Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

That was a perfectly proper and normal process, as established in the planning rules. Of course the Government can do that, through the proper process, and have a public inquiry; that is a normal thing. What the council cannot do is meet as a group to decide on planning permissions. The reason why the law was changed was because of a number of dodgy decisions taken in the 1960s for political and personal financial reasons. That is why it is not possible to discuss planning applications.

These things are taken completely independently. There have been some ingenious arguments put forward, which I have enjoyed, but, essentially, it is the same thing: “We want a different planning system. We don’t want one that applies to the rest of the country. We want a planning application that applies to where we live, and we want to decide it because we’re in the House of Lords”. That is an untenable position and one that is difficult to justify outside. This Bill does not seek to grant planning permission; it does not take it into the planning permission. Nothing in this process relates to town and country planning. It just opens the possibility for town and country planning to be applied to this process.

The Imperial War Museum is a key partner in this. It supports the memorial in the Victoria Tower Gardens. Regarding UNESCO, we should remember that this is not in its area; it is outside it. We are perhaps entitled to get the opinion of Historic England. I am sure that it was just because of a question of time—she was coming to the end of her time—that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, did not give Historic England’s view; of course, it looked at this matter specifically. It said 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”.

We are grateful for that but, ultimately, something such as this has to be determined by the Minister. The Government, who are responsible for our security, have to make that decision in conjunction with the security forces.

I am going to sit down now, but I do hope that we can conduct this in a slightly more comradely fashion. In 1992, during my first appearance on a committee, I accused George Mudie, who was then a Member of Parliament—and quite a good friend of mine, actually—of issuing weasel words. I was hauled over the coals for that, and I had to make a full and frank apology. But, apparently, your Lordships’ House, which is supposed to be the dignified end of the constitution, can serve words such as these without it even raising an eyebrow.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21. I have a few straightforward questions for the Minister on the so-called planning process. First, I say to my noble friend Lord Pickles, in the most comradely and indeed cuddly way, that I think he misunderstood what my noble friend Lord Robathan was saying. I do not take my noble friend Lord Robathan’s comments to mean that the Labour and Tory groups met in some secret cabal or caucus to sabotage the planning application. I took them to mean that, when they met in the council properly to determine it, all the Tories and Labour people voted against it, perfectly legitimately—not in some secret caucus.

The questions I have for the Minister are straightforward. First, will he confirm that the designated Minister to decide on the three options that he mentioned last week will be from his own department? Will it be Matthew Pennycook MP, Jim McMahon OBE MP, Rushanara Ali MP, Alex Norris MP or the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage? Secondly, will he state how their independence will be judged?

I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that in my opinion there is not the slightest snowflake’s chance in Hades that the Government will again send this to Westminster City Council for a planning application. They will go for the other two internal options. In that regard, will the Minister set out exactly how the round-table proposal will work? Who will be invited, how many round tables will there be and what written evidence will they accept?

Finally, there is a suggestion for written representations as another option. Will he or the designated Minister accept and give full consideration to all written representations received, just like the planning application to Westminster City Council? If the designated Minister rejects them, will his or her justification be set out in full?

For the benefit of any present who may wish to give the Minister any advisory notes from the Box, I repeat: who will be the designated Minister? How will the department determine his or her independence? How will the round tables work? Will written representations permit all the representations that Westminster City Council receives? How will they be assessed? Will the designated Minister set out in full the reasons for rejecting written arguments, if the decision to go ahead is taken?

There you go, my Lords: two and a half minutes, which is a record for me in this Committee.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, as with many of the amendments that have been tabled to the Bill, relate to the planning process and the impact that the new memorial and learning centre will have on security and other buildings in the area.

Amendment 21, from my noble friend Lady Fookes, asks for a new planning application because of new information on security and environmental impacts. We have discussed these issues in an earlier group and I do not intend to revisit those arguments in my remarks here.

The amendment also seeks to place an expanded notification duty on the applicant. I do not support the amendment, but I am sure that the Minister will take this opportunity to reassure my noble friend Lady Fookes and her cosignatories that appropriate notifications will, as always, be sent in the appropriate manner to the appropriate persons.

Amendment 34, in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, seeks to require another impact assessment before this project. I know that my noble friend’s concerns are deeply felt, but I do not feel that we need to do a further impact assessment. We need to make progress on the delivery of this landmark memorial, which was promised to this country so very long ago.

Amendment 38 seeks to give Parliament the final decision on planning. Parliament will have a say once the Bill is passed. We are not certain that bringing the proposition to Parliament once again is at all appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My answer to that is that there will be green spaces. Some 90% of the park will still be green spaces. The whole project is 7.5% of the park. This has been discussed extensively in previous groups. There has been no lack of analysis, consultation and scrutiny in the process that has led us to this point. I accept, of course, that the process has not brought a complete consensus, but are we really expected to believe that, by repeating the process that began all those years ago, we would find a solution that would somehow meet everyone’s expectations? That is simply not realistic.

Our objective is widely shared, including by a succession of Prime Ministers and party leaders. Earlier this afternoon I was watching numerous Prime Ministers, from John Major to Gordon Brown, Theresa May, David Cameron and Tony Blair, all with democratic mandates and all giving strong support to this project. Numerous Prime Ministers and party leaders have shared widely their support to create a national memorial to the Holocaust, with an integrated learning centre, in a prominent location. An excellent design meeting our objectives has been put forward and awaits a decision on the planning application.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I detect that the Minister is in his peroration so I am grateful for him allowing me to intervene. He answered straightforwardly one of the questions that I posed—whom the designated Minister would be—but there are two others that he has not. He has made it clear that the designated Minister would have three options. He has been briefed by his civil servants that there are three options you can do. One is a full-scale planning application to Westminster City Council, which I believe will never happen. The second option was described by the Minister as a round table and the third was written representations to be received by the Minister. Clearly, the able civil servants in his department have invented those two other options. There must be a brief somewhere on what the round table and the written representations would do, and I would like to hear from the Minister, either today or at some time in the future, exactly what those other two options would involve.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to get involved in that. The reason why is that I am in no position to pre-empt what the designated planning Minister will do or the nature of his decision. That might require that the planning process is totally to be determined, and, within the options, he may have a particular focus on how he would like that exercised.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am sorry but the Minister may have misunderstood me. I am not asking for a decision on which option he will go for; I am asking for the details of the possible options that he could decide on. It is perfectly legitimate to ask, if the Government are saying that one thing will be a planning application, another thing will be a round table and the third one will be written representations, what details would be required in the round table. We are perfectly entitled to know that. The Minister must have had a brief on what it would be about; the department cannot pluck those three options from thin air without giving Ministers details of how they would operate in reality. I do not want to know which one he will go for, of course, but I want to know how they might work.

[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—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

32: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Learning Centre purposeThe sole purpose of any Learning Centre must be the provision of education about the Nazi genocide of the Jews and antisemitism.”

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 32 in my name, on this occasion, I will be a wee bit longer than two minutes. I suggest that this is the most important amendment we will consider since, no matter where this thing is built, it is vital that it concentrates on the Shoah and antisemitism, and nothing else.

I want to say that it was a most powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who has just left the Room. Some of the rest of us may be accused of being party political; he certainly was not, and I found his contribution quite devastating.

It was argued in this Committee last week that the only exhibits or information to be included in the learning centre would be on the Holocaust or Shoah. It was said that a group of historical experts had asserted that. Well, if that is what they believe, they are being taken for mugs or have not read what the Government have said about the learning centre. Paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Notes for the Bill says:

“The Learning Centre’s exhibition will … help people understand the way the lessons of the Holocaust apply more widely, including to other genocides”.


Note the words “including to other genocides”.

In his winding-up speech at Second Reading on 4 September, the Minister said:

“The learning centre will provide the opportunity to learn about the Holocaust close to the memorial, helping people to better understand how the lessons of the Holocaust apply more widely, including to other genocides”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. 1228.]


I prefer to believe the written Explanatory Notes on the Bill and the word of the Minister rather than the wishful thinking of a bunch of, no doubt, distinguished historians.

Can we all agree that it is government policy that “other genocides” will be included? What are all these other genocides? In a speech to the Council of Europe commemorating the 100th anniversary of the communist revolution in Russia, I said that we should commemorate 100 years of socialism and all the countries in which socialist policies had been tried. That was the Soviet Union, Germany, China, Cambodia, North Korea, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Ethiopia, Bulgaria, East Germany, Cuba, Angola, Albania, Laos, Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, Zimbabwe, Ecuador, Chile and others.

I then went on to say that we should list the 130 million people it slaughtered by genocide, democide and politicide as well as the countless millions tortured in gulags and forced labour camps. The principal countries and parties to showcase for genocide would be the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which killed 35 million people. The National Socialist Workers Party—that is, Hitler—killed 6 million Jews in the Holocaust and 20 million others in World War II. The Communist Party of China killed 65 million. The Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot killed 2 million. North Korea killed 3.6 million. Ethiopia killed 2 million. Yugoslavia killed 1.5 million. Then, if we add up Angola, Bulgaria, Laos, Zimbabwe and all the others, we get another 1.7 million slaughtered in socialist regimes.

Of course we have other evil genocides from non-socialist regimes. The Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides, all carried out by the Ottoman Empire, add up to 2.175 million. The Indonesian genocide adds up to about 1.5 million. The Guatemalan or Maya genocide killed 250,000; the Rwanda genocide killed 800,000, the Darfur genocide 300,000, and the Bosnia and Srebrenica genocide, 8,000. The Rohingya genocide—which continues, I suppose—is at 40,000. With the Uyghur genocide in China, we have no idea, but it could be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. In brief, that is an awful lot of genocides, with almost 140 million people slaughtered since 1914. After every one we always say it must never happen again, but it always does.

So which of these genocides will the learning centre highlight as “the other genocides”? It seems that only four are being considered: Cambodia, of 2 million; Rwanda, of 800,000; Darfur, of 300,000; and Bosnia, of 8,000. That is a total of 3,108,000. They are horrendous in themselves, but represent only a tiny fraction of the more than 75 million killed in genocides since the end of the Second World War.

Where have these four suggested genocides emerged from? I shall take noble Lords through the timeline. The 2015 Holocaust Commission had two throwaway lines. In paragraph 10 it said:

“While the Holocaust was unprecedented and should never be seen as equivalent to other genocides, we see many of the same steps from prejudice to persecution in other atrocities, like those in Rwanda and Bosnia or the crimes of ISIL today”.


Noble Lords should note the words

“unprecedented and should never be seen as equivalent to other genocides”.

Then in paragraph 44 it said that

“one of the objectives of the Learning Centre would also be to help people understand the way the lessons of the Holocaust apply more widely, including to other genocides”.

Note that there was no suggestion whatever that there would be a display of other genocides.

In 2018, the department employed a company called Metaphor to design the interior of the learning centre and present a detailed plan to Westminster City Council. That is when the whole thing became transmogrified. In his submission, a Mr Stephen Greenberg, an expert on the Holocaust and of impeccable integrity, said in paragraph 13.1:

“Decisions on which communities, and how many we select are yet to be decided”.


But then in paragraph 18.4, in describing “the Void” he said:

“It is a space where we will also reflect on the murder of the millions of Cambodians by the Pol Pot regime, the millions of Rwandans murdered by the Interahamwe and the thousands of Muslim men and boys murdered in Bosnia”.


So much for it not being decided yet, as he said four pages earlier. The Holocaust Commission mentioned Rwanda, Bosnia and Islamic State, not having exhibits on them—and suddenly we get Cambodia added to this list from out of nowhere. Then this idea of adding more genocides got legs through the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust.

Holocaust Memorial Day came about because of the Stockholm declaration of January 2000, which was the outcome of the international forum convened in Stockholm in January 2000 and attended by 23 Heads of State or Prime Ministers and 14 Deputy Prime Ministers or Ministers. It said in articles 1 and 2:

“We, The High Representatives of Governments at the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, declare that … 1. The Holocaust (Shoah) fundamentally challenged the foundations of civilization. The unprecedented character of the Holocaust will always hold universal meaning … 2. The magnitude of the Holocaust, planned and carried out by the Nazis, must be forever seared in our collective memory … The depths of that horror, and the heights of their heroism, can be touchstones in our understanding of the human capacity for evil and for good”.


Article 6 said:

“We share a commitment to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust and to honour those who stood against it. We will encourage appropriate forms of Holocaust remembrance, including an annual Day of Holocaust Remembrance, in our countries”.


That was in 2000.

The Home Office then organised Holocaust Memorial Day from 2001 to 2005, when it created the charity the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and appointed the trustees. The trust has run it ever since and has been 75% funded since 2007 by the Minister’s own Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; the funding amounted to £900,000 last year. The front page of the Holocaust Memorial Day website says in big letters:

“On Holocaust Memorial Day, we remember the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust, and the millions of people killed under Nazi persecution of other groups, and during more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur, and the Yazidi genocide”.


We should note that another one has been added—Darfur. Where did that come from? Who suggested adding Darfur to Holocaust Memorial Day?

The trust is run by a senior leadership team made up of eminent trustees of great ability and impeccable character, with my noble friend Lord Pickles as its honorary vice-president. But why on earth has the trust selected these four genocides to be commemorated along with the Shoah on Holocaust Memorial Day? They have nothing in common with the Holocaust. The Khmer Rouge wanted a classless society. In Rwanda, it was years of tribal hatred. Darfur was an ethnic war between black African farmers and nomadic Arabs. With Bosnia and Srebrenica, there was a religious war between Orthodox Serbs and Bosnian Muslims. The Holocaust was unique. The Holocaust Commission rightly said:

“The Holocaust is the product of an ideology. It was not a battle for land or power or even a grotesque response to perceived wrongdoing by Jewish people. It was rooted in an irrational hatred of Jews, for simply being born a Jew or of Jewish ancestry. Never before had a people been denied the right to life simply because of the crime of being born. It was, ultimately, a product of a thousand years of European antisemitism”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

I will certainly sit down.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I said at the beginning that I thought this was about the most important amendment we had; I am glad that I have, I think, been proved right. We have had a highly provocative, important debate on what the learning centre should be about. It has been stressed time and again that it should be about the Holocaust and antisemitism—nothing else.

I am grateful to all those of my noble friends who participated; to two highly distinguished Cross-Benchers, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew; and the non-affiliated Peer who signed my amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. He is a highly distinguished King’s Counsel who has led on many important cases in this country. I will forgive him for taking a brief from the ghastly Leigh Day firm; that was a cab rank thing, I suppose. He is also a professor of international law at King’s College. He rightly made the point that there will be controversy on what other groups are to be included; that point was picked up by my noble friend Lord Goodman, who supported my amendment and also made the point about there being a lot of controversy around what the other genocides are.

I think I would be right to say that probably every noble Lord in this place knows that what happened in Armenia 110 years ago, with 1 million Armenians slaughtered, was genocide. Some other countries in the world have said that, but no British Government have ever called it genocide because we are terrified that, if we call it genocide, Turkey and President Erdoğan—a big NATO member—will get terribly upset. Therefore, we do not call it genocide for wider geopolitical and military reasons; we have the same problem in trying to select various other genocides to attach here.

My noble friend Lady Fleet made a powerful speech on the antisemitism that she and her husband and family currently face. She rightly pointed out that the evil chant of “from the river to the sea” means the extermination of the Jews; she also made the point that the memorial and the learning centre must be about the Holocaust and antisemitism only.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, kept asking what the learning centre is about and what it is supposed to teach. If it is supposed to teach 2,000 years of Jewish history, you need something better than a few posters and videos in this little bunker; you need the giant campus that the Holocaust Commission proposed. Other Jewish organisations could have rooms there and you could have conferences. You would actually teach the 2,000-year history of Jewish life and the Holocaust in full detail.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, just made an intervention to say that his family fought the Germans. My uncles did as well, in the 51st Highland Division; they were captured at Saint-Valery and spent five years of the war in, I think, Stalag IV-D.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, asked: who are the beneficiaries? He rightly pointed out it would be those wandering Jews from 1,300 BC and the exodus in Egypt to the present day; that is 3,300 years of Jews looking for a safe home somewhere in the world. He also made the point that this must be about the Shoah and nothing else.

The shadow Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook, said that the point was to get the learning centre built so that the survivors of the Holocaust could see in their lifetime that we were commemorating the Holocaust. If I may say so, that is not the important point. The point is not, as was wrongly said in this Committee by a colleague, that this is for the benefit of the Jews. The whole point of the memorial and the learning centre is that it is for the tens of millions of people who deny that the Holocaust ever existed. The survivors of the Holocaust do not need to be told how bad it was—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry but they have told me very strongly—and have done so over a number of years, as they have told the Minister now—that they would like to see it.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I accept that. Of course they would like to see it—I totally understand that; I am not dismissing their desire—but what is more important: placating and dealing with their desire, or addressing the millions of people who are calling for a new holocaust and denying that the last Holocaust ever existed? That concern must take priority over building something that is grossly inadequate to please the existing survivors. The Minister talked again about it communicating the value of Jewish life over 2,000 years. I simply make the point, again, that you cannot do that with this little bunker; you need a proper learning centre, which the original Holocaust Commission called for.

I cannot see how on earth you can put an exhibition in this bunker that has any relevance to what happened later in Darfur or to Pol Pot. There is nothing to learn about these genocides from what happened to the Jews.

The noble Lord pointed out that every Prime Minister has supported this. Those of us who have been in Parliament for many years have always formed the view that when both political parties agree on something, the public are being stuffed somewhere. When you have half a dozen Prime Ministers agreeing on something, you can again be sure to bet that the public are being misled. If one could, I would love to put down a Parliamentary Question asking how many times these former Prime Ministers have actually walked through Victoria gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

I can do this in 20 seconds. All I am saying is that the Arrow Cross was murdering Jews in Hungary while Hitler was attempting the Munich putsch. The antisemitic laws were first introduced not at Nuremberg but in Hungary.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I will happily take that guidance from my noble friend; he may be absolutely right. I say to the Government Whip that we are not reliving the debate; I am trying to wind up the most important debate we have had in this Session over the last few days, and it is important to deal with the very important points raised by my noble friend Lord Pickles.

