Tuesday 11th March 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeHolocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 View all Holocaust Memorial Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (7 Mar 2025)
Viscount Eccles
“(1A) The management responsibilities in subsection (1)(a) to (c) must be discharged by a Non-Departmental Public Body.”
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, when I put down this amendment it seemed to me that we had arrived at a time when we needed clarification about who was going to manage this project. It is approaching construction and has been under consideration for a long time. We have known that there was going to be a Parliament-approved executive management, but we have not got one yet, and so that was my purpose.
If I may go back briefly into the history, the chair of the commission, Mr Davis, said this on pages 6 and 7 of the foreword to Britain’s Promise to Remember:
“To take these recommendations forward the Commission proposes the immediate creation of a permanent independent body. This body will implement the recommendations to commemorate the Holocaust and ensure a world-leading educational initiative”.
I emphasise the phrase, “world-leading educational initiative”.
It is true to say that, if you read Britain’s Promise to Remember, you find that the main emphasis is on education. That was confirmed on page 16, which said:
“The Commission’s final recommendation is the immediate creation of a permanent independent body. This organisation would oversee the establishment of the new National Memorial and Learning Centre, run that Centre and administer the endowment fund”.
The point I would like to emphasise is that it says both times, “independent body”. I take that to mean that, when the public body is formed, the people who comprise it would be entitled to make up their own minds, and, at least, to make their own presentation.
In January 2015, this was confirmed in the House of Commons by David Cameron, now my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, when he said:
“The Commission proposes a new independent body to deliver all these recommendations and wants to see … the creation of the National Memorial in 2016-17, and the Learning Centre within the next Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/15; col. 20WS.]
The thing I want to emphasise there is that, right from the start, there was an acceptance that the memorial was one thing and the world-class education initiative was another, and that it would take a very considerable time to achieve. There was no intention that they should be contemporaneous. They would be going along at the same time, but at a very different speed.
Subsequent to that, there was an appointment made by the Prime Minister, again in January, when David Cameron announced that Sir Peter Bazalgette would serve as the chairman of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, with, it goes on—although this is not a quote—the expectation that the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation would be executive. I do not want to get into an argument about “advisory” versus “executive”. I simply say that what happened while Sir Peter was the chairman included what I would regard as some executive actions: he set out to the 50 different sites to see whether he could find the best one; he was there when the Victoria Tower Gardens were agreed on; and he mounted the competition for the most suitable building.
In April 2018, as we know, Sir Peter resigned and the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation became, as I would say, advisory. I just add that I do not think that you would name a body in the way in which that body was named if you intended it to be advisory—it does not sound right to me.
The matter of how this institution was to be managed went on for a long time, with discussions and thoughts, but it rose to the surface again only when the National Audit Office did its investigation in 2022. That report says in terms that the department had studied what sort of a permanent, independent body there should be and had come to the conclusion that its recommendation was that it should be a new non-departmental public body. That recommendation stands, and no doubt we shall be told during these proceedings what has happened to it subsequently, but it seems to me to be high time that some action is taken. After all, Parliament must come into the process, and that always takes time. We are only about a year away from lots of action on the ground. Surely if a chair and a chief executive were to be appointed following the creation of an NDPB, there would be plenty for them to do. They are not going to be bad value for money. When construction starts, there will be many things to do: they will have to study the building and see what they think about how they will run it and how it will deliver the best value for money.
On the subject of the building, I want to make one point. People may ask the question that I would ask, because in my amendment I am talking about the management under Clause 1(1)(a) to (c). Clause 1(1)(a) refers to “a centre for learning”. In the headline, of course, it is called a learning centre. If I understand it correctly, I do not think that what is proposed to go into the building at present can possibly be described as a learning centre.
Learning centres came from America. They are institutions that are normally attached to other institutions, in particular to schools and universities, and—this is a definition—they provide
“a dedicated facility where people can come to learn at a time that suits them in a comfortable and supportive environment”.
If noble Lords want an example, the British Library—the ex-chair of which, the noble Baroness, is not here —does entirely what that definition says. It seems to me that the parliamentary draftsmen must have had some reason for putting “Learning Centre” in the heading but “a centre for learning” in the text. I will be very interested to know why that difference is there, as will, I guess, anybody appointed to manage the institution.
There are many other things. The Treasury will, I think, be quite difficult on occasions during the progress of this project. It will be influenced by how much money is coming from private sources, in particular the charitable trust. The relationship between the chair and chief executive of the new institution and the charitable trust will be of great importance, as will the relationship with the management of the gardens and the Royal Parks. Of course, we have a different ministry above the Royal Parks: DCMS. Anyone who has experience of public bodies—I have been chief executive of one, CDC, and chairman of another, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew—knows that all these things take a lot of time and careful negotiation, so there is plenty of work to do. If there was a worry about the cost of having them on the books, the ministry would probably be ready to disband part of its special team that it has put together so far. It is urgent that we move to form this management. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for opening this group. I will speak to my Amendment 22, which seeks to limit the amount of time that Victoria Tower Gardens can be closed to the public as a result of events linked to the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre to three days a year.
The protection conferred on Victoria Tower Gardens by the original Act of 1900 was put in place to ensure access to the park as a park in perpetuity. This is particularly important to residents in the locality, many of whom live in flats and would not otherwise have access to green spaces. We cannot discuss this Bill without giving due consideration to them and what protections will be in place for them. I note that, in responding to these concerns, the Select Committee report states that limiting the closure dates of Victoria Tower Gardens is a “reasonable request”, as it particularly affects residents who use it on a weekly basis.
There are a number of reasons why the Select Committee’s recommendation 2 and the promotor’s assurance 10 are inadequate to address this and why I suggest that protections need to be enshrined in the Bill, which is what my amendment is designed to do. First, the recommendation by the Select Committee is that this be taken forward in by-laws by the Royal Parks, as the body responsible for maintaining the parts of Victoria Tower Gardens that fall outside the perimeter of the proposed memorial and learning centre.
Parks owned by local authorities usually rely on by-laws. However, for the Royal Parks there is a succession of Acts of Parliament substituting for these by-laws. Usually, decisions on how to apply these regulations are delegated by the Secretary of State for DCMS to TRP management. However, the Secretary of State has the power to overrule the Royal Parks, as happened in May 2024 when the gardens were closed for three days to the public over a bank holiday weekend for an event. It is worth noting, too, that the Royal Parks remain reliant for 60% of their annual income on DCMS. As a result, it is extremely unlikely that the promoter or the authority subsequently created to run the HMLC would be refused permission to close the parks by DCMS or the Royal Parks if it requested it. That is why there must be protections in the Bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Eccles in his Amendment 5 and will speak to my Amendment 33. When I first saw the department’s plan to manage this, I was tempted to ask the Minister facetiously whether he would put the experts of HS2 in charge of the project since they seemed to have all the matching qualities outlined in the devastating “red for danger” Infrastructure and Projects Authority report. But then I had a panic—perhaps they might not realise that I was being facetious and actually put HS2 in charge.
The National Audit Office said in a devasting report of 2022 that the department had informed it that it hoped to get an NDPB up and running about a year before the centre opened. It would be in charge of running it but have no role in managing its construction. The key findings of that NAO report were that:
“The Department does not have a track record of managing programmes of this nature … The Department has recruited specialists from across the civil service and externally, but the team does not have staff with programme management expertise in senior positions”.
However, the devasting criticism of the project is not a comment by the NAO but is printed on page 11 of the report as an organisation chart showing the nine bodies under the Secretary of State that will have input into its management. The department calls this “the governance structure”. I have given a copy of this to the Minister, to Hansard and to the clerks. Of course, we cannot enter it into Hansard, so I will read out what it says.
At the bottom of the chart are three organisations credited with giving independent assurance. One is the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which has already condemned the management of the project. Another is the Cabinet Office, which must give approval on business cases and procurement. Then there is the Treasury. The NAO report says that the Treasury’s role is to be:
“Responsible for allocating funding for the programme. Treasury approval is required at different stages as per the Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan … As a condition of the funding, the Department must seek further Treasury approval if the programme is forecast to use more than half of the approved contingency”.
We all know what the Treasury is like: no one will be able to buy a nail to build this place without months and months of Treasury approval. That is another government department with management rights over this project.
Then there are three advisory boards: the foundation advisory board, the academic advisory board and the construction advisory board. The members of the foundation advisory board are extremely distinguished and will all have firm views on fulfilling their role of defining the overall vision for the programme, including content of the learning centre. But the academic advisory board,
“Provides a peer-review process and discussion forum for the envisioned exhibition content”.
So now we have two expert bodies advising on content and a paralysed programme board terrified to decide between them or reject their advice. This is a recipe for delay and completely contradictory decisions as the programme board attempts to please everyone.
Above those advisory bodies, we have the programme board itself. I hope that noble Lords are listening carefully, because this is what it will do:
“Meets monthly and is chaired by the senior responsible owner. It is the decision-making authority for the programme and collectively owns the programme’s objectives. It monitors the performance of individual projects and work packages, as well as the risks and issues affecting delivery and the mitigations in place to address them. Members include the programme director, programme manager and project leads. Representatives from other parts of the Department, such as Procurement, and external stakeholders, including specialist contractors, are also invited to meetings”.
What an extraordinarily huge bunch of people with no power except to monitor performance, assess risks and pass things on to the oversight board.
The oversight board is one level higher up. It will meet
“2-3 times a year with representatives from the Foundation Advisory Board and senior government. Sets the strategic direction of the programme and is the escalation point for the Programme Board; any changes to the strategic direction need Oversight Board approval”.
Next, we have the investment sub-committee, whose remit is:
“The ISC must approve new project or programme business cases. The programme must seek further ISC approval if it is forecast to use more than half of the approved cost contingency.”
Finally, at the top of this indecision tree is the Secretary of State as
“the ultimate escalation point and sits on the Oversight Board”.
In summary, we have three advisory committees, one organisation with responsibility for finance, two powerful government departments with the final say on finance and two other boards that monitor things and talk about them. There is one thing missing—a straightforward delivery board whose mission given to it by the Secretary of State should be simply this: “You will deliver this project X at a cost Y by day Z and you will suffer penalty P if you fail to deliver and you are a day late.” Get rid of all the other talking shops except the foundation advisory board, which can advise on content but with no say on design or construction. Once new plans are approved in detail, no changes should be made at all. We have all seen in the buildings around Parliament—from Portcullis House onwards—how architects and designers loved to have a committee of politicians in charge, who changed the design regularly, costing an absolute fortune.
This Heath Robinson so-called management structure devised by the department is a recipe for argument, delay and cost overruns. However, it has one magnificent feature cleverly built in by civil servants: with this structure, not a single person can be held accountable for failure. If the cost goes from £138 million to £200 million, which of these bodies gets the blame, or if it is three years late, or if the Jewish community condemns it at the end as not being appropriate? That is why we need a new non-departmental public body set up now and given a simple set of objectives to deliver a set project at a set date at a set cost. That is the only way this can ever work.
I turn now to my Amendment 33 and the future management of Victoria Tower Gardens. In April 1946, the Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, told Conservative MPs in a Commons debate:
“We are the masters at the moment, and … for a very long time to come”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/1946; col. 1213.]
I now hear Cabinet Ministers saying that the new Attorney-General is telling them, “I am the master now”. Be that as it may, the relevance of this comment is that I fear that any new NDPB set up to run the completed project will feel that it is the all-powerful master of Victoria Tower Gardens, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out.
The NDPB will be under the overall control of a Secretary of State, partly funded by the Government, and possibly eventually fully funded if the costs grow out of control. It will have, no doubt, a senior civil servant or two from the department, and some others of the great and the good. With the clout it will have from government, it will feel that it can dictate all aspects of the governance of the gardens.
