Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Fookes]

21: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Planning application(1) Any applicant must submit a new full planning application to the relevant local authority relating to any Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre planned for Victoria Tower Gardens.(2) In determining the outcome of that application, special attention must be paid to increased security and environmental considerations arising since the first planning application to Westminster City Council in 2019.(3) If the planning permission is to be determined by a Minister there must be a public inquiry.(4) As soon as possible following a planning application the applicant must publicise this and the anticipated timetable by notifying—(a) Members of the House of Commons and members of the House of Lords by depositing a letter in the Libraries of both Houses;(b) the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust, the Thomas Fowell Buxton Society and the Thorney Island Society;(c) Holocaust survivors, families of victims and refugees from Nazi Germany and their families;(d) organisations engaged in Holocaust remembrance, education and combating antisemitism;(e) local residents through the press and other media.(5) The applicant must take steps to ensure that the availability of updated information relating to the planning application and submitted by the applicant, including updated information relating to security, (as far as such information can safely be placed in the public domain) is notified to the parties referred to in subsection (4), once it has been published by the Secretary of State as part of any planning process.”

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and those of several other noble Lords. As noble Lords will see, it calls for a new full planning application to be given to the relevant local authority, in this case Westminster City Council. In the event of the Minister calling in the application, it also calls for a new public inquiry with a different inspector. I am fully aware from the exchanges that have taken place in this Committee that the Minister is very unlikely to welcome the full new planning application and possibly even the more minor arrangement that I have put in as a second best. However, that will not deter me from putting the case as forcefully as I can.

I will deal first with the reasons why a new application is vitally necessary. We all know now about the relevant sections of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, which specifically set out that the Victoria gardens should be in perpetuity a public garden for the interests of those living there. It seems to me that the inspector at the time gave very little weight to that consideration and assumed that the Victoria gardens were easily there to be taken. I think this was a material consideration, because he felt that other sites might take longer to come to fruition. That was a bad miscalculation, but I will not dwell on it further now.

I also feel that the inspector greatly underestimated the damage to the park that would ensue to both the trees and the interests of the residents who rely on this little park in an area not terribly well served by green spaces. He did not have the benefit, shall we call it, of the later present Government’s consideration that everyone should be able to live within 15 minutes of a green space, as set out fairly recently. I feel, therefore, that the environmental considerations were not taken properly into account, but as I dealt with this in more detail in a previous amendment, I will not dwell on it now.

I will now look at a major source of concern where issues have changed for the worse: the security of the site in terms of possible acts of terrorism and any other source of grief, worry or danger to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has powerfully set out this case. Coming as they do from a former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and a King’s Counsel with many years of experience, his views should be taken far more into consideration. I hope that this afternoon he may wish to elaborate on these matters. I am anxious that he does, because there will be very practical implications if one has to allow for the safety of the public in these circumstances, especially so close to the Palace of Westminster.

Furthermore, we have had powerful speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, setting out the risks of fire hazards. Again, I will not go into all the details, but she made the important point that there was only one escape route from the underground learning centre, which she felt needed to be dealt with. Indeed, since she spoke we have had the ghastly incident in Macedonia, where a number of lives were lost in a nightclub because there was only one exit. These things are to be taken very seriously. That does not mean to say that there will not be some mitigation, but I think it needs a new, thorough look.

Then there is the risk of flood, dealt with most cogently by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. It is in an area that has always been rather prone to flooding, and we have had an example of this at 1 Millbank, where the basement restaurant was flooded and out of action for months. So this is another issue that needs much greater consideration.

Interestingly, the R&R programme now wants experiments to be done on the floor of the River Thames along the east side of the Palace, because it may want to do some works on the Terrace and the neighbouring areas. That may not impinge directly on this, but it is an indication that a great many things will be happening with the restoration programme. The Victoria Tower repair is imminent. Are we to suppose that both of those major impacts will not have a very damaging effect on the park, especially if, at the same time, all the building works for the memorial and the underground learning centre are going on? It seems to me that an impossible practical situation is developing. How can one small park accommodate the overflow from two major restorations and repairs, and cope with the building of the memorial and underground learning centre at the same time?