Okay, I am quite happy to remove the word “Nazi” and to say “Nazi-inspired”. We all agree that if we did not say “Nazi”, the amendment would be perfectly in order, because no one in this Room who supports the amendment is suggesting that we included the word “Nazi” to somehow exonerate Poland or the other countries that did it and are trying to concentrate just on a few hundred misguided people who wore the SS uniform. Of course that is not the case. We want this memorial and learning centre to be about everyone who exterminated Jews, whichever country they were in and whatever nationality they were.

That is the point made, in conclusion, by my noble friend Lord Robathan. He said that the whole point of the memorial is the genocide of the Jews by whoever did it. It has to be the Holocaust only, and none of the other four genocides suggested here has any relevance to the Holocaust. They should be ignored: the Holocaust and antisemitism only. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 32 withdrawn.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 8 simply seeks to ensure that the area taken up by the Holocaust memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens will not occupy an area any greater than is required, should it go ahead as currently proposed. One thousand four hundred and twenty-nine square metres has been accepted as the area required. I note that the Government have further provided assurances that this will be the case.

In January 2024, the Government gave the Select Committee in the House of Commons the following assurance:

“the Promoter will only site the permanent buildings and other … structures comprising a Holocaust memorial and learning centre and its ancillary facilities … on, under and over … land”

according to a plan submitted to that committee on 5 February 2024, citing once again the 1,429 square metre figure.

The proportion of the park to be taken up by the Holocaust memorial has long been disputed. The planning inspector’s report stated that “the area directly affected by the proposals would in my view be likely to be greater than the 7.5% calculation”. The proposed design of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre is so dominant and disproportionate that, as the inspector’s report also stated, “its role as the setting for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre inevitably becomes the more substantial element of its identity as a public space.” Thankfully, he did not go on to repeat the architect’s desire that it should also disrupt the peace of the park, although one could draw that conclusion from the planning inspector’s remarks.

Confusion concerning the precise square metreage in question has arisen because of a Written Answer given by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, to this House in March and April 2023, in response to a Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the total area needed. The noble Baroness’s answer said that the area was intended to cover

“both the size of Victoria Tower Gardens and the area taken by the Holocaust Memorial above ground within the park.”

However, inadvertently, the noble Baroness then stated in the subsequent text of her answer that the area of 1,429 square metres also included the enclosed Holocaust memorial courtyard with its ramp and entrance pavilion, its fence, and the associated hard-standing items A to D, as per my amendment; but also, five other areas specified in the amendment as E, F, G, H and I—all of these within the 1,429 square-metre area. At the same time, it provided a plan of the area which excludes the five areas, E, F, G, H and I. This plan was repeated in the letter addressed by the promoter’s lawyers to the Commons Select Committee on 5 February, and has been repeated since then.

Given these official inconsistencies concerning the actual area affected by the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, I propose that Clause 2 of the Bill should be amended to include a clear limit in terms of square metreage—1,429 square metres, as previously claimed—or to include an appropriate amendment to the plan submitted by the Government to the Commons Select Committee on 5 February 2024.

This is all fundamental, and we really must sort this out. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 14 says that the proposed monument must not be extended or altered in any “replacement scheme”. On this occasion, I shall be relatively brief.

It was my experience as a constituency MP that developers would get planning permission for, say, 20 houses, and then a few months later bung in a revised application for 30 or 40 houses, or one to convert bungalows into two-storey houses. It is a well-known planning racket, and it works because local councils conclude that they would have to spend a fortune on planning appeals which they might not win, on the grounds that they had already given permission for some sort of development, so how could they resist additional development? This is what we must prevent happening here.

We know that the department is considering tweaks to the plans, and many of us have been hypercritical of the inadequacy of the so-called learning centre in the bunker. We have amendments down later on the need for new planning permission, but what is to stop the department saying that the planning rejection was called in already and that the inspector ruled in favour, so no new planning permission is needed—and then use its own powers to alter the plans on the ground that they are just minor tweaks?

The original planning application is six years old and a new application to Westminster City Council is essential, in the view of most of us on this side of the argument. We know that the department wants to avoid that public scrutiny and refused to submit the new application, saying that nothing has changed, but it cannot be trusted. After the Commons Select Committee reported, I met its chairman, who has since lost his seat in the election last year. He said that he and most of the committee were appalled at the lies and disinformation about the project. Nothing that the department or its lawyers produced could be trusted, but their hands were tied by the resolution passed by the Government in the Commons: that they were forbidden to look at any of the flaws, inadequacies, misinformation or downright lies that they had been told.

The Government gave assurances following the Lords Select Committee report, and these two assurances are relevant here. Assurance 7 is about the exact location of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre within Victoria Tower Gardens. It basically relies on the as yet unspecified planning process to deliver an acceptable proposal. Assurance 8 focuses on a redesign of the area around the Buxton memorial. They promised to give detailed consideration and claim that they had already gone back to their design team. What does that prove? They are going to have to go back to get detailed designs anyway, and there is no indication that they will increase the gap between the two memorials.

There is no one, other than at planning, to opine on whether the calibre of the new design delivers insignificant adjustments which count, since the only way to do that is to redesign the whole memorial and learning centre, or to move the Buxton memorial so that they are further apart. I also support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Strathcarron and Lord Robathan.

We can all guess what will happen: the department will use the figure of 1,429 square metres for the building but will then have some fairly wide paths for people to queue, or for admission and searches. Then a police or security box will be added—and how could one possibly complain about that? Then there will be hard-standing areas at the back for vehicles to load and unload, and probably maintenance trucks. If there will be vehicles, will there be vehicle access from Millbank? We will be told that it will be essential to let in fire engines—and if there is a fire, how could we possibly oppose letting those in? They will inevitably build some facility above ground for what they will call essential maintenance support, or electrical power sheds. Has anyone ever heard of or seen an underground visitor centre without some fairly large above-ground support facility? Of course not.

I simply want an assurance from the Government that if this Bill passes, there will not be the slightest change in the design or location, and that they will not seek to make it larger by claiming that the 1,429 square metres relates only to the space below ground. All the items in my noble friend’s Amendment 8 are essential accoutrements, for which planning permission is not required or they say are taken as read.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

I just remind the Committee of the normal time limits for speaking.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

They are advisory only.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I just say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron’s Amendments 8 and 17. Projects such as this are always liable to mission creep. This has already had quite a lot of mission creep attached to it, and I can see many reasons why there might be further mission creep in future. My noble friend has undertaken a valuable role in drawing attention to the areas where this might happen and, therefore, bringing in the agreements and undertakings so far given by the Government and the promoters of the Bill. That relates to Amendment 8, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra has also underlined many of the words and excuses that will be used for wishing to go wider than originally anticipated.

Amendment 17 would help guarantee that this does not become a way for creep in the future. We can stop mission creep as far as this project is concerned, but there may be subsequent creep thereafter. The amendment is therefore very valuable, because this is controversial and all sides are entitled to know exactly what is proposed. I honestly cannot see how the Government and promoters—if they are being honest—can refuse to accept an invitation that lays everything out clearly and precisely so that we know where we are from the beginning.

These two amendments therefore have my support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

People have argued against this proposal from day one. They have argued against not just the location but the idea of having a memorial and it being in Victoria Tower Gardens. I accept and understand that the tactics now are to say, “Well, look, we are not against the memorial being in Victoria Tower Gardens, but we do not like the design or the size”, or some other spurious reason, and to drag this whole process out for as long as possible and make it as controversial as possible in the hope that, in the end, the Government will change their plans or drop the whole thing in its entirety.

I say this to noble Lords: people can table all the amendments they like, and we can have all the lengthy debates they want. I think there is cross-party support for this project. There is majority support in both Houses and, as I have said, widespread support in the Jewish community, too. It is about time we stopped tabling amendments and having lengthy, repetitive debates on the same points week after week. I can see that the noble Lord is about to get up and make all the same points once again, but we will respond to them, and we can drag this out for as long as he wants.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I cannot speak for my noble friends, but I deeply resent the suggestion that our suggestions for a proper memorial are somehow a tactic to delay and destroy the Bill. All of us on this side of the argument are deeply committed to a proper memorial, the memorial the Holocaust Commission recommended: one which is appropriately British and which recognises the killing of 6 million Jews, not the thing that was accepted by the last Government. I exempt the Minister from most of the blame for this; he is carrying on the vanity proposals of the Cameron Government.

I want to get to the bottom of a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Austin, and my noble friend Lord Pickles: that it is purely for the Shoah, and no other genocides will be there. But paragraph 3 of the Explanatory Notes refers to

“the persecution … of other groups … subsequently”.

On Second Reading, the Minister said:

“The learning centre will also address subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur”.—[Official Report, 4/9/24; col. GC 1224.]


Is the noble Lord saying that the Minister was lying when he told the House on Second Reading that it would commemorate other genocides? Was he telling the truth, was he misguided, or was it a lie? [Interruption.]

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

Let me respond to that point; it is a valid question, and I want to answer it. Every single Member of this House and the other place had the opportunity to sit down with the historian responsible for the content. As far as I am aware, the only three people who have bothered to take part in any of these debates are myself, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. I think it fair to say that all three of us were impressed by what we were told by the historian, who assured us—we have also had this assurance from the Minister and the relevant officials—that this will be a memorial to the Holocaust, not to genocides in general. It may be the case that, as people leave, there is a board saying, “Since then, there have been atrocities in Cambodia and Darfur, so clearly, we have not yet learned the lessons”. But this is specifically and solely about the Holocaust.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

My Lords, we are having a civilised discussion about this matter, but it is quite clear how controversial it is. It is also quite clear that, once the building begins, and as it proceeds, the traffic is disrupted and the Victoria Tower Gardens become a building site, there will be a less civilised discussion outside this House.

My fear is—I expressed this at Second Reading and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has expressed the same fear—that this project will become a focus for antisemitism. People will blame it on the Jews, it will become a focus and the underlying message of the Holocaust memorial will be lost. It will be lost in controversy about the present day, not the past. It will become, I fear, a focus for demonstrations in the way that the American embassy was back in the 1960s over the Vietnam War.

All kinds of authorities are being quoted and all kinds of theories have been put forward, but as Members of this House we owe it to the House and to the public to express our views and fears. My warning is that proceeding along the lines that we are doing is going to do very great harm. It is going to promote antisemitism and it is going to be the reverse of everything that a Holocaust memorial should be.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to, in the nicest possible way, challenge the noble Lord, Lord Austin, again. I am not sure whether he was here when we had our discussion on how the project would be managed. He quotes the advice of historians. The historians are advisory only. They are utterly irrelevant in deciding the end output of the learning centre. We discussed it last week and I produced the chart from the National Audit Office showing the hierarchy and structure. We have a foundation advisory board and an academic advisory board, but they sit under the ultimate direction of the Secretary of State and the Minister, who make the decision, so the historians can have any view they like. I prefer to believe the view of the Minister. It was a Minister who said at Second Reading that subsequent generations of genocides will be commemorated as well. I think that is terribly important, and we take the Minister at his word. If the Minister cares to say afterwards that he was wrong or that that is not the case and no other genocides will be considered in this memorial centre, then, again, I will take the word of the Minister for that, but the Committee needs to know. Is it still the Government’s view, which they expressed at Second Reading, that these subsequent genocides will be commemorated?

I neglected to comment on Clause 2 stand part. I shall do so briefly. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill only for the underground learning centre. We are all happy to have a proper memorial that is relevant to the 6 million murdered Jews, but the underground learning centre fails to fulfil any of the Holocaust Commission’s requirements that it should be a large campus with a conference centre and facilities for debates and meetings, a place where Jewish organisations could have rooms and offices to continue Jewish education. The Holocaust Commission recommended three sites: Potter’s Field, a site further down Millbank that the Reuben brothers were willing to donate and, of course, the Imperial War Museum, which was gagging to build a huge new learning centre attached to its museum. We have not heard a single reason why those sites were rejected. I think my noble friend Lord Finkelstein or my noble friend Lord Pickles or the Minister said earlier in our debates that 50 other sites were considered. Okay, 50 other sites were considered, but we have not had a single reason why the three sites recommended by the Holocaust Commission were rejected. So I think that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill, particularly the part about the underground learning centre. We need to have a proper one that will do all the things that the Holocaust Commission recommended. Note that no one in the Government or the previous Government or my noble friends talk about the Holocaust Commission now, because we know that this project has completely ditched everything that it called for. Just as they never mention the name of the discredited architect Adjaye, they never mention the Holocaust Commission, which is now regarded as out of date and whose proposals are no longer relevant. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, I support what my noble friend has just said. I very much admire the commission’s report and I think that the way that it is being treated now shows a degree of disrespect that is little short of appalling. The debate that we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Pickles and the noble Lord, Lord Austin, is completely irrelevant to the actuality of what is being proposed and the difference between it and what the commission recommended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Strathcarron for introducing this group, which is primarily focused on design. I would like to make it clear to my noble friend that, in relation to the accusation that he made about my inconsistencies in figures relating to the amount of the park that would be required for the memorial, I will look into it and respond to him personally.

Clearly, the planning process will, as we have heard numerous times from my noble friend Lord Pickles, take into account concerns about the design of the memorial and learning centre. I hope that the Minister—I will ask him once again—can give the Committee more detail on how these concerns can be raised in an appropriate way, at an appropriate time. It is crucial that the Government bring people with them when pressing ahead with these plans, as we know how strongly people feel. We feel it would be helpful if the Minister could take this opportunity to set out the next stages of progress after the passage of this Bill, particularly the processes for the planning stage. If he is unable to do so this afternoon, it would be helpful for the Committee to have these details in writing well before Report.

I will speak to Amendments 8 and 14. The principle behind Amendment 8 is very sensible: it seeks to protect the interests of existing users of Victoria Tower Gardens while construction is under way. Perhaps this need not be set down in legislation, but I am pleased that my noble friend has brought this amendment forward. This should certainly be addressed during the planning process.

Amendment 14, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, seeks to extend any limit to the size of the memorial and learning centre to any replacement memorial and centre in the future. We are not sure that this Bill is the right place to put a limit on the size of the centre, but we accept that my noble friend has legitimate and deeply felt concerns about the impact that the memorial and centre will have on Victoria Tower Gardens.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

If this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to put a limit on the size, what would be?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The appropriate vehicle for all these issues, apart from what is in the simple Bill before us, is the planning process. I sometimes feel quite uncomfortable discussing the issues that we discuss, because they can pre-empt planning decisions. We have to be very cautious about what we say in this Committee.

I regret that I cannot support the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in her Clause 2 stand part notice, which seeks to leave in place the existing legal prohibitions on the development of Victoria Tower Gardens. I have spoken previously about, and will repeat, the importance of the symbolism of establishing the Holocaust memorial here in Westminster, in the shadow of the mother of all Parliaments. I believe that this is an important statement of how important we consider Holocaust education to be. After all, it is our duty, as a Parliament, to protect the rights of minorities and learn the lessons of the Holocaust ourselves so that this never happens again.

Amendment 17 is very good, and I thank my noble friend Lord Strathcarron. I do not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, on this. When the Conservatives were in government, we put plans in place to limit the impact of construction on the rest of Victoria Tower Gardens, and we agree that the gardens should be protected for their existing use as far as possible. I urge the Government to listen to my noble friend Lord Strathcarron’s argument and ensure that protection for the rest of the gardens is put on a statutory footing, as the gardens as a whole are currently protected in law.

That said, I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who has long taken such a keen and passionate interest in this Bill. I know how deeply she feels about this legislation. The Government should take her concerns seriously and provide her and the rest of the Committee with reassurances, where possible.

[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 showing the strength of feeling on different sides. Yesterday, I was at the Ron Arad Studio alongside the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and I saw the 3D model for the first time, in person. I will bring the model into Parliament, into this House, and book a space for all noble Lords to have the opportunity to look at it and question a representative of the architects’ firm, who can talk through the model. On the back of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Austin, I will also invite the historian Martin Winstone back into the House and give noble Lords another opportunity to engage with him, ask him questions and listen to his perspective. I start today by giving those two assurances.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Blencathra, for tabling their amendments. It would be appropriate, alongside these amendments, to argue that Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.

This group of amendments takes us to the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900. The Act led to the creation of Victoria Tower Gardens in broadly its current form. The 1900 Act was then at the heart of the High Court case in 2022 that led to the removal of planning consent for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The previous Government, with cross-party support, introduced this Bill to remove the obstacle identified by the High Court. That was the right way to proceed. Parliament passed the Act in 1900, extending Victoria Tower Gardens and making them available for the public. It is right that Parliament should be asked to consider whether, in all the circumstances of the modern world, the 1900 Act should continue to prevent construction of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre in these gardens.

The Bill is short. It does not seek powers to bypass the proper procedures for seeking planning consent. With this one simple clause—Clause 2—the obstacle of the 1900 Act is lifted. No part of the 1900 Act is repealed. No general permission is sought for development. The only relaxation of restrictions concerns the creation of a memorial recalling an event that challenged the foundations of civilisation. That is the question posed to Parliament by Clause 2. It does not require hair-splitting over the number of square metres that should be allowed for a path or a hard standing; those are proper and important matters for the planning system, which is far better equipped to handle them than a Grand Committee of your Lordships’ House.

I would like to say a brief word about why Victoria Tower Gardens were chosen as the location for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, an issue of concern raised by a number of noble Lords. After an extensive search for suitable sites, Victoria Tower Gardens were identified as the site uniquely capable of meeting the Government’s vision for the memorial; its historical, emotional and political significance substantially outweighed all other locations. The Holocaust memorial and learning centre was also seen to be in keeping with other memorials sited in the gardens representing struggles for equality and justice.

