnecessary and unhelpful impediment to sensible future modifications should they be needed. I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, seeks to stop any developments on parts of Victoria Tower Gardens not already occupied by the Holocaust memorial and learning centre once it is built. The Holocaust Memorial Bill does not repeal the provisions of the 1900 Act, which will continue to require that Victoria Tower Gardens be maintained as a garden open to the public. The Bill is intended to deal with a very specific matter which arises in a precise location. The Bill seeks to remove restrictions only in relation to the construction, use, operation, maintenance or improvement of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Lifting the restriction that the 1900 Act currently provides will not remove the need for planning permission before the memorial and learning centre can be constructed. Similarly, any extension to the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, or any proposal for another structure of whatever kind, would be subject to a fresh planning application. This new clause is therefore unnecessary, and I respectfully ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

I hope that I have been able to provide further clarity and assurance on the purpose of Clause 2, enabling all noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.

In conclusion—and this is a very important point—I remind the Committee that I have said previously that content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem, supported by an academic advisory group, to ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into and interpretation of the Holocaust. As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, that should also be seen in the context of “never again”.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, and the Minister in particular—I would like to take up his offer of letting us see a model. That would be a very good idea, because the basic problem behind a lot of our amendments on this side of the argument is a complete lack of trust. This saga has been going for so long, with so many twists and turns. We have managed to spend £21 million so far on professional fees, and it seems to just be drifting on and on. To stop uncertainty, particularly about dimensions and sizes, and to see everything at scale would be really helpful. Let me reassure my noble friend Lady Scott on the answers given: I do not for a moment suspect that she was doing anything other than reading them out, so please do not spend any time checking. They are all there. In summarising the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Austin and Lord Pickles, and all of us who joined in, I am reminded that at Second Reading, a noble Baroness on the Cross Benches—I apologise; I have rather ungallantly forgotten who—said that the expert opinions, whether of Jewish dignitaries or of historians, are really divided along geographical lines as much as anything else. Those of us who live and work near here are completely against the learning centre in particular, and those who live a long way away are, naturally, far more relaxed about it, because they are not going to be affected and it all sounds like a really good idea. That rang true at the time as being a very good dividing line. We now await the planning stage. We are very suspicious. I remember Robert Jenrick MP called it in last time, and as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, many further twists and turns are possible, with government manoeuvres to get round it. It has been six years since it last went to planning—it has happened before, and it can happen again. Those are the reasons behind the suspicion, and I respectfully ask the Minister to bear them in mind.

The noble Lord has just made a point about the basis on which people support or object to this proposal. First, it is not true. I used to live a few hundred yards away from the proposed location—my kids played in the playground—and I supported it all the way through. It is an extraordinary admission to say that the reason we are against it is that we live nearby. If members of this Committee were on a local council planning committee, or even a parish council, they would not be allowed to take part in a discussion about a proposal with an interest like that—on the basis that this is where they live. I gently make the point that we are here in the House of Lords to make decisions solely on the basis of the public interest; we are not supposed to take decisions on the basis of our personal or private interests, or where we might or might not live. That is not why we are here. In fact, I think I am correct in saying that when we are appointed to the House and the Letters Patent are read out before we take the oath, we are required to set aside all private interests. This is something I have long suspected. It has never been admitted before, but I think it is an extraordinary admission.

Before my noble friend replies, I point out to the noble Lord that the Lords Select Committee deliberately excluded anyone who did not have a personal local interest or live close enough to be affected by this. That is quite a different matter from noble Lords’ consideration in this Committee. The Select Committee was restricted to hearing only noble Lords who could show a personal interest that might be affected—their property, their use of the park or whatever. The noble Lord should probably get up to speed on the powers of a special Select Committee.

To respond to—

The noble Lord has made a point directed to me and I want to respond to it. The public watching this will be pretty shocked, frankly, to discover that Members of your Lordships’ House think they have the right to intervene in committees such as this, on matters that affect them personally, on the basis of where they live, in a way they would never be able to do on a local authority planning committee or even a parish council. We cannot allow the public to get the impression that there is one rule for privileged Members of the House of Lords living in properties in Westminster, and another rule that affects every other member of the public sitting on any other committee in a parish or local council. We should not allow that.

To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Austin, I was not for a moment suggesting that anybody here, on either side of the argument, is motivated by that. I was reporting on a summary at Second Reading, which was a generalisation. But time is marching on, and I wish to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

Amendment 9

Moved by

9: Clause 2, page 1, line 18, at end insert “, provided that any such activities— (a) would not cause the existing Spicer Memorial to be moved or the area of the playground on that site to be reduced, and(b) are carried out in such a way that access to any children’s playground on that site is maintained at level from the nearest entrance without requiring the use of steps.”

My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments, in particular the four that have my name attached to them: Amendments 9, 18, 19 and 20. I hope that this group may prove slightly less contentious than the one we have just debated; indeed, given that it is about a playground, I hope we might be able to debate it in a slightly more adult manner. It strikes me that the whole process we are going through is a rather uncomely poster child for the joys of the British planning system, which is, as we all know, not in a particularly good state. The discussions that we are having, and the decade-long process that we have gone through, seem to prove that it is not exactly fit for purpose. I declare my interests as, first, a parent; secondly, a grandparent; and, thirdly, a governor of Coram, the oldest children’s charity in the United Kingdom. Where the Foundling Hospital used to stand—unfortunately, it was demolished in the 1930s—there is a wonderful playground called Coram’s Fields. At the entrance gate, there is a sign that says, “No adult may enter unless accompanied by a child”. It occurs to me that, as I, along with other noble Lords, struggle to get in through the new Peers’ Entrance, having a similar sort of sign—whether you are going in or going out—might be quite helpful to many of us because, usually, at least one of them ain’t working. What I will try to demonstrate in talking about the playground is, first, why it is there; and, secondly, why it has real value and use. In 2019, the London Historic Parks & Gardens Trust produced a report about the significance of Victoria Tower Gardens. I will not go through it in detail, but it highlighted a particular point when it was talking about some of the risks that the gardens may face. It said that “the park is affected by a range of external pressures and stresses. For example, the likely impacts of future piecemeal interventions such as buildings or structures imposed from outside sources”. It occurs to some of us in this debate, I think, that that was a perfect description of what we are discussing. Amendment 9 is a probing amendment, since it appears that the Spicer Memorial will need to be moved to the north from where it currently is to create approximately 193 square metres of new paved space around the proposed entrance pavilion. The amendment simply asks whether it will be possible to redesign the proposed route of entry to the entrance pavilion to avoid this, because the current design will reduce the size of the playground by about 370 square metres, or 31%—nearly one-third. Alternatively—we dealt with this question previously in our debate on Amendment 26 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—do we really need a kiosk? If we did not have the kiosk, that would enable the playground to regain quite a lot of the space that would otherwise be lost. I would be most grateful if the Minister could answer that question. Amendment 9 also asks for continued ease of access to the playground. This is important to the many parents using prams and buggies. As noble Lords will see from some of the Underground stations that have staircases instead of escalators or whose escalators are not working, a lot of parents—particularly mothers—if they are by themselves, rely on the generosity of others around to help them up or down. I hope that will not need to be the case when it comes to using the playground. Why does the playground matter and why is it there? It may not be obvious but it is quite a significant playground in that it is one of the earliest playgrounds developed in London. There was a growing need in the first half of the 20th century for children in particular to have open space, fresh air and exercise—particularly in areas of the city where those things were not easy to access. In 2018, Westminster City Council did a detailed profile of the inhabitants of its various wards. The two most relevant to what we are talking about are the two closest to Victoria Tower Gardens. One is St James’s Ward and the other is Vincent Square Ward. These wards have a very high percentage of social housing estates. In the 2010 census data, 28% of Vincent Square Ward children and 30% of St James’s Ward children were classified as obese. Also from that data, 28% and 30% of year 6 children were children of lone parents with dependent children, which is quite a high number. In addition, almost one-quarter of the children in each of those wards were receiving free school meals in 2017. That demonstrates that however affluent we may assume this part of London is, for many people who live here, it is not. In addition to parents who visit from those estates, there are parents who come from across the river, where there is also a paucity of playgrounds other than the one in the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury’s garden.

14:15:00

The Royal Parks estimates that there are about 72,000 visits to the playground per annum. In the course of research for this, particularly when the weather is nice, like today, I have on several mornings gone to the playground and just talked at random to parents who are there with their children. While this is not exactly a detailed piece of opinion polling, everybody I have spoken to obviously greatly values the fact that it is there and they are able to use it. Secondly, without exception, not a single parent I have spoken to had absolutely any idea of what is planned for Victoria Tower Gardens.

There was a consultation process. The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government asked a company called Four Communications to carry out a programme of what is rather inelegantly called “stakeholder engagement”. It was conducted in the latter half of 2018. The company talked to a variety of local residents and businesses and got some feedback. I suppose all I would say is that the combined population of those two wards is 21,100 people, and the total number of people, either individuals or businesses, who were consulted was 3,657, a slightly different figure from the 21,000 residents, so I am not sure how exhaustive that consultation process was.

Turning quickly to the other amendments, Amendments 18, 19 and 20, I put on record my thanks to those who put their names to these amendments, and to the Select Committee on this Bill for persuading the promoter to give a series of assurances summarised in the promoter’s response to the Select Committee’s special report of the 2024-25 Session, which was published last month. Amendment 18 simply proposes to insert the undertakings made in the promoter’s first assurance about access to the playground during construction into the Bill. An assurance has already been given; it would be rather nice if it could be made flesh in the Bill. Amendment 20 would insert into the Bill the undertakings made in the promoter’s fourth assurance about arrangements to ensure appropriate separation of the playground from the Holocaust memorial as it is being constructed, and from its visitors after it has been constructed. Amendment 19 proposes that a report on the safeguarding measures that will be put in place to protect the playground and its users should be laid before Parliament within three months of the Bill becoming law. I beg to move.

Amendment 10 (to Amendment 9)

Moved by

10: After paragraph (b) insert— “(c) would not cause damage to the roots of existing trees.”

My Lords, the amendment in my name adds a third condition to Amendment 9, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I should perhaps explain why I think this is so important. I start from the view that this little park, which has been protected hitherto by an Act of Parliament, remains very valuable and should not be tampered with to its great detriment. I will not rehearse here the arguments so eloquently put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I simply want to put on record that I heartily endorse what they have both said—they make a great deal of sense. I will not inflict on the Committee a repetition of those arguments, save in one regard. I find it very distasteful that the Government who want to go ahead with this—which I believe will damage the park—at the same time issued that Statement back in July 2024, explaining that they wanted every person to be within 15 minutes of a green or blue space. There seems to be something of a contradiction here, or, as the old adage has it, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. I want to demonstrate the significant damage that I think will be done to the trees in the park. Currently, there is a magnificent avenue of no fewer than 51 London planes, which are mature, very fine and well looked after by Royal Parks, together with several smaller ornamental trees. They provide a wonderful setting for a world heritage site, which also has special protection in planning law. I am not going to act on my own authority in this; I will draw heavily on a report in the public domain, commissioned by Westminster City Council to advise it after the decision had been taken out of its hands and in preparation for the other details that were to follow. It used as an expert witness a gentleman called Mark Mackworth-Praed, a chartered arboriculturalist and a member of the Expert Witness Institute working for Archer Associates, a major tree and ecology consultancy. I should now like to draw attention—

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. She is talking about the value of this green space, which I think everybody now agrees on. Is she aware that it is the only green space that marches next to the river without a road in between for something like seven miles on the north bank of the river?