We can guess what will happen: if it finds long queues, it will create roped-off chicanes, like those zigzag lines you get in airports, and do so with no consultation with the garden authorities. What will it do to stop visitors spreading out over the rest of the garden to have picnics, as in Berlin, and taking up the space of other garden users?
We simply have no idea what pressures may arise to infringe on the rest of Victoria Tower Gardens. Therefore, as Amendment 33 makes clear, the NDPB must not have any authority over any other parts of the garden and must consult local residents in advance through the relevant local amenity societies with regard to any matters which may affect the free use of Victoria Tower Gardens as a garden open to the rest of the public. Anything else would be inappropriate.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a word or two in support of my noble friend Lord Eccles and his amendment and my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Much of what I was going to say has been well forked over already, but I think it underlines the importance of moving towards a clear structure and organisation as quickly as possible.
The spider’s web of committees and advisory boards referred to by my noble friend on page 11 of the National Audit Office’s report must be a recipe for disaster. As he pointed out very forcefully, it is a way to ensure that nobody will ever be blamed for anything. It does not matter whether it is too much money, design faults, cost overruns, failure to meet timescales or failure to meet commitments, as page 13 of the National Audit Office’s report puts it—they can only have been designed and drafted by Sir Humphrey—it is, in effect, an organisational blank cheque. We need to make sure that it is very much better controlled, in the interests of performance delivery, the taxpayer and Parliament as a scrutinising body.
I hope that the Minister, who has so far put his foot to the metal, will take some time to think about these organisational problems, which are very real and have been brought forward by the National Audit Office on other pages of its report. If we do not do that, we are setting ourselves up for a very unhappy period during which this project gets going.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I seconded the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate and I agree with it. It is important also to look at the report from the excellent Select Committee that dealt with it. It says:
“The limitation of closure dates seems to us to be a reasonable request”.
That is what the right reverend Prelate said. It went on to say:
“It is not appropriate for an amendment to the Bill … but is probably best addressed in byelaws applicable to VTG”.
My experience of government is that, very often, by-laws get ignored to a certain extent, so we want to be clear where the limitations are. That is why I support the amendment.
I want to go on about closure dates, not least after my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Hodgson have raised the issue. The issue is around who is going to run this. In paragraph 104, the Select Committee assumed that:
“The Royal Parks … will be the body responsible for maintenance of those parts of VTG outside the perimeter of the proposed HMLC”.
I think we need to get this absolutely clear. The Royal Parks, as I recall—and somebody will correct me if I am wrong—opposed the whole idea because it thought it was an inappropriate place to put a memorial and learning centre. Therefore, we need to be absolutely clear who is responsible for what.
Those of us who have worked in government, as many in this Room have, and many of them for longer than me, know that if there is no clear line of responsibility then nobody is responsible for anything. We need to have a clear line of responsibility in this, and that is why I support these amendments.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of all the amendments in this group, which are about closure and governance. Perhaps I will wrap up closure first, because it is a discrete issue.
There has been a tendency, since it was first chosen, for the promoters to treat Victoria Tower Gardens as a private park of their own. It was closed for a day in May 2024 for a Holocaust commemoration event in which the main message was that people had better get used to it. The Royal Parks, which manages the gardens, said that its initial decision to refuse permission for the commemoration event to take place there was based on its “longstanding policy” of not allowing “religious activity” in its parks, apart from annual acts of remembrance where memorials already exist”. But, lo and behold, the gardens have been closed again this year for the same purpose.
Issues of transparency are being played out now in real time. The park was closed last year on a May bank holiday weekend. We were told that that would be a one-off, but we now discover that it is planned again for April this year, without any consultation or forewarning. This is creating a precedent in breach of existing Royal Parks policies.
One can see what will happen: because the learning centre will be so small, every time there is a need for a meeting, the whole of the park will be closed off. Little gilt chairs and a tent will be put in, and the park will be taken over. That is why it is extremely necessary to have something in the Bill to prevent this total takeover.
This brings me to governance. In a nutshell, those of us who are concerned about governance—Peers sitting in this Room today—have written to the National Audit Office reminding it that, on 5 July 2022, it put out a report that was critical of the management of the project and called for reforms. We do not know whether those reforms have been carried out. The ministry says that it has done so, but many Peers do not think that any of those reforms have been carried out. There is no evidence that the department has addressed the National Audit Office’s concerns about the lack of management and project management, or the number of bodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to. There does not seem to be one body that is in charge of delivery. When questioned last time about who is responsible, the Minister said simply, “The Government”. Again, we await a response from the National Audit Office, and hope that it will re-open its report.
The governance of this project has always been a mystery. The original foundation was composed of more donors to the Tory party than scholars, and no executives. Can the Minister tell us, in straightforward language, who is in charge of executing this project and its future governance? A new NDPB will have to be created to manage it, its relationship with the park managers has yet to be defined, and there is no information about how it will deal with local residents. It will have to be limited in its power. We need enlightenment on how it will work—including the clash with the various bodies running the gardens—and how it will relate to the bodies responsible for the restoration and renewal of this Palace, with all the building equipment that will be required. How will these things all work together?
We were told at the outset of this project that the Government would kick-start a society-wide fundraising effort to deliver the project and an endowment fund. There has been no sign of that. Incidentally, some Holocaust survivors live very modestly; they are all elderly, and they need the extra comforts demanded by age and their past suffering. Perhaps that would be a better way to direct fundraising, if there is any.
The insubstantial nature of management may explain why countless attempts by me to get any information about the project from the department, by way of freedom of information requests, have been fiercely resisted. It is almost as if the department is ashamed of what might be revealed. We hope that, today, the Minister will tell us what plans there are for management.
The problems revealed by the National Audit Office report were that the department was an unsuitable sponsor, was not perceived as independent and has never sponsored a comparable institution or any major cultural sector initiative. Its near-exclusive focus on the search for a site has not turned out well, as we know, and there has been a failure so far to create an independent body. There has been no transparency around site selection or finance, and value for money has never been mentioned or addressed.
There has also been no parliamentary scrutiny of the project until now. There has been a lack of qualified external appraisal of the project brief, the design and the environmental effects of the proposals. There has been a lack of sufficient consultation with the public on the site; such consultation as there was was very much rigged and curtailed. There has been a lack of attention to public feedback on the design. There has been a lack of consultation with the academic community; there is a British association of Holocaust scholars, who feel that they have not been involved.
There is no business plan in evidence, let alone consulted on, or management clarity. Even operational management is unclear. The management of the project has been invisible, shifting and problematic throughout; for example, there have been issues with the Royal Parks throughout the process, that organisation having been in opposition. No charitable foundation of substance has been created. We believe that there is a small one, organised by Sir Gerald Ronson, but where is the major endowment fund that is required? That is the subject of another amendment.
Of course, the department is conflicted in every way. It has made no effort to carry out an independent planning process but has made itself the planning applicant—and, at the last minute, it has had to delegate the calling in and determination of the application to a junior Minister; this was 12 months after the application was submitted. Now, we call on the Minister to be clear about the management. This project has been known about for nine years. I cannot imagine any other project that has been left to drift in the way this one has; I therefore support all the amendments in this group.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to a document, a copy of which I have in my hand: Programme Governance for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, issued by DLUHC. It refers to 10 different entities, which have together produced, on the academic content of the learning centre, a box containing 13 words:
“Provides a peer-review process and discussion forum for the envisioned exhibition content”—
whatever that amounts to. If there had been one NDPB in existence, it would have been put to shame in both Houses of this Parliament for producing such an empty vessel as is contained in those 13 words. It contains no reference to the content or structure of the learning centre; to the opportunities that would arise from the learning centre; to the academic components of the centre; or to the staffing of the centre.
I invite the Minister to look at those words as an example of how this multiplicity of components has, in effect, led to no programming whatever of this learning centre. At the moment, all it is—despite those 10 entities—is four small rooms in which there will be computerised images that someone will choose. Are we to take it that the whole purpose of the academic advisory board is to do a show of computerised images and select the ones that will be shown for the time being? That does not sound like any learning centre I have ever seen, and does not accord to the definition that we heard reference to earlier.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on closure dates. I was a member of the Select Committee, which, as he told us, took the view that it should not table an amendment to the Bill. Select Committees are very reluctant to amend a Bill; if we did so, we would have the Bill amended before it reached discussion in this House. The place for consideration of amendments is in Committee or on Report. Whatever you see in paragraph 104 should not inhibit in any way the freedom of this Committee or the House to discuss whether an amendment is appropriate. We set out in appendix 7 to our report the various inhibitions and restrictions on a Select Committee in making amendments. It is well to bear in mind that, while we said that there should be no amendment, that in no way need operate against the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I think there is general agreement that there should be an independent, stand-alone body. I have no doubt that, once this Bill becomes an Act, that is one of the first things the Government will do. I say this very gently and with no criticism intended, because part of the process of planning is that you can object to things and use all force and every possibility to slow things down. However, one reason it has cost so much is the delays, which are caused by people exercising their democratic rights. I do not complain about that whatever.
However, the question is whether these things should be in the Bill. Frankly, I doubt that they should. With due respect to the right reverend Prelate, I am a little queasy about limiting in the Holocaust Bill the number of days in which we commemorate 6 million dead. Why are we not limiting the number of dog shows, open-air cinemas and organised picnics and exercise in the parks? It looks peculiar that we should pick on the Holocaust and Jews in this Bill. I urge the right reverend Prelate to think again about this and whether we can use common sense to find ways to ensure that people can enjoy the park. It looks appallingly bad for the Holocaust to be picked out.
I say in the gentlest way that I do not recognise any of noble Lords’ descriptions of the academic board. It is only right that we ensure that this is a balanced memorial and learning centre, which does not glorify the British Empire but shows what happened during the Holocaust and our reaction to it, warts and all. That seems a reasonable thing. Frankly, all the various plugs have to be pulled, because we cannot spend public money on what goes inside and start to employ a major director until we have authority to build this. That is not just subject to this Bill; it will also be subject to a further planning consideration. We are some way from being able to appoint people to commit public expenditure to do that, so I am very dubious that any of this should be in the Bill. The Government have made a number of commitments on all three of these things, and they should be made to deliver on them.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I spoke on the first day in Committee to make clear my support for the memorial but my great concern about the learning centre. It seems increasingly clear that there is an extraordinary vagueness about what it will be made of, how it will be run and how long it will take to produce. I pressed the Minister for an indication of any quotations we might have, any companies that might be willing to build it and any idea of what their costs might be. He very kindly replied to say,
“the simple answer is that we will seek tenders for the main construction”.—[Official Report, 4/3/25; col. GC 68.]
That means that the Government have no idea, either, what this might actually cost.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I want briefly to endorse, in general terms, what has been said already, but I invite your Lordships to look at this slightly differently: from the perspective of land use, in which I have had a considerable amount of experience, in various ways, during my career. The point was well made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who said that the learning centre will become the focus of Victoria Tower Gardens. When that happens, de facto, if not de jure, Victoria Tower Gardens will become the curtilage of the learning centre and will not be a distinct and important entity.
We have heard about the proposals for the management of the various elements coming to the Victoria Tower Gardens, and some of them seem to be prolix, too complicated, muddled and so on. I do not wish to go down that road. The fundamental point is that, if and when this occurs and is a great success, people will no doubt ask, “Where is the Holocaust memorial learning centre?” and the answer will be, “It is in Victoria Tower Gardens”. When land use changes, the whole character of an area changes. Perhaps the most obvious current example in London is the redevelopment, over the last decade or so, around King’s Cross. It was, frankly, a squalid, low area, but is now up and coming, and entirely different. That has happened organically. These changes happen once something gets under way in an organic way over which Governments have remarkably little control.
