Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—

1B: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Learning Centre purpose
The main purpose of any Learning Centre must be the provision of education about the Holocaust and antisemitism.””

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, my purpose in speaking is to try to rescue the central plank of what remains of this memorial. The Lords amendment stated that the sole purpose of the learning centre must be the Holocaust and antisemitism. I have retained pretty much the same wording. No alternative was put forward in the Commons and no reason given for the rejection other than that it is inappropriate. But having listened to Ministers, I can see that a vision of the purpose of the learning centre is emerging that is much more valuable than what has been suggested in the past.

In the past, the promoters have been asked repeatedly what their intent is for the planned learning centre, and they have prevaricated, sometimes suggesting that it will be all about Nazi genocides and at other times that it would include many genocides and wars, including in Rwanda, Serbia, Cambodia, Darfur and Bosnia. Of course, originally, the learning centre was planned to be about the British perspective on the Holocaust, which is a rather niche subject and would not be very educational for those who know nothing about it.

“Holocaust” and “genocide” have become general words of disapproval without definition. Throwing them around robs the Holocaust of its specificity, relativises it and diminishes its lessons for the future. It was quite different in origin and execution. The Nazis systematically set about eliminating 6 million children, men and women. That history is a warning to future generations, as we see increasing antisemitism orchestrated today. If a purpose of the memorial and learning centre is not defined as we suggest, there is a risk that it could be put to other, less effective ends.

It seems the Government agree. The point of difference between us is this: if the Government are happy to give assurances about the learning centre, why not enshrine them in the Bill? Ten or 20 years down the line, any assurances given today will be forgotten and the interested parties today will no longer be in their positions or even alive. Without this amendment, reference to the learning centre’s key purpose, the Holocaust and antisemitism, is excluded from the Holocaust Memorial Bill.

All Governments recently have insisted that their funding of Holocaust remembrance in this country may not be limited to Jews; it always has to include other tragic situations. But the Roma have their own memorial in Newcastle, and there is a memorial dedicated to LGBT victims at the National Memorial Arboretum. Only the Jewish memorial has to be diffused and hence deprived of the power that it should have.

Focusing on the Nazi victims makes the centre about the Nazis, Germany and the Second World War—an historical event in the past, not something enduring today—but the Holocaust’s origins go back more than 2,000 years and its roots are still alive today. It is a continuum, not a past event. Including other genocides reduces whatever lesson might be learned to just platitudes about hatred and tolerance, which was rightly and forcefully condemned by the cellist and survivor, Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, at the Select Committee.

It is imperative that antisemitism be addressed, not fudged, because it is today that antisemitism is flourishing. A learning centre has to be about Jewish lives today, not just deaths. It is so relatively easy to mourn the dead, but so much harder to understand the living.

We objectors want a proper-sized museum setting the Holocaust in context, as the late Lord Sacks called for. There has been no consultation on any of that.

The Chief Rabbi has rightly called for Holocaust memorialisation not to be politicised, but that is exactly what is happening now. On the part of the Opposition, it has been an attempt to put some substance into the campaign for British values. On this Government’s watch, sadly, Jews are constantly threatened. We know the details —the police’s uneven treatment; welcoming an Egyptian dissident who wants to kill Jews; failing to prosecute people who spout foul hate speech; teachers, doctors, pop stars, lecturers and students getting away with calls for violence against Jews; treating their ally, Israel, as an enemy; and the one-sided recognition of Palestine.

I suspect the Government think that by announcing a Holocaust memorial something will be achieved, but there is not a shred of evidence from the half-dozen existing British memorials and the hundreds around the world that they have any effect on antisemitism. No one has ever done an impact assessment. It is a case of easy sympathy for dead Jews and an excuse for not protecting the living.

All the benefits of a learning centre, as recommended in the Prime Minister’s 2015 commission report, have now been lost. They are all gone. There will be no lecture hall, no learning hub, no professorship, no endowment, no teacher training, no overhaul of Holocaust education. Its location is within a gunman’s range from the bridge, the river and the Millbank windows. To lose even the fundamental essence of the project is unacceptable.

The current assurances about the learning centre are vague, unsustainable and unenforceable. Assurances were requested, and some were rejected, at the conclusion of the Select Committee on the Bill. They are all now forgotten. Unless there is a proper planning application, there will be no chance of consideration of what was agreed. I am asking the Government for more than assurances—something much more concrete that will last down the years. I am asking for legislative support for the aims of the 2015 report to ensure that the core purpose of the learning centre is agreed and maintained. This simple amendment would show the public that the Government have the right aim and the courage of their convictions. I beg to move.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for his patient and constructive engagement on this matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, who before him was dealing with this Bill and tried to work things through with equal dedication. As the Minister knows, my preference would have been to have the purpose set in law, for the reasons that my noble friend Lady Deech so eloquently set out just now, but it became clear that I was not going to persuade the Government of that case, and it was also clear that there was a strong desire, which I shared, to move forward with cross-party consensus.

I welcome the Minister’s assurances and, in particular, the fact that the Government are committed to ensuring that the learning centre will be focused exclusively on the Holocaust and antisemitism, and that there will be no deviation from this purpose. Having gone through this exercise, at least now, as my noble friend Lady Deech said, we have some clarity about what the purpose of this learning centre should be. No deviation is a key commitment. The reason for insisting on it is not because some of us do not understand that people will and should draw broader lessons from the Holocaust and antisemitism, but what we have seen in recent years is that too often the broader lessons take centre stage, while the distinctively unsettling features of the Holocaust and antisemitism end up being diluted or lost behind feel-good bromides. Avoiding this was the main driving concern for this amendment.

The other concern is that the memorial and the learning centre might become the focal point for political gesturing about the Middle East and anti-Israel protest. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, agrees with us on these concerns and is very keen to address them. I think the commitment to have the purpose clearly and specifically enshrined in the governing documents, while not as good as having it in law, is important, and we need to follow that through. I also welcome his commitment just now to consult on those governing documents. It might perhaps help if he can tell us a bit more about the process that might be envisaged about the contents of the documents and about how Parliament will be kept informed. In particular, it would be useful to have drafts published in advance so that people who have an interest in these matters, and perhaps the House, will have an opportunity for debate and scrutiny. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that it will provide further reassurance to those who, like my noble friend Lady Deech, continue to have reservations.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, to withdraw her Motion. Let us go forward united and ensure that this memorial is delivered.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I yield to no one in my admiration for the Minister, whose eloquence and understanding is very touching and altogether praiseworthy.

I have just two small points to make. There need not have been any delay. There need not even have been a delay if the Government had accepted the amendment. Much has been spoken about delay. This memorial is not for the survivors; it is for future generations. We are not going to rush something through so that people who are now 90 or 100 will live to see it. They already have other memorials.

I have heard the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Wolfson, on the definitional problems. Whatever you express, there are going to be definitional problems, which have been exacerbated in the past few years—because despite what the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, said, there has been all this talk about Darfur, Bosnia, and other genocides and so on, and it is only now, under the leadership of the Minister, that we have some clarity.

I felt I had to drive this forward for the sake of my parents, my grandparents and all the others who are looking down, who would never forgive me if I did not push this as far as I can to get a memorial that honours them—which I have doubts about, frankly. But I have done everything I can within my power for their sakes, because I know very well—as a child, they told me—what they went through. I have done every last thing I can.

I can see no point in calling a vote now, and I will withdraw the Motion, but I insist on continuing for their sakes and for all the other families, some of whom are in this Chamber. We must get something that honours them and protects today’s Jews. I will not give up on that, but I withdraw the Motion, and I thank the Minister.

Motion A1 withdrawn.