I was seeking to curtail my remarks in the interests of brevity. I notice that a little bit has been taken out of my time now, unless I go over the allotted amount. I draw the attention of the Committee to British Standard 5837. I do not expect noble Lords to be immediately thrilled by this announcement, but it is a widely used and accepted measure of the viability of a tree by assessing the minimum area around it deemed sufficient to contain sufficient roots to enable it to live and survive well. It is a calculation of a circle with a radius 12 times the diameter of the tree’s trunk. When you look at the smallness of this park and the number of trees, it does not take a mathematical genius to work out that, somewhere, roots will be damaged. Let me give specific examples from this independently produced report. First, it is reckoned that digging out the enormous amount of soil to provide the underground learning centre will cause 11 trees to have their roots severed on the western boundary within the amount of the British Standard, so they would be damaged. The Spicer Memorial, already referred to in another amendment, and possibly replacing a refreshment kiosk would risk real damage to three trees. Then there is the creation of two service routes carrying various underground utilities and drainage runs: it is reckoned that 10 trees there would be affected adversely, either directly or in conjunction with other hazards. That seems to me a pretty worrying description of what might happen, particularly bearing in mind that when you have avenues of trees, the loss of even one tree can shatter the visual image. If there are several, we might have an even worse result, but that is not the only damage to trees that can be caused by the direct severing of roots. Another real worry is that soil compaction can have a major impact on the health of trees. I am sure those of us who are amateur gardeners will have been told about not walking on wet beds, because of the possible danger to plants, which will be damaged by compaction. As I understand it, the proposal is for the formation of a slope up to the fins of the memorial, which would involve a lot of soil being sited on top of the existing level. That would have the effect of asphyxiating the soil; in other words, it cannot breathe. Worse than that, soil compaction during works with heavy machinery would also have a very damaging effect, to say nothing of digging out all the soil to form the underground learning centre. One can see that moving great piles of soil will, in itself, cause considerable damage. On top of that, we have all the building works that will be associated with carrying out the work of producing the memorial and the underground space for the learning centre. Storing heavy materials also compacts the soil and heavy machinery running over it has the same effect, so over time this would have a major, damaging effect on the park as a whole. I know that the Minister has referred to enhancing the value of the park, but I fear that in practice it will be greatly damaged. Finally, when all this is done—at some unspecified period in the future—there will be much heavier footfall if it is all successful and thousands of people are coming in, rather than the people who use the park now. Through footfall, they too can have a tremendous impact on the soil and its compaction. I do not see a happy future for these trees in the circumstances I have described. I conclude by referring to the views of Westminster City Council’s sub-committee. As we all know, it was not allowed to make the decision but it resolved that, had it come to that committee, it would on various grounds have refused the application. I want to deal with only one that relates to trees. It said: “Inadequate and conflicting information has been submitted which is not sufficient to permit a proper assessment of the impact of the proposed development on trees within Victoria Tower Gardens, together with the effectiveness of suggested mitigation. As such it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that unacceptable harm to, and/or loss of, trees would not arise as a result of the proposed development”. Finally, the sub-committee said that “damage and/or loss to trees would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area, and would have a further adverse effect on the significance of heritage assets”. I think we all know about the importance of this little park as a backdrop for the Houses of Parliament and the abbey. On that basis, I beg to move.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 19 and 20, to which I have added my name. Victoria Tower Gardens is not just any green space; it is the home of a playground that has served generations of children. It is one of the few places in this area where children can play safely. As mentioned several times before, the proposed centre will mangle the playground beyond recognition. It will shrink by over 31%, wiping out the open grass that connects it to the rest of the park.

14:30:00

As also mentioned before, the Spicer memorial is being moved to create 193 square metres of new paved space, shrinking the playground. This is unnecessary. But much worse than all this, visitors will queue and walk past the northern end, forcing children and their families to mix with memorial visitors. A high-profile tourist site packed with visitors in one of the most politically sensitive areas of London is a bull’s-eye for trouble.

The UK Home Office reported 185 terror-related arrests in the last year alone—a stark reminder that the threat is real. In today’s unsettling climate, the risk will only increase. As we have experienced today in the Chamber, it will also be an attraction for disruption. Then there is the issue of fencing—or lack of it. It was agreed that some separation is needed between the playground and the memorial queues, but no clear plan has been provided. How will children be kept safe? Do we know?

What about the proposed kiosk, mentioned before, plonked at the edge of the playground? It would eat up more space and draw in more crowds. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, pointed out, it raises serious safeguarding concerns. Yet the Government have said nothing about how they will safeguard children. There is no plan to prevent overcrowding and no security measures to stop predators exploiting a crowded and chaotic space close to where children play.

This is not speculation; it is reality. According to the UK Missing Persons Unit, 112,853 children went missing last year—that is 309 children per day. Many are taken by estranged parents in bitter custody battles; others fall prey to predators who know exactly how to operate unnoticed in a crowded space. Having run a charity for missing and abducted children for 17 years, I have first-hand experience of how these tragedies unfold. Every second matters. Once a child is gone, the chances of recovering them diminish by the minute.

This is not about whether we should have a memorial; it is about where it should be. In my opinion and that of several others in this Room, this is absolutely the wrong location. It would shrink a cherished playground, create security risks, cause traffic chaos and endanger children—all while needlessly disturbing one of London’s last remaining green spaces. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said many times, there are plenty of other locations in London where this memorial could be built without compromising safety, security or public spaces. The Government need to listen and rethink some of those issues.

Will the Minister agree to lay before Parliament a report on the measures the Government will take to safeguard children, as called for by Amendment 19?

My Lords, I did not sign these amendments because I was leaving it to others with kiddies and grandchildren to speak with much more authority, but I am prompted to speak by the Minister saying last week that the main path used by mums, nannies and children will be closed. Also, I have a question for my noble friend Lady Fookes, which we may want to reflect on, on the effect on the water table if a big hole is dug. I am not sure whether a hydrological engineer has commented on this, but my experience with Natural England was that if you want to destroy peatland, you just dig a trench and all the water drains from the rest of the soil and the peat into the trench. There is probably a level water plain in this park. If one digs a ruddy great big hole, does it not act as a sump, so that water from the surrounding area moves into it? Of course, the bunker will have to be completely waterproof so that there is no water ingress, but it will still act as a sump and there may have to be pumps to pump out the water surrounding the bunker in order to maintain its water integrity. It is a question that I am not sure my noble friend will have the answer to, but there could be a more serious effect on the trees she is concerned about, in that they will suffer a huge moisture lack, more than London often does in summer, if the bunker acts as a sump. As for the children’s playground, I believe that there are only two ways into it. The level access one is the southern gate, which we all use and which gives access to the Buxton memorial, the playground and the kiosk. The other access, I think, is down the steep set of steps off Lambeth Bridge, which is no good whatever for mums with baby buggies and so on. The playground now assumes a much greater importance because the Government confirmed last week that the main path used by everyone, adjacent to Millbank, will be closed or partially closed. That is where, every morning when I go through the park, I see the nannies with the little kiddies. Yesterday was a reasonably warm day in London. The park was not full, and I took some wonderful photographs—of the bins overflowing and garbage everywhere. That was just on a nice day in London. Obviously, I would not take photographs of little kiddies with their nannies and so on—one does not want to be arrested on the spot—but I can assure the Committee that I see lot of them going through there every day. They are tiny little things: I do not know what ages they are, but none of them are higher than 18 inches. Sometimes they are on a pole or in a croc, and they are all walking along with their nannies, using that main path. If they have no access to the park, the playground becomes even more important. How will they access it? From the plans, I assume that the main entrance for the builders and contractors will be the southern gate, and that will block access to the children’s playground and to the main footpath that lots of little kiddies, nannies and mums, as well as other users of the park, use every day. I say to the Government that if they are determined to go ahead with this, they should leave the southern gate alone for mums and dads and everyone else to use, and create some other construction access between the southern gate and Lambeth Bridge where they can get their trucks in. If they are going to remove the kiosk and the children’s playground, and move it elsewhere, that would allow the construction of a new gate. I leave that point for the Minister and his planning process to consider.

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a very ingenious argument. I am always distressed to be on the opposite side from him on these matters, because he is such a persuasive speaker. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, made an enormous amount of sense and said nothing that I disagree with. It occurs to me that if I had followed his advice and attended more playgrounds and eaten fewer buns, I would be in a better state today than I am. The noble Lord said that the planning system is not fit for purpose. That is generally said by people who think that we are not passing enough: it is not fit for purpose because we need to build more houses. One thing that I think is fit for purpose is that, as is pretty well established, we are able to look at the regulations, apply those to playgrounds and do some negotiating to get the right alternative through the planning system. That also applies to trees. If there is anything well established, tree preservation orders are at the very centre of the planning system. We know that, should there be a grant of planning permission, each tree will be considered and negotiated between the council and the department, and an enormous amount of work will go into this. If we are to pass this, are we saying that Parliament should decide on the conditions of every playground next to a new development, or every tree preservation order? With a cursory look at the planning inquiry and the independent inspector’s finding, noble Lords will see that an enormous amount of thought has gone into the preservation of the trees. The current situation is not helpful. As I said a couple of Committee days ago, those paths are, in essence, strangling the roots of the trees because they are not permeable to water. We will put in new paths that ensure that water goes to the roots of the trees. I recognise and sympathise with the noble Baroness’s dilemma and great passion with regard to abduction, but one of the reasons why that is not likely to happen—in, as she described, a situation where there will be lots of queuing—is that there will not be any queuing. It will be ticket only. People will have to obtain the tickets in advance; they will not be able to obtain a ticket at the memorial site. Only people with tickets will be able to come in, and only within a particular time frame. That was designed specifically—

But will there not be people queuing for the kiosk? That is very close to the playground.

The noble Baroness makes a reasonable point. I very much support the Minister’s point. I think that, once the noble Baroness sees the model, many of her worries and concerns will disappear. If there is one thing that has become clear to me in these interesting debates, it is that the fiction about the memorial does not last very long under public scrutiny and questioning. Noble Lords will be surprised but, again, we cannot create two planning systems, with one for the rest of the country and another for noble Lords, particularly—I say this in a very gentle way—when those noble Lords have a financial interest close to the site.

My Lords, since we have absolutely no guarantee that there will be a proper planning application, we have to set those remarks to one side. I just want to add that this is not about nimbyism or selfishness. For those of us who have a real, deep family interest in this project, it is of a low quality. It will not do for my grandmothers and all the other members of my family whom I lost. Many others agree with me. Those who are not so affected may not completely understand our deep feelings about the quality and message of this project. On the playground, I will just say that this is a social justice issue because of the mixed demographic area here, with children from ethnic-minority backgrounds who have low levels of activity apart from in this garden. The poverty, lack of access to safe spaces and poor local natural resources that are inevitable in this area contribute to this inequality. Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says: “States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child … States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in” those activities “and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for … recreational … activity”. We ratified that in 1991. This Government are committed to upholding international law, as they say repeatedly. Every day we hear from Minister David Lammy and others about its importance. In damaging the playground, not just reducing its size but exposing its users to risk, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, so eloquently pointed out, we are in danger of breaching that United Nations convention. If I were a parent or carer of a child, I would not want to take them to a park where there were armed guards, strangers, coaches, protests and so on, and no longer a happy atmosphere.

14:45:00

These amendments, all of which I support, call for safeguarding, barriers and access. Visitors to the memorial must not be allowed to cross the playground. Best of all would be to maintain the size of the playground, which is more important than the other issues around the space surrounding it. I support all these amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for introducing this group. The object of his Amendment 9 is an important one, as we have discussed in an earlier group, and I understand why my noble friend Lady Fookes has tabled her Amendment 10 to strengthen protections for existing trees in Victoria Tower Gardens. While this issue should be addressed through the planning process, I agree with my noble friend and the noble Lord that this is an opportunity for the Government to update the Committee on the steps they intend to take to protect the existing monuments and trees in the gardens. Amendments 18, 19 and 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seek to deliver protections for the playground at the south end of the gardens. Given the relatively limited access to green spaces in this part of Westminster, the playground is an important facility in the area and I believe it should be possible for the works to go ahead without preventing access to the playground. We know that the design of the project seeks to preserve 100% of the play area when the works are complete, but the noble Lord makes an important point about continued access to the play area during the progress of the works. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to protect the playground during as well as after the construction of the memorial and learning centre? This is an important issue for local residents and regular users of the gardens, so I hope it can be addressed fully in the planning process, if the Minister is unable to satisfy the Committee today.

My Lord, before the Minister replies, I ask my noble friend Lord Pickles one little point. He said that we cannot have Parliament decide on planning applications and that they are better left to the planning process. As I understand it, the planning process is a Minister in the department deciding either to have a round-table discussion, to submit a plan to Westminster Council or to call for written representations. That is the planning process. Does he think that a better process than Parliament deciding?