If what is being proposed is the great success that its advocates claim it will be, it will fundamentally change the character of Victoria Tower Gardens and the area immediately surrounding it, and there will be nothing Governments can do, through governance mechanisms, to deal with it. It is important that we appreciate that possibility in our discussions about these matters.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, may I just elucidate a couple of points that have arisen? First, the delay in this project, which is undoubted, arises solely from the fact that Victoria Tower Gardens was chosen in defiance and ignorance of the 1900 statute that forbade building there. That is the reason for the delay and the litigation.
Secondly, Crufts is a bad analogy for closing the park. The learning centre may well be open 365 days a year, day and night, for all we know. However, we are talking about protecting the rest of the park, over which the prohibition in the 1900 statute will remain. It would be in defiance of that statute if the park were to be closed every now and then, quite frequently, for a meeting.
Finally, it has frequently been said in these debates that this and that issue will be sorted out in the planning application. However, we then hear that we do not know whether there will be a full planning application or whether the Minister will call it in. We need a direct statement from the Minister. Will there be a new, full planning application, starting with Westminster City Council?
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister responds, I will briefly come in on something my noble friend Lord Pickles said about 6 million Jews. I am sure many people here have been to Yad Vashem, which is one of the most moving places I have been to. I have been there three times, and it is absolutely heartbreaking every time—as any memorial and learning centre to commemorate the Jewish Holocaust of the mid-20th century under the Nazis should be.
However, my noble friend said that for 6 million Jews we should have about three days of closure a year, but this memorial is about the Holocaust, not about the 6 million Jews—as I think it should be. It is about the Holocaust in general. Are we going to have one for the Armenian holocaust, where a huge number of Armenians were slaughtered by the Turks in the 1920s? Are we going to have one for the Rwandan holocaust? I have been to Rwanda and know that it was equally as awful. It was just as much of a holocaust as the Jewish one, with one million out of eight million people in Rwandan murdered. Are we going to have one for Holodomor, which saw the slaughter of Ukrainians under Stalin in the 1930s? All of these are examples of holocausts. That is why we are talking about three days, to stop there being endless holocaust events.
Lord Pickles (Con)
I think I was with my noble friend on his last visit to Yad Vashem. Like him, I have been there many times, and I am always moved by the process. However, we need to make it absolutely clear that there is only one Holocaust. A number of genocides have occurred before and after, but there is only one Holocaust: that was the murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend Lord Robathan has made a very good point, and my noble friend Lord Pickles is right that there is only one Holocaust. But the briefing for this centre says that other genocides will also be commemorated there. So there will be things about Holodomor, and possibly Rwanda, and Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao or whoever they may be. Though there is only one really evil Holocaust, the Shoah, other genocides will also be commemorated. In my opinion, that dilutes the purpose of a Holocaust memorial.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was one of the few Members of either House—alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, who will confirm what I am saying—who attended a meeting organised to discuss the contents of the learning centre. The meeting was addressed by a historian who made it absolutely clear that this is not a learning centre about genocides; it is a learning centre specifically about the Holocaust, and it will not relativise the Holocaust and it will not compare the Holocaust to other genocides. The only extent to which other genocides may be mentioned is on the way out, where it might say something along the lines of, “Since then, there have been other genocides, showing we have not yet learned lessons”. The learning centre will be devoted specifically and solely to the Holocaust. That is what it is.
I was not going to take part in this debate but while I am on my feet, I have some questions for the right reverend Prelate. Why did he fix on three days? What was the basis for it and who did he consult? Is it based on the number of Holocaust commemorations? Did he speak to Holocaust survivors? Why did he decide that just three days in the entire year might be appropriate to remember the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis?
I point out gently to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I do not see what would be objectionable about people visiting the Holocaust memorial and sitting on the grass to eat their sandwiches afterwards. Why should they not have a picnic in the park if they choose to do so? It is what many other visitors to the park do. How would he distinguish between people visiting the memorial and having their lunch and people visiting the park and having their lunch? Many of the people visiting the memorial will be people who would visit the park anyway. Lots of people who visit the memorial will be people who live within the vicinity of the memorial or work in Westminster, so why would he object? I assume that he would not object to any of those people eating their sandwiches in the park. Why would he object to visitors to the memorial doing so?
My final point is that lots of the contributions to this suggest that the memorial and learning centre are going to take over the whole park. We have just heard a speech about land use as though it is going to transform the nature of the park. I gently point out to everybody in these discussions that the memorial and learning centre will in fact take up just 7.5% of the land in the park. I am sure that the Minister will confirm this when he concludes. It is a complete fallacy that it is going to take over the whole park and totally transform this part of Westminster.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he just accept that if 3,000 to 4,000 people come every day—those are the numbers we have been given—that will affect the way the park operates from the point of view of the local residents? I am not saying that it is impossible to do, but will he accept that there is a distinct difference when that volume of people comes to visit the memorial and learning centre? It is bound to make a difference. To suggest that it will make no difference at all and it will be business as usual is naive, if I may make so bold.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
What I will say is that millions of people visit Westminster all year round. Tourists from all over the world come to Westminster and some of those will visit the memorial. I do not think that this will add significantly to the numbers that we already see visiting Westminster.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The noble Lord referred to me in his remarks and I wish to respond. It is a matter of numbers. I came through the park today, as I do every day, and there were a few people out exercising their little doggies and picking up their mess, and kiddies having little picnics, but if we are going to have these 40 busloads of people eating their sandwiches, the park will be absolutely overwhelmed by excessive numbers and all those other activities will be frozen out, because of the dominance of numbers of those visiting the centre.
If I may say so, the noble Lord was absolutely wrong. I need to open my laptop and find the report. He may have talked to an expert who said that the Holocaust will be the only thing commemorated, but that is not what the official report says. The official report mentions other genocides that will also be commemorated. Of course, it does not refer to them as a Holocaust, because they are not, but it refers to the commemoration of other genocides. That was mentioned in the official Holocaust Commission report and it is referred to in the report published by the department, so it is incorrect to say that the centre will purely be for the Holocaust. I wish it were and I would like to see amendments saying that it should be devoted to the Holocaust only.
The other point about the size is also utterly wrong. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it will be four pokey little rooms underground and 48% of the construction underground will not be available to the public: it is ducts, stairways and non-usable space. So we will have an inadequate learning centre far too small for the purpose but far too large for the park, visited, if the Government are right, by tens of thousands of people who will inevitably, in the nicest possible way, with their picnics and so on, squeeze out the other users of that park whom I see every single day.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, before I support my noble friend Lord Pickles, I should say that I voted for this back in 2013 when I was a Member of Parliament under David Cameron. Since then, every Prime Minister—May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and indeed Keir Starmer, the current Prime Minister—supported this. All Prime Ministers will support this application. Why is it that Prime Ministers support it? Because they are global leaders. Go around the globe or around Europe, to Berlin, for example, or to America. The Holocaust memorial in Berlin is its centrepiece; you cannot visit Berlin without seeing the Holocaust memorial.
In my view—I am biased, I admit—London is the greatest global city, so therefore to have this memorial as close to the British Parliament, the mother of all Parliaments, is exactly the right place. I say to some noble Lords—many of them are my friends—that this is starting to sound like a local authority council chamber. This is not a local government council chamber. This is the mother of all Parliaments. I believe that this is the right memorial in the right place in this great city.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord is completely correct to make the point about Berlin, where the memorial and the learning centre are right next door to the parliament building, right at the centre of national life. It is really significant. If you go to Washington, you will see its memorial and museum right at the centre of national life. If you go to Paris, you would barely know that the Holocaust had taken place and, if you go to Vienna, it is a bizarre concrete box tucked away in a square in the middle of nowhere. The point he makes is exactly right. Next to Parliament, showing what happens when politics is poisoned by racism and extremism—that is why it should be built in Westminster.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lord, it is quite clear from the exchanges that we have had this afternoon that the site of this learning centre is extremely controversial. It seems to me that a memorial to 6 million people is almost sacred. It should not be built in a place that arouses controversy of this sort. It is disrespectful to the dead that it should be a subject of controversy and, because it is a subject of controversy, it should be moved to somewhere else.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I am sorry to comment yet again, but it seems to me deeply ironic that people who oppose it, and of course the controversy, then complain about the controversy and say it should be built somewhere else. It also seems ironic that people who have, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, campaigned against it and caused the delays now say that the delays are a reason for siting it somewhere else. I do not understand these points.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
I remind noble Lords that interventions should be brief and for points of clarification. Can we now proceed with the debate? Thank you.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
I wonder if I could just make a very small point of clarification. As a personal view, I entirely agree that the memorial should be in Victoria Tower Gardens. What I worry about is the attempt to shoehorn in the learning centre as well. If we were able to have a standalone, well-designed, come-and-see memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, it would get my vote immediately, because I also have in mind a world-class educational initiative, and I cannot see that the building proposed, or any of the preparations that have been made, go anywhere near creating a world educational initiative. In the world educational initiative, it is not only the understanding of what happened but what we think about it now and where we are going in these very difficult days where we have similar problems to face.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I am worried that Members are getting a little agitated. I do not think that they should be concerned, because there has not been a single Holocaust memorial built anywhere in the world where this kind of controversy did not occur. People, by and large, do not like them. They do not want them, but once they are built, they are very proud of them.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have visited the Berlin memorial more than once. It is widely regarded as inappropriate and ineffective. People picnic on it, they bicycle around it, they dance on top of it. They do not know what it is and, of course, what good has it done in Germany? Where is Germany heading now? Look at the rise of anti-Semitism across Europe. There is no relationship at all between the position of a memorial and the effect that it has.
As for the contents of the learning centre, there will be an amendment later. However, Answers to the many parliamentary Questions I have asked have always said that the memorial will contain references to other genocides. This genocide or that genocide—the Government do not seem to know which ones but have always referred to others. It is only very recently that someone has said, “Oh, but the genocide of the Jews is more important than the others and shouldn’t be compared”.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am going to stick to the Bill in front of us, particularly the amendments in this group that relate to the future management of the Victoria Tower Gardens. Many noble Lords use the gardens frequently. I used to do so twice a day. Many use it often—every day. It is an important green space in the heart of our capital city and noble Lords are right to raise questions about the future management of the gardens. I know we will be debating the protections for the existing installations and trees in the next group.
During my time as a Minister in DLUHC, now MHCLG, I worked on the delivery of the Holocaust Memorial. We support the delivery of the memorial as soon as possible. It is almost a national shame that we are 10 years down the road and it is 80 years since the release of many people from those terrible camps. As I said last week, however, it is vital that the memorial is delivered soon, so that some of our survivors can still be with us. I just cannot imagine the opening of this memorial after so long without some survivors still to be there.
I was interested in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Eccles and Amendment 33 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. They raise important questions for the Government about who will manage the learning centre and the memorial. I will listen with interest to the Minister’s reply, as this is an important area where we deserve some clarity from the Government on the future direction of their project. However, my noble friend Lord Pickles is absolutely right. We do not have even planning permission yet, let alone the future management structure of the memorial and learning centre. It will be important for the body responsible for the memorial and learning centre to work with local communities as well. I am sure the Minister is listening to that. As we move forward, the two groups will have to work together regularly on what is happening at the centre and how the park is protected.
I am inclined to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in his Amendment 22 on closures of the gardens. It is important that the gardens are not closed to local people too often. That can be discussed with local people on an ongoing basis. That happens all over this country where parks are sometimes used for community use, whereby the community talks to the people responsible for the park. I am sure it happens with the Royal Parks as well. Many people enjoy Victoria Tower Gardens regularly; we must consider their interests as we work to deliver the memorial.
