Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I know it was discussed last week. But what do you do with all the people visiting if, for instance, the King were to die, God forbid? Did we discuss what would have happened with all those people visiting the late Queen Elizabeth? Thousands of people were in that park. Where would they go now? That is a very reasonable point. Also, I know it has been discussed at length but if we have renovation and renewal, or whatever it is called, there will have to be a slight discussion.

What I particularly want to talk about on my noble friend Lady Fookes’s amendment is the council and planning permission. I should declare as an interest that I am a resident of Westminster and, indeed, that my wife is on Westminster City Council. When it came before the council in, I think, 2019, it was turned down completely—I think, although the Minister might be able to tell me, not just by the Conservatives who were then in power but by the Labour Party as well. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think I am. It is very important that people understand that those are the views of local people. Again, I thought that not just Conservatives but the Labour Party wanted the views of local people taken into account, but they are not going to be on this.

I do not want to repeat everything that has been said. I will say just two things, to be answered by the Minister. Does the Minister believe that the views of the local people of Westminster count, or are we not going to have another planning application? Does the Minister believe in the importance of environmental and open spaces beside the river and elsewhere in London, or is everything just to be bulldozed and trampled over? If that is the case, we might as well all just give up anyway.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the two amendments on planning. It also falls to me to cope with the heritage amendment because, unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, cannot be here this afternoon, and I support the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, on the impact assessment.

To start with planning, throughout the whole sorry saga of this misbegotten project the Government have tried to avoid proper planning processes. Knowing that Westminster City Council was going to turn it down, the promoter rushed to get the Minister to call it in. The consultancy, Big Ideas, was paid more than £100,000 by the Government to collect and bulk-display comments in favour of the memorial to counteract the genuine objections on the website.

The Government are digging themselves into a deep legal hole here in relation to conflicts and proper planning applications. On conflicts, the department has set up a separate framework for a Minister to take the decision. But who can imagine a junior Minister deciding to defy his Secretary of State and his Government’s wishes in order to take an independent stand against this project?

The whole public inquiry that we had in the past is now utterly vitiated because the inspector was unaware of the 1900 Act, which stood in the way of building on Victoria Tower Gardens. Therefore, the balance of pros and cons that he said he was carrying out was not a proper balance, because one enormous weight was missing on one side: he ignored the 1900 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can only refer back to the word “collocated” which was used about the Holocaust memorial alongside the learning centre.

I would like to make some progress and I know that I have a number of questions to answer. Please can I get through some of the background of where we are? I hope we can address the amendments, and I will take interventions, as required.

As I have said, as the law requires, further consultation took place around the planning application. More than 4,000 written representations were submitted. A six-week planning inquiry was held, in public, at which more than 50 interested parties spoke; I believe some noble Lords were there. All the details of the planning application—over 6,000 pages of information, all of which remains publicly accessible online—were closely scrutinised. The design team, and indeed the co-chairs of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, were cross-examined by learned counsel.

Following the planning inquiry, the independent inspector then submitted his detailed and lengthy report to the Minister with a recommendation that consent should be granted. The Minister agreed with that recommendation. The planning decision was, of course, subsequently quashed by the High Court, on the basis that certain parts of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 prevented development in Victoria Tower Gardens. That is why we are promoting this Bill: to seek Parliament’s agreement that the statutory impediment should be lifted for the purposes of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. However, the planning decision still needs to be retaken by the designated Minister—for the sake of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and other noble Lords in the Committee, that would be Jim McMahon—in accordance with proper procedures and in line with all relevant statutory requirements.

I turn now to Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. This would require a new planning application, which would take us back to 2018. I see no possible justification for such a step. The planning application submitted in 2018 remains current. The planning process which is under way has provided, and will provide, all the proper opportunities for consultation and scrutiny. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 21.

Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard, calls for a new impact assessment. I have pointed out already that the impacts of the proposal have been studied in depth and a great deal of material has been published on the Westminster City Council planning portal. Noble Lords who wish to consider further the educational impact of the proposal could review the evidence provided by Professor Stuart Foster of the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education, who told the inquiry that the learning centre

“will offer visitors an engaging, interactive and dynamic experience … underpinned by rigorous scholarship and the advice and expertise of some of the leading academics and specialists in the field”.

It will

“offer different insights and critical interpretations of what Britain did and did not do in response to events”,

and

“will serve as a catalyst for deeper engagement and interest in Holocaust education across the country”.

For an assessment of the impacts on air quality, archaeology, soils, flood risk, traffic and water quality—and a great deal more—noble Lords could review the environmental assessment which remains available online. The expected costs of the proposal have been presented to Parliament and will be updated in line with the normal arrangements for major projects. This clause simply requires work to be duplicated, causing further unnecessary delay, so I ask the noble Lord not to move Amendment 34.

Amendment 38 from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seeks to insert an additional step into the process for obtaining all the required permissions and consents for construction of the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre at Victoria Tower Gardens. Such a clause can hardly be justified. Both Houses of Parliament have had the opportunity to consider very carefully the case for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre at VTG; I need hardly remind noble Lords that this Bill has already received its Second Reading in this House, having been agreed by the other House last summer. It has certainly been no secret that the Government are promoting this Bill with the express purpose of enabling construction of the scheme for which planning permission was sought in December 2018.

Members of Parliament and Members of the House of Lords have the same opportunities as all other citizens and residents to express their opinions about any proposed development. In the case of this particular planning application, Members of this House made their views clear and spoke very forcefully at the planning inquiry. The Palace of Westminster of course has an interest as a neighbour to the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Like any other neighbour, Parliament can make its views known through the planning system and be confident that those views will be given due weight.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Does the Minister see any internal contradiction in what he says? He says repeatedly that these issues can be considered in a planning application, but at the same time he also says that the Minister can decide what to do about a planning application. As we have said repeatedly, there is absolutely no guarantee that there will be any space of any sort for these issues to be considered. Is it not important to the Minister that the original planning application was made six or seven years ago? Any politician will tell you that the world has changed—Westminster has changed, the atmosphere has changed and the climate has changed in the last seven years. How can it be right to ignore all of that, not answering the questions that have been put this afternoon, and ignoring the elephant in the room—that the project now proposed is a very far cry from that which was recommended in 2015 and accepted by David Cameron, then the Prime Minister? This is a million miles away from what was proposed and accepted then.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I politely disagree with the noble Baroness—there is no inconsistency. My job in promoting the Bill is to look at the two main clauses along with the third one, which says that the Bill applies to England and Wales. Planning permission is absolutely for the designated Minister. As a proposal of national significance, it is perfectly proper for a planning decision to be taken by a Minister rather than by a local planning authority. When these arrangements were challenged in a judicial review in 2020, that challenge did not succeed.

Perhaps I can just make some more progress. Like any other neighbour, Parliament can make its views known through the planning system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am not anywhere near sitting down for a while yet, because I have a number of points to make—but I will take the noble Lord’s intervention then.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, raised this point in his amendment. The Government were pleased to give an assurance that they would notify the relevant authorities in both Houses as soon as practicable, following the reactivation of the planning process in respect of the current application. The planning process, put in place by Parliament and regulated through the courts, is the proper place for considering developments such as the proposed national Holocaust memorial and learning centre. There is no justification for seeking to add further steps into the approval process, which can only cause unnecessary delay and uncertainty. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press Amendment 38.

Finally in this group, Amendment 42 from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, proposes that an additional approval should be required before the Bill could come into effect. This is a convenient place for me to respond to the questions put to me earlier by my noble friend Lady Blackstone, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, who I regret to say is not in his place today but who talked passionately about UNESCO—so it is ideal that I now talk to the points made by the noble Lord previously.

The Government’s obligations with regard to UNESCO were asked about. In brief, those obligations rest on Articles 4 and 5 of the world heritage convention. That convention initiated the world heritage list, which identifies the cultural and natural heritage across the globe considered to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. I need hardly say that the Government take those obligations extremely seriously.

The Government’s statutory adviser on the historic environment, including on world heritage sites, is Historic England, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said. There is a great deal of helpful information on Historic England’s website relating to the world heritage convention and its significance for the 35 UK sites currently on the world heritage list. In practical terms, as Historic England explains on its website:

“Protection for World Heritage in England is provided by a combination of the spatial planning system and national designations (for example, listed buildings, scheduled monuments, sites of special scientific interest … that cover elements, if not the whole, of the site. The heritage significance of a World Heritage Site (its ‘outstanding universal value’)”—


which the noble Baroness referred to—

“may be reflected, at least in part, in the significance of any listed building, scheduled monument … or other heritage asset that forms part of it where this relates to its”

outstanding universal value. It continues:

“The provisions and protections under the planning system that apply to any such elements within a World Heritage Site are an important element, ensuring that the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site is recognised and taken into account”.


Having addressed the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on the general context, I turn to the specific example of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre and its potential impact on the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey, including St Margaret’s Church, a world heritage site. In line with the provisions and protections of the planning system that I referred to a moment ago, the potential impact of the memorial and learning centre on the world heritage site and its settings has been properly considered and fully taken into account.

Historic England, in its role as statutory adviser, provided pre-application advice on the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Its written advice was in front of the independent planning inspector, who considered the planning application—as indeed a further statement from a highly qualified representative of Historic England was considered. That statement reminded the inspector of Historic England’s role

“in advising Government in relation to World Heritage Sites and compliance with the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage. It is the lead body for the heritage sector and the Government’s principal adviser on the historic environment”.

On the specific question on the impact of the proposal, the statement confirmed the view that Historic England has set out in its pre-planning advice, following a detailed consideration of the proposal. The view was that

“the proposals would not significantly harm the Outstanding Universal Value of the Palace of Westminster and Westminster Abbey including Saint Margaret’s Church World Heritage Site”.

The planning inspector did, of course, have the benefit of hearing other opinions on this matter, including opponents of the scheme who took a different view from Historic England. The inspector, having heard all the evidence, was able to come to a fully informed view about the potential impact of the application on the World Heritage site. His assessment was that the proposed UK Holocaust memorial and learning centre

“would not result in compromise to the”—

outstanding universal value of the world heritage site—

“because it does not harm it or its setting, thus conserving it”.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Why, therefore, has UNESCO continued to reiterate its

“serious concerns that the proposed location of the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre … would have a significant adverse impact on the OUV of the property, and therefore requests the State Party to refrain from any action which would allow the current proposal to proceed, and to seek alternative locations and/or designs”?

UNESCO has said that, I think, four times now.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can talk only about how the inspector, in his decision, has taken different views—opposing and supporting views—and has taken evidence from Historic England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is perfectly reasonable of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to ask that question, but information is available on the website of the planning casework unit; the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has previously referred to it in this Committee. If it would help, we could send some more detail, in terms of where the website is and the address—as well as more details about the options that the designated Minister could pursue—to give the noble Lord more assurance around and confidence in the procedure. That would be no problem.

There is nothing to be gained by turning the clock back to 2015. All that this would achieve is to delay the creation of a memorial by many years. Few Holocaust survivors, perhaps none at all, would live to see the project completed—

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I must remind the Minister again that we are building not for the survivors, who already have something like six memorials and 21 learning centres in this country, but for the future. The survivors themselves would say that it is a mistake to hurry just because there is a possibility that it will be built in their lifetimes. That is not the issue.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I can give noble Lords absolute confidence that the many Holocaust survivors I have spoken to are looking forward to seeing this Holocaust memorial built. It might not be so for everybody, but I speak in the context of my numerous heartfelt conversations with Holocaust survivors.

My point stands: few Holocaust survivors, perhaps none at all, would live to see the project completed. In those lost years, how many more opportunities to spread and deepen understanding of the Holocaust will be missed? How many millions of visitors will pass through Westminster who might otherwise have been prompted to reflect on the murder of 6 million Jews? How many visitors, young and old, will be denied the opportunity to learn objective facts on a topic of such profound importance? We should not be creating new hurdles, setting new tests or extending legitimate processes. Our aim should be to build a Holocaust memorial and learning centre of which the nation can be proud, and to do it soon. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

24: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Restoration and RenewalThe activities described in section 1(1) may not be commenced on the land referred to in section 2 unless the authorities of both Houses of Parliament have certified that they are satisfied that those activities will not impede any restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I was going to say to the Minister that people are not being deprived of any opportunities to learn about the Holocaust because there are six other memorials and 21 other learning centres.