I now turn to the all-important arrangements for dealing with any planning application once the Bill enters the statute book. Let us look for a moment at the guidance given by the Planning Inspectorate as to the procedure to be followed if an application quashed by a law court is revived or restarted. It says in section 20.8 that written representations will normally not even be considered if there have been material changes since the time the application was first submitted. Let us remember that in this case we are talking about a submission in January 2019, now over six years ago. The Planning Inspectorate guidance adds that a round table or hearing will normally be considered only if

“it can reasonably be expected that the parties will be able to present their own cases (supported by professional witnesses if required) without the need for an advocate to represent them”.

Finally, if the application was previously considered by a public inquiry, there would normally be a fresh inquiry and a new inspector would normally be appointed, because he or she would be reviewing matters previously overturned by a court.

That seems pretty straightforward guidance. I understand that it is guidance and not the application of the law, but it seems to me that the guidance here is akin to that for traffic arrangements, whereby when we have road accidents and so on, we can look to the body of work that guides people on matters of traffic.

I was not aware of yet a further complication: the National Planning Casework Unit, set up by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, with a remit that includes managing major planning applications referred to it by the Secretary of State and requests from the Secretary of State to call in planning applications. It has become involved in a pre-consultation process to ensure that there are no undue delays once the Bill is enacted. To my knowledge—and probably that of others—it has consulted the London Historic Parks & Gardens Trust and, most importantly, the promoter, which, of course, comes from within that very same department. Through its solicitor, Pinsent Masons, it has set out what it believes to be the issues before it. It has made a written representation, from which I will quote—not the whole lot but the most relevant parts. It wrote:

“The Applicant considers that the Minister should consider representations on any and all matters required for the redetermination of the Application … such that the redetermination can then take place as soon as reasonably possible following any Royal Assent”—


as I have pointed out. It continued:

“Such matters can be fully and appropriately dealt with through written representations. To re-open the public inquiry would clearly be disproportionate to the matters relevant to the redetermination”.


Finally, it added that

“all the principal … and planning matters relevant to the determination of the Application … remain either entirely or largely unchanged from the time they were originally considered”.

As I have said previously, I regard that as totally wrong and not to be considered at all.

We have this curious spectacle, as I see it, of a planning application from an applicant, somebody who has to make the decision, and another organisation, the planning unit, all within the same department of state. Looking at it from the outside, as most people will, I consider that to be an unhealthily close relationship—at best unhealthy, and at worst positively incestuous. I am not at all happy if the way out to be chosen once the Bill becomes law is anything other than a full public inquiry or, at the very least, a new public inquiry. That is the burden of my theme this afternoon. I beg to move.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 34 in my name, which I tabled before your Lordships started to look at the Bill in Committee. Having listened so far, I am more than ever convinced that an impact assessment is needed. It would cover many things we have already debated but, as I suggested previously, with regard to risk, there would be great benefit in pulling together the many points that have been and are still to be discussed. Some suggestions will impact on others, so an overall view of the impact of the proposed memorial and learning centre would be of great benefit, not to say essential.

I find it most peculiar that there should not already have been an impact assessment for this project. I expect that a number of issues are more strictly for planning, whereas this Bill is to overcome the limitations of the 1900 covenant. When considering legislation to dispense with a covenant, there are planning issues that will impact on the decision. For example, if the proposal were for a manufacturing unit of some sort, I imagine that your Lordships might well feel that the covenant should stand. So it is not inappropriate to seek answers that are, strictly speaking, planning matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has said, we are entitled to know in detail what is proposed before we are asked to remove the covenant of which we are custodians.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I am not surprised by the line that the Minister has taken. I may be allowed to express disappointment, but certainly not surprise, because it seems to me that, despite previous discussions in this Committee—particularly this afternoon—we have heard many and varied reasons as to why the situation has changed markedly from what it was six years ago or more, and that these should have been taken into account.

I am particularly concerned that we are overriding an Act of Parliament set up by somebody—originally as a gesture of good will and philanthropy, which was then endorsed by the 1900 Act—whose objectives, far from being over, are if anything more important now than they were before because it is a valuable green space in an area served by many people, often those without great assets or gardens of their own. We are now far more aware of the importance of the environment than we probably were in 1900. So, far from being old hat, this remains extremely important. That is where I start from.

