Holocaust Memorial Bill

Lord Inglewood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Grand Committee

We are going into it without the slightest idea what it might cost. I have already expressed my experience of what is presently happening to construction costs in London. I am not quite clear how the original cost figure was arrived at. I have seen a figure of £139 million somewhere. I do not know where on earth it came from, how long ago it was done and what authority there is for citing it, but I invite anyone to join me in wagering that there is not the slightest chance that it will be met in the present climate. It is not at all clear, given the present political tensions that exist around this matter, that anything other than an extraordinarily bigger figure will be involved. Will the Minister confirm that, at the moment, the Government have no idea what it might cost and that they will seek tenders, as he said, and then, at some stage, confirm what the situation is?

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I want briefly to endorse, in general terms, what has been said already, but I invite your Lordships to look at this slightly differently: from the perspective of land use, in which I have had a considerable amount of experience, in various ways, during my career. The point was well made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who said that the learning centre will become the focus of Victoria Tower Gardens. When that happens, de facto, if not de jure, Victoria Tower Gardens will become the curtilage of the learning centre and will not be a distinct and important entity.

We have heard about the proposals for the management of the various elements coming to the Victoria Tower Gardens, and some of them seem to be prolix, too complicated, muddled and so on. I do not wish to go down that road. The fundamental point is that, if and when this occurs and is a great success, people will no doubt ask, “Where is the Holocaust memorial learning centre?” and the answer will be, “It is in Victoria Tower Gardens”. When land use changes, the whole character of an area changes. Perhaps the most obvious current example in London is the redevelopment, over the last decade or so, around King’s Cross. It was, frankly, a squalid, low area, but is now up and coming, and entirely different. That has happened organically. These changes happen once something gets under way in an organic way over which Governments have remarkably little control.

If what is being proposed is the great success that its advocates claim it will be, it will fundamentally change the character of Victoria Tower Gardens and the area immediately surrounding it, and there will be nothing Governments can do, through governance mechanisms, to deal with it. It is important that we appreciate that possibility in our discussions about these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, rise to support Amendment 11. As my noble friend has just said, if Amendment 11 were adhered to, it is possible that the various sides of this argument could come together with a solution that would be acceptable to everyone. I have never read any newspaper article or heard anybody say that there should not be a memorial.

My noble friend Lord Finkelstein described rather movingly the various other memorials in the gardens. They are memorials to good triumphing over evil in the development of human history. It would be totally right to have another such memorial in that place that could be revered. There would be no question of having a kiosk selling ice cream and burgers beside it. It would be a memorial. If it fitted into the description in Amendment 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, it would be an appropriate size, and we would all hope that it would be designed by an artist who would produce a beautiful memorial. The problem is that unless we adhere to Amendment 11, there will also be a learning centre underground which, as various noble Lords have said, would bring with it so many risks. The greatest risk of all is why, if we want to produce a proper memorial to a terrible period in history when 6 million Jews died and many more suffered, would we put it underground where it could not be seen or admired and simply caused problems?

Let us have a memorial, a beautiful memorial that everyone can admire, but let us have a learning centre somewhere else where it would be safe, accessible and non-controversial, a place where children could be taken and, yes, possibly have their ice-cream and burgers if they are on a school trip, a different place where it would not get in the way of a beautiful memorial. It is difficult to understand how this Government, who profess to care about green spaces, about children not being on their phones but being outside and about the preservation of the environment should want to support a plan to take away the utility of one of the very few green spaces in this part of London.

This is not about just Victoria Tower Gardens, Parliament and history. It is about the way in which families in this area live their everyday lives. Children play in that park. I had a child who played in that park every day because his mother—me—did not have time to take him any further afield, as I was constantly in the House of Commons. That park is important to families and to the welfare of children. Why on earth would we hide under that park a learning centre when we could put up a beautiful memorial which everyone unanimously supports?

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I support the last two speakers because one of the problems that we face in this Committee is that it seems we are being asked in this Bill to approve something, the details of which we do not really know. A lot of the debate has been about planning consent. The point—I am proposing to come back with an amendment later that may elaborate on it further—is that the 1900 Act imposed certain statutory restrictive covenants—I think that is a fair way of putting it—in respect of this building and Victoria Tower Gardens.

The history of restrictive covenants goes back a long time in English land law and antedates planning consent. The point about a restrictive covenant is that it is not applied against the same criteria as when planning permission is granted. We are being asked to release the restrictive covenants when we do not know what the actual proposition in front of us will be. It is a case of “Rely on me and trust me”, but I am afraid I do not. That is why we need—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I feel slightly in the position of that well-known 16th-century Spanish jurist at the University of Salamanca who was arrested by the Inquisition when giving a lecture. Fourteen years later, after he was released, he came back and said: “As I was saying before I was interrupted”. My simple proposition is that we should be entitled to know in detail what is proposed before we are asked to remove the covenants of which we are custodian. I shall leave it at that.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there is a reason why we do not know the detail. It is because it is for the planning system, and this Bill allows the planning system to deal with the memorial. As I understand it, that is the whole point. It is not for us to grant, debate or decide on planning grounds that will be dealt with by the planning system when it eventually gets there, after Parliament has completed its deliberations.