We come now to the very important topic of restoration and renewal. The motive behind the amendments is to explain that one simply cannot do both at the same time, or even sequentially, and that the building of this so-called memorial, which it is not, and learning centre, which hardly justifies the name, should not be allowed to get in the way of the great project of restoration and renewal.

If one builds a Holocaust memorial and underground learning centre in VTG, it will either render impossible restoration and renewal or make it more difficult and expensive. If the memorial and learning centre is built—which, of course, I hope it never will be—before restoration and renewal, it will get in the way. It is impossible to imagine a memorial to 6 million deaths taking shape and being visited when it will be surrounded by—it will have right up to its boundaries—all the paraphernalia that will accompany restoration and renewal. I do not think that the movers behind the memorial have ever stopped to think what is meant by a memorial. Instead of reverence and contemplation, peace and quiet, there will be masonry, concrete mixers, builders, scaffolding, material and a jetty, with trucks roaring by and unloading.

There are three projects ongoing, including the memorial, that conflict with each other, and all of them centre on Victoria Tower Gardens. One is the repair of Victoria Tower, delayed by some error in the procurement process, but now expected to start imminently and run for at least five years. It is not strictly a restoration and renewal project, but I raise it because its repair, too, will need some occupation of Victoria Tower Gardens. All the proposals for restoration and renewal will involve the use of a chunk of Victoria Tower Gardens as the main area for keeping all the equipment, access to the Palace and so on. In the talk by the promoters of keeping greenery open and available, I do not see how they can justify this when we will have building at one end and building at the other.

Two of the proposals for R&R and the memorial involve going underground, under the Palace and into VTG, with great upheaval, remembering that the so-called learning centre attached to the memorial will also be underground. It brings to mind the Channel Tunnel excitement, when the team starting in France and the team starting here eventually met exactly in the middle. Restoration and renewal works will reach nearly as far as the Buxton Memorial, and the memorial will reach up to it from the other end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am sure I did not say, “Rely on us on the night”, but I did say that the Select Committee itself acknowledged that the work on the restoration and renewal programme will not start until 2029 at the earliest—that is my point. However, I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that, because of the specific interest, I am happy to sit down and understand more of their concerns.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I had hoped for an answer from the Minister about the atmosphere to surround a memorial. Can one imagine, for example, the Cenotaph or any other dignified war memorial in this country being right in the middle of a building site with, as I said, concrete mixers, builders drinking their cups of tea, and the dirt, dust and noise? Why is that okay for a Holocaust memorial when, I submit, it would not be contemplated for a moment in relation to any other holy commemorative or significant religious site anywhere else in the world, let alone in this country?

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will add to what the noble Baroness has just said. The Minister made clear that he wants the experience of visiting this Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be valuable from an educational point of view. I do not think that any teacher would be particularly happy about bringing their older primary school pupils or younger secondary school pupils to an environment like this. It is not a good learning environment. There are obviously so many other much better places for this to happen than a small park that will be used—not for ever but for quite a long period—as a base for building a renewed Palace of Westminster. It just does not make any sense. Will the Minister take this issue back and discuss it again with his colleagues to see whether some change of mind can result from it?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have finished my contribution and just want to ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I have no option.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

In the current climate, it is more important than ever that the memorial’s learning centre recounts the history of the 2,000 years of antisemitism that led to the Holocaust. It is essential that, as Amendment 32 proposes, the learning centre is solely focused on the Holocaust and antisemitism—otherwise, it will fail in its purpose.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, what a relief it was to hear the brilliant speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, for which I will always be grateful. I had hoped to avoid too much controversial material about antisemitism today, but it is impossible. I agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, about what happened during the war, but I think it amounts only to the possible removal of the word “Nazi” from Amendment 32, which I otherwise support. I also support Amendment 38A in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.

The question we have not asked is: what are we supposed to be learning from the learning centre? No one has ever told me. We know that it is to be about the British involvement in or reaction to the Holocaust, which is a far cry from the broad panorama of history outlined so well by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. So I do not see why that has any bearing on the apparent plans for the so-called learning centre, which is just a small exhibition.

I wonder what is meant when Britain’s politicians and the promoters of this project support Holocaust remembrance, memorials and “never again”, because what I see is ignorance of the history of antisemitism, as so eloquently set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. Unfortunately, as we all know, antisemitism is on the rise again, despite more than 300 memorials around the world. Sometimes, it seems as though the faster they go up, the more antisemitism grows. Antisemitism is to be found everywhere, sadly, even inside the Palace of Westminster.

I am sorry to see that it has been hinted sometimes that it is antisemitic to oppose the memorial and learning centre. Far from it: the Jewish community is divided. Indeed, in some ways the memorial and learning provide a sort of fig leaf. It is all too easy to imagine an antisemite sitting in the front row of national Holocaust remembrance events, posing to have a photograph taken in Parliament, signing the book of remembrance and then going on to have tea with Hamas and say, “My friends, Hamas”, because, as the American author put it, everyone loves dead Jews; the living, not so much.

Unfortunately, the words “Holocaust” and “genocide” have been globalised and are now tossed around as rather trivial concepts. It is a continuing threat, and four little rooms in Victoria Tower Gardens are hardly likely to cover a history of at least 2,000 years. What is the learning centre about? It is not about learning; it is an exhibition. The Holocaust was about the culmination of at least 2,000 years of antisemitism, largely fuelled by the Church, and its modern continuation in which Islamism plays a large part.

I submit that the lessons of the Holocaust—if anything is to be learned from the learning centre—should be about the destruction of antisemitism. This means modifying any religious teaching that depicts the Jews as Christ killers—a teaching that I was subjected to at school—or as inferior or evil in any way. It also means, and this is difficult, treating Israel like any other country, many of which were established after the war to meet the independence demands of certain populations and which nearly all involved major displacements of existing populations and their subsequent picking up of their lives again—as did the parents of many in this Room. Only the Palestinians refuse to accept the international reality.

One can combine the history of antisemitism and the situation of Israel today by pointing out that it is the only Jewish state in the world, and the only one guaranteed to protect Jews to the best of its ability and to grant them a safe haven. Note that all the genocides that have occurred recently are of people who were in a minority and lacked their own state and self-defence.

I come to the importance of defining what is to be included in the learning centre and what one is supposed to learn from it. The Government do not seem to know. The 2015 report pointed out the uniqueness of the Holocaust and said that the learning centre would also help people understand the wider lessons of including it in other genocides. Then Mr Greenberg, who was involved in planning the layout of the learning centre, gave evidence to the public inquiry and said that it would include the murder of millions of Cambodians, Rwandans and Bosnians. But the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, in reply to my Written Question of 12 February 2021 said that it would include all victims of Nazi persecution and subsequent genocides. Then the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said on 10 May 2023, in answer to another Question of mine, that it would include Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur.

Other replies have said that inclusions remain to be considered and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said on 20 March that:

“The learning centre will look at subsequent genocides through the lens of the Holocaust”,—[Official Report, 20/3/25; col. GC 437.]


whatever that means. We have no firm statement from any Government that it will be confined to the Jewish genocide and the politics of this have always been about including other genocides in government-funded Holocaust ventures, lest the Jewish genocide is treated as superior or exclusive. This matters because of the cheapening of the word “genocide” and its application to any loss of life that is widely deplored.

Worse still, the new term negates the Jews. There are those who regard the 1948 exodus of Palestinians from Israel as a genocide and those who regard the deaths in Gaza as a genocide, disregarding the legal definition and the lack of intent. Germany has been accused of focusing too much on the Holocaust and of ignoring so-called colonial crimes and not allowing comparisons with the Holocaust. Almost unbelievably, the first version of this year’s invitation to Holocaust Memorial Day included the Gazans in the objects for commemoration. This aroused shock and dismay among many in the Jewish community and had to be withdrawn and the chair of the HMDT apologised.

Apology is insufficient, because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the politics of genocide and its inversion. One cannot separate out HMDT and the other Holocaust establishment organisations from what is going on and Holocaust remembrance. Whatever happens in Gaza cannot be compared with the Holocaust. To place Israel’s self-defence on a continuum with, for example, the Einsatzgruppen during the war is to show the damage being done by the lack of scholarly input into the so-called learning centre: input from learned Jewish scholars who are not taking orders from politicians. The Holocaust is being used now to tell a nationalist or politically convenient story, and that is what the learning centre appears to be about, because it packages what happened in a box labelled 1939 to 1945 and the British reaction.

It is time for the Jewish community to reclaim the memory of our unique tragedy and explain its antisemitic roots our way. These national Holocaust ceremonies are being used to defame Israel and divert attention away from the roots of antisemitic murder. The learning centre cannot compare with the scholarly output of, for example, the Weiner library, UCL, the National Holocaust Centre and the educational programmes of the 21 learning centres already in existence. If it goes on down this multi-genocide path, the allegations against Israel will get worse. One can only hope that those who are, as it were, the establishment and are responsible now for the national remembrance events will not be leading the contents and administration of the centre, if it is built.

It has been assumed too readily, without evidence, that being exposed to the facts of the Holocaust prevents lapses into antisemitism, but it has not—it has failed. The late Lord Sacks explained how antisemitism now focuses on the one and only Jewish state. It is only a state of one’s own and the means of self-defence that stop genocide. If Israel had existed in 1938, which it did not because there was a British mandate, rather than in 1948, and if it had been able to take in refugees, rather than being blocked by the British, how many thousands or millions of lives might have been saved? Now we see the inversion of the words “Holocaust” and “genocide” against the Jews. I ask the Minister to explain exactly what we are supposed to learn from the learning centre and what genocides or Holocausts it will include?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I have been listening carefully to this debate and asking myself the question: for whose benefit is this memorial to be created? For whose benefit did the noble Lord, Lord Pickles—and I praise much of the work he has done on this—and does the Minister believe that this memorial and learning centre ought to be created? Who are the intended direct beneficiaries and who are the intended indirect beneficiaries—for there are those two categories?

One thing that this proposal is not intended to provide is justification for entrenched views held by former and current Ministers or other politicians. The two groups for whom this proposal provides benefit and should be the intended beneficiaries, I suggest, are as follows. I start with the first group by referring to the Haggadah. The Haggadah, as many in this Room will know, is the liturgy that is read at seder dinners at the beginning of Passover, and it tells the story of the Exodus. That is a very important concept in what we are discussing here. The whole concept of the wandering Jew is linked with the Exodus, and the Exodus has now gone on for thousands of years. Jews have left various countries for safety, come to other countries where they have found a good life and then, from time to time, it has been disrupted by yet another bout of terrible antisemitism, with huge quantities of murder.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this final group take us to topics at the heart of the Government’s reasons for seeking to establish a new national memorial and learning centre.

Amendment 32 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would restrict the learning centre to providing solely

“education about the Nazi genocide of the Jews and antisemitism”.

The proposed new clause is well intentioned but overly restrictive and may have unintended consequences. First, it is unnecessary. The Bill—the clue is in its name—clearly refers to a memorial commemorating the victims of the Holocaust and a centre for learning related to the memorial. This Bill is about a memorial to the Holocaust, not to all genocides or crimes against humanity. The learning centre will focus on the unique crime of the Holocaust and aim to set the historical facts in the context of antisemitism. No Holocaust memorial and learning centre could exist without a clear understanding of the roots of antisemitism.

The clause may also have unintended consequences. It may discourage the learning centre from exploring the context and complexity of the Holocaust, missing an opportunity to create an educational offer that would benefit visitors. From the start, we have been clear that, to understand the devastation of the Holocaust on European Jewry, it is crucial to also understand the vibrancy and breadth of Jewish life before the Holocaust.

The centre is also intended to address subsequent genocides within the context of the Holocaust, showing how the Holocaust led to the development of international law. It is doubtful whether either of these topics could be included in the learning centre under this proposed new clause. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar—formerly of Yad Vashem—with the support of an academic advisory group. They will ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I really do not understand; there are too many contradictions here. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott—presumably speaking for the Tories when they were in government—said quite plainly that it will include Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. I just do not understand what is meant by projecting the Holocaust on to other catastrophes. There are legal aspects but, as far as I know, this will not be an exhibition devoted to the legal meaning and development of the concept of genocide—although one could have a huge exhibition on that. I simply do not understand.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to repeat the arguments; I have laid them out very clearly.