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for tabling Amendments 9, 18, 19 and 20 and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for tabling Amendment 10. This group of amendments covers matters relating to the Spicer memorial, the magnificent trees in Victoria Tower Gardens and the children’s playground. Amendment 9 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, draws attention to the Spicer memorial and to the children’s playground, both of which are very important features of Victoria Tower Gardens. If noble Lords will permit, I will come to the playground in just a moment and address that part of Amendment 9 alongside Amendments 18, 19 and 20, which also concern the playground. The Government fully agree with noble Lords who wish to ensure that the Spicer memorial is protected and should continue to hold a prominent place in the gardens. Our proposals for Victoria Tower Gardens have been carefully developed to achieve these objectives. The Spicer memorial commemorates the philanthropist Mr Henry Gage Spicer, who contributed to the creation of the playground in the 1920s. Though not listed, the memorial is important, commemorating a generous donation and lending a degree of dignity to the gardens. Under our proposals, the Spicer memorial will be moved a short distance to the south—rather less than the changes experienced when it was relocated in 2014. It currently marks the northern end of the playground. Under our proposals for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, it will continue to fulfil that role. The Select Committee, having considered petitions against the Bill, accepted an assurance from the Government that a review would be carried out of the arrangements proposed for the southern end of the gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors to Victoria Tower Gardens. That review is now under way and further information on this matter will be published when it is complete. The impact of our proposals on the Spicer memorial, and on all the memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, was of course considered very carefully by the independent planning inspector. Once the process of redetermining the planning application is restarted, the Spicer memorial, and other memorials, will no doubt be considered again, as they should be. There is therefore no need to include the proposed provision in the Bill. It would add nothing to the commitments that have been given and would simply open the door to potential legal challenges, which would delay still further the construction of the Holocaust memorial. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 9. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for her Amendment 10. I recognise her great contribution to horticulture, landscaping and gardening. I fully support her commitment to protect the magnificent London plane trees in Victoria Tower Gardens. From the very beginning of the design process, protection of the two lines of trees on the eastern and western sides of the gardens has been a major consideration. The proposed design was selected from a very strong shortlist of contenders partly because of the way in which it respects Victoria Tower Gardens, including the London plane trees, which are today such an important and integral part of that place. We have drawn heavily on expert advice to ensure that construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre can take place with as little impact on the trees as possible. As noble Lords may recall, a great deal of time was taken at the planning inquiry debating the likely impacts on tree roots, with several expert witnesses cross-examined. As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, alluded to, the inspector considered very carefully what pruning of tree roots would be required, how this would be mitigated and what the impacts on the trees would be. He was then able to consider the risks of harm against the undoubted benefits that will arise from the creation of a national memorial to the Holocaust with an integrated learning centre. Introducing a new statutory provision to prevent any root pruning would take away any possibility of such a balanced judgment. The amendment as drafted would place a significant constraint on any possible scheme and would certainly prevent the proposed scheme from going ahead in its current form. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 10. I turn now to the children’s playground, which is the subject of Amendments 18, 19 and 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and is partially covered by Amendment 9, which I addressed a moment ago. The Government fully agree with noble Lords who wish to ensure that children are provided with a high-quality playground at Victoria Tower Gardens. Our proposals for the gardens have been carefully developed to achieve this objective. The playground will be remodelled with a high standard of equipment and carefully designed for accessibility, with suitable separation from other users of the gardens. The Lords Select Committee gave a great deal of attention to the playground, including matters relating to level access, which are covered by Amendment 18. The Select Committee accepted assurances from the Government that the playground would remain open, with level access at all times, during the construction process, when this is practicable and safe. A separate assurance accepted by the committee committed the Government to review arrangements for the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors. Amendments 18, 19 and 20 seek to put in the Bill assurances that the Government gave to the Lords Select Committee. It was, of course, open to the Select Committee to amend the Bill. It did not do so, which I believe was a wise decision. Using primary legislation to impose detailed conditions on a development carries significant risks. It is a blunt instrument—an approach that takes away the scope for balanced judgment after hearing all the evidence, and that risks creating unintended consequences when statutory provisions are translated into practical steps on the ground. I repeat without embarrassment that the better approach is to rely on the planning system. The impacts of our proposals on the playground in Victoria Tower Gardens were of course considered very carefully by the independent planning inspector. Once the planning process is restarted, the playground will no doubt be considered again. As for the assurances that we have given to the Lords Select Committee, the Government will be accountable to Parliament for ensuring that they are carried out. There is therefore no need to include these new clauses in the Bill. They would add nothing to the commitments that have been given and would simply open the door to potential legal challenges that would delay still further the construction of the Holocaust memorial. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked specifically about the planning process, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on the previous group. This application is subject to the passing of this Bill. The planning process would mean that the designated Planning Minister, Minister McMahon, would consider the options. It is up to him to decide which options he would want to take forward. One would be written representations, a second would be a public inquiry and a third would be a round table based on a consensus approach. These are options for the designated Minister to consider. I hope I have clarified noble Lords’ concerns and issues, and I therefore ask the noble Lord, for whom I have great respect—I spent a lot of time in Bahrain as a student of his diplomacy—not to press his Amendments 18, 19 and 20 requiring new clauses.

My Lords, as my amendment was an amendment to an amendment, I am having the final bite of the cherry, so to speak. My noble friend Lord Blencathra asked me a very technical question. As I have relied very heavily on a report that was done by an extremely well-qualified person and I do not have the immediate answer, I think I might take refuge in something that is sometimes done by Ministers answering questions: I will write to my noble friend having found out the precise answer. In general terms, I am sorry to say that, despite the kindness of the Minister in seeking to answer my queries, I am not in the least satisfied with the points that he has made—not only because he rather underplayed the importance of severing tree roots but because he did not deal at all with the severe matter of compaction, which is another major issue. I will not worry the Committee with anything much longer, save to say that I seek leave to withdraw only because I really have no other choice—but I am not in the least satisfied with the result.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

I was about to say that I was slightly alarmed that this group of amendments is in danger of setting a precedent, in the sense that there seems to be a high degree of agreement and consensus—something this Committee does not seem to experience very often, until, of course, the trees spoke, as indeed they do in many children’s stories. That is another matter. I thank the Minister for his response and everybody who took part. I should have given apologies on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, who is unable to be here today and who has very kindly put her name to some of my amendments. I take on board what the Minister said. I again thank the Select Committee of this House for managing to get the undertakings from the promoter to safeguard the playground and the people who use it, for which I am most grateful. I accept that it should not be in the Bill. Committee is about probing amendments. Some probing amendments are forensic and some are slightly more blunt, but, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendments 11 to 14 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

Amendment 15

Moved by

15: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— “Report: effects of the construction, presence and use of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre on the security of the site and surrounding area(1) Within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out the predicted effects on the security of the site and surrounding area arising from the construction, presence and use of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre on the chosen site.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—(a) a list of those bodies and individuals consulted before construction of a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre (subject to redaction of names where necessitated by national security),(b) a summary of the advice provided by each body and individual consulted,(c) a full description with visual depictions of all road and traffic changes, at and near to the chosen site, proposed to be made during construction and following completion of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre,(d) proposals for the continuing assessment of the security of the site and nearby buildings, and(e) such other security information as the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.(3) The Secretary of State may delegate the preparation of the report referred to in subsection (1) to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for the tabling of a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament within 56 days of laying the report before Parliament.”

My Lords, I apologised to the Minister before we started, as I am down to introduce the debate in the Chamber on the Crown Court. I came up in the ballot, so I am obliged to be there. If I am not here at the end of this part of the discussion this afternoon, I hope that I will be forgiven for a breach of normal order. I hope that the Minister, and even the noble Lord, Lord Austin, will give me as much attention in what I am about to say as they have given to one outside historian. I believe that we should be prepared to stand up to terrorism, that we should not readily surrender to threats that come from elsewhere. However, in this instance, I believe on strong evidential grounds that the doubly iconic nature of the site in Victoria Tower Gardens, near Parliament and a memorial to the Shoah, could render the terrorism risk disproportionate. I do not wish to be the person saying “I told you so” in the foreseeable event of a terrorism outrage or attempt at this memorial and learning centre, if built.

15:00:00

In its report, the Select Committee on this Bill accepted a proposition that I had put forward, in which I had been supported by others: that it is imperative to recognise that the threat of terrorism activity here, in this case, is much greater than when the planning inspector wrote his report, and that much of what was said about security to the inspector will now be out of date. That was the view of the Select Committee.

At the request of the committee, I prepared an amendment—in effect, Amendments 15 and 39 in my name. The committee said:

“His draft amendments are important as, among other things, they will enable parliamentarians, who are extremely concerned about potential terrorist activities in or near to VTG, to see the security proposals (subject to removal from sight of matters which cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality and sensitivity) before the Act is brought into force. We recommend (Recommendation 3) that the Secretary of State gives serious consideration to those amendments or something similar. The Promoter has agreed that will be done”.

That is the basis of my amendments today. Counsel for the promoter, Mr Katkowski KC, was emphatic that,

“on the revival of the planning application, the Promoter would be bound to take into account any changes in security considerations, especially the increase in terrorism threats”.

The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, has repeatedly said that there is only one planning system, but that is not correct in this case. If I apply for planning consent to build a garage next my house, I apply not to Parliament but to Hackney Borough Council. In this case, there is an Act of Parliament that is considered by both Houses of Parliament through all our procedures to determine whether this should go ahead. It stands alongside any question of planning consent. My view and my submission to this Committee is that, properly, and as recognised by the Select Committee, Parliament should be given the opportunity to receive a report on the security issues before this Bill can come into effect, given that we are dealing with a site of national infrastructure and national security which happens to be situated within yards of Parliament, where we sit now, with extremely significant government offices nearby, where much of our national security is guarded. It is my suggestion that a strategic view of the security aspect should be taken by us here in Parliament. It should not be left to a planning process which, as has been admitted by the Minister, who has always been very frank, might be reduced to a vestigial exchange of letters, not a proper planning hearing.

The dangers which I have referred to can be resolved easily. First, Parliament should be assured that if this Bill is passed, it cannot come into force until Parliament has decided that it is reassured about security. Secondly, and I would rather this was the outcome, we should establish something much better than is proposed—something to match the Polin centre in Warsaw, which has real and extensive learning resources.

What I am talking about is founded on threat and risk. Risk assessment is the least hyperbolic of disciplines, but it is also crucial when considering proposals of this kind. It includes mundane matters which present great dangers, like whether there can be little bins in the vicinity. Bombs have been placed in litter bins far and wide; Novichok was placed in a litter bin in Salisbury.

I believe that the siting of the learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens presents, as I have already said, a foreseeable terrorism risk. The site would be iconic and doubly tempting to both Islamist and right-wing extremists, given its proximity to this building, the lack of any secure or meaningful existing or proposed perimeter, and its close proximity to public highways and the river. I am astonished that this has not been seen to be a real problem, and I believe that this warning should be taken seriously.

Recent events in Israel and Palestine cannot be ignored. They have heightened the danger of action against Jewish interests in London. I believe that they have diluted support for placing the proposed centre so close to the Palace of Westminster. The recent climbing of the Elizabeth Tower—I say nothing about the case, because it is sub judice—and the hanging of a Palestinian flag from it is a warning, albeit non-violent, of how easily such events can occur. How easy it is that such an event might have been destructively disastrous. The local disruption that such an event can cause was well illustrated two weekends ago, when everything around this building was closed down for two days and visitors were not allowed in at all. The proposed learning centre would be far more accessible to someone wishing to climb upon it than the Elizabeth Tower. It would be accessible directly from a park which would be open to the public.

The opportunity to attack the centre and at the same time to cause damage to Parliament and parliamentarians will not be lost on potential terrorists, ranging from state actors to lone actors. I have spent the last 25 years studying how terrorists behave: how they plan what they do; how they can be lone actors, taught by the internet to do something that seems quite mad but actually happens in the real world. Those of us who have walked in and out of courtroom doors, as I have for the best part of 50 years, know that one should never be surprised by the actions of human beings.

There is extensive online activity and discussion concerning potential terrorist opportunities and their impact. That is aggravated by the very poor moderation by the online companies of what appears on their sites. One should also not forget last summer’s riots, in London and other places, as a warning of the undoubted potential for other extremist actions to be enhanced by the presence of the centre.