The 1900 Act requires that Victoria Tower Gardens should remain a garden that is open to the public. We absolutely agree with that. Clause 2 simply provides that the relevant sections of the 1900 Act, requiring that the gardens shall be maintained as a garden open to the public, do not prevent the construction, subsequent use and maintenance of a Holocaust memorial and learning centre.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am so sorry to interrupt the Minister again. He said that, after looking at 50 sites, Victoria Tower Gardens was decided to be the best of them. He has not explained what was wrong with the three sites recommended by the Holocaust Commission. Why did the Government reject the Imperial War Museum, Reuben Brothers’ offer of a site off Millbank, and Potters Fields?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

That is an issue for the competition and planning process subsequently. I cannot comment on planning matters.

Victoria Tower Gardens will remain open to the public and be home to an inspiring Holocaust memorial that will also be open to the public. Indeed, the design of the memorial was chosen because it met an essential challenge of the brief by being visually arresting yet showing sensitivity to its location and context. The winning design was further developed to meet the requirements of the chosen site and to ensure that the new features and landscaping improvements will benefit all users of the gardens. The gardens themselves will benefit from landscaping improvements that will enhance them for all visitors.

This clause will enable the Government to make progress on delivering the commitment that successive Administrations have made since 2015. Every Prime Minister since 2015 has supported this project. The current Prime Minister has restated that commitment clearly, including in his speech to the Holocaust Educational Trust last September—I was there—when he said:

“We will build that national Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre and build it next to Parliament, boldly, proudly, unapologetically … Not as a Jewish community initiative, but as a national initiative—a national statement of the truth of the Holocaust and its place in our national consciousness, and a permanent reminder of where hatred and prejudice can lead”.


I turn now to Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, which is intended to set a physical limitation on the size of any Holocaust memorial and learning centre that could be constructed at Victoria Tower Gardens. I acknowledge the desire among noble Lords to be reassured about the size of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre but, by setting a square metreage, this amendment does not provide certainty. Instead, it would open further avenues for litigation and make the proposed scheme undeliverable. The amendment would conflict with Clause 1(3) specifically, which allows alterations and extensions. More fundamentally, it would act as an obstacle to the creation of the specific scheme that this Government and previous Administrations have proposed to construct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord has just made a point about the basis on which people support or object to this proposal. First, it is not true. I used to live a few hundred yards away from the proposed location—my kids played in the playground—and I supported it all the way through. It is an extraordinary admission to say that the reason we are against it is that we live nearby. If members of this Committee were on a local council planning committee, or even a parish council, they would not be allowed to take part in a discussion about a proposal with an interest like that—on the basis that this is where they live.

I gently make the point that we are here in the House of Lords to make decisions solely on the basis of the public interest; we are not supposed to take decisions on the basis of our personal or private interests, or where we might or might not live. That is not why we are here. In fact, I think I am correct in saying that when we are appointed to the House and the Letters Patent are read out before we take the oath, we are required to set aside all private interests. This is something I have long suspected. It has never been admitted before, but I think it is an extraordinary admission.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Before my noble friend replies, I point out to the noble Lord that the Lords Select Committee deliberately excluded anyone who did not have a personal local interest or live close enough to be affected by this. That is quite a different matter from noble Lords’ consideration in this Committee. The Select Committee was restricted to hearing only noble Lords who could show a personal interest that might be affected—their property, their use of the park or whatever. The noble Lord should probably get up to speed on the powers of a special Select Committee.

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

To respond to—

--- Later in debate ---

Will the Minister agree to lay before Parliament a report on the measures the Government will take to safeguard children, as called for by Amendment 19?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I did not sign these amendments because I was leaving it to others with kiddies and grandchildren to speak with much more authority, but I am prompted to speak by the Minister saying last week that the main path used by mums, nannies and children will be closed. Also, I have a question for my noble friend Lady Fookes, which we may want to reflect on, on the effect on the water table if a big hole is dug. I am not sure whether a hydrological engineer has commented on this, but my experience with Natural England was that if you want to destroy peatland, you just dig a trench and all the water drains from the rest of the soil and the peat into the trench. There is probably a level water plain in this park. If one digs a ruddy great big hole, does it not act as a sump, so that water from the surrounding area moves into it?

Of course, the bunker will have to be completely waterproof so that there is no water ingress, but it will still act as a sump and there may have to be pumps to pump out the water surrounding the bunker in order to maintain its water integrity. It is a question that I am not sure my noble friend will have the answer to, but there could be a more serious effect on the trees she is concerned about, in that they will suffer a huge moisture lack, more than London often does in summer, if the bunker acts as a sump.

As for the children’s playground, I believe that there are only two ways into it. The level access one is the southern gate, which we all use and which gives access to the Buxton memorial, the playground and the kiosk. The other access, I think, is down the steep set of steps off Lambeth Bridge, which is no good whatever for mums with baby buggies and so on. The playground now assumes a much greater importance because the Government confirmed last week that the main path used by everyone, adjacent to Millbank, will be closed or partially closed. That is where, every morning when I go through the park, I see the nannies with the little kiddies.

Yesterday was a reasonably warm day in London. The park was not full, and I took some wonderful photographs—of the bins overflowing and garbage everywhere. That was just on a nice day in London. Obviously, I would not take photographs of little kiddies with their nannies and so on—one does not want to be arrested on the spot—but I can assure the Committee that I see lot of them going through there every day. They are tiny little things: I do not know what ages they are, but none of them are higher than 18 inches. Sometimes they are on a pole or in a croc, and they are all walking along with their nannies, using that main path. If they have no access to the park, the playground becomes even more important. How will they access it?

From the plans, I assume that the main entrance for the builders and contractors will be the southern gate, and that will block access to the children’s playground and to the main footpath that lots of little kiddies, nannies and mums, as well as other users of the park, use every day. I say to the Government that if they are determined to go ahead with this, they should leave the southern gate alone for mums and dads and everyone else to use, and create some other construction access between the southern gate and Lambeth Bridge where they can get their trucks in. If they are going to remove the kiosk and the children’s playground, and move it elsewhere, that would allow the construction of a new gate. I leave that point for the Minister and his planning process to consider.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a very ingenious argument. I am always distressed to be on the opposite side from him on these matters, because he is such a persuasive speaker. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, made an enormous amount of sense and said nothing that I disagree with. It occurs to me that if I had followed his advice and attended more playgrounds and eaten fewer buns, I would be in a better state today than I am.

The noble Lord said that the planning system is not fit for purpose. That is generally said by people who think that we are not passing enough: it is not fit for purpose because we need to build more houses. One thing that I think is fit for purpose is that, as is pretty well established, we are able to look at the regulations, apply those to playgrounds and do some negotiating to get the right alternative through the planning system. That also applies to trees. If there is anything well established, tree preservation orders are at the very centre of the planning system. We know that, should there be a grant of planning permission, each tree will be considered and negotiated between the council and the department, and an enormous amount of work will go into this. If we are to pass this, are we saying that Parliament should decide on the conditions of every playground next to a new development, or every tree preservation order?

With a cursory look at the planning inquiry and the independent inspector’s finding, noble Lords will see that an enormous amount of thought has gone into the preservation of the trees. The current situation is not helpful. As I said a couple of Committee days ago, those paths are, in essence, strangling the roots of the trees because they are not permeable to water. We will put in new paths that ensure that water goes to the roots of the trees.

I recognise and sympathise with the noble Baroness’s dilemma and great passion with regard to abduction, but one of the reasons why that is not likely to happen—in, as she described, a situation where there will be lots of queuing—is that there will not be any queuing. It will be ticket only. People will have to obtain the tickets in advance; they will not be able to obtain a ticket at the memorial site. Only people with tickets will be able to come in, and only within a particular time frame. That was designed specifically—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for introducing this group. The object of his Amendment 9 is an important one, as we have discussed in an earlier group, and I understand why my noble friend Lady Fookes has tabled her Amendment 10 to strengthen protections for existing trees in Victoria Tower Gardens. While this issue should be addressed through the planning process, I agree with my noble friend and the noble Lord that this is an opportunity for the Government to update the Committee on the steps they intend to take to protect the existing monuments and trees in the gardens.

Amendments 18, 19 and 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seek to deliver protections for the playground at the south end of the gardens. Given the relatively limited access to green spaces in this part of Westminster, the playground is an important facility in the area and I believe it should be possible for the works to go ahead without preventing access to the playground. We know that the design of the project seeks to preserve 100% of the play area when the works are complete, but the noble Lord makes an important point about continued access to the play area during the progress of the works. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to protect the playground during as well as after the construction of the memorial and learning centre? This is an important issue for local residents and regular users of the gardens, so I hope it can be addressed fully in the planning process, if the Minister is unable to satisfy the Committee today.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lord, before the Minister replies, I ask my noble friend Lord Pickles one little point. He said that we cannot have Parliament decide on planning applications and that they are better left to the planning process. As I understand it, the planning process is a Minister in the department deciding either to have a round-table discussion, to submit a plan to Westminster Council or to call for written representations. That is the planning process. Does he think that a better process than Parliament deciding?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 35 in my name. I declare interests: I have a house nearby, I have interests in a playground manufacturing company, and I am vice-president and a former chairman of Fields in Trust, formerly known as the National Playing Fields Association, which devotes itself to the preservation of playing fields and parks.

I do not think this project should go ahead without a risk assessment. This has been highlighted by our debate so far which has raised some of the risks that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, just mentioned. So as not to waste your Lordships’ time, I will mention very briefly some of the points. Can anyone not think that there is a risk in introducing 1 million visitors a year into a relatively small space? A risk assessment is essential, even more so when one considers that it is proposed that the memorial be in an area in central London that, because of its proximity to Parliament, is more sensitive than most, as a number of noble Lords have already mentioned. There will be a risk from the sheer numbers.

What risks will there be from demonstrations connected with the memorial? These have already been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others. There are bound to be demonstrations if the memorial is built, as it will be a prime target. Already demonstrations cause havoc in the area, with many streets being closed. How will the potentially more dangerous and aggressive demonstrations be dealt with? What about the risk to local inhabitants? What assessment of risk has there been of the memorial being a target for fanatics as well as for peaceful demonstrations? What about the risk of bombs, or the risk that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, highlighted at a previous meeting? What risk is there to those using Victoria Tower Gardens for the purpose it was set up for as a recreational park for peace and tranquil enjoyment? What about the risk during the restoration of the Palace of Westminster? Think of all the plant, machinery and building materials that will almost certainly need to be parked in Victoria Tower Gardens pending use. This is bad enough without the memorial, but with the memorial taking up the proposed space and with all the necessary security surrounding it, there will be a risk to the poor public squeezed between these two.

What about being squeezed between the Buxton memorial and the Holocaust memorial? What traffic risks will there be with the greater congestion caused by busloads arriving at the memorial, to say nothing of the increased vehicle traffic? What about the risk to covenants on other parks and green spaces? Will disapplying the 1900 Act covenant create a precedent? Will it be an example of what can be done? The National Playing Fields Association has covenants over 3,000 green spaces. Breaking the 1900 covenant may well create a precedent and encourage some of those other covenants to be challenged. What about the risk of flooding as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley? The idea of children being trapped there is unthinkable. What about the risk of no proper management structure or the convoluted management arrangement with 10 separate bodies but no one in overall charge, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra and others have highlighted?

There is also the risk of non-completion. Let me repeat the quote from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority that my noble friend Lord Blencathra mentioned earlier in this debate:

“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable”.


There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need to be rescoped and/or its overall viability to be reassessed. There are many other areas of risk that I have not mentioned. The whole project is fraught with risk. A proper risk assessment will doubtless raise other problems. I imagine that, after our debate so far, the Minister is probably falling over himself to have a risk assessment that will pull together all the various strands of all the risks that have been debated and others that have not been mentioned.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 28 and 36. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is not just a House of Lords expert on security and terrorist threats; he is a national expert with many years’ experience. I submit that any person or Government who ignore his wise words are putting at risk fellow parliamentarians and all visitors who will be in the park either to go to the learning centre, to visit the gardens generally or to go through Black Rod’s security entrance to access House of Lords facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

16: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Design of the Holocaust Memorial(1) After the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must launch a competition to design a figurative Holocaust Memorial appropriate to a location within Victoria Tower Gardens and reflective of the Nazi genocide of the Jews.(2) The final decision on design must include a public consultation, and consultation with Holocaust survivors and relatives of victims of the Holocaust.”

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 16 calls for the design of a new and appropriate memorial. As an aside, before I begin, in my 42 years in Parliament I must have heard hundreds, if not thousands of times the expression “The Government have no intention”. Then, as Harold Macmillan said, there are “Events, dear boy, events” and suddenly the Government have an intention. I move on to my amendment.

Let it be repeated again: everyone in this Grand Committee wants a proper and appropriate memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens to the 6 million Jews who were exterminated in the Holocaust. Let no one suggest that those of us who have vigorously opposed the Adjaye monstrosity and his pokey little bunker are opposed to a memorial which fulfils the demands of the Holocaust Commission, which the Government stopped talking about ever since they accepted this flawed design from a discredited architect. There is no surprise there, since the design fails all the tests set by the Holocaust Commission. The commission wanted a large campus; we get a bunker under the ground. The commission recommended the Imperial War Museum, Potters Field or near Millbank Tower, all locations with lots of space which were offered; we get a small garden which does not want it. The commission wanted something uniquely British; we get a second-hand cast-off rejected by Canada. The commission wanted something to commemorate 6 million murdered Jews; we get 23 things which are meaningless to everyone, and for other genocides as well.

I have heard it said by esteemed colleagues in this Room, for whom I have the highest regard, that the Adjaye monstrosity is a modest little measure and appropriate. One of the important needs in politics in these dreadful times is imagination and wishful thinking, such as thinking that Putin wants peace; that Kim Il Sung is not barking mad; that Vice-President Vance might be a decent guy; and that this project is modest and appropriate.

It has been said that the design must be brilliant because it was selected by internationally renowned architects. Of course they would support it. There is nothing so brutalist, Stalinist or big, shiny and ugly that they will not support. We could have had that big glass

“carbuncle on the face of a much-loved friend”

on the National Gallery if His Royal Highness, the then Prince of Wales, had not criticised it then, but his comment that the National Theatre was like “a nuclear power station” was plainly wrong. I can tell noble Lords, as a Cumbrian, that Sellafield looks 10 times nicer than the National Theatre.

Look how the architectural luvvies despise the beautiful village of Poundbury, which the Duchy of Cornwall describes as

“Architecture of place. Creating beauty and reflecting local character and identity”.


This is the characteristic that seems to drive many architects and critics into apoplexy. It prompts them to hurl the architectural equivalent of curse words, such as mock, twee, faux and, perhaps worst of all, Disneyland. However, a growing body of research also shows a disconnect between what most architects design and what most users actually prefer. For the harshest architects and critics, the problem is much more basic. The village of Poundbury simply commits an unforgiveable offence against the most sacred rule of today’s architectural orthodoxy, which is, “We must not copy the past”. That is what has happened here, although one could say that the Adjaye design is copying the past, as it was rejected in Toronto.

I will shortly turn to other monuments around the world which have six points representing the Star of David or six features which could stand for 6 million murdered Jews. So, like all trendy, overrated architects Adjaye selected something of no relevance whatever to 6 million murdered Jews, but he made it big and shiny—at least it will be, until the bronze tarnishes—and the architectural world oohs and aahs and says “Oh, fantastic, darling”.

I challenge anyone here to tell me that they had heard the numbers 23 or 22 in relation to the Holocaust before Adjaye came up with that completely obscure figure. Not a single person who is Jewish or who has Jewish heritage has ever heard the figures 22 and 23 before in relation to the Holocaust. The internet is awash with Holocaust denial. There is not a single vile denier saying that the 22 countries the Jews were taken from to be exterminated is wrong. Not even the vile deniers had heard it earlier either. What they deny all the time is the 6 million massacred: that is the number we need to have front and centre of any memorial, and this monstrosity is not it. That is why we need a new design for Victoria Tower Gardens, and we can get one quickly.

I do not know how visually to represent 6 million murdered Jews. We all saw the brilliant display of 888,246 ceramic poppies at the Tower of London commemorating our First World War dead. It was magnificent but it took a lot of space, and something like that for 6 million dead Jews would require seven times the space, so that would not work. The most moving memorial I have ever seen is in Budapest, and that is not relevant for here either. It is a row of bronze shoes from Jewish men, women and children on the banks of the Danube where Jews had to stand to be shot in the back of the head to topple into the river, which ran red with their blood.

However, other countries have done brilliantly. After Canada rejected the Adjaye abomination—for noble Lords who have not seen it, it is a series of 23 large concrete fins, the same size as he has pawned off on us here, but that time they were grey, concrete and wavy. There is no explanation given for why Ottawa had to get concrete wiggly ones and we get straight bronze ones. However, after Canada rejected it, it then built a proper memorial with sort of Star of David shapes in it. It is too large for our gardens, but it is authentic, relevant and appropriate. The Czech Republic has a suitable sized monument of two triangles intersecting, resulting in a six-pointed star shape. Both these monuments, I suppose, satisfy the architectural requirement that they are not just old-fashioned copies of the Star of David, but a modernised version of it.

Estonia has a large granite or marble slab with a seven-branched menorah on the bottom half and a stylised Star of David on the top. Athens also has something interesting. It has an irregular, six-sided, white, marble stone in the centre, surrounded by six irregular triangle stones. The one that would fit in perfectly here is the six-point Star of David monument in Gorlice, Poland. It has 12 faces with plaques with writing on them and is about the same height as the Buxton memorial, although a bit wider all round. Tirana in Albania has three beautiful, large, dark marble slabs arranged in a semicircle in a prominent place in the centre, right beside Mother Teresa Square. The three slabs say in Hebrew, Albanian and English:

“Albanians, Christians and Muslims endangered their own lives to protect and save the Jews”.