Yad Vashem has been mentioned numerous times across the Committee for its excellent content. Having Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem—to be supported by an academic advisory group—will ensure that the content is robust and credible and reflects the current state of historical investigation into, and interpretation of, the Holocaust. I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to withdraw Amendment 32.

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for his Amendment 38A. I welcome the opportunity that it presents to draw attention to the report he mentioned, Britain’s Promise to Remember, which was published in January 2015 by the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission. The commission, set up with the active participation of all the main political parties, conducted an extensive investigation into the state of Holocaust commemoration and education.

Rereading the report and its conclusion is a valuable exercise that can help remind us all of the context of our debates on this Bill. In his foreword, the chair of the commission, Mick Davis, recorded the statement of his fellow commissioner, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, who saw the commission’s work as

“a sacred duty to the memory of both victims and survivors of the Holocaust”.

The report reminded us that:

“The Holocaust was … a catastrophe for human civilisation”.


It is very clear that the commission conducted its work with a full and clear knowledge of the depth of its responsibility.

At the heart of the commission’s report was the recommendation that

“there should be a striking new memorial to serve as the focal point of national commemoration of the Holocaust. It should be prominently located in Central London to make a bold statement about the importance Britain places on preserving the memory of the Holocaust. This will stand as a permanent affirmation of the values of our society”.

This recommendation was accepted by the then Prime Minister in 2015, with cross-party support. Each subsequent Prime Minister has given the same commitment. The current Prime Minister, the right honourable Sir Keir Starmer MP, has unequivocally committed his Government to fulfilling that promise.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to say a word or two in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the amendments on size. I will then move on to my Clause 2 stand part notice.

On size, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has said pretty much all that can be said. The precise measurements do not allow for what I call “milling around”—that is, all the ancillaries, with people moving around and queuing for this and that. Clause 1(1)(b) is also a slippery slope because it allows for “work ancillary to” the construction of the memorial. There will be no holding back because Clause 1(3) allows for “extension, alteration and re-erection”. In other words, unless we limit this, there will be no holding back; the whole of the park will be taken over.

I want to say a word about the kiosk, which will take up some space. I am amazed that anyone would support a little wooden hut selling Coke and crisps. It will not even have tables, I believe—just benches and maybe chairs, which will simply generate litter. One can hardly imagine being in the middle of Whitehall during a remembrance ceremony, or at Westminster Abbey when there is a memorial service, and there being allowed a wooden kiosk with people queuing up, distributing litter and so on. It just shows the insensitivity that pervades this whole project.

I now turn to Clause 2 stand part. If the clause were removed, we would have a good Bill. The removal of restrictions in relation to certain land, as set out in Section 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act, does not prevent

“the carrying out of any of the activities described in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 1(1) on, over, under or otherwise in relation to the land”.

We would be left with Clause 1, which permits expenditure

“on, over or under any land”

for a memorial and learning centre. This would enable the Government to go out and talk to experts in the field and to ask whether there is a need for another memorial and learning centre; what they would add to the existing six memorials and 21 learning centres that people seem so unaware of; what impact another might have; how to promote learning in a digital age; and what one is supposed to learn, and from what events.

Dropping Clause 2 would enable the Government to take into account the views of the late Lord Sacks, of blessed memory, who wanted the Holocaust to be set in context. It would enable the Government to take account of scholars who understand that the teaching of the Jewish genocide, known as the Shoah, must not be presented alongside other genocides because that obfuscates whatever lessons are to be learned and diverts attention away from centuries of antisemitism in this country and across the world. It also opens the door to the dilution of the words “Holocaust” and “genocide”, which we see today when they are used casually to describe anything that people find abhorrent; they can even be turned against the Jewish people themselves. The aims of Lord Sacks would be met by building a new Jewish museum, which would incorporate the Holocaust as experienced here but in the context of a thousand years of Jewish life in this country—its triumphs, tragedies, contribution and dispossession.

I do not understand the thinking behind the initial decision, described by Mr Ed Balls at the public inquiry as a “moment of genius”, to site the memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. No studies, research or consultation went into the choice of the site before it was decided to place it there. Objectors noted the prohibition in the 1900 Act, the breaking of the promises to the park’s benefactor, WH Smith, and what the consequences would be. Only this week, Victoria Tower Gardens was listed as one of Europe’s most endangered heritage sites by European organisations.

The results of the decision, probably made for reasons of economy, are dire and will have two profoundly undermining consequences. First, the promoters have had to justify the choice by specious and vague references to democracy; this has turned the project from a memorial to the victims of Nazism into a reassuring and political project about British values. Secondly, the physical constraint of VTG has resulted in the promised world-class learning centre being converted into a visitors’ centre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

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

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a reasonable point. I very much support the Minister’s point. I think that, once the noble Baroness sees the model, many of her worries and concerns will disappear.

If there is one thing that has become clear to me in these interesting debates, it is that the fiction about the memorial does not last very long under public scrutiny and questioning. Noble Lords will be surprised but, again, we cannot create two planning systems, with one for the rest of the country and another for noble Lords, particularly—I say this in a very gentle way—when those noble Lords have a financial interest close to the site.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, since we have absolutely no guarantee that there will be a proper planning application, we have to set those remarks to one side.

I just want to add that this is not about nimbyism or selfishness. For those of us who have a real, deep family interest in this project, it is of a low quality. It will not do for my grandmothers and all the other members of my family whom I lost. Many others agree with me. Those who are not so affected may not completely understand our deep feelings about the quality and message of this project.

On the playground, I will just say that this is a social justice issue because of the mixed demographic area here, with children from ethnic-minority backgrounds who have low levels of activity apart from in this garden. The poverty, lack of access to safe spaces and poor local natural resources that are inevitable in this area contribute to this inequality. Article 31 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says:

“States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child … States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in”


those activities

“and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for … recreational … activity”.

We ratified that in 1991.

This Government are committed to upholding international law, as they say repeatedly. Every day we hear from Minister David Lammy and others about its importance. In damaging the playground, not just reducing its size but exposing its users to risk, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, so eloquently pointed out, we are in danger of breaching that United Nations convention. If I were a parent or carer of a child, I would not want to take them to a park where there were armed guards, strangers, coaches, protests and so on, and no longer a happy atmosphere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for the measured way in which he introduced his amendment. Clearly, getting a security assessment is enormously important and should be done, but the question that faces this Committee is: should it be on the face of the Bill? I would suggest that it should not.

If the noble Lord will forgive me, I have a very distinguished lawyer. I hate to correct him by saying this, but there is only one planning system and this Bill does not seek to circumvent it. All it seeks to do is disapply the 1900 Act. A planning permission is something entirely separate. Matters of security and the like should be considered carefully by the Government in coming to their decision.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra gave the impression that this is just a simple binary choice. Should the Minister come to a decision, at that point, the various conditions that are part of a normal planning process will start to be brought into being and we will negotiate, whether that is on trees, the playground or security. Only when officials are happy with that will a decision be made.

I have worked, and happily so, as I suspect we all have, in the No. 1 terrorist target in the United Kingdom for 35 years. This is one of the top 10 terrorist targets in the world, but we come here because of democracy, because we want to be heard and because of the things we believe. I say gently and reasonably to colleagues in this Room, whom I like very much, that the arguments they are pursuing basically say: “This is a dangerous thing. Take it away from here so I can be safe”. I say this as gently as I can—I actually feel much more strongly about this. It is an argument for saying that Hamas and Hezbollah have said that we cannot put up any monument to the Holocaust or be supportive of dealing with antisemitism, because it makes us a target. That, my friends, is a recipe for surrender and defeat.

I apologise that I cannot stay for the end of this session because I too have a commitment. I am speaking to a conference of rabbis.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has misunderstood the meaning of risk assessment. We accept that it is a security risk. Of course you do not refrain from building because there is a risk, but you have to assess it and plan in detail what you will do to mitigate it. That is what this group of amendments is about. In particular, I support Amendment 35, on which the noble Lord, Lord Howard, spoke so persuasively. It is about planning to meet the risks that will undoubtedly occur. As I have said before, we have no assurance that there will be a proper planning application in which this can be aired. You would expect in general a thorough risk assessment to be available in relation to this controversial and security-imbued Bill and project.

We do not give in to threats, but there must be a thorough evaluation of the consequences. What evaluation has there been of the risks outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile? What traffic measures will be taken and what barriers erected? How will this affect everyone who lives in the area, Parliament Square and the Supreme Court? We need to know about security guards, whether armed or not, and the security measures that will be needed at night if the centre is open for commercial meetings. What are the risks to those who will build it, to visitors who will make use of the park during the construction period, to passersby, to boats passing by on the river and to schoolchildren going to the Parliament Education Centre? Are there risks to Victoria Tower and its refurbishment? What control is there over the escalating costs, which are going up exponentially year after year as building costs rise? What will be done about governance? What if sufficient funds are not forthcoming and the building takes longer than expected? Is there a risk to the parliamentary buildings on Millbank and the surrounding streets? I suspect that the Government do not have the answers to these questions. Amendment 35 will require them to come up with them, accepting of course that some security issues can be dealt with only confidentially.

These issues also apply to Amendment 36 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which would restrict security checks to those entering the learning centre, leaving the rest of the gardens as a freely accessible open space, as it is now, where one can enter just for a few moments on a whim. This is welcome, but what effect would it have on the necessary security arrangements? The gate leading to the Pankhurst sculpture and “The Burghers of Calais” is but a few steps from the edge of the learning centre. How can the learning centre be protected from someone entering by another route, unchecked and carrying a weapon, red paint or worse? This will inevitably lead to the entire gardens being treated as protected property, with security checks at every gate no matter the reason for the visit. Even a harmless gathering of people for a Holocaust memorial event at the end of April is leading to the whole gardens being closed for at least one day.

Moreover, it is easy enough to propel something into the gardens from Lambeth Bridge or from the river in a passing boat. How will those dangers be met? I need hardly explain that the current atmosphere of unpleasant and sometimes violent protest marches in the area is likely to continue, sadly, for a long time. The TV studios of Millbank House overlook the gardens and thus provide a perfect platform for people who want more publicity for a cause. Has the Minister an answer to these questions? Amendment 35 is essential and should be accepted.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his experience and decades of work in keeping us and our country safe. There are few people who know more about these issues than him, so of course his views should be taken very seriously and there should be proper security risk assessments. I do not think that anybody will argue about that, but I think we need to bear in mind a couple of other points. As I understand it, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is that the learning centre in the gardens is too big a risk. I know that other noble Lords here today feel that the learning centre should be elsewhere, but Westminster is the most secure and protected place in the country, and if the learning centre and memorial are not safe here, where would they be safe?

Secondly, if one or the other were moved on security grounds, residents near any other proposed location would be completely justified in saying, “Look, if it is too dangerous for Westminster, how could it possibly be built near me?” Of course they would say that. That is what people near the Imperial War Museum, the Barbican or elsewhere would say.

Thirdly, if we think about this and take it to its logical conclusion, this is an argument against having the memorial or learning centre anywhere at all. In fact, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, it is an argument against having anything that people think is controversial or dangerous and which they might oppose being built anywhere. This point has been glossed over, but it is an important point that we should take seriously because we should not be making a decision on the basis that we are scared about what racists or extremists might do. We have to deal with what racists or extremists might do.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, made a couple of other points that I want to pick up on. I do not think that anyone has suggested, anywhere, that there will be 1 million visitors to the memorial or the learning centre, which I think was the figure that he suggested.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

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

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

Well, I am not sure I would take Ed Balls’s figures on this. It is not going to be 3 million. I have talked to the government officials about this, and I think that the estimate is in fact 500,000, but the important point to bear in mind is that already 25 million people visit Westminster every year, and many of the people who will visit the memorial will be people who are already visiting Westminster or who work here. That is the important point I want to make, and if we break it down, it actually works out at a few hundred people an hour.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, also made a point about transport. My understanding is that this is estimated to attract 11 coaches a day. It is on a main bus route, and many more buses than that already go past each day. I do not know, but I would have thought that Parliament Square attracts hundreds of thousands of vehicles a day, so again, I think that the traffic and the number of visitors that this memorial will attract will be a fraction of the amount of traffic and number of visitors already visiting Westminster .