I beg to move my amendment, while emphasising that I am pointing out a real risk—a real threat and danger. It is one on which we, as parliamentarians, should have the right to decide, given that the choice has been made to use an Act of Parliament for the establishment of this centre.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 35 in my name. I declare interests: I have a house nearby, I have interests in a playground manufacturing company, and I am vice-president and a former chairman of Fields in Trust, formerly known as the National Playing Fields Association, which devotes itself to the preservation of playing fields and parks. I do not think this project should go ahead without a risk assessment. This has been highlighted by our debate so far which has raised some of the risks that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, just mentioned. So as not to waste your Lordships’ time, I will mention very briefly some of the points. Can anyone not think that there is a risk in introducing 1 million visitors a year into a relatively small space? A risk assessment is essential, even more so when one considers that it is proposed that the memorial be in an area in central London that, because of its proximity to Parliament, is more sensitive than most, as a number of noble Lords have already mentioned. There will be a risk from the sheer numbers. What risks will there be from demonstrations connected with the memorial? These have already been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others. There are bound to be demonstrations if the memorial is built, as it will be a prime target. Already demonstrations cause havoc in the area, with many streets being closed. How will the potentially more dangerous and aggressive demonstrations be dealt with? What about the risk to local inhabitants? What assessment of risk has there been of the memorial being a target for fanatics as well as for peaceful demonstrations? What about the risk of bombs, or the risk that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, highlighted at a previous meeting? What risk is there to those using Victoria Tower Gardens for the purpose it was set up for as a recreational park for peace and tranquil enjoyment? What about the risk during the restoration of the Palace of Westminster? Think of all the plant, machinery and building materials that will almost certainly need to be parked in Victoria Tower Gardens pending use. This is bad enough without the memorial, but with the memorial taking up the proposed space and with all the necessary security surrounding it, there will be a risk to the poor public squeezed between these two. What about being squeezed between the Buxton memorial and the Holocaust memorial? What traffic risks will there be with the greater congestion caused by busloads arriving at the memorial, to say nothing of the increased vehicle traffic? What about the risk to covenants on other parks and green spaces? Will disapplying the 1900 Act covenant create a precedent? Will it be an example of what can be done? The National Playing Fields Association has covenants over 3,000 green spaces. Breaking the 1900 covenant may well create a precedent and encourage some of those other covenants to be challenged. What about the risk of flooding as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley? The idea of children being trapped there is unthinkable. What about the risk of no proper management structure or the convoluted management arrangement with 10 separate bodies but no one in overall charge, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra and others have highlighted? There is also the risk of non-completion. Let me repeat the quote from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority that my noble friend Lord Blencathra mentioned earlier in this debate: “Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable”. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need to be rescoped and/or its overall viability to be reassessed. There are many other areas of risk that I have not mentioned. The whole project is fraught with risk. A proper risk assessment will doubtless raise other problems. I imagine that, after our debate so far, the Minister is probably falling over himself to have a risk assessment that will pull together all the various strands of all the risks that have been debated and others that have not been mentioned.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 28 and 36. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is not just a House of Lords expert on security and terrorist threats; he is a national expert with many years’ experience. I submit that any person or Government who ignore his wise words are putting at risk fellow parliamentarians and all visitors who will be in the park either to go to the learning centre, to visit the gardens generally or to go through Black Rod’s security entrance to access House of Lords facilities.

15:15:00

It was noticeable that I gave evidence to the special Select Committee but I should say that I was invited to do so not because I would have a financial interest or a loss but because I use the gardens every day and the Lords Select Committee thought that I might have a valuable point to make about it. It struck me that, when the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, produced his evidence, the committee pounced immediately. Two former Supreme Court judges, among others, concluded that he had made a very serious point. While the committee kindly and respectfully listened to the rest of us, it was the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that it put into its report for very serious consideration. If we reject what he said, we will also be rejecting the conclusions of the eminent Lords Select Committee.

Coming to the Lords last week, I could not get out of the Emmeline Pankhurst gate at the northern end of the garden because there was a huge queue waiting to get in through the Black Rod security search point. I have no idea what the event was—I presume it was in the Cholmondeley Room—but the queue reached past the Emmeline Pankhurst gate entrance right down to the bus stop, and because the Corus barriers rightly constrain the pavement, the whole place was jammed solid. My observation of that is not to complain about the delay, nor the person who shouted, “Make way for the bloke in a wheelchair”, but to point out that, if queues for the House of Lords reach down to the learning centre, then terrorists get a double whammy: they can take out hundreds of people from both queues in one go.

Therefore, our Amendment 28 has never been more relevant. It is now obvious that a controversial monument in this garden is a potential terrorist threat, with the possibility to kill and injure visitors to the learning centre, parliamentarians, visitors traversing the garden and people queuing to get into the Lords. The amendment says,

“the applicant must consult with and have regard to the views of—(a) the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons, (b) the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords, (c) the Community Security Trust, (d) the Metropolitan Police, (e) the National Protective Security Authority, (f) Westminster City Council, and (g) any other person the applicant considers relevant, and will have regard to any comments they may make to the Applicant on security considerations”.

By “consult” and “have regard to” we mean “not ignore or reject without good cause”. We go on to say that the applicant must give a report to the Secretary of State on the results of the consultation, and the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament—excluding, naturally, any sensitive security matters.

There will of course have to be security searches at the entrance to the learning centre, and probably security officers and police watching the queues, but it is not special pleading to say that parliamentarians and our visitors at the northern end will be at greater risk of attack and injury. If that is the conclusion of the security experts listed in this amendment, then the answer is to not build the underground learning centre here, where we have established that the site and centre completely fail to satisfy the Holocaust Commission recommendations. Building a monument that people can wander around is not a risk; building an underground learning centre, where there will be large queues, is.

That leads on to our Amendment 36, which seeks to add a new clause entitled, “Security checks: constraints”. It says:

“In the event that a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre is constructed in Victoria Tower Gardens, security checks carried out on visitors to the Centre cannot have the effect of restricting access to the Gardens, other than via routes which enter the Centre”.

This amendment anticipates that, if a threat emerges to others, such as parliamentarians or other garden users, the reaction of the promoters will not be to say, “We must find somewhere better”. It is more likely that they will say, on police advice, that there will now be a security search of everyone entering the gardens, as the only way to guarantee security for some is to search everybody. That is the easy way out. We might find them demanding that there should be only one gate in and out, with security on it. They might want to construct some new pathway for other users to divert them away from the learning centre.

That is not fanciful. We know that some guy climbs up Big Ben and the whole place closes down for two days. If there is a security threat to the underground learning centre, the advice of the police and security services will be quite draconian. In order to protect one life, they will demand that parliamentarians be moved somewhere else or that we have a new entrance gate, or whatever.

We can be certain that nothing will be allowed to stop this project, no matter how flawed it may be. If the advice from the police and security says that there is a danger to other users, it will be the other users who will be made to suffer the new inconvenience, whatever it might be. I simply want cast-iron assurances that the security checks on visitors to the learning centre will not impinge on the rights of other users of the garden, nor restrict their access.

My Lords, I rise to support this group of amendments, in particular Amendments 15 and 28. I can be very brief because the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has already said everything that I would like to say. I agree with every word he said, as, indeed, did my noble friends Lord Howard and Lord Blencathra. It is astonishing that this Bill seeks to ignore the security considerations of the project it proposes. It is astonishing that, in 2025, when we know what is going on in the world around us, this Bill seeks to pretend that Westminster is a quiet little place where we can do whatever we like without regard to the real world outside. What has been said today and at other times is not scaremongering. We cannot pretend that the security considerations are minor. They are not minor; they are very serious. When noble Lords have an opportunity to look at and consider some of the reports that have been prepared, but not published, they will agree with me that these security considerations are serious. As others have said, we do not want to be the people who say, “I told you so”, do we? I say again, as I have said before, that we can do better than this. Everybody wants a memorial. Everybody wants to commemorate the Holocaust. Nobody wants to forget what happened. We all want to say, “Remember, remember, remember, and never let it happen again”. However, in saying it, we are not telling the truth if we ignore the security considerations. It is our duty to tell the truth in order to protect not just parliamentarians but everybody who might have anything to do with this memorial. We must not ignore what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said today.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for the measured way in which he introduced his amendment. Clearly, getting a security assessment is enormously important and should be done, but the question that faces this Committee is: should it be on the face of the Bill? I would suggest that it should not. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I have a very distinguished lawyer. I hate to correct him by saying this, but there is only one planning system and this Bill does not seek to circumvent it. All it seeks to do is disapply the 1900 Act. A planning permission is something entirely separate. Matters of security and the like should be considered carefully by the Government in coming to their decision. My noble friend Lord Blencathra gave the impression that this is just a simple binary choice. Should the Minister come to a decision, at that point, the various conditions that are part of a normal planning process will start to be brought into being and we will negotiate, whether that is on trees, the playground or security. Only when officials are happy with that will a decision be made. I have worked, and happily so, as I suspect we all have, in the No. 1 terrorist target in the United Kingdom for 35 years. This is one of the top 10 terrorist targets in the world, but we come here because of democracy, because we want to be heard and because of the things we believe. I say gently and reasonably to colleagues in this Room, whom I like very much, that the arguments they are pursuing basically say: “This is a dangerous thing. Take it away from here so I can be safe”. I say this as gently as I can—I actually feel much more strongly about this. It is an argument for saying that Hamas and Hezbollah have said that we cannot put up any monument to the Holocaust or be supportive of dealing with antisemitism, because it makes us a target. That, my friends, is a recipe for surrender and defeat. I apologise that I cannot stay for the end of this session because I too have a commitment. I am speaking to a conference of rabbis.

My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has misunderstood the meaning of risk assessment. We accept that it is a security risk. Of course you do not refrain from building because there is a risk, but you have to assess it and plan in detail what you will do to mitigate it. That is what this group of amendments is about. In particular, I support Amendment 35, on which the noble Lord, Lord Howard, spoke so persuasively. It is about planning to meet the risks that will undoubtedly occur. As I have said before, we have no assurance that there will be a proper planning application in which this can be aired. You would expect in general a thorough risk assessment to be available in relation to this controversial and security-imbued Bill and project. We do not give in to threats, but there must be a thorough evaluation of the consequences. What evaluation has there been of the risks outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile? What traffic measures will be taken and what barriers erected? How will this affect everyone who lives in the area, Parliament Square and the Supreme Court? We need to know about security guards, whether armed or not, and the security measures that will be needed at night if the centre is open for commercial meetings. What are the risks to those who will build it, to visitors who will make use of the park during the construction period, to passersby, to boats passing by on the river and to schoolchildren going to the Parliament Education Centre? Are there risks to Victoria Tower and its refurbishment? What control is there over the escalating costs, which are going up exponentially year after year as building costs rise? What will be done about governance? What if sufficient funds are not forthcoming and the building takes longer than expected? Is there a risk to the parliamentary buildings on Millbank and the surrounding streets? I suspect that the Government do not have the answers to these questions. Amendment 35 will require them to come up with them, accepting of course that some security issues can be dealt with only confidentially. These issues also apply to Amendment 36 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which would restrict security checks to those entering the learning centre, leaving the rest of the gardens as a freely accessible open space, as it is now, where one can enter just for a few moments on a whim. This is welcome, but what effect would it have on the necessary security arrangements? The gate leading to the Pankhurst sculpture and “The Burghers of Calais” is but a few steps from the edge of the learning centre. How can the learning centre be protected from someone entering by another route, unchecked and carrying a weapon, red paint or worse? This will inevitably lead to the entire gardens being treated as protected property, with security checks at every gate no matter the reason for the visit. Even a harmless gathering of people for a Holocaust memorial event at the end of April is leading to the whole gardens being closed for at least one day. Moreover, it is easy enough to propel something into the gardens from Lambeth Bridge or from the river in a passing boat. How will those dangers be met? I need hardly explain that the current atmosphere of unpleasant and sometimes violent protest marches in the area is likely to continue, sadly, for a long time. The TV studios of Millbank House overlook the gardens and thus provide a perfect platform for people who want more publicity for a cause. Has the Minister an answer to these questions? Amendment 35 is essential and should be accepted.

15:30:00

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his experience and decades of work in keeping us and our country safe. There are few people who know more about these issues than him, so of course his views should be taken very seriously and there should be proper security risk assessments. I do not think that anybody will argue about that, but I think we need to bear in mind a couple of other points. As I understand it, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is that the learning centre in the gardens is too big a risk. I know that other noble Lords here today feel that the learning centre should be elsewhere, but Westminster is the most secure and protected place in the country, and if the learning centre and memorial are not safe here, where would they be safe? Secondly, if one or the other were moved on security grounds, residents near any other proposed location would be completely justified in saying, “Look, if it is too dangerous for Westminster, how could it possibly be built near me?” Of course they would say that. That is what people near the Imperial War Museum, the Barbican or elsewhere would say. Thirdly, if we think about this and take it to its logical conclusion, this is an argument against having the memorial or learning centre anywhere at all. In fact, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, it is an argument against having anything that people think is controversial or dangerous and which they might oppose being built anywhere. This point has been glossed over, but it is an important point that we should take seriously because we should not be making a decision on the basis that we are scared about what racists or extremists might do. We have to deal with what racists or extremists might do. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, made a couple of other points that I want to pick up on. I do not think that anyone has suggested, anywhere, that there will be 1 million visitors to the memorial or the learning centre, which I think was the figure that he suggested.