I was not going to comment on this group, but I want very gently to respond to something that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said earlier. She suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, had paraded his victimhood, which, frankly—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

The noble Lord was formerly a distinguished Minister in charge of planning. Does he not recall that, on several occasions, as a Minister, he called in planning applications and took those cases out of the hands of the local authority, where they would have been considered, and made decisions that dramatically affected the future of those proposals? Does he not agree that there is a significant difference between a case where somebody applies for planning permission to build even a memorial and a case where there is a parliamentary Bill that allows a Minister to spend money on that memorial?

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, intervened on me; I should be able to reply to him.

If I had expressed a view about a planning application, I would not have dealt with it; I would not have called it in. We are very strict. I must say that we know what is going on here, with people asking, “Will the Minister give a guarantee?” That would be predetermination. The noble Lord is a distinguished lawyer; he knows that it would be grounds for a judicial review if we predetermined it. We separate carefully, to ensure that the people taking decisions on planning have not expressed a view on it and are not subject to views expressed by either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister. I assured that in the past five years.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Blencathra, the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Finlay, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for bringing these amendments. This group covers a set of topics relating to the potential impact of the proposed development. As we consider these topics, it is necessary to keep in mind the relationship between this Bill and the process for seeking planning consent.

The Bill does not include provisions to grant planning consent. I am quite sure that noble Lords would have criticised the Government forcefully if we had tried to bypass the normal route for seeking planning consent by including any such provisions in our Bill, a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. The planning process, put in place by Parliament and regulated through the courts, is the proper process for considering a development such as the national Holocaust memorial and learning centre.

Let me be clear in addressing the points of the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, in relation to the planning process, which a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, alluded to. We, as the applicant, stand by the current planning application. We do not intend to withdraw it. It is for the designated Minister to decide how to deal with the current application. We understand that he has three broad options: to invite written representations and then decide; to hold a further planning inquiry; or to hold a round-table discussion. All options would mean opportunities for opposing views to be considered. It is for the designated Minister to decide the approach.

The arrangements are perfectly proper. When they were challenged in the court in 2020, that challenge did not succeed. In all called-in applications, it is for the designated Minister to decide the mode of considering the application. We have given an assurance to the Lords Select Committee that we will make sure that Peers and MPs are notified when the process of retaking the planning decision starts. There will therefore be opportunities for people to make their views known. It will be up to the designated Minister to decide how to deal with those views, including whether to have a new inquiry.

The planning process requires extensive consultation, detailed scrutiny by technical experts and consideration of an extensive range of statutory provisions, regulations and planning policies. The process enables a balancing exercise to be conducted, in which the benefits and impacts of any proposal can be properly assessed. With the greatest respect to noble Lords, and acknowledging the deep expertise that can be found across the Committee, I submit that we should be extremely wary of interfering in these processes. We are not sitting here as a planning committee. I suspect that few of us here will have read all 6,000-plus pages of evidence submitted with the planning application, or the many detailed responses from experts, supporters and opponents of the programme. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for setting this point out in detail. I will now turn to the amendments in question.

Amendment 7, from the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, relating to other memorials in Victoria Tower Gardens, would have the effect of tying the hands of the planning decision-maker and stopping the current proposal. The amendment would give protection to those memorials above and beyond the protections they already enjoy as listed buildings. We all want to ensure that the memorials and monuments in Victoria Tower Gardens, and their setting, are respected. Our design is sensitive to the heritage and existing uses of Victoria Tower Gardens. It includes enhancements to the gardens that will help all visitors, including better pathways and improved access to existing memorials.

The planning inspector considered a great deal of evidence from all sides and looked in great detail at the impact on the gardens and on existing memorials before concluding that any harms to heritage assets were outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. As drafted, the proposed change to Clause 2 is not necessary to ensure that memorials are given proper weight in the planning process. It would, however, act as a barrier to proceeding with the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 7.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

It is of course open to the person determining the planning application and/or the appeal—depending on the circumstances—to impose conditions that fundamentally change the scheme from the thing that is currently under discussion by us. Is that not right?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, unfortunately I did not get the gist of what the noble Lord said, but I assume he was talking about the future planning process.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My point is quite simply that the outcome of the planning process, if planning permission were to be granted, could be that the scheme would be permitted, but subject to conditions such that it would be completely different from what we are currently considering.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Yes, that could be the case. Again, it is for the designated Minister to set out the process; it is a decision for them.

Amendments 11 and 12 from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, concern the Buxton memorial. The Buxton memorial provides a striking and important reminder of the role that British parliamentarians played in the eventual ending of slavery across the British Empire, a point that many noble Lords made eloquently. It is perhaps fair to point out that its design is not to everyone’s taste. I noted that in a debate in the other place in 1949 considering plans for the remodelling of Parliament Square, the then Member of Parliament for Twickenham expressed the view that the Buxton memorial had “no artistic merit whatever”. That is not this Government’s view.