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I have visited memorials all over the world. The designers of this one said:

“When viewed from the northwest corner by the Palace of Westminster, the Memorial is first perceived as a gradual rising hill towards the south end of the VTG. Along the journey south, the path inscribes the rising landscape, and leads along the embankment”


past the Buxton memorial

“after which the full scale of the Memorial is revealed. The elevated land mass is both hill, and cliff-like landscape, and is held aloft by 23 tall, bronze-clad walls. The overall volume inscribed by the walls offers an interplay between robustness and frailty; cohesiveness and fragmentation; community and individualism”.

I have rarely read so much piffle and gibberish attempting to justify a meaningless third-hand design.

There are to be 23 bronze fins and the designer, Sir David Adjaye, tried to justify them, with 22 pathways, as a representative signifier of the number of countries from which Jewish victims of the genocide were taken. Again, this symbolic confusion, coupled with the unnecessary and misleading association with the Palace of Westminster, means that there can be no public benefit offered by the design to weigh in the balance that the inspector undertook at the inquiry.

Sir Richard Evans, our great historian of Germany, has debunked the figure of 22. He said that it was entirely arbitrary and depended on how you count states, and that many of the victims were refugees from other states. He called the design spectacularly ugly. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, it has no overt references to religious symbolism or text, relying instead, to quote the architects again,

“on the twin primary motifs of the swelling landform and the cresting bronze portals with the descent into the chambers below. The graduated mound, rising out of the tabular lawn to the north, would convey a sense of the growing tide of orchestrated racial aggression and violence, finally breaking with the cataclysmic events of the Holocaust, symbolised by the bronze armature above the descending portals. These defining elements of the Memorial, fashioned from the brown alloy of sculpture, would have a power and grace distinctly of their own. Collectively these elements would make a bold and poetic visual statement of great power and beauty, and one that can be readily understood as such”.

How odd, then, that Sir David Adjaye should repeat almost the same design in Niger, in relation to terrorism, and in Barbados, in relation to slavery.

In fact, far from the design being done after any research into the park or London, or the UK’s association with the Holocaust, it is a hallmark Adjaye design. In another attempt to justify it, he said that it was deliberately aimed at disrupting the park. His work is instantly recognisable because it always involves stripes. I invite noble Lords to look up his designs on the web. He entered an almost identical design in the competition in Ottawa for a Holocaust memorial there, but that location was entirely different—a concrete island. The involvement of Canada with the Holocaust must have been entirely different, yet he found fit to enter that design into the competition in London. It was unwanted in Ottawa, which chose something else, so it was sitting on the shelf.

It is entirely meaningless, with no reference to Jews, the Holocaust or the UK. There are no names and numbers—nothing to evoke the awful events it was planned to stand for. If you saw it, you would say to yourself: “What on earth is that?”. You would not be moved to think of the Holocaust, commemoration, discrimination or persecution, or indeed people.

Abstract Holocaust memorials around the world tend to be vandalised much more than figurative designs, because they have no emotional value. The Boston memorial has been vandalised several times. It bears a passing resemblance to the Adjaye one, and was said to have been influential on the jury that chose the latter. Kindertransport memorials and human depictions such as the exceptional sculptures by Kormis in the Gladstone Park Holocaust memorial—I wonder whether any noble Lords have visited it—are less likely to be destroyed. There are many Holocaust memorials in the UK already, to be seen on the Association of Jewish Refugees map of those sites, and not one is as meaningless as this. Abroad there are some beautiful ones, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned. The silver tree in Budapest would be marvellous in Victoria Tower Gardens.

The jury that chose it seems not to have done its homework. Did it know about the Ottawa rejection, or that shortly thereafter almost the same design was presented by Adjaye Associates for Niger and Barbados? There can be no escaping the fact that this design is not bespoke and has nothing to do with what it is supposed to commemorate. At least there is a plaque to my grandmother in a Manchester memorial, because there will be nothing here to remind me or anyone else of her.

The design has attracted mockery from the outset: a dinosaur; a toast-rack; a whale’s ribcage; a set of false teeth. It will inevitably attract red paint and worse. To use the same design over and over smacks of contempt for what is being remembered. That it has no visible Jewish symbolism is very telling—no figures, no candelabra, no Star of David. That is because the promoters want to downplay the thousands of years of antisemitism that drove the Holocaust by combining its presentation in the learning centre with other genocides—as has been said in Written Answers to Parliamentary Questions—albeit they cannot decide which ones to include. This means in the end only a vague message about not killing people you do not like, and so the Adjaye design says nothing of interest. Like the Berlin concrete blocks memorial, it will not garner respect. The Berlin memorial has people picnicking, dancing and playing on it and riding bicycles between the blocks. The Adjaye design will be perfect for scooter races between the sticks.

Do not let the promoters tell you that Adjaye was not the designer. He heads a big team, but it is his name all over the publicity, the evidence, the competition and the maps used to this day. He gave evidence to the public inquiry and the Government trumpeted his choice at the outset. The fact remains that it is Sir David who has withdrawn or been withdrawn from most of his projects, for reasons that I am coming to.

Following a year-long investigation by the Financial Times, Sir David Adjaye was accused two years ago of sexual assault and misconduct. He has apologised for entering relationships that blurred the boundaries between his professional and personal life, while not admitting criminal wrongdoing. He said they were consensual. There are graphic descriptions online of assault, his giving money to the women involved and a toxic atmosphere in his office. He has stepped back from projects in Liverpool, Sharjah, the Serpentine, Harlem, Oregon and elsewhere.

Sexual violence against Jewish women was widespread and well documented in the Holocaust. Rape was a feature of the pogroms of eastern Europe a century ago and it featured in the massacres of 7 October. I have no words to express the horror and disgust that I and others will experience if this Government are so uncaring as to allow to go forward a project whose lead designer is associated with sexual assault. This cannot be allowed to stand. There could quite quickly be a commission for a new figurative memorial that means something, as quickly as the project to honour the late Queen is going ahead. That would satisfy the need to reflect on the events of the war and would fit in with VTG and its other sculptures.

I cannot urge noble Lords too strongly to accept this amendment and not continue with a design that is an affront to the victims and their relatives. If that design remains, we will get the message that the Government do not care about the feelings of those who will see it and are stubbornly determined to go ahead with a design by someone whom, I fear, will be associated in future only with his sexually inappropriate misbehaviour.

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, I have always supported having a national memorial, and I am very keen to see it. I was 14 when we went into Belsen, and I have lived with the memory of the reports and photographs that came back ever since. As it happens, I live in a flat in Smith Square, but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Austin, that I will not see the memorial that is being proposed at the present time, because I have been told that it will take three and half years to build. Before it even starts being built, and whatever problems may occur while it is being built, it is extremely unlikely that I would ever see it. I therefore do not have a personal interest.

I strongly support my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 16. It seems to me deeply irresponsible not to regroup, to have, as he said, a design of a stand-alone memorial compatible with the other memorials in the park, and to have it finished—as indeed the Holocaust Commission suggested—within a period of two years. That is somewhat less than three and a half, five or six years, or whatever the present proposal implies. It would also be completed at less cost than is expected now, probably within the £138 million, plus a contingency.

I finish by saying that there is nothing in the Holocaust Commission’s report that says or implies that the memorial and the learning centre should be in the same building. It has always been a complete mistake that that was somehow agreed, subsequent to the report. Memorials are a matter for private remembrance and for, as it says in the Holocaust Commission’s report, paying respect, contemplating and praying. They are not buildings through which many people should tramp. If, indeed, we want another gallery to talk about what the British did or did not do between the Treaty of Versailles and 1942, let us have it in the Imperial War Museum, which would be the right place for it.

Will the Government therefore please reconsider their position and take the obvious way forward, which is to have a memorial in the park, self-standing, with no visitors going into it, just visitors coming to see it to pay their respects, contemplate and pray?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, for bringing this amendment, which was eloquently put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. It seeks to require a rerun of the process that took place in 2016 to identify the proposed design for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, with the additional restriction that the outcome would be a figurative memorial and, perhaps, the implication that there would be no learning centre.

It may be helpful if I remind the Grand Committee that the design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre was chosen by a broad-based panel after an international competition that attracted 92 entrants. The shortlist of 10 design teams was described by Sir Peter Bazalgette, the then chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, as

“some of the best teams in architecture, art and design today”.

Anish Kapoor, who was rightfully praised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in our debate last week, was part of a design team alongside Zaha Hadid Architects, which submitted a powerful and striking design. Other well-known architects and designers who were shortlisted included Foster and Partners, Studio Libeskind and Rachel Whiteread. This was a competition that attracted designers of the very highest quality from across the world.

After detailed consultation, in which shortlisted schemes toured the UK and a major consultation event for Holocaust survivors was held, a judging panel had the difficult task of choosing a winning team. The judging panel, chaired by Sir Peter Bazalgette, included the then Secretary of State, Sajid Javid; the Mayor of London; the Chief Rabbi; the chief executive of the Design Council; the director of the Serpentine Gallery; broadcaster Natasha Kaplinsky; and Holocaust survivor Ben Helfgott. Clearly, this was a serious panel of well-informed people with deep experience on matters of design, as well as on the significance of a Holocaust memorial. The panel unanimously chose the team consisting of Adjaye Associates, Ron Arad Architects and Gustafson Porter + Bowman as the winners.

In announcing its decision, the panel referred to the sensitivity of the design both to the subject matter and to the surrounding landscape. Public exhibitions were then held to gather feedback on the winning design ahead of a planning application. As the law requires, further consultation took place on the planning application. More than 4,000 written representations were submitted. A six-week planning inquiry was held, in public, at which more than 50 interested parties spoke. All the details of the planning application, over 6,000 pages of information, all of which remains publicly accessible online, were closely scrutinised. Members of the design team, including the very talented young architect Asa Bruno, director at memorial designer Ron Arad Architects, who tragically died the following year, were cross-examined by learned counsel.

There was, of course, a great deal of discussion at the planning inquiry about the proposed design of the Holocaust memorial, the learning centre and the associated changes to Victoria Tower Gardens. Many opponents of the scheme, including the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, took the opportunity to inform the inspector of their opinions on the proposed design. In his detailed report, the inspector sets out the spectrum of views on the design presented to him. Having heard the evidence of a very wide range of supporters and opponents, the inspector was then able to reach a balanced judgment. He recorded in his report his view that

“the proposals comprise a design of exceptional quality and assurance”.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I will come back to the noble Baroness’s point towards the end of my wind-up.

Following the planning inquiry, the independent inspector submitted his detailed and lengthy report to the Minister, with a recommendation that consent should be granted. The Minister agreed with that recommendation.

Amendment 16, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, would simply take us back around nine years and require the design competition to be run again. There is no good reason for such a step. The Government remain fully committed to the current design, which has been the subject of detailed attention and wide consultation. Suggestions that the memorial was not designed by Ron Arad or not envisaged specifically for Victoria Tower Gardens are wide of the mark. Ron Arad’s drawings showing the evolution of the design have been displayed at the Royal Academy for all to see the originality and brilliance of his design.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me make it clear: it is for the designated Minister to decide the process and make the decision. If it means that, as normal planning decisions are made, there might be some conditions as part of the planning process, as is normal—for example, you cannot start building without consultation and cannot open the building without letting Westminster City Council know about security—then that is up to the Minister. I know other examples; I have just given one there. The process is totally detached from here and from me bringing the Bill forward as a supporter of it.

Moving towards concluding remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested that the memorial proposed for Victoria Tower Gardens is in some way a copy of a proposal that the architect submitted for a Holocaust memorial in Ottawa in 2014. I find this a rather strange criticism. When we consider the Buxton memorial, for example, are we to think less of its design because the architect used a similar Gothic revival style somewhere else? Should we be disappointed with “The Burghers of Calais” simply because it is one of 12 casts of the same sculpture? The topic was, of course, addressed at the planning inquiry, where the late Asa Bruno was able to point out that, while sharing a basic common architectural motif, the two proposals differ greatly in scale, material, form and proposed visitor experience, so that was clear from the public inquiry.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Can I ask the Minister why Sir David Adjaye would say that the memorial was something disruptive of the park, and specifically about this situation, if he used the same thing abroad? Is his conscience not troubled at all that, for purely administrative reasons, the Jewish community is going to be lumbered with a design by someone who has admitted sexually inappropriate behaviour? Unfortunately, one cannot include photographs in Hansard, but I have in my hand the report,

“David Adjaye steps back from Holocaust memorial after misconduct claims”.