I see an argument for the gardens being closed to the public on only a small number of days, and Holocaust Memorial Day would be one example. But the underlying theme here is that we must balance the rights of the different groups who use the gardens, and the right reverend Prelate’s amendment may help achieve that balance. However, it is inappropriate for that to be in the Bill. That is not what the Bill is about. As with many of the amendments that we shall debate today, these are planning considerations. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendments in this group.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend said that we have not yet had a planning application. Would she care to join the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in pressing the Minister on this yes or no question: will there be a new, fresh planning application? Also, will she press the Minister in demanding a new planning application?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will make that ask of the Minister in our debate on a subsequent group; if he does not answer now, I will repeat it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been another passionate debate. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for their Amendments 5, 22 and 23. With this group of amendments, we are in essence considering the future of Victoria Tower Gardens as a place where all members of the public can enjoy free access to a green space in the very heart of Westminster.
From the beginning of the design process, the importance of maintaining access to Victoria Tower Gardens has been a high priority. The design that we are taking forward was selected from a long list of exciting and high-quality proposals partly because it showed a great deal of respect for the gardens, positioning the memorial at the southern end and leaving the great majority of open space to the public; I will not get into the debate on the size of the project because that will be discussed in our debate on the third group. Our proposals also include a high level of investment in the gardens themselves: we will improve the quality of the paths, the planting and the grass lawn; and we will provide new boardwalks, enabling better views of the Thames, with paths and seating made more easily accessible for all.
Amendment 22 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans would impose a statutory limit on the number of closures of Victoria Tower Gardens for commemoration events related to the Holocaust. As I have said—I will say it again now—it has always been our intention that Victoria Tower Gardens should remain open to the public, with only a small area taken for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre when it is built. We are well aware of the value placed on the green open space by local residents, nearby office workers and visitors to Parliament, not to mention parliamentarians themselves; that is why the Bill ensures that the requirement to maintain Victoria Tower Gardens as a garden open to the public will remain.
Assurances were given to the Lords Select Committee on various points, including commitments relating to the management of Victoria Tower Gardens; these were mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. Ministers will continue to be held accountable for those public assurances by Parliament in the normal way.
Closures were discussed in some depth by the Lords Select Committee. The result was that the committee’s special report directed a recommendation to the Royal Parks—which manages the gardens on behalf of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—to consider this matter going forward. A number of noble Lords, in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned the closure of Victoria Tower Gardens for the Yom HaShoah event on Sunday 5 May. This was requested by the then Culture Secretary because the gardens’ location made them more accessible for frail Holocaust survivors than the usual venue in Hyde Park. Contrary to claims by petitioners at the hearing on 20 November, our understanding is that the partial closure was for one day only, with the playground remaining open until midday—not the three days that have been mentioned. No decisions have been taken on future closures of the entirety of Victoria Tower Gardens to facilitate Holocaust-related commemoration events once the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is built.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, why, then, is a commemoration event—I nearly said a closure; it will no doubt involve closure—being advertised right now, for April? People are being invited to buy tickets for it.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I am not aware of that event, but I am happy to have a conversation with the noble Baroness on this issue. I remind noble Lords that it was because of the frailty of Holocaust survivors that it was deemed appropriate for them to attend here, at Victoria Tower Gardens next to Parliament, rather than Hyde Park.
Given that the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is intended to be the national focal point of Holocaust remembrance, it is expected that it will host annual events to mark Holocaust Memorial Day and Yom HaShoah. The Government would expect the Holocaust memorial and learning centre operating body to work closely with the body responsible for the wider arrangements of the Victoria Tower Gardens to agree arrangements for any other proposed or required closures associated with the Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked the important question of who will be responsible for the project: who will be charge? It is quite straightforward: it will be the Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister. It is clear in Clause 1. One of the big reasons we have put the Holocaust memorial in a Bill is for Clause 1 to give permission for the Secretary of State to spend on the project.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
On that question, given the number of bodies on the sheet of the National Audit Office, will the Minister write to Members of the Committee to say, “These are the people involved in each of those bodies, and this is what they cost”? As my noble friend Lord Eccles said, there is a huge range of people and possibilities for cost. I do not expect the answer now, but it would be helpful for our future deliberations if we knew what the current structure costs and, therefore, the urgency to move to my noble friend’s proposed change.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, makes an excellent point. In response to his request, I am absolutely happy to provide all the details on the structure and the associated issues that he raised. We will write not just to him but to the wider Committee.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I think the Minister said that the Secretary of State will be in charge. Do I take it, therefore, that the delivery body will be the Secretary of State and the department? The Secretary of State will draw up the design for the architects, after the planning permission, and she and her officers will let the contract and put in its terms and conditions, the cost overruns and all that sort of thing, so that by the time the NDPB is set up to run it, the Minister’s department will be managing the delivery of this contract. Is that right?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
The Secretary of State is responsible for the delivery of the project.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I want to move on because there are a lot of points to come on to that I am pretty confident noble Lords will ask about, but I assure them that I will come back to the points raised.
In our response to the Select Committee’s report, we have said that we will seek to work with the Royal Parks in taking forward the recommendation. That said, I believe it would be completely wrong to set a formal limit on Holocaust-related events and not on other types of event. The Bill should not pre-empt the discussions we will have with the Royal Parks at the appropriate time by setting an arbitrary statutory limit on closures. We will work proactively with the Royal Parks to find a suitable solution that properly respects the rights and interests of all parties.
Amendment 33, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to set out the future management responsibilities for different parts of Victoria Tower Gardens.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, although these matters are important and need careful attention, the Bill is not the place to deal with them and it would be premature to attempt to do so. Decisions on the precise form and function of the operating body for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre have yet to be taken. However, I can assure the Committee that we have no plans for the operating body to take on responsibility for the management and maintenance of Victoria Tower Gardens beyond that part of the gardens occupied by the memorial and learning centre. We were pleased to give an assurance to this effect to the Lords Select Committee when it scrutinised the Bill.
Victoria Tower Gardens is Crown land for which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible. The Royal Parks charity manages the gardens on behalf of DCMS under its overall contract to maintain London’s Royal Parks and other plots of land, including Victoria Tower Gardens, which do not have royal park status. We fully recognise the importance of close co-operation between the body responsible for operating the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and the body responsible for managing Victoria Tower Gardens.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will seek to ensure, through sponsorship and contracting arrangements, that the two bodies co-operate within a framework which enables each to pursue their distinct objectives. I am sure that both bodies will recognise the importance of consulting local residents—a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott—as well as amenity groups in advance on any changes that will affect their access to the gardens.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord King, about the cost, the figure of £138.8 million was published in 2023 and is based on the advice of professional cost consultants. At no point will we seek tenders for construction until we have planning consent.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the infrastructure authority did not say that the only reason this project is undeliverable is that we did not have a Bill. It listed a whole host of reasons why it was undeliverable: no plan, no proper costing and no one really in charge. I do not want to go on at length about it, but I can certainly look out the exact quote for the Minister.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, finally, I turn to Amendment 5 from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, which would require the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be managed by a non-departmental public body. The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission report included a specific recommendation for the
“creation of a permanent independent body”
with responsibility for implementing the commission’s
“recommendations to commemorate the Holocaust and ensure a world-leading educational initiative”
in the long term.
The noble Viscount talked about the learning centre. We envisage an ambitious programme of educational activities. Some will be delivered on site and many will be delivered by working in partnership with other organisations, such as the Holocaust Educational Trust. The commission’s vision, which the Government accepted, was that such a body would guide, sponsor and facilitate ongoing commemoration and educational initiatives to ensure that the memory of the Holocaust and its lessons remain vibrant and current for all future generations.
A range of options are being considered for operating the memorial and learning centre. As a significant public investment, responsibility for managing the centre will need to rest with a body ultimately accountable to Parliament. The cost of running the memorial and learning centre will be met through a mixture of fundraising and grant funding, as with many other government-sponsored organisations.
As no decisions have yet been taken by the Government on the right model for operating the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, it would not be right to tie our hands by including a statutory requirement that it be a non-departmental public body. Indeed, it would be premature to do so, given that we do not yet have planning permission for the centre to be built.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked about future planning permission. It is for the designated Planning Minister to decide what he will do and what approach to take to planning.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, raised numerous examples of the creation of Holocaust memorials and museums across the world. I want to talk about the one in the United States, which I visited in 2018. The proposal to create a Holocaust memorial museum in Washington was announced in 1979, yet the memorial did not open until 1993. It was announced by the Administration of President Carter and opened by President Clinton. The site chosen, next to the National Mall in Washington, DC, generated considerable opposition, including on the grounds that it would lead to anti-Semitism because Jews would be seen as having privileged status, that injustices in American history were more deserving of memorials, that it would be used to whitewash America’s responses to the Holocaust or not do enough to celebrate its responses, or that the Holocaust was not relevant to American history.
All these reasons for opposition were given; another was that it was the right idea but in the wrong place. By 1987, the final architectural design was agreed but criticism and demands for changes to the design continued. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum was opened by President Clinton in 1993.
I understand that there is opposition and that there has been delay, but time is of the essence. I want to echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We want to ensure that Holocaust survivors are, we hope, present and alive to witness this being built and completed. I hope my explanations will enable noble Lords to understand why I am unable to accept their amendments. I request that the noble Viscount withdraws his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
May I just make sure that the record reflects accurately what the Infrastructure and Projects Authority actually said? On 16 January this year, it said:
“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 re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed”.
Never once did it mention that it was undeliverable because we had not got a Bill yet and I would like the record to reflect that accurately. I am afraid that the Minister may have been fed a line.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Before we round up the debate, these generic arguments are not relevant to the Bill. Let me remind the Committee, in the kindest way, that the Bill has two main functions. One is in Clause 1, which allows the Secretary of State to spend on the project; the other is in Clause 2, to disapply the 1900 London Act for the project to be built. I appreciate the noble Lord’s reflections but we are speaking to amendments here. However, there is an opportunity for discussion during the planning process.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, that was a very interesting but not particularly easy debate to sum up and comment on. If I may, I will stay rather tightly focused on the management of the project and I need to ask the Minister some questions. I think he is saying that there will be a public body to manage the project, but now is not the time to set it up. I disagree with that, of course, because it seems that there is a whole raft of things on which it would be better to give the new management body the time to work it out and to do some important things.
The Minister has also said that if anything needs to be done and it is not at all clear who is to do it, the Secretary of State would be responsible for doing it. My experience, which is considerable, is that that is completely impractical. It amounts to a non-answer, because the Secretary of State is so far away from the front line of the battle that it is just impractical to maintain that she can sort it out. I insist that it would be better, and much more workmanlike, to have a body properly authorised by Parliament, accountable and up for being asked all the detailed questions.
Let me give a few examples. When the construction starts, is the Minister saying that only 7.5% of the park will be involved? It would be very interesting to have, in the middle of the letting of a contract for the basement box, an answer to the question about what percentage of the park will be involved and what rules will be needed.
As my noble friend Lord Blencathra says, at the moment there does not seem to be a decision-making process that can deal with, for example, the relationship between the project and its promoter and the park. If we had a non-departmental public body, what its chairman would say, if he took my advice, is that we need the best possible relationship we can foster with the park. We need an agreement. We need a pretty detailed memorandum of understanding. We cannot work without having some rules, whereby we know what you are doing and what I am doing, because we are being made jointly responsible for the future of this great park.
When it comes to improvements, on what authority is the Minister saying that his department will be responsible for improvements? Has he got an agreement with the DCMS, which is responsible for the park, or are we going to have a parliamentary turf war about it?
Quite honestly, all the comments that have been made relate to the need for clarity and certainty, and the need for us to be able to see who is in charge, who is accountable and, if something happens, to whom we go with a prospect of getting an enforceable answer. We have not been comforted—and I have not been comforted in the least.