Albania was the only country in Europe with more Jews at the end of the war than at the start, since it did not kill a single one. It gave refuge to all Jews who reached there. It is a superb memorial. How can the poorest country in Europe, with a GDP of $26 billion, get it so right when we, the sixth-largest economy in the world, with a GDP of $3 trillion, cannot get anything remotely Jewish?

What all these memorials have in common is something Jewish or relevant to Jews, such as the Star of David or the menorah. Therefore, we do not need architects and their weird ideas, we need designers, and that is where this project went wrong at the beginning. An architect cannot design an appropriate monument any more than a designer can make architectural drawings for the technical workings of a bunker. They are different skills, and we all know that a new design competition could come up with monument designs within weeks for something that could be built in six months, a design that reminds us of 6 million murdered Jews. The memorial is not for the benefit of Jews, which was once wrongly stated in this Committee, but for all the rest of us who need reminding of that figure of 6 million. Jews do not need reminding of that. That is why the Adjaye abomination is so wrong. When challenged about the brutal ugliness of it, he said on the BBC on 12 February 2019 that

“disrupting the pleasure of being in a park is key to the thinking”

behind the memorial. No, no, no, Adjaye. Key to the thinking of the memorial is getting across the message that 6 million Jews were slaughtered.

My real criticism of the Adjaye design is not my subjective opinion, which I give the Committee all the time—that it is an abomination, grotesque and ugly—but that his design is irrelevant. All the others I have indicated have something Jewish about them: the Star of David, the menorah, or writing on plaques stating that 6 million Jews were massacred on the face of the memorial, not buried in video screens in a bunker. That is why we need a new design for this garden—a proper, moving memorial to 6 million slaughtered Jews that bears some symbolism of Jewry and the Holocaust. Anything else fails to deliver what the Holocaust Commission asked for. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, very briefly, we think that it does. I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has an amendment in group 7, when we will discuss this in depth.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I begin with a profound apology to my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, whose amendment I inadvertently stole. For some reason, when I was writing up my notes, in my enthusiasm for some of the amendments here, I assumed it was mine. I therefore jumped up today to propose it as mine—it certainly was not mine and I apologise for that. My noble friend kindly agreed to let me do the wind-up in his place.

My noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook said that the only reason why the Opposition might object to it is if there were practical problems. By that, I think that she meant if there were construction, engineering or big design problems, but we say that there are practical problems because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, there is nothing Jewish about it. There is no Jewishness in the whole thing.

The Minister attempted to justify regurgitating the Ottawa failure on the basis that architects often reuse designs. Yes, that is fair game, except that this was supposed to be a uniquely British design. The design for the memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, or wherever it was to be, had to be a uniquely British one. There is nothing uniquely British about something that Canada rejected.

In my remarks, I did not refer to the personal problems that Mr Adjaye experienced and the allegations against him. I simply note that he has said:

“I will be immediately seeking professional help in order to learn from these mistakes”.


The Government keep saying that it does not matter now, because Adjaye will have nothing more to do with it in future. It is too late to withdraw from it now —it is Sir David Adjaye’s design. He was praised to the heavens and his name was mentioned 12 times in the press release announcing the design. The Government were very proud to have David Adjaye then, and it is no good now trying to distance themselves from him.

I am not Jewish, so I cannot understand the depth of feeling there would be about someone who, because of sexual problems, has withdrawn from a project to design a memorial for 6 million slaughtered Jews. All I can say from my own background, with two uncles who were in the 51st Highland Volunteers, captured at St Valery and taken to Stalag Luft 14, is that I would not like a monument to them and to the regiment to be designed by someone who had these sexual allegations against them. I would hate that.

One of my noble friends said that a new monument would be completed quickly and at much smaller cost. Of course, a separate learning centre above ground would also be cheaper. My noble friend Lord Sassoon made a very good point. We can get a suitable amendment that would lead to an appropriate memorial that relates to Jewishness, is the right size and tries to get across the message that the memorial is there because 6 million Jews were slaughtered. That is the most important thing.

Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my noble friend Lord Strathcarron’s amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I clarify that these are allegations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Yes, he denies any criminal involvement at all and denies those allegations of sexual assault. I merely quoted his words:

“I will be immediately seeking professional help in order to learn from these mistakes”.


He has withdrawn himself from Adjaye Associates. I have not given any credence to the women who have made the sexual allegations, and I am happy to repeat that he denies them. He has nevertheless withdrawn from his involvement with this project, and it is too late to say that it is nothing to do with David Adjaye.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Grand Committee

I look forward to further debate during today’s sitting. The proposed plans for this centre and much-loved public park at the heart of Westminster concern many people and it is right that we preserve as much access as we can.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Eccles in his Amendment 5 and will speak to my Amendment 33. When I first saw the department’s plan to manage this, I was tempted to ask the Minister facetiously whether he would put the experts of HS2 in charge of the project since they seemed to have all the matching qualities outlined in the devastating “red for danger” Infrastructure and Projects Authority report. But then I had a panic—perhaps they might not realise that I was being facetious and actually put HS2 in charge.

The National Audit Office said in a devasting report of 2022 that the department had informed it that it hoped to get an NDPB up and running about a year before the centre opened. It would be in charge of running it but have no role in managing its construction. The key findings of that NAO report were that:

“The Department does not have a track record of managing programmes of this nature … The Department has recruited specialists from across the civil service and externally, but the team does not have staff with programme management expertise in senior positions”.


However, the devasting criticism of the project is not a comment by the NAO but is printed on page 11 of the report as an organisation chart showing the nine bodies under the Secretary of State that will have input into its management. The department calls this “the governance structure”. I have given a copy of this to the Minister, to Hansard and to the clerks. Of course, we cannot enter it into Hansard, so I will read out what it says.

At the bottom of the chart are three organisations credited with giving independent assurance. One is the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which has already condemned the management of the project. Another is the Cabinet Office, which must give approval on business cases and procurement. Then there is the Treasury. The NAO report says that the Treasury’s role is to be:

“Responsible for allocating funding for the programme. Treasury approval is required at different stages as per the Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan … As a condition of the funding, the Department must seek further Treasury approval if the programme is forecast to use more than half of the approved contingency”.


We all know what the Treasury is like: no one will be able to buy a nail to build this place without months and months of Treasury approval. That is another government department with management rights over this project.

Then there are three advisory boards: the foundation advisory board, the academic advisory board and the construction advisory board. The members of the foundation advisory board are extremely distinguished and will all have firm views on fulfilling their role of defining the overall vision for the programme, including content of the learning centre. But the academic advisory board,

“Provides a peer-review process and discussion forum for the envisioned exhibition content”.

So now we have two expert bodies advising on content and a paralysed programme board terrified to decide between them or reject their advice. This is a recipe for delay and completely contradictory decisions as the programme board attempts to please everyone.

Above those advisory bodies, we have the programme board itself. I hope that noble Lords are listening carefully, because this is what it will do:

“Meets monthly and is chaired by the senior responsible owner. It is the decision-making authority for the programme and collectively owns the programme’s objectives. It monitors the performance of individual projects and work packages, as well as the risks and issues affecting delivery and the mitigations in place to address them. Members include the programme director, programme manager and project leads. Representatives from other parts of the Department, such as Procurement, and external stakeholders, including specialist contractors, are also invited to meetings”.


What an extraordinarily huge bunch of people with no power except to monitor performance, assess risks and pass things on to the oversight board.

The oversight board is one level higher up. It will meet

“2-3 times a year with representatives from the Foundation Advisory Board and senior government. Sets the strategic direction of the programme and is the escalation point for the Programme Board; any changes to the strategic direction need Oversight Board approval”.

Next, we have the investment sub-committee, whose remit is:

“The ISC must approve new project or programme business cases. The programme must seek further ISC approval if it is forecast to use more than half of the approved cost contingency.”


Finally, at the top of this indecision tree is the Secretary of State as

“the ultimate escalation point and sits on the Oversight Board”.

In summary, we have three advisory committees, one organisation with responsibility for finance, two powerful government departments with the final say on finance and two other boards that monitor things and talk about them. There is one thing missing—a straightforward delivery board whose mission given to it by the Secretary of State should be simply this: “You will deliver this project X at a cost Y by day Z and you will suffer penalty P if you fail to deliver and you are a day late.” Get rid of all the other talking shops except the foundation advisory board, which can advise on content but with no say on design or construction. Once new plans are approved in detail, no changes should be made at all. We have all seen in the buildings around Parliament—from Portcullis House onwards—how architects and designers loved to have a committee of politicians in charge, who changed the design regularly, costing an absolute fortune.

This Heath Robinson so-called management structure devised by the department is a recipe for argument, delay and cost overruns. However, it has one magnificent feature cleverly built in by civil servants: with this structure, not a single person can be held accountable for failure. If the cost goes from £138 million to £200 million, which of these bodies gets the blame, or if it is three years late, or if the Jewish community condemns it at the end as not being appropriate? That is why we need a new non-departmental public body set up now and given a simple set of objectives to deliver a set project at a set date at a set cost. That is the only way this can ever work.

I turn now to my Amendment 33 and the future management of Victoria Tower Gardens. In April 1946, the Attorney-General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, told Conservative MPs in a Commons debate:

“We are the masters at the moment, and … for a very long time to come”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/1946; col. 1213.]


I now hear Cabinet Ministers saying that the new Attorney-General is telling them, “I am the master now”. Be that as it may, the relevance of this comment is that I fear that any new NDPB set up to run the completed project will feel that it is the all-powerful master of Victoria Tower Gardens, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out.

The NDPB will be under the overall control of a Secretary of State, partly funded by the Government, and possibly eventually fully funded if the costs grow out of control. It will have, no doubt, a senior civil servant or two from the department, and some others of the great and the good. With the clout it will have from government, it will feel that it can dictate all aspects of the governance of the gardens.

We can guess what will happen: if it finds long queues, it will create roped-off chicanes, like those zigzag lines you get in airports, and do so with no consultation with the garden authorities. What will it do to stop visitors spreading out over the rest of the garden to have picnics, as in Berlin, and taking up the space of other garden users?

We simply have no idea what pressures may arise to infringe on the rest of Victoria Tower Gardens. Therefore, as Amendment 33 makes clear, the NDPB must not have any authority over any other parts of the garden and must consult local residents in advance through the relevant local amenity societies with regard to any matters which may affect the free use of Victoria Tower Gardens as a garden open to the rest of the public. Anything else would be inappropriate.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I want to say a word or two in support of my noble friend Lord Eccles and his amendment and my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Much of what I was going to say has been well forked over already, but I think it underlines the importance of moving towards a clear structure and organisation as quickly as possible.

The spider’s web of committees and advisory boards referred to by my noble friend on page 11 of the National Audit Office’s report must be a recipe for disaster. As he pointed out very forcefully, it is a way to ensure that nobody will ever be blamed for anything. It does not matter whether it is too much money, design faults, cost overruns, failure to meet timescales or failure to meet commitments, as page 13 of the National Audit Office’s report puts it—they can only have been designed and drafted by Sir Humphrey—it is, in effect, an organisational blank cheque. We need to make sure that it is very much better controlled, in the interests of performance delivery, the taxpayer and Parliament as a scrutinising body.

I hope that the Minister, who has so far put his foot to the metal, will take some time to think about these organisational problems, which are very real and have been brought forward by the National Audit Office on other pages of its report. If we do not do that, we are setting ourselves up for a very unhappy period during which this project gets going.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

I think I was with my noble friend on his last visit to Yad Vashem. Like him, I have been there many times, and I am always moved by the process. However, we need to make it absolutely clear that there is only one Holocaust. A number of genocides have occurred before and after, but there is only one Holocaust: that was the murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Robathan has made a very good point, and my noble friend Lord Pickles is right that there is only one Holocaust. But the briefing for this centre says that other genocides will also be commemorated there. So there will be things about Holodomor, and possibly Rwanda, and Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao or whoever they may be. Though there is only one really evil Holocaust, the Shoah, other genocides will also be commemorated. In my opinion, that dilutes the purpose of a Holocaust memorial.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was one of the few Members of either House—alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, who will confirm what I am saying—who attended a meeting organised to discuss the contents of the learning centre. The meeting was addressed by a historian who made it absolutely clear that this is not a learning centre about genocides; it is a learning centre specifically about the Holocaust, and it will not relativise the Holocaust and it will not compare the Holocaust to other genocides. The only extent to which other genocides may be mentioned is on the way out, where it might say something along the lines of, “Since then, there have been other genocides, showing we have not yet learned lessons”. The learning centre will be devoted specifically and solely to the Holocaust. That is what it is.

I was not going to take part in this debate but while I am on my feet, I have some questions for the right reverend Prelate. Why did he fix on three days? What was the basis for it and who did he consult? Is it based on the number of Holocaust commemorations? Did he speak to Holocaust survivors? Why did he decide that just three days in the entire year might be appropriate to remember the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis?

I point out gently to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I do not see what would be objectionable about people visiting the Holocaust memorial and sitting on the grass to eat their sandwiches afterwards. Why should they not have a picnic in the park if they choose to do so? It is what many other visitors to the park do. How would he distinguish between people visiting the memorial and having their lunch and people visiting the park and having their lunch? Many of the people visiting the memorial will be people who would visit the park anyway. Lots of people who visit the memorial will be people who live within the vicinity of the memorial or work in Westminster, so why would he object? I assume that he would not object to any of those people eating their sandwiches in the park. Why would he object to visitors to the memorial doing so?

My final point is that lots of the contributions to this suggest that the memorial and learning centre are going to take over the whole park. We have just heard a speech about land use as though it is going to transform the nature of the park. I gently point out to everybody in these discussions that the memorial and learning centre will in fact take up just 7.5% of the land in the park. I am sure that the Minister will confirm this when he concludes. It is a complete fallacy that it is going to take over the whole park and totally transform this part of Westminster.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

What I will say is that millions of people visit Westminster all year round. Tourists from all over the world come to Westminster and some of those will visit the memorial. I do not think that this will add significantly to the numbers that we already see visiting Westminster.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

The noble Lord referred to me in his remarks and I wish to respond. It is a matter of numbers. I came through the park today, as I do every day, and there were a few people out exercising their little doggies and picking up their mess, and kiddies having little picnics, but if we are going to have these 40 busloads of people eating their sandwiches, the park will be absolutely overwhelmed by excessive numbers and all those other activities will be frozen out, because of the dominance of numbers of those visiting the centre.

If I may say so, the noble Lord was absolutely wrong. I need to open my laptop and find the report. He may have talked to an expert who said that the Holocaust will be the only thing commemorated, but that is not what the official report says. The official report mentions other genocides that will also be commemorated. Of course, it does not refer to them as a Holocaust, because they are not, but it refers to the commemoration of other genocides. That was mentioned in the official Holocaust Commission report and it is referred to in the report published by the department, so it is incorrect to say that the centre will purely be for the Holocaust. I wish it were and I would like to see amendments saying that it should be devoted to the Holocaust only.

The other point about the size is also utterly wrong. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it will be four pokey little rooms underground and 48% of the construction underground will not be available to the public: it is ducts, stairways and non-usable space. So we will have an inadequate learning centre far too small for the purpose but far too large for the park, visited, if the Government are right, by tens of thousands of people who will inevitably, in the nicest possible way, with their picnics and so on, squeeze out the other users of that park whom I see every single day.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, before I support my noble friend Lord Pickles, I should say that I voted for this back in 2013 when I was a Member of Parliament under David Cameron. Since then, every Prime Minister—May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak and indeed Keir Starmer, the current Prime Minister—supported this. All Prime Ministers will support this application. Why is it that Prime Ministers support it? Because they are global leaders. Go around the globe or around Europe, to Berlin, for example, or to America. The Holocaust memorial in Berlin is its centrepiece; you cannot visit Berlin without seeing the Holocaust memorial.

In my view—I am biased, I admit—London is the greatest global city, so therefore to have this memorial as close to the British Parliament, the mother of all Parliaments, is exactly the right place. I say to some noble Lords—many of them are my friends—that this is starting to sound like a local authority council chamber. This is not a local government council chamber. This is the mother of all Parliaments. I believe that this is the right memorial in the right place in this great city.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My noble friend said that we have not yet had a planning application. Would she care to join the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in pressing the Minister on this yes or no question: will there be a new, fresh planning application? Also, will she press the Minister in demanding a new planning application?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will make that ask of the Minister in our debate on a subsequent group; if he does not answer now, I will repeat it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, makes an excellent point. In response to his request, I am absolutely happy to provide all the details on the structure and the associated issues that he raised. We will write not just to him but to the wider Committee.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I think the Minister said that the Secretary of State will be in charge. Do I take it, therefore, that the delivery body will be the Secretary of State and the department? The Secretary of State will draw up the design for the architects, after the planning permission, and she and her officers will let the contract and put in its terms and conditions, the cost overruns and all that sort of thing, so that by the time the NDPB is set up to run it, the Minister’s department will be managing the delivery of this contract. Is that right?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is responsible for the delivery of the project.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

That is reassuring.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I want to move on because there are a lot of points to come on to that I am pretty confident noble Lords will ask about, but I assure them that I will come back to the points raised.

In our response to the Select Committee’s report, we have said that we will seek to work with the Royal Parks in taking forward the recommendation. That said, I believe it would be completely wrong to set a formal limit on Holocaust-related events and not on other types of event. The Bill should not pre-empt the discussions we will have with the Royal Parks at the appropriate time by setting an arbitrary statutory limit on closures. We will work proactively with the Royal Parks to find a suitable solution that properly respects the rights and interests of all parties.

Amendment 33, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, seeks to set out the future management responsibilities for different parts of Victoria Tower Gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

The NAO also recognised that governance arrangements are in place. The strategic benefits of the programme have been clearly identified and specialists with the necessary skills have been recruited to the programme. As I said on the previous day in Committee, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority currently rates the project as undeliverable because the Bill needs to be passed and planning consent granted in order to proceed.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the infrastructure authority did not say that the only reason this project is undeliverable is that we did not have a Bill. It listed a whole host of reasons why it was undeliverable: no plan, no proper costing and no one really in charge. I do not want to go on at length about it, but I can certainly look out the exact quote for the Minister.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, finally, I turn to Amendment 5 from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, which would require the Holocaust memorial and learning centre to be managed by a non-departmental public body. The Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission report included a specific recommendation for the

“creation of a permanent independent body”

with responsibility for implementing the commission’s

“recommendations to commemorate the Holocaust and ensure a world-leading educational initiative”

in the long term.