I was present at a meeting with Mr Ed Balls and Michael Gove, and Mr Ed Balls said there would be 3 million a year. He said it would be the most visited memorial in the whole world.

Well, I am not sure I would take Ed Balls’s figures on this. It is not going to be 3 million. I have talked to the government officials about this, and I think that the estimate is in fact 500,000, but the important point to bear in mind is that already 25 million people visit Westminster every year, and many of the people who will visit the memorial will be people who are already visiting Westminster or who work here. That is the important point I want to make, and if we break it down, it actually works out at a few hundred people an hour. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, also made a point about transport. My understanding is that this is estimated to attract 11 coaches a day. It is on a main bus route, and many more buses than that already go past each day. I do not know, but I would have thought that Parliament Square attracts hundreds of thousands of vehicles a day, so again, I think that the traffic and the number of visitors that this memorial will attract will be a fraction of the amount of traffic and number of visitors already visiting Westminster .

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 15, particularly the use of the words “surrounding area”. The Minister and my noble friend Lady Scott placed great emphasis on the reassurance given by the Lords Select Committee about security and other matters, which they have seen as reason for us not to be worried about the various points raised in debates during the past couple of days. There is a gap here. I have an office in Millbank, and I gave evidence to the Select Committee because I have seen what my noble friend Lord Blencathra described, which is very large queues and very great difficulty accessing the Palace at present. I said that I thought that that was an issue that needed to be considered by the Select Committee. The Select Committee ruled that out of order because it could consider only matters that were within the curtilage of Victoria Tower Gardens. Anything that happened in the street outside was irrelevant. I respect the committee’s judgment; I am sure that it has followed the Standing Orders to the letter, but the reality is that, when we are talking about “and the surrounding area”, we are taking the security issues to something that has not so far been considered at all. All the undertakings given to the Select Committee concerned only the curtilage of Victoria Tower Gardens because that is all that it was allowed to consider by the House of Lords Standing Orders. That is why I particularly emphasise and support that part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of this group of amendments, particularly those from the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Carlile of Berriew. I remind the Committee, if I may, that last time, when I spoke about the risk of fire to the building, it was somehow deemed as if I am against having a memorial. That is not the case. We want a memorial that is respectful and allows people to learn but that does not become a focus for mass terrorist attacks. The noble Baroness, Lady Laing of Elderslie, highlighted that these are very real risks in today’s world. The world has changed. I also remind noble Lords that if we look at anything underground—coal mines, for example—it must now have two exits. This building will have a single point of entry and exit. The reason for two exits is so that people can get out if one exit is blocked. I therefore ask the Minister whether he can tell us about that. He is smiling and shaking his head, but I do not think that this is fanciful. This does not go against having a memorial; it is about whether we have done a real risk assessment and whether the design of the building and the memorial mitigate the risks that have been assessed. It would therefore be very helpful to know when a comprehensive risk assessment of the building and the memorial was undertaken as well as whether we can have sight of that. We are being offered sight of a building, but to have sight of the in-depth risk assessment would be helpful.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for introducing this group and giving the Committee the benefit of his extensive expertise as a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. I hope that the Minister will take his amendments very seriously and consider allowing a further report on security as part of the process as we work towards the delivery of the memorial. However, I do not think it is correct to put it in the Bill. Amendments 28 and 35 in the names of my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Howard of Rising are important amendments seeking to ensure that security and other risks are taken into account before the memorial is built. Security in Westminster is vital. We welcome millions of visitors every year, and endless high-profile people come to Westminster on a daily basis. We on these Benches support all efforts to ensure that the Government properly review and monitor the security measures in place in Westminster. Perhaps the Minister could look favourably on Amendment 28 in this group, which would ensure that security is properly considered through the planning process, as my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Howard of Rising suggest. The argument has been made that Westminster is a highly protected and very secure part of our capital city, and I have some sympathy with that view. Can the Minister give us more detail on the additional security measures, if any, that the Government intend to put in place to protect the Holocaust memorial and learning centre? Finally, I support my noble friend Lord Blencathra in his Amendment 36. He is seeking to ensure that people can continue to visit Victoria Tower Gardens without restrictions. This is a reasonable amendment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to explain how he intends to ensure that people will continue to have free access to Victoria Tower Gardens.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Blencathra and Lord Howard of Rising, for tabling these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I have a very strong commonality: Burnley has shaped both our lives. He has tabled Amendments 15 and 39, which require a review of security to be carried out and approved by Parliament before other sections of the Act can commence. I recognise that he has a great deal of expertise and experience in these matters, and he is absolutely right to draw attention to the need for proper security arrangements. Security has been a central consideration throughout the development of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. We have to recognise and plan for the risk that people with evil intent will see the memorial and learning centre as a target. At the same time, we reject completely the idea that the threat of terrorism should cause us to place the memorial and learning centre in a less prominent location, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Austin, made very eloquently. In developing the design for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, we have sought advice on security measures from the National Protective Security Authority, including MI5, the Metropolitan Police and the Community Security Trust. Based on their advice, physical security measures will be incorporated into the memorial and learning centre and landscaping which will meet the assessed threat. Their advice has also informed our proposed operational procedures, which, to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will be reviewed and updated routinely in response to the current threat assessment. These matters are an essential part of the planning process and were given careful attention by the planning inspector. He noted that security information had been shared with Westminster City Council’s counterterrorism and crime reduction teams, who raised no objections to the security aspect of the application. The inspector sensibly noted that much of the detail of the security arrangements could not be released without compromising security. That, of course, remains true. This amendment is unnecessary, because security matters are and will continue to be fully addressed as part of the planning process within the statutory planning framework, which is the proper forum for considering them. Security matters were considered in some detail by the Lords Select Committee, which accepted a detailed assurance from the Government on publicising the reopening of the planning process so that parliamentarians and interested parties are aware of the timing and nature of the process. The committee also accepted a detailed undertaking in relation to the evidence on security, including that we would review our security plans, consult widely and make updated information on security matters available to Members of both Houses. Through representations to the Minister taking the planning decision, we aim to ensure that security considerations continue to be regarded as a main issue in the determination of the application. The Select Committee, after careful consideration, accepted the assurance and undertaking which, taken together, will enable parliamentarians to examine the information provided as part of the redetermination of the planning application, with the exception of any information that is confidential or should not be placed in the public domain for security reasons. It recommended that we give careful consideration to amending the Bill as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. We have given this recommendation very careful thought and have concluded that the proposed amendment would not lead to any greater expert scrutiny of security evidence. It would, however, lead to considerable delay and uncertainty for the programme. We have therefore concluded that no amendment is necessary or desirable. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press these two amendments. Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to place in the Bill the terms of an undertaking given by the Government to the House of Lords Select Committee. It is therefore perfectly clear that the Government have no difficulty with the substance of the proposed amendment. The effect of the assurance and undertaking given to the Select Committee will be to enable parliamentarians to examine the information provided as part of the redetermination of the planning application, with the exception of any information that is confidential or should not, as I have said before, be placed in the public domain for security reasons. Ministers will also be accountable to Parliament for actions that they take in meeting the assurance and undertaking. Nothing is to be gained by including these measures in the Bill.

15:45:00

Amendment 36, also from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to ensure that visitors to Victoria Tower Gardens who are not seeking to enter the Holocaust memorial and learning centre should not be subject to security checks. It is not now, and never has been, the intention to carry out security checks on people who are not visiting the memorial and learning centre. This topic was addressed specifically in the original planning application and considered at the planning inquiry by the independent planning inspector, who noted in his report that security checks at the park entrances were not proposed.

This matter was raised again before the House of Lords Select Committee. Once again, the Government confirmed that there is no intention to conduct searches on people not visiting the memorial and learning centre. The Government were pleased to give a specific assurance to the House of Lords Select Committee in the following terms:

“the Promoter has no intention to request or arrange for security checks to be carried out on visitors to Victoria Tower Gardens … who do not intend to enter the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, and … the Promoter has no intention to request or arrange for access by members of the public to other areas of VTG to be restricted on security grounds”.

I hope it is therefore crystal clear that the Government wholly support the proposition that people who are not proposing to enter the Holocaust memorial and learning centre should not be subject to security checks. I also hope that it will similarly be clear that no amendment to the Bill is required.

I draw attention to the risks that such an amendment may carry. Noble Lords will be aware that Victoria Tower Gardens are used for many purposes. That will certainly continue after the Holocaust memorial and the learning centre are in place. It is impossible to know whether security checks may be necessary for other events wholly unconnected to the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. A statutory provision intended to prevent such checks may create doubt as to whether checks are permissible. I am sure that it cannot be the noble Lord’s intention to interfere with operational decisions that might be required in such circumstances; I therefore ask him not to move Amendments 28 and 36.

Amendment 35 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, would insert a new clause requiring that a new risk assessment be carried out before the planning process can be reopened. This would simply duplicate what has already happened as part of the statutory planning process. Security risks are, and will continue to be, fully addressed as part of the planning process within the statutory planning framework, which is the proper forum for considering them. As I have said, the assurance and undertaking given to the Select Committee can give parliamentarians confidence that they will be able to examine the information provided as part of the redetermination of the planning application, subject to the caveat that I have already mentioned regarding confidentiality. This new clause is therefore unnecessary; I respectfully request that the noble Lord not move his amendment.

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, that it was a little unworthy of him to say that I moved this amendment so that I would be safe. Most of us who come to this House as Members have a choice as to whether we come in or not, but an awful lot of people who work here do not. Also, I am concerned that families and children buying a sausage roll at the kiosk might be unsafe, as well as all the other people who might visit the centre if it is built. The Minister is always extremely courteous and I enjoy our discussions; we have a common interest in a certain very interesting yo-yo football club. I have also spent quite a lot of time in planning appeals over the years, and I say to him that a planning appeal is not a place where secret matters of national security are discussed. There is no provision in a planning appeal for closed hearings; it would be grossly exceptional to have them. That is something provided in a Bill—potentially an Act—of Parliament. What happens in reality in your Lordships’ House is that if the sort of provision that is in my amendment were passed and debated, there would be discussions on Privy Council terms or the equivalent. That is quite different from anything that happens in a planning appeal. I re-emphasise that there is another planning process here: it is called a parliamentary Bill which has rescinded another Act of Parliament which would have meant that planning permission would have had to be refused. Indeed, the application would have been rejected with what is sometimes called pre-refusal. I am disappointed in the response we have been given and I shall return to this on the Floor of the House in due course. I will hope for the support of a considerable number of Members, many of whom are not in this Room, and we will see what happens. Until then, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Amendment 16

Moved by

16: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause— “Design of the Holocaust Memorial(1) After the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must launch a competition to design a figurative Holocaust Memorial appropriate to a location within Victoria Tower Gardens and reflective of the Nazi genocide of the Jews.(2) The final decision on design must include a public consultation, and consultation with Holocaust survivors and relatives of victims of the Holocaust.”