I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. Given the time and the importance that I attach to the need to have a clear management structure, I will leave it there, but we will come back to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathcarron
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, the well-known Buxton memorial commemorates the Abolition of Slavery Act 1833 and marks the immense contribution of British parliamentarians who campaigned for abolition, including Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thomas Fowell Buxton and others. It was commissioned by Buxton’s son, Charles, who was also an MP. It was designed in the neo-Gothic style by Samuel Teulon. It was completed in 1866, and it was historically significant enough at the time to be placed in Parliament Square. It was removed from there and reinstated in Victoria Tower Gardens in 1957. It was placed very deliberately on an axis with St John the Evangelist church in Smith Square. It is grade 2 listed on both architectural merit and because of the significance of the historical event that it commemorates.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in supporting my noble friend, I will speak to my Amendments 11, 12 and 37 in this group.
As my noble friend Lord Strathcarron said, this well-known memorial commemorates the 1833 Act to emancipate slaves and marks the immense contribution of British parliamentarians who campaigned for abolition, including Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thomas Fowell Buxton and others. It was commissioned by Charles Buxton MP, the son of Thomas Fowell Buxton, and designed in the neo-Gothic style by Samuel Teulon. It was completed in 1866 and originally placed in Parliament Square. It was removed from there in 1949 and reinstated in Victoria Tower Gardens in 1957, being placed carefully at an axis with St John the Evangelist church in Smith Square. It is a grade 2 listed monument both on architectural merit and because of the significance of the historical event that it marks.
The setting of the monument will undoubtedly be harmed by the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Even the planning inspector, who ultimately recommended the approval of the memorial and learning centre, accepted that there would be significant harm; however, he felt that the other benefits—having ignored the impediments of the 1900 Act—outweighed this harm.
Like my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, I am grateful to the architect member of the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust who has measured the distance between the memorial and the riverside as approximately 5 metres. If the proposals for the Holocaust memorial go forward, the Buxton memorial will be just 2 metres away from the courtyard drop. Those proposals include the suggestion for a stone bench around that 2-metre edge of the memorial. Were this to occur, it would create a pinch point, with the remaining crowds walking along the riverside. I suggest that that is quite unacceptable. The Buxton memorial is a vital part of British history and it should not be infringed upon or sidelined.
I stress that this is not a matter of prioritising a monument to the abolition of slavery over the extermination of 6 million Jews. We on this side of the argument all say that there should be an appropriately sized and relevant monument to the Holocaust in Victoria Tower Gardens. We reject the grotesque, oversized Adjaye fins as not suitable for this space. These giant fins would overwhelm the Buxton memorial; any poky little path between it and the fins or the learning centre should be at least 8 metres wide, so that the memorial can be properly seen from a reasonable distance.
I do not know whether noble Lords have ever gone up Parliament Street on the southern side and looked across at the Treasury and the FCDO buildings. They are quite magnificent, but you cannot appreciate their beauty since you are only 30 yards away. They are as magnificent as the government buildings in Washington or Paris, but, in Paris, Baron Haussmann made the streets so wide that you can see and appreciate the beauty from a distance. I suggest that we need that same principle to apply to the Buxton memorial and to any properly sized Holocaust monument. They should be magnificent and visible from all parts of the gardens. The awful thing about Adjaye’s giant fins is that, since he could not design a proper monument to honour 6 million Jews, he went for size and the same monument that was rejected by Ottawa.
I am not necessarily a conspiracy theorist, but I have looked at dozens and dozens of artist impressions of the Adjaye monument and I am stumped. I am willing to be corrected and pointed in the right direction, but I cannot find any artist impression which has got more than 16 fins. The thing is going to have 23 fins, as represented in the plan, but I cannot find any artist impression showing me what 23 fins would look like. It has been minimised to show 16 fins, and so these impressions show that the 16 fins do not interfere with the Buxton memorial at all. As I said, I am not a conspiracy theorist but, if anyone has got an artist impression with the 23 fins, please send it to me.
I appreciate that when the great and the good are conned by architectural psychobabble into accepting a design, they do not then want to admit that they got it wrong. I can see my colleagues digging in as deep on this as Adjaye’s bunker. However, if we are forced to accept this second-best solution and have the 23 fins, let us make sure that they are not so gigantic as to dominate the gardens and obscure the Buxton memorial or the view of the magnificent southern gable of Parliament.
If one of the key components here is supposed to be the underground learning centre, grossly inadequate though it is, then surely we do not need such a giant monstrosity on top of it. If we have to have a monstrosity, let us have a smaller monstrosity. My Amendment 11 says that any Holocaust monument must not exceed the dimensions of the Buxton memorial. That would leave ample scope for a good and magnificent Holocaust monument.
The base of the Buxton memorial is octagonal, about 12 feet in diameter with open arches on the eight sides, and is supported on clustered shafts of polished Devonshire marble. I will not go into all of the details, but what was cleverly designed into the memorial is quite magnificent. All of that magnificent work and story is delivered in something that is 12 feet wide and about 40 feet high. If we can commemorate something as important as the abolition of slavery, where some estimates say that 2 million died in transit, we can commemorate the murder of 6 million Jews in a similarly and appropriately sized monument.
Of course, the Buxton memorial was not always there; it was originally in Parliament Square before it was moved. There were heated debates in Parliament on moving it, and the last word must go to Lord Winster, a junior minister under Clement Attlee, who said:
“This memorial is not a statue. It is a memorial fountain which commemorates a noble deed, the reversal of a system which was the very negation of humanity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/1949; col. 1430.]
I suggest that those words should apply to the Holocaust memorial as well. It is very fitting. That is why the Buxton memorial must not be diminished or hidden by giant, irrelevant bronze fins, à la the discredited Adjaye design.
My Amendment 37 seeks to protect the path used by 95 % of the local people and visitors who use the gardens. The promoters say that they will try to keep open the path alongside the river. I travel through the gardens twice a day when the House is sitting, unless we are sitting so late that the garden is closed. I have only once in 30 years gone along the huge detour of the river path, just to see if it were worthwhile—hardly anyone uses it.
However, on the main footpath, which runs parallel to Millbank, I see daily heavy use. Each morning and evening I will see four or five people exercising their doggies and collecting any mess. The main footpath is essential for them. Every morning, at a regular time, I see two or three nannies with tiny tots in tow. These kiddies are no more than 18 inches high, in their little yellow vests, and each nanny will have two or three of them on either side, safely holding hands or tied together. They make very slow but safe progress along this path. I do not know where they come from or where they go, but I have never seen them on the river path. Indeed, that may be too far for them to walk.
These are some of the main users. The others are individuals—not organised games—playing football or other games. There are those having little picnics, but not hundreds of people and 40 buses squashed into the place to have picnics.
If this main footpath is taken over for construction purposes and cannot be used, thousands of users every day will be deprived of the use of the garden. None of us will want to take a detour round by the river path to get to the route that we normally use.
The promoters need to create access for their construction equipment—possibly at the southern end of the park, where the children’s playground currently is, and possibly a new one—so that the whole of the current path, the main footpath alongside Millbank, remains open during construction and afterwards. It should not be beyond their ability or that of the department to tell the constructors to create a new access route so that the path can be kept open. Those are my amendments and I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 25 and 40 in my name. Before I do so, I express support for Amendment 26, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans, about the refreshment kiosk. I believe that it is neither appropriate nor fitting to have somebody selling burgers and chips and ice cream in a place that should be devoted to reflection and remembrance of the cruel murder of 6 million people and the lifelong impact on the lives of survivors and their families. I also support Amendment 43, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on fire risk. That is on the basis of public safety, which underpins my amendments as well.
Among the dangers associated with the choice of siting an underground learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, the most serious is the flood risk. This is a critical issue, given that large numbers of visitors, including children and people with disabilities, are expected to visit. The site chosen for the learning centre is in flood zone 3a according to the Environment Agency, which means that it has a one in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding if undefended. Normally, planning regulations would not allow a basement development in a zone 3a area. Atkins and Co carried out a flood zone 3 risk assessment for the original planning application. It is clear that the risks revealed by that report have not been correctly considered.
There are four kinds of flood risk, the most serious of which is the risk of inundation from the nearby tidal River Thames. This could happen either by overtopping of the embankment wall, if the water level is higher than the defences, or by breach flooding, in the case of a break in the wall. The latter would be catastrophic to life and property, as the proposed development is below ground level and the design of the proposed building has no above-ground refuge.
I turn first to the danger of overtopping. Because of the development’s proximity to the river, the Environment Agency requires that it must be a minimum of 16 metres from the flood defence wall—presumably to avoid the development undermining the wall’s foundation—and that the wall must be demonstrably high enough and in good condition for the lifetime of the development. A visual assessment at the time showed some defects that required maintenance, ongoing monitoring and inspection. However, the Environment Agency had no current plans for maintenance of the river wall at this location. I therefore ask: who is going to do it? We do not really know the effect on the wall of the construction work of this major underground development.
Because of climate change, and the fact that presumably the building is meant to last until at least until 2100, if not longer, the EA plans that the wall’s height will need to be raised by then to take account of the rise in sea level and consequent river level. By then, the EA expects the peak river level to rise by 950 millimetres above the current level. When this is reached, it will be more than 1 metre above the general level of Victoria Tower Gardens and the entrance to the proposed below-ground learning centre. However, there is a margin of error of only half a metre between the proposed increase in wall height and the expected river level, which is very little in a storm. The learning centre could have to be closed, not just on three days a year but on several days every month because of the risk of river water overtopping the wall.
Flooding has happened here before. The southern section of the site is partially within the area of the historic flooding information. However, data confidence is low because the records were hand-drawn and their extent is limited. It could be even more at risk than the records show.
Breach flooding is much riskier. Westminster City Council’s map shows what would happen if there was a breach in the embankment wall—perhaps in the case of terrorist action, contact by a vessel, a disastrous collapse of an adjacent building, or undermining of the foundations of the wall by unusual pressure from several storms one after the other, such as we have had this winter. What the map clearly shows is that the site is not only smack bang in the middle of the likely inundation area but right in the middle of the area that would be flooded within 30 minutes of the commencement of such an inundation.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 26. First, I add that, living in Hertfordshire, I am in touch with the distinguished Buxton family of today, one of whom is about to become our high sheriff sometime soon. They have expressed to me in correspondence something of their great concern.
Amendment 26 seeks to prevent the establishment of refreshment kiosks or static outbuildings in Victoria Tower Gardens. The first thing I want to mention relates to the preservation of the atmosphere of the park, which provides a valuable place of rest and relaxation to so many. Hot dog stands, souvenir stalls, litter and crowding would significantly change the character and experience of the park. If this project is as successful as it is planned to be, it will attract large numbers of people and potentially long queues. I believe that it would be proportionate and necessary to protect the park from this in the Bill. It has already been questioned whether it would be appropriate to have snacks, crisps and drinks for sale at the site of a memorial that is reflecting on the extraordinary suffering of so many people.
Further, the plans proposed for the centre show a new kiosk at the southern end of the garden, near the children’s playground. The Select Committee reported significant concerns regarding large crowds of visitors to the proposed centre at a kiosk immediately adjacent to the playground, raising child safety issues. Its recommendation 1 is that the kiosk be removed from present plans. Significantly, in response to this recommendation, the promoter stated only that they would look carefully at the design and location of the kiosk, not that they would remove it. The promoter has given the Select Committee an assurance that a review will be carried out with the design team 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 the gardens, including visitors to the proposed centre.
My concerns around the enforceability or account-ability of the assurances given by the promoter, which I mentioned earlier with reference to Amendment 22, also apply here, and give rationale for my seeking to enshrine these restrictions in the Bill.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will say a few words in support of the excellent presentation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, of her Amendments 25 and 40.
I would never accuse the Minister of being predictable—I would not offend him in that way—but I think I hear a little echo in my ear of him making a speech in response to the noble Baroness, saying that all these things could be dealt with at the planning proceedings. If he is going to say that, I just remind the Committee about the reality of planning proceedings.