The noble Viscount talked about the learning centre. We envisage an ambitious programme of educational activities. Some will be delivered on site and many will be delivered by working in partnership with other organisations, such as the Holocaust Educational Trust. The commission’s vision, which the Government accepted, was that such a body would guide, sponsor and facilitate ongoing commemoration and educational initiatives to ensure that the memory of the Holocaust and its lessons remain vibrant and current for all future generations.

A range of options are being considered for operating the memorial and learning centre. As a significant public investment, responsibility for managing the centre will need to rest with a body ultimately accountable to Parliament. The cost of running the memorial and learning centre will be met through a mixture of fundraising and grant funding, as with many other government-sponsored organisations.

As no decisions have yet been taken by the Government on the right model for operating the Holocaust memorial and learning centre, it would not be right to tie our hands by including a statutory requirement that it be a non-departmental public body. Indeed, it would be premature to do so, given that we do not yet have planning permission for the centre to be built.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked about future planning permission. It is for the designated Planning Minister to decide what he will do and what approach to take to planning.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, raised numerous examples of the creation of Holocaust memorials and museums across the world. I want to talk about the one in the United States, which I visited in 2018. The proposal to create a Holocaust memorial museum in Washington was announced in 1979, yet the memorial did not open until 1993. It was announced by the Administration of President Carter and opened by President Clinton. The site chosen, next to the National Mall in Washington, DC, generated considerable opposition, including on the grounds that it would lead to anti-Semitism because Jews would be seen as having privileged status, that injustices in American history were more deserving of memorials, that it would be used to whitewash America’s responses to the Holocaust or not do enough to celebrate its responses, or that the Holocaust was not relevant to American history.

All these reasons for opposition were given; another was that it was the right idea but in the wrong place. By 1987, the final architectural design was agreed but criticism and demands for changes to the design continued. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum was opened by President Clinton in 1993.

I understand that there is opposition and that there has been delay, but time is of the essence. I want to echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We want to ensure that Holocaust survivors are, we hope, present and alive to witness this being built and completed. I hope my explanations will enable noble Lords to understand why I am unable to accept their amendments. I request that the noble Viscount withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

May I just make sure that the record reflects accurately what the Infrastructure and Projects Authority actually said? On 16 January this year, it said:

“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed”.


Never once did it mention that it was undeliverable because we had not got a Bill yet and I would like the record to reflect that accurately. I am afraid that the Minister may have been fed a line.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Before we round up the debate, these generic arguments are not relevant to the Bill. Let me remind the Committee, in the kindest way, that the Bill has two main functions. One is in Clause 1, which allows the Secretary of State to spend on the project; the other is in Clause 2, to disapply the 1900 London Act for the project to be built. I appreciate the noble Lord’s reflections but we are speaking to amendments here. However, there is an opportunity for discussion during the planning process.

--- Later in debate ---

The only two obvious solutions to the problems arising are either the Buxton memorial being moved back to Parliament Square—this would be highly impractical—or, more practically, the learning centre being placed in one of the many available locations nearby, with a suitably redesigned Holocaust memorial in proportion to the existing Buxton memorial being placed at a sensible distance apart from it. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, in supporting my noble friend, I will speak to my Amendments 11, 12 and 37 in this group.

As my noble friend Lord Strathcarron said, this well-known memorial commemorates the 1833 Act to emancipate slaves and marks the immense contribution of British parliamentarians who campaigned for abolition, including Wilberforce, Clarkson, Thomas Fowell Buxton and others. It was commissioned by Charles Buxton MP, the son of Thomas Fowell Buxton, and designed in the neo-Gothic style by Samuel Teulon. It was completed in 1866 and originally placed in Parliament Square. It was removed from there in 1949 and reinstated in Victoria Tower Gardens in 1957, being placed carefully at an axis with St John the Evangelist church in Smith Square. It is a grade 2 listed monument both on architectural merit and because of the significance of the historical event that it marks.

The setting of the monument will undoubtedly be harmed by the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. Even the planning inspector, who ultimately recommended the approval of the memorial and learning centre, accepted that there would be significant harm; however, he felt that the other benefits—having ignored the impediments of the 1900 Act—outweighed this harm.

Like my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, I am grateful to the architect member of the London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust who has measured the distance between the memorial and the riverside as approximately 5 metres. If the proposals for the Holocaust memorial go forward, the Buxton memorial will be just 2 metres away from the courtyard drop. Those proposals include the suggestion for a stone bench around that 2-metre edge of the memorial. Were this to occur, it would create a pinch point, with the remaining crowds walking along the riverside. I suggest that that is quite unacceptable. The Buxton memorial is a vital part of British history and it should not be infringed upon or sidelined.

I stress that this is not a matter of prioritising a monument to the abolition of slavery over the extermination of 6 million Jews. We on this side of the argument all say that there should be an appropriately sized and relevant monument to the Holocaust in Victoria Tower Gardens. We reject the grotesque, oversized Adjaye fins as not suitable for this space. These giant fins would overwhelm the Buxton memorial; any poky little path between it and the fins or the learning centre should be at least 8 metres wide, so that the memorial can be properly seen from a reasonable distance.

I do not know whether noble Lords have ever gone up Parliament Street on the southern side and looked across at the Treasury and the FCDO buildings. They are quite magnificent, but you cannot appreciate their beauty since you are only 30 yards away. They are as magnificent as the government buildings in Washington or Paris, but, in Paris, Baron Haussmann made the streets so wide that you can see and appreciate the beauty from a distance. I suggest that we need that same principle to apply to the Buxton memorial and to any properly sized Holocaust monument. They should be magnificent and visible from all parts of the gardens. The awful thing about Adjaye’s giant fins is that, since he could not design a proper monument to honour 6 million Jews, he went for size and the same monument that was rejected by Ottawa.

I am not necessarily a conspiracy theorist, but I have looked at dozens and dozens of artist impressions of the Adjaye monument and I am stumped. I am willing to be corrected and pointed in the right direction, but I cannot find any artist impression which has got more than 16 fins. The thing is going to have 23 fins, as represented in the plan, but I cannot find any artist impression showing me what 23 fins would look like. It has been minimised to show 16 fins, and so these impressions show that the 16 fins do not interfere with the Buxton memorial at all. As I said, I am not a conspiracy theorist but, if anyone has got an artist impression with the 23 fins, please send it to me.

I appreciate that when the great and the good are conned by architectural psychobabble into accepting a design, they do not then want to admit that they got it wrong. I can see my colleagues digging in as deep on this as Adjaye’s bunker. However, if we are forced to accept this second-best solution and have the 23 fins, let us make sure that they are not so gigantic as to dominate the gardens and obscure the Buxton memorial or the view of the magnificent southern gable of Parliament.

If one of the key components here is supposed to be the underground learning centre, grossly inadequate though it is, then surely we do not need such a giant monstrosity on top of it. If we have to have a monstrosity, let us have a smaller monstrosity. My Amendment 11 says that any Holocaust monument must not exceed the dimensions of the Buxton memorial. That would leave ample scope for a good and magnificent Holocaust monument.

The base of the Buxton memorial is octagonal, about 12 feet in diameter with open arches on the eight sides, and is supported on clustered shafts of polished Devonshire marble. I will not go into all of the details, but what was cleverly designed into the memorial is quite magnificent. All of that magnificent work and story is delivered in something that is 12 feet wide and about 40 feet high. If we can commemorate something as important as the abolition of slavery, where some estimates say that 2 million died in transit, we can commemorate the murder of 6 million Jews in a similarly and appropriately sized monument.

Of course, the Buxton memorial was not always there; it was originally in Parliament Square before it was moved. There were heated debates in Parliament on moving it, and the last word must go to Lord Winster, a junior minister under Clement Attlee, who said:

“This memorial is not a statue. It is a memorial fountain which commemorates a noble deed, the reversal of a system which was the very negation of humanity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/1949; col. 1430.]


I suggest that those words should apply to the Holocaust memorial as well. It is very fitting. That is why the Buxton memorial must not be diminished or hidden by giant, irrelevant bronze fins, à la the discredited Adjaye design.

My Amendment 37 seeks to protect the path used by 95 % of the local people and visitors who use the gardens. The promoters say that they will try to keep open the path alongside the river. I travel through the gardens twice a day when the House is sitting, unless we are sitting so late that the garden is closed. I have only once in 30 years gone along the huge detour of the river path, just to see if it were worthwhile—hardly anyone uses it.

However, on the main footpath, which runs parallel to Millbank, I see daily heavy use. Each morning and evening I will see four or five people exercising their doggies and collecting any mess. The main footpath is essential for them. Every morning, at a regular time, I see two or three nannies with tiny tots in tow. These kiddies are no more than 18 inches high, in their little yellow vests, and each nanny will have two or three of them on either side, safely holding hands or tied together. They make very slow but safe progress along this path. I do not know where they come from or where they go, but I have never seen them on the river path. Indeed, that may be too far for them to walk.

These are some of the main users. The others are individuals—not organised games—playing football or other games. There are those having little picnics, but not hundreds of people and 40 buses squashed into the place to have picnics.

If this main footpath is taken over for construction purposes and cannot be used, thousands of users every day will be deprived of the use of the garden. None of us will want to take a detour round by the river path to get to the route that we normally use.

The promoters need to create access for their construction equipment—possibly at the southern end of the park, where the children’s playground currently is, and possibly a new one—so that the whole of the current path, the main footpath alongside Millbank, remains open during construction and afterwards. It should not be beyond their ability or that of the department to tell the constructors to create a new access route so that the path can be kept open. Those are my amendments and I commend them to the Committee.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 25 and 40 in my name. Before I do so, I express support for Amendment 26, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans, about the refreshment kiosk. I believe that it is neither appropriate nor fitting to have somebody selling burgers and chips and ice cream in a place that should be devoted to reflection and remembrance of the cruel murder of 6 million people and the lifelong impact on the lives of survivors and their families. I also support Amendment 43, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on fire risk. That is on the basis of public safety, which underpins my amendments as well.

Among the dangers associated with the choice of siting an underground learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens, the most serious is the flood risk. This is a critical issue, given that large numbers of visitors, including children and people with disabilities, are expected to visit. The site chosen for the learning centre is in flood zone 3a according to the Environment Agency, which means that it has a one in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding if undefended. Normally, planning regulations would not allow a basement development in a zone 3a area. Atkins and Co carried out a flood zone 3 risk assessment for the original planning application. It is clear that the risks revealed by that report have not been correctly considered.

There are four kinds of flood risk, the most serious of which is the risk of inundation from the nearby tidal River Thames. This could happen either by overtopping of the embankment wall, if the water level is higher than the defences, or by breach flooding, in the case of a break in the wall. The latter would be catastrophic to life and property, as the proposed development is below ground level and the design of the proposed building has no above-ground refuge.

I turn first to the danger of overtopping. Because of the development’s proximity to the river, the Environment Agency requires that it must be a minimum of 16 metres from the flood defence wall—presumably to avoid the development undermining the wall’s foundation—and that the wall must be demonstrably high enough and in good condition for the lifetime of the development. A visual assessment at the time showed some defects that required maintenance, ongoing monitoring and inspection. However, the Environment Agency had no current plans for maintenance of the river wall at this location. I therefore ask: who is going to do it? We do not really know the effect on the wall of the construction work of this major underground development.

Because of climate change, and the fact that presumably the building is meant to last until at least until 2100, if not longer, the EA plans that the wall’s height will need to be raised by then to take account of the rise in sea level and consequent river level. By then, the EA expects the peak river level to rise by 950 millimetres above the current level. When this is reached, it will be more than 1 metre above the general level of Victoria Tower Gardens and the entrance to the proposed below-ground learning centre. However, there is a margin of error of only half a metre between the proposed increase in wall height and the expected river level, which is very little in a storm. The learning centre could have to be closed, not just on three days a year but on several days every month because of the risk of river water overtopping the wall.

Flooding has happened here before. The southern section of the site is partially within the area of the historic flooding information. However, data confidence is low because the records were hand-drawn and their extent is limited. It could be even more at risk than the records show.

Breach flooding is much riskier. Westminster City Council’s map shows what would happen if there was a breach in the embankment wall—perhaps in the case of terrorist action, contact by a vessel, a disastrous collapse of an adjacent building, or undermining of the foundations of the wall by unusual pressure from several storms one after the other, such as we have had this winter. What the map clearly shows is that the site is not only smack bang in the middle of the likely inundation area but right in the middle of the area that would be flooded within 30 minutes of the commencement of such an inundation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

I am literally repeating the noble Baroness’s points. If she feels that they are flippant, maybe she should not have made them. These are all points that were raised.

In addition, it was said that people will be trampled to death in the communal areas and poisoned with Novichok. These are all points that were made seriously, and that could apply, of course, to any structure. We are talking about building a reasonably modest structure near Parliament, with four rooms underneath it. We have managed to build nuclear power stations, railways and shopping centres in this country, almost all of them without all these terrible consequences happening because people are able to organise themselves and plan things so that disasters are coped with.

We absolutely have the capability of doing that with this centre. These are all alarmist ideas that will not come to pass. This is an extremely simple proposal for a very fitting memorial. I can understand why people might not want it, particularly if they live nearby, but it is a fitting response to the Holocaust and it is in the right place.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Finkelstein said that this is a modest memorial. It may be a modest underground centre, which is inadequate for the purpose, but it is 23 giant bronze fins that will dominate the park. There is nothing modest about that at all. I think he diminishes some of the concerns that people have.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, my concern is not that terrorists may set off some device underground—the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is the best person to advise on this—but that they may set off a harmless smoke grenade or device underground, so that everyone piles up outside and that is when the terrorists execute their main attack.

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

So that it is not seen as though I have raised points that were not raised, it was specifically said that poisonous gas would be set off. I did not make that up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

I was simply responding to something that the noble Baroness said, but I accept what she has just said.

On the point about the kiosk, at the moment there is a kiosk where children and others can buy refreshments when visiting the park. If that kiosk were removed as part of this proposal, the Government would have been attacked for that. They are also being attacked because the kiosk will still be there when the memorial is built. To be fair to them on this, they could not have satisfied people either way.

I do not think it is at all offensive to visit the memorial and learning centre and then want to sit down, have a cup of tea and discuss what you have seen and learned with the people who you visited it with. When I went to Yad Vashem with my dad, he was not the least bit offended that there was a restaurant there, where we had lunch. In fact, every time I have visited Yad Vashem, we have had lunch before or after. There is nothing offensive about refreshments being available at or near the memorial.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, in the nicest possible way, I will not challenge my noble friend Lord Finkelstein but merely comment that he must have better eyesight than I do. When I look at the representations of the fins, they do not seem to be entirely modest. They are absolutely massive. He said that they are appropriate. I ask those with strong Jewish heritage whether they have ever heard the figure of 23 or 22—the gaps—mentioned before. All my life, the only figure which mattered for the Holocaust was 6 million Jews slaughtered, massacred, killed. The idea is that these giant fins are somehow appropriate because the gaps between them represent 22 countries. Has any noble Lord in this Committee ever heard of that before, apart from in this planning application? To my knowledge, neither 23 fins nor 22 gaps have anything to do with Jewish history. If we want something appropriate, it must represent 6 million Jews slaughtered.

We will come in a later amendment to what would be an appropriate design, but I am also prompted to ask a question on the refreshment kiosk. I use the park regularly, and in summertime or when there is a coach party to the Commons, the kiddies come into the park. They have their sandwich wrappers and a huge amount of Pret A Manger bags, and they all religiously try to put them into the litter bins. At times, those bins have been stuffed absolutely full and litter is spread all around. If there is a refreshment kiosk for thousands of people, that is likely to happen as well, and we will see a huge amount of litter.

Some may argue that we should have more litter bins and fill them up. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with his expertise here, may comment on this. The first thing that the Metropolitan Police would do when there is a terrorist threat is remove all the bins. You cannot get a litter bin at Euston station or anywhere else because they are a terrorist threat. We could have a kiosk selling sandwiches, crisps and so on and all the people having their picnics, but end up with no litter bins to put the rubbish in. If there are litter bins, they ought to be policed and patrolled.

This is not a trivial point; I am not trying to diminish the whole argument by talking about litter. It is a legitimate point about other people’s enjoyment of the gardens. They may also want to have their picnic and sandwiches but find that there is no place to put the garbage afterwards.

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, on that last point, that is exactly what the management of a non-departmental public body would discuss with the management of the gardens—how they will cope with litter and what facilities there are. They would need to work together, but we have not got anybody whatever to work with on the garden management at the moment. Until we have a public body, there will not be anybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I want to speak in support of my noble friend Lord Carlile. I am a lawyer; I am also a chartered surveyor in the planning and development division of the RICS. I worked professionally in this area, a long time ago, for a number of years.

The point is that there is a fundamental difference between the covenant and the planning consent. We are not being asked to form any view about the merits of a planning application or anything like that, because were that to be the case, the draft legislation in front of us would make it explicitly clear that we were taking by statute the power to grant planning permission. The two consents run in parallel, and we should view them like that. The criteria that apply in determining each of the two are not the same.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I too wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, though I may say it less elegantly. The reason we are talking about planning in this Committee is that we simply do not trust the Government—the previous Government or this Government—not to overrule Westminster City Council. If the Government will give a cast-iron commitment that they will abide by whatever Westminster City Council decides—that they will not call it in or get an inspector to reverse it, and that the Minister will not reverse it either—then all my concerns about planning would be removed. If the Government will trust the decision of Westminster City Council, I think no noble Lords in this Committee would be talking about the planning application.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, that would be a predetermination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, that is the norm and to be expected. It is totally independent from the whole process. It is for him to decide how we will proceed with planning on this particular point; that is the normal process when Ministers are calling decisions. That is how these options work.