My Lords, Amendment 16 calls for the design of a new and appropriate memorial. As an aside, before I begin, in my 42 years in Parliament I must have heard hundreds, if not thousands of times the expression “The Government have no intention”. Then, as Harold Macmillan said, there are “Events, dear boy, events” and suddenly the Government have an intention. I move on to my amendment. Let it be repeated again: everyone in this Grand Committee wants a proper and appropriate memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens to the 6 million Jews who were exterminated in the Holocaust. Let no one suggest that those of us who have vigorously opposed the Adjaye monstrosity and his pokey little bunker are opposed to a memorial which fulfils the demands of the Holocaust Commission, which the Government stopped talking about ever since they accepted this flawed design from a discredited architect. There is no surprise there, since the design fails all the tests set by the Holocaust Commission. The commission wanted a large campus; we get a bunker under the ground. The commission recommended the Imperial War Museum, Potters Field or near Millbank Tower, all locations with lots of space which were offered; we get a small garden which does not want it. The commission wanted something uniquely British; we get a second-hand cast-off rejected by Canada. The commission wanted something to commemorate 6 million murdered Jews; we get 23 things which are meaningless to everyone, and for other genocides as well. I have heard it said by esteemed colleagues in this Room, for whom I have the highest regard, that the Adjaye monstrosity is a modest little measure and appropriate. One of the important needs in politics in these dreadful times is imagination and wishful thinking, such as thinking that Putin wants peace; that Kim Il Sung is not barking mad; that Vice-President Vance might be a decent guy; and that this project is modest and appropriate. It has been said that the design must be brilliant because it was selected by internationally renowned architects. Of course they would support it. There is nothing so brutalist, Stalinist or big, shiny and ugly that they will not support. We could have had that big glass “carbuncle on the face of a much-loved friend” on the National Gallery if His Royal Highness, the then Prince of Wales, had not criticised it then, but his comment that the National Theatre was like “a nuclear power station” was plainly wrong. I can tell noble Lords, as a Cumbrian, that Sellafield looks 10 times nicer than the National Theatre. Look how the architectural luvvies despise the beautiful village of Poundbury, which the Duchy of Cornwall describes as “Architecture of place. Creating beauty and reflecting local character and identity”. This is the characteristic that seems to drive many architects and critics into apoplexy. It prompts them to hurl the architectural equivalent of curse words, such as mock, twee, faux and, perhaps worst of all, Disneyland. However, a growing body of research also shows a disconnect between what most architects design and what most users actually prefer. For the harshest architects and critics, the problem is much more basic. The village of Poundbury simply commits an unforgiveable offence against the most sacred rule of today’s architectural orthodoxy, which is, “We must not copy the past”. That is what has happened here, although one could say that the Adjaye design is copying the past, as it was rejected in Toronto. I will shortly turn to other monuments around the world which have six points representing the Star of David or six features which could stand for 6 million murdered Jews. So, like all trendy, overrated architects Adjaye selected something of no relevance whatever to 6 million murdered Jews, but he made it big and shiny—at least it will be, until the bronze tarnishes—and the architectural world oohs and aahs and says “Oh, fantastic, darling”. I challenge anyone here to tell me that they had heard the numbers 23 or 22 in relation to the Holocaust before Adjaye came up with that completely obscure figure. Not a single person who is Jewish or who has Jewish heritage has ever heard the figures 22 and 23 before in relation to the Holocaust. The internet is awash with Holocaust denial. There is not a single vile denier saying that the 22 countries the Jews were taken from to be exterminated is wrong. Not even the vile deniers had heard it earlier either. What they deny all the time is the 6 million massacred: that is the number we need to have front and centre of any memorial, and this monstrosity is not it. That is why we need a new design for Victoria Tower Gardens, and we can get one quickly. I do not know how visually to represent 6 million murdered Jews. We all saw the brilliant display of 888,246 ceramic poppies at the Tower of London commemorating our First World War dead. It was magnificent but it took a lot of space, and something like that for 6 million dead Jews would require seven times the space, so that would not work. The most moving memorial I have ever seen is in Budapest, and that is not relevant for here either. It is a row of bronze shoes from Jewish men, women and children on the banks of the Danube where Jews had to stand to be shot in the back of the head to topple into the river, which ran red with their blood. However, other countries have done brilliantly. After Canada rejected the Adjaye abomination—for noble Lords who have not seen it, it is a series of 23 large concrete fins, the same size as he has pawned off on us here, but that time they were grey, concrete and wavy. There is no explanation given for why Ottawa had to get concrete wiggly ones and we get straight bronze ones. However, after Canada rejected it, it then built a proper memorial with sort of Star of David shapes in it. It is too large for our gardens, but it is authentic, relevant and appropriate. The Czech Republic has a suitable sized monument of two triangles intersecting, resulting in a six-pointed star shape. Both these monuments, I suppose, satisfy the architectural requirement that they are not just old-fashioned copies of the Star of David, but a modernised version of it. Estonia has a large granite or marble slab with a seven-branched menorah on the bottom half and a stylised Star of David on the top. Athens also has something interesting. It has an irregular, six-sided, white, marble stone in the centre, surrounded by six irregular triangle stones. The one that would fit in perfectly here is the six-point Star of David monument in Gorlice, Poland. It has 12 faces with plaques with writing on them and is about the same height as the Buxton memorial, although a bit wider all round. Tirana in Albania has three beautiful, large, dark marble slabs arranged in a semicircle in a prominent place in the centre, right beside Mother Teresa Square. The three slabs say in Hebrew, Albanian and English: “Albanians, Christians and Muslims endangered their own lives to protect and save the Jews”. Albania was the only country in Europe with more Jews at the end of the war than at the start, since it did not kill a single one. It gave refuge to all Jews who reached there. It is a superb memorial. How can the poorest country in Europe, with a GDP of $26 billion, get it so right when we, the sixth-largest economy in the world, with a GDP of $3 trillion, cannot get anything remotely Jewish? What all these memorials have in common is something Jewish or relevant to Jews, such as the Star of David or the menorah. Therefore, we do not need architects and their weird ideas, we need designers, and that is where this project went wrong at the beginning. An architect cannot design an appropriate monument any more than a designer can make architectural drawings for the technical workings of a bunker. They are different skills, and we all know that a new design competition could come up with monument designs within weeks for something that could be built in six months, a design that reminds us of 6 million murdered Jews. The memorial is not for the benefit of Jews, which was once wrongly stated in this Committee, but for all the rest of us who need reminding of that figure of 6 million. Jews do not need reminding of that. That is why the Adjaye abomination is so wrong. When challenged about the brutal ugliness of it, he said on the BBC on 12 February 2019 that “disrupting the pleasure of being in a park is key to the thinking” behind the memorial. No, no, no, Adjaye. Key to the thinking of the memorial is getting across the message that 6 million Jews were slaughtered. My real criticism of the Adjaye design is not my subjective opinion, which I give the Committee all the time—that it is an abomination, grotesque and ugly—but that his design is irrelevant. All the others I have indicated have something Jewish about them: the Star of David, the menorah, or writing on plaques stating that 6 million Jews were massacred on the face of the memorial, not buried in video screens in a bunker. That is why we need a new design for this garden—a proper, moving memorial to 6 million slaughtered Jews that bears some symbolism of Jewry and the Holocaust. Anything else fails to deliver what the Holocaust Commission asked for. I beg to move.

16:00:00

My Lords, I have visited memorials all over the world. The designers of this one said: “When viewed from the northwest corner by the Palace of Westminster, the Memorial is first perceived as a gradual rising hill towards the south end of the VTG. Along the journey south, the path inscribes the rising landscape, and leads along the embankment” past the Buxton memorial “after which the full scale of the Memorial is revealed. The elevated land mass is both hill, and cliff-like landscape, and is held aloft by 23 tall, bronze-clad walls. The overall volume inscribed by the walls offers an interplay between robustness and frailty; cohesiveness and fragmentation; community and individualism”. I have rarely read so much piffle and gibberish attempting to justify a meaningless third-hand design. There are to be 23 bronze fins and the designer, Sir David Adjaye, tried to justify them, with 22 pathways, as a representative signifier of the number of countries from which Jewish victims of the genocide were taken. Again, this symbolic confusion, coupled with the unnecessary and misleading association with the Palace of Westminster, means that there can be no public benefit offered by the design to weigh in the balance that the inspector undertook at the inquiry. Sir Richard Evans, our great historian of Germany, has debunked the figure of 22. He said that it was entirely arbitrary and depended on how you count states, and that many of the victims were refugees from other states. He called the design spectacularly ugly. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, it has no overt references to religious symbolism or text, relying instead, to quote the architects again, “on the twin primary motifs of the swelling landform and the cresting bronze portals with the descent into the chambers below. The graduated mound, rising out of the tabular lawn to the north, would convey a sense of the growing tide of orchestrated racial aggression and violence, finally breaking with the cataclysmic events of the Holocaust, symbolised by the bronze armature above the descending portals. These defining elements of the Memorial, fashioned from the brown alloy of sculpture, would have a power and grace distinctly of their own. Collectively these elements would make a bold and poetic visual statement of great power and beauty, and one that can be readily understood as such”. How odd, then, that Sir David Adjaye should repeat almost the same design in Niger, in relation to terrorism, and in Barbados, in relation to slavery. In fact, far from the design being done after any research into the park or London, or the UK’s association with the Holocaust, it is a hallmark Adjaye design. In another attempt to justify it, he said that it was deliberately aimed at disrupting the park. His work is instantly recognisable because it always involves stripes. I invite noble Lords to look up his designs on the web. He entered an almost identical design in the competition in Ottawa for a Holocaust memorial there, but that location was entirely different—a concrete island. The involvement of Canada with the Holocaust must have been entirely different, yet he found fit to enter that design into the competition in London. It was unwanted in Ottawa, which chose something else, so it was sitting on the shelf. It is entirely meaningless, with no reference to Jews, the Holocaust or the UK. There are no names and numbers—nothing to evoke the awful events it was planned to stand for. If you saw it, you would say to yourself: “What on earth is that?”. You would not be moved to think of the Holocaust, commemoration, discrimination or persecution, or indeed people. Abstract Holocaust memorials around the world tend to be vandalised much more than figurative designs, because they have no emotional value. The Boston memorial has been vandalised several times. It bears a passing resemblance to the Adjaye one, and was said to have been influential on the jury that chose the latter. Kindertransport memorials and human depictions such as the exceptional sculptures by Kormis in the Gladstone Park Holocaust memorial—I wonder whether any noble Lords have visited it—are less likely to be destroyed. There are many Holocaust memorials in the UK already, to be seen on the Association of Jewish Refugees map of those sites, and not one is as meaningless as this. Abroad there are some beautiful ones, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned. The silver tree in Budapest would be marvellous in Victoria Tower Gardens. The jury that chose it seems not to have done its homework. Did it know about the Ottawa rejection, or that shortly thereafter almost the same design was presented by Adjaye Associates for Niger and Barbados? There can be no escaping the fact that this design is not bespoke and has nothing to do with what it is supposed to commemorate. At least there is a plaque to my grandmother in a Manchester memorial, because there will be nothing here to remind me or anyone else of her. The design has attracted mockery from the outset: a dinosaur; a toast-rack; a whale’s ribcage; a set of false teeth. It will inevitably attract red paint and worse. To use the same design over and over smacks of contempt for what is being remembered. That it has no visible Jewish symbolism is very telling—no figures, no candelabra, no Star of David. That is because the promoters want to downplay the thousands of years of antisemitism that drove the Holocaust by combining its presentation in the learning centre with other genocides—as has been said in Written Answers to Parliamentary Questions—albeit they cannot decide which ones to include. This means in the end only a vague message about not killing people you do not like, and so the Adjaye design says nothing of interest. Like the Berlin concrete blocks memorial, it will not garner respect. The Berlin memorial has people picnicking, dancing and playing on it and riding bicycles between the blocks. The Adjaye design will be perfect for scooter races between the sticks. Do not let the promoters tell you that Adjaye was not the designer. He heads a big team, but it is his name all over the publicity, the evidence, the competition and the maps used to this day. He gave evidence to the public inquiry and the Government trumpeted his choice at the outset. The fact remains that it is Sir David who has withdrawn or been withdrawn from most of his projects, for reasons that I am coming to. Following a year-long investigation by the Financial Times, Sir David Adjaye was accused two years ago of sexual assault and misconduct. He has apologised for entering relationships that blurred the boundaries between his professional and personal life, while not admitting criminal wrongdoing. He said they were consensual. There are graphic descriptions online of assault, his giving money to the women involved and a toxic atmosphere in his office. He has stepped back from projects in Liverpool, Sharjah, the Serpentine, Harlem, Oregon and elsewhere. Sexual violence against Jewish women was widespread and well documented in the Holocaust. Rape was a feature of the pogroms of eastern Europe a century ago and it featured in the massacres of 7 October. I have no words to express the horror and disgust that I and others will experience if this Government are so uncaring as to allow to go forward a project whose lead designer is associated with sexual assault. This cannot be allowed to stand. There could quite quickly be a commission for a new figurative memorial that means something, as quickly as the project to honour the late Queen is going ahead. That would satisfy the need to reflect on the events of the war and would fit in with VTG and its other sculptures. I cannot urge noble Lords too strongly to accept this amendment and not continue with a design that is an affront to the victims and their relatives. If that design remains, we will get the message that the Government do not care about the feelings of those who will see it and are stubbornly determined to go ahead with a design by someone whom, I fear, will be associated in future only with his sexually inappropriate misbehaviour.

