Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Grand Committee

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.