First, they are very large and expensive on an issue such as this. Every aspect of the planning is considered at those planning proceedings. I hope, in a few minutes, to move my Amendment 15, which relates to security, and a similar point arises here. If we can discover at an early stage, through the mechanism that the noble Baroness suggests in Amendment 25, that this site is too dangerous, for flooding reasons, for planning consent to be given, let us discover that now and not during planning proceedings on the 47th day of the 78-day hearing—if we are lucky that it is that short. All that the noble Baroness is suggesting is that there should be a report, but that report would define whether this site was fit for the purposes expressed in Clauses 1 and 2.
I suggest that some aspects of this issue are, for obvious reasons, of genuine interest to Parliament, not least its proximity to Parliament and the fact that, for example, flooding in Victoria Tower Gardens because of the construction of this underground edifice—if that is not a contradiction in terms—could affect our enjoyment, as people working here, and the enjoyment of those who work for us, of what goes on in this Parliament.
I just remind the Minister of what happened last Saturday. A quite small incident occurred in which somebody managed to get through security and climb up the Elizabeth Tower. I promise that I will say nothing that is sub judice—nothing to do with the perpetrator or the case. If that had happened on a Monday when we were here, Parliament would probably have had to be adjourned for two days for that issue to be dealt with, on grounds of safety and security. One of the ways that we can deal with such issues, before a lengthy planning appeal, is to allow the sort of measure proposed here.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have an amendment that I put in this group because it should go with the amendment introduced so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
On 4 March, the Minister was asked whether a new full planning permission application would go back to Westminster City Council. He replied that
“that is in the hands of the designated Minister”,—[Official Report, 4/3/25; col. GC 92.]
so I hold out no great hope for revised planning permission.
My amendment relates to safety. I was pleased to be able to be heard by the Select Committee. I draw attention to its report, which stated that the promoter has undertaken to
“make representations to the Secretary of State in relation to security considerations”
and
“consult with the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons and the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords, Community Security Trust, the Metropolitan Police, the National Protective Security Authority and Westminster City Council”.
There is no mention of the London Fire Brigade, yet here we have a proposal for an underground learning centre with a single entrance.
I had quite a lot of difficulty, so I am grateful to those who managed to let me see some floor plans of this proposed education centre. I was becoming increasingly concerned about the security and fire risks—and the gas risk, which links to fire—that could be incurred in an underground centre. I notice that there are several staircases, which all come up into a communal area, and so-called fire escape routes.
I then looked at disasters that have happened underground. We all remember the King’s Cross fire, in which there were 31 fatalities. One of the findings was that there was a flashover—the trench effect where a tongue of fire comes up into a central area so fast that nobody can escape. Here we are talking about people being trapped underground. In that fire, there were alternative routes that a lot of people escaped through—although one was blocked by a locked door, which aggravated the disaster. The other thing is that, if you use water fog equipment, people have to be trained in its use. Has there been consideration of whether the paint and surfaces used in this underground space will be fire resistant?
I also looked at what happened in the Moscow theatre siege. People were held in an enclosed space and fentanyl gas was used, which rendered them unconscious very quickly. One problem was that it suppressed respiration in many of the unconscious people and there was not adequate naloxone available to reverse the effect. I can envisage someone going in with a canister of something like fentanyl gas in a plastic container and releasing it. I hope noble Lords will excuse me if they do not like the language, but we know that people hide things in body cavities; it would not be difficult to hide 10 to 20 mil of some compressed gas in either the rectum or vagina and go underground.
My other concern, which relates to that, came from the sarin gas attack in the Tokyo underground, where it was evident that people had to get to the victims rapidly but there was no advanced airway support available, hence the mortality rate went up.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I had almost finished. I stress that I am not against there being a memorial. My worry is the design as put forward for this learning centre and where it is—in a limited space, with the potential for danger that would bring it into deep disrepute, very rapidly, in the event of an incident.
The last thing to say—I am hesitant to talk about it, but I will because security is terribly important—is that we know what happened when Novichok was used in Salisbury. I cannot see how any security screening system will adequately detect somebody with serious malintent trying to destroy the whole essence of this learning centre by creating a terrorist-type attack. There would be real problems evacuating people at great speed from a space underground.
With that, I leave my concerns on the table in relation to the design that we have seen and the placing of the centre.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
My Lords, I thank the many friends with whom I share so much politically and with whom I do not agree on this matter. I hope they will excuse me if I speak my mind, as they have spoken theirs.
I should say at the beginning that I am a patron of the Wiener Holocaust Library, that I sat on the Holocaust Commission of David Cameron, and that my mother is a Holocaust survivor, all of which gives me a special interest in this debate.
It was interesting that the Buxton memorial was raised. Funnily enough, the siting of the Buxton memorial was one of the main reasons, originally, for my being persuaded that Victoria Tower Gardens would be the ideal place for the Holocaust memorial. I think it will create a garden of conscience that links the Pankhurst statue to the Buxton memorial and the Holocaust memorial, right by the Houses of Parliament. It is also interesting that the Buxton memorial was raised because, when it was placed there, Lord Rea argued that it should not be, because Victoria Tower Gardens was a tranquil place and putting a memorial there would be a bad idea. We are now being told that because that memorial is there, we should not put anything else there.
It is the case that, when we are talking about the Holocaust memorial being not as nice as the Buxton memorial, Viscount Swinton and Earl Jowitt both argued that the Buxton memorial should not be placed in Victoria Tower Gardens because it was a Gothic monstrosity and hideously ugly. This just proves my mother’s point, which she made to me when everyone said that no one would ever go to Brent Cross Shopping Centre, which was near our house: people can find a reason to be against everything.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Does the noble Lord not feel that some of his comments are just a little flippant? We are talking about the safety of people’s lives here.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
I am literally repeating the noble Baroness’s points. If she feels that they are flippant, maybe she should not have made them. These are all points that were raised.
In addition, it was said that people will be trampled to death in the communal areas and poisoned with Novichok. These are all points that were made seriously, and that could apply, of course, to any structure. We are talking about building a reasonably modest structure near Parliament, with four rooms underneath it. We have managed to build nuclear power stations, railways and shopping centres in this country, almost all of them without all these terrible consequences happening because people are able to organise themselves and plan things so that disasters are coped with.
We absolutely have the capability of doing that with this centre. These are all alarmist ideas that will not come to pass. This is an extremely simple proposal for a very fitting memorial. I can understand why people might not want it, particularly if they live nearby, but it is a fitting response to the Holocaust and it is in the right place.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Finkelstein said that this is a modest memorial. It may be a modest underground centre, which is inadequate for the purpose, but it is 23 giant bronze fins that will dominate the park. There is nothing modest about that at all. I think he diminishes some of the concerns that people have.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, my concern is not that terrorists may set off some device underground—the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is the best person to advise on this—but that they may set off a harmless smoke grenade or device underground, so that everyone piles up outside and that is when the terrorists execute their main attack.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
So that it is not seen as though I have raised points that were not raised, it was specifically said that poisonous gas would be set off. I did not make that up.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I would like to correct the record. I did not say that it will be set off. I am concerned that there has not been a fire assessment and an air flow assessment. I hope that, when the Minister comes to respond, he will be able to reassure us that there has been an adequate air flow assessment relating to the proposed architectural brief that we have seen. I made the point that I am not against a memorial. I think it is completely inappropriate to suggest that those of us who have raised concern over this design and the place of it are somehow opposed to having an appropriate memorial. Many of us have relatives who had deeply traumatic experiences. We have not paraded them here. We are dealing with what it is suggested is to be constructed and with how we move forward.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I do not belong to that small group of people who think that any old memorial will do, as long as we get one. Let me remind your Lordships that we already have at least half a dozen Holocaust memorials in this country and at least 21 learning centres, including the much-praised one set up by the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein. I cannot see anything going up in VTG that will better that.
I want to add a few comments on the three topics that are in this group: the kiosk, flooding and the memorials. I feel very strongly about the kiosk, and I am grateful to the Select Committee. Indeed, I am grateful to members of the Select Committee for turning up today and at other hearings, given that they sat through the objections for about six weeks, with great patience, and were very constrained in what they could say. Their presence here, I think, speaks for itself. We are grateful.
On the kiosk, the Select Committee said that its principal concern was
“the congregation of very large numbers of visitors at the proposed new kiosk immediately adjacent to the playground. This raises child safety issues. Unless there is some overriding necessity for the proposed new kiosk, we recommend”
that it should be removed “from the present plans”. This was in response to my submission to the committee that there should be no food and drink sales, let alone souvenirs and hamburger vans, in the gardens or nearby if the memorial is sited there.
It seems to me that to allow a kiosk shows a profound misunderstanding of what a memorial should be reminding us of. A café of a coke-and-crisps nature, which is what this would be, because it would be for park-goers, visitors and all sorts, is deeply disrespectful as a memorial to people who starved to death. Having a café there will simply cause more congestion, litter and crowding. Those are the reasons for the amendment.
This café would not be like one you might find in Yad Vashem or in Washington, because it would be open to the whole neighbourhood and everyone who turns up. A new café would bring all the detritus that such cafés inevitably bring to a public park, with thousands of people queuing and using it—both those coming out to do so and passers-by. It is not a good idea. Indeed, if it were removed, there would be more room for the playground, which is being reduced in size.
In response, the promoter said no more than that they will look at the design and location carefully. Driven as it is by commercial attitudes and wanting to maximise the day-trip atmosphere, I have grave doubts about this. It may also be thinking of the many builders who will be in the gardens for decades doing restoration and renewal, who will want their mugs of builder’s tea, just adding to the inappropriate atmosphere. The presence of not only the kiosk but crowds in the gardens will no doubt bring vans selling burgers and ice cream, and souvenir sellers. I have no confidence that by-laws will prevent this. It is imperative that if a memorial atmosphere is to be created, such smelly and noisy intrusions should be prevented—making more room for the playground, as I said.
On flooding, I defer, of course, to the masterly presentation by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. The trouble with all the pictures we have seen of the proposed memorial is that it is always in the sunshine, and it is always sketches. Rain and inclement weather seem never to be considered in the plans. For example, the promoters have mentioned gatherings of hundreds of people on the sloping entrance to the learning centre, but in reality, would they stand there for hours in the rain, especially if they are elderly?
We do not know what escape routes there would be if water entered the basement. As has been explained, there is no above-ground refuge space. Even a mild incursion of water into the gardens over the little wall would seep in and certainly make a visit unpleasantly soggy. There is a picture on Twitter of the river water going over the little wall last summer. If the local drainage system is overwhelmed by heavy rain, the water will find its way into basements. Indeed, a basement dwelling in this area would not be permitted at all. The only solution is a redesign, with the entrance far above any possible flood level—or, of course, to move to a better site. Central sites of as much importance as this are available.
Visitors’ lives are being put at risk to make a political point about the Westminster location, which is the source of all the trouble. Will the Minister explain why the detailed objections to the location because of flooding, expressed in letters from the Environment Agency to Westminster City Council in 2019, are not being dealt with? We need a full report on the risks and how they can be dealt with, given by structural engineers in conjunction with the Environment Agency.
Finally, I will say a word or two about the Buxton memorial. The Buxton family is very much with us. Indeed, it has been a very good coincidence that Mr Richard Buxton, a direct descendant of Thomas Buxton, happens to be a planning solicitor and has worked with our group of objectors all along. We know that the planning inspector accepted that the development would cause harm to the Buxton memorial.
It is worse than that, because the problem with the inspector’s inquiry was that he did not have in mind, and was ignorant of, the 1900 Act prohibiting building in Victoria Tower Gardens. Had he been able to take that on board and balance the benefits of the 1900 prohibition against the damage to the memorial, I think his words would have been even more strident. With the proposed developments in place, the prominence of the Buxton memorial will be largely removed, because the view will change from open parkland to one focused on the nature of the memorial.