My Lords, I have always supported having a national memorial, and I am very keen to see it. I was 14 when we went into Belsen, and I have lived with the memory of the reports and photographs that came back ever since. As it happens, I live in a flat in Smith Square, but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Austin, that I will not see the memorial that is being proposed at the present time, because I have been told that it will take three and half years to build. Before it even starts being built, and whatever problems may occur while it is being built, it is extremely unlikely that I would ever see it. I therefore do not have a personal interest. I strongly support my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 16. It seems to me deeply irresponsible not to regroup, to have, as he said, a design of a stand-alone memorial compatible with the other memorials in the park, and to have it finished—as indeed the Holocaust Commission suggested—within a period of two years. That is somewhat less than three and a half, five or six years, or whatever the present proposal implies. It would also be completed at less cost than is expected now, probably within the £138 million, plus a contingency. I finish by saying that there is nothing in the Holocaust Commission’s report that says or implies that the memorial and the learning centre should be in the same building. It has always been a complete mistake that that was somehow agreed, subsequent to the report. Memorials are a matter for private remembrance and for, as it says in the Holocaust Commission’s report, paying respect, contemplating and praying. They are not buildings through which many people should tramp. If, indeed, we want another gallery to talk about what the British did or did not do between the Treaty of Versailles and 1942, let us have it in the Imperial War Museum, which would be the right place for it. Will the Government therefore please reconsider their position and take the obvious way forward, which is to have a memorial in the park, self-standing, with no visitors going into it, just visitors coming to see it to pay their respects, contemplate and pray?

16:15:00

My Lords, I, too, rise to speak to this amendment, not so much to comment on the design, although I find it meaningless, unimaginative and repetitive, but to comment on the designer, his tainted reputation and the effect that this will have on not just the public and media perception of the whole project but, more importantly, on Holocaust survivors and their relatives, who this memorial is designed to honour. When this project was announced by the promoter, it claimed with great pride and numerous times the involvement of Sir David Adjaye, even calling him a “starchitect”. Since then, Adjaye has faced some seriously unpleasant sexual allegations. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, outlined many of them, so I will miss the next section of my notes, which goes into considerable detail, as the noble Baroness did, on all of this. As a result of these scandals, Adjaye felt that it was best for him to resign from his role as architectural adviser to the Mayor of London. He has also removed himself from involvement in the Holocaust memorial that we are now discussing. However, without a doubt, the memorial is now and will for ever be tainted by Adjaye Associates continuing as the designated lead architect. In spite of the promoter’s recent efforts to downplay his involvement, all of the plans and documentation, including the promoter’s documentation, to this day feature the name of Adjaye Associates. To prove the point, this morning, I Googled: “Who designed London’s new Holocaust memorial?” Straightaway, the answer “Adjaye Associates” came up, with no mention of the substitutes which the promoter is now promoting in his stead. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, not wishing to bring shame by association on to their projects, the Africa Institute in Sharjah cancelled his major new campus project. His practice was also dropped from the £57 million project for Liverpool’s International Slavery Museum. Quite why we are persisting with his design when other prestigious projects have seen the light and when his association with the project can only bring it into disrepute remains a complete mystery. In view of that and of the widespread dislike of the design, as per my amendment, would now not be a good time to invite fresh and more imaginative designs in keeping with the Holocaust and Victoria Tower Gardens from firms not associated with sexually inappropriate shame and scandal and from firms that will bring honour, not dishonour, to the memorial centre?

My Lords, I support Amendment 16 in the name of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron. I, too, am greatly in favour of a new Holocaust memorial in London—we all are—but the proposed memorial, designed by the discredited architect David Adjaye, is totally inappropriate. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, delivered, in her inimitable way, a brilliant analysis of the once-fashionable David Adjaye. As the former chairman of Arts Council England, London, I would like to make a few observations. Since 2015, I have taken an interest in the process to select a design and location for the Holocaust memorial. It was clear early on that this proposal would run into trouble, as indeed it has. A long process involving an international competition with 92 entries from all over the world by no means guarantees a good outcome. The then new Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced in October 2017 that the memorial’s location next to the Houses of Parliament was, “designed to ask questions about the role of society and its institutions in preventing hatred”. A noble aim, I am sure, but it was also clear that we were heading for trouble because of the highly contentious issue of including other genocides, which has been hotly debated today. Surely the purposes of the project are to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust and to provide an educational learning centre about the Nazi’s genocide of the Jews. Can the Minister clarify once again why and when other genocides were added to the memorial’s purpose? Then we come to the design of the memorial. Call it what you will—a giant toast-rack or a ribcage—but it is the wrong design. It is a recycled, previously rejected design in the wrong place. Members of the design jury, a number of whom I know quite well, might normally be considered sensible and sensitive. However, there is nothing sensible and sensitive about the Adjaye design with its disproportionate scale. UNESCO has declared that it will compromise a world heritage site. In the design, I am influenced by the dignity of memorials that I have seen across Europe and America while travelling with my husband, whose grandfather died in Auschwitz. The design of the memorial in Berlin, for example, is inspired and inspiring. It is very sombre; the slabs of grey concrete tell a powerful story. It is a place of understanding and contemplation. I remember that, on the day that I visited, drops of rain fell, like tears, on the grey slabs. It was a memorable and deeply moving experience. The memorial proposed for London, however, is overbearing, with its showy 23 looming bronze fins. Why 23? The explanation will be puzzling to almost everyone who sees it, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said. Did the design jury actually visit the site? They would surely have seen how the chosen design would dwarf the other memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, in particular the important memorial to Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton in recognition of his work to abolish slavery. The design by the Victorian architect Samuel Sanders Teulon and Buxton’s own son, Charles, is quite delicate and modest, as Buxton himself was. My ancestor Sir John Bowring, MP for Bolton, was a colleague and contemporary of Sir Thomas. Bowring was a strong opponent of slavery, being an early member of the Anti-Slavery Society founded in 1823. An economist, Unitarian and polyglot, I can only imagine what Sir John’s view would have been of the giant toast-rack. My half-brother is a Buxton, and I share his family’s disappointment that those remembered for campaigning against slavery will be minimised by this thoroughly inappropriate Holocaust memorial. It is not just residents, disparagingly described in the past as self-interested, who are opposed to this memorial. Jewish people are not universally at one with the Chief Rabbi who supports it. I am not Jewish, but I know that a great many members of the Jewish community, including the remarkable Holocaust survivor Anita Lasker-Wallfisch—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech—are opposed to it. This memorial really is the wrong design in the wrong place.

My Lords, I also support Amendment 16, or something like it. This is a very important amendment: it takes us right back to the core of the Bill, which is really about the nature of an appropriate memorial in this specially protected location for this unique purpose. I took a break during the afternoon to go out into the gardens, and it was interesting to observe that some things will remain unchanged, whatever is built there: the extraordinary smell and the scent of the hyacinths at the north end of the gardens will remain unchanged—and might be enhanced, as we have heard. There are some things that will not remain unchanged, but where compromise is appropriate and will certainly be necessary. I saw young children from a local nursery in the playground this afternoon. The Minister is looking weary, but I am afraid I am going to detain him, as this is important—he looks at his officials as if to say: “What do I say? What do I think?” In my view, this goes to the heart of the matter—where do we need to be concerned and what should the Bill address? We have to recognise that, whatever happens, the playground will be a noisier place, with people all around it. For the nursery assistants who were wheeling these children in this afternoon, it will be different, but that is the sort of thing which I believe is an appropriate and necessary compromise. There are other things that, with good will—which seems to be a bit lacking today and over the past couple of weeks—and good sense, are clearly capable of being sorted out, including security, safety and other issues. I have had the privilege of standing where the Minister is today. For a lot of these debates or issues, people say, “This needs to be on the face of the Bill”, and the Government often, perfectly reasonably, say, “Oh, we’re going to do it, so we don’t need it on the face of the Bill”. There has been a certain amount of that, but these are important areas. We are discussing something that will be irrevocably changed: the nature of the world heritage site if this proposal goes ahead. I know that the Minister, in response, will say that we will talk about UNESCO next week, as he said to me last week. However, my point is that UNESCO, a convention to which the UK is a signatory, places obligations—albeit not legal ones—on the UK. It is difficult to talk about this amendment without referencing the concerns of UNESCO. If the Minister wants to respond on UNESCO today—he does not look as though he is likely to—it would be welcome. I note that there are other UN conventions to which the UK is a signatory, which do not themselves impose legal obligations, for which this Government seem to be bending over backwards to follow UN rulings, decisions and advice. It is also worth putting on the record—because people do read these proceedings—that what I have heard today is not about nimbyism; some extremely unfair accusations have been made. Yes, the proceedings may be going on a bit long, but a lot of what we have heard today, and in previous sessions in Committee, are examples of your Lordships at their best: bringing relevant expertise to a thorny, difficult problem. Like many, I live under the flight path to Heathrow. I am a proponent—I always have been in, both in government as an official and since I left government—of more runway capacity at Heathrow. The accusation that a lot of us are coming at this as nimbys is very unfair. It is also worth restating—because earlier, one Member of the Committee completely mischaracterised the nature of hybrid Bills—that, for hybrid Bills, the House of Lords is obliged to allow for private interests to be stated. That was dealt with admirably by the Committee looking at the Bill. I note that the House of Lords, between 1909 and 1969, considered and passed four Dudley Corporation Bills; they were hybrid Bills. I suspect those Members of the House of Lords, if they were here when the Dudley Corporation Bills were going through, would have been outraged if the interests of Members with an interest in Dudley had not been given a hearing. That is important to recognise. Now that we are speaking in the normal way, as Members of the House of Lords, it seems to me hardly surprising, given the proximity of the subject matter of this Bill and the nature of what is being proposed, that a significant number of Members of the House have important things to say about it, just as we would on any other topic where we thought we had something to bring to the party. Having said that, it is important to go straight back to the planning question. I will not make artistic judgments, as some of my noble friends have, and I will not talk about architects. I happen to think that the Vienna memorial by a British sculptor, which was referenced earlier, is very moving; it is right in the centre of the city in Judenplatz. However, that just demonstrates that there are all sorts of views on artistic matters, and I do not believe that the Committee should spend time thinking about artistic matters. What we should be thinking about is what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said. He reminded us that this is a planning Bill. Clause 2 is all about sweeping away particular planning restrictions, so it is no good the Minister keeping on saying, “Well, it is all to be dealt with in the planning process”.

16:30:00

We have no assurance about what that planning process will be, in spite of repeatedly asking for it. I am mindful of the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—again, the Minister shakes his head. The noble and learned Lord, who is a very distinguished lawyer, said this during the evidence sessions of the Bill Committee:

“To say it is going to be in the future planning process seems to me to be far too woolly, to be perfectly frank”.

I very much agree with him. We have had no comfort on this, which is why all of this is so troubling. I say to the Minister that we have again, as we had last week, the makings of an amendment—I do not happen to have strong views as to whether it is figurative or not—that will deliver a memorial, which we all want to see in Victoria Tower Gardens, that is appropriate to the scale required; that will not irrevocably harm the character of the world heritage site; and that could be delivered at much lower cost, with much greater practicality around it. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will take this amendment seriously, in the spirit of wanting to get something that represents value for money as well as quality built in a reasonable timescale.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Strathcarron for his Amendment 16, which seeks to establish a competition for the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. As I have said in our debates on previous groups, concerns about the design of the centre and memorial should be addressed in the full planning process; the Minister has given us this afternoon an assurance that that will be the case for both this and other matters. That said, we are now a very long way along this process, and a design has already been chosen and discussed fully in the past. I have listened carefully to the concerns of my noble friend. There would have to be serious practical problems with the chosen design for it to be sensible to reopen the design question. We need to make progress on the delivery of this memorial and learning centre. I remind the Committee that it has now been over a decade since my noble friend Lord Cameron announced his plans for a Holocaust memorial. If we were to reopen the question of design for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, that could risk a further delay; we must ask ourselves whether that is appropriate given the amount of work that successive Governments have put into delivering the memorial. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that he is able to address noble Lords’ concerns fully.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, for bringing this amendment, which was eloquently put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. It seeks to require a rerun of the process that took place in 2016 to identify the proposed design for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, with the additional restriction that the outcome would be a figurative memorial and, perhaps, the implication that there would be no learning centre. It may be helpful if I remind the Grand Committee that the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel after an international competition that attracted 92 entrants. The shortlist of 10 design teams was described by Sir Peter Bazalgette, the then chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, as “some of the best teams in architecture, art and design today”. Anish Kapoor, who was rightfully praised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in our debate last week, was part of a design team alongside Zaha Hadid Architects, which submitted a powerful and striking design. Other well-known architects and designers who were shortlisted included Foster and Partners, Studio Libeskind and Rachel Whiteread. This was a competition that attracted designers of the very highest quality from across the world. After detailed consultation, in which shortlisted schemes toured the UK and a major consultation event for Holocaust survivors was held, a judging panel had the difficult task of choosing a winning team. The judging panel, chaired by Sir Peter Bazalgette, included the then Secretary of State, Sajid Javid; the Mayor of London; the Chief Rabbi; the chief executive of the Design Council; the director of the Serpentine Gallery; broadcaster Natasha Kaplinsky; and Holocaust survivor Ben Helfgott. Clearly, this was a serious panel of well-informed people with deep experience on matters of design, as well as on the significance of a Holocaust memorial. The panel unanimously chose the team consisting of Adjaye Associates, Ron Arad Architects and Gustafson Porter + Bowman as the winners. In announcing its decision, the panel referred to the sensitivity of the design both to the subject matter and to the surrounding landscape. Public exhibitions were then held to gather feedback on the winning design ahead of a planning application. As the law requires, further consultation took place on the planning application. More than 4,000 written representations were submitted. A six-week planning inquiry was held, in public, at which more than 50 interested parties spoke. All the details of the planning application, over 6,000 pages of information, all of which remains publicly accessible online, were closely scrutinised. Members of the design team, including the very talented young architect Asa Bruno, director at memorial designer Ron Arad Architects, who tragically died the following year, were cross-examined by learned counsel. There was, of course, a great deal of discussion at the planning inquiry about the proposed design of the Holocaust memorial, the learning centre and the associated changes to Victoria Tower Gardens. Many opponents of the scheme, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, took the opportunity to inform the inspector of their opinions on the proposed design. In his detailed report, the inspector sets out the spectrum of views on the design presented to him. Having heard the evidence of a very wide range of supporters and opponents, the inspector was then able to reach a balanced judgment. He recorded in his report his view that “the proposals comprise a design of exceptional quality and assurance”.