He steps back, but we are left with the design, which is featured on Adjaye Associates’ website. Do the Government still have a contract with Sir David Adjaye, and what is the future of the association with him? Because, going ahead with this, I cannot stress too strongly how appalling it is.

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.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Robathan, in their attempt to bring some fiscal discipline to this project. Not only has the cost escalated beyond the original estimates without even a spade in the ground; the figures that are available are old. No allowance for inflation has been made. The contingency is far higher than usual. Private funds have not been identified publicly and there is no management control, as pointed out by the National Audit Office.

I am struck by the contrast with the planned expenditure on a fitting memorial to our late Queen, together with a space for pause and reflection, which is reportedly to be sited in St James’s Park. The construction cost is £46 million excluding VAT—including a replacement of the Blue Bridge in the park—and it is going to be ready in 2026. If such fiscal restraint is good enough for our late Queen, surely something has gone adrift in the financial plans for the memorial.

Before the Select Committee on the memorial a few weeks ago, the petitioners asked that the Government should present, for the approval of Parliament, a report on the capital and operating costs of the project, as well as the financial sustainability of the entity that will execute the project and operate it before presenting any new or amended proposal for planning permission. This has not been taken up but it should be.

Originally, the government grant towards this project was £50 million. That was soon raised to £75 million, with £25 million to be raised privately when the cost was estimated some years ago at £100 million. Now, that has nearly doubled. We can assume only that the Government will pick up the entire bill. The latest estimate, made a couple of years ago, is £138 million without contingency and £191 million with contingency. There is no information about who will do the building—indeed, whether there are any builders willing to do it, given the security risks.

There are gaps in our financial knowledge. The Commons Select Committee commented on this, saying:

“We are particularly concerned about the costs around security of a Memorial and Learning Centre, which would need to be taken into account. Security is likely to be required around the clock, and this is, as yet, an unknown cost. Security is likely to become an expensive additional cost, which we urge the Government not to overlook”.


Construction costs are bound to rise because this is an historical site very close to the river. It oozes underfoot when you walk through it in the rain and it squelches. It is a fair bet that obstacles relating to water and archaeological finds will emerge if digging ever starts.

About £20 million has been spent so far, I believe, with nothing to show for it; nor has inflation been accounted for. A specific charity is fundraising for the private element but we have heard nothing about its success. Can the Minister tell us how the funding has now been settled, including how much has been raised privately and from where?

In 2022, as we heard, the NAO delivered a report that was highly critical of the department’s performance. It was particularly anxious about management. It noted the failure to consider an alternative site. All this got a complacent response from the department that all was well, with no changes in management and no transparency. Operating costs are also a mystery. The Government have pledged free entry to the learning centre—provided, of course, that visitors book in advance online. Operating costs so far are estimated to have risen to £8 million a year and the cost of security is a big unknown. The Government had hoped to make some money from the learning centre by opening it for conferences, even in the evening, but it would be a most unattractive site: open to the elements; open to risks of various sorts; and calling for expenditure to run it out of hours, not to mention disturbance to the neighbours.

Can the Minister tell us about the operating costs and what plans there are to commercialise the space? The Infrastructure and Projects Authority has three times rated the project as “red” and “undeliverable”—most recently, just a few weeks ago—in the same bracket as HS2. The Minister believes that this is because planning permission has not been granted, but that is mistaken because the authority has reported three times in three years on this and, during one year of that, there was planning permission before it was quashed. Anyway, if not having planning permission was the important factor, why is HS2 regarded as “red” and “undeliverable”? This is a quasi-HS2 project.

An important recommendation in the Prime Minister’s report in 2015 on remembering the Holocaust was that there should be an endowment fund. This was to be used to

“support Holocaust education around the country for generations to come”,

to support

“local projects and travelling exhibitions”,

and to ensure that the learning centre would be

“at the heart of a truly national network of activity”.

The report said:

“In administering the endowment fund, the Learning Centre’s trustees would be expected to ensure maximum value for money. This would include requiring organisations to work together more collaboratively across the network, removing duplication and enhancing the impact of the whole sector”.


Have the Government made an allowance for this in their cost calculation, and if not, why not?

The Commons Select Committee on the Bill commented:

“It seems to us that the true cost of this project has not been established. We note that it is not unusual for the costs of major projects to increase with time, due to unforeseen building issues, the ambition of the project, and increases in inflation. The longer that building works go on, the more expensive this project will become. On this basis, we urge the Government to consider how ongoing costs are likely to be paid for and whether it offers appropriate use of public money”,


which it clearly does not. This amendment seeks to cap the costs to force proper management of the project and bring it into a reasonable financial framework. It also proposes a normal contingency fee rather than an extraordinary one.

This Government pride themselves on financial management, and now is their chance to demonstrate that. If the Government will not accept this amendment, will they meet the signatories to the amendment and show transparency about the cost calculations and where they are going?

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, I have a clause stand part Motion in this group. I am a neighbour of Victoria Tower Gardens, I live with my wife in Smith Square and I was a petitioner to the House of Lords Committee.

After what my noble friend Lord Blencathra told us, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I will try to be short. My purpose is, and always has been, just to set out the contrast between what was put on the tin in January 2015 and what is on the table now. As my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, they are very different, and I think it will help the Committee if they can be clear about what the differences are.

In January 2015, my noble friend Lord Cameron said:

“Today—with the full support of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition—I am accepting the recommendations of the … Commission”.


You could not be clearer than that, and later, in his Statement in the House of Commons, he reiterated that. I suppose—because I do not think we have ever been told—that after 10 years, nine and a half of which, of course, were under the previous Administration, that undertaking is still in existence, so we are going to carry out the recommendations of the commission.

There were five recommendations from the commission, and the first was that there should be a “striking memorial”. Its very first qualification of that was that it should be

“a place where people can pay their respects, contemplate … and offer prayers”.

I rather doubt that what is on the table now—which I gather as best I can from Clause 1 and the Explanatory Memorandum—is a suitable place for paying respect, contemplating and praying. As I understand it, the people visiting will be expected to move through in something like half an hour.

You can make an argument, which I will later, that this is not a suitable memorial. Remembering people is a private affair. The Holocaust was 6 million Jewish tragedies. It is not to say that this is, as we would expect, a London-based conventional memorial. It is something different. In its report, the commission in no way indicated that the memorial would be manned or that there would be interactivity at the memorial. It is clearly set out as a conventional memorial, in a long paragraph.

The second recommendation, about the learning centre, is much longer. It has a huge text. It is clear that the commission did not expect that to be done in five minutes. It did not see this as part of the memorial. There was mention of a campus. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, it is not the same thing but a completely different activity. Yes, the commission said that it should be close to the memorial, but that closeness depends on where you choose to put the memorial. As the noble Baroness said, the commission proposed three big sites and on all of them it would not have been difficult to put the learning centre and build it up over the years as a campus. It also said that the money for that should be raised immediately.

The third recommendation was for an endowment fund. We all know that endowment funds are not easy. They are very difficult things. It is clear that the commission saw the fund as being for, as the noble Baroness said, the development of the learning centre. The fourth recommendation was that records should be brought up to date. Out of the £20 million that has been spent, a certain proportion has been spent on records of “survivors and liberators”, to use the commission’s words. However, we do not know what has been collected and I cannot see why we have not been able to see some of that work. It is not dependent on the construction of David Adjaye’s building in Victoria Tower Gardens.

Finally, in two places—in Mr Davis’s summary and in the commission’s summary—it is said that an immediate executive independent body should be formed. There was an effort to start one by the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister—who, we must remember, was there for only some 18 months after his January statements before he resigned. Clearly, when Sir Peter Bazalgette was appointed to the foundation, it was in mind that it would be executive. He secured the Victoria Tower Gardens position and held an exhibition—and showed us the result. However, in April 2018, quite a long time after the Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Cameron, had made way for my noble friend Lady May, he resigned. We do not know why he resigned, or why the body then formed under my noble friend Lord Pickles was made advisory. One can speculate but it has never been explained why there was a change from the proposal of an executive body to one for an advisory body. The fact is that nobody is accountable for managing this project.

There is such a serious difference between what was on the tin in 2015 and what is in front of us now that it needs to be thought about again. It seems to me that the new Government, who have been looking at this whole issue as accountable only for the past seven months, are in a very good place to review it and, if it requires change, to make those changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I have been careful to confine my remarks to the precise amendment, so I do not want to stray into other issues. I just want to pick up on three small points.

First, the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, mentioned Ben Helfgott. It is the case that most of the remaining Holocaust survivors do not know what is being done in their name or the details of it. In fact, people have gone to great lengths to stop them finding out. I was temporarily banned from talking to a group of survivors in north London in case they found out what was going on. However, one of the greatest survivors, Anita Lasker- Wallfisch, is opposed to this project; I believe that there will be some comment from her in the Times tomorrow.

Secondly, it is a matter of profound Jewish scholarship that the Holocaust is diluted by mixing it with other genocides, but there is no time to go into that now.

Finally, even if the Jewish community had money, it supports its own people through a number of charities. If it was called on to come up with £200 million, there would be nothing left for anything else. It is a misconception that this is a community project or that the community should pay for it.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo what has just been said. I have no problem with the British taxpayer paying up its share to realise this noble objective; I just wish there were a figure that would allow us to think of the scale, size and nature of the project so that anything above and beyond that would rest with others in the private sector. I do not care whether they are Jewish or not Jewish.

It seems to me that the bald statement on the face of the Bill—

“The Secretary of State may incur expenditure”—


pure and simple—is not helpful at all. If people do not agree with the figure in the amendment, let them come up with a better one, but it seems to me to be a responsible thing, at a time of great financial stricture, for us to be generous but to indicate the levels of our generosity by putting in the Bill the sort of figure that we would be happy to endorse in legislation coming from this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

Well, my Lords, that just shows that you should never speak after my noble friend Lord Blencathra, because of course he is right. I hope I made it clear that I thought the consideration of alternative sites should include the idea that we should have a national Jewish museum, which would pick up the 28,000 items, the number of which I was not aware.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, had there been time yesterday, we would have disaggregated this group because it covers three enormous topics that are very different, and I will not have time to say everything that I wanted to. I will start with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, which is perhaps the most obvious and sensible of all of them. I call them over and under. If we stick to over and avoid under, nearly all the problems are solved—in other words, a memorial overground, and a learning centre somewhere else. That would avoid all the complications and costs of excavating Victoria Tower Gardens and the disruption and damage. Moreover, apparently the learning centre will have only digital and audio material in it, so why not just send us round the country, in whatever way can be done technologically these days, rather than bringing people to London?

I turn to the issue of endowment—what is in the learning centre and what it is supposed to do. The inadequacy of Holocaust education, which is well known, can be seen on the streets of London every week and on our campuses. Young people who have had some education about the Holocaust at school cannot make the connection between that and the vicious hatred of Israel today, the attacks on the survival of Jewish people, the resurgence of Nazi language and images, and the violence we find against Jewish people as they go about their businesses or go to synagogue. That is because of the failing of Holocaust education in two respects. First, it places the hatred of Jews in a box, something that was the exclusive province of the Nazis 90 years ago and ended at the end of the Second World War. The planned learning centre will compound that.

The other failing is the presentation of many genocides as if they had anything in common. The messages coming from the learning centre, as far as one can tell, will be “Do not be a bystander” and “Hatred is what brought on the Holocaust and other genocides”. That serves as an obfuscation and diversion of blame. It misses the point entirely: it was 2,000 years of anti-Semitism. The civilised world has said “Never again”, but that is overoptimistic. Anti-Semitism remains alive and well, not only among the denizens of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran but of course, since 7 October, in countries hitherto thought immune, such as the Western world.

