Holocaust Memorial Bill

Debate between Lord Pickles and Lord Finkelstein

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

Just to clarify the point on “reasonably modest”, it has been a reasonable subject for discussion and obviously opinions will differ about how big this ought to be. In the Holocaust Commission, we had a debate about the different designs. Some people liked this design and others did not, but my point about “reasonably modest” concerned itself with the difficulty of building this memorial or, indeed, anything, nearby. I was just observing that we manage, as humanity, to cope with quite a lot of building and this is, on the scale of many of the things that we build, “reasonably modest”. Thus, the problems that were raised seem have been overcome on some quite big projects in comparison with this one. That is the point of my argument about reasonable modesty.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether we are supposed to declare our interests at each sitting, but I draw attention to my interests in the register relating to this project. I do not want to bring any discord but I feel I am about to enter into the war of the Buxtons, because my noble friend Lord Leigh, who is not in his place, asked me to pass on a message to the Committee from Jonathan Buxton, who is very happy for me to quote it:

“I would like to think that if Sir Thomas and his fellow abolitionists were around today, they would be 100% in favour of the Holocaust memorial”.


I understand of course that other Buxtons disagree with this, but I felt that the Committee might like to hear it.

I want to say two other things, but first I turn to this question of the kiosk, which I think is very badly formed. My noble friend is right: you can go to Yad Vashem and you do not need to go to the museum to use its facilities. You can get a hot dog outside the memorial in Washington and I do not think that in any way affects the spirituality of the thing.

One of my great delights, for the past 50 years of my association with Lady Pickles, is that we often spend our weekends looking at various cathedrals around the country. It is a passion of mine. I can tell noble Lords that you can get a very nice cappuccino in Lincoln Cathedral and a very nice date and walnut cake in York. In listening to the right reverend Prelate, I thought that perhaps I should go to St Albans Cathedral, and wondered what I might expect there. I am delighted to say that, if I go there, I can go to the Abbot’s Kitchen café, which is open from 10 am until 4 pm, and treat Lady Pickles to a coffee and walnut cake for £4.05. I do not think that that will in any way affect my enjoyment of the spirituality of the cathedral; it certainly has not spoilt it in the many cathedrals that I have had the pleasure to go round, both in this country and in France.

Holocaust Memorial Bill

Debate between Lord Pickles and Lord Finkelstein

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Finkelstein (Con)]

My Lords, I should say at the beginning that I am a patron of the Wiener Holocaust Library—my grandfather’s Holocaust library—that I was a member of David Cameron’s Holocaust Commission and that I take a long-standing interest in this as the son of a Holocaust survivor. Of course, not all Holocaust survivors agree about this memorial, but my mother certainly did, as did Ben Helfgott, who sat on the commission with me. Indeed, he regarded the issue of the location as central.

Although this is an amendment about costs, we have heard a number of what amount to Second Reading speeches, so I hope I can be indulged in responding to some of those points a little. Although the noble Viscount is correct that David Cameron resigned, I do not think that he resigned because he appointed my noble friend Lord Pickles to look after the Holocaust memorial. I would just say that it is possible to make an argument against any kind of construction of anything, anywhere. I think that probably the preponderance of people who have attended today have done so in order to be against it, because we tend to get very annoyed when we see points against something and we want to stop it happening.

Every single point that I have heard was also made against the erection of Nelson’s column. They did not have the money. The public subscriptions had fallen short of how much it would cost. The cost ballooned. It was too high. It had to be made shorter. People were not sure about the design and lots of people were not sure about Nelson either. They were furious that the Tsar had contributed. The economic strain was regarded as too great. These are points that are made about the construction of anything when it is first proposed and are later found to be entirely irrelevant to the impact that it will have.

This Holocaust memorial is a memorial to everything we fought the war for and that the young people who liberated Belsen liberated Belsen for. It is a reminder of why we have a Parliament and why we have a parliamentary democracy and therefore it is relevant that it be right next door to Parliament. There is not a single place you could ever put anything that does not disrupt anyone. If we put it somewhere where no one goes, we would have a committee full of people saying, “We cannot believe you are putting this thing in the middle of nowhere”. We have put it in the middle of somewhere where people might actually visit it, and people are worried that too many people will come to it. If we put it somewhere else, people will worry that no one will come to it. There is an argument against doing anything, ever. If we do not do this, we absolutely after 10 years will not have a Holocaust memorial. It was the dearest wish of Ben Helfgott and my mother also supported it. I am going to robustly support it because of that.

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lord, I am most grateful to noble Lords. Again, I would appreciate a degree of latitude. First, coming to the point that was made with regard to the advisory nature, it was always an advisory committee. When Bazalgette resigned to go on to other artistic projects, I was appointed, along with Ed Balls, as a co-chair to demonstrate the political unity of putting this together.

I was disturbed by what my noble friend Lord Blencathra —my dear friend—said. He seemed to be almost on the defensive to suggest that if you are opposed to this, somehow you are opposed to Jewish people or opposed to Israel. Nobody thinks that and no one has a greater, more distinguished record in their support of Jewish people than my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I want to make that absolutely clear.

I admire my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He was an amazing Chief Whip when we were in opposition, as indeed my noble friend opposite was an amazing Whip. He taught me many things, one of which was the kind of amendment to put down to embarrass the Government, to hold them down and to get them to say various things. He did it with great style.

But there is something that we need to be clear about. We saw a newspaper article yesterday. I do not blame the reporter—they are as good as the information they are given. I should be grateful if, when the Minister comes to reply, he can confirm that in all the briefings that he received, none suggested that this memorial would be about the glorification of the British Empire or the trivialisation of the Holocaust, or that the Holocaust would be diluted by references to other genocides.

A lot of the amendments before us might best be described as about planning. There is always a balance in planning. There is no absolute, and that is why we have such an elaborate system of planning to test the damages and balances. We are almost trying to set ourselves up as a planning authority to second-guess. This Committee, distinguished as it is, is not in a good position to do that because supporters and objectors do not have the same rights as they would have in a planning application, committee or appeal.

There is also an element in this of marking our own homework. If this went through a planning committee now—there is no criticism of anybody here—the fact that people who are expressing views live close by would be taken into account. If they were on a planning committee, they would have to recuse themselves. They would not be able to speak or vote. We cannot have a situation in this country where it is one rule for their Lordships and another rule for the rest of the country.