However, I also look to the fact that the commission set up—it gave its verdict in 2015, I think—outlined the kind of memorial and learning centre that it wished to see. Clearly, that cannot be carried out fully in this very small space, so there is a great gap between what the commission said it wanted and what is now possible on a very restricted site. That is where I take my stand.

Sadly, I feel that the Minister has not been listening to the many and varied arguments put with considerable force, knowledge and eloquence by people serving on this Committee. I am sorry indeed about that, and I am particularly sorry that we seem to be getting nowhere fast. In those circumstances, I cannot see that any lengthy speech by me— or anybody else come to that—will change the Minister’s mind and, because we cannot have votes in this Committee by reason of the way it is set up, I can do nothing but seek leave to withdraw my amendment, but I do so believing that I am right about this. I am disappointed that we are not getting anywhere, so I seek leave to withdraw my amendment, but with a very heavy heart.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Fookes]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment in my name adds a third condition to Amendment 9, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I should perhaps explain why I think this is so important. I start from the view that this little park, which has been protected hitherto by an Act of Parliament, remains very valuable and should not be tampered with to its great detriment.

I will not rehearse here the arguments so eloquently put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I simply want to put on record that I heartily endorse what they have both said—they make a great deal of sense. I will not inflict on the Committee a repetition of those arguments, save in one regard. I find it very distasteful that the Government who want to go ahead with this—which I believe will damage the park—at the same time issued that Statement back in July 2024, explaining that they wanted every person to be within 15 minutes of a green or blue space. There seems to be something of a contradiction here, or, as the old adage has it, “Fine words butter no parsnips”.

I want to demonstrate the significant damage that I think will be done to the trees in the park. Currently, there is a magnificent avenue of no fewer than 51 London planes, which are mature, very fine and well looked after by Royal Parks, together with several smaller ornamental trees. They provide a wonderful setting for a world heritage site, which also has special protection in planning law. I am not going to act on my own authority in this; I will draw heavily on a report in the public domain, commissioned by Westminster City Council to advise it after the decision had been taken out of its hands and in preparation for the other details that were to follow. It used as an expert witness a gentleman called Mark Mackworth-Praed, a chartered agriculturalist and a member of the Expert Witness Institute working for Archer Associates, a major tree and ecology consultancy. I should now like to draw attention—

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

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

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

I was seeking to curtail my remarks in the interests of brevity. I notice that a little bit has been taken out of my time now, unless I go over the allotted amount.

I draw the attention of the Committee to British Standard 5837. I do not expect noble Lords to be immediately thrilled by this announcement, but it is a widely used and accepted measure of the viability of a tree by assessing the minimum area around it deemed sufficient to contain sufficient roots to enable it to live and survive well. It is a calculation of a circle with a radius 12 times the diameter of the tree’s trunk. When you look at the smallness of this park and the number of trees, it does not take a mathematical genius to work out that, somewhere, roots will be damaged.

Let me give specific examples from this independently produced report. First, it is reckoned that digging out the enormous amount of soil to provide the underground learning centre will cause 11 trees to have their roots severed on the western boundary within the amount of the British Standard, so they would be damaged. The Spicer Memorial, already referred to in another amendment, and possibly replacing a refreshment kiosk would risk real damage to three trees. Then there is the creation of two service routes carrying various underground utilities and drainage runs: it is reckoned that 10 trees there would be affected adversely, either directly or in conjunction with other hazards. That seems to me a pretty worrying description of what might happen, particularly bearing in mind that when you have avenues of trees, the loss of even one tree can shatter the visual image. If there are several, we might have an even worse result, but that is not the only damage to trees that can be caused by the direct severing of roots.

Another real worry is that soil compaction can have a major impact on the health of trees. I am sure those of us who are amateur gardeners will have been told about not walking on wet beds, because of the possible danger to plants, which will be damaged by compaction. As I understand it, the proposal is for the formation of a slope up to the fins of the memorial, which would involve a lot of soil being sited on top of the existing level. That would have the effect of asphyxiating the soil; in other words, it cannot breathe. Worse than that, soil compaction during works with heavy machinery would also have a very damaging effect, to say nothing of digging out all the soil to form the underground learning centre. One can see that moving great piles of soil will, in itself, cause considerable damage.