[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”?

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 2, after “expenditure” insert “of up to £138.8 million, plus a 15% contingency,”

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am a member of Conservative Friends of Israel and a supporter of its current fight against the new attempts to destroy the Jewish homeland from the river to the sea. I say that because I do not want my opposition to this Bill to be misconstrued.

So why am I opposed to the Bill? It is because it fails in every way to implement the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission. The commission recommended a campus with large amounts of space:

“The Learning Centre should include facilities to host lectures and seminars and to run educational courses and workshops, as well as the opportunity for Holocaust organisations to locate their offices, or set up satellite offices, within the wider physical campus”.


This Adjaye design fails that requirement. The commission recommended a unique British design; Adjaye has given us a cast-off rejected by Canada. The commission said in its first recommendation that

“it is also clear that a memorial on its own is not enough and that there must be somewhere close at hand where people can go to learn more”.

about the Holocaust. “Close at hand” does not necessarily mean shoehorned into the wrong space, which is too small to do justice to the commission’s recommendations but far too large for this little garden.

The commission recommended three possible solutions: the Imperial War Museum site, Potters Field and a site further along Millbank. Indeed, it waxed lyrical about the Imperial War Museum and a plan to build a whole new wing to house the campus on the extensive land around the museum in Lambeth. Victoria Tower Gardens never entered its contemplation because the experts on the commission knew it was entirely inappropriate. Ed Balls claimed that Victoria Tower Gardens was his suggestion, but we have never heard why the Imperial War Museum offer was turned down. Nothing has been produced regarding any comparison of the sites, why they were rejected and why Victoria Tower Gardens was picked on a political whim. I think I know why: politicians in my party took the arrogant view that Victoria Tower Gardens was an easy win, right next to Parliament and run by the Royal Parks, which would buckle to political domination.

In summary, I am opposed to this project because it fails to implement the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission, is grotesquely ugly and is designed by a discredited architect whose previous iterations of this were rejected by Ottawa. It does nothing to properly commemorate the evils of the Holocaust nor the ongoing threat of a new one.

I turn specifically to the cost issue, as in my Amendments 1 and 27. I shall use more temperate language and say this: successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery that at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable.

“The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed”—


that is not a Lord Blencathra observation but the words from the national Infrastructure and Projects Authority in its latest report of 16 January 2025. That is the third year in a row where the authority has given it its most damning “Red” categorisation.

I cannot blame the present Government for pushing on with this out-of-control shambles. The Government whom I supported were more guilty, because they were told two years ago that the project was unachievable. Did the department do anything to sort out the project definition, the schedule or the budget, which the authority said was not manageable nor resolvable? No, of course not, because it was a big sacred cow—or, to mix metaphors, no one dared to suggest that this emperor had no clothes. Just as Jewish organisations were told, “You’d better back this proposal or there’ll be no Holocaust memorial”, so no one dared to admit that this project in Victoria Tower Gardens was out of control, for fear of being accused of not supporting Holocaust commemoration.

The project was originally costed at under £100 million, and the Government proposed to finance it with at least £25 million in philanthropic funding. There has been no suggestion that the Government would not fund the rest of the project and its operating costs as well. The latest capital cost estimate for HMLC—the Holocaust memorial and learning centre—is £138.8 million without any contingency, which shows a substantial rise in the estimate before contingency of 36% between 2022 and 2023. This estimate was based on the expectation of starting construction before 2025.

The only comments about costs which it has since been possible to extract from MHCLG has been a figure for the total spend to date of £18 million, given by the then Minister, Simon Hoare, to the Commons in May 2024 and a recent estimate of a further £2.1 million spent in the last six months. That would bring the total to £20.1 million. If the figures are correct and comparable, that would represent an acceleration on 2020 to 2024, when only £2.8 million was spent over 22 months.

In July 2022, the National Audit Office delivered a report with a whole battery of criticisms of MHCLG’s performance in preparing, planning and managing the project to date, at a point when £15.1 million had been spent with absolutely no result. In particular, the NAO criticised the management of the project and the provision of data on cost escalation to justify the project costs between 2020 and 2022. The NAO report described at paragraph 23, among the “emerging risks” causing potential cost increases, the promoters’ failure to consider any alternative site or the possible effects of legislative delay, or

“to quantify, or account for … the risks”

that that has created, but there has been little subsequent evidence that this NAO criticism has been heeded by MHCLG.

The NAO was critical of the fact that MHCLG had made no provision for defining the governance of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. It commented that the MHCLG accepted the need for a non-departmental public body but insisted that it would set up a new, dedicated NDPB which, the NAO commented, would mean a minimum of 12 months to pass the requisite legislation—and it wants to set that up 12 months before the thing is due to open.

MHCLG made an insubstantial reply in 2022 to the NAO’s criticisms but its statements since then show that it believes it has responded to those criticisms, even though no change is visible to the world outside the ministry. For instance, MHCLG has never provided any estimate of the inflation that would apply to construction costs based on starting construction in, say, 2026 and starting operations in, say, 2028. The Government have never made any provision for operating costs and have made the likely costs higher by agreeing in 2022 to make all entry to the learning centre free, although visitors will still have to register online.

The operating costs will be high and have so far escalated from £6 million to £8 million per annum, but absolutely no detail has been provided about what the costs will cover. This is particularly important because it is not clear what provision the department has made for the costs of policing and other security measures required for the project if it is built. I also believe that MHCLG is not charging significant or even realistic amounts of civil servant management time to the project, which is either poor accounting or evidence that the project has insufficient governance, or both of those things. It is therefore no surprise that the Infrastructure and Projects Authority has three times now—in 2023, 2024 and 2025—classified the memorial project as undeliverable.

In 2024, the MHCLG created the post of senior responsible officer for the project and gave that officer the power to act within cost overruns with a contingency of £53 million—£53 million as a contingency for a £138 million project, well above the normal 10% to 15%. There has been no explanation for why this contingency was pitched at that figure. The MHCLG budgeting process within the published management and other accounts remains completely untransparent about what the HMLC costs will be, what they are for and who is accountable for them.

Finally, I note that, despite the MHCLG having stated in 2024 that it had suspended work on the project, thus partially justifying the suspension of Sir David Adjaye, it recently—this year—told the Lords Select Committee that its design team is already working on adjustments to the design in relation to the assurances provided to the Select Committee, so that shows that some design cost has continued to be spent.

Here we are today, debating a Bill for a project which the Government’s own top infrastructure authority says, and has said for the last three years in a row, is undeliverable. I say that pushing on with a failed project with no proper cost control is treating Parliament with contempt. We need to know the best estimates for the operating costs and exactly who will be in charge. We will debate the possibility of a new NDPB to run this in Amendment 5, but it is legitimate to ask about the financial sustainability of the entity or entities which will execute and operate the project. A report on that should be laid before Parliament. If we pass the Bill, Parliament is entitled to see the legitimacy of what we have sanctioned.

When the Minister replies, I do not want him to answer my points, I want him to answer the points raised by the Government’s own infrastructure authority. Let him tell us what the Government will do about

“the major issues with project definition, the schedule, the budget, the quality and/or benefits delivery, which do not appear to be manageable or resolvable”.

Will he do as it has asked and rescope the whole project and reassess its overall viability?

Finally, I apologise to colleagues for speaking at length, as I probably will on some other amendments also. This is partly a reaction to the various gagging attempts we faced when giving evidence to the Commons and Lords Select Committees, where every other week we seemed to be copied in to a letter from those lawyers, Pinsent Masons, telling the committees that they could not ask this or that question and that they had to limit their inquiries. I thought it was appallingly arrogant to attempt to tie Select Committee hands in that way. Well, our hands will not be tied and we will not be gagged in these debates, except by our own rules of order and procedure. I beg to move.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall not mimic my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who has spoken extremely well and raised a great many issues. I did not petition the Government, although I think I signed a couple of petitions, but I happen to know the area very well, not least because my four month-old puppy, who noble Lords would all adore, goes there for exercise every morning, but that is not a particularly good reason for stopping the progress. I am opposed to the Bill, not opposed to a memorial. I am opposed to putting a learning centre in such a small area. It would destroy the park—there is no question of that.

To turn to the amendment, we can all hear from what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said that nobody really knows how much this will cost. I have seen the scope of the archaeologist who has looked at the diggings by the Thames, and it is almost certain that this area will flood. I am not an archaeologist, so I have not got a clue. I have never dug a big pit next to the Thames, but it is almost certain that this will flood. It is a bonkers thing to do—absolutely mad—and that is why I absolutely support my noble friend Lord Blencathra in this. It is the wrong place to put a large building such as this. It will, furthermore, cost a great deal more than £138.8 million, as I think we all know, even including a 15% contingency, so I support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, it would help if I can come on to more details about contingencies and costs, and then we can come back. If I do not answer anything specific, I can come back to the noble Lord in writing or in a further meeting.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

We will deal with this issue more extensively in the third group of amendments, but perhaps it would help to quote from page 11 of the National Audit Office report, which sets out all the organisations in charge of trying to run this project. It says that the Treasury is:

“Responsible for allocating funding for the programme. Treasury approval is required at different stages as per the Integrated Assurance and Approval Plan … As a condition of the funding, the Department must seek further Treasury approval if the programme is forecast to use more than half of the approved contingency”.


Another box also says that the Cabinet Office must give approval as well.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

It is the Baldwin concordat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the simple answer is that we will seek tenders for the main construction contracts once planning consent is secured but, to use the noble Lord’s words, we need to get on with it.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I can recall this Committee Room being so packed out with colleagues, on all sides, for such an important and controversial debate. As the Minister would say, some passionate speeches are being made here today; I am grateful to all colleagues who have taken part.

I was particularly struck by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who gave a powerful criticism of the Explanatory Notes. It is not just this Bill where I have found that the Explanatory Notes did not explain much; as a former chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I found that in almost every Bill we got. The noble Lord is right to make the points that there could be substantial changes to Parliament’s visitors centre and that that has not been taken into account here.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly praised the dedication of my noble friends Lord Pickles and Lord Finkelstein to a memorial. My noble friend Lord Pickles has for many years championed this cause; just because I think that it may be the wrong place and the wrong memorial does not take away from the fact that he has been an absolute hero. However, my noble friend said that this memorial would improve the park, but that is not what Adjaye, the architect, said. When people said that these fins are despicably ugly, he said:

“Disrupting the pleasure of being in a park is key to the thinking”


on the memorial. I thought that key to the thinking was finding a memorial that commemorated the 6 million exterminated Jews, not putting something ugly in the park. Of course, the Government never mention Adjaye now. In the press release announcing that his bid had been accepted, he was named 12 times as the greatest architect in history. Now, he is wiped out from the memory, and the name is given to the rest of his firm but not to Adjaye.

Moving on, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was so right to point out that people will come to a memorial if it is good enough, not because of where it is sited. That is a key point.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sterling. His description of his family circumstances and the Holocaust match, if in a different way, the circumstances of my noble friend Lord Finkelstein. The noble Lord, Lord King is right: let us have a decent learning centre and a fitting memorial.

My noble friend Lord Inglewood said that building in inflation, which is going through the roof at the moment, will be absolutely essential. That tied into the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, about the fact that we must have a cost ceiling. It may not be £138 million—indeed, it may be something else—but, unless there is a cost ceiling, the costs will go through the roof.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her comments and her personal statement. I appreciate that she was not speaking as a party spokesperson.

My noble friend Lord Inglewood said that he was not an accountant, but at least what he said added up and made sense to me in any case.

The shadow Minister, my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, said that no one wants to break a solemn promise. I suspect that there is no one anywhere in this Room who wants to break the promise to build a memorial, but what we all want is a proper memorial and a big, proper learning centre, as the Holocaust Commission recommended.

I come to the Minister. I have always liked him, ever since he was a Whip. I used to be a Whip in the Conservative Party. Us Whips have to stick together, in a sort of camaraderie; someone should explain that to Simon Hart. I welcome the Minister to his position—he is a thoroughly decent man and a caring, nice Minister—but he has been under some pressure today and that is not his fault. We have the National Audit Office’s report, which is devastating against his department. We have the Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s report, which is also highly critical. That same department has had to give the Minister a brief. He has had to defend the indefensible today, but I give him credit for trying.

I want to conclude by asking the Minister something. Before Report, when I suspect that noble Lords—perhaps better noble Lords than I—will wish to put down a new amendment on costs, will the Minister produce a full, updated cost for the project? Will he give detailed answers before Report, as well as full answers to the NAO’s criticisms? I should say to him that I do not think the NAO criticised this project because we have not got the Bill through yet. It said that this project was undeliverable based not on that but on the fact that there was no schedule, no budget and no quality control. For a whole range of reasons, it found it grossly inadequate.

I think the Minister said that my ceiling of a 15% contingency was an arbitrary figure. Well, the Government have suddenly bunged in an extra £50 million with no justification, and I suggest that that is also an arbitrary figure.

I am grateful to everyone who has spoken. Obviously, I will not push it today, but we will need to get some detailed answers on the costing and control of this project before Report, or I suspect that we will have to come back to this then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, I just point out for Hansard that I am Lady Scott of Bybrook, not of Needham Market.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I offer my sincere apologies to my noble friend.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I now turn to Amendment 13, which has the effect of confining the proposal set out in the Bill to a memorial. I ask the Government to take such an amendment seriously. The current proposal for a memorial and a learning centre is estimated to cost, as has been set out clearly by those speaking on the earlier group of amendments, to more than £138 million, considerably more with the large contingency that has been included, bringing the figure up to something like £190 million at current prices. A well designed and compelling stand-alone memorial with a courtyard could be constructed for around £25 million in Victoria Tower Gardens. A much improved Holocaust learning centre, relocated in a more suitable place elsewhere, ought to be considered for the second stage of this project. Such a decision would help remove the massive controversy associated with the Bill as currently drafted. I beg the Minister to look at that as an alternative proposal to what is before us today. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans has had to go to another meeting and asked me, with noble Lords’ permission, to speak to his Amendment 23. It is about an endowment fund to help counter anti-Semitism. An Ofcom report of July 2022 showed that for teenagers, Instagram gave them 29% of the news, TikTok 28% and YouTube 28%. These are the main sources of news with ITV and the BBC way down in fourth and fifth places. The Ofcom report also states:

“Users of TikTok for news claim to get more of their news on the platform from ‘other people they follow’ (44%) than ‘news organisations’ (24%).”


The report continues:

“Teenagers today are increasingly unlikely to pick up a newspaper or tune into TV News, instead preferring to keep up-to-date by scrolling through their social feeds”.


If those social media outlets were accurate, we would have little concern, but also in July 2023 we had a United Nations report History Under Attack. It was a co-operation with an Oxford organisation and found that up to half of Holocaust-related content on Telegram denied or distorted the facts. It said that distortion and Holocaust denial was present on all social media but that moderation and education can significantly reduce this. It went on to say that UNESCO and the United Nations sought to measure the extent of this phenomenon on social networks and commissioned researchers to identify and analyse about 4,000 posts related to the Holocaust on the five major platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Telegram, TikTok and Twitter. These were the findings: on Telegram, there was 50% distortion and denial of the Holocaust in English language messages; on Twitter, which is now X, there was 19% distortion; on TikTok, 17%; on Facebook, 8%; and on Instagram, 3%. Many of those comments were anti-Semitic as well.

Another key finding of the United Nations report is that the researchers identified that perpetrators have learned to evade content moderation through the use of humorous and parodic memes as a strategy intended to normalise anti-Semitic ideas and make them appear mainstream. I had no idea what anti-Semitic memes were, or any memes, but I found hundreds on the internet, some suggesting that the Jews had attacked USS “Liberty” in 1967, others that the Jews had brought down the Twin Towers in New York. Some said that if America was to save itself then it had to declare war on Israel. Thousands of these memes are absolutely scurrilous, despicable lies and hate-filled, but millions of our young people are lapping them up.

Up to even three years ago, I thought that education on the Holocaust of 80 years ago was all that we needed to do, but now we see hundreds of thousands of people on our streets calling for a new Holocaust, the destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jews. Indeed, in 2019 the BBC published a poll of more than 2,000 people that was carried out by Opinion Matters for the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. It found, and this is quite frightening, that 5% of UK adults—that is, out of 45 million—do not believe that the Holocaust took place, and one in 12 believes that its scale has been exaggerated. Some 45% of those polled said they did not know how many people were killed in the Holocaust, while 19% believed that fewer than 2 million Jews were murdered and 5% believed that there was no Holocaust at all; that is 2.2 million people. That is frightening—all those British people denying the Holocaust or completely ignorant about it.

It is therefore essential that we create an endowment fund to undertake 24/7 Holocaust education and rebuttal of all the new anti-Semitic attacks. That is why we need a proper campus, as recommended in the Holocaust Commission report, staffed by experts who can work online 24/7 countermanding lies about the Holocaust and the new Holocaust demand to push the Jews out of Israel, their homeland, from the river to the sea. Anti-Semitism is on the rise worldwide, and it seems to be even worse in the UK, so a monument to the unique Holocaust of 80 years ago is essential. Equally essential is annual funding to tackle the new lies about Jews and the calls for their extermination.