Holocaust education has failed, but it should include the place of Israel in the world and in Jewish life and history. Scholars say that the Holocaust found Jews defenceless. After 7 October, sadly, a Jewish state was able to hit back and may eliminate its enemies, but certainly Israel provides a haven for Jews elsewhere who find themselves threatened by this new anti-Semitism. That fairly obvious statement shows what is so wrong about the theme and location of the memorial planned for VTG. As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, has said, his intent is that seeing the Palace of Westminster and being reminded of the power of democracy means that there is protection for Jewish people under British values, but that is historically and contemporaneously wrong. Democracy here, now and in the past, has not protected Jewish minorities. We can see that even today there are plenty of people in our democratic Government who wish Israel ill and who have failed to protect the Jewish community from the pressure that it faces right now.

What saves people from genocide? It is having a state of one’s own and the means of self-defence. Take, for example, the Uighurs, Armenians and Tutsis. What they have in common is that they were minorities in a state that had power over them. As the late Lord Sacks of blessed memory pointed out, today’s anti-Semitism is directed at the world’s only Jewish state, which should be a haven for a persecuted minority. He called for Holocaust education to be in context—the context of Jewish history over the millennia, and Jewish culture. In regard to the Holocaust, it is wrong for people to learn only about that and nothing else. The ill-educated person in the street often associates Jews only with the images of concentration camps and knows nothing other than that—nothing about Jewish history and practices.

That is made worse by the films, some of them ghoulish, that deal with that period. This concentration on the Holocaust, taken out of context and history, turns it into just a word for describing something dreadful, which is casually used, as is the word “genocide”. It even results in those accusations being turned against the Jewish people. Holocaust education needs a complete overhaul, rather than being frozen into the same inadequate frame that we will find in the learning centre. That is why there needs to be an endowment fund and a professor, as suggested in Amendment 32, because those awkward topics of anti-Semitism today and Israel need to be faced up to and explained. We want to know why the Government have abandoned the suggested endowment fund.

I turn briefly to alternatives. No effort was made to find a suitable location when Victoria Tower Gardens was announced, but the supporters have clung stubbornly to that site, though they must know in their hearts that it is no good and that the choice has provoked litigation, disharmony, delay, expense and discord in the Jewish community and elsewhere. Indeed, the choice of site has provoked adverse comment around the world. In 2015, the call was only for a central London site of up to 10,000 square metres, with room for conferences, offices and all the appurtenance of a campus, and only near at hand to the memorial given that proponents also recommended that the site incorporate the Imperial War Museum exhibition. So they could not have had in mind an underground construction somewhere else. The choice of VTG was reached without consultation, given that the consultants came up with the London Museum, Millbank Tower and other sites.

I imagine that VTG was chosen because it was free, whereas Imperial War Museum co-operation over the use of its green space was ignored. My own ideal compromise would be a suitable figurative memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens and a suitably sized learning centre somewhere nearby, maybe along Millbank. Buildings on Millbank have been offered. They are available to rent or buy. What about College Green, whose underground is not being used, the education centre in Victoria Tower Gardens or Victoria Tower itself, as the archives have been removed? My favourite is Richmond House, which it seems will not now be used for decant during R&R and which has a forecourt suitable for a memorial and is right by the Cenotaph. No position is more visible and important. Others have suggested the former Museum of London, the Barbican and underneath Carlton House Terrace. There has never been any meeting with the department to consider these suggestions. Michael Gove offered a round table but did not pursue it. The only other meeting with him was a formality, with no intent other than to head off my repeated complaints that there was no discussion. My offers to talk to supporters have been ignored or worse.

We know about the drawbacks of VTG—the cramped nature, the deprivation of local residents, the breach of trust, the environmental damage, the flooding risk, the fire risk, the crowding and the security. The cost is bound to rise. Climate protesters and the public will not be sympathetic to a project that flies in the face of all the government pledges to be green and economical. The Jewish community is sharply divided, with establishment figures and donors on one side and those who study the situation—scholars and most ordinary members, whether of the reform, Orthodox or mainstream persuasion—on the other. Once they know what it looks like and what it will contain, which is carefully hidden from most of us, they are against it.

Advances in technology lessen the case for the exhibition hall. There are already six memorials in this country and 21 learning centres. No one has stopped to think what effect they have or what they achieve. Is anything lacking? Why do we need another one? What is it for? Of course, people outside London will find it hard to get to. I have said before that this is not a memorial, it is not about the Holocaust and it is not a learning centre. The choice of VTG is to make a political point which is naive and misleading: that putting a memorial close to Parliament will make the point that democracy protects Jews and protects against genocide. This is the British values narrative, a project led by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and Mr Ed Balls, who also leads the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation. The placement of memorials makes no difference if you look around the world—nor are they a reminder to parliamentarians of the dangers. If parliamentarians have to have a memorial next door, at a cost of £200 million, they must be in even bigger trouble than we thought.

There is no evidence that a visit to this will make any difference. There are 300 memorials around the world, from New Zealand to China, and nobody measures the effect. In fact, anti-Semitism is growing. The memorial will provide a nice political backdrop for politicians who want to pose against it and say, “I don’t have a racist bone in my body”, but it will not help prevent anti-Semitism today. I support the movement to create a wonderful new Jewish museum like the fabulous one in Warsaw, which is placed where the Warsaw ghetto used to be and has made that into a sacred site.

I support all these amendments.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I particularly support Amendments 13, 29 and 30. Their effect would be that there was a sculpture but not a learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. In doing so, I urge the Minister to consider the difference between your Lordships’ House and the other place. Many Members of your Lordships’ House are very modest about their achievements, other than possibly us lawyers.

However, we have heard in this debate two Members of your Lordships’ House with great expertise in the matters that we are discussing. One is the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who has a long history in education. She was master of Birkbeck College, the paradigm of education to a large external audience. That is an example of what we are trying to achieve, at least in part, with the learning centre. Also, the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, who made a superb speech, is a person with real experience of cultural arenas and the like—of how cultural issues are delivered to a much larger public right across the cultural spectrum. It would be useful for the Minister to focus particularly on their expertise before any final decisions are made about what should go in Victoria Tower Gardens.

I am very much in favour of a memorial and a Holocaust learning centre, but not in Victoria Tower Gardens. A memorial there could be one of the most magnificent sculptures in the world. To give one example, Anish Kapoor, the great British sculptor, has already done a small Holocaust sculpture in London. Someone such as Anish Kapoor might produce one of those sculptures that lives for the centuries, maybe rather like how the Burghers of Calais, which has lived for well over one century, anyway. Putting a sculpture in Victoria Tower Gardens but nothing else would remove many of the security concerns, which I will address later, that will arise if a so-called learning centre is built in the gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Can I just ask the noble Lord why he thinks that being a tourist attraction that attracts millions is compatible with commemoration, grief, prayer, remembrance and all the other things that the commission called for and that are normally associated with a Holocaust memorial? There is a little plaque to one of my grandmothers in Manchester; that brings me more solace than any number of millions of people tramping through the gardens then heading off to have an ice cream.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

It is important not to conflate the solemn nature of the memorial with the learning centre; they are two distinct but integrated matters. The Committee will always go to museums and Holocaust sites. What we want are the uncommitted: we want people who go to the learning centre and come away having learned something. They will use it as a doorway to wider knowledge. It will not be in isolation. We are going to work closely with our American friends, our friends at Auschwitz and our friends in Yad Vashem because the Holocaust, anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial and distortion do not recognise national boundaries. We have a common purpose, and part of that common purpose will be to spread it out in different languages.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, that was an extremely interesting debate from both sides of what I will call a discussion, not an argument. I thank noble Lords for it; I have learned a lot.

This is a large group covering three themes that have been discussed throughout the years of work that have been done on the Holocaust memorial. First, Amendments 2, 3, 4, 6 and 13 relate to the design of the memorial and the learning centre, seeking to prevent it involving an underground element and to separate the learning centre from the memorial. These issues have been debated at length. I do not feel that this Bill is the right place for us to debate issues relating to the planning and design of the building. I am sure that the Minister will respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in detail. We urge him to listen to her concerns, but we cannot support her amendments.

Amendment 23, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St Albans, is one I do support. I do not think he spoke to it, but it has been such a long debate that I have forgotten what happened at the beginning. At a time when we are seeing growing anti-Semitism while marking the 80th anniversary of the end of the Second World War, we need to recommit ourselves to the memory of the Holocaust, as I said earlier this year when we debated Holocaust Memorial Day. My noble friend Lord Blencathra, speaking on behalf of the right reverend Prelate, was right to highlight the need for proper Holocaust education as we work to counter anti-Semitism.

I take this opportunity, a bit cheekily, to ask the Minister to update me on what steps his department is taking to counter rising anti-Semitism in this country. I am very happy to have a letter. Also, can he confirm that the Government will, at the very least, maintain the level of support for Holocaust education provided by the previous Conservative Government? I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for all the evidence that he provided showing the need for this continued education.

Finally, Amendments 29, 30 and 31, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, all seek to re-open the question of an alternative site for the memorial or learning centre. While I understand the arguments made by many noble Lords on the question of where the memorial and learning centre should be located, I cannot agree that re-opening this issue, when in the past we have looked at more than 50 sites, would be a constructive step forward and would deliver that centre in anything like a timely manner.

I said in my opening remarks that it has been 11 years since my noble friend Lord Cameron made that solemn commitment to the survivors of the Holocaust. I feel very strongly that we should not take steps that will hinder the delivery of that commitment any longer.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I will just elucidate for the noble Baroness that 50 sites were not looked at. The foundation just plumped for Victoria Tower Gardens. The thing about haste is that we are not building for the handful of survivors who are left. They do not need a memorial. If we build, we are building for the future. There is not a hurry. Survivors have said to me that they would rather it was got right; that is more important than hurrying. Even if everything went smoothly now, which I hope that it will not, there is no chance of getting it up in the lifetime of people who are in their late 90s. You have to get it right for the future, not for the handful who are left.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Blackstone and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for tabling these amendments. This group concerns the need for a learning centre, what its focus should be and how it should be funded. I believe there is a great deal of common ground on these matters. The need for a learning centre was set out clearly in the 2015 report, Britain’s Promise to Remember, published by the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission and accepted by all major political parties.

The commission proposed

“that the National Memorial should be co-located with a world-class Learning Centre. This would be a must-see destination using the latest technology to engage and inspire vast numbers of visitors”.

That remains the Government’s intention. We want to put in place a learning centre that will set the memorial in context and will be a moving and inspiring experience for visitors. Work towards this aim has begun. We are confident that our proposed scheme provides the space needed for an enthralling exhibition; I will come on to the issue of its size later. It is certain that the experience of entering the underground exhibition space through the bronze fins of the memorial will be a powerful introduction for all visitors.

Our proposal for a learning centre integrated with the Holocaust memorial is a tangible demonstration of the importance that we attach to education, which has been at the heart of this programme from the outset. The creation of the memorial and learning centre will be a further development of the significant efforts already taking place to deepen understanding of the Holocaust. Already, the Holocaust is the only historic event that is compulsory in the national curriculum for history at key stage 3, for pupils aged 11 to 14. The Prime Minister has made a strong personal commitment that this Government will seek to give every young person the opportunity to hear a recorded survivor testimony. The Government fund the Holocaust Educational Trust’s “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme and Holocaust Memorial Day. It is right that we should also build this Holocaust memorial with a co-located learning centre as a focal point for national commemoration to demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that the lessons of the Holocaust are never forgotten.

Taken together, my noble friend Lady Blackstone’s amendments—this amendment, Amendment 2, and Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 13—would mean that no learning centre could be constructed at the Victoria Tower Gardens; and, indeed, that the Government could not allocate any funding to the construction and operation of any learning centre in any location. The Holocaust Commission recommended that a new world-class learning centre should physically accompany the new national memorial. The learning centre will provide an opportunity to learn about the Holocaust close to the memorial and will therefore provide necessary context to the memorial. It is essential that the learning centre should be co-located with the memorial.

Having chosen Victoria Tower Gardens as the site uniquely capable of meeting the commission’s vision, the architectural design competition for the memorial tested the feasibility of a below-ground learning centre. The judges panel chose the winning design for a Holocaust memorial with a co-located learning centre because of its sensitivity to the gardens. The potential impact of our proposed learning centre was captured effectively by Professor Stuart Foster, the executive director of Holocaust education at UCL, who told the planning inquiry of his belief that

“the proposed Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre will make a profound and positive impact on teaching and learning about the Holocaust in this country and, potentially, beyond”.