On top of that, we have all the building works that will be associated with carrying out the work of producing the memorial and the underground space for the learning centre. Storing heavy materials also compacts the soil and heavy machinery running over it has the same effect, so over time this would have a major, damaging effect on the park as a whole. I know that the Minister has referred to enhancing the value of the park, but I fear that in practice it will be greatly damaged.

Finally, when all this is done—at some unspecified period in the future—there will be much heavier footfall if it is all successful and thousands of people are coming in, rather than the people who use the park now. Through footfall, they too can have a tremendous impact on the soil and its compaction. I do not see a happy future for these trees in the circumstances I have described.

I conclude by referring to the views of Westminster City Council’s sub-committee. As we all know, it was not allowed to make the decision but it resolved that, had it come to that committee, it would on various grounds have refused the application. I want to deal with only one that relates to trees. It said:

“Inadequate and conflicting information has been submitted which is not sufficient to permit a proper assessment of the impact of the proposed development on trees within Victoria Tower Gardens, together with the effectiveness of suggested mitigation. As such it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that unacceptable harm to, and/or loss of, trees would not arise as a result of the proposed development”.


Finally, the sub-committee said that

“damage and/or loss to trees would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area, and would have a further adverse effect on the significance of heritage assets”.

I think we all know about the importance of this little park as a backdrop for the Houses of Parliament and the abbey. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for tabling Amendments 9, 18, 19 and 20 and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for tabling Amendment 10. This group of amendments covers matters relating to the Spicer memorial, the magnificent trees in Victoria Tower Gardens and the children’s playground.

Amendment 9 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, draws attention to the Spicer memorial and to the children’s playground, both of which are very important features of Victoria Tower Gardens. If noble Lords will permit, I will come to the playground in just a moment and address that part of Amendment 9 alongside Amendments 18, 19 and 20, which also concern the playground.

The Government fully agree with noble Lords who wish to ensure that the Spicer memorial is protected and should continue to hold a prominent place in the gardens. Our proposals for Victoria Tower Gardens have been carefully developed to achieve these objectives. The Spicer memorial commemorates the philanthropist Mr Henry Gage Spicer, who contributed to the creation of the playground in the 1920s. Though not listed, the memorial is important, commemorating a generous donation and lending a degree of dignity to the gardens. Under our proposals, the Spicer memorial will be moved a short distance to the south—rather less than the changes experienced when it was relocated in 2014. It currently marks the northern end of the playground. Under our proposals for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, it will continue to fulfil that role.

The Select Committee, having considered petitions against the Bill, accepted an assurance from the Government that a review would be carried out of the arrangements proposed for the southern end of the gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors to Victoria Tower Gardens. That review is now under way and further information on this matter will be published when it is complete.

The impact of our proposals on the Spicer memorial, and on all the memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, was of course considered very carefully by the independent planning inspector. Once the process of redetermining the planning application is restarted, the Spicer memorial, and other memorials, will no doubt be considered again, as they should be. There is therefore no need to include the proposed provision in the Bill. It would add nothing to the commitments that have been given and would simply open the door to potential legal challenges, which would delay still further the construction of the Holocaust memorial. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 9.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for her Amendment 10. I recognise her great contribution to horticulture, landscaping and gardening. I fully support her commitment to protect the magnificent London plane trees in Victoria Tower Gardens. From the very beginning of the design process, protection of the two lines of trees on the eastern and western sides of the gardens has been a major consideration. The proposed design was selected from a very strong shortlist of contenders partly because of the way in which it respects Victoria Tower Gardens, including the London plane trees, which are today such an important and integral part of that place.

We have drawn heavily on expert advice to ensure that construction of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre can take place with as little impact on the trees as possible. As noble Lords may recall, a great deal of time was taken at the planning inquiry debating the likely impacts on tree roots, with several expert witnesses cross-examined. As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, alluded to, the inspector considered very carefully what pruning of tree roots would be required, how this would be mitigated and what the impacts on the trees would be. He was then able to consider the risks of harm against the undoubted benefits that will arise from the creation of a national memorial to the Holocaust with an integrated learning centre. Introducing a new statutory provision to prevent any root pruning would take away any possibility of such a balanced judgment. The amendment as drafted would place a significant constraint on any possible scheme and would certainly prevent the proposed scheme from going ahead in its current form. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 10.