The very few who were consulted beforehand were told that any design for the gardens had to harmonise with the Buxton memorial. They were told in Manchester that planning permission was a mere formality anyway. Not only that: the Windrush demand for a monument to slavery in Victoria Tower Gardens was turned down for lack of space. It seems wrong to diminish the visibility of the Buxton memorial, which provides a focus and an educational asset that could perhaps be developed to cater for the views of other groups that are rightly concerned with this long and shameful practice. I would deplore anything that devalued its importance.
Obviously, then, I support the amendments in this group. The Holocaust memorial should be no bigger than the Buxton memorial. There should be room to walk around it to enable it to be seen properly. I can safely surmise that future generations will think of us, quite rightly, as Philistines and wreckers if we allow the destruction, in visual terms, of these memorials.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
My Lords, I start by referring to my interests, which I set out at earlier stages of the Bill. I speak now in support of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 11, in particular, because it really is the key to reconciling the positions of my two noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Finkelstein. It goes to the heart of the Bill because, whatever the Minister may say, this seems to be a Bill about planning. These amendments go to the heart of the planning issues in the Bill: the Minister is shaking his head but, by the very fact that this is a hybrid Bill, it brings into it private interests that, by definition in this case, cover planning matters. The Minister is nodding at that. Whether we like it or not, planning matters are brought in.
More fundamentally than that, there are two substantive clauses in the Bill. I remind noble Lords that Clause 2 fundamentally changes the planning regime applying to Victoria Tower Gardens. I do not know how we can get away without either discussing planning matters or having the Minister respond to them, rather than saying, “These are all for later”.
I was sorry not to have been here for the first day in Committee, but I read the Official Report carefully. The Minister said:
“Planning permission is still to be granted”—
we know that—
“and noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity to raise these important and pertinent points on the planning side”.—[Official Report, 4/3/25; col. GC 92.]
If I understood him correctly, he rowed back on that a little last week, but, if I heard him correctly earlier this afternoon, he said that these questions about the planning process will be for the designated Minister. It would be very helpful to the Committee if, when he responds, the Minister could either explain whether noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity—that would be fine because the Minister speaks for the Government and the Bill can enshrine that; it would be welcomed by many of us if the Bill did enshrine our having plenty of opportunity, which could be via restarting the planning process or somewhere else—or correct himself by saying that there is nothing in the Bill to give us any comfort about the future planning, because it is all in the hands of the designated Minister. It has to be one or the other.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
Obviously we can all differ on what is reasonable and what is modest, but it was not a misrepresentation of what anyone said. I just read back what people said.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, I, too, rise to support Amendment 11. As my noble friend has just said, if Amendment 11 were adhered to, it is possible that the various sides of this argument could come together with a solution that would be acceptable to everyone. I have never read any newspaper article or heard anybody say that there should not be a memorial.
My noble friend Lord Finkelstein described rather movingly the various other memorials in the gardens. They are memorials to good triumphing over evil in the development of human history. It would be totally right to have another such memorial in that place that could be revered. There would be no question of having a kiosk selling ice cream and burgers beside it. It would be a memorial. If it fitted into the description in Amendment 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, it would be an appropriate size, and we would all hope that it would be designed by an artist who would produce a beautiful memorial. The problem is that unless we adhere to Amendment 11, there will also be a learning centre underground which, as various noble Lords have said, would bring with it so many risks. The greatest risk of all is why, if we want to produce a proper memorial to a terrible period in history when 6 million Jews died and many more suffered, would we put it underground where it could not be seen or admired and simply caused problems?
Let us have a memorial, a beautiful memorial that everyone can admire, but let us have a learning centre somewhere else where it would be safe, accessible and non-controversial, a place where children could be taken and, yes, possibly have their ice-cream and burgers if they are on a school trip, a different place where it would not get in the way of a beautiful memorial. It is difficult to understand how this Government, who profess to care about green spaces, about children not being on their phones but being outside and about the preservation of the environment should want to support a plan to take away the utility of one of the very few green spaces in this part of London.
This is not about just Victoria Tower Gardens, Parliament and history. It is about the way in which families in this area live their everyday lives. Children play in that park. I had a child who played in that park every day because his mother—me—did not have time to take him any further afield, as I was constantly in the House of Commons. That park is important to families and to the welfare of children. Why on earth would we hide under that park a learning centre when we could put up a beautiful memorial which everyone unanimously supports?
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support the last two speakers because one of the problems that we face in this Committee is that it seems we are being asked in this Bill to approve something, the details of which we do not really know. A lot of the debate has been about planning consent. The point—I am proposing to come back with an amendment later that may elaborate on it further—is that the 1900 Act imposed certain statutory restrictive covenants—I think that is a fair way of putting it—in respect of this building and Victoria Tower Gardens.
The history of restrictive covenants goes back a long time in English land law and antedates planning consent. The point about a restrictive covenant is that it is not applied against the same criteria as when planning permission is granted. We are being asked to release the restrictive covenants when we do not know what the actual proposition in front of us will be. It is a case of “Rely on me and trust me”, but I am afraid I do not. That is why we need—
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I feel slightly in the position of that well-known 16th-century Spanish jurist at the University of Salamanca who was arrested by the Inquisition when giving a lecture. Fourteen years later, after he was released, he came back and said: “As I was saying before I was interrupted”. My simple proposition is that we should be entitled to know in detail what is proposed before we are asked to remove the covenants of which we are custodian. I shall leave it at that.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is a reason why we do not know the detail. It is because it is for the planning system, and this Bill allows the planning system to deal with the memorial. As I understand it, that is the whole point. It is not for us to grant, debate or decide on planning grounds that will be dealt with by the planning system when it eventually gets there, after Parliament has completed its deliberations.
I was not going to comment on this group, but I want very gently to respond to something that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said earlier. She suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, had paraded his victimhood, which, frankly—
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I am sorry, it was the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am sorry, but I really think we should focus on the Bill in front of us. It is just not helpful to have this to-and-fro between people and to make accusations about things that were not said. I will be interested to go back and see the printed record when it comes out. In the event that I have caused offence to an individual, I will duly apologise, because there was no intention whatever to cause any offence to anyone alive or deceased.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I was simply responding to something that the noble Baroness said, but I accept what she has just said.
On the point about the kiosk, at the moment there is a kiosk where children and others can buy refreshments when visiting the park. If that kiosk were removed as part of this proposal, the Government would have been attacked for that. They are also being attacked because the kiosk will still be there when the memorial is built. To be fair to them on this, they could not have satisfied people either way.
I do not think it is at all offensive to visit the memorial and learning centre and then want to sit down, have a cup of tea and discuss what you have seen and learned with the people who you visited it with. When I went to Yad Vashem with my dad, he was not the least bit offended that there was a restaurant there, where we had lunch. In fact, every time I have visited Yad Vashem, we have had lunch before or after. There is nothing offensive about refreshments being available at or near the memorial.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in the nicest possible way, I will not challenge my noble friend Lord Finkelstein but merely comment that he must have better eyesight than I do. When I look at the representations of the fins, they do not seem to be entirely modest. They are absolutely massive. He said that they are appropriate. I ask those with strong Jewish heritage whether they have ever heard the figure of 23 or 22—the gaps—mentioned before. All my life, the only figure which mattered for the Holocaust was 6 million Jews slaughtered, massacred, killed. The idea is that these giant fins are somehow appropriate because the gaps between them represent 22 countries. Has any noble Lord in this Committee ever heard of that before, apart from in this planning application? To my knowledge, neither 23 fins nor 22 gaps have anything to do with Jewish history. If we want something appropriate, it must represent 6 million Jews slaughtered.
We will come in a later amendment to what would be an appropriate design, but I am also prompted to ask a question on the refreshment kiosk. I use the park regularly, and in summertime or when there is a coach party to the Commons, the kiddies come into the park. They have their sandwich wrappers and a huge amount of Pret A Manger bags, and they all religiously try to put them into the litter bins. At times, those bins have been stuffed absolutely full and litter is spread all around. If there is a refreshment kiosk for thousands of people, that is likely to happen as well, and we will see a huge amount of litter.
Some may argue that we should have more litter bins and fill them up. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with his expertise here, may comment on this. The first thing that the Metropolitan Police would do when there is a terrorist threat is remove all the bins. You cannot get a litter bin at Euston station or anywhere else because they are a terrorist threat. We could have a kiosk selling sandwiches, crisps and so on and all the people having their picnics, but end up with no litter bins to put the rubbish in. If there are litter bins, they ought to be policed and patrolled.
This is not a trivial point; I am not trying to diminish the whole argument by talking about litter. It is a legitimate point about other people’s enjoyment of the gardens. They may also want to have their picnic and sandwiches but find that there is no place to put the garbage afterwards.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, on that last point, that is exactly what the management of a non-departmental public body would discuss with the management of the gardens—how they will cope with litter and what facilities there are. They would need to work together, but we have not got anybody whatever to work with on the garden management at the moment. Until we have a public body, there will not be anybody.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I shall just say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 11. If, along the way, I gently chide my noble friend Lord Finkelstein, who I greatly admire, I hope he will forgive me. He made a speech last week in Committee, which he used in his article in the Times on Wednesday, and very important and powerful it is. He concluded by saying, “Let’s get building”, and that is where I part company with him because we are not arguing about a memorial. I think we are all saying, universally, that we want to have a memorial. The question is: what are we going to build? To say at the end of his article “Let’s get building” sort of implies that the Committee was somehow opposing the idea that there should be a memorial at all.
From my point of view, the design we presently have is outsized, out of sync and out of style. For my noble friend to say that this is like objecting to the Brent Cross shopping centre is really not fair to those of us who have a serious concern about what it will look like and how it will work. I think that the words, “reasonably modest”, which have been used a lot this afternoon, are really shown up when along with my noble friend’s article was a picture of what is proposed. How that can be described as “reasonably modest”, when you see a picture of it is quite hard to understand. Also—this was probably not my noble friend but his picture editor—the fact that it says underneath this extraordinarily ugly memorial
“The memorial embodies what Britain fought for and her Parliament stands for”
seems doubly disappointing. I hope that we can find a way, following my noble friend Lord Sassoon’s suggestion, to stick to the principle that we want a memorial and find a way that is more in sync with its surroundings, as my noble friend suggests in his Amendment 11.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
Just to clarify the point on “reasonably modest”, it has been a reasonable subject for discussion and obviously opinions will differ about how big this ought to be. In the Holocaust Commission, we had a debate about the different designs. Some people liked this design and others did not, but my point about “reasonably modest” concerned itself with the difficulty of building this memorial or, indeed, anything, nearby. I was just observing that we manage, as humanity, to cope with quite a lot of building and this is, on the scale of many of the things that we build, “reasonably modest”. Thus, the problems that were raised seem have been overcome on some quite big projects in comparison with this one. That is the point of my argument about reasonable modesty.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether we are supposed to declare our interests at each sitting, but I draw attention to my interests in the register relating to this project. I do not want to bring any discord but I feel I am about to enter into the war of the Buxtons, because my noble friend Lord Leigh, who is not in his place, asked me to pass on a message to the Committee from Jonathan Buxton, who is very happy for me to quote it:
“I would like to think that if Sir Thomas and his fellow abolitionists were around today, they would be 100% in favour of the Holocaust memorial”.
I understand of course that other Buxtons disagree with this, but I felt that the Committee might like to hear it.
I want to say two other things, but first I turn to this question of the kiosk, which I think is very badly formed. My noble friend is right: you can go to Yad Vashem and you do not need to go to the museum to use its facilities. You can get a hot dog outside the memorial in Washington and I do not think that in any way affects the spirituality of the thing.