I turn to my Amendments 29 and 30, and I believe my noble friend Lord Hodgson will speak to Amendment 31 in my place. I also support Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. As I said in my speech on Amendment 1, I concluded that Conservative politicians opted for the completely unsuitable Victoria Tower Gardens and ignored the recommendations of the Holocaust Commission because they thought the gardens would be an easier bet. However, the site fails to deliver a central theme of the commission—indeed, its key recommendation 2. Recommendation 1 concluded with the words:

“But it is also clear that a memorial on its own is not enough and that there must be somewhere close at hand where people can go to learn”


about the Holocaust. This is what the commission said about the ideal site for the memorial and learning centre. In its “Delivery and Next Steps” section, it said, and it is worth while quoting it:

“The Commission has identified three possible locations that should be considered as part of a consultation taken forwards by the permanent independent body … The Holocaust Exhibition at IWM London is very highly regarded, as was demonstrated throughout the evidence received. There is therefore an obvious advantage in locating the Learning Centre alongside IWM London in Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park near Lambeth. The site is within easy reach of Westminster and accessible via several routes by public transport. It offers existing high footfall with approximately 1.5 million visits to IWM in 2014. IWM has proposed the building of a new wing to house a memorial and a learning centre and to link to newly expanded and upgraded Holocaust galleries in the main building. This would also benefit from being able to use the existing visitor facilities and essential infrastructure of the IWM building”.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

As a matter of interest, I do not know how many people in this Room have been to the Holocaust memorial galleries in the Imperial War Museum. They are incredibly instructive and similar to the ones outside Tel Aviv, whereas somewhere here would be about one-eighth of the size.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My noble friend makes a good point. I visited them almost two years ago, and they are extraordinary. The good thing about the museum is that it has physical artefacts, although not many—it has more Nazi uniforms than Jewish uniforms —but it has physical things to look at, whereas the Adjaye bunker will merely have videos showing on a screen that kids can look at on their mobile phones and iPads much more easily. Why build a museum if you have nothing physical to put in it?

The Holocaust Commission concluded on the Imperial War Museum by saying:

“It is the view of the Commission that this is a viable option, provided a way can be found to meet the Commission’s vision for a prominent and striking memorial”.


Then there was Potters Fields as an option—it is between Tower Bridge and City Hall—but I believe that it has been sold and is no longer available. On Millbank, this is what the commission said:

“David and Simon Reuben have been inspirational supporters of the Commission’s vision and have proposed a redevelopment of a large area of their Millbank complex. The location offers great potential for a prominent riverfront memorial, a short walk along the river from the Houses of Parliament. The campus could include a hidden garden, reflective pond, wall of remembrance and a learning centre, incorporating the existing cinema, doubling as a lecture theatre. The complex sits alongside Tate Britain which attracts 1.4 million visits a year. It also benefits from its own pier with river boat connections to Westminster. There may be the opportunity to work alongside Tate Britain to further develop the area to increase its appeal, helping to create a new cultural and educational quarter”.


That is what the official Holocaust Commission recommended on the location of a memorial and a learning centre nearby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I ask the noble Lord to draw his remarks to a conclusion.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I appreciate that. I apologise for going over 10 minutes, but I did not expect to have to do two minutes on the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.

If I can conclude with just a few more seconds to go, the commission commended the 9/11 exhibition in New York. In November last year, I had to attend some official meetings at the United Nations, so I thought I would go along to see it. I was half expecting it to be, in the usual American way, a bit over the top and a bit tacky, but I was utterly wrong. It was exceptionally well done, moving and authoritative, with exquisite architecture—and it was absolutely massive. It was to commemorate just—just—2,977 victims. We are trying to commemorate 6 million victims by squeezing them into this tiny little bunker under the ground, which has usable space of just 1,700 square metres. It is simply not good enough. I commend my amendments to the Committee.

[Baroness Fleet (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee but this is my first intervention on the Bill. I declare my interest as a former chairman of Arts Council London. I rise to speak to Amendment 29 and the consequential amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra.

I would like to put on record my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and all the work that she has put into this extraordinary debate today. I have a few brief observations to add to the comprehensive remarks that my noble friend delivered just now with his customary eloquence and wisdom, with which I entirely agree. I support the analysis by several noble Lords of the problems of this site in Victoria Tower Gardens.

I must begin by saying that I am entirely in favour of a Holocaust memorial in central London. We all want present and future generations to recognise, understand and learn what the Holocaust was, why it happened and why it still matters. It is frightening that anti-Semitism is ever present. As my noble friend highlighted, a poll showed that more than 2 million people —about 5% of our population—believe that there never was a Holocaust at all. That figure is probably much higher now as a result of social media. Anti-Semitism must be a central element of whatever or wherever the learning centre is.

As Prime Minister in 2015, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton had a noble ambition when, with cross-party support, he announced details of his proposal. The memorial and learning centre would be world-class. My noble friends have already set out clearly what was promised and what will now be delivered. There is no doubt that the original ambition has been radically reduced as, now, the proposed learning centre would be just a few rooms, all digital. My noble friend Lady Bottomley once memorably described the learning centre as a “subterranean shoebox”.

Several eminent historians, including Sir Richard Evans, have pointed out that London’s contribution would be put to shame by what can be seen elsewhere in the world—indeed, in our own Imperial War Museum, which has been referred to already, and its Holocaust galleries. In preparation for today’s debate, I revisited the Holocaust galleries. They are indeed world-class: through more than 2,000 photos, books and letters, they tell individual stories of some of the 6 million Jewish people murdered in the Holocaust.

The first room is extraordinary. It introduces us, through home movies, music and photos, to Jewish families across Europe in the early 1930s. They are smiling and posing on graduation from school or university, at family weddings, skiing and playing table tennis. With the dark reality of what was to come, we then see personal possessions—a child’s teddy bear, a darning mushroom and sheet music—displayed in the large cabinets. A dozen or so spacious, themed rooms link events from the rise of Hitler through to the final solution. It is a profound, emotional and educational experience.

The proposed learning centre, squeezed into the very limited space of Victoria Tower Gardens, lacks this essential content and impact. Surely the Imperial War Museum, set in the verdant 14-acre Harmsworth Park just a mile from Westminster, is a potential alternative site for the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. The Victoria Tower Gardens site is totally inappropriate. As my noble friends have said, it has been criticised by UNESCO, Historic England and the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which rated it red—in other words, undeliverable. Victims of the Holocaust and survivors, as well as our future generations, deserve a world-class learning centre. That cannot be in Victoria Tower Gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My noble friend mentioned the Jewish Museum in Camden, which has closed down. Is he aware that it says that it has 28,000 items and artefacts—including Jewish art, and examples showing the Jewish way of life going back centuries—in storage? Can he understand why, on the one hand, we have plans for this learning centre in Victoria gardens that will have no artefacts while, on the other, we have a closed-down museum with 28,000 artefacts looking for a home? Can the Government explain why on earth they are unable to marry them up and put the two together in a big, proper museum and learning centre, as the Holocaust Commission recommended?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I do not want to take my grandchildren to see computer images that they can watch sitting in our television room at home where I can talk them through them; I want them to see real artefacts that tell them what the Holocaust was about, and we cannot do that in a shoebox. I do not see one iota of attraction, if noble Lords will forgive the mixed metaphor, in a shoebox that looks like a toast rack. This is not a great piece of art, and it most certainly is not a Holocaust learning centre.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

The noble Lord mentioned the shoebox. Is he aware that, if I remember correctly, the Holocaust Commission wanted a campus of between 5,000 square meters and 10,000 square metres, but in an Answer from my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook on 12 April to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the department said that the Adjaye bunker would be just 3,258 square metres? The Answer went on to reveal that 48% of it will be completely unusable, made out of risers, ducts and unusable space, leaving a mere 1,722 square metres for the learning centre. That is about four or five times the size of this Room—some campus, is it not?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I absolutely agree and I will try to finish within the 10 minutes, and I believe that there is going to be a vote in a moment anyway. I believe that if the Minister were to listen to the witnesses available in your Lordships’ House, we would have a different conclusion. I promise the Minister, not because I know it but because I know it in my bones, that if we were allowed to build a Holocaust learning centre elsewhere, with the subvention that is already promised by the Government, we would have no difficulty in raising the money for an establishment that would rival the great POLIN museum that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned.

I finish by saying that if the noble Baroness will allow me to say so, and she knows that I love her dearly, I thought she was a little unkind to some members of the Committee. I do not believe that anybody is ill motivated about this in any way. I believe that, unfortunately, they are just wrong and should recognise it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Government looked at 50 sites before deciding on Victoria Tower Gardens? Is it not the case that Victoria Tower Gardens was selected first and a search then went on to look for unsuitable sites?

[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.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I want to make it abundantly clear that I favour an appropriate and uniquely British monument to the Holocaust in the heart of Westminster, and a properly sized learning centre somewhere nearby with the capability of telling the whole story of the Holocaust and of Jews in Britain and the ability to operate online to tackle the resurgence of Jewish hatred we have seen in the last few months. Never before has education about the eradication of 6 million Jews been more essential as we see frightening calls for a new Holocaust.

However, I am afraid this is an appalling little Bill. It was appalling when the last Government introduced it and it is still an appalling Bill today. That is no fault of the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard.

This memorial fails every recommendation of the Holocaust Commission and instead foists on us a grossly inadequate edifice that does no justice to the past Holocaust nor the threats of a new one, designed by a discredited architect, David Adjaye—a grotesque design already rejected by Canada, and dumped on a completely unsuitable site in London that was never considered by the commission in 2015. At least the Canadians now have a decent one on a one-acre site next to their war museum. It is three stories high and all above ground—not a pokey little thing buried in a bunker in a small park.

The commission wanted something uniquely British. Instead, we get the same inexplicably obscure but uniquely ugly design that Canada rejected. In February 2019, on the BBC, Mr Adjaye justified the ugliness of it by saying that

“disrupting the pleasure of being in a park is key to the thinking”

of the memorial. What? What an appallingly feeble excuse for bad design in the wrong place. Key to the thinking should be educating people on the evil of National Socialism as practised by Hitler and the Nazi regime.

When the commission reported way back in 2015, the conventional view was that all education and learning had to be in a physical building. All that has now changed following Covid. The only point of a physical museum is if there are physical objects to display and the learning cannot be imparted in any other way but by a physical presence. Look at the brilliant display at the Imperial War Museum, which I visited recently. Of course it has the usual photos and videos we have all seen, but it has some physical artefacts: the striped suits, some shoes, jewellery, and a good mock-up of the railway wagons used to transport Jews to the extermination camps. But the bunker here will just have copies of the same posters and videos we have all seen before, because all physical artefacts have already been scooped up by physical museums.

DLUHC, as it then was, boasted to the House of Commons Select Committee that the exhibition would be

“a powerful audio-visual exhibition that will set out the events of the Holocaust from British perspectives, historically, politically and culturally”.

But why would children and young people—or, indeed, anyone—want to visit a building to see things they can get better on their mobile phones and iPads? How many busloads of children will come from Scotland and Wales, or even the English regions, to look at a video show with nothing new in it? How many would visit the Natural History Museum, the British Museum, the Churchill War Rooms or even this place if all they could see in these magnificent buildings were some posters and videos rather than physical artefacts?

Adjaye’s justification for these fins is that the 22 gaps between them represent the 22 countries from where Jews were plucked to be exterminated. That is a completely irrelevant number that no one has heard of before. Why not one fin representing the country that did it, Nazi Germany? Why not 20 fins, the number of concentration camps, or six, the number of large extermination camps? Many numbers could be chosen but they are all irrelevant except one: 6 million—6 million Jews exterminated. That is the figure that needs to be represented in any memorial, and it is more important today than ever before.

On 27 January 2019, the BBC published a poll showing that 8.5 million Brits—19% of our population—thought that fewer than 2 million Jews had been exterminated. Some 2.2 million people—5% of our population—believed there never was a Holocaust at all. There are frightening, deliberate lies being spread by social media, and that level of Holocaust denial is increasing rapidly. We need not an old-fashioned, analogue bunker in the ground but a large, modern, high-tech, 24/7, digital educational operation, attached to the Imperial War Museum, which would be keen to house it, pumping out the true facts of the last Holocaust and rebutting the lies on social media about Jews in this country and abroad.

I am proud of what Jews have delivered for this country over the past 500 years despite bias and discrimination. Now they are under attack like never before. The Holocaust is being denied, and this failed Adjaye design does nothing to educate millions of people on the horrors of it nor counteract the present threats of a new Holocaust. That is why this Bill fails all the tests of the original commission.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am not quite sure why the Control of Pollution Act is put in the same group as swifts. Anyway, my Amendment 282 is in this group.

My local authority, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, unlike some local planning authorities, refuses to impose by planning condition any requirement on developers to mitigate noise, dust and vibration during construction work in accordance with an improved construction method statement that the developer is routinely obliged to submit as part of its planning application for a major development. Instead, with respect to such developments, it promises to encourage developers to submit applications for prior consent under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, failing which it promises that the council will issue a Section 60 notice.

These consents and notices create legal obligations on the developers but the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea can take action only if a breach has been notified. However, the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea does not publish the consents and notices anywhere on its website or even the fact that a notice has been issued or a consent agreed to. As a result, residents are not aware whether or when a notice has been issued, what measures a developer has promised to take, what the obligations are under the notice or whether an obligation has been breached. They therefore cannot notify the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea that a breach has occurred. As a result, the system is rendered useless.

My proposed solution is simply that local planning authorities should be obliged to publish all such consents and notices on their planning websites promptly upon issue and not remove them. In the other place, the Minister’s response was that Section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires local planning authorities to keep a register of applications. The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires that these registers contain parts 3 and 4 containing details of local development orders and neighbourhood development orders respectively. Part 3, for instance, must include copies of any draft development orders that have been prepared but not adopted by the local planning authority and any adopted local development orders.

The Minister’s reply in the other place completely missed the point. Notices issued under Section 60 and consents given under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act are not planning applications or local or neighbourhood development orders. The reply in this place from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, in Committee showed that she did not seem to understand what the amendment was seeking to achieve or why. She said:

“Legislating for information to be published in a specific way would remove their ability to make decisions at local level, for little additional benefit”.


This is incorrect. It would not affect in any way local authorities’ ability to make decisions. She concluded, without explanation, that

“the Government believe the proposed amendment is unnecessary and cannot support it”.

On being pressed by my noble friend Lord Bellingham, she replied:

“Since this is a Defra lead, I will commit to write to my noble friend and share the answer with the rest of the Committee”.—[Official Report, 18/4/23; col. 577.]


She did not do so.

When an LPA imposes a planning condition to require compliance with an approved construction method statement, it is obliged by law to publish on its planning website the text of the condition and the fact that the condition has been imposed. No one argues that this removes or affects its ability to make a decision, nor have I ever seen it argued that there are any circumstances in which it would be justifiable to keep the imposition of a condition or its text secret. Measures whereby the developer promises to mitigate noise and disturbance during construction do not touch on privacy or national security. By analogy, I cannot think of any circumstances in which it would be justifiable for a local planning authority to keep the issue of a Section 60/61 notice or consent, or its contents, secret. The Government have not explained why keeping it secret might be justifiable, and that is why I tabled the amendment on Report.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests set out in the register. It was a delight to listen to my noble friends Lord Goldsmith and Lord Randall describe the importance of swift bricks to the preservation of this species and to stopping their decline. I am delighted to be able to support it.

Installing these bricks is an absolute no-brainer. They cost between £25 and £35. Last year, the big four housebuilders—just four of them, Barratt, Berkeley, Persimmon and Bellway—made profits of £2.749 billion. I am sure they can afford a £25 brick for the 300,000 homes they might or might not manage to build next year. Installing the bricks is a no-brainer.

I learned today—I hope, wrongly—that the Government may be opposed to this measure. That, too, would be a no-brainer if they are. I wonder where the opposition has come from. I hope they have not been lobbied by the Home Builders Federation—the organisation which lied, lied and lied again about the Government blocking the building of 145,000 homes because of nutrient neutrality. That was totally untrue. Of course, housebuilders are sitting on more than 1 million planning applications and are land-banking until they can release them gradually and make maximum profits. If that is legitimate, so be it, but let us not let them attack the Government for holding up housebuilding when it is not the Government doing it.

I understand that in the Commons the Government said they could not mandate this nationally and it must be left to local voluntary discretion. Housebuilding left to local voluntary discretion? You cannot build a house anywhere in the country without the Government almost dictating the colour of the curtains. Look at the national regulations on every aspect of housebuilding: electrics; plumbing; the type of cement; the way the damp-proof course is laid; the tiles and insulation. Nearly every mortal thing of importance in the house—the width of the doorways, the bannisters, the boilers you may install after 2030—is dictated by central government, and rightly so. I am not complaining about that, but I am complaining about the apparent hypocrisy if the Government I support are now saying “Oh, we can’t order every house to have a little brick installed because that is taking national government interference too far”. If that is the case, I think that is nonsense.

I know that some Government Ministers have already installed these bricks. They have done it voluntarily, without guidance. If it is good enough for some Ministers, quite rightly, to save swifts out of their own volition, then it should be quite right that the Government support a measure to impose this nationally.

If it is the case that the Government are opposed to this, I would really like to know where that opposition came from in government. If it is true then some idiot—an adviser, spad or civil servant, but hopefully not a Minister—has decided to oppose this. I exempt my noble friend the Minister, as this is an environmental matter and nothing to do with her brief, but why in the name of God should a Conservative Government oppose this?

In the first three years of this Government, under Michael Gove and George Eustice in environment, we made the biggest strides forward in environmental and nature protection that this country has ever seen, with the 25-year plan and the Environment Act. Now we could lose that good reputation because of a trivial thing if we oppose installing a 25-quid brick in a house wall to save swifts.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 221A on swift bricks, as your Lordships might expect. My noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has, in the terms of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, flown back from a nearby cavity just to be here for this debate, but she could not be here at the start, so your Lordships get me instead.

This is something that I have been talking about. I was on TalkTV, talking to Julia Hartley-Brewer about restoring biodiversity. I happened to mention swift bricks in that discussion and the presenter said in response, “Isn’t that just a small thing? Don’t we have to do much more?”. Of course that is true, but, if you are a swift then a swift brick is not a small thing. The fact that you need somewhere to make your home and raise your young is a matter of life and death. As the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said, there has been a 60% decline in the population in the last 25 years. These beautiful and utterly amazing creations of nature depend on having a place to rest and raise their young, and we are closing those spaces off.