I ask my noble friend Lady Blackstone to withdraw Amendment 2 and not move Amendments 3, 4, 6 and 13.

Amendment 23 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, spoke, would similarly interfere with our objectives of establishing a world-class learning centre and strengthening Holocaust education. Taking £50 million away from the construction budget will mean no learning centre and no programme of education. The right approach is to create a powerful Holocaust memorial and learning centre that can then be a foundation for enhanced educational efforts, drawing together the wide range of impressive organisations already working in the field. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, not to move Amendment 23.

Amendments 29 and 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, call for new site searches for a Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Adopting these amendments would take us all the way back to 2015. An independent, cross-party foundation appointed by the then Prime Minister, following cross-party commitment to the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission, led an extensive search for the right site. The foundation included experienced and eminent property developers. A firm of professional property consultants was commissioned to provide assistance. Around 50 sites were identified and considered, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, mentioned. The outcome is, of course, well known: Victoria Tower Gardens was identified as the most suitable site. The foundation was unanimous in recommending the site, which will give the memorial the prominence that it deserves and will uniquely allow the story of the Holocaust to be told alongside the Houses of Parliament. There is nothing to be gained by further site searches but there is, of course, a great deal to be lost. This Government and their predecessors believe that Victoria Tower Gardens is the right site for the memorial and learning centre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly reject that assertion. That was not the case. It was a competition; 50 sites were considered and after all those considerations, it was decided.

I must make progress. I will answer the points that have been raised in the debate. There is a lot to get through as this is a big group, but turning the clock back 10 years to conduct further searches in the belief that some greater consensus will be found is simply not realistic. Moreover, one implication of these amendments is that the learning centre might be located separately from the memorial. The clear recommendation of the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission in its 2015 report was that

“the National Memorial should be co-located with a world-class learning centre”.

That recommendation was accepted by the then Prime Minister, with cross-party support.

The reasons why co-location matters are clear. We want the Holocaust to be understood. We cannot assume that visitors, however powerfully they may be affected by the memorial, will have even a basic understanding of the facts of the Holocaust. We cannot assume that they will recognise the relevance of the Holocaust to us, here in Great Britain, now and in the years to come. A co-located learning centre provides the opportunity to give facts, setting the memorial in context and prompting visitors to reflect.

I have no doubt that visitors will be motivated to learn more, as I was when I visited the Washington memorial. For many, the learning centre will be a starting point. I am confident that many visitors will want to explore the subject further at the Imperial War Museum in Lambeth, at the Holocaust Centre and Museum in Nottinghamshire, at Holocaust Centre North in Huddersfield and at many other excellent institutions in the UK and abroad. If the memorial were not accompanied by a learning centre, how many opportunities would be missed? Is it realistic to expect that thousands of visitors would see the memorial and decide then to make a journey of some miles across London to search out further information? Perhaps some would; I am certain that a great many would not.

Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, making a comparison with the Imperial War Museum Holocaust galleries and the size of this learning centre, the learning centre will have around 1,300 square metres of exhibition space, which is about the same as the Imperial War Museum Holocaust galleries. I want to address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. To be clear, the great majority of visitors will come via public transport, not by coach. Our plans for vehicle access are included within a construction logistics plan which we previously shared with Westminster City Council and which we expect will need to be agreed with it as a planning condition. Visitors will have access to the gardens using the existing entrances, with the site entrance permanently manned with security and construction banksmen.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said that her offer to meet supporters has been ignored. I must politely disagree. Officials and I have met with her and I will continue to meet her whenever she wants, my diary permitting. I am always happy to meet any noble Lord who strongly wants to raise anything. I can see the passion today. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the great expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, and my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I am happy to meet at any time in relation to expertise.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I have to say to the Minister that I have met him and his predecessors but not once have they entertained any compromise. They listen, sometimes they shout, and that is the end of it. There has never been an offer to compromise or change anything, no matter what we have written or what plans we have shown.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have to politely disagree, with the greatest respect for the noble Baroness. I have always listened. We have to understand that I have two main goals with the Bill. The first, in Clause 1, is to allow the Secretary of State to have expenditure to build the project. Secondly, my job in bringing the Bill forward and promoting it is to look at the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900 to disapply the condition for this project to be built. Noble Lords are passionate and the strength of feeling is clear, but there is a planning process. Planning permission is still to be granted, and noble Lords will have plenty of opportunity to raise these important and pertinent points on the planning side.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Will the Minister therefore guarantee that a new full planning permission application will go back to Westminster City Council and through all the layers of planning that are normally required, and that it will not be cut short?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot give that guarantee. I want to be clear because noble Lords must understand this: that is in the hands of the designated Minister. It is the role of the designated Minister to see how he takes that forward.

I repeat that the proposals put forward include more than 300 square metres of exhibition space, comparable to the International War Museum’s Holocaust galleries and capable of accommodating a world-class exhibition. I ask the noble Lord not to press Amendments 29 and 30.

Amendment 31 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who I thank for his kind words earlier, which I thought were most respectful. The amendment calls for a review of the feasibility of including the Holocaust learning centre within a Jewish museum. I want to affirm straight away that the learning centre must and will set the Holocaust in the context of Jewish history. It is simply impossible to provide an accurate account of the Holocaust without addressing the long history of anti-Semitism. For a British Holocaust memorial, that will include addressing the history of British anti-Semitism, working with an experienced curator with the advice of eminent and respected academics. That is what our learning centre will do. I know that several noble Lords may have had the opportunity to see a short presentation from Martin Winstone.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I will affirm the point. The noble Lord talked about Yad Vashem. The content for the learning centre is being developed by a leading international curator, Yehudit Shendar, formerly of Yad Vashem. The ambition and vision is to have a quality curator with a strong academic advisory board.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I am sorry to keep interrupting, but Sir Richard Evans, who is our greatest historian of Germany, and who has been outstanding in combating Holocaust denial, said at the public inquiry that the learning centre will be a national and international embarrassment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the Committee can understand that I do not agree with that point. That is a matter of opinion for Sir Richard Evans. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as we have seen in the passionate debate today.

I was making the point that several noble Lords may have had the opportunity to see a short presentation from Martin Winstone, the historical adviser to the programme, in which he provides a small insight to the work under way. For those noble Lords who have not seen it, we can arrange for Martin Winstone to come in and give them that presentation. I had a drop-in session yesterday; unfortunately it was just me and officials, but I enjoyed it.

The overall focus of the learning centre must of course remain clearly on the Holocaust, and it must be wholly integrated with the national memorial to the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust. We want to be sure that visitors are left in no doubt about the nature of the Holocaust. Having seen the memorial, they should clearly understand what it represents. For those reasons, it simply does not make sense to envisage a learning centre located elsewhere and carrying a much broader set of messages.

The history of the Jewish people is rich and deep. Jewish communities have a long history in Britain that needs to be understood, including of course the history of anti-Semitism, extending for many centuries. Telling such a story requires expertise, creativity and space. The Jewish Museum London told this story well, making excellent use of the tens of thousands of artefacts in its collection. I wish the museum well in its search for a new home. I believe also that there will be important opportunities in future for joint work between the learning centre and the Jewish Museum. We aim to work in partnership with institutions across the UK and overseas as we develop education programmes, and as we encourage greater awareness of the Holocaust and its deep roots. But I am sure that we should recognise the differences between the purpose of a Jewish museum in London and the aims of a learning centre located with a Holocaust museum. Each has a distinct and hugely important aim. Placing the Holocaust learning centre wholly within the Jewish Museum could easily mean a loss of focus and would certainly require breaking the essential link between the learning centre and the memorial.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, never were the national anthem’s words,

“Long live our noble King!”,


more apt a tribute than when seeing the King spending hours at Auschwitz-Birkenau, paying tribute with the sincerest words possible. I am sure that the entire Jewish community, here and around the world, is moved and grateful.

For some of us, every day is Holocaust Remembrance Day. My earliest memories are of my mother weeping over my bedside because of her inability to get her mother out of Poland and into this country. She blamed herself for her mother’s death.

On my father’s side, he lost his mother and two siblings. His tiny ancestral village on the border of Poland and Ukraine lay during the war in the path of the Russians coming one way and the Germans coming the other. When the Germans arrived, they summoned all the Jewish women to the village square with their valuables. Next door to my family lived a Polish painter, Eugeniusz Waniek, who subsequently went to Kraków and became very well known.

On her way to the square, my aunt Helena rushed next door to him and thrust a set of silver cutlery wrapped in a linen cloth into his hands. “Keep this”, she said, “until we get back”, which, of course, she and her children never did. He did a brave thing, which would have cost him his life had it been discovered: he hid the silver in the cloth in a box in his garden. At the end of the war, he took it with him to Kraków. There was no internet then and he never knew what had become of my family.

I happened to speak about my origins to Norman Davies, the distinguished historian of Poland. In 2008, he wrote in a Kraków newspaper about my trip to the family village. Waniek, the painter, by then 102, was read this by his carer. He declared that he had something for me and, to cut a long story short, I returned to his flat in Kraków, where, in the presence of the media and after a glass of schnapps and some reminiscences, he presented me with the cutlery in the same linen cloth. They are the only artefacts I have that were touched by my lost family. What a tribute it is to the bravery endemic in such small acts in those terrible times. He died three months later.

So it is with some pain that I wonder what Britain’s politicians and leaders mean when they support Holocaust remembrance. What do they mean by remembering it and by “never again”? What I see is ignorance of the history of anti-Semitism and the mistaken framework that treats the Holocaust as consigned to the Nazi past, not the preceding 2,000 years and today. Perhaps with good intentions, the Holocaust has been globalised. That makes it seem as though Jews were just one of many casualties—and it is therefore exceptional to focus on them or on anti-Semitism—and that the notion of genocide can be spread far, wide and thin.

Jewish scholars will tell you that to assemble the Holocaust with other genocides reduces its meaning to that vague word: hatred. It dilutes and avoids the centrality of anti-Semitism. Restricting the Holocaust to the Jewish tragedy—as it should be—does not mean that the loss of Jewish lives is worth any more than any others. But the record in recent years shows a marked reluctance to acknowledge the specificity of Jewish suffering. The Holocaust is entirely different from the other genocides we remember—in history, continuation, manner of execution, worldwide extent, collaboration and result. The Government, by going along with the structure that the Jewish Shoah should not be commemorated on its own, but always in tandem with other Nazi-targeted groups and more recent genocides, have opened the door to generalising the Holocaust. This enables the Jews to be forgotten and not mentioned by “Good Morning Britain” or Angela Rayner when marking Holocaust Remembrance Day. Sadly, it leads on to comparisons between the Holocaust and the Gaza war, most shockingly by the Irish President.

For half a century, it has been assumed, without evidence, that learning about the Holocaust prevents lapses into anti-Semitism—but it does not. That is in part because the Holocaust has been detached from the rest of Jewish history and because it has been used as a lesson in morality and democracy. It is easy enough to portray the Nazis as evil and the Jews as innocent victims. The lessons go on to indicate that it was not this generation that committed those crimes and that we are not bystanders. That must not be allowed to become an absolution. It should not be allowed to place anti-Semitism firmly in the past—that is wrong. Even in this country, we should not forget the massacre of Jews in 1190 and the expulsion in 1290. In my own hometown, Christ Church Cathedral is built right in the middle, on top of houses occupied by the Jews. There is too much politicisation, de-judaisation and universalisation demonstrated at Holocaust remembrance ceremonies. This is counterproductive.

The late Lord Sacks, of blessed memory, explained how anti-Semitism mutated from hatred of the religion, then the race and now the only Jewish state. Sadly, it is only a state of one’s own and the means of self-defence that stop genocide, as can be seen from more recent genocides. If Israel had existed in 1938, rather than 1948, and had been able to take in refugees rather than being blocked by the British, how many thousands or millions of lives might have been saved? In the 1940s it was able to take in the Jews thrown out of other Middle Eastern states whose persecution we should also remember.