Can I ask the Minister whether all these people knew that the design had already been put forward in Ottawa? I do not think that even I knew that then.

I will come back to the noble Baroness’s point towards the end of my wind-up. Following the planning inquiry, the independent inspector submitted his detailed and lengthy report to the Minister, with a recommendation that consent should be granted. The Minister agreed with that recommendation. Amendment 16, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, would simply take us back around nine years and require the design competition to be run again. There is no good reason for such a step. The Government remain fully committed to the current design, which has been the subject of detailed attention and wide consultation. Suggestions that the memorial was not designed by Ron Arad or not envisaged specifically for Victoria Tower Gardens are wide of the mark. Ron Arad’s drawings showing the evolution of the design have been displayed at the Royal Academy for all to see the originality and brilliance of his design.

Does the noble Lord agree that a camel is a horse designed by a committee? What he has just said proves that.

My Lords, swiftly moving on, it is not realistic to suppose that a new design competition would produce a design that pleases everyone. Let me be absolutely clear: I have featured in a BBC housebuilding documentary programme and I was most suspicious of design but, by the end of the 14 months when I was running for the European Parliament, I realised the impact and the power of design. Everyone has different tastes and different suspicions of design; everyone has different views. Differences of view about the artistic merits of designs are nothing new. It is quite proper that there should be an open debate about the design of new memorials, indeed of all new public buildings. The design that is proposed for the UK national Holocaust memorial and learning centre is the product of extensive consultation, a design competition that attracted many of the best architects in the world and a judging process that relied on the deep expertise of a talented and experienced panel. Are we simply to set all that aside and require the process to be repeated? It is right, of course, that a decision to proceed with construction of the memorial and learning centre should be taken only after all relevant voices have been heard. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred to the press reports in 2023 concerning Sir David Adjaye. Following allegations made in those reports, Adjaye Associates has said that Sir David will not be involved in the UK Holocaust memorial project until the matters raised have been addressed. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, was in her place when I made the following point. The learning centre will look at subsequent genocides through the lens of the Holocaust. The content of the learning centre is being developed by the leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem. The focus is to ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust. The exhibition will confront the immense human calamity caused by the destruction of Jewish communities and other groups, and the exhibition will also examine the Holocaust through British perspectives. The noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, said that he knows nothing wiser. I was very clear in an earlier group about the next steps of the process around planning options, subject to the passage of the Bill. I made it very clear last week—and I will say it again after the confirmation of the previous group—that the designated planning Minister, Minister McMahon, will take an approach of his choosing, whether that will be a consensus round- table meeting, written responses or a public inquiry. It is for the designated Minister to decide which approach to the planning process he will take. On his very important focus on world heritage sites, I would not do justice to the noble Lord’s passion in this area if I swiftly gave the answer now, but I will come back to him, and go through this in detail, in the next group.

I appreciate that the Minister does not want to repeat multiple times his definitive words on the world heritage site, and I fully accept that. On the planning, what he has just said—which I have heard him say before—seems to give absolutely no comfort about the future planning, because he says that it is entirely for the Minister. Does he accept that it would be technically possible for the Government to put amendments to the Bill that would guide the future planning process? At the moment, the Government are washing their hands of it. Would it be possible for the Government, or anybody else, to come forward with amendments to the Bill to direct in some way the shape of the future planning process, to give the Committee more comfort about what will happen, rather than just being told that it might be something or nothing?

My Lords, let me make it clear: it is for the designated Minister to decide the process and make the decision. If it means that, as normal planning decisions are made, there might be some conditions as part of the planning process, as is normal—for example, you cannot start building without consultation and cannot open the building without letting Westminster City Council know about security—then that is up to the Minister. I know other examples; I have just given one there. The process is totally detached from here and from me bringing the Bill forward as a supporter of it. Moving towards concluding remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested that the memorial proposed for Victoria Tower Gardens is in some way a copy of a proposal that the architect submitted for a Holocaust memorial in Ottawa in 2014. I find this a rather strange criticism. When we consider the Buxton memorial, for example, are we to think less of its design because the architect used a similar Gothic revival style somewhere else? Should we be disappointed with “The Burghers of Calais” simply because it is one of 12 casts of the same sculpture? The topic was, of course, addressed at the planning inquiry, where the late Asa Bruno was able to point out that, while sharing a basic common architectural motif, the two proposals differ greatly in scale, material, form and proposed visitor experience, so that was clear from the public inquiry.

Can I ask the Minister why Sir David Adjaye would say that the memorial was something disruptive of the park, and specifically about this situation, if he used the same thing abroad? Is his conscience not troubled at all that, for purely administrative reasons, the Jewish community is going to be lumbered with a design by someone who has admitted sexually inappropriate behaviour? Unfortunately, one cannot include photographs in Hansard, but I have in my hand the report, “David Adjaye steps back from Holocaust memorial after misconduct claims”. He steps back, but we are left with the design, which is featured on Adjaye Associates’ website. Do the Government still have a contract with Sir David Adjaye, and what is the future of the association with him? Because, going ahead with this, I cannot stress too strongly how appalling it is.

16:45:00

My Lords, if I heard her correctly, I think the noble Baroness was asking about my conscience. This is in the national consciousness, and that is why we want to build this Holocaust memorial learning centre to reflect and learn the lessons of the past but also to be an education for future generations to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, that this can never happen again. Regarding Sir David, I do not want to say anything further about the allegation; I have said what I have said. I repeat that Adjaye Associates said that Sir David will not be involved in the UK Holocaust memorial project until the matters raised have been addressed. There is nothing that more I can add. Let me make an important point to noble Lords across the Committee. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to visit Ron Arad Studio. As I have said previously, when it comes to design, I am not the easiest to please person. Everyone has different views, as we see in the debates here, and I respect that. In addition to these proceedings, it would be very helpful to all noble Lords if I gave them the opportunity to see the proposed project in 3D form and to look at it from a design point of view. However, I repeat that it is not for this Committee to consider that; it is for planning. We are here to do two things: first, as per Clause 1, to allow the Secretary of State to spend on the project; and secondly, as per Clause 2, to disapply the 1900 Act so that we can build the project. The planning system provides exactly the forum for a debate on this topic. That forum allows views to be heard and balanced judgments to be formed. There is no good reason for Parliament to seek to put aside the planning system in the single case of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Noble Lords will have plenty of opportunities, subject to the passage of the Bill, to be part of the planning process. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

There is a point that has not been dealt with. In January 2015, there was cross-party support for the conclusions and recommendations of the Holocaust Commission. I do not think that the Minister has addressed the argument that the Adjaye design does not conform to those recommendations. I feel that he has avoided any discussion of the differences between the design and what was recommended at that time and won cross-party acceptance, which I think is still in existence. That point needs dealing with in these deliberations.

My Lords, I have the utmost respect for the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and I appreciate his strong concerns and the very interesting points he has raised throughout the passage of this Bill. Let me clear: there were 92 entrants in what was an international competition, and the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel. The chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation said that the 10 teams shortlisted were, “some of the best teams in architecture, art and design today”. The competition attracted the highest quality designers from across the world. The decision was made through a process in which the panel chose a team consisting of Adjaye Associates, Ron Arad Architects and Gustafson Porter + Bowman as the winner. I just say to the noble Lord that numerous Prime Ministers, with elected mandates, have supported the Holocaust memorial and learning centre—the whole project. We too will continue to support it wholeheartedly. I invite the noble Lord and others to look at the model when we bring it to the House. I found it very impressive, but that is my view.

I will have one more try. It seems to me that, whatever the Minister has said, it does not deal with the problem the Government have: that there was and still is cross-party support for the conclusions and recommendations of Britain’s Promise to Remember. The Adjaye design does not meet them. If the noble Lord thinks that it does, then we need a proper explanation of the way in which it does. There never was a single reference to what is now being proposed, with both the memorial and the learning centre in a single building—you cannot rely on the word “co-locate”.

My Lords, very briefly, we think that it does. I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has an amendment in group 7, when we will discuss this in depth.

My Lords, I begin with a profound apology to my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, whose amendment I inadvertently stole. For some reason, when I was writing up my notes, in my enthusiasm for some of the amendments here, I assumed it was mine. I therefore jumped up today to propose it as mine—it certainly was not mine and I apologise for that. My noble friend kindly agreed to let me do the wind-up in his place. My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said that the only reason why the Opposition might object to it is if there were practical problems. By that, I think that she meant if there were construction, engineering or big design problems, but we say that there are practical problems because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, there is nothing Jewish about it. There is no Jewishness in the whole thing. The Minister attempted to justify regurgitating the Ottawa failure on the basis that architects often reuse designs. Yes, that is fair game, except that this was supposed to be a uniquely British design. The design for the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, or wherever it was to be, had to be a uniquely British one. There is nothing uniquely British about something that Canada rejected. In my remarks, I did not refer to the personal problems that Mr Adjaye experienced and the allegations against him. I simply note that he has said: “I will be immediately seeking professional help in order to learn from these mistakes”. The Government keep saying that it does not matter now, because Adjaye will have nothing more to do with it in future. It is too late to withdraw from it now —it is Sir David Adjaye’s design. He was praised to the heavens and his name was mentioned 12 times in the press release announcing the design. The Government were very proud to have David Adjaye then, and it is no good now trying to distance themselves from him. I am not Jewish, so I cannot understand the depth of feeling there would be about someone who, because of sexual problems, has withdrawn from a project to design a memorial for 6 million slaughtered Jews. All I can say from my own background, with two uncles who were in the 51st Highland Volunteers, captured at St Valery and taken to Stalag Luft 14, is that I would not like a monument to them and to the regiment to be designed by someone who had these sexual allegations against them. I would hate that. One of my noble friends said that a new monument would be completed quickly and at much smaller cost. Of course, a separate learning centre above ground would also be cheaper. My noble friend Lord Sassoon made a very good point. We can get a suitable amendment that would lead to an appropriate memorial that relates to Jewishness, is the right size and tries to get across the message that the memorial is there because 6 million Jews were slaughtered. That is the most important thing. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my noble friend Lord Strathcarron’s amendment.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I clarify that these are allegations.

Yes, he denies any criminal involvement at all and denies those allegations of sexual assault. I merely quoted his words: “I will be immediately seeking professional help in order to learn from these mistakes”. He has withdrawn himself from Adjaye Associates. I have not given any credence to the women who have made the sexual allegations, and I am happy to repeat that he denies them. He has nevertheless withdrawn from his involvement with this project, and it is too late to say that it is nothing to do with David Adjaye.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Amendments 17 to 20 not moved.

Committee adjourned at 4.55 pm.