Holocaust Memorial Bill

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, we agree that we should never forget the mass murder and terror of the Holocaust and that we must ensure through all possible processes—whether in Holocaust centres, through school curriculums, through university research and teaching—that the reality of the Holocaust is made known to present generations. Almost 80 years on from the end of the Second World War, there are multiple very serious conflicts across the globe and we need to shine a very clear light on the scale, extent and the horror of what happened over those years. We must ensure that the tragedy—and that seems too small a word, having visited Auschwitz—of the Holocaust is neither denied nor forgotten. Yet the Bill we are debating today is highly contested. I support the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and I am grateful to her for all that she has done in informing the debate and correcting some of the erroneous assertions that have been made.

In the Gracious Speech last July, His Majesty said we must do everything we can to ensure that the Holocaust is never forgotten and to fight anti-Semitism and all forms of hatred and prejudice in our society. He was right, but there are multiple problems with the proposed project. There has been criticism of management and cost control by the NAO; Victoria Tower Gardens was not identified as one of the three possible sites; there is a serious risk of flooding, et cetera.

There are six Holocaust memorials and some 21 Holocaust centres in the UK. The proposed centre will not focus exclusively on the Second World War Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews and many others—homosexuals, members of the Travelling and Gypsy communities, the learning disabled and Catholics—were exterminated and subjected to indescribable torture, to medical experimentation and other atrocities. It will have a much wider scope and, in so doing, there is a very significant risk that the understanding of the Holocaust which we seek to promote will be lost in these brief 45-minute tours, by the limited number of people who are able to afford even to travel to London to visit it for such a limited time, of the very limited centre that will deal with multiple atrocities.

The architectural proposal was drawn up for a memorial in Ottawa and was not acceptable. It is old and dated in design. It does not in any way convey the Holocaust to me. We need to provide a dedicated space in which an appropriate, dignified, meaningful monument, which clearly depicts some of the reality of the Holocaust, might be created; and, possibly elsewhere, a proper centre for study and learning about the Holocaust—something more extensive and more profound than that which would result if the current proposal were given effect.

This centre would become a focus for those who seek to remove the Jewish people from Israel and who protest about the rights of Palestinians. Such protests could result in extensive damage to the centre and gardens and the requirement for an additional focus of police resources in an area where it is challenging to provide an effective policing service currently. Parliament experiences massive security risks in an environment in which international terrorism has become very effective. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, whose expertise in the prevention of terrorism is widely known, has expressed his concerns about the security threat. This is a real risk.

On a related matter, there is a plaque that was given to Parliament in appreciation for the 10,000 Jewish children whose lives were saved in the Kindertransport operation. That plaque is of enormous importance, as it commemorates the courage and trust shown by those parents, many of whom died in the Holocaust, who sent their children to this country. It is located in a shabby back corridor. While we determine the best way to remember what happened in the Holocaust, could we possibly clean and reposition this very important plaque to a place where it might be seen?

The Government have a duty not to rush through the Bill, as the last Government attempted to do. Further thought should be given to clarifying how we construct both the monument and an extensive functional learning and research centre—not buried in the ground but built above ground in honour of those who died and those whose lives were so damaged and broken by what happened.

King’s Speech

Baroness O'Loan Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, on an excellent maiden speech. I welcome him and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, to their new responsibilities.

In its manifesto, the Labour Party said:

“The Legacy Act denies justice to the families and victims… Labour will repeal and replace it, by returning to the principles of the Stormont House Agreement”.


His Majesty, in the gracious Speech, said that:

“In consultation with all parties, measures will be brought forward to begin the process of repealing and replacing the”


legacy Act. That clear commitment to repeal and replacement is very welcome. I hope that the repeal of the Act will lead to a reduction in the suffering of victims caused by the Act, the cessation of the Irish Government’s proceedings against the United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights and a period of greater co-operation with the Irish Government, which is surely in the interests of everyone.

As noble Lords know, the Act was challenged immediately in the High Court, which found many of its sections to be incompatible with existing rights and obligations, including its provisions for immunity and the abolition of the right to bring civil actions. The Conservative Government appealed that judgment and a decision is expected from the Court of Appeal in early autumn. A new system must provide for the restoration of full independent criminal investigation powers and the right to report independently to those families who wish to know why what happened happened and where responsibility for the many atrocities lay.

Under the Act, the Secretary of State has extraordinary, unnecessary powers which fetter the independence of the ICRIR in many respects. Normal processes for investigations and reporting must be restored, as provided for in the Stormont House agreement. Above all, there must be an unqualified right of access to information from statutory agencies, rather than the current provision that the ICRIR can get only information that it reasonably requires. No such restriction was imposed on the police, nor on me as Police Ombudsman. Access to information has always been a challenge for investigators and, regrettably, there is ample evidence of the refusal by state agencies to supply information and material, even when its production has been ordered by judges and coroners. There must be no scope for arguments about whether materials are reasonably required; if required, they must be provided.

Inquests must be established. There are some 38 legacy cases—a very small number—awaiting inquests. Eighteen coroners were hearing legacy cases last November. These inquests do not represent an insuperable burden on the coronial system. Effective inquests such as the Ballymurphy inquest can be massively important, because what is disclosed informs understanding, and understanding, particularly across the community, is fundamental to trust in policing and security.

The right to bring civil actions, abolished under the Act, must be re-established. Evidence which would normally be available to a plaintiff must be made available and not subjected to the restrictions imposed by the Act.

Most recently, the very experienced new chief constable of the PSNI sought to provide evidence in gist, or summary, to a court. The Northern Ireland Secretary of State initiated legal proceedings to stop him doing so. This is not indicative of any desire to help families access information. It is immensely damaging to victims’ confidence in government when it sees the Government seeking to stop the chief constable providing information.

There is no justification for withholding much of the information which is available. Yes, information is often distressing for families and victims, but the torture of being unable to find out what happened and the suspicions to which it gives rise are equally, or indeed more, distressing. National security needs to be protected, but there needs to be clarity about exactly what is to be protected and why it is necessary to protect it.

Under the Act, the ICRIR was established with a range of functions, including case reviews. A few families seem to be using its services—they have nowhere else to go. We do not know how many families; the ICRIR has not released any information despite requests.

The Government have said that they will consult on options to strengthen the independence of the ICRIR. Much public money has been spent establishing it, providing premises and recruiting staff. However, the ICRIR will have to become a fundamentally different body with a different name, given the problems that have been identified and the distrust generated in the passing of the legacy Act.

Parliament must now create a new set of obligations and responsibilities to enable both impartial and effective investigation and fair and accurate memorialisation. I look forward to the Government delivering on their promise to repeal the Act and to give families the access to justice which, as the Government have said, is currently denied. As the Minister has said, the rule of law is paramount and fundamental to the building of society. Can the Minister provide some information on when the legislation will be introduced?