One of my great delights, for the past 50 years of my association with Lady Pickles, is that we often spend our weekends looking at various cathedrals around the country. It is a passion of mine. I can tell noble Lords that you can get a very nice cappuccino in Lincoln Cathedral and a very nice date and walnut cake in York. In listening to the right reverend Prelate, I thought that perhaps I should go to St Albans Cathedral, and wondered what I might expect there. I am delighted to say that, if I go there, I can go to the Abbot’s Kitchen café, which is open from 10 am until 4 pm, and treat Lady Pickles to a coffee and walnut cake for £4.05. I do not think that that will in any way affect my enjoyment of the spirituality of the cathedral; it certainly has not spoilt it in the many cathedrals that I have had the pleasure to go round, both in this country and in France.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The noble Lord was formerly a distinguished Minister in charge of planning. Does he not recall that, on several occasions, as a Minister, he called in planning applications and took those cases out of the hands of the local authority, where they would have been considered, and made decisions that dramatically affected the future of those proposals? Does he not agree that there is a significant difference between a case where somebody applies for planning permission to build even a memorial and a case where there is a parliamentary Bill that allows a Minister to spend money on that memorial?
Lord Pickles (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, intervened on me; I should be able to reply to him.
If I had expressed a view about a planning application, I would not have dealt with it; I would not have called it in. We are very strict. I must say that we know what is going on here, with people asking, “Will the Minister give a guarantee?” That would be predetermination. The noble Lord is a distinguished lawyer; he knows that it would be grounds for a judicial review if we predetermined it. We separate carefully, to ensure that the people taking decisions on planning have not expressed a view on it and are not subject to views expressed by either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I assured that in the past five years.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Carlile. I am a lawyer; I am also a chartered surveyor in the planning and development division of the RICS. I worked professionally in this area, a long time ago, for a number of years.
The point is that there is a fundamental difference between the covenant and the planning consent. We are not being asked to form any view about the merits of a planning application or anything like that, because were that to be the case, the draft legislation in front of us would make it explicitly clear that we were taking by statute the power to grant planning permission. The two consents run in parallel, and we should view them like that. The criteria that apply in determining each of the two are not the same.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I too wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, though I may say it less elegantly. The reason we are talking about planning in this Committee is that we simply do not trust the Government—the previous Government or this Government—not to overrule Westminster City Council. If the Government will give a cast-iron commitment that they will abide by whatever Westminster City Council decides—that they will not call it in or get an inspector to reverse it, and that the Minister will not reverse it either—then all my concerns about planning would be removed. If the Government will trust the decision of Westminster City Council, I think no noble Lords in this Committee would be talking about the planning application.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for explaining so well the reasoning behind why we should wait for the planning system. I was going to say something very similar, but now I do not need to because of the timing. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could take the opportunity to give this Committee more detail about the process and the legalities, and about the reasons why we are doing what we are in this Bill, and where it should not then have anything to do with the planning system. That is an important thing to do and I ask that we have it in writing, to clarify this well in time for Report.
I was going to say something about all the other amendments in this group, but I feel that they would be much better discussed within the planning system and not within this Bill.
I will mention something about tea rooms. Interestingly, when I came in today, I was very much in support of not having them, but, having listened to the evidence and thought about it, it is actually not a bad thing to have that in a park that is used by all sorts of people for all sorts of different reasons. I certainly will not be supporting that proposal any longer. As far as I am concerned, all the other amendments should be dealt with in the planning system, so it is not worth my taking up any more of the Committee’s time.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Blencathra, the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Finlay, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for bringing these amendments. This group covers a set of topics relating to the potential impact of the proposed development. As we consider these topics, it is necessary to keep in mind the relationship between this Bill and the process for seeking planning consent.
The Bill does not include provisions to grant planning consent. I am quite sure that noble Lords would have criticised the Government forcefully if we had tried to bypass the normal route for seeking planning consent by including any such provisions in our Bill, a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. The planning process, put in place by Parliament and regulated through the courts, is the proper process for considering a development such as the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre.
Let me be clear in addressing the points of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, in relation to the planning process, which a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, alluded to. We, as the applicant, stand by the current planning application. We do not intend to withdraw it. It is for the designated Minister to decide how to deal with the current application. We understand that he has three broad options: to invite written representations and then decide; to hold a further planning inquiry; or to hold a round-table discussion. All options would mean opportunities for opposing views to be considered. It is for the designated Minister to decide the approach.
The arrangements are perfectly proper. When they were challenged in the court in 2020, that challenge did not succeed. In all called-in applications, it is for the designated Minister to decide the mode of considering the application. We have given an assurance to the Lords Select Committee that we will make sure that Peers and MPs are notified when the process of retaking the planning decision starts. There will therefore be opportunities for people to make their views known. It will be up to the designated Minister to decide how to deal with those views, including whether to have a new inquiry.
The planning process requires extensive consultation, detailed scrutiny by technical experts and consideration of an extensive range of statutory provisions, regulations and planning policies. The process enables a balancing exercise to be conducted, in which the benefits and impacts of any proposal can be properly assessed. With the greatest respect to noble Lords, and acknowledging the deep expertise that can be found across the Committee, I submit that we should be extremely wary of interfering in these processes. We are not sitting here as a planning committee. I suspect that few of us here will have read all 6,000-plus pages of evidence submitted with the planning application, or the many detailed responses from experts, supporters and opponents of the programme. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for setting this point out in detail. I will now turn to the amendments in question.
Amendment 7, from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, relating to other memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, would have the effect of tying the hands of the planning decision-maker and stopping the current proposal. The amendment would give protection to those memorials above and beyond the protections they already enjoy as listed buildings. We all want to ensure that the memorials and monuments in Victoria Tower Gardens, and their setting, are respected. Our design is sensitive to the heritage and existing uses of Victoria Tower Gardens. It includes enhancements to the gardens that will help all visitors, including better pathways and improved access to existing memorials.
The planning inspector considered a great deal of evidence from all sides and looked in great detail at the impact on the gardens and on existing memorials before concluding that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. As drafted, the proposed change to Clause 2 is not necessary to ensure that memorials are given proper weight in the planning process. It would, however, act as a barrier to proceeding with the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 7.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
It is of course open to the person determining the planning application and/or the appeal—depending on the circumstances—to impose conditions that fundamentally change the scheme from the thing that is currently under discussion by us. Is that not right?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, unfortunately I did not get the gist of what the noble Lord said, but I assume he was talking about the future planning process.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My point is quite simply that the outcome of the planning process, if planning permission were to be granted, could be that the scheme would be permitted, but subject to conditions such that it would be completely different from what we are currently considering.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
Yes, that could be the case. Again, it is for the designated Minister to set out the process; it is a decision for them.
Amendments 11 and 12 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, concern the Buxton memorial. The Buxton memorial provides a striking and important reminder of the role that British parliamentarians played in the eventual ending of slavery across the British Empire, a point that many noble Lords made eloquently. It is perhaps fair to point out that its design is not to everyone’s taste. I noted that in a debate in the other place in 1949 considering plans for the remodelling of Parliament Square, the then Member of Parliament for Twickenham expressed the view that the Buxton memorial had “no artistic merit whatever”. That is not this Government’s view.
Lord Sassoon (Con)
The noble Lord did not address my point about UNESCO. This has nothing to do with planning processes. Under the World Heritage Convention, state parties—in this case, the UK Government—
“are also expected to protect the World Heritage values of the properties inscribed”.
Will the Minister confirm that the undertakings to UNESCO are not part of any planning process and answer my question about how the Government regard their obligations in this case to UNESCO? Do they know better what is not appropriate in a world heritage site?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
We will discuss UNESCO on a later amendment. It will need a bit of explanation, and I would like to discuss it in depth. If he could wait for that group, I will discuss that point.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as I understand it—I will look carefully at the official record to check that my understanding is correct—the Minister’s answer to the question about whether there will be a new planning process is, “Well, maybe”. He said that the Minister in charge has three options: to make the decision, to set up a new planning process or to have a round table. We do not know which, yet he has relied heavily in his responses to the various concerns raised on the fact that these will be considered in a planning application. Yet he also said that the Government will stick to the original planning application. Which is it?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I thought I was quite clear in saying that an existing planning application has gone in. This Bill is to disapply the 1900 Act to allow the project to proceed. The designated Minister will have a number of options, from which he must decide which is the best way forward for the planning process, but every option will include an opportunity for representations to be made.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, there are three options and we do not know which the Minister is going to choose. Is that right?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, that is the norm and to be expected. It is totally independent from the whole process. It is for him to decide how we will proceed with planning on this particular point; that is the normal process when Ministers are calling decisions. That is how these options work.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
This will be my last comment of the evening. Is there anyone in this Room who seriously believes that the Minister will pick the option of a fresh planning application to Westminster City Council? Of course he will not.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Can the Minister explain what would happen to his three options in this scenario? On the day this Bill receives Royal Assent—if it does—what is there to stop the Minister saying within 24 hours, “The only obstacle that existed against giving planning permission last time has been removed, and I am giving it here and now”?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, let me be absolutely clear. I understand that noble Lords have lots of concerns, strong views and opinions on this matter, but there is a process in place in which the designated Minister is totally independent from the whole planning process. I cannot stand here and speak on behalf of an independent decision made by a Minister who is detached from this process. It is up to the Minister to decide how to take this forward and how to look at the application. My job here, in promoting this Bill in the Lords, is to look at these clauses and to ensure that we discuss and debate the clauses in front of us. I understand that there are lots of various concerns around the statutory planning process, but it is not for me to move forward with those. I have to look at the remit of the clauses ahead of us. The Minister will make his own decision—that is as it should be.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed. This has been a really interesting and, as always, passionate debate, with lots of great opinions on all sides.
I am aware that it has taken us four hours to discuss two groups, and we have not yet got on to the juicy subjects of security, how this project relates to restoration and renewal, and indeed the whole design. To save time, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for summing up the amendments that we heard about on flooding, security and the kiosk. Afterwards, there were some very useful contributions on planning from the noble Lords, Lord Sassoon and Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Laing.
I find myself in agreement with the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, to reach out. It seems to me, from what I have heard over the past two days, as we are nearly at the end of the second day in Committee—this is just my opinion; I am not speaking for anyone else—that there is an acceptance that there should be a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. What is in dispute is its size, scale, ugliness and whatever else—those are subjective things—but my hearing suggests that the fact that there will be a memorial in the gardens has acceptance. The problems all relate to the learning centre: I cannot find anybody, except for the proposers, who are for it.
Last week, I was talking about this outside the Committee with one of the proposers, who said that there is no practical alternative. I was quite flabbergasted; this learning centre may or may not be many things but one thing it certainly is not is practical. We have yet to hear—I am sure that we will at some length—about the problems around traffic, security, restoration and renewal, and about the fact that this proposal is totally inadequate. It is far from practical.
As for there being no alternatives, there are loads of alternatives, and all of them close by. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested one that I personally found very acceptable: Richmond House, next to the Cenotaph —crane a slight neck there and you can see the Houses of Parliament. This would seem to satisfy every consideration, including the cost aspect, which we debated slightly on day one. I will not come back to it but I remind the Committee that we signed off the Elizabeth Tower at £29 million and it ended up costing £81 million. Let us face it, no one has the faintest idea what this memorial and learning centre—in particular the learning centre, which is where the construction costs will be—is going to cost.
I hope that, as we do not have much more time today—at this rate, we are going to be here for another 10 days or two weeks—the Government will show some flexibility and acknowledge the feeling that, yes, there should be a memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, and we can then discuss the scale and all those other things. Can we please consider seriously moving the learning centre to somewhere more appropriate, where it can do real justice to the purpose it is meant to have? With that, I would like to withdraw my amendment.