I turn now to the children’s playground, which is the subject of Amendments 18, 19 and 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and is partially covered by Amendment 9, which I addressed a moment ago. The Government fully agree with noble Lords who wish to ensure that children are provided with a high-quality playground at Victoria Tower Gardens. Our proposals for the gardens have been carefully developed to achieve this objective. The playground will be remodelled with a high standard of equipment and carefully designed for accessibility, with suitable separation from other users of the gardens.

The Lords Select Committee gave a great deal of attention to the playground, including matters relating to level access, which are covered by Amendment 18. The Select Committee accepted assurances from the Government that the playground would remain open, with level access at all times, during the construction process, when this is practicable and safe. A separate assurance accepted by the committee committed the Government to review arrangements for the southern end of Victoria Tower Gardens, with a view to ensuring an appropriate separation of the playground from other visitors. Amendments 18, 19 and 20 seek to put in the Bill assurances that the Government gave to the Lords Select Committee.

It was, of course, open to the Select Committee to amend the Bill. It did not do so, which I believe was a wise decision. Using primary legislation to impose detailed conditions on a development carries significant risks. It is a blunt instrument—an approach that takes away the scope for balanced judgment after hearing all the evidence, and that risks creating unintended consequences when statutory provisions are translated into practical steps on the ground. I repeat without embarrassment that the better approach is to rely on the planning system. The impacts of our proposals on the playground in Victoria Tower Gardens were of course considered very carefully by the independent planning inspector. Once the planning process is restarted, the playground will no doubt be considered again.

As for the assurances that we have given to the Lords Select Committee, the Government will be accountable to Parliament for ensuring that they are carried out. There is therefore no need to include these new clauses in the Bill. They would add nothing to the commitments that have been given and would simply open the door to potential legal challenges that would delay still further the construction of the Holocaust memorial.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked specifically about the planning process, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, on the previous group. This application is subject to the passing of this Bill. The planning process would mean that the designated Planning Minister, Minister McMahon, would consider the options. It is up to him to decide which options he would want to take forward. One would be written representations, a second would be a public inquiry and a third would be a round table based on a consensus approach. These are options for the designated Minister to consider.

I hope I have clarified noble Lords’ concerns and issues, and I therefore ask the noble Lord, for whom I have great respect—I spent a lot of time in Bahrain as a student of his diplomacy—not to press his Amendments 18, 19 and 20 requiring new clauses.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, as my amendment was an amendment to an amendment, I am having the final bite of the cherry, so to speak. My noble friend Lord Blencathra asked me a very technical question. As I have relied very heavily on a report that was done by an extremely well-qualified person and I do not have the immediate answer, I think I might take refuge in something that is sometimes done by Ministers answering questions: I will write to my noble friend having found out the precise answer.

In general terms, I am sorry to say that, despite the kindness of the Minister in seeking to answer my queries, I am not in the least satisfied with the points that he has made—not only because he rather underplayed the importance of severing tree roots but because he did not deal at all with the severe matter of compaction, which is another major issue. I will not worry the Committee with anything much longer, save to say that I seek leave to withdraw only because I really have no other choice—but I am not in the least satisfied with the result.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I realise that this is a wide-ranging Bill, but I want only to deal with one small aspect of it, which the Minister kindly referred to in her opening remarks: the value of allowing tenants to keep pets as the general standard. She was kind enough to mention the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, as having given her valuable advice on this topic, so I shall be interested to hear what they have to say later in this debate and interested too to see whether any of my comments chime with what they say.

My first interest in this was when I was an MP—heaven alone knows how many years ago now—but I remember feeling saddened and indeed angered by the blanket refusal of many landlords to allow someone to keep a beloved pet. I can remember one constituent who refused to go into suitable accommodation without their pet. Others would succumb to this because they were desperate and had to give up their pet. There has been, over these many years, a lot of hidden unhappiness, needless unhappiness, for people who so value the companionship of animals. I think we now realise more clearly than ever before the mental and physical health which can accrue from having a pet. I hope that this is a good moment in which to set the matter straight.