The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, also made an important point about human well-being—how much we all benefit from having swifts around and what a wonderful addition they are to our environment. Think about young people, such as the toddler who says, “What’s that?”, and has it explained so that they learn more. That is crucial.

The state of our biodiversity is absolutely parlous. We are one of the worst corners of this planet for nature. As we heard passionately from the Benches opposite, surely the Government cannot oppose this—they cannot oppose what was said by MPs in the other place and is being said by so many petitioners. Please let us have some common sense here.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, last week, my esteemed colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked whether I would support his amendments on pavement accessibility. I trusted him completely so I said, “Yes, of course, I would love to support them”. Then I read them and, actually, they are quite tough and strict in places, but the more I read them, the more I liked them. I particularly liked Amendment 450, which is about taking bits of the road—I love that idea—and reducing the space for traffic, as well as Amendment 459 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and others, because that is so tough on smoking and I loathe smoking. I support many of these amendments. Obviously, I support all the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. There is, perhaps, some space to bring in the fact that cars park on the pavement. I hate pavement parking and I hate loads of rubbish bins being heaped up on the side of pavements because they inhibit free access.

My local shopping street has gone absolutely bananas with this, and it has changed the whole feeling of the street—it is so much more friendly. At the moment, only the Co-op, Iceland and Boots, I think, do not have tables and chairs outside them, with people eating, drinking and having fun. I am all in favour of this section and look forward to Report, when I would be happy to vote on many of them and perhaps even sign up to them as well.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a delight to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She did say that some of my noble friend’s amendments were quite tough but that she liked them. I think the Committee would agree that the noble Baroness is quite tough and we rather like her as well. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond on the initiative he has undertaken in tabling these important amendments. He is to be congratulated by all disabled people, fighting our corner—or narrow strip of pavement, as the case may be.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

I have learned the truth of that, and I hope the noble Lord will recognise that this really could create a huge amount of trouble for everyone if they press ahead with a cut-off date.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as per the register. I apologise to the Committee that I have not previously participated in these proceedings, but I have been away a lot with the Council of Europe, monitoring elections in Montenegro and Bulgaria, and other places. As an aside, I must say, with Lib Dem Peers here, that Bulgaria adopted a proportional representation system. It has 14 political parties, organised into seven coalitions, and this was the fifth general election in two years we monitored, with exactly the same result as the other four. It has got a completely ungovernable country and, once again, a Government who will shortly collapse.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that we have 250,000 miles of footpath, and we will shortly have completed 2,000 miles of the King Charles III England Coast Path. That seems to me to be an awful lot of mileage for people to walk on, but of course there are some right to roam fanatics who want to make a political point about having the right to roam on anyone’s land. I think it is more important that we develop footpaths and make sure they are open for access by ordinary people in every part of the United Kingdom.

I really must congratulate my noble friend Lord Randall on an outstanding speech today, moving his amendment; it was highly persuasive. The current amendment is an important opportunity to further nature recovery aspirations across the 24% of England designated as national park or area of outstanding natural beauty. England’s areas of outstanding natural beauty and the national parks are even more important now as we face the climate, nature and well-being challenges of the 21st century. They are more important than when the iconic National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act was passed in 1949, as part of the World War II settlement.

I have lived in the Lake District National Park for about 20 years—just outside it now—and I can honestly say that the biodiversity of the national park is every bit as bad as some of the silage fields outside it, which are crop-bare three times a year and the hedgerows cut down to almost nothing. There is no better biodiversity in the national park. That is something which the amendment seeks to change, and I know the Government want to change it.

There is widespread recognition, including in the 2019 Landscapes Review commissioned by the Government, that aspects of the legislation need updating if our protected landscapes are to be able to rise to these 21st-century challenges and deliver the crucial benefits people and nature need. My noble friend’s amendment is a crucial opportunity to make these important changes, fulfilling the welcome intentions of the Government announced in last January’s initial response to the review. However, if the Government are minded to add a reference to nature recovery and biodiversity, it should be added, in my opinion, with equal priority to the current statutory purposes, not given primacy over the existing purposes. That is where I depart slightly from my noble friend: it should not be given priority over the other purposes but have equal weight.

I suggest also that the duty of regard placed on public bodies is strengthened and extended to encompass delivery of agreed statutory national park and AONB management plans. It is possible that a similar effect to the amendment, regarding statutory purposes, could be achieved if the Government and Defra, and my noble friend the Minister, asked Natural England, the statutory adviser on landscapes in England, to provide further advice or guidance to clarify interpretation of the current wordings, although I accept this would not give the same strength or security, or the signalling, desired by some concerned with the issue. However, I suggest that it might be an acceptable compromise if my noble friend’s amendment is not acceptable in any way to the Government. Without a slightly tweaked amendment or the compromise I have suggested, I am afraid we may miss the opportunity to build in appropriate and more effective tools to protect these landscapes at this critical time.

In my final comment, I say to my noble friend Lord Hodgson that I live near the A66 and, if I had known he was coming, I would have invited him in for a glass or two of Highland Park. I would hope that, after a few glasses, I could have persuaded him to give up this mad idea of walking the whole length and breadth of the country.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their 30 by 30 target. It is an enormous and ambitious thing to take on. In that context, I urge them to support my noble friend Lord Randall’s amendment. We have large areas of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, a lot of which does not sensibly qualify for 30 by 30 at the moment. We have structures within them which could help drive them in that direction, if we pass the sort of amendment that my noble friend has suggested. I like proposed new subsection (5) in particular, which would make other agencies join in the purpose of the national park.

My Amendment 504GJC—after 30 years, I still do not understand how the numbering works, but that is where it is—concerns other effective area-based conservation measures. We are not, I think, going to get to 30 by 30 on the basis of national landscapes. We need a structure which allows not for nature protection to be provided somewhere else but for nature protection to be something that all of us can influence and be involved in.

Fortunately, the Convention on Biological Diversity has provided the concept of an OECM, which I think we can adapt in very positive ways. An OECM could be a corner of a park in a city, or a corner of a school playground that is developed in conjunction with the National Education Nature Park, which I see from the Natural History Museum is starting to be rolled out. It could be this great network of connection that we want farmers to develop across the landscape, so wildlife can move across it. It could even be golf courses, for goodness’ sake—I believe there is one golf course which allows daisies on the fairways. There is real scope for getting wildlife back into golfers’ lives—I have not yet met one who wants it but we will get there in the end.

It was one of the underpinnings of the Dasgupta report that everybody should have an appreciation of and involvement in nature. The structure of OECMs allows us to create that, involving everybody in getting to 30 by 30. The structure I have proposed in Amendment 504GJC has a low threshold, because you want people to be able to join in to begin with, without going through huge layers of bureaucracy, but you may well need a fiercer award within that to qualify for 30 by 30. It identifies an individual who has charge of the area and a purpose for it. This should be something personal which is down to a group of people or an individual landowner, which they are doing themselves and for which they are responsible, for which we can thank them for taking responsibility, but to which we can also hold them to account. I therefore very much hope that the Government will democratise 30 by 30, spreading it out and making it a national rather than a purely institutional ambition, and that they will give us the tools with which we can do that.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the other cosignatories on putting forward the two amendments in this group. My only concern is what time commitment and resources would be required of the local authorities, given the fact that they are very heavily challenged at this time. I pay tribute to the lead local authorities, especially on the work they are doing on flood prevention, which is already a major resource commitment timewise. I know it has made a big difference already in areas such as north Yorkshire, which I am most familiar with, where we do have a number of functional flood plains. Across the country, the advice of the Environment Agency is not always pursued.

As regards the habitats directive, we need a firm steer from the Government on how we are going to steer this path, where we have the retained EU law Bill where, presumably, we are going to park the habitats directive on one side. But there is a possibility here, through this group of amendments, for nature recovery strategies to try to achieve a balance.

I end by saying that my noble friend is only too aware of my commitment to farming and ensuring that, within nature recovery, farming is recognised as a major contributor to these strategies.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as in the register. I came in to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, because I thought I liked the wording of her amendment. Having listened to her and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, I am absolutely convinced of the justice of their case. As my noble friend will know, one of the most crucial parts of the Environment Act is local nature recovery strategies—it is what it is all about in many ways. At the moment, the Bill says merely that local authorities must “have regard to” it. We all know—the lawyers present will explain no doubt ad nauseum and for a reasonable fee—that “having regard to” is fairly meaningless in many ways. A local authority could “have regard to” a local nature recovery strategy and then find a dozen reasons to reject it, because they had regard to it but for this reason or that reason did not wish to pursue it.

I particularly like the wording here, which does not seem to tie local authorities’ hands. It says that they

“must ensure that their development plan (taken as a whole) incorporates such policies and proposals so as to deliver the objectives of the local nature recovery strategy”.

It does not tell them what to do or how to do it; it just says that they have a free hand to invent their own policies that deliver the objectives of local nature recovery strategies. I ask my noble friend the Minister: what is the point of us developing local nature recovery strategies at a national level if they are not going to be implemented locally in local development plans?

I do not think that my noble friend is right that there will be great additional cost to local authorities in doing this—I can see nothing here to suggest that—but, if local nature recovery strategies are to work as every single person in this Chamber wants them to, the wording of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is probably the only way to deliver that. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could explain to me what the problem is with the noble Baroness’s wording.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support these amendments. The noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Willis, have made an absolutely convincing and compelling case for strengthening the responsibility of local planning authorities to consider local nature recovery strategies.

This is exactly the arrangement that the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, set out when he was trying to persuade us not to press our amendments on this issue to a vote during the passage of the Environment Bill. At that time, he made it clear that the Government viewed local nature recovery strategies as key to identifying where action for nature and the environment would have the most impact. He went on to make it clear that Defra was working with the then Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop planning reforms that would contain a defining role for local nature recovery strategies and set them at the heart of decision-making. Obviously, there have been some changes in government and some movement on this since then, but that does not alter the nature of the pledges that were given at that time.

Since then, we have made good progress on establishing a network of local nature recovery strategies around the country. They are getting on with the job of surveying their local biodiversity priorities, providing crucial local data and mapping their local habitats. Their local knowledge and insight are proving crucial in identifying what action and resources can best be targeted. Through their partnership in stakeholder roles, they are also bringing together a wide group of interests to support a local strategic biodiversity recovery plan. However, what is the point of them doing all this work if local planning authorities can simply override their work and priorities? If we are not careful, those involved in drawing up these strategies will quickly become disillusioned and this will be seen as yet another talking shop.

This matters because, as we know, we have crucial statutory targets; for example, to halt the decline of species abundance by 2030, to deliver on our COP commitment to protect 30% of land and nature by 2030, and to deliver the many nature recovery targets set out in the environmental improvement plan. These are simply not going to happen unless local planning authorities put nature recovery at the heart of their decision-making. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, pointed out, there is widespread support for greater weighting to be placed on these local biodiversity recovery plans. There is also a real concern that, when it comes to the crunch, those nature recovery strategies will once again slide down the list of priorities and be seen as a second-tier concern.

I am grateful for the Minister’s letter to me and my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone on this issue. Again, she flagged up that the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 commits to publishing guidance on how local nature recovery strategies can be reflected in local plans. As we have heard, we have received statutory guidance since then; however, it does not answer the central challenge that, unless we have wording along the lines of Amendment 184ZA or something very similar, the current imbalance will continue and local nature recovery strategies will not play their deserved and necessary part in decision-making.

This is not a total determination but about getting the balance right and ensuring that local nature recovery strategies are part of the decision-making. I am very pleased to hear so much support for these amendments from around the Chamber today. I hope that the Minister is hearing that strong case and can reassure us that the Government will take this away and come back with a stronger commitment, along the lines of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter.

Building Safety Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the constructive amendments that the Government have tabled at this stage and for listening to the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Blencathra, who have been very helpful during the passage of the Bill. However, there are still concerns outstanding, as has just been said, so I will speak now to my Motion H1 as an amendment to Motion H.

We on these Benches have consistently argued that all leaseholders should be protected from the cost of remediating historical cladding and non-cladding defects and the associated secondary costs, irrespective of circumstance. Although we fully acknowledge that the waterfall system set out in Schedule 8 provides leaseholders with a far greater deal of protection than was proposed when the Bill first came to us, when it was originally drafted, it does not protect all of them fully. Just as importantly, the Bill does not provide redress for the countless blameless leaseholders across the country who have already been hit with huge bills and have paid out significant sums as a result.

That is why I have tabled Motion H1 to reduce leaseholder contributions to a maximum of £250. I am aware that the Government have said that leaseholder contributions are fair in principle because they will apply in only a very limited number of cases. The Minister has said that leaseholders will pay up to the cap or a proportion of the cap in only a minority of circumstances. However, if it is only a very small number of cases that we are talking about, why are the Government so reluctant to provide proper and full support? For many people, £15,000, or £10,000 as the cap currently stands, is simply an impossible sum to find.

Leaseholders have refused to give up. They recognise more than anyone that the situation they face is simply not fair, and your Lordships’ House recognised that by supporting the amendment that I tabled on Report. I ask for noble Lords’ continued support in agreeing Motion H1 and, in so doing, to acknowledge the determination and persistence of the leaseholders and cladding groups that have been pressing for redress in this matter.

In sticking rigidly to the position that a minority of leaseholders will have to pay sums that, although capped, are still significant, in order to resolve a scandal that they played no part in causing, we believe that the Government are not acting equitably and will not ensure that the most vulnerable leaseholders will be protected. Our Motion H1 would provide such protection. If the Minister is unable to accept it, we will seek to divide the House, with a view to ensuring that all leaseholders are fully protected.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for missing the first two minutes of my noble friend’s magnum opus; the last business went slightly faster than I had anticipated. I declare a personal interest as a leaseholder in a block of flats that may contain some non-cladding works that may require remedial treatment.

I have to praise my noble friend the Minister yet again for the tremendous changes that have been made to the Bill since it came from the other place. I also congratulate my right honourable friend Michael Gove on forcing all the big building companies to sign up, including bringing the Galliard Homes horse kicking and neighing to the water, although he will need to ensure that it and the other companies actually drink the water—they will throw millions at lawyers to weasel out of what they have signed up to.

I am told that the owner of Galliard Homes, Stephen Conway, has accused Michael Gove of acting like Al Capone and the mafia. My respect for young Gove increases by the minute. Conway had an estimated worth of £270 million in 2015; imagine what he is worth now. It seems to me that the owners of the big building companies have made their billions by being a bit more ruthless mafiosi than Michael Gove ever was. However, that is for another day.

Despite the excellent progress on the Bill, there are still some gaps. I regret that we do not have anything specific in the Bill protecting enfranchised leaseholders. All Governments have encouraged leaseholders to buy out the freehold. Those who have done so are still exactly the same as other leaseholders who have not, and they should get the same protection. I welcome the consultation but I hope it is speedy, and I hope that, if legislation is necessary or this can be done by regulation, that is brought in as quickly as possible.

I acknowledge that the Government have increased the number of properties qualified under buy to let, but in my opinion they have not gone far enough. As a small buy-to-let owner said to me, why does the Bill support with cost-capping a billionaire oligarch non-dom with two buy-to-let leasehold flats in Mayfair, valued at millions, yet leave completely exposed a pensioner buy-to-let leaseholder with a small portfolio of just four flats? These people are not big landlords. Although nothing can be done in this Bill now, I hope something can be done in future.

Nor am I happy that we are planning to reject buildings under 11 metres. They may not be as big a risk but they are unsellable. When an estate agent or lawyer tells prospective buyers that the flat they have looked at has some dangerous cladding—but not to worry because you will probably get out in time if it burns down—I do not think that they will find many buyers. These flats are simply unsellable.

Finally, I disagree with the removal of “zero”, and like the Opposition’s amendment of £250. I do not accept that the government caps set a proportionate balance, as was said in the other place by my right honourable friend Stuart Andrew MP, who was also an excellent Deputy Chief Whip in his time. As Michael Gove said, no leaseholders should pay a penny for any remediation works. We heard impeccable legal advice in this House from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and a former Supreme Court Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, saying that making leaseholders pay in order to avoid an ECHR challenge was misguided and wrong. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, the challenge will happen in any case, no matter what level the Government set the cap at, and those building companies will try it on.

If Motion H1 succeeds today, I do not want the Government in the other place to take on the role of the wonderful Ukrainian Snake Island defender, Roman Grybov, who offered sexual advice to the Russian warship. We are not the “Moscow”, and I hope that the Government will bring forward a compromise amendment, perhaps higher than £250 but much lower than the government caps.

With those quibbles, I wish to congratulate my noble friend yet again on the massive progress he has made with this measure. “One more heave”, as Jeremy Thorpe said in 1974—but hopefully with a bit more success.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I have been living with this matter since we first debated the Fire Safety Bill in 2020. I declare an interest as chair of the Built Environment Committee. I believe that the building industry has an important part to play and has tried to rise to the table in the current circumstances. The Government, and my noble friend the Minister in particular, are to be congratulated on all they have done to find a way through on cladding, but the measures legislated for are inevitably costly and should not, in my view, be legislated for in respect of buildings under 11 metres, as proposed in Amendment D1.

I have some news for my noble friends. Since Michael Gove’s Statement on 10 January about proportionality and common sense, the logjam in buildings under 11 metres has eased. I have experience of this, relating to a family leaseholder in a nearby village, where there is now a less absolutist and more flexible approach to fire safety in a block of homes; this has become apparent in recent weeks since the changes were made. I believe, therefore, that there is a limit as to what we should provide on a contingency basis. I do not believe that taking the proposed powers, as now suggested, is justified. I think that the situation is improving in relation to buildings under 11 metres, and we should welcome that and see how that approach can be progressed.

I end by thanking my noble friend the Minister for the progress that has been made. Obviously, there are horrific problems, right across the board, in relation to taller buildings and cladding. Howeever, I urge people to be a little careful in bringing into the legislative framework, without looking at all the details, a very much larger number of homes.