In 2023, we saw the new Holocaust threats from the invaders into Israel from Gaza, and their desire to repeat it. This Government are rightly keen on Holocaust remembrance, but they should accept that they have a special responsibility for the protection, safety and understanding of the State of Israel.

The Government should acknowledge that they have failed to stop anti-Semitism being demonstrated in our universities and on our streets. Holocaust remembrance is ineffective unless backed up by supporting and understanding a safe and strong Israel—that is the real meaning of ensuring never again.

We need to teach that the Holocaust did not succeed. Since the end of it, we have had 24 Nobel prizes, business leaders, philanthropy, cultural achievements and a new state. The distinguishing feature of the Jewish community down the ages is survival. Let us go forward on an upbeat note. We survived against all the odds; not death, not victimhood.

Religious Hate Crime

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate and ask him to pass on my appreciation for the work that has gone on in different faiths to bring the community together in St Albans. I made community visits on Thursday, Friday and Saturday to discuss these issues, and tomorrow I will be in Cambridge visiting the Woolf Institute to hear from Jewish, Muslim and Christian community voices. These important initiatives are all part of a package to make sure that our country rejects hate, has unity and works together to deal with these challenges.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, recent reports have shown that anti-Jewish hate crime in London has risen fourfold and that anti-Semitic activity on campus is absolutely shocking. Jewish students go in fear at what is going on. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, has issued two excellent reports on this, and his recommendations, which I call on the Government to implement, are to teach contemporary anti-Semitism. Holocaust education alone is not succeeding, because it places everything in the past. Will the Government keep our students safe? I have written on this to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, three or four times since August and have not received a reply. I hope that the Minister will encourage her to reply to me and others on the painful situation on our campuses.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the point the noble Baroness makes, in particular on the rise of anti-Semitism in our country. We intend to reverse the decision of the previous Government to downgrade the monitoring and recording of anti-Semitic hate incidents. I will pass the noble Baroness’s views across, but I assure her that I am meeting the noble Lord, Lord Mann, who is our independent adviser on anti-Semitism, and I will continue to work with him closely to tackle all forms of anti-Semitism, wherever they may be.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

At end insert “but this House regrets that the Bill fails to allow for a full appraisal and consultation on any preferred site for a Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre; and that in preparing the bill the Government have failed to establish the true cost of the project or deal with issues of security around the Memorial”.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, we are debating a project that would change the environment of the Palace of Westminster for ever—and for the worse.

Victoria Tower Gardens, the subject of the Bill, were given to the locality by the benefactor WH Smith 150 years ago, with a statute of 1900 prohibiting building on them. These are gardens filled to capacity at each Coronation and each royal funeral—sadly. Your Lordships will recall the queues that formed there for the late Queen’s lying-in-state, and inevitably they will be needed again for such occasions—not to mention the space needed for restoration and renewal, the repair of Victoria Tower itself, and the education centre’s continued existence, itself the object of a severe contest.

The gardens are a breathing space for local residents, many of whom live in council flats, and for workers—such as us. The project will take up 20% of the gardens, not 7% as the promoters would have us believe, and the plans and calculations are available to establish this. The Government propose to wreck all of this. The Bill before your Lordships, ostensibly to make a democratic point, is an authoritarian and anti-democratic move that will overrule a century-old law to ride roughshod over the right of local residents to protect their environment, and it belittles the good intentions of donors.

The Bill is contrary to the Government’s own green policies, their open space policy, and the decision of Westminster City Council that had determined to refuse planning permission. The proposed grab of the site has been done without consultation. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, for example, has not voted on it. I do not know what other minorities consider about their inclusion. It has been done without an assessment of risk or impact and without proper consideration of alternatives, so negligently that those responsible did not notice the 1900 Act prohibition until it was too late. So many millions—I believe £17 million—have already been spent in litigation and combat before a sod has been turned.

The Government tried to close down debate in the Commons Select Committee on the Bill, but I am sure your Lordships will not let them do the same here in this House, which is self-regulating and has a moral and legal duty to see what is being done to its environs.

The choice of location has been criticised by UNESCO, Historic England and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which has rated it as “red—undeliverable”, in the same category as HS2. There is the flooding risk—so much worse recently—a real danger to an underground space, and the design is an eyesore. If it goes any further, it must be subject to the proper full planning process rather than a short cut to a Minister with a foregone conclusion. I hope the Minister will reassure us on that.

The design is by the once-fashionable designer David Adjaye, now dropped by many clients because of allegations of inappropriate behaviour. Not only that, but the design is third or fourth-hand. A bunch of sticks in the air, it is almost identical to his memorial designs for Niger, Barbados and Ottawa—all, I need hardly tell your Lordships, very different contextually. It was a lazy choice, trumpeted by the Government but made without proper research. It bears no relevance to the Holocaust, the gardens or the UK. It will block the view of the Palace and has already been christened the “giant toast rack” or, if viewed from the air, a set of false teeth. My own research shows that abstract memorials are more prone to vandalism than graphic ones—but we will come to that. In sum, what is being put forward is not about the Holocaust and it is not a memorial.

Supporters will give an emotional account of how important it is that the commemoration of one of the greatest tragedies in history should be in Westminster. They will hint that it is anti-Semitic to oppose it. What they will not tell you is the downside: 11 coaches a day on Millbank; a million or so visitors tramping through the gardens every year; queuing through the children’s playground, which also would have to be reduced by one-third; armed guards who will have to check every visitor to the gardens, whether or not they are going to the memorial; the litter; the crowds; and the insensitivity of having a coke and crisps café and playground on top of a memorial to the starving and the dead.

More importantly, the planners have had to abandon the opportunity to fulfil the important recommendation of the Holocaust Commission set up by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, which started all this off in 2015. It recommended that there be a large Holocaust education campus with a lecture hall, room for 500 to meet at ceremonies, offices for educators, a professor and an endowment. All those recommendations have gone because there is no space for this in the gardens, and the funds will all be used up in excavation.

We may need a large learning centre and we definitely need a new Jewish museum to replace the one that has closed for lack of funds, but first we need to ask what this project would add to the six Holocaust memorials and 21 learning centres we have already, all of which outclass what is proposed now. They include the esteemed Wiener Library, established by the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein; the British Library, with its recorded testimonies of Holocaust survivors; and the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum, with artefacts that the planned learning centre will not have because it is all to be digital. They all have education programmes that will put the learning centre to shame, as Sir Richard Evans, our eminent historian of Germany, has pointed out.

The location of a new learning centre is not important so long as it is accessible. Looking around the more than 300 holocaust memorials in the world, it makes no difference whether they are near parliaments or not. All we know is that the more they go up and the more Holocaust remembrance ceremonies are packed out, the more anti-Semitism is growing. The irony of the Westminster location is that this is the very area where hate-filled marches have taken place for weeks, the police being unable or unwilling to stop them; where politicians have been unable to protect Jewish students from abuse and do not shy away from undermining protection of the land where the Holocaust survivors took refuge. Westminster: where misinformation in the media spreads hate uncontrolled. A new learning centre here would be a model of complacency; an excuse for those who call themselves non-racists to pose by it; a defence against excessive anti-Israelism.

The department has refused to release any information about its contents, despite a freedom of information battle lasting over a year. As far as one can tell from the public inquiry, the theme of the learning centre will be a generalised call to stop hatred. It will commit the cardinal academic sin of juxtaposing the Jewish genocide with others, thereby watering down its uniqueness and the study that needs to be carried out of the roots and consequences of anti-Semitism. As Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, a 99 year-old Holocaust survivor, supported by several others, said to the Commons Select Committee: what can you learn in a 45-minute walk through five rooms?

As mentioned, the cost is now estimated at £138 million, plus some £50 million for contingency. This is largely due to the need to excavate several storeys down in the park. It could be avoided by locating a learning centre close by—for example, in the empty offices of Millbank or by the Imperial War Museum. It is not value for money, let alone the question of the annual running costs. Only £75 million of the cost is in place—the government grant; the rest needs to be raised.

Finally, there is security. Threats should not stop such a building, of course, but one has to be prepared. It will be a prime target, from land and from the river. Vandalism and even risk to life and limb will necessitate the strictest patrols. That means armed guards and searches in this little park, affecting every stroller. We have no information about it. I would very much like an evocative memorial to my lost relatives—two grand- mothers and many more—one no bigger than the Buxton and other sculptures in the gardens. I ask noble Lords please to accept the criticisms of the Commons Select Committee. Start with a beautiful new design for a fitting memorial in the gardens, and a museum or learning centre elsewhere, with planning permission. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, this has been a moral and historic debate. There were some good things in it and some mistakes and bad things. One of the things that struck me was that people seem to be ignorant of the existing Holocaust memorials. There is a national Holocaust memorial. There are at least six up and down the country. There are 21 learning centres. Hardly a day goes by, if you Google, when you will not find a seminar or a course on the Holocaust. The country is replete with it and with Holocaust education as taught in schools, but I have to say it has not worked. The young people who march—and there will be another march soon—waving swastikas and calling for intifada and worse, have had Holocaust education at school. It does not seem to have done them any good.

As I said, the more these memorials go up, the worse the anti-Semitism, and no one has asked or bothered to find out what impact a visit has, what effect a piece of sculpture has. Just as with, say, discrimination or slavery, would it make any difference to discrimination against black people to put up another statue about slavery? I doubt it very much. It has to be a question of education. As the late Lord Sacks, the former Chief Rabbi, said, Holocaust education has to be in context. It has to be set within the entire history of the Jewish people. You cannot just take the Holocaust and put it in a package and say, “That was Nazi Germany, that was a long time ago, nothing to do with us today”. Nor can we generalise. Apparently, the theme, as far as one can find out, of the learning centre will be, at the end, “Do not be a bystander” or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, we must have more introspection. That is insufficient. Introspection does not get us anywhere where anti-Semitism or other forms of racism are concerned. We need a proper history of the Jewish people, we need a Jewish museum and maybe even a Jewish history month.

No one has said what the learning centre that is proposed will add to the other 21 that are already in existence; there does not seem to be anything it will add. Remember that there will be only about five rooms, of which one will be a mock-up of the House of Commons Chamber, one will be devoted to people who saved victims and, as we have heard, every single genocide you have ever heard of will be included, which dilutes the unique nature of the Holocaust. Any reading of Jewish scholarship will tell you that we have to study the Jewish Holocaust on its own and not mix it up with the others.

I mentioned the late Chief Rabbi. There is, of course, a variety of opinions in the Jewish community. There are rabbis on the far right and on the left who do not like this particular project. As far as Holocaust survivors go, it is a mistake to say that this has to be built in a hurry for them. It is not for them; it is for the future. It would be a mistake to rush it. The Holocaust survivors who I know have actually said, as recorded before the Commons Select Committee, “not in our name”. Those who I know do not approve of it. As I said, the community is divided; there is no unanimity there. However, education is certainly important, and it is not working.

I fear that the whole project is tainted by the association with Sir David Adjaye. Even if the allegations are disproved, it will always be his memorial, with a striking resemblance to all the others he has put up around the world.

Around the Chamber, we see quite a lot of consensus that the learning centre is too small and inadequate, and that there is no evidence that will change people’s attitudes. I am surprised and saddened that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is no longer standing by the recommendation that his commission made for a much larger learning centre, with an overhaul of Holocaust education.

We need a better memorial, and we could do it quickly. We could have had one very quickly in the last few years if we had just had a small memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, and then took our time over designing a learning centre close by. It is perhaps not too late for this, if the Holocaust Memorial Foundation took a different turn, and perhaps with new leadership.

I am talking about a regret amendment, not a wrecking amendment. If noble Lords do not agree with the amendment, they are saying that they do not need to know any more about appraisal and consultation, or security and costs. I cannot believe that that is what most noble Lords want to hear.

I hope that the planning application will start from scratch. It is no good saying that we will put it to the Minister—who is, of course, independent. It is quite unrealistic to suppose that any Minister, after all of this, would turn down the planning application. It needs to go back to Westminster and through a proper inquiry, because so much has changed in the last few years.

I hope that the House will agree with my amendment, but I have one more word to say about this. This is a moral issue; it calls for a free vote. Noble Lords should use their knowledge and feelings about what they have heard, and vote the way that their conscience tells them. If ever there was an issue that should not be whipped, this is it. I would like to test the opinion of the House.