Sadly, it seems that there are still many landlords who, without this Bill, will not allow pets to be kept. I was startled by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home saying that the second-most common reason for people giving pets back to it related to housing. It added that only a very small percentage of landlords ever indicated that they were happy about pets being kept. There remains a great deal of work to be done on this score.

I understand that there are those who worry about the possible unhappy implications of very noisy dogs, damage to furniture and perhaps aggressive dogs, but these can be exaggerated. In any case, the idea of insurance being required, if the landlord so wishes, is a very sensible approach. I hope that that will help towards sensible pet ownership.

On the other hand, I have some reservations about the adequacy of the two clauses which deal with this—Clauses 12 and 13. For a start, it is obviously proper that landlords should not withhold their consent unreasonably, but there is no indication whatever about what unreasonable behaviour might constitute. I know full well that it is impossible to list every eventuality in the Bill, or even in delegated legislation, but I am concerned that there seems to be no way of dealing with this. The Minister may have something in mind: perhaps some official guidance which is outside the law but which gives clear indications. I would not expect to deal with anything so detailed tonight, but I would be very happy if we could have correspondence on this matter and these other matters at a later stage or, indeed, have that unusual and valued thing, an actual meeting.

In addition, I am concerned that we are creating another unfairness because social housing is not included. I can understand why if we are not dealing with social housing, but it is going to look rather odd if we have a right in one sector that is not available in another, very comparable sector which, for the average person, will seem to be exactly the same. I wonder whether there is any way in which we can deal with that issue.

I have some reservations on these matters, but, overall, I am delighted that we have at last got where I would like to have got—what?—50 years ago. Anyway, better late than never.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness Fookes Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I start on a very modest personal note. Until recently, I would enjoy a walk from over the river in Kennington from my flat, through the Garden Museum gardens, over Lambeth Bridge, and then there was the absolute joy of the little oasis of the gardens, walking through there to the House of Lords. It is amazing what a difference it makes whether you walk on the Millbank side with the road or go into the park itself, where the walk takes on a totally different atmosphere.

I used to enjoy greatly seeing the change of the seasons, the way the flowers and shrubs would change, looking at other people walking quietly, people with dogs, ladies with pushchairs, and then of course, later in the day, office workers enjoying a break, or residents. I know of one pair who are elderly and extremely concerned because they can see this little haven, which is within their reach to enjoy—bearing in mind they cannot walk awfully far—being destroyed if this particular arrangement goes ahead.

Like others, I have no quarrel whatever with the concept of a learning centre or any kind of memorial. However, I am concerned about the use of this site, particularly because it was dedicated—this is embodied in the law of 1900—as a public garden, or what we might call a park. I believe that it is shocking that any Government should try to overturn that for this particular purpose.

I have particular worries about the impact on the garden itself. I would have declared my interest as the co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Gardening and Horticulture Group except that, of course, it all came to an end with the new Parliament and it has not yet been reconstituted. However, that is where I come from and that is the point of view I take: the absolute importance to the environment and to people’s health and well-being of these places where, in urban areas particularly, there is some place where people can relax and enjoy themselves.

I find it striking that the previous Government, who I thought were devoted to the environment— I assume that the current Government are also—will, when it comes to the pinch, quite happily sacrifice one of these little oases, as I call them, in what I suppose they regard as greater interests. I am not convinced. For a start, even if only 7% is to be lost—and I query that, despite what others have said—that is still too much when you have a small area; it is not very big.

I have other worries. If we are digging underground to form the underground learning centre, what of the roots of the major trees? My noble friend made that point earlier in the debate. I know that Westminster Council employed consultants on trees, and I think it was pretty clear that the trees would be in real danger. You cannot dig down and expect the roots of major trees to be unaffected. There is a very real possibility that these trees would be destroyed gradually, if not totally. What, then, of our environmental considerations? Consider how much carbon dioxide those major trees absorb. For that reason alone, I am very concerned about this development.

Others have mentioned security; I am thinking purely in practical terms of security. If people have to be checked airport style and their tickets recorded, or whatever it might be, where is the space for that to go? It cannot go in the road, can it? That is obviously overcrowded already. It seems that it would have to come out of the gardens themselves, which will most certainly make it far more difficult for the gardens to remain in their present state. I see my time is up